A patchwork about 911. The 11 stories from 11 directors from 11 countries are sometimes humoristic, sometimes boring (the first one, for example), sometimes used to say to Americans 'we have had more deaths than you, and you supported the murderers', sometimes really weird (but highly symbolic and interesting). I really loved the Claude Lelouch (personal live of a couple in New-York, showing that our day-to-day 'problems' are unimportant), Shoei Imamura (bizarre, strongly anti-wars in general), and Idrissa Ouedraogo (funny, typical African optimism despite terrible day to day misery), and Youssef Chahine (an Egyptian intellectual, pro-peace, having moral difficulties to accept the U.S. policy towards Arab countries) I am really pleased to see that many Americans liked this movie. It shows that we (or they ? I am still Belgian, but living in Texas for 12 years) are still interested by other cultures, and able to question past and present actions of our government, like we should in a democracy.


Sophia Loren plays Aida, in one of the worst films of all time. She can't lipsync. In terms of production values, the film is so bad, that at one point, while Loren is mouthing 'O Patria Mia,' she leans onto what looks to be a stone wall for support, and the canvas set billows and shakes.


If you've seen the trailer for this movie, you pretty much know what to expect, because what you see here is what you get. And even if you haven't seen the previews, it won't take you long to pick up on what you're in for-- specifically, a good time and plenty of laughs-- from this clever satire of `Reality TV' shows and `Buddy Cop' movies, `Showtime,' directed by Tom Dey, starring Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy.

	Mitch Preston (De Niro) is a detective with the L.A.P.D., and he's good at what he does; but working a case one night, things suddenly go south when another cop, Trey Sellars (Murphy), inadvertently intervenes, a television news crew shows up and Mitch loses his cool, which results in a lawsuit by the television station that's going to cost the department some big bucks. Except that they may be able to get around it, thanks to Chase Renzi (Rene Russo), who works for the station and likes what she sees in Mitch-- enough to pitch an idea to her boss for a `Reality' cop show, that would feature none other than Mitch Preston, whom Chase sees as a real life `Dirty Harry.'

	Her boss likes the idea and gives Chase the green light. Now all she has to do is convince Mitch to participate, which shouldn't be too hard, since the station has agreed to drop the lawsuit if he will do the show. But Mitch is a cop, not an actor, and he wants nothing to do with any of it-- that is until he has a heart-to-heart with his boss, Captain Winship (Frankie Faison), who puts Mitch's future into succinct perspective for him. And just like that, the show is on. Oh, yes, there's one more thing; for the show, Mitch is going to need a partner. And who do you suppose they're going to come up with for that? Let's put it this way: Trey Sellars is more than one of the usual suspects.

	This is Dey's second film as a director, his first being `Shanghai Noon,'-- also a comedy-- and he's definitely showing a penchant for the genre. From the opening frames he establishes a pace that keeps the story moving right along, and he allows his stars to make the most of their respective talents and personal strengths, including their impeccable timing. With stars like De Niro and Murphy, Dey, of course, had a leg up on this project to begin with, but he's the one who keeps it on track, demonstrating that he knows what works, achieving just the right blend of physical comedy and action, and employing the subtleties of the dialogue to great effect.

	There isn't a more natural actor in the business than De Niro, and he steps into Mitch's skin like he was born to it. And after years of doing hard-edge, cutting drama (in which he turned in one remarkable performance after another), with such films as `Analyze This,' `Meet the Parents' and now this one, he has firmly established his proficiency for doing comedy, as well. Mitch is not an especially complex character; he is, in fact, something of an `ordinary' guy, but therein lies the challenge for the actor-- to make him believable, to make him seem like the guy who could be your neighbor and just another member of the community. And on all counts, De Niro succeeds. He's Mitch, the guy you run into at the grocery store or the bank, or say `good morning' to on your way to work; who likes to watch the game on TV and has a life, just like you and me, who happens to make his living by being a cop. It's the character Mitch has to be to make this film work, because it makes the `ordinary guy in extraordinary circumstances' angle credible. It's one of those role-- and work-- that is often wrongly dismissed out-of-hand, because it looks so easy; and, of course, this is what makes De Niro so exceptional-- he does make it look easy, and he does it with facility.

	As Trey Sellars, Eddie Murphy turns in a winning performance, as well, and it's a role that fits him like the proverbial glove. Trey is a cop, but also an aspiring actor-- and a bad one-- and it gives Murphy the opportunity to play on the over-exuberant side of his personality (reigned in enough by Dey, however, to keep him from soaring over-the-top into Jim Carrey territory), which works perfectly for this character and this film. From his melodramatic take on a part during an audition, to his throwing out of one-liners-- delivered by looking directly into the camera (which as far as he's concerned isn't even there) while filming the `reality' show-- Murphy's a riot. And he has a chemistry with De Niro that really clicks (which is not unexpected, as this is another of De Niro's many talents; his ability to connect with and bring out the best in his co-stars, all of whom-- evidence will support-- are better at their craft after having worked with him, including the likes of Meryl Streep, Christopher Walken and Ed Harris, just to name a few). Most importantly, this is a part that allows Murphy to excel at what he does best, and he certainly makes the most of it.

	Russo makes the most of her role as Chase, too, a character who isn't much of a stretch artistically, but whom she presents delightfully, with a strong, believable performance. And William Shatner (playing himself) absolutely steals a couple of scenes as the director of the show.

	The supporting cast includes Drena De Niro (Annie), Pedro Damian (Vargas) and James Roday (Camera Man). Well crafted and delivered, `Showtime' is a comedy that's exactly what it is meant to be: Pure entertainment that provides plenty of laughs and a pleasant couple of hours that will have you chuckling for some time after. It's the magic of the movies. 8/10.


What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure.


Charlie Chaplin's Little Tramp or Little Man character wins World War I, called The Great War at the time, single handedly, even capturing the Kaiser, something the entire Allied armed forces were unable to do. Too bad it all turns out to be a dream, which is somewhat of a cop out and the weakest part of this mesmerizing silent short (almost a feature film at 46 minutes).

There are inventive gags galore including Charlie having to put on a gas mask to eat Limburger cheese sent from home, then using the cheese as a weapon against the Germans; Charlie sleeping underwater in a flooded trench next to a soldier he continues to annoy; Charlie disguising himself as a tree--one of his best sketches ever--and Charlie pretending to beat up his friend who has become a POW, then hugging him when the enemy is out of sight.

One amazing feature is how much Charlie, when he is behind enemy lines dressed as a German, resembles Hitler over ten years before Hitler and his Nazi thugs rose to dominate German politics. Obviously Hitler patterned his appearance after Charlie's from this film.


From 1996, first i watched this movie, i feel never reach the end of my satisfaction, i feel that i want to watch more and more until now, my god i don't believe it was ten years ago, and i can believe that i almost remember every word of the dialogues. I love this movie and i love this novel, absolutely perfection. i love Willem Defoe, he has a strange voice to spell the words 'black night' and i always say it for many times, never being bored. I love the music of Szararem, it's so much spiritualistic, made me come into another world deep in my heart. anyone can feel what i feel and anyone could make the movie like this? i don't believe so. Thanks Ondaatje thanks Mingela.


This movie has everything that makes a bad movie worth watching - sloppy editing, little to no continuity, insane dialog, bad (you might even say non-existent) acting, pointless story lines, shots that go on FAR too long...and it's perfect for MST3K-style riffing, not to mention the 'Corpse Eaters Drinking Game': Scribble on forms...take a shot - Sign your name...take a shot - Catch a bad Foley edit...take many, many shots.

The only reason I didn't rate it higher than 8 is because there's not enough gratuitous nudity and because despite its insane badness, it's only an hour long - hell, a movie like this should have been at least 20-30 minutes longer!


A series of shorts spoofing dumb TV shows, Groove Tube hits and misses a lot. Overall, I do really like this movie. Unfortunately, a couple of the segments are totally boring. A few really great clips make up for this. A predecessor to such classics like Kentucky Fried Movie.


A friend and I went through a phase some (alot of) years ago of selecting the crappest horror films in the video shop for an evening's entertainment. For some reason, I ended up buying this one (probably v. v. cheap).

The cheap synth soundtrack is a classic of its time and genre. There's also a few very amusing scenes. Among them is a scene where a man's being attacked and defends himself with a number of unlikely objects, it made me laugh at the time (doesn't seem quite so funny in retrospect but there you go).

Apart from that it's total crap, mind you. But probably worth a watch if you like films like 'Chopping Mall'. Yes, I've seen that too.


Twenty years after watching this, I still find myself quoting things from this movie like 'Look between the two giant melons', or I'll start to sing the 'Pabst Blue Ribbon Theme'. On the other hand, 20 years later, I can now make sense of the 'Meat Machine', as there's still a lot of the stereotypes like this out there that they used for this movie. Those are signs of a good movie to me. I could say this movie stands the test of time, which I can't really say for a lot of 80's movies. I continue that this movie is still on a list of a lot of people's favorite movie as a kid growing up in the 80's. If you like games, and have dreams of becoming a 'Game Master', or find yourself dorking out over these 80's movies to relive your childhood, you need to watch this. Also, it's sometimes sarcastic, and funny. But one thing's for certain about this movie, if someone ever invites you to a 'Great All-Nighter' they don't mean an X or acid trip party, they mean, get ready for some Midnight Madness! Oh, You'll see. Everyone will be dying to play! hehehehheh.


'Foxes' is a serious look at the consequences of growing up too fast in the 1980s. And unlike the teen sex comedies that overshadowed it (Porky's, Fast Times at Ridgement High), the movie holds up well against time.

Its theme of teen angst is as relevant today as it was 25 years ago and Jodie Foster and sk8er boi Scott Baio (remember him?) lead a fine young cast that's well worth watching.

The film follows four Southern California girls as they move through a rootless existence of sex and drugs and devoid of parents. The teens spend their days in and out of school and their nights at parties, concerts, or out on the street. Seldom are they home because instant gratification is a pill, party, or boy away.

But rather than condemning them, the film is sympathetic, blaming absent, uncaring adults for forcing the teens to grow up alone. And the charismatic cast is impossible to dislike.

The film's opening  a long and loving pan - sets the tone for what follows. We see the girls asleep at daybreak amid the objects that define teen girlhood, from Twinkies to a picture of a young John Travola, while Donna Summer's 'On the Radio' is scored beneath.

From there the movie picks up speed as the girls head off to school and to life. Annie (Runaway rocker Cherie Currie) is the wild child who lives for the next party or pill. Deirdre (Kandice Stroh) is the boy crazy drama queen. Madge (Marlilyn Stroh) is the shy girl in over her head. And Foster is the one with the plan. It's her job to keep this crew together long enough to finish high school while also holding her divorced and desperate man hunting mother in line (Sally Kellerman).

It's an almost impossible job and one that Foster ultimately fails at.

Despite its age, 'Foxes' remains a pleasure to watch. Dated hair, clothes, and references to Olympic skater Dorothy Hamill haven't hurt the movie.

The cinematography is simply stunning, with breathtaking filtered shots of the L.A. basin at dawn, dusk and at night. Giorgio Moroder adds a 80s soundtrack featuring the likes of Donna Summer and Janis Ian.

Perhaps the movie's biggest disappointment is that the young stars around Foster never broke out like the casts of 'St. Elmo's Fire' (1985) or 'Empire Records' (1995). 'Foxes' shows why they should have. But perhaps like Bowling for Soup's song '1985,' they just hit a wall.


No movies have grabbed my attention like this one has. You see, I have wanted to watch this movie again for over twenty-five years. The one and only time I saw it was as a teen-ager which may have been the year it was released, 1977.

What I do remember of the movie is that it touched those deep-held emotions so profoundly that there is still an overwhelming desire to watch it again. The intrigue this movie provides by the human element of father/son seeking and searching is sure to touch every human soul who watches it. Why this movie has not been brought out of storage and shown as often as many other movies of lesser depth, I do not know.

Postscript: Received copy of movie and after watching it again was delighted to see that my memory held true. Rating reflects movie content. Would like to watch this movie on DVD as seeing this 1977 production on a used VHS tape took away from the overall quality.


Did Uwe Boll seriously just rip off the basic idea and dialogue from Se7en?! Why is it so fekking difficult for this douchebag to be original?! He even mentioned in an interview with Gametrailers that he chooses stuff like games to make into movies because the characters, plots, backstories and so on are already there and ready for him to screw with.

Guess it isn't too much of a stretch for him to rip off another movie entirely...

I mean, seriously, what the hell...? Here's something I made in Uwe's 'honor'...

http://zuucka.deviantart.com/art/Uwe-Boll-is-a-Douchebag-70369862


Despite Louis B. Mayer reportedly not being interested in signing the young Greta Garbo to a contract, this first American and MGM film for the actress looked quite beautiful. It's obvious that the film was assigned some amazing talent to film the production and make matte paintings, as it has all the nice polish and artfulness you'd expect from the best pictures the studio could produce. It simply looks beautiful--even 84 years later.

As for Garbo herself, like her other very early American films she, too, looks different. While she's quite recognizable, her makeup is much softer than it would become just a year later--giving her a less severe look and a gentleness about her you just didn't see in subsequent films. I kind of wish they'd kept this look, but considering how famous she'd become with the trademark look, who am I to say they shouldn't have gone that route?! The film is about Garbo and how she and her family are unfairly forced off their land by the landlord. While the landlady, the much esteemed Doña Bernarda, claims it's because the bank has demanded payment, it's because her son has fallen for Garbo--and what better way to get rid of her than to force them out on the streets! Nice lady, huh?! Years pass and by now Garbo has become a new singing sensation who is world-famous. When she returns to her hometown years later, her old boyfriend (who HAD promised to marry her but wimped out when his mother, Doña Bernarda, refused to allow it) sees her. His new love for another lady is now tested--will he be content to marry this lady who is the heir to a huge pig fortune or will he want his old flame? And, more importantly, will Garbo even take him back after he behaved so spinelessly? In the meantime, a huge rainstorm hits. The land begins to flood and homes soon are being washed away by the deluge. Cortez and a friend make a mad dash as the dam breaks! In a scene where they obviously superimposed his row boat over the cascading stream, he eventually makes it out alive and to the home where Garbo is now staying. She welcomes them inside and they stay with her until the storm passes. Then, he admits that he still loves her and had braved the storm to make sure that she was safe. She tells him to get lost! Next, you see Ricardo about to get married to his second choice, the daughter of the Pork King. He obviously has little enthusiasm for this--and you feel sorry for the lady, as she did nothing wrong. Soon, Cortez is seen wandering back to Garbo's home--he's love-sick and needs her. In this scene, Garbo is quite luminous and can't tell him to leave--as they dissolve in each other's arms. Once again, he tells her of his love for her.

When Doña Bernarda learns of this, she is not pleased. Evidently, a Pork Queen is a better catch than an internationally known singer. Because of the meddling of this nasty old lady, Garbo leaves--unwilling to come between the mother and her wimpy son. But, Cortez comes running--announcing he MUST have her and won't rest until he has her as his wife. Moments after making this proclamation, a family friend talks to Cortez and convinces him to give her up for the good of his career and reputation. So much for 'won't rest until he has her for his wife', huh?! Despite Cortez being a wimp through and through, for some reason she cannot bring herself to hate him. And so, he marries the Pork Queen and lives a very dull life. When years later Garbo meets Cortez again, he is a dull looking middle-aged man--while she is as beautiful as ever. And, not surprisingly, she tells him, once again, to get lost.

At the time this film was made, Garbo was not a star in the US and Cortez was. So, in light of this, it's surprising they gave Cortez such an unlikable character to play. Instead of the usual confident Valentino-like role they'd been giving him, here he is an indecisive wimp--a HUGE wimp. And, from here on, his career was on a slow downward spiral. As for Garbo, the role helped establish her as a big star--as she was THE focus of the film and played a character much like her later personas.

As for the film, the new music composed for it was very nice, though a tad repetitive. The print, oddly, was nearly perfect throughout except for the intertitle cards--which could use some restoration.

A most enjoyable film--expertly constructed, wistful and worth seeing. And, for one of the few times I can think of it, I have no real complaints in this excellent film.


A quick, funny coming-of-age matinée romp appealing to the underdog aldolescent in us all. It functions, in effect, as a vehicle for Justin Long who has subsequently erupted onto our screens in the fourth Die Hard via PC vs Mac ads, Dodgeball and The Break Up. He's funny, earnest and young - a big career ahead.

A town's worth of college wannabes find a fake website Bartelby (Long) has set up to delude his judgemental parents and descend on the 'college' like it were a short notice Facebook party. Lewis Black summises the anarchic philosophy as a stand-in Dean - Long's delinquent friends provide support for the subterfuge and consequent appeal to grander traditions of education and friendship (Adam Herschman deserves special mention for his never-flagging slapstick contribution). Well executed, feelgood and instantly forgettable. 4/10


Why do they insist on making re-makes of great movies like 'High Noon' 'From Here to Eternity' and this one?

Why do they think that color is more engrossing to a viewer than stark black and white?

Why did Robert's insist on wearing that dopey, broad-billed, baseball cap?...it made him look like Jim Varney.

Why would anyone spend four hours suffering through this?

Watch the original. Then YOU won't have to ask yourself WHY.


This movie is all ultra-lightweight fluff, predictable from beginning to end. As a Don Knotts vehicle, 'The Incredible Mr. Limpet' was much better, with Knott's character there not nearly as incompetent or ignorant. His performance there was toned down, with none of his trademark goggle-eyed stare, although that may have something to do with him being replaced for most of the movie by a cartoon fish. Knotts made a living of playing the likable imbecile, much as Bob Denver did. Neither really seemed to be able to break out to other types of roles, assuming they were simply typecast. It was probably because of the slouch, the wild stare and the high-pitched voice. John Ritter, whom Knotts worked with in 'Three's Company,' was able to transcend his genre, branching out successfully into dramatic roles like 'The Dreamer of Oz,' but the closest Knotts ever got was a small role in 'Pleasantville.' Even Leslie Nielsen was a bad fit here, uncomfortably neither straight dramatic actor as he was at the time nor deadpan comedic actor as he later became in 'Airplane!' and 'Police Squad.'

There's also no way the then-43 year-old Knotts could pass for a 35 year-old, as his character insisted he was. It was as ludicrously unbelievable as Tom Hanks at 38 playing the college-age Forrest Gump.

The film was clearly made on a shoestring budget, very much looking like a hastily-filmed TV episode. It's especially evident in the 'exterior' scenes of the 'town' where Roy goes after he's fired. It's unlikely even a pre-schooler would be fooled by the Mayberry-like soundstage artificiality.

Even viewing this strictly as a children's movie, it's very disappointing. It's not because it lacks action or special effects, although it does. The pace is much too slow, the situations repetitive. How many times can you watch Roy getting onto a bus? A comedy for kids should at least sometimes be madcap, with breakneck gags, otherwise you risk boring them (and any adults in the theater as well). Movies, even kid's movies, have improved quite a bit in the intervening decades. Even many contemporary comedies were better filmed and written. Disney's 'The Love Bug,' for instance, at least had some interesting race action.


This movie proves that good acting comes from good direction and this does not happen in Ask the Dust. Colin Farrell is usually a fine actor but in this he is juvenile. Donald Sutherland comes across as an amateur. Why? Because the script is awful, the adaptation is awful and the actors seem bored and half hearted. The atmosphere of the movie is bad - I could only think when it would finish and I turned it off half way. The director has done a very poor job and even though I have not read the novel it is certainly a missed chance. The atmosphere this film is trying to evoke and the message and storyline never reaches the audience. In one word, it is a TERRIBLE film.


0*'s Christian Slater, Tara Reid, Stephen Dorff, Frank C. Turner, Mathew Walker, Will Sanderson. Directed by Uwe Boll.

Based on the video game director Uwe Boll attempts to recreate the game into an action-packed nail biter sadly he doesn't succeed. Instead he makes one of the worst movies ever MADE! Even though he gets minor celebrity such as Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff his movie lacks the necessary fundamentals that a movie needs to be good such as a story line, and some basic relativity of what's going on in the dark and the light. The movie bounces all around and Uwe Boll has no creative control. And not to mention the bad CGI used on making the monsters. Even though they did look cool and the feedings were well, a little lame. Honestly this is one of the worst movies ever made. My final rating 0/10.


Oh yes, Sakura Killers is a goofy, horrible ninja movie, make no mistake. But it's also an incredibly enjoyable one. This is largely thanks to the awesome presence of one Chuck Connors, who is billed as starring in the movie but really only shines in a few scenes. I suppose he's supposed to be sort of an Obi Wan Kenobi type ('The tough ninja-buster', the box copy exclaims) but his 'wisdom' is laughable. 'Move without thinking'??? My friend says this is the sign of mental retardation, not of supreme concentration.

But really, his two aides, Sonny and Dennis, have such horrible dialogue that 'Brooklyn', as we call The Colonel, tends to shine in comparison. Especially watch for Dennis' logic regarding the 'genetic splicing' the Sakura are involved with. If you know anything about cloning you will die laughing. And yes, this is a major plot point, folks.

A terribly fun movie, Sakura Killers is a hard-to-find gem. I won't spoil the 'trick' ending for you either, except that it's a perfect set up for a Sakura Killers 2. Too bad Chuck Connors died. :-( Because he does have a the smoothest ways of blowing away ninjas.


I am sorry folks, but I have to say I really cannot understand the overwhelming feelings everybody gets by seeing this movie...

When I saw it I looked at my watch to know how much more time I had to spend with this Kindergarten nonsense.

So why this verdict?

First of all: The movie tells a story that doesn't deliver any excitement! It is not even the amusingly distorted reality of a Quentin Tarantino we used to know. This story could have come out of every little kid's head. It doesn't have anything intelligent in it, neither anything inventive and it goes on for hours... the story has appropriate content for about 30 min. The rest is just awfully enhanced scenes that are supposed to leave a somewhat cool image. Doesn't work. Even the previously seen cutbacks that Tarantino often uses just confuse and are not in any way cool.

Second: Some guys go to Germany and kill Nazis. Ah really? Do they? The only Nazis they killed were a handful of guys, one of them being man enough to rather die than betray his companions. Is this the ugly face Tarantino wanted to give the Nazis? A brave soldier that is more valiant than any of the 'Basterds'? Certainly not --> fail And what happens to the terrible Nazi-killing Basterds? Well they all get killed by Nazis except two who are taken hostages --> wow, what terrible revengeful monsters they are...

Third: Any characters? Yes one! The only role and the only gleam of hope for the entire movie is Chritoph Waltz who is building a truly deep and very detailed character here. Great acting! Brad Pitt really sucks and is completely out-acted by Waltz. Never seen a such a weak performance by Pitt... And the rest? Well, some Germans you've never seen before and will never see after. When the movie started and I saw the group of the seven Basterds I hoped to see something like the 'Magnificent Seven': A group of extraordinary guys, each one with a distinct character, making their way to their destiny fearless and knowing... I was then very disappointed, when I saw the 'inglourious Basterds'. No details at all, no characters, no real men, just some random guys you won't remember who were not given any chance to differentiate themselves... But in fact you don't even need to differentiate, cause the 'Inglourious Basterds' except Pitt hardly play any role in this movie...

So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened...


After Chaplin made one of his best films: Dough & Dynamite, he made one of his worst: Gentlemen Of Nerve. During this first year in films, Chaplin made about a third of all his films. Many of them were experimental in terms of ad-libbing, editing, gags, location shooting, etc. This one takes place at a racetrack where Chaplin and his friend try to get in without paying. Mabel Normand is there with her friend also, and Chaplin manages to rid himself of both his and Mabel's friends. He then woos Mabel in the grandstand with no apparent repercussions from his behavior. Lots of slapstick in here, but there is very little else to recommend this film for other then watching Chaplin develop. The print I saw was badly deteriorated, which may have affected its enjoyment. Charley Chase can be glimpsed. * of 4 stars.


Good: Engaging cinematic firefights, great presentation, vehicles are actually fun to drive, fairly appealing multiplayer, faithful to the movie, and the list goes on.

Bad: Main missions are a bit short.

This game defines what a 'good' third person shooter(not necessarily a spy-game) is. Great firefights carry on the story and make you want to complete EVERY single mission through, and unlock all the genuine bonuses the game has to offer. The hype this game had, was lived up to, and I personally think you should buy it, and hook up with a couple of friends and play this one. Loads of fun.

The sound in this game, is a rip-roaring achievement from a few previous bond games, and firing a weapon, really feels like you're firing a weapon. It ties in with the aspect that you are a deadly and ruthless spy.

All in all, this game makes you excited and satisfied after you make it through, and some multiplayer that can compete with the standards of the crafty James Bond 'Nightfire' game for gamecube.


This movie was worth five punches on my 'hurter card'. I saw this while stationed in Virginia in the mid '70's. I saw it alone so I was not distracted while I watched it. It sucked. It was the most ridiculous, total waste of celluloid I've ever seen.

I know that others who have reviewed this movie have thought that it was awesome. I offer you this: if it was so awesome what was it's box office take? End of discussion.


This is an excruciatingly boring, slow-moving movie. We can feel some sympathy for the socially- and sexually-inexperienced and awkward Tomek, but the motivations of Magda are pretty hard to see, and the ending, at least for me, was inscrutable.

Maybe it's about how we all need love, but I'd get more out of a good Busby Berkeley.

I'm told that comments have to be at least ten lines, so I'll add that in the background are some interesting shots of the relationship between Polish citizens and government employees and institutions. I wonder if it's meant to portray this before or after the fall of the communist government.

Finally, watch for the clever way the men from the gas company investigate whether or not there is a gas leak in Magda's stove.


While Leon is cute on SNL, he's only on for a minute. Like most SNL skits-to-movies, this one can't fill 90 minutes. It has some cute moments (the ones you've seen in the trailer) but the actors are largely wasted. Tim Meadows does his best but the plot just doesn't have many high points. Will Farrell has a bit part. Farrell may be the funniest man alive... but not in this movie. What a shame.


When I started watching 3 of the episodes of this series on the Action Channel,I have to say out of all the shows that I've seen that ADV released,this one is one of the best shows of all time. I had to see it again,and that's when I got my chance. I bought the entire box set of this series at Best Buy for my 20th Birthday. And I got to enjoy it,and see more of the episodes that I missed on Action Channel,and the same 3 episodes that I've seen. My favorite characters in this show are: Sylvia,Leon,and Nigel. The animation in this series was the best,and the hard suits were cool as well. But the show also has a great voice cast like:Chris Patton,Jason Douglas,Christine Auten,and Hillary Haag,and more. So if you like this show on Action Channel,then you have to own it on DVD. It's the best,and you will see what I mean.


It is amazing to me what passes for entertainment today. maybe I am a dinosaur from the fifties, and I am out of touch with todays movie going generation, and apparently that is the case with regards to this movie, since so many people loved it. I found it foul and vulgar. I haven't said that about many movies in my life but this one fits the bill. The humor is sophomoric and crude. I am not a politically correct person, and even I found the gay jokes, not only not funny but downright offensive ( I'm not gay). The main character in the movie is not even a likable person, just pathetic. When the movie was finally over i heard a number of people comment on how disappointed they were in what they had just pay good money to see.


I watched this series after Tipping the Velvet, for which I gave 10/10 grade. I had read user comments on this and I expected an equally good series, or if possible, even better. At this point I must emphasize that this series is good, and it definitely captured me throughout it and thus worth watching. However, I didn't enjoy it as much as Tipping the Velvet, for the following reasons:

1. Less passion, love, and related sexual content. There were surprisingly little emphasis in these elements, which I held integral for a love story. Fingersmith felt like a watered down version of Tipping the Velvet.

2. Similarly, as in Tipping the Velvet, the story had three parts: the beginning, a shocking second part, and the ending. The second part should have been the climax of the story (as in Tipping the Velvet), but instead it was almost totally skipped, perhaps due to inability to make shocking but believable asylum content. The series should have been in three parts, featuring two cliffhangers, with a lot more focus on the second part.

3. Almost no weight was given to what Fingersmiths were and how it affected their personalities. I found it rather annoying that the series did not properly address such central topic.

4. The ending was much more hasty than in Tipping the Velvet. Fingersmith left several interesting plot lines open.

Despite these shortcomings, Fingersmith is a good series, and well worth 7/10. However, it is not a classic like Tipping the Velvet.


Well what do you know, I was painting my house today and an Elton john song came on the radio, which immediately took me back to this movie which i saw in 1971. So long ago and so far away. Ten years later i hitched hiked through the country side of France, and i sure would have been keen to see Michelle. The film is probably not very sophisticated by todays standards, more's the pity, but it seemed rather racy back then. A few years later a sequel was made with Michelle living in a high rise in Paris and Paul coming back to meet her, just like life they had moved on, the film was very downbeat. Still the original was fab, and if you can get a copy go rent it, just remember to give it its' due and treat it gently. I note Americans can be rather prudish, so take note, contains scenes and themes possibly upsetting to middle America.


OK, the box looks promising. Whoopi Goldberg standing next to Danny Glover parodying the famous farmer and his wife painting. Then you pop this baby in the DVD player and all hope is lost in less then five minutes. Supposed to be a comedy. And I must admit I did laugh once about ten minutes before the ending. This movie has the following elements: A battered and abused next door neighbor, a boring legal trial, racisim, talk of lynchings, and death and arson. Hilarious, huh? No, please, if you never listen to anyone's reviews, please do here. You cannot even force yourself to watch this crap. CRAP! I said it, CRAP! Whoever put there name on this should indeed sue.


I really liked this movie. I have seen several Gene Kelly flicks and this is one of his best. I would actually put it above his more famous American in Paris. Sometimes it seems the story gets lost in Gene Kelly movies to the wonderful dance and song numbers, but not in this movie. It is definitely worth renting.


Two funeral directors in a Welsh village? English humour as opposed to that other stuff from over the Atlantic? How could I resist. My wife and I saw it on March the 6th for our belated Valentines day celebration and both of us enjoyed some good belly laughs. We were going to see another movie later but decided not to because we wanted the experience of THIS movie to stay with us for the evening.

The mortuary scene in the last 20 minutes of the film is worth the wait. It raises issues rarely talked about in the community, but I know three funeral directors, and the humour is right on the money

Highly recommended and congratulations to the writers. Without you all the actors, directors and the others havn't a job on any Monday.


This entry is certainly interesting for series fans (like myself), but yet it is mostly incomprehensible. The plot is confusing, as is the sequel continuity. Some striking effects, to be sure, but we never find out what it all really means.

Try to see the 'NC-17' workprint version which contains the gore that was cut to be re-rated 'R'.


I'll admit that the first time I managed to catch Sci-Fi's 'Sci-Fi Prime' was last week, but despite the fact that I was a huge Sliders fan coming into the experience, Farscape is now easily my favorite of the four shows.

Unlike most modern Sci-Fi shows (including, regrettably, the two new Star Trek series), this show manages to be fun without coming across as fodder for MST3K.


I haven't written a review on IMDb for the longest time, however, I felt myself compelled to write this! When looking up this movie I found one particular review which urged people NOT to see this film. Do not pay any attention to this ignorant person! NOTHING is a fantastic film, full of laughs and above all... imagination! Aren't you sick and tired of being force fed the same old cycle of bubble-gum trash movies? Sometimes a film like NOTHING comes along and gives you something you have never seen before. I don't even care if you dislike (even hate) the movie, but no one has a right to discredit the film. IMDb has a monumental impact on reputations and no negative review should discredit the film like that. Just say you hate it and why you hate it... but don't try to tell people that they shouldn't watch it. We have minds of our own and will make up our own minds thank you.

If my judgment is any good, I'd say that more people will enjoy this movie as opposed to those who hate it.

Treat your mind to a bit of eye-candy! See NOTHING!


Just too many holes in this movie to be enjoyable AND WORSE OF ALL a bizarre almost Hollywood-like ending that is completely out of context with the rest of the movie (this is not a spoiler as you will never guess how it ends!).

YOu will also need to be thick skinned to all sorts of politically correct undertones. The conflict between whites and blacks was highly contrived and one sided. I didn't understand why the author had the local black communinity behave in such an unacceptable manner, is he / she trying to be racist?

A truly bizare movie. Only watch if you like to be really annoyed by holes in the plot and like to debate all the things that may or may not have supposed to have happened.

But on the positive side the filming and acting is excellent.


How anyone can praise this crude film version after seeing the marvelous WATERLOO BRIDGE with Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor, is beyond comprehension.

MAE CLARKE's Myra is a far cry from the role as played by VIVIEN LEIGH in the remake. She plays a common American girl with a Brooklyn accent and the 'Yeah' responses are a bit jarring when one is expecting a less coarse character. DOUGLASS MONTGOMERY (billed in final credits as KENT DOUGLASS) is wildly improbable as a soldier smitten with her no matter how many times she lets him down. BETTE DAVIS has a nothing role in a bit part.

Their melodramatic confrontations during the last twenty minutes of the film are beyond belief (extravagant bits of overacting)--even given the fact that this is a cruder version of the story when sound was only a few years old and silent acting was still the rage.

Just awful. And it ends abruptly with Clarke losing her life during a bombing on the bridge. The End.

It has none of the beautifully shaded performances in the MGM remake of 1940, including a sterling supporting cast. Instead, this one is mounted with low-budget production values (and I mean a shoe-string budget) with no subtlety at all. And there's no pre-code braveness in the scene where Myra tells the aristocratic lady why she must not marry her son, Roy. She simply says, 'I picked him up on Waterloo Bridge.' Explanation over. Nothing bold there.

Summing up: For once, the original is not the best version by any means. VIVIEN LEIGH and ROBERT TAYLOR have never been surpassed as Myra and Roy in the tender, exquisitely acted 1940 film classic.


I did my best to watch this two hour fiasco. It combined the awful special effects and plot of the original 'Blob,' with an execrable boosting of the (outstanding in the original) screenplay of 'Runaway Train.' The only explanation for this movie is that someone needed to take a huge tax deduction and figured they'd combine it with a shot at hosting a casting couch. What an incredible stinker! Lou Diamond Phillips is anxious to show us why he will take any part, no matter how bad. Barry Corbin continues his career as a typecast creep, a U.S. Senator from Texas and plays it well. He should next do the lead role in the story of Trent Lott or Jesse Helms. The women in this flick all seem to have gotten their roles as consolation prizes in the Fay Wray Memorial screaming contest. Special effects are unbelievably bad. H.S. kids in film class in North Dakota could have done a better job. The writers must have pulled a heist at the cliché bank to accumulate this many. I couldn't watch any more without being forced to sit in the Clockwork Orange chair. I have no idea how it ended, except obviously, 119 minutes too late. Ugh! Caveat emptor.


If this is classed as 'real life' of London, then the producers must be on different planet.

It is the most depressing, suicidal, dark, dingy, dross on TV.

Everyone is fighting, everything has nasty under tones running through it, nothing is done for genuine reasons.

If you want a real life picture of people in London or the UK, then this programme is by the farthest from reality.

There is not one good word I can say about this programme. The only certainty is that will be a great big fight over Christmas dinner.

Even the characters are totally unbelievable!


I really tried, but this movie just didn't work for me. The action scenes were dull, the acting was surprisingly poor, and some of these characters were TOO stereotypical to even be funny. Pam Grier tries, but when you have nothing to work with, even her considerable talent cannot prevent a disaster. Even by the standards of this weak genre, this film is pretty bad.


Now, many would think to stay away from this movie just because of the title. If you do not have the stomach for gory movies, then what are you doing reading this review? Anyhow, I borrowed the video from a friend of mine and fell in love with this movie immediately. This movie is chock full of wonderful gore, plus the usual other ingredients that make up a b-movie add up to one hell of a viewing experience! If you're a lover of good quality experiences, then by all means, watch this great flick!


If you want just about everything you want to know about WWII from multiple perspectives, this DVD delivers, you WILL learn new things guaranteed, so much so that you won't need any other documentary's on the subject. Get this, watch it, learn from it. Good for school use as well. As a bonus, watch this with Tora tora tora, saving private ryan, patton, band of brothers, a bridge too far, the longest day and other WWII epics along with this to make your knowledge of WWII even more complete. Sir Laurence Oliver's voice adds to the overall atmosphere of each episode in this 26 part series. Seriously you won't find a better WWII documentary set on the subject. PERFECT 10!!!


Journey to the Center of the Earth is the story of some tourists of Hawaii, three of them siblings, and one of them a young British nanny babysitting a dog. When the siblings accidentally drive off in their jeep with the basket of dog biscuits, the nanny follows them (it might've just been safer to purchase more) all the way to the cave the siblings intended to explore (I guess). For some reason, they actually go in the cave and then, when the place starts caving in, they try to get out to no avail, except for the six-year-old sister who they tell to go get help. Meanwhile, the more they move around in the cave, the more they continue to plummet further and further towards the earths cavernous core. And behold, it is here where they find the City of Atlantis and its bizarre alien habitants who are living under the oppressive rule of one alien that doesn't want them asking to many questions about the worlds external to their own.

I see that Rusty Lemorande, the named director of the film has provided comments on this film, in which he explains that part of latter half of this film is actually the sequel to Alien in L.A. Well, whatever it was, it was an amazingly cheap movie that I would rank only slightly higher than City Limits (a 1988 sci-fi film also made on a non-existent budget) because at the least ending of this dreadful piece of mostly incoherent film-making that cuts corners where it can aims for some humor and amusement in the last 20 minutes when we finally see what life is like in the alien world at the center of the Earth. I also give it a two star rating rather than one because it was at times, funny, even if only in its subtleties. For example, the aliens asks the British girl if she's an alien and she explains that the Ministry should be sending her work visa shortly. Or when the alien girl finds Bryan and explains that he is in the city of Altantis and he mistakes this for Atlantic City, New Jersey. Little things like that make the idiocy of the first hour or so tolerable. Imagine how great the film could've been though if they had 1) actually intended to make it, and 2) actually had money to make it.

I do like how in the end, no one wonders what happened to the little sister who was sent away in the beginning to get help. She'd just be wandering around the Hawaiian caves and not too far from the erupting volcano, mind you.


After growing up in the gritty streets of Detroit, MI, and having friends who traveled to New York balls, I fell into the lifestyle of being a House member. I joined the House of Theieves. We adapted the same rules as most houses, but we were professional crooks that would boost and commit credit card fraud to obtain the fabulous jewels and clothes we desired. I even learned how to profess the making of checks and driver's license and cash them in over seventeen states, until a jealous queen called the Secret Service on me and I went to Federal prison. But, I learned a lot from these queens in this movie and I highly recommend you watch it yourself. You can even read about how I grew up in the houses here in Detroit and the criminal activity we indulged in. My book, Identity Schemes is available on sale at Amazon dot com or at Identity Schemes dot com. But trust me, It is a lot better than Paris is Burning, because its a 2005 make.


This movie should not be viewed unless you are trying to kill yourself. I think this movie could actually cause severe brain damage. The main characters are the whiny non-hero Kevin, Amy, his bratty, ungodly conservative girlfriend, Kyle, a dork in red shorts who enjoys phone sex, Daphne, a scrawny, horny girl who is supposed to be 'cool' and has no sense of how to dress, and her oversexed boyfriend Nick, an army recruit who can make an innuendo out of anything. No, I'm not a pervert, that's REALLY how the movie goes. The movie itself is an over-sexed rip-off of 1986's Gremlins, only you'll never find a trace of Gizmo anywhere. No, these Hobgoblins, unleashed by Wimpy Man (I'm sorry, Kevin), make someone's wildest dreams come true, and then kill the victims. Yes, you guessed it-Eventually, they wind up in a strip club, where the nerdy Amy's greatest dream is revealed-She wants to be a stripper! Look, I watched this flick via MST3K, and even with Mike Nelson, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot making a laughing-stock out of this cinematic trainwreck and it still made me bleed from both eyes. Not really, but I wish I had. I'm not giving you anymore plot, because reliving it gives me this great urge to drive a pitchfork through my brain. Besides, it's not like there's a plot worth mentioning. They should put a Surgeon's General Warning on this film.


Return to the 36th Chamber is one of those classic Kung-Fu movies which Shaw produces back in the 70s and 80s, whose genre is equivalent to the spaghetti westerns of Hollywood, and the protagonist Gordon Liu, the counterpart to the western's Clint Eastwood. Digitally remastered and a new print made for the Fantastic Film Fest, this is 'Presented in Shaw Scope', just like the good old days.

This film is a simple story of good versus evil, told in 3 acts, which more or less sums up the narrative of martial arts films in that era.

Act One sets up the premise. Workers in a dye-mill of a small village are unhappy with their lot, having their wages cut by 20% by incoming manchu gangsters. They can't do much about their exploitation because none of them are martial arts skilled to take on the gangsters, and their boss. At first they had a minor success in getting Liu to impersonate a highly skilled Shaolin monk (one of the best comedy sequences), but their rouse got exposed when they pushed the limit of credibility by impersonating one too many times.

Act Two shows the protagonist wanting to get back at the mob. However, without real martial arts, he embarks on a journey to Shaolin Temple, to try and infiltrate and learn martial arts on the sly. After some slapstick moments, he finally gets accepted by the abbot (whom he impersonated!) but is disappointed at the teaching methods - kinda like Mr Miyagi's style in Karate Kid, but instead of painting fences, he gets to erect scaffoldings all around the temple. Nothing can keep a good man down, and he unwittingly builds strength, endurance and learns kung-fu the unorthodox way.

Act Three is where the fight fest begins. With cheesy sound effects, each obvious non-contact on film is given the maximum impact treatment. But it is rather refreshing watching the fight scenes here, with its wide angled shots to highlight clarity and detail between the sparring partners, and the use of slow-motion only to showcase stunts in different angles. You may find the speed of fights a tad too slow, with some pause in between moves, but with Yuen Wo Ping and his style being used ad-nausem in Hollywood flicks, they sure don't make fight scenes like they used to! Return to the 36th chamber gets a repeat screening on Monday, so, if you're game for a nostalgic trip down memory lane, what are you waiting for?


Out of these Pokemon films (which are in order of best to least for me): Pokemon The First Movie, Pokemon 4Ever, Pokemon Heroes, Pokemon 200 and Pokemon: Entei and the Unknown, this is probably the one most concerning the environment, arguably the most beautiful and the most calming one. Whether these are good points for you or not, 'Pokemon 4Ever,' still has entertained many.

As well as the three points covered above, this pokemon film includes good humour and good CGI (as well as anime). The time travelling theme of the film is represented in a good way and Team Rocket (the comic reliefs/rubbish baddies) end up with quite good gags and end up being more main characters than sidekicks.

The flaws are, as always, the rather unnecessary violence and action and the baddie is pretty uninteresting, even more so than a few Pokemon film baddies.

A strange pokemon is being tracked down by a pokemon hunter in a forest. A young boy tries to save the pokemon and it takes him somewhere...

Meanwhile, Ash, Brock and Misty are entering a large forest...

Curious? Watch the rest...

Good for all Pokemon fans and 'American' anime movie fans, enjoy 'Pokemon 4Ever'! :-)


This film is where the Batman franchise ought to have stopped. Though I will concede that the ideas behind 'Batman Forever' were excellent and could have been easily realised by a competent director, as it turned out this was not to be the case.

Apparently Warner Brothers executives were disappointed with how dark this second Batman film from Tim Burton turned out. Apart from the idiocy of expecting anything else from Burton, and the conservative cowardice of their subsequent decision to turn the franchise into an homage to the Sixties TV series, I fail to understand how 'Batman Returns' can be considered at all disappointing.

True, it is not quite the equal of the first film - though it repairs all the minor deficiencies of style found in 'Batman,' a weaker script that splits the antagonism between not just two but three characters invites unflattering comparisons to the masterful pairing of Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the Joker in the first film. Yet for all this it remains a gorgeously dark film, true to the way the Batman was always meant to be, and highly satisfying.

Michael Keaton returns as the Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne, tangling with nouveau riche tycoon Max Schreck (Christopher Walken, named in honour of the 1920s German silent actor), his partner-in-crime Oswald Cobblepot, the Penguin (Danny DeVito in brilliant makeup reminiscent of Laurence Olivier's 'Richard III'), and Selina Kyle, the Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), whom Wayne romances both as himself and as the Batman. The four principals turn in excellent performances, especially Walken and DeVito, while together Keaton and Pfeiffer explore the darker side of double identities.

There are some intriguing concepts in this film. About the only weakness I can really point out is a certain limpness to the script in some places, which I think is due mostly to the way this film is a four-cornered fight. There simply isn't enough time to properly explore what's going on.

Nevertheless, this is a damn good film. I highly recommend watching this in conjunction with the first, and then weeping for how good the series could have been had it continued under Burton and Keaton.


A strange mix of traditional-80s, smartassy, Chevy Chase-type, 'every-ten-lines-you-get-a-funny-one' farce and sickie black comedy. Mildly amusing in spots, but utterly tasteless. There is a skiing sequence that includes the fakest-looking back-projections since 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'. (**)


Saw this film the first time in 1953 with my older brother. It was one of the great 3 Demension films released in that era. We saw it at least thirteen times and were proud of it. Scott does a typical western shoot em up job while surrounded by the Indian arrows rather than surround sound. Oh, for those polaroid lenses again.


I believe I received this film when I was a young buck. I remembered watching it as a child, but i could never find the film. I remembered good ol Rageddy Ann, Andy, Babette, the Greedy, King Koo Koo. I searched high and low for this movie and still no luck. But one day when I was moving out of my childhood home I had found it. We were reunited. I am 17 years old now. I still watch it. All the time actually. It's one of the funniest and touching movies I have ever seen and enjoyed at the same time. And personally I think they should make a sequel. Mmm, yes a sequel indeed. Now i am even considering getting the captains bird tattooed somewhere on my body!


A couple move into their dream home, unaware that it and its neighbours have been built over land formerly used as a cemetery. The film is said to have been based on a true story, although how much of it is supposed to be true is not disclosed. The plot is hardly unique - see Spielberg's 'Poltergeist' (1982). Within a short time, they experience various supernatural phenomena: these range from the disturbing - mysterious shadows, the serious illness of the daughter - to the frankly ridiculous - toilets continually flushing and garage doors going out of control. There is little depth to the story: once it has become established that the land had been used as a cemetery, we do not learn anything more. The plot does not seem to develop. The characters are not particularly well drawn or in any way memorable, nor is the atmosphere particularly special. The film could be disturbing to some viewers. There is no sense of catharsis or any kind of positive message from it.


I must be getting old because I was riveted to this movie from the first time I saw it. I'm watching it again right now on HBO. It's a very simple film about 2 people that fall in love after they found out that there spouses were having an affair. Plot is very thin, but the actors acted very well in this movie. In the mix of Kristen Scott Thomas running for congress and Harrison Ford being an Internal Affairs cop, these two meet, under unfortunate circumstances and fall in love. I love the soundtrack. Perfect fit. One thing I can't figure out, this movie had a budget of $68 million dollars. Were was it spent? The plane crash or Harrison Ford's salary?


this fourth installment of the series is the last to get a theatrical release,though it feels like a direct to video movie.it's OK,i guess,but nothing special.the acting is the worst of seen in the series up to this point.and like the third movie,there isn't much in the way of imagination.also,the sentence 'directed by Alan Smithee' is never a good thing.Smithee is the pseudonym directors use when they want nothing to do with the movie.anyway,its an acceptable movie in the Hellraiser series,but not much more than that.it's a slight drop in quality from number three,and a huge drop from the first two.for me,Hellraiser IV:Bloodline is a 4.5/10


I didn't expect much from this, but I have to admit I was rolling on the ground laughing a few times during this film. If you are not grossly offended in the first ten minutes, this might be a film for you. Ditto if you are the type that would enjoy watching Amanda Peet shuffling cards for an hour and a half. It's certainly not a momentous work of comedy, but given the low-budget indy genesis this is masterful. To level the playing field for comparison, imagine all of the studio films with their budgets slashed by a factor of 100 or so and see what you get! Kudos to Peter Cohen and his network for seeing this through. I look forward to his next effort.


It kept me on the edge of my seat. True, the story has a few plot holes, but the sheer tension of it, the way the director just keeps challenging the premise is simply fascinating.

José Coronado and Adriana Ozores are two of Spain's best actors (see La vida mancha and Héctor) and here they appear as a happy upper-middle class couple. Beneath it all, the truth is that all of Coronado's life is a lie. He's not an economist, never went to college or does not work in Spain's Central Bank Reserve, as everybody else believes. We get a few insights as to how he kept up appearances or manage to do it, and while not very plausible it is still somehow believable.

The inner-workings of the scam are shown intermittently, but it is credible because Coronado is a source of self-assurance and assertiveness. He not only believes in the scam, he also believes in the film premise, and therefore he carries it.

Sure, it tests belief that a wife would not know the inner workings of a marriage's finances for almost 10 years, but again, since he's supposedly a brilliant economist.

It has been said, in a nationalistic tone, that the movie is not 'distinctively Spanish', as if that were a litmus test for good film. True, no castanets or odd cabbies in this one, just a taut thriller. You'll want to know how this story ends once you start watching.


The few scenes that actually attempt a depiction of revolutionary struggle resemble a hirsute Boy Scout troop meandering tentatively between swimming holes. When Sharif or, please God, Palance try their hand at fiery oratory, they sound like Kurtz swallowing a bug. The displays of strategic brilliance incorporate a map of Cuba replete with smiling fishies in the ocean, and a positively Vaudevillian hypothesis on how the Bay of Pigs came to pass. What does that leave us with? One comical dentistry scene; a surfeit of uppity Hollywood peasants who address the camera as though it were a moving train; and, just for kicks, a passel of homoeroticism that is not limited to Castro's manic and unremitting cigar-fellatio. Never trust a Medved, but even a busted clock is right twice a day: this is a HISTORICALLY awful movie.


I've always been enthusiastic about period dramas, an art form in which the BBC has excelled in the past. This presentation of 'Byron' was unbelievable. Unbelievably bad! The script was dreadful, the acting uninspired, and all the characters woefully insipid. Apparently Byron was 'mad bad and dangerous to know', and set the ladies hearts all-a-flutter. Not in this production. Here he appeared as a tawdry jumped-up little squirt instead of a fiery hero of womenfolk and the Greek struggle for independence. It is said that Byron walked with a limp. This portrayal of the man was just limp all over.

I watched the whole two and a half hours waiting for something to spark into life. Not a splutter, not even a glimmer. It was utter tedium, if not downright boredom, from start to finish.

Having the opinion that no-one will ever better the Bard of Avon, I also believe that Byron's poetry is over-revered and to my mind should be flung on the back burner, and this dramatisation of his life should be accorded the same treatment.

I think the BBC lost its nous with this one


Peak Practice was a British drama series about a GP surgery in Cardale  a small fictional town in the Derbyshire Peak District  and the doctors who worked there. It ran on ITV from 1993 to 2002, and was one of their most successful series at the time. It originally starred Kevin Whately as Dr Jack Kerruish, Amanda Burton as Dr Beth Glover, and Simon Shepherd as Dr Will Preston, though the roster of doctors would change many times over the course of the series.

The series was axed in 2002 and ended on a literal cliffhanger when two of the series main characters plunged off a cliff. Viewers wrote to ITV in their thousands and a petition for one last episode was set up by website Peak Practice Online. However, all pleas were unsuccessful and ITV said they would not make any more episodes.

Peak Practice was replaced by Sweet Medicine, another medical series set in Derbyshire. It lasted a few episodes before it was dropped from the schedules.

Cardale was based on the Derbyshire village of Crich, and the series was filmed there and at other nearby Derbyshire towns and villages, most notably Matlock and Ashover. After the end of this programme, ITV attempted to launch a follow-up series called Sweet Medicine, which extended the stories of different characters from the original show.


The subsequent two seasons of this original series was less than lacklustre. The latter seasons disastrous reshuffle contributed to its three season short life span. Maybe if the plug was pulled after the first season it would've gained a cult following.

Aside from that, the first season was truly hilarious! Witty, clever with superb writing it was promising. The first season's excellent brew had the right ingredients - characters/actors, storyline and so forth. Plus a comedy about a paparazzi reporter was original to boot. Nora and her fellow 'photographers' on the prowl, night after night, day after day for the exclusives.

A lot of things don't make sense to me. Like how this show, and another fav of mine - Gross Pointe never 'made it'. If only the first seasons of the Naked Truth, and Grosse Pointe were released on DVD, please anyone out there?!


This movie wasn't just bad - it was terrible. After I watched it, I actually felt the need to TAKE A SHOWER to get the filth off of me. There is running 'gag' with an elderly couple making out, it is not funny, but it is disgusting. The monster make up was cool, but that is all. The continuity errors alone will have you angry - at least I was. The editing is really poor.

Almost anything else you could possibly do would be better than spending time watching this movie. Even if your group of friends are into 'bad movies' this one is exceptional in its ineptitude, I couldn't even bring myself to laugh at it. You have been warned.


The usual cat and mouse antics abound until Jerry jumps into a bottle of invisible ink. He gets the bright idea of torturing Tom without him knowing. The cat gets wise and tries to do stuff to make him 'see' jerry even if it's not fool-proof. Of course Jerry gets Butch aka Killer aka Spike the dog into the act (even if it's late in the short, and his contribution is minimal indeed) Brilliant animated short which kind of reminded me of the one with the white mouse who scares Tom so badly. Most of the gags work and all violent as any good tom and jerry short should truly be. This hilarious cartoon can be found on disc one of the Spotlight collection DVD of 'Tom & Jerry'

My Grade: B+


Not an easy film to like at first with both the lead characters quite unlikeable but luckily the heart and soul of the film is Paula Sage's touching performance which drives the film into uncharted waters and transcends the rather awkward storyline. This gives the film a feeling of real truth and makes you think you've seen something special.(7/10)


I was 12 years old when I saw the original film (I lived in Italy and the Italian title was 'FBI, OPERATION CAT!') That was a fun film and not just for kids. This awful remake it's pathetic even for a 5 year old! What possessed Disney to ruin their reputation and the memory of a lovely film I don't know and I just can't believe it. Even the title song in the original film (both original version and the dubbed Italian version) was extremely nice and creating the mood for the story. On this remake the title song is even worst than the movie itself. It was just nice to see Dean Jones even if for just a cameo appearance, he was a regular on the great old Disney's films. I cannot honestly see anything else positive in this remade movie.


This movie was a long build-up with no climax. People whom refer to the swordfight in the end as great must either be out of their minds, or have none. Way too often this movie got soft. I am not saying that soft movies are bad. But no matter how fond you are of sugar it should have no space on a T-bone steak. This movie was supposed to be about vengeance for crimes committed against a culture, but it ended up being a petty bar-brawl. And there was only one of them who actually knew what a sword was; Tim Roth's character (and yes, he plays him well). Rob Roy was a weak 'hero' with no knowledge of how to use a sword, and the way he 'won' was a disgrace. As a drama this movie had it's periods, but the best performance in it has to go the nature of Scotland. This is one tad breath short of being termed as 'soap' in my book.


I work with children from 0  6 years old and they all love the Doodlebops. The Doodlebops are energetic, vibrant and appealing. Once they start singing, ''We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops Oh yeah Come and join the fun because we're laughing and we're singing all day' it is almost impossible not to join them in song. The Doodlebops brings the viewer into a world of color and fun. Each show is an adventure, the Doodlebops do not try to change the world with preachy messages all they do is have fun while sorting out everyday life challenges that the young child may relate to. The Doodlebops is an refreshing, high action alternative to regular children's television programs.


I just watched Descent. Gawds what an awful movie. Right off the bat they depict a lava geyser and a note says that it is miles below the the surface of Washington State. Folks, there are no geysers deep in the Earth like that. They thought it looked neat and in typical Hollywood style they threw it in. And then there is that well that spewed lava. He dropped a stone and I heard a splash. Steam would have erupted out of that well before a blast of lava could, if ever.

And the acting was pretty bad as well. Micheal Dorn has sunk to a new low in jobs.

What a dog of a movie. I bet the vote goes no higher than a 3.5

It didn't look like SciFi Channel spent too much other than to have pretty boy Perry as an attempt to draw.


Maybe it was the title, or the trailer (certainly not the interview on the DVD, which is with the director as he keeps saying 'hi, kids' into the camera like a buffoon), but I had expectations for Entrails of a Virgin to be at least a bit of sleazy fun with some good sex scenes and brutal, bloody killings by a weird Japanese penetrator. Turns out it's way too sleazy for its own good, or bad, or whatever. There's a problem- and one can see this also in the Italian sexploitation flick Porno Holocaust, similar to this in many respects- in not having balance to the sex and violence. Too much sex and it will turn into a prototypical porno, and not even with much production quality in comparison with most professional porno movies! And with the killing scenes, there has to be at least a little tack, and maybe just a smidgen of ingenuity, in creating the creature/killer/whatever. Entrails of a Virgin has neither. It's safe to say it's a pretty soulless movie, even if isn't one of the very worst ever made- it's there just for horn-dog Japanese fetishists to get off on girls in trouble and men who have all their brains in their 'other' heads.

In this case, we're given a photo team where the guys are taking some shots of some girls, nothing too salacious, and then by way of a dense fog they stay off at some house one night and are picked off one by one by 'A Murderer' as he's credited. First off, the director Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu decides he has to put in a quota of random sex scenes early on- we get spliced in (or phoned in, take your pick) clips of one of the photographers having sex with one or more of the girls elsewhere. It looks like it's from another movie. Then once settled into the house, there's a 'wrestling' scene that's poorly choreographed and shot (yeah, we really need to see him 'all' there), and then on to the rape and killings. First the rape, by the photographers, who promise the girls some jobs for their time. Then the Murderer, who like D'Amato's creature is simply covered in mud and given a stupid facial, and who for an unknown reason kills the men and/or rapes the women one by one.

Now, the latter of those, taken by themselves, should be considered the highlights of the movie. This is like saying, however, that the croûtons are the best part of a wretchedly tasting salad. An eye-gouging scene, a spike thrown like an Olympic event (that scene, actually, is kind of cool), and finally the entrailing of the overly sex-crazed girl, whose inconsequential name I can't remember. Even *this* becomes disappointing just by not being correct to the title! On top of this, the sex scenes, which become tedious through 'Gaira' and his indulgence in long-takes-without-cutaways where everything by the Japanese censors is blurred anyway, are dubbed over by the actors (you'd think that they seem to be enjoying themselves enough, hence the need to let them 'speak' for themselves). But the overall feeling from Entrails of a Virgin is that of a lumpy one, where it's just there to be gawked at and without a shred of suspense or true horror (watch as the last girl left alive, the virgin of the picture, tries to stop the murderer from getting to her, which lasts five minutes as she keeps throwing sticks at him!) You just want it to be done with, for the 'I hate women' mantra to ease up or be rid altogether.


***SPOILERS*** Let's start with the 'good' of this film--the serviceable acting of Cynthia Rothrock and Richard Norton. The rest of the acting is awful (this isn't aided by the atrocious script). The worst culprit is the villain, Buntao, the head of an Asian crime syndicate (played by Frans Tumbuan). I was laughing my head off as he was expressing his 'fury' over having lost a bunch of money; horrid performance. Patrick Muldoon isn't much better, and his 'it's a hostile takeover' line (that's the remainder of the title of this film) was delivered about as badly as one could do it. There are no other main characters, but no other actor/actress distinguished him/herself in this film. We next come to the plot. This should tell you all you need to know: In the original 'Rage and Honor,' Cynthia Rothrock, who plays Chris Fairchild, was a teacher in the inner city. Now, she's a C.I.A. agent (or was it some other governmental agency--sorry, but this film was so bad that I don't even remember). Hmmm...I can imagine what that C.I.A. application process was like. Interviewer: What past job experience do you have? Chris: I was a teacher. Interviewer: Okay; you're hired! I only give it a '2' because of some decent acting and a nice plot twist at the end (though we know that Tommy (Muldoon), the secret villain, will be caught).


Sure, 65 years have passed since Thalberg's last production was filmed. But fellow IMDB members, come on, this movie is surely one of the masterpieces of the 30's! It is a 10.

This was the first movie I saw at New York's Museum of Modern Art, around 1970 (I was a teenager). Expensive looking yet with scenes of such poverty, masterfully photographed, often thrilling, and always engaging, to me it was MGM movie-making at its best. What did audiences feel when they glimpsed a locust attack, the person by person destruction of a mansion, the horrific poverty and then the splendor of wealth.

Last week, those watching the Academy Awards had a glimpse of the 'senior' Oscar winner in attendance, Luise Rainer. How grand to see an actress who arguably delivered one of the most masterful, haunting performances in history electing to return for a celebration.

Ok, so she should not have won the year before (Great Ziegfeld), but don't blame Luise. Talkies were only a decade old when this was released, and her dialogue limited. But as Olan, her use of visual and vocal is memorable.

Large scale and touching, what more could a movie lover want!


When the movie was released it was the biggest hit and it soon became the Blockbuster. But honestly the movie is a ridiculous watch with a plot which glorifies a loser. The movie has a Tag-line - 'Preeti Madhura, Tyaga Amara' which means Love's Sweet but Sacrifice is Immortal. In the movie the hero of the movie (Ganesh) sacrifices his love for the leading lady (Pooja Gandhi) even though the two loved each other! His justification is the meaning of the tag-line. This movie influenced so many young broken hearts that they found this 'Loser-like Sacrificial' attitude very thoughtful and hence became the cult movie it is, when they could have moved on with their lives. Ganesh's acting in the movie is Amateurish, Crass and Childishly stupid. He actually looks funny in a song, (Onde Ondu Sari... )when he's supposed to look all stylish and cool. His looks don't help the leading role either. His hair style is badly done in most part of the movie. POOJA GANDHI CANT ACT. Her costumes are horrendous in the movie and very inconsistent.

The good part about the movie is the excellent cinematography and brilliant music by Mano Murthy which are actually the true saving graces of the movie. Also the lyrics by Jayant Kaikini are very well penned. The Director Yograj Bhat has to be lauded picturization the songs in a tasteful manner.

Anyway all-in-all except for the songs, the movie is a very ordinary one!!!!!!


Not a movie for everyone, but this movie is in my top 10. I am a lover of black comedy. With a cast including Richard Dreyfus (Vic), Jeff Goldblum (Mick), Larry Bishop (Nick) and Gabriel Byrne (Ben 'Brass Balls' London) in the leads, the lines can't help but be dry. The supporting cast is nearly dead center. Counting the minor flaws in the movie: Ellen Barkin's make-up gave her face has a washed out look; there were a couple of gimme cameos by Joey Bishop and Richard Pryor that served no purpose, and Michael J. Pollard's screen time was too short. Over all, the cast was just incredible without egos to wreck a fine script. If you have seen Larry Bishop's (writer, director) film, Underworld (a dark crime flick), you will enjoy this one. His next outing (writer, director, actor) is Hell Ride with Michael Madsen and Quentin Tarantino.


So it isn't an epic, but for people experiencing anything similar

(sibling suicide) it might be an interesting way of therapy. An

imaginative narrative and some fine acting makes it time well

spent. For some reason, it hasn't really caught on in the audience,

something I do believe is a result of the main theme. Why did she

commit suicide? Clearly, this is hardly something that US

moviegoers will flock to, had it been an European production it

probably would have reached its audience in a much greater

extent. It is however, a movie that although the realism tainted by a

shimmering romanticized glow, gives the viewer a whole hearted

impression.


I went to the movie theater this afternoon expecting to be underwhelmed by Scoop. Happily, the film exceeded expectations, at least a little bit. It's nothing heavy, nothing deep -- and not anywhere as good as any number of real Allen masterpieces -- but it's also completely enjoyable as a light, bantering comedy. There's something kind of simple and sweet about it. 'Cute' was the word I heard from people in the audience as they were walking out after the show. It doesn't feel like Allen set out to create a masterpiece here, it feels like he wanted to make a little comedy and have fun doing it. Compared to just about everything Hollywood is producing, Allen's stuff has a tendency to charm. Even the fluffy stuff. These days it's just refreshing to go to a movie made by an actual human being.


Overrated mob comedy. Director Demme makes the actors pause after some funny lines to let audience laugh, and not miss next line. Seems odd - this director did 'Silence of The Lambs' - now there's the way to use pauses! Casting seems off. Mathew Modine too young for FBI agent and Pfeiffer's love interest! Dean Stockwell is doing a Jack Nicholson-thing with a squint, and he gets a nomination for it! Plus we have to accept Pfeiffer and Stockwell as Italians? Charles Napier as a hairdresser and Al Lewis as a mob lawyer are underused with only one line each - they should be the bumbling hoods. Song score by Chris Isaak is totally out of place - better for a flick like 'Pretty In Pink.' Re-make this movie, it's worth it, but with proper casting and director and the satire will come through... even the often repeated 'Forgedaboutit.'


I have just recently seen Heaven's Gate. After i watched this 3 hr 40 min epic western that's not a western, i read the book by Steven Bach. After considering all events and the movie itself, i still think this movie is a complete waste of time. I believe that when someone tells you to watch it, they are, in fact, trying to bore you to death. If for some reason you can enjoy this self indulgent over thought truely bad movie, i have to ask why. Though this isn't a reason to hate it, it is historically way off. It pretends to be about a situation that happened in Wyoming called the Johnson County War. Simply, the cattle barrons of the time wanted to kill all cattle thieves and claimed they were all immagrants. You find that you simply do not care about these people and hope they all get killed because at least then, something would happen. Everybody in the movie talks about things that happen, and it is never shown. After you sit though this giant waste of time you wonder how someone could actually make a 4 hr epic in which nothing happens. Oh and by the way the Johnson County war was not a war, it never happened. The Johnson County war, in fact, was called that because it almost happened, in actual fact, 2 people died. I can't warn you enough off this movie. However, if you're like me the, the idea of watching a movie that ruined careers and put United Artists on the 'for sale' lot, sounds like an interesting case to study, then by all means, watch this terrible, narsisistic, movie with no sub-text, and a lot of photography.(which is lovely sometimes)


My first post at the IMDb has to (unfortunately) be to warn others not to waste their time with The Cavern! There is no story, no character development, no scares, and no good lighting. It doesn't make any sense. If you enjoy bad acting, people running through small portions of caves, bouncing cameras posed at bad angles, and people screaming while the screen is in complete darkness, you'll love this movie. I could shut the lights off in my house and scream too, and I wouldn't have to pay for the rental. The only thing that scared me was that someone actually made a movie this awful.

... one of the worst movies I've ever rented.


this show is one of the worst shows of ALL TIME! absolutely no original jokes and they're always a year late. like in 2009 they will finally say something about Michael Vick's dogfights. all of the cast members are people who wanted to be on S.N.L but had to go to the lowest of the low, mad TV.its an hour of mad magazine jokes witch aren't funny to begin with, told by terrible John Stewart wanna bees. so if you have any problem tell me id love to hear the opinion of the 3 people who watch this show. family guy put it well 'Osama bin Ladin was hiding in the one place no one would look, the cast of mad TV. There is a reason why no one watches the show.


Nicholas Walker is Paul, the local town Reverand who's married to Martha (Ally Sheedy), but also is a habitual womanizer and decides to fake his own death to run away with his current affair, Veronica (Dara Tomanovich). However in so doing, he gets a bout of amnesia (hence the name of the film). Sally Kirkland is also on hand as a crazy old coot who pines for the good Reverand in a shades of 'Misery' type of way. It's sad to see a pretty good cast wasted like this. Not the least bit John Savage in a horridly forgettable role as a shoddy private investigator. In a film billed as a 'black comedy', one has to bring BOTH elements into said movie. While this does bring the former in spades, it sadly contains none of the latter. Furthermore you can't emphasize with any of the characters and as thus, have absolutely no vested interest in them. Technically not an all-together bad movie just an extremely forgettable one.

Eye Candy: Dara Tomanovich gets topless; Sally Kirkland also shows some skin

My Grade: C-

Where I saw it: Showtime Showcase


I have a lot of time for all the Columbo films, but this one in particular was extremely well written, and the solution at the end very effective. However, my main memory of this one is the opening of a scene in the middle of the film, between Columbo and the murderer (I apologise if I've not remembered every detail of this exactly). It's the most striking image of Columbo I've seen: the view is from inside the darkness of the cupboard where the victim was murdered, and into the room beyond, which is lit up by daylight. Columbo is sitting in a high-backed armchair facing the doorway (and us), contemplating the cupboard, and almost in silhouette due to the contrast in light. There's no sound. The camera slowly moves out of the room and up towards him. He's deep in meditation, puffing gently on a cigar, swirls of smoke from the cigar circling slowly upwards as he thinks. Then the dialogue starts. Superb.


This is one of the very worst films Clark Gable made. Only PARNELL was obviously worse. It is just so painfully clichéd and the dialog is so lousy that it is something neither Gable nor Jean Harlow should have been proud of making.

Gable is a heel whose illegal activities result in his girl going' to the slammer (like the gangster talk?). She holds out hope that he'll do the right thing but he just leaves her there--unknown to either of them, gosh, that she's 'in the family way'. Eventually, the rogue returns to do the right thing and somehow they tie this all together into a happy ending! They seemed to have forgotten about Gable's needing to take the rap and spend several years in the hoosegow. Leonard Maltin says 'the stars are at their best here'. By what standard? Best at producing unintended chuckles? Gimme a break!

PS--after saying this, my wife thinks Leonard Maltin is going to find me and kick my butt. Hmmm. However, despite my comment, I think Mr. Maltin is the finest reviewer and human being on the planet (I hope that appeased him).

UPDATE--2/2/08. Because I disliked this film so much the first time (especially the ridiculous ending), I decided to watch it once again. After all, sometimes when I watch a film again I like it much more and realize that I was a bit too harsh. While that has been the case with several films in recent months, I still disliked this film--even the second time. Most of it was not because of the first half of the film. In the first half, Harlow's character was amazingly stupid but at least it was believable. But when she was sent to prison, it was all clichés until the final ridiculous marriage scene occurred. The bottom line is that this sequence is embarrassingly dumb--it just makes no sense at all and is akin to turning the movie into some wacky fairy tale instead of a love story about two cons. I stand by my original review (despite all the 'NOT HELPFULS') and think that aside from PARNELL and possibly POLLY AT THE CIRCUS, it might just be the worst Gable film.


Can A-Pix ever, ever, ever do anything right? This movie was meant to be seen on TV in a letterbox format. Since A-Pix doesn't even believe in pan and scan, we see whole scenes where a shoulder on the left side of the screen talks to a shoulder on the right side. Of course, not that you are missing much. This movie is incredibly bad. It's very hard to enjoy a film where characters are screaming at the top of their lungs during 80% of the movie for no reason.


Even if you're not a big Ramones fan, Rock 'N' Roll High School is *still* the greatest rock 'n' roll movie ever made. Why? Because under all the campiness, it treats with respect the contempt and loathing teens often feel (and justifiably so) for the boring, stupid, fascist, establishment world of adults. That final scene is one of the most glorious and uplifting final scenes to a movie I have ever seen. 'Mine eyes have seen the glory of the...' Rock 'n' roll!


Of all the versions of the Odyssey (or of any Greek mythological story for that matter), this in my opinion is the best of them all. Almost true to the original storyline - with some minor deviations and omissions, e.g. the absence of Scylla & Charybdis and the fact that Eumaeus the swineherd recognizes Odysseus in disguise in his hut - realistic acting and authentic scenery and costumes all contribute to make this a truly memorable masterpiece,not some Hollywoodish sword-and-sandal B-flick. Notwithstanding the fact that the dialogue and subtitles are completely in Italian, if one is familiar with the storyline, he can still make heads and tails of what is going on and what the actors are saying (provided you have a good handy text of the Odyssey at hand). At least I did, and so much so that it has inspired me to study the Italian language to better appreciate the movie even more.


Critically, people say that Antz is better. Antz is a good film, but I enjoyed Bug's Life a bit more. I can't remember a Pixar animation, other than the two Toy Story films, that I was laughing so hard. The animation is clean, the story is original and doesn't preach. The voice overs are what make this movie. Dave Foley is an earnest ant that gets himself into trouble a lot. Hopper is a superb characterisation by the always wonderful Kevin Spacey, as is Haydn Panettiere as Dot . There is also sterling support from Dennis Leary, David Hyde Pierce and Madeline Kahn, and I could go on and on. The script is fantastic, so funny and sometimes even touching. It lacks the social messages of Antz, but what we have is rock-solid entertainment. 9/10. Bethany Cox


I went into this movie perhaps a bit jaded by the hack-and-slash films rampant on the screen these days. Boy, was I surprised. This little treasure was pleasantly paced with a somber, dark atmosphere. More surprising yet was the very limited amount of blood actually shown. As with most good movies, this one leaves something to the imagination, and Bill Paxton did a superb job at directing. Scenes shot inside the car as are well done and, after watching the 'Anatomy of a Scene' episode at the end of the video tape, It was good to see that some of the subtle, yet wonderful things I had noticed were intentional and not just an 'Oh, that looks good, keep it' type of direction. This is a moody movie, filled with grimness. Still, for the dark subject, a considerable portion of it is filmed in daylight, even some of the more disturbing scenes. The acting is exceptional (Okay, I've always been a fan of Powers Booth), and never goes over the top. Au Contraire, it is very subdued which works extremely well for this type of film. If there is any one area where this film lacks, it is in the ending, which seems just a bit too contrived, but still works on a simpler level without destroying the mood or the message of the movie. What is the message? It's something that each individual decides for themself. Overall, on the 1-10 scale, this movie scores an 8 for those who like the southern gothic genre (ie: 'Body Heat' or 'Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil'), and about a 5 for those who don't.


Encompassing virtual reality, the potential of computers, communication with the past, the ongoing struggle to express your identity in a constraining society, and the fascinating Ada Byron Lovelace portrayed by the fascinating Tilda Swinton, this film should have been great. But it is lousy, terrible if you consider the potential! The acting - aside from Tilda Swinton and Karen Black - veers from tolerable to atrocious. The plot construction is awkward to say the least - the modern day programmer is a dull one-note character, but half the movie is spent setting up her character, and then when Ada finally appears, it is to narrate the events of her life, not to present an engaging story (Swinton almost pulls this off, though). You never fully get to know her as a real person, just an icon from a grad student's history paper.

The digital effects, such as a digital dog and bird, are lousy and distracting, considering it was 1997 and not 1985. And, finally, the script is just bad. Bad, often pretentious dialog - especially the fights between the programmer and her boyfriend, which made me squirm - cold and distant characters, and zero attempt to create a sense of wonder. The programmer successfully contacts a person in the past! Astonishing! But it hardly seems to surprise anyone, and her boyfriend says, 'Well, be careful.' (Although we're given no clue then or later why it might be dangerous, and it never seems to actually be dangerous.)

Also, despite being about computers and Ada Lovelace and her love of mathematics, it is clear no one involved with the script had any knowledge of mathematics OR computers - any references to these subjects come across as complete mumbo jumbo that defies any suspension of disbelief.

One scene, towards the end of the movie, is quite good, a monolog by Tilda Swinton expressing her sadness at the fragility of life but her joy in that life. Poignant, passionate, and insightful, it seems to be dropped in from another movie.

So I am disappointed in this movie, because it is a missed opportunity for a fascinating little cult film. If you find the subject matter interesting, you might want to rent it, but be forewarned. See Orlando for another, much much better examination of gender roles in history with a great Tilda Swinton performance.

***spoiler/question: * *

At the end of the movie, Ada asks that her memories not be preserved (in what I thought was the best scene in the movie). But then the modern day programmer seems to do it anyway, transferring the memories into her little girl (hence the title of the movie). Am I correct, that the programmer violated Ada's wishes without even struggling over it? Or is this another confusing plot point that I'm misinterpreting?


There are no people like 'Show People' Marion Davies (as Peggy Pepper) and William Haines (as Billy Boone). My introduction to Ms. Davies was a 'clip' from this film; the delightfully spoofy one in which she lowers a scarf to reveal different emotions. My introduction to Mr. Haines was in viewing this film, presently; though, it's possible I've seen him in a less memorable role. Haines makes an incredible impression, when he joins Davies for a commissary meal - tossing his hat into the ring with some wonderful bits at the dining table. Indeed, Haines and Davies deliver great comic performances.

The story starts off with Dell Henderson (Colonel Pepper) driving daughter Davies into Hollywood, certain she will become Tinseltown's newest sensation. Indeed, Davies and the already arrived Haines become comedy stars. But, Davies yearns to become a true drama queen. Davies leaves Haines, and partners up with the dashingly dramatic Paul Ralli. But, audiences prefer Davies in more comic roles; perhaps director King Vidor is offering up a case for art imitating life?

Full of great Hollywood location footage, both on the set, and off. Full of great 'cameos'; at a studio lunch, at the stars' table, Davies sits between Douglas Fairbanks and William S. Hart. The best 'bit' player, however, is Charlie Chaplin, who has enough nerve to ask Davies for her autograph! While the cameos are fun, they, and the episodic sequences, do help 'Show People' become less of an important film, and more of an important historical document.

******** Show People (11/11/28) King Vidor ~ Marion Davies, William Haines, Dell Henderson


This movie was everything but boring. It deals with reality. To the people who think this movie was boring, open your eyes to the real problems in our society. Our children are dying. The consequences of alcohol and drug abuse are not to be ignored. I work in a correctional facility as a chemical dependency counselor,and i deal with these problems every day. People of all ages and all walks of life are effected by the consequences of their alcohol and drug abuse. It destroys families, hurts people and leads to serious brain damage,all kinds of health problems, and death. It is all preventable. This movie should be shown in every high-school in the world. If anyone owns this movie and wants to sell it, or sell me a copy, please e-mail me at: Ottenbreit2@netzero.net thank you


There is a lot wrong with this film. I will not lie. I will say that most of the problems feel like they stem from a budget that was chopped out from underneath the flick, and some bad hack job editing.

This is not Office Space. Do not go in expecting Office Space levels of comedy. It is very funny though. It is a mess, but very funny at the same time. A funny mess of a film. In the way that Caddyshack is funny. A mess of unrelated funny scenes filled with some very annoying unfunny scenes.

It works as a whole though, and it certainly deserves a wide release. This is the best commentary on the Wal Mart/ Starbucks/ MTV nation you could hope for. The very fact that a film is exploring the idea that dumb people are breeding at an alarming rate while the intelligent people are not, is great in my book. Not very politically correct but worth at least some debate.


I'm no fan of newer movies, but this one was a real pleasure to watch. Adults and children could watch it together - how unusual! My aunt liked it, too. It had laughter, tears, love, adventure, special effects, good actors - and a talking parrot. It reminded me of a favourite, The Wizard of Oz. The hero, Paulie, an intelligent parrot, is separated from his home and family and goes through many adventures, temptations and disappointments, always keeping in mind his resolution to find his friend, Marie. Highly recommended.


In April of 1965, CBS broadcast the first of Barbra Streisand's monumental television specials. The show was not only a runaway ratings success, but garnered 5 Emmy awards as well. This is one of the most memorable moments of 1960's television and (unfortunately) the kind of television special they don't produce anymore. Filled with wonderful songs and a spectacular performance by Barbra, this special is a must view for any Streisand fan and anyone interested in early television.


Terrible movie. Just terrible. The start of this movie is like something out of a bad women in prison movie. Then it moves on to being a B-movie version of Aliens. B-movie in this case meaning the addition of gratuitous sex-scenes and women in lingerie. Oh and a lot of the footage is the exact same as used in two other movies by the same company (including the women in prison schtick). The only thing saving this movie from a 1/10 is that I have actually seen worse movies. Not many, and not much, but worse.