The Beatles had just done 'Magical Mystery Tour.' There was the general feel that performance, peace and drugs went together naturally. In LA, there was a film subculture that knew something was up. Nicholson was in several of these gangs.

Before he decided to seriously become an actor, before 'Easy Rider,' before 'Pink Flamingos,' before 'Day for Night,' there were several experiments with what to do about this. An important one is 'Saragossa Manuscript.' This is another.

Jack writes. He plays with circular narrative, self-reference, film reference, performance self-loathing, the pain of creation, all on the outskirts of safe kiddiepop. You must see this, if only to know something about Jack.

Certain actors act by digging into themselves. It is a common technique. Some dig deep, but after a while, they become boring because they are incredibly shallow people. There isn't just enough stuff in there to sustain a career. Think of DeNiro and Hackman.

Others are pretty interesting people, who seem to become more interesting over time. When they dig into the barrel, they put stuff back in because of the pain of the digging. Think Sean Penn and Jack. At the bottom of Jack's barrel, at the end of the thread he spins, as the base of every character is this experimental, risky writer/filmmaker.

Who cares if it is a bad movie? It is bad because it took risks. Watch when a tear is wiped from Annette's cheek by the director. It is a loving goof on the whole Brando thing, something that I heard Marlon laughed about. That is one of the richest moments in Hollywood film history.

There's another reason to watch this. Music in film is has a strong root in dance. Revolution in film often relies on music. Whole cultures are thus swept along.

An unsung giantess in inventing how billions now dance is Toni Basil. She was as influential in pop choreography as the Beatles were in music. She was already well into her career when called upon to work on this. But this is one of her earliest screen appearances. You can see her work throughout and she herself in the pretty cool 'Daddy's Girl' segment, over one of Nilsson's better songs. (Followed by the Frank Zappa cameo.) McCartney would reference this scene in his TeeVee special years later.

A third reason to watch is early (about 6 1/2 minutes) in the film: a character named 'Lady Pleasure' kisses each Monkey in a long continuous shot and then dismissively departs. She is credited as I. J. Jefferson but is really Mimi Manchu, Nicholson's lover at the time and LSD partner. Red hair, psychedelic demeanor. Lovely. That scene says it all for me, about how Jack feels about the boys.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.


Sometimes realism can work against the effectiveness of a film. That's no problem here. The sets are cheesy, inside and out. The fog is ubiquitous, half disguising the shabbiness of the production. If there's a bar, the name painted on the front window says simply, 'Wine And Spirits.' The result is a claustrophobic set of scenes. Not a single shot of a city or even a fake skyline. That's the kind of Dublin this story is about, just as Jack the Ripper movies are about seedy, foggy, cobblestoned Whitechapel. Who would want it any other way? How could it have been any other way with no bankable stars, a minuscule budget, and a four-week shooting schedule? The acting follows suit -- outrageously hammy on everyone's part. Sometimes, my God, it's positively excruciating. Mrs. McPhillips moaning after Frankie is shot dead outside the house. Victor McLaglin however delivers exactly the right kind of overdone performance. Wardrobe has stuffed him into a too-small jacket so that he seems to be bursting out of it like Frankenstein's monster. His every movement seems to go a little farther than it was intended to. When he slaps his cap on his head, he bops himself on the temple. A big, blustering, blubbering baby, he seems constantly drunk. He betrays his best friend for the reward money which will take him and his would-be girl to America, not a good guy in the ordinary sense. Yet we wince as he begins to spend the 20 pounds, more and more of it during a wild, alcoholic night, because every expensive and grandiose gesture takes him farther from his dream. I wouldn't argue it, but I can understand why he won an Oscar.

As for Max Steiner's score, wow. Every movement, already overdone, is not only underlined by the Mickey Mouse music but highlighted in glossy yellow. It shouldn't have happened -- the heavenly choirs, the endearing young charms, the minstrel boy, the gurgling tune while McLaglen drinks from the bottle. It would have been better off with no score at all.

Well, how is it as a whole? Dated -- by any measure, but not a product of its times. That's why I admire it. Yes, the symbolism is clumsy at times. McLaglen, a real dummy, bumping his head against a hanging sign. The fog. The blind man. But what impresses me is how little of this was being tried at the time. What strikes us as overly arty today was in 1936 something quite different from what was seen in most of the programmers being ground out at the time. If it falls short at times, it doesn't matter. The movie was an act of courage, politically and morally as well as poetically. (The legion of decency condemned it because of a scene in a brothel.) A director's goal should exceed his grasp, or what's a script for? Watching it now, however, in 2006, the story is more disturbing than ever. John Ford obviously sympathized with the Irish rebels. They kill, but only out of what they see as necessity. ('He knows too much to live. What if he goes to the Tans? Oh, it's not me-self I'm thinking of but all of us, of Ireland herself.') The Irish are sentimentalized and sympathetic. I wonder if the Jihadists in the Middle East don't use a similar logic to justify their acts of violence.


This is a witty and delightful adaptation of the Dr Seuss book, brilliantly animated by UPA's finest and thoroughly deserving of its Academy Award. Special mention should be made of the superb music score and sound effects, which are an integral element in helping to make this such a memorable and enjoyable cartoon. Later episodes in the series (of which there were four in total) were not actually based on original Dr Seuss material, although all but the last continued to use his familiar rhyming style. The three sequels were: Gerald McBoing Boing's Symphony (1953); How Now Boing Boing (1954); Gerald McBoing Boing On Planet Moo (1956) - although he also appeared in a later episode of Mr Magoo.


How does David Lynch do it? Unlike the legions of thick-black-framed-glasses-wearing types and pretentious movie critics who praise his name, I just don't see how this guy keeps getting paid to make such tripe. How can Lynch sloppily cobble together leftover footage from a failed TV pilot into a nonsensical, poorly-acted mess & have critics rave about it & actually include it on Year's Best lists?

I'm baffled. If you're looking for a good film noir, rent 'Bound' instead. If you're looking for a good 'puzzle' movie try 'Memento.' But beware of this over-hyped stinker unless your idea of a fun night is throwing away 2 1/2 hours of your life & $3.50 of your hard-earned cash.


I really enjoyed the first film and when it turned up again, without thinking, or checking, I took a family of friends to see it. I was ashamed that I had enthused so much about it to them.

Disney processed the original film just like the human body processes a delicious meal - takes in something good and turns out ... well, you know. And by having a dark-skinned person as the FBI man, the results of fingerprinting the informant were subdued.

Taken as an isolated film, I suppose it is not too bad if one likes that weird sort of thing, but when one has read the book or seen the first film - horrible!


With such actors as Ralph Richardson, Raymond Massey, Cedrick Hardwicke, and Margaretta Scott, how can you go wrong. Very unusual scenics, especially the modern ones. The realization of the modern machinery is very effective. Here you have ray-gun blasts from building vehicles that help clear the area, so new structures can be made. Although she's much younger in this film, It's not very hard to figure out who the future Mrs. Pumphrey from the BBC series, All Creatures Great and Small is going to be! Really effective 'reappearance' of both Raymond Massey and Ralph Richardson. The musical score is by the renowned Swiss composer, Artur Honegger and it is also unusual. For the time (1936) it looks like they used really, large sets or the effects make it seem that way. Lastly, it's a really good story.


I think I can safely say (without really giving anything away), that this movie had no robots in it. The guys in 'robot' costumes didn't act or speak as such, and the evil entity behind the whole 'plot' isn't a robot either.

The whole thing looks like it was shot in a city park somewhere, with photos dropped in the background when the director needed a custom set. I can't even use words to describe the acting...

This couldn't even offer the hilarious ending of 'Star Crystal'. In short, it is clearly one of the worst sci-fi movies of the 80's and I would be so bold as to say 'of all time'.


Richard Dix decided to retire and so Michael Duane took his place playing the role as Ted Nichols who meets up with a young French girl named Alice Dupres Barkley, (Lenore Aubert). This couple only knew each other for two days and they decided to get married by a Justice of the Peace (Judge) and it is pouring rain when they pull up to the Judge's home and find out he is not home and will not return until the next day. As the couple are inside the house you see some one lift up the hood of their car and takes an automobile part from the engine. Once you see this event happening you realize this couple is in for a big surprise and the story beings to reveal a very mysterious event which surrounds Alice Barkley and so poor Ted Nichols starts out with plenty of trouble and no marriage. Good mystery, but I missed Richard Dix. Enjoy.


Algiers is not a classic, it is a perversion of the wonderful original Pepe le Moko, directed by Duvivier and starring a much more attractive and charming Pepe, Jean Gabin. If you want to fully experience the Casbah and the characters in Algiers, I recommend you don't even watch this movie and see Pepe le Moko instead, for it is much more elaborate, more beautifully filmed, the lines are not clichéd and the characters adhere much more to reality. Furthermore, the ending is so dramatic and key to Pepe's character that you'll find the Algiers version intolerable. Although Algiers does an almost excellent job mimicking each scene, the acting falls short as does the credibility of the characters. Plus, the wardrobe is truly breath-taking in all scenes, particularly Pepe's in the last scene and Gaby's (at all times) but also when she's on the boat. Frankly, Algiers is cheap as far as imitations go.


This is one of my favorite movies of all time. I loved Rain Man with Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise. This movie is in some ways similar, but makes Rain Man seem artificial, shallow, unemotional, and trivial by comparison.


Young Erendira and her tyrranical Grandmother provide for a great fantasy from the new world. This interpretation of Gabriel Garcia Marquez''La incréible y triste historia da la cándida Eréndira,...' may not rub Marquez purists the right way eventhough The story stays intact and still carries the full force of the work. The strength of this film is in its acting especially Papas as the Grandmother. Marquez fans and Marquez novices alike will enjoy this movie for its real gritty brand of witt.


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, the little slave girl, Alice and Jared Harris imitating Christopher Walken is what makes this movie entertaining. Alice's smoking, drinking and uncanny way of showing up when her name is called is strange and interesting. I have to applaud Jared for his Christopher Walken imitation, and Christopher Walken for allowing this to be in the movie.


Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau have got to be one of the best buddies ever to work together. They have made lots of movies together, i think they are both fantastic when they do work together in a movie. Out to sea is a fantastic comedy movie i think to watch. I give the movie 10 out of 10. Jack lemmon and Walter Matthau will be remembered when the movies they did together will be on tv. They will be sadly missed. God bless you both.


I saw The Glacier Fox in the theatre when I was nine years old - I bugged my parents to take me back three times. I began looking for it on video about five years ago, finally uncovering a copy on an online auction site, but I would love to see it either picked up by a new distributor and rereleased (I understand the original video run was small), or have the rights purchased by The Family Channel, Disney, etc. and shown regularly. It is a fascinating film that draws you into the story of the life struggle of a family of foxes in northern Japan, narrated by a wise old tree. The excellent soundtrack compliments the film well. It would be a good seller today, better than many of the weak offerings to children's movies today.


Beautiful story of Wisconsin native, Dan Jansen, and his real life, agonizing struggle to win the 1994 Olympic Gold Medal in Speed Skating, despite his overwhelming emotional loss with the death of his much loved Best Friend and Family Member; his Sister, Jane.

This story's main focus is to sensitively portray the real life emotional turmoil of grief, that one feels in loosing a special Loved One, and the struggle to productively cope and rise above the great loss! It is the incredible story of Dan Jansen's heartbreak in loosing his beloved Sister to Leukemia, his struggle to cope with the intensity of his grief, while still maintaining his Dream to win at the Olympics, and his ultimate triumph in winning the Gold Medal in Speed Skating for America, and in honor of his Sister's memory; thereby fulfilling his childhood promise to Jane!

After Dan Jansen's remarkable Gold Medal performance in the Winter Olympic in Lillihamer, Norway, he established a Foundation in 1994 to help fight Leukemia, which claimed the life of his Sister, and to support youth sports programs, educational and scholarship awards. His Dan Jansen Foundation promotes the philosophy that: 'as his Father always told him at a young age: 'there is more to life than skating around in circles!' Maintaining a proper perspective is key! So, too, is setting goals, and realizing one's Dreams through perseverence, overcoming adversity and never giving up!'

Recommended for anyone who has ever suffered the great loss of someone very special, and dearly loved within your life! And, for anyone who still believes in the Achievement of Dreams, and Never Giving Up!


Russian emigrant director in Hollywood in 1928 (William Powell) is casting his epic about the Russian revolution, and hires an old ex-general from the Czarist regime (Emil Jannings) to play the general of the film, and the two relive the drama and the memory of the woman they shared (Evelyn Brent), of 11 years before.

Try as I might, I feel it hard to warm to 'The Last Command' for all its virtues. 'The Docks of New York' was indubitably a great film, and 'Underworld' is a film I have always been craving to see, but 'The Last Command' is rather heavy-going. The premise is fascinating, but the treatment does really make the script come to life, except in the sequences set in Hollywood, depicting the breadline of employable extras and the machinations of a big movie production with state-of-the-art technology.

Emil Jannings is, predictably, a marvelous Russian general, distinguishing wonderfully between the traumatized and decrepit old ex-general, transfixed in his misery, and the vigorous, hearty officer of yore.

The ending is great and worth the wait, but in order to get there you must prepared to be slightly bored at times.


'Based on a joke once told by Jim Wynorski'... that's what I've read at the end of the closing credits. Well, Mr. Wynorski gotta have an awful sense of humour then! This film is terrible, really. I loved the first two chapters of The Slumber Party Massacre series; the third film was quite useless, but completely watchable, compared to this piece of crap! There's not even a Driller Killer and the plot, the acting, the characters, the locations, the events... everything is boring, absurd and laughable. The only good reason to watch this turkey are the girls: if this film were a porn, I think it would have worked really much better! The film lacks gore too: the first scene (the one in the tent) could be bloodier and the scene with the headless guy knocking at the door lasted one second! Some moments of slight thrilling can't save a nonexistent plot. Buzzy (Lunk Johnson) seems to be the only real actor here: I found him the only bearable character in this movie! Oh... there's a nonsense part with Brinke Stevens, who performed 'Linda' in the first Slumber Party Massacre: the police bother her to know more details about the killer; but what we get is only some footage from the first film! Not a dialogue, neither a monologue, or anything from this still-traumatized grown-up girl, who's forced to revive the worst 30 minutes of her life (as she says), giving us no clues at all about the murderer!

Watch at your own risk.


Just watched this on DVD three times - Once the 'normal' way, once with the scenes in consecutive order (in this doozy of a film noir, the beginning, middle and end of the story intertwine), and once with the director's commentary running. Quite amazing. A bare-bones tale, told with more flair, energy and substance than most big-budget overblown features being released today.

I think this is an even more accomplished film than the subsequent Memento, which turned me on to Nolan in the first place. Can't wait to see what he does with a bigger budget (and bigger box-office stars) in his next film, Insomnia.


'The Rainmaker' released in 1956 - has some of the finest actors of its time. Katharine Hepburn, Lloyd Bridges, and Burt Lancaster being the principle players. Not even they can save this completely over acted melodrama. First of all, Hepburn is horribly miscast as a shy spinster - despite her brilliance as an actress, not even she can pull this off. She is too strong to be credible as being this much of a simpleton, and was just too old for the part. Lancaster over acts to the extreme, and Earl Holliman is way too hammy and comes off more like Jethro Clampett. Only Bridges and the ever reliable Wendell Corey seem to rise above the cast a bit - but even they can only do so much. It seems like the 1950's was a time when Katharine Hepburn wanted to spread her wings a bit as an actress, and that is fine. She just made a bad choice here. Fortunately for her fans (me being among them) she didn't make too many of them. Despite an A-list cast and good production values, it doesn't work.


The DVD release of this superior made for TV BBC drama is a more than welcome addition to my collection. Great acting, gripping story, and wonderful direction all add up to one of the best BBC dramas in years.


Michael Jackson would have claimed a spot for the top-billed character in THE GOLDEN CHILD, and because he loves kids. That didn't work (and why should it?), so instead we have Eddie Murphy out to save the world by rescuing 'Kid Midas'. I would strongly suggest all future scriptwriters to please thoroughly study the actor's inane dialogue in this quirky fantasy - adventure - comedy that's a step closer to ISHTAR. Whatever Murphy says or does can be best liked, but don't get me wrong about his exquisite comical talent; he doesn't belong in this movie, and the same went for DR. DOLITTLE! The violence and visuals combined are reasons to stamp it as a cult camp classic, and that wouldn't have made any sense as Hollywood and movie fanatics kept cashing in on the guy. Speaking of visuals, they were pulled off amazingly well at the time of Ronald Reagan's presidential fame. Murphy is far better at COMING TO AMERICA and 48 HRS, but this stale movie isn't my touch of golden honey for a sweet crunchy taste.


This movie is awful. It creates characters not in the book, and some of them are ethnic or racial stereotypes. Including an obnoxious little Jewish boy and a politically correct little black girl. Not to mention the Yiddish speaking elves. The book was a simple story about belief, and this movie is a dark, ugly, and needlessly scary movie about nothing.

The animation is superb, but the story has been ruined by Hollywood.

The good thing is that this movie will take a bath in the box office and maybe producers will learn to keep from tampering with a story that needs no improvement. Hanks was overdone and i don't see why there couldn't have been other actors' voices be used.


i watched all of the doctor who episodes that my local PBS station played while growing up.(got introduced to the doctor by way of John Pertwee)as well as 'camera copies' of doctor who sent to America by UK fans to their US counterparts. i had a great time w/ the show, but it never seemed to take itself seriously - i mean as seriously as a sci-fi show about a time traveler could be. i went to the CONs, did the costume bit (doctor#5,6 and Tegan were my costume characters), loved it. then it all came to a sudden halt. program politics and lack of interest and funding turned doctor who into a 25year old antique that drifted into the ethos.

when i heard that the sci-fi channel had picked up the new doctor, my first thought was, 'cool, now my 11 year old son can see what i've been babbling on about all these years, and know what the heck a TARDIS is' (i have several phone boxes and TARDISes of various sizes around the house)i didn't expect the excellent quality of story, character development and f/x. i was to say the least - pleased. for the first time, i found a doctor that wasn't a curmudgeon, a clown, a fop, a trip-head, a pussy, or a jerk. Christopher Eccleston is by far the most believable doctor to date.now, now, calm down tom baker fans! don't get me wrong, i loved almost every doctor and his quirks, but Christopher gave something to the doctor that he'd never had before - real word believability. i'm just sad that he decided against another season. i'll try out David Tennant as i would any other doctor, but now the bar has risen...

bad wolf rules!!!!!

2008 update - i love David tennant! his 'mod' persona is something that my generation remembers, my son's generation can deal with, and fashion gestapo can relax! he's a little more human than christopher, but not as humas as other former doctors. i miss rose, i dig martha, and what were they thinking with donna noble!?!? it's still the best ride on TV


I found this movie hilarious. The spoofs on other popular movies of that time were some of the funniest I have seen in this sort of movie. Give it a try. If you saw the movies that this movie is spoofing, and you get the humor, you should enjoy the movie.

I (and the others who watched the movie with me) felt the funniest part in the movie (this is not a spoiler because I will NOT tell you what actually happens) was a scene with the 'flashy thingy' from MIB. When they first discover the device and do not know what it is does... and then again later in the movie... you'll understand when you get there.

My only complaint about the movie is that I have never been able to find it in DVD so that I could buy a copy.


About 15 minutes in, my wife was already wanting to leave. Not so much because of the material, but the lack thereof. They decided to fill in the blanks where the funny stuff should've been with as much language and absolutely vulgar talk as they could. When this would let up (very rare), we'd sit back and watch (not laughing, mind you) and wait for the next gross-out or offensive remark(s). After about 35 minutes, we both got up and left. Everything we'd read said how great this was. The trailer looked good and Roger Ebert actually called it 'intelligent' and said it wasn't a crude sex comedy. Did he go to the right movie? Along with Be Cool, it's the only other movie I've ever walked out on...and I have no regrets. I'm sick of trying to go see comedies in America.


When I first heard about this back in 1997, over coffee with friends, I decided to check it out. The only problem was that it was on a small screen at one of my local cinema's.

That didn't stop the enjoyment of seeing a simply great movie, with a top notch cast in Aidan Quinn, Donald Sutherland, and Ben Kingsley. The whole movie, kept me glued to my seat.

I simply found no flaws in this great movie, I give it my highest recommendation to those who love thrillers. I am very proud to have this in my collection.

10/10 ( I don't hand this out lightly).


Yikes. This is pretty bad. The play isn't great to begin with, and the decision to transfer it to film does it no favours - especially as Peploe doesn't decide how she wants to treat the material's theatrical origins (we get occasional glances of an observing theatre audience etc.) and has decided to go with a jumpy editing style that is intended to keep reminding you that you're watching a film, whereas in fact it only serves to remind you that you are watching a very poor film by a director who is overwhelmed by her material. Mira Sorvino's central performance is breath-takingly poor: stage-y and plummy, it's as if she's playing the part via Helena Bonham-Carter's Merchant Ivory oeuvre. Only Fiona Shaw delivers a performance of note - and it may be that her theatrical pedigree means that she is best able to handle the material - but it's hard to watch a film for one performance alone, even if that performance is as light, truthful and entire as Shaw's. Ben Kingsley turns in an average and disengaged turn, and Diana Rigg's daughter, Rachel Stirling plays her supporting role as just that. Sadly, none of Bertolucci's magic has rubbed off on his wife if this film is to be the evidence.


Considering the appalling track record of Mick Molloy since going out on his own, I had rather low expectations of Crackerjack. Even the promotional posters for the movie had me nervous. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that I'd received free tickets to the preview, I would have resisted the pressure from the missus (who thinks Mick's a hunk - there's a worry) to pay money for it.

The first few minutes of the movie had me worried - it starts with one of Micks tired 'get angry at insignificant things' routines, but that was given a neat touch, which at least made it a little refreshing. The rest of the script was pretty good, and very light hearted - even the typical Mick Molloy (and Judith Lucy) humour was delivered well and whilst I never had to pick myself up from the aisles, it generated a lot more chuckles that I was expecting (and it was consistant).

There's nothing new in the plot - pretty predictable, but it moved along quickly between one-liners and other jokes - I never felt it harboured on any element too long or too short; Mick must have worked hard on polishing his script. There were a one or two 'Late Show' in-jokes, and one or two jokes that only Melbournians would get - but certainly there's plenty of generic stuff in there for a wider audience.

Something that I found disappointing was the relative unfunnyness of John Clarke - he just didn't seem to work as the bad guy, but that doesn't detract from the movie too much.

Over all, I enjoyed this Australain comedy, and was pleasantly entertained for the duration of the movie. I left the cinema with a decent sized grin - a pretty hard thing for an Australian comedy to do in my books. 7.5/10


This really was the worst movie I have ever seen. Michael Vartan is hot, but who is this woman? And she looks absolutely awful through the whole movie, the hair is so bad! They talk in like monotone voices and there is nooo chemistry. The cover of the DVD does not even remotely come close to what the movie actually is. Really, really boring. I had to fast forward through some of it because it was so painful to watch. I really want to know how i on earth anyone could think this is good? hhaha they literally just like talk and say 'yeah' and there is no passion whatsoever. I could not tell at all that they were in love. I'm sorry but this was the saddest excuse for a movie I think I have ever seen.


Two women, sick of their controlling husbands, taking a vacation in Italy for a month with two other very different women.They come back refreshed and energized in this wonderful little film by Merchant - Ivory.

Great scenery and the location isn't bad either. Seriously, a very good period piece 7 of 10


Kudos to Fawcett to taking on roles that, at the time were considered controversial. To my recollection, rape was still a taboo subject in the 1980's, and women's rights and emotions were rarely so deeply examined during that time.

Fawcett is simply a woman who is followed, then stalked by actor James Russo. He is adequate as the obsessed psychopath, but at times a bit transparent.

Diana Scarwid has a bit role, as does Alfre Woodard as the house mate. Woodard worries about the legal consequences when Fawcett, the rape victim, takes revenge on the culprit. The scene where she throws a frying pan of hot oil at Russo is classic, and as the rapist he deserves it. She then keeps him in bondage, and the consequences must be faced.

A very real story reflecting the emotions and rage of rape victims who have been violated, physically, and mentally. Highly recommended. 8/10.


I've watched this movie twice now on DVD, and both times it didn't fail to impress me with its unique impartial attitude. It seems more like a depiction of reality than most other Hollywood fare, especially on a topic that is still hotly discussed. Even though it sticks closely with the southern viewpoint, it doesn't fail to question it, and in the end the only sentence passed is that the war is lost, not matter what, and cruelty is a common denominator.

What really makes this movie outstanding is the refusal to over-dramatize. Nowadays truly good movies (in a nutshell) are few and far apart, with mainstream fare being enjoyable (if you don't have high expectations), but terribly commercially spirited. I think this movie comes off as a truly good movie (without being a masterpiece), because it sticks to itself, and gives the viewer a chance to watch and analyze it, instead of wanting to bombard him with effect and emotion to blot out his intelligence. This movie is cool, observant, and generally light-handed in its judgement, which is GOOD.

The story has its flaws, especially Jewel's Character comes off doubtfully, but then again the situation at the time was so chaotic, that for a young widow it might have been only logical to somehow get back into a normal life, even by liberally taking each next guy. Still she doesn't come off as weak, in fact I think she's one of the stronger characters, she's always in control of the relationships, with the men just tagging. And I take it very gratefully that she's not a weeping widow. I believe in the 19th century death of a loved one was something a lot more normal than now. You could die so easily of even minor illnesses and injuries, so the prospect of of someone dying, while surely causing grief, didn't traumatise people like it does now. People didn't seem to build shrines about their lost ones like they do now, and I like that attitude.

My recommendation is for intelligent people to watch this movie, if they are in the mood for something different than the usual hollywood fare. Don't watch if if you want non-stop action or heart-renting emotion.


Tenants Two writers struggle to complete their books in an all but empty apartment house. They at first help each other and then slowly the tension between them begins to build.

This is based upon a Bernard Malamud novel and unfortunately everyone speaks as though they are in that novel. Very little of the dialog is natural, its purple and brimming with shades of meaning. Its as if a college English major with a head full of pretensions wrote the script. It's awful and I found myself instantly immune to anything the film had to say, which is a shame since the film is populated with great performances from top to bottom. Snoop Dog on down are fine form, unfortunately none of them can over come the falseness of the words and the premise.

I can't really recommend this movie. While not really bad, its very preachy and pretentious to the point of making you want to walk away. I lost interest less then a third of the way in and had to struggle to get to the end. If you're interested I'd try it on cable, but I wouldn't lay out good money to see it.


The Cure uses voice over to create an intense mood. Although the VO accounts for all of the film's lines it amazingly does not take away from the visual story. The use of multiple film stocks add a lot of texture to the story. The choice of combining b & w and color worked nicely to enhance the leaps in time. The ending will make you jump despite being able to anticipate the result. I was especially enjoyed the thrill of the film's suspense. The close-ups for the love scene are also lovely and reflect a tasteful eye. The piece is quite short but accomplishes a lot. The tight editing really helps to show off what a short film can do. Worth watching more than once!


... with a 500$ budget and a bottle of ketchup.

If you are a fan of C movies with no talented actors whatsoever, a ridiculous story, cheap effects and lousy camera-work, this film delivers.

All others be warned. You could probably make a similar movie with a couple of friends in your backyard and a home camcorder.

The film is good for some laughs though. Watch it with some friends and discuss how NOT to make a movie.

2/10 for unintentional comedy.

Why the hell do you have to write 10 lines? I have seen comments with less lines and writing this is just a lame filler.


Harmony Korine. I'm not sure what he was trying to do with this film. If it was to turn my good day feeling into a night of disturbing memories than I guess he succeeded.

I know that there were big questions raised in this movie like, who are we really, what are we here for, is there really a God. All great questions, But I really don't think that is funny when you have the questions along side such tragedy. I'm all for real life being portrayed but come on. It's never funny when a wife is being raped, someone killing themselves (and family and friends find the body) and people die for unexplained and unnecessary reasons.

The only good thing about this movie was the location it was filmed. There is a lot of beautiful places.

I'm not a film student or even know all that much on the subject I admit this, but I do know that when I leave the theater with a feeling of disgust, then it was not a film I would recommend to anyone.


I have seen over 1000 movies and this one stands out as one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. It is a shame that they had to associate this garbage to The Angels 1963 song 'My Boyfriend's Back.' If you have to make a choice between watching this movie and painful dental work, I would suggest the dental work.


The remarkable, sometimes infuriating, often brilliant films of John Cassavetes occupy a unique position in American cinema Low-budget, partly improvised, inspired by cinéma verité documentary, and related to underground film, they have nevertheless frequently managed to reach a wide and profoundly appreciative audience

After drama studies, the young Cassavetes quickly made his name as an unusually unrefined, intense actor, often appearing in films about disaffected, rebellious youth such as 'Crime in the Streets' and 'Edge of the City.'

Setting up an actors' workshop, he worked to transform an improvisational experiment into his feature debut The result, 'Shadows,' taking three years to complete and partly financed by his performances in TV's Johnny Staccato, was a breakthrough in American cinema About the effect of racism on an already fraught relationship between two black men and their sister, two of whom pass for white, the film is impressive for its irregular, seemingly formless style and naturalistic performances Plot was minimal, mood and emotional apparent truth were everything


I agree that this is ONE of the very best episodes of the entire series--my only detraction would be the somewhat jarring appearance of Mark Lenard as the Romulan Commander. My reasoning is this--if you were not around for the first run of this episode, then you know Mr. Lenard as Sarek, Spock's father. And for the 2nd generation Trekkie (or Trekker--your preference) it takes you out of the scene at first. Yet he's an excellent commander as well as opposite for our captain and this episode is strongly written and well-acted by all. There are excellent points made by both sides about the cost of war vs.the price of peace and certainly does remind one of some of the best of the WWII and later era movies. Those are not my favorite genre but I certainly would recommend a fan of such to view this episode through that filter. You'll see it holds up. I'll never understand why Sci-Fi gets so little respect--the best drama comes out of placing ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances.


Van damme has done some great films over the years and this one hits a big ten in my books. From the setting of Mexico to the five star fight scenes, this movie was amazing. The film is all about border patrol officers protecting there territory which is the border of Mexico. Ex navy seals are smuggling drugs out of Mexico into the united states of America (USA), Van damme and Scott Atkins give stunning performances as the cop and the villain. Although this film wasn't as good as until death but it still gave the action,acting and the film a five star look. I always look forward to these b grade action films and they keep getting better. keep them coming van damme.

Watch this film if you enjoyed films like - Until death, The hard corps and second in command.


Keeping all political views aside, Feroz Khan and Anil Kapoor's 'Gandhi, My Father' is a good movie that cleverly explores the confused-towards-family side of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and the fight of his eldest son Harilal Gandhi with the society, his larger-than-life father, and most importantly demons in his head. One draws parallels to Gandhi the father of the nation and struggles any son could have with their father

The acting is good. Shefali Shetty, Darshan Zariwala and Akshaye Khanna-strictly in that order- add color and pathos to this heart wrenching tale of Harilal who weeps to be hugged just once and also runs away at the faintest touch of the finger.

Feroz Khan's direction and the production canvas is lavish and attractive, however, the screenplay could've been tighter. I had seen the play some years ago on a pirated video type DVD (it was called Mahatama vs Gandhi, I think) and it was certainly more gripping. Though, the movie's background score and the father-son and mother-son moments are just a brilliant treat.

This movie could have been great. It's borderline to that. It has the potential so huge to have been just a story differences between a father and son or just Gandhi or even both. somewhere, the plot is lost and when you expect absolute epitome of emotions, nothing comes to you.

It compares decently to other Gandhi's. Certainly not an overview film like Kingsley's Gandhi,or abstract as Kamal Hassan's Hey Ram. The film just about manages to find its footing; however, one is left wondering 'what if...' Worth a watch. 7.5/10


A man brings his new wife to his home where his former wife died of an 'accident'. His new wife has just been released from an institution and is also VERY rich! All of the sudden she starts hearing noises and seeing skulls all over the place. Is she going crazy again or is the first wife coming back from the dead?

You've probably guessed the ending so I won't spell it out. I saw this many times on Saturday afternoon TV as a kid. Back then, I liked it but I WAS young. Seeing it now I realize how bad it is. It's horribly acted, badly written, very dull (even at an hour) and has a huge cast of FIVE people (one being the director)! Still it does have some good things about it.

The music is kinda creepy and the setting itself with the huge empty house and pond nearby is nicely atmospheric. There also are a few scary moments (I jumped a little when she saw the first skull) and a somewhat effective ending. All in all it's definitely NOT a good movie...but not a total disaster either. It does have a small cult following. I give it a 2.

Also try to avoid the Elite DVD Drive-in edition of it (it's paired with 'Attack of the Giant Leeches'). It's in TERRIBLE shape with jumps and scratches all over. It didn't even look this bad on TV!


Peter Bogdonavich has made a handful of truly great films, and THEY ALL LAUGHED is one of his best. The cast couldn't be better equipped to play this light but slightly bittersweet screwball comedy. Interestingly enough, the witty, light touch Bogdonavich so effortlessly employs gives the film a rather disarming emotional core. Fresh and immediate, the film starts with absolutely no explanation. There's no soundtrack music to cue us. We meet the characters in action, and as Bogdonavich glides down the streets of New York, the film unfolds effortlessly. Robby Muller's camera captures it all with an understated simplicity that seems accidental, but surely isn't. The cast is terrific. In every way, a classic.


I saw Heaven's Gate on its opening week nearly twenty years ago. Tickets were sold in advance based on the great anticipation of seeing Cimino's long in the making follow up to his 1978 masterpiece 'The Deerhunter.' The reviews came in and critics trashed the film with vehemence. An influential New York film critic led the way and most critics followed suit, and the 3hr. 40-min. film was pulled from distribution. United Artists had Cimino shorten the film by about an hour and it was re-released many months later to equally horrible reviews and to dismal business. The film at that time cost about 40 million dollars (now considered low budget) making it one of the most expensive in history and Cimino had free rein on the project with endless retakes despite it being only his third film. 'The Deerhunter' had also received a negative backlash based on a perceived political ideology, which was not popular. I mention all this to present a possible bias building up against Cimino. At the time I thought the film was very good and when I saw the shorter version it was still very good only less so. The film showed up again in a museum in the early 1990's. They were supposed to show the long version but they could not find an existing print. Nevertheless, seeing the film years later I now thought Heaven's Gate was a masterpiece. Finally, the long version started to appear in a few select cities, I got to see it recently and it was well worth the wait. Heaven's Gate begins with the graduation ceremony at Harvard University. Two of the graduates are Kris Kristofferson and John Hurt and we some of the flaws in their characters early on. Despite the mandate Joseph Cotton gives in his speech to the graduating class to use their education to enlighten and improve their country, many of the graduates behave as if they are part of an elite country club. The film flashes ahead 20 years to Johnson County in Wyoming. A cattle company called 'the Stockholders Association' has hired poor people to shoot 125 poor immigrants claiming they are cattle thieves. Kristofferson sides with the immigrants while John Hurt is part of the Association. Although Hurt is totally against this insane action he is too ineffectual a character to do anything about it. A massacre takes place but the immigrants do well in defending themselves. A United States Cavalry comes to the rescue of the Association to allegedly arrest them after most of the damage has been done when in fact they sanctioned the mass killing. Kristofferson also suffers a great personal loss and the film ends with him years later as part of the elite class of his Harvard days married, bored, on a yacht, living but dead on the inside.

This is a very complex film which is brilliant in every department such as it's themes, structure, direction, cinematography, writing, music, editing, set designs, and acting. Kristofferson, Walken, Hurt, Huppert, Dourif, Bridges, Waterston, and Cotton are all excellent portraying very complex characters. Some of the major complaints I read about this film state that is ugly to look at, incoherent, too long, that the characters make no sense and that the words are often unintelligible. In its defense, Heaven's Gate has the look of photographs of that period just as 'McCabe & Mrs. Miller' did. Some of the scenes are smoky looking to suggest the industrial revolution or sometimes horses, wagons, people are passing by from all sides creating a sense of reality.(The critic who called it one of the ugliest movies ever made likes to use his thumbs a lot.) But in spite of all that, the composition of each frame and the cinematography are impeccable. The film makes a great deal of sense if you pay attention to it. Everything is not spelled out for the viewer and one has to observe closely to understand the motivations of the characters or its themes. As to its length, it is a beautifully structured piece, at times moving, poetic, exhilarating, or devastating with virtually one great scene following another. At times some of the words are unintelligible especially in some of the scenes bustling with activity. But one could understand such a cinematic film as this through its use of film language, the glances between characters or their actions. One day soon this film should be re-released in its full length so that people and critics could give it a second chance. Do not let Michael Cimino become another Orson Welles- under appreciated in his lifetime and not able to make the kinds of great films he is capable of making.


'Nemesis' was the last book to feature Miss Marple written by Agatha Christie (the official final case 'Sleeping Murder' was written in the forties) and I've always had a very soft spot for it. I loved the characters and they are lovingly brought to life in this excellent BBC adaptation with Joan Hickson, terrific as ever, as Miss Marple.

On the whole it is very faithful to the book. A few characters are dropped, the first (new) murder is slightly different and a couple of new characters are introduced. Personally I felt that the added character of Lionel Peel was unnecessary and rather irritating. Tour guide Madge was irritating in a different way but often quite amusing. It's largely because of Lionel that I don't award 10 out of 10! The other characters are beautifully done especially Helen Cherry as a dignified Miss Temple and all of the three weird sisters but particularly Margaret Tyzack who gives a towering performance as Clothilde. She threatens to go over the top towards the end but just avoids it. The female bodyguards are good value too and the episode contains one of my favourite Hickson lines...'An Archdeacon?!'

This is another relatively early BBC Marple that looks wonderful and is has a gloriously nostalgic feel to it. Highly recommended.


This is a very bad movie. I laughed once or twice, and the storyline sucks! There is maybe one funny joke, it is stupid and it is boring. Through the whole short movie, I was falling asleep and wondering when it was going to end.

No one acts human, and everyone acts stupid and ridiculous. Rob Schneider acting like an animal isn't something I would pay to see. It looked funny, but the bottom line: DON'T WASTE YOU'RE PRECIOUS TIME ON SUCH A RIDICULOUS AND STUPID MOVIE.

I was wondering when it was going to end, even though it is a short movie. In the beginning we thought it would get better; but it gets worse. Stupid, all the way to the end. I walked out of the theater, and I would remember that movie as extremely bad forever.

The writer and co-producer of this film is a Simpsons TV writer, but this is nothing like The Simpsons (this movie sucks!!!)


Truly one of the most dire films I've ever sat through. I've never actually taken the time to write one of these but felt compelled to after witnessing this affront to film-making and feel somewhat aggrieved to be wasting my time on such a piece of turd to be honest. There were so many parts that infuriated me with their complete randomness and lack of sense (e.g. when would the police force ever shoot people with infectious diseases? When would hospitals ever through out such people for lack of a cure? Why was the guy who spotted him spying on his wife wandering around outside in his dressing gown whilst carrying a gun as she rolled around on the bed?). Also, the characterisation - as we've almost come to expect in such films - was awful (e.g. the way the blonde guy - I don't remember his frickin name and don't give a toss anyway - completely turned against his girlfriend and ran off to leave her) and I ended up wanting them all to meet grisly ends! The production was horribly disjointed and the cinematography nothing to write home about.


Reasonably effective horror/science-fiction a la 'Alien' is fairly well done given its limited ambitions. Some nice special effects and well paced action sequences adequately patch the cracks in the rather tiresome dialogue. When a space craft crash lands on a remote planet the survivors soon become aware that a hideous terror awaits them in the dark of the upcoming total eclipse.


Lazy writing, bad acting and wooden direction lead us to a 2005 Canadian-made TV movie called HUSH, not to be confused with about eight other movies using the same name. Tori Spelling and her doctor hubby move from SanFran to his small hometown, where they run into his old gal pal, who decides she still loves him. She gets pregnant with Tori's baby (don't ask) and starts knocking off anyone who might get in her way as she plans to reunite with her old flame. The actors playing the old gal pal and the doctor are not worth mentioning, as they act flatter than flat. Tori isn't much better, but at least she is something to focus on as the plot meanders here and there before arriving at a very lame and all-too-familiar conclusion. Watch instead THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE.


This movie is a laugh and a half. From the first scene, where we have an appearance of Mel Torme as a big, bad Jaguar drivin' stud muffin gang leader(and that's a giggle-fest in itself), to the final image of Mamie Van Doren, now a rehabilitated angelic teen strolling out of the prison(errr..loving girl's home run by iron fisted nuns), you can't stop shaking your head. The cast of this movie is a cheesy list from Mel and Mamie to the talentless Paul Anka(all I wanted through most of this movie was for him to just STOP SINGING!) and the King of Forty Year Old Teens, Dick Contino. Gloria Talbot, playing a humorless teen girl with more than a few chops(judo, not acting) I last saw in the horrible misogynist 50's romp Leech Woman, with a hairstyle so bad it looked like a dead woodchuck that had been squashed by a Mac truck.

Mamie is a bad, bad girl-she smokes, swears, runs wild, hits teachers, and runs around with gang leaders. She dumps her idiot Jaguar driving boyfriend Chip(who we see in the first scene trying to rape a blonde girl, before he falls off a cliff-nice guy), and proceeds to take up with Dick Contino instead. Whether this is a step up for her is anybody's guess. Mel shows up at a party she's at with her new beau, and accuses her of pushing the nasty Chip off the cliff. While I'm sure that she would have liked to, she wasn't there. A stupid fight scene between Contino and his gang and Mel and his jazz freaks ensues, with some hilariously bad moves on both sides.

Mamie ends up being sent to girls town, a reform school..errr...loving home for erring girls..run by Sister Iron Pants and her fellow sisters of correction. She annoys the nuns(and us) by scatting, tossing off sullen one-liners, and just generally showing how bad she is. She quickly runs into Gloria Talbot, playing one of the misbehaving girls, who gives her a chop sockey so that she knows her place. She meets a limp noodle of a girl who's obsessed with Paul Anka's character(why?). This little drip becomes her 'henchman'.

There's a long bit of movie where nothing much happens, except St. Paul of Anka keeps showing up and proving how saintly he is. He sings way too much in this interval, until you want to smack him in his huge snozz to just make him be quiet! And Mamie's little sister, played by Princess of Father Know's Best fame, calls her to tell her she's in trouble. Turns out it was sis who went out with the Chipster, and now Mel's blackmailing her because he found out. The girls all break out to go save her, with a hysterical fight scene between the girls and Mel and his boys. this is after a race between Mel and Dick that is just so stupid that it boggles the mind. The overage teenagers in this corny movie have a fabulous good time romping through what is basically a silly, badly written and morally preachy film that accomplishes none if its aims-unless its aim was to make you laugh out loud.


When I stepped into the theater, I thought this was going to be a great movie. And I was not disappointed one bit. WOW! This movie is brilliant! The emotions felt through out the whole movie are extraordinary! Great acting by Madhavan and Simran. Beautiful music by A.R. Rahman. This might most probably be the best Tamil movie I've seen in ages. Mani Ratnam has yet again proved that he is the best in making meaningful and heartfelt movies.

This movie is basically about a young girl (P.S. Keerthana) who is in search of her biological mother (Nandita Das) who abandoned her in a refugee camp to fight for her country just like her husband (J.D. Chakravathy). A young novelist (Madhavan) finds out about this young girl's story and decides to write a story about her. He and his wife (Simran) decide to adopt this young child but one day she finds out that they are not her real parents and decides to search for her biological mother.

This movie really screams EXCELLENT. The way Mani Ratnam presented the movie is magnificent.

My Rating - 10/10


This film offers one of the greatest experiences available to movie-goers. It is by no means a pleasant film, but offers realities and emotions the human mind may never have meant to touch upon. It opens pathways in how an individual thinks, and afterwards will change the person forever.

The first time I saw this film was in class, and immediately after seeing it I had to skip my next class and walk around campus in order to reset my body and mind. I felt devastated and, somehow unreal, as if I didn't exist. It was only a few months later that I was telling one of my friends about SHAME, and she asked, 'Oh, is that when you were messed up after seeing it, and ran into me talking all strange about it?' I didn't even remember running into or talking to anyone at all while outside that day, I was astonished.

In plot terms it is the simple tale of a couple torn apart by war. There suffering is greater than that of the dead and by the end...there are no words to complete the image that Bergman creates. Its like a horrible dream which causes you to wake, altering your own reality forever. This film must be seen.


If you love Vampire lore and are a fan of Gothic horror, then you might want to check out Soul's Midnight. I did not know much about this movie before I watched it, and I wasn't expecting much, but I found the movie to be fun and entertaining.

Starring Armand Assante as the leader of the vampires Simon, Soul's separates itself from other low budget vampire flicks by weaving in the mythology of St. George and the Dragon in a fun new way.

I'm not sure what the budget for this movie was, but I sense that if it was a little more then they might have really been able to hit home the gore and effects.

If you're up late one night and you're in the mood for a fun low budget vampire flick then Soul's Midnight is a good choice.


It is not generally my practice to review movies that I dislike to any great degree. However, one or two times a year, I temporarily set aside my rule to only comment on things I like to give a word of warning. I find it more enjoyable to comment on something I like and boost it than I do shooting at bad movies. But some 'movies' cry out for the razor.

Bilitis is one of them. The cinematography isn't the only aspect that is blurry and out of focus here. An almost indiscernible plot (certainly incoherent, if there even is one) bad acting, cheesy script and awful pacing. Those are its major problems.

Understand, I firmly believe that not all movies are created equal and films should be judged according to their category. It is not reasonable to judge, say, Beach Blanket Bingo against Gone With the Wind. I judge Bilitis against other movies in its weight class. Measured against movies like Emmanuelle or Secrets of a Chambermaid, it comes off very badly indeed. Even eye-candy has to be entertaining and Bilitis most definitely is not.


A Pentagon science team seem to have perfected a serum which causes invisibility but when the lead boffin tries it out on himself he can't reverse the process. Frustrated and drunk with power, he turns psychotic in the classic H.G. Wells tradition.

This is a gleefully horrible Invisible Man story, delivered with relish by the ever-tasteful Verhoeven and Bacon as the genius-turned-loonytoon-maniac. As with much of Verhoeven's work it has a terrific unrestrained sense of Boy's-Own comic-book adventure (the secret underground lab where the scientists work is just wonderful) combined with the most horrific and depraved visuals (women in their underwear being groped and attacked by an invisible fiend, animals beaten to death, literally gallons of blood and wholesale slaughter in the last two reels). Whilst the story doesn't ring any new twists on an old idea, the CG special effects by Scott E. Anderson are eye-poppingly brilliant as we see veins and arteries, cardiovascular systems, muscles, tissue, bones and flesh all literally appear out of nowhere. In particular, a sequence where the team bring a gorilla back from the invisible state and the scene where Bacon drowns Devane in a swimming pool, are absolutely breathtaking in the detail and artistic invention of the effects. The film also has a great soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith and classic horror-movie photography by Jost Vacano. The young cast are pretty much overshadowed by the movie's technical pedigree, but both Shue and Dickens are impressively out of their depth. This is a great fun nasty movie.


If I compare two films with Sacha Cohen, Borat and Ali G then Ali G is immeasurably better. I'ts no master piece, but it's a film at least. Borat is complete garbage and I do not understand how it rated better then Ali G.

I cannot put my finger on it, there something wrong with the Ali G script: half of the jokes are as if written by a 15 years old, not by an adult scriptwriter. And a number of jokes including Mr Cohen's lower body are quite tasteless.

But the film actually comes together as a comedy and there are some valid jokes too that are funny: such as how Ali G becomes a member of government for doing something scandalous and stupid in the public (sadly true in today's western society: people get careers for doing stupid things in public), also Ali's advice about immigrant policy and some others.

Ali G overall remains a sympathetic character, even though a kind of mentally underdeveloped for his age. But it's OK to watch,it's quite funny.

But never ever watch Borat, it's awful and makes every intelligent movielover sick.


A made for television version of the Heart of Darkness seemed like a good way to add more insight to the book, well, that was the wrong assumption. The movie made it even worse. I was highly disappointed about almost everything in the movie. I hoped that the movie would possibly help put the pieces of the book together that I didn't comprehend, but it did no such thing. It still left me confused and hanging. It is one of those movies that makes one feel like it would be more fun to watch the grass grow instead of watching the movie. Not exactly anyone's cup of tea. It was an overall dreadful, boring, and slow movie.

To begin with, Nicolas Roeg must have been pretty desperate when he decided that he wanted to undertake the task of making the already boring book into a movie. It's a guaranteed loss. It's like going into a knife fight, but forgetting the knife on the kitchen counter. The knifeless person is going to lose; and in the case, the knifeless person was Roeg. All I've heard about the movie are bad things, and the movie deserves those bad things to be said about it. From watching the movie, I got the impression that the people who made the movie, just skimmed over the book to get the key points.

Furthermore, although the movie did follow the main story line of the book, it left out quite a few details, and it also changed the ending. I am not a fan of that. Roeg left out when Marlow and his crew came across the Russian sailor's camp, and at that camp they found the book. Also it didn't show when at the camp they came across the sign that says, 'Wood for you. Hurry up. Approach cautiously' (Conrad 110). Also, at the end of the book Kurtz dies on the boat, not at the inner station.

On the contrary, Nicolas Roeg did one good thing while he was making his movie; he managed to hire some pretty decent actors to play in the movie. For instance, he acquired Tim Roth and John Malkovich, both of whom would later go on to have successful careers. In doing so, he added a little something to the horrible movie. Also, though I am ripping his book to shreds, I do have some respect for him, because it takes a lot of courage to try to take on The Heart of Darkness. It isn't exactly the easiest novel to portray into a film. Twus a valiant effort, though! In conclusion, if for whatever reason someone actually wants to watch this movie, I suggest the reading of Heart of Darkness first. This way, you'll get all of the scenes that were left out of the movie and you won't be completely lost when you watch it. But I really suggest you don't read the book and that you really don't watch the movie; both will be a complete waste of your time. Trust me. I was forced to do both by my English teacher, and now I wish that the book and the movie didn't exist. If either the book or the movie are pursued, good luck!


Paul Mazursky's Tempest - Interesting,odd and strange movie about a mid-life crisis.Set in NYC and a remote Greek Island with John Cassavettes as world renowned architect who decides to drop out.He is accompanied by his daughter(Molly Ringwald) and a lounge singer(Susan Sarandon).A beautiful transfer of this 25 year old movie on the DVD- but without any extras-not even the theatrical trailer.Tons of great scenery and razor-sharp dialogue make this 2 and a half hour movie an interesting trip.Raul Julia and Gena Rowlands round out a strong cast.A good drama mixed with comedy and tension and near insanity.This recent DVD release is worth renting. B+


From the beginning of the movie I had a feeling like its a movie about another Jason's from Friday the 13th. And It is... Dispute that the movie starts interesting. But as the times goes by its just a pointless movie about muted, supernatural, silent serial killer. I mean he goes under the guy's bed without making any sound, not seen by anyone. He was supposed to be blind after failed execution but he walks and kills people like he used to. I'm tired of it. For me it's all over the same thing.

In another words - unreal. Too many mistakes and confusing information.

Well scene with tide up woman looked impressive but just at first time :} For that and for intriguing intro 2 stars.


As long as you can get past your puritanical instincts and realize that pornographers are people too, you'll realize the depth p.t. anderson gives to his characters. Also, an incredible soundtrack. The songs are so tightly tied to their scenes, you won't be able to hear them without thinking about the movie again.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is worth the price of admission alone.


Where do you begin with a movie as bad as this?

Do you mention the cast of unlikeable heroes? The over-the-top acting? The dreadful script?

No. You just say that anyone who pays money to see a film as poor as this needs their head looking at. I know I do. I respect those poor guys who saw it with little or no advance word from mags like Empire (usually a bad sign if a preview copy isn't available to the quality movie mags). However, cinemas really should start thinking about giving out refunds if the customer isn't happy with the finished product.

I went three days after it opened with two other mates. The only other person in the cinema was one bloke on his own.

And that was on cheap night.

Either the ad campaign had failed dismally or word had spread through most of the country of just what a stinker this is.

Not since the days of The Avengers (1998) have I felt so short changed since watching a movie. If a mate comes round with this on video in a few months make sure he pays your electricity bill while watching it.

Tara Fitzgerald deserves an award for not cracking up - or walking off the set; Keith Allen retains some dignity amid the cinematic carnage; Barry Foster should have been arrested on the set for his performance, Rhys Ifans does his career no favours after the success of Notting Hill and only Dani Behr is halfway likeable as a busty secretary.

Mind you, considering she used to be in The Word, any viewers' expectations of her acting ability had to be pretty low to begin with.

The production values aren't bad considering the obviously limited budget but that script is atrocious. If you want to hear a bunch of unlikeable characters say 'Fak!' for a couple of hours then this should be right up your street.

Otherwise, bargepoles required.


In 1984, The Karate Kid had some charm to it, even if it was little more than a poor man's Rocky. Alas, producer Jerry Weintraub failed to realize it was best to leave the story at the point where it had ended, and convinced Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita to make an extra effort to turn the film into a trilogy. Part III was the definitive low in the franchise, yet someone must have thought the series still had some potential. What other explanation could there possibly be for the existence of The Next Karate Kid?

Wait a minute. Next? Yep, Macchio's gone (at least he was smart enough to stop eventually), and his replacement is Hilary Swank (!), playing a troubled teenager (what else?) named Julie Pierce. Now, the girl has family issues. She also gets in trouble at school. Said school has a sadistic gym teacher (Michael Ironside). As it turns out, though, one of his students is actually a nice guy, and Julie falls for him. This gets her in bigger trouble than before, of course. Lucky for her, she is currently living with Mr. Miyagi (Morita), an old friend of her grandfather who happens to know how to get back at the bad guys.

All those factors ad up to seven clichés, and that's just a generic plot summary - imagine what the detailed scenes must be like! From beginning to end, The Next Karate Kid is a tired, flat and dull marathon of idiotic lines and set-ups. Swank does, thankfully, have the likes of Boys Don't Cry and Million Dollar Baby to redeem this disaster, but why did Morita accept to come back? He may have received an Oscar nomination for the first movie, and was quite enjoyable in the sequels, but has nothing to speak for him here - even the revival of the 'wax on, wax off' gag is stillborn. As for Ironside, he is slightly better than Martin Kove and Thomas Ian Griffith in Part III, but that's hardly a stretch.

So, is this picture really that awful? Not exactly. There is one sequence that manages to achieve a weird beauty, but when the best bit in the whole film involves a group of Asian monks dancing as they hear pop music for the first time in their lives, it doesn't qualify as a recommendation to see the rest.


Just bought the VHS on this film for two bucks, Did I waste my money! Hey, I dig Adam 'Batman' West and Tina 'Giligan's Island' Louise, but hello! This third rate production is a rehash of a dozen other biker films; crazed bunch of bikers psychos ride into a hick town, beat up everybody and everything, and then are defeated in the man by a dashing hero. Adam West looks the part as a hero, but he's missing cape, and his Batman uniform. Sorry, just isn't the same. Tina L. looks really nervous and frightened the whole show, but at least we know what happened to 'Ginger' once she was rescued from the island...LOL! The bikers are a motley group, and known of them ever acted again or at least shouldn't have. Hell Riders is Hell to Watch!


'Murder by Numbers' stars Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt as two rebellious high schoolers who are content on the perfect murder for the sake of overcoming their shattered self-esteem. Sandra Bullock plays the heroic thorn in the way of their plans as Det. Cassie Mayweather. This is nowhere near the traditional finger-pointing murder mystery as the film graciously reveals the killers to us (Gosling and Pitt). What the film does instead is concentrate on the purposes of their killings and if they have what it takes to commit the perfect murder.

The title itself is a rightfully chosen one for various reasons mainly being that the 'Numbers' in the title is the most vocal. The angle focusing on the reasons behind the heinous killings, although will haunt you with its chilling dialogue (especially from the callous boys), it doesn't fully live up exploring the origins of what lead them to their killing frenzy. The characters are riveting you have the good-looking rich kid Richard (Ryan Gosling) and the intelligent but socially awkward Justin (Michael Pitt). In school, they pretend that they despise one another, and even share a liking towards the a classmate name Lisa (Agnes Bruckner), but off-school they are allies and collaborate in a ritual in which murder is an escape to free the mind.

Sure the story involving the boys seems exciting, but it's pushed in the background to a more mundane subplot involving Det. Mayweather (Bullock) who assumes their murders was because of discrimination (hence the arrogant looks of Gosling) and unexplained characteristics but manages to get it right. At first, the audience may despise Cassie's character due to the fact she's very headstrong and not very supportive. She displays dominance and control over her junior partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin). Even as he tries to reason with her, he knows it's a battle he surely won't likely win.

The reason behind her tyrant behavior stems back in which Cassie was the sad victim of a crime that has left a permanent mental scar on her. This side-story does not have much of a place in this movie partially because it doesn't offer anything riveting with the main plot (the boys' murder spree). It also offers some development to Bullock's character in the movie but it's only a half-assed job and not very fulfilling. I would've liked it if they the diabolical students had a side-story. The resources were right there in front of them for the perfect crime foil, the creative schemes for the boys to manipulate the cops with their phony evidence and lies just to get out of a potential life-sentence in jail.

Despite the lopsided sub-plots and the pointless 'real killer' ending, 'Murder By Numbers' sports a strong performance by a great cast. Sandra Bullock was convincing as the tough verbally remorseless cop who tries to shift her inner pain to a more positive light. Ben Chaplin shows his strength as the young detective who tries every way to understand his partner and is able to fend off her occasional tyrannical put-downs. But the scene stealer's are the devilish duo of Michael Pitt and Ryan Gosling as they keep you glued to their seat waiting for what they're going to do next. The chemistry of the boys is reminiscent to Matt Damon-Jude Law in 'The Talented Mr. Ripley'.


The information contained in this movie is somewhat familiar to many who have been paying attention to the news lately. The Walter Reed scandals show a small part of the fact that we are not doing a good job taking care of our injured heroes when they return.

What this movie further shows is a truth common to all wars. The psychological trauma that soldiers suffer while engaging in war and the difficulty they have when returning to civilian life. They are not just changed or affected, they are different people and most do not know how to deal with that as they do not know themselves.

Finally, this film shows what the military does to our young men in women in getting them ready for war and the policies and practices that they have to follow in prosecuting war that leads to all the psychological trauma.

We have over 3000 dead soldiers in the four years of this invasion; but we have many tens of thousands that will suffer lifelong physical and psychological trauma because of this war. It doesn't matter what side you are on, it behooves you to know the cost of war to decide if we should be in that business. This film illustrates the costs to the men and women perfectly.


You might be tempted to rent this film because Peter Sellers appears in it. That would be a mistake. This is one of the most pointless films ever made. I kept waiting for something funny to happen, but nothing funny appears in this movie. Even the film industry recognized this was a very weak film and didn't even try to promote it. Its a wonder that it was ever put on video.

I wonder what sort of contract caused Sellers to be in this film. I also wonder why the people responsible for this film were allowed to go on to make other bad films. Surely this film is a waste of the money used to create it, and a waste of anyone's time watching it. Surely there are high school students who would be able to write/produce a film which as a plot.


I have spent the last 5 years in the entertainment business and most recently find myself working for the company that made this movie, which is a REAL pity, because I like these folks, I just can't believe ANYONE could possibly make anything as bad as this?!!!! This was crap from every possible angle. From camera work to dialogue to acting to costumes and production design was one of the worst films I have ever seen! The actors in this film looked like they had been taken straight off of a porn that was being shot in the San Fernando Valley and put on a set with an even less talented crew.

I just can't get over the fact that I am sitting on some of the best material I have ever read and contacts within the industry that could help me make my dream a reality and have hit every roadblock possible? Yet the folks behind this spectacle of a film have no problems putting it together and in fact, sleep well after it is released.

Life, what a trip!


If you were ever sad for not being able to get a movie on DVD, it was probably 'Delirious' you were looking for. How often do you laugh when watching stand up comedy routines? I was too young to see Richard Pryor during his greatest time, and when I was old enough to see Eddie Murphy's 'Delirious' and 'Raw' (not as funny) I never knew where Eddie got a big part of his inspiration. Now that I'm older, and have seen both Pryor and many of the comedians after Murphy, I realize two things: Everybody STEALS from Eddie, while Eddie LOVINGLY BORROWED from Richard. That's the huge difference: Eddie was original, funny, provocative, thoughtful  and more. He was something never before seen. He was all we ever needed. These days Eddie Murphy is boring and old  but once upon a time he was The King, and 'Delirious' was the greatest castle ever built. Truly one of the funniest routines of all time.


It's a shame this movie didn't get more play in theatres. It's a rich, textured love story with believable, all-too-human characters, who are too busy gaming and protecting their hearts to recognize The Real Thing when they experience it. One of the most pleasurable aspects of this movie is its setting in Chicago, among hip, artistic, literate, middle-class African-Americans who discuss poetry, music and literature. Another is his Royal Fineness, Larenz Tate -- and if you are even half a fan of his, you NEED to see this film! His boyish cockiness and vulnerability are perfect for the role of Darius. Nia Long also shines as Nina, who longs to tell Darius she loves him but is afraid the break 'the Rules.' A great movie to watch curled up on the couch with your sweetie!


I watch bad movies.

This movie is not good enough to be a bad movie. Not an ounce of humor, not an ounce of talent throughout.

I am LAZY.

Usually, I see a bad movie and curse. This was so bad, I actually made a review to try and save others from the completely boring mess I fell victim to.

I am smashing my copy of this movie.

It's too lame even to use clear a room. So boring. Watch 'Bloodsucking Freaks' or 'Shock, shock, shock' for absolute crap that has some merit as entertainment. This sludge looks awful, is awful, and whoever made it should feel awful.


I have walked out of about 6 movies my entire life. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't know how I sat through an hour of it. I must have been in a coma that night. I saw it in the theatre when it came out 8 years ago. I couldn't even remember the name, but I knew that Penelope Ann Miller starred in it. It must have really affected me to be wasting my time commenting on it today. Yech! Vomit! Barf!


and it did. It is through my experience that when a horror film reaches 'franchise' status, and subsequent titles are released thereafter, they all, in turn, become stricken by one inevitable factor: irrelevance. Omen IV: The Awakening makes no exception to this rule, featuring another small child supposedly embracing their role as the Anti-Christ, foretold by a religious prophecy. Haven't we seen this before? Wasn't it enough that, over the span of three films prior to this release, we've experienced the rise and fall of Damien Thorn? If you're a horror enthusiast such as myself, you'll realize that it's common for a horror movie that has many sequels and prequels to its credit to fade away into redundancy - Children of the Corn, Hellraiser, Phantasm; the list goes on. At this point in the game, I'm sure you know what to expect when you're prepared to view the fourth title in a series. Regardless, there are times when you sit back and realize how shameless some filmmakers are. Omen IV: The Awakening is just that, too - a shameless money making exercise.

This film does not offer anything new or intriguing to the Omen lineup. As unique and genuine as Omen IV tries to be compared to its siblings, the similarities and plot devices are embarrassingly alike. Elements like the guardian dog, the involvement of a priest, the skepticism of the people involved, the decapitation death scene (clearly a homage to the original film when the journalist is beheaded by the sheet of glass)...even right down to the father's involvement in politics and prestige within the community make it too predictable.

Although it is common to star a B-Rated cast into a horror title this far into a series, the acting is off the charts, chock-full of ridiculousness and unintentional humor due to some of the poorly delivered lines throughout this film. The atmosphere has completely vanished in comparison to the first three titles. In addition, the epic score composed by Goldsmith in the previous movies has been replaced by an auditory debacle; an absolute joke, and made me wonder if it was actually intended to be used for this film or just pulled from a 'bank' of stock audio...which really says something, because rarely do I comment on the lousy misuse of a musical score - until now.

All in all, I'd call Omen IV: The Awakening a failure. In the world of horror movies that carry a long list of titles behind them, some manage to hit the mark and some don't. If you're interested in creating another notch on your weathered horror belt such as I am for completion purposes, perhaps you could carve this title into it as well - if not for entertainment value, then to appreciate when a film is executed properly, or poorly.


A big disappointment for what was touted as an incredible film. Incredibly bad. Very pretentious. It would be nice if just once someone would create a high profile role for a young woman that was not a prostitute.

We don't really learn anything about this character, except that he seems to be a hopeless alcoholic. We don't know why. Nicholas Cage turns in an excellent performance as usual, but I feel that this role and this script let him down. And how, after not being able to perform for the whole film, can he have an erection on his deathbed? Really terrible and I felt like I needed a bath.


...about this film was the title song. After 30 minutes, I discontinued watching because it was so lame. Bad story, bad actors, bad movie. If you want to watch a good movie, watch Pulp Fiction instead.


Love it, love it, love it! This is another absolutely superb performance from the Divine Miss M. From the beginning to the end, this is one big treat! Don't rent it- buy it now!


1 let's suspend belief for a moment and let's stop pretending we could, might or ought know 'how it is' or 'ought to be' there in space. Human knowledge in that area is probably primitive as say middle ages maps are compared to today's satellite maps, so we really have no clue. 2 considering this is 'just' a BBC TV docu-simulation, it gets much better than many big budget Hollywood blockbusters, and that is just incredible. 3 all in all, a show worth watching as it portrays the CGI enhanced and fictionalized account of what we know of the solar system this far. 4 probably fictionalizing and CGI-ing the whole thing is the only way to make it palatable to a large public. Ever watched clips from REAL space missions and REAL space probes? The quality is generally average to poor and the comparison would be between looking at a chest x-ray (and what it tells about the human body ) and compare it with a CGI-ed cyborg movie...which one would be most entertaining? Yet the chest x-ray is real, while the cyborg flick is just fictionalized SFX. 5 actors do a good job. None i'll tell my grandchildren about, but very fair for it being a BBC docu-simulation.


Nicole Finn (Madonna) is just being released from prison. Although she is ordered to go by bus to Philadelphia, she wants to stick around the place she was arrested. This is because she claims she has information that would clear her record. Louden (Griffin Dunne) is assigned to escort her to the bus by his future father in law. Louden will be driving around the city anyway (in his future mother in law's Rolls Royce), picking up the wedding ring and a rare big, big cat for an eccentric collector. Nicki, however, starts the ensuing mayhem as soon as she jumps in the Rolls to take over the driving. Between big cats, taxi drivers, hit men, bridesmaids, and a wedding cake with guns, lawyer Louden knows he's not in Kansas anymore. Is there a way out of the madness? This film is a wild trip down comedy avenue. Madonna and Dunneare perfect foils to each other, making their connection uproarious, as they play out their roles as an ex-con and an uptight, button-down lawyer, respectively. The script is laudable in it's ability to send the viewer into fits of hysteria as one implausible scene gives way to the next one, and the next. Everything secondary, from the supporting actors to the scenery to the costumes, are also quite nice. If you know someone who is in need of a jolt of joy, rent this movie for them. You will both be cheerio pronto.


You will be able to tell within the first 30 seconds of this film whether you want to finish watching it. The film opens with images of planes landing at an airport, one plane after another diving into a mirage-filled runway. You will be able to accurately guess that this movie is not about a 'story.' At first viewing, it's even easy to think the opening images are repetitive shots of the same plane. The initial drama is in the acuteness of your perception, which is built on your willingness to experience the film simply as a series of images. If after this opening, you want to see the movie, you will not be bored. You may even be mesmerized. The movie may be an emotional experience; it may be an intellectual experience; it may be both. Judging from the DVD commentary, which is essential, it was primarily an emotional experience for Herzog, and, at one point, he talks explicitly about how the film is a collaboration between filmmaker and viewer. There's plenty of room for the viewer to make of this film exactly what he or she wants to make of it. Take a gamble?


This movie was extremely poorly conceived from every angle except technological. I stood and watched everyone waddle out of the theater, their faces drained like their lives flashed before their eyes -- eyes wandering at their neighbor, wondering if it was just them. I mean, how could the movie really be bad. Nobody'll admit it, it's a classic case of The Emperor Wears No Clothes. 'Who am I to question a movie containing a guy who stops a jet liner?' But the fact remains, every member of the audience is thinking what I'm writing right now. I actually plagiarized their faces.

Obviously Lois is only aroused by power, she won't even have a cup of coffee with the Superman With Glasses who doesn't stop jet liners. It can't be the look in 'his' eyes to the depths of his soul or anything like that. In the old Supermans, she had some level of connection with him, he wasn't priority number 1, obviously, but it strengthened her character that she was 'torn'. I bet Henry Kissinger would have even won this Lois over before Clark Kent.

And now it's official, Kryptonite does to Superman what eating at McDonalds does to the avg. person.

SUPERMAN 'ONE' He loses his earth dad, then finds his real super dad, the story is captivating every step of the way. He's human, he relates to people and he feels love for people, he relates to highschool students, he relates to people who feel different. He relates. The Superman Returns superman seems to relate only to Superpeople and it seems he's just 'doing a job' when he's saving people.

There's something about Clark that Lois likes, she's really internally in love with him but can't admit it, and when he comes into the picture as Superman, it throws a kink in the on-the-rocks love. Without Superman, she would've fallen in love with Clark (at least that's what the movie points to, whether it was the intention or not). Superman Returns is a love story between a woman and SUPERMAN, Clark is like a pile of horse maneur to Lois. Literally.

SUPERMAN TWO I just watched it again. As a kid, I 'thought' I enjoyed the action, but now I know it was the STORY that held me then too, watching it over and over again. If I saw Superman Returns as a child, I would've hated it then too, I think.

There is so much heart and soul and superpower going around in this movie, it's sick. Superman gives up his powers for love as a world plot is going on and meanwhile, MEANWHILE, Lex Luther's got something fantastic up his sleeve.

SUPERMAN THREE Now there's a three-way love story between Superman and Lana and Clark, only humanity wins and Clark's inner nature beats Superman's power, because when his SUPERmoral nature is gone and he's SuperHUMAN (who does human things with his superpowers), she sees it's not the power of Superman that she's in love with, it's not SUPERpowerman, but SUPERMORTALman that she loves -- and who's really SUPER. And when she tells Clark she 'prefers' him to Superman, he is elated, he has made a human connection again. He wants to be accepted for who he is, not just for his ability to bend steel. THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT'S MISSING FROM SUPERMAN RETURNS.

Clark super-sneezes to help the kid get a strike - humanity again. Plus, it's an INERESTING use of superpowers. He's not just using straight brute strength.

He crushes the coal into a diamond for his woman because she had to sell hers, love is the only thing that drives him to use his powers other than for saving.

It seems there's nothing at stake in Superman Returns. Even in Superman Three, we see the damages caused by the nemesis' world domination plot.. we see suffering, we see how it effects Pryor and others and people in the middle of it.. there's no damage, esp. emotional from Lex's plot to sink the US. We see a glob of crystal thrown into space.. Superman had to get very creative in the first three Supermans in order to stop the plot against him, he couldn't just 'access' his superpowers. In the first one, he had to stop two missiles going in different directions and then break his universal mandate and erase history to save Lois' life... (this was THIRTY YEARS AGO!!') In the second one, he had to outsmart three guys that he was already more POWERFUL than, but combined with Lex's genius, and the villains' immoral tactics, Superman's overpowering wasn't enough, he had to work one against the other and outsmart them... In Superman III, again, his superpowers weren't enough to win.. He had to outsmart a computer that calculated everything it saw. He couldn't use straight aggression on the computer because it calculated it in advance, so he had to use a benign acid that would only become deadly to the computer after the computer responded to the aggression. And he found that acid earlier when he couldn't simply use his superpowers to BLOW out a fire because it was a chemical fire, so he had to use his superbrains -- he couldn't carry water, so he froze a lake and dropped it on the fire.. Now in Superman Returns, he simply lunges the island into outerspace, like a night temp for UPS. He doesn't need to figure anything out, he just uses his 'super strength'. And Lex Luther's brilliance was shown at the premeditation level of a junkie who just ran out of junk.

To say nothing of the fact that he threw that island into outerspace after getting stabbed with a KNIFE of kyrptonite right in the bloodstream AND the island itself was dripping kryptonite spores in his face, but he just averted his eyes and nose like it wasn't Grey Poupon he was looking at.


I first saw this film in 1980 and it touched a cord which reminded me of a more innocent time. The opening narrative, music and paintings by Norman Rockwell set the tone for me. You either love the movie or hate it. Jan Michael Vincent was at his all time best and portrayed Cpl Marion Hedgepeth in a most innocent and touching way. This movie is at the top of my all time favorites, a shame it isn't available on DVD or VHS anymore. The ending was also wonderful. John Hancock did a marvelous job of capturing the essence of the time.


This show is pathetic. I can't even begin to imagine how anyone with an IQ greater than that of a can of split pea soup that's past its expiration date can willingly sit through this garbage for an entire half hour. It is one of those rare shows that is so mind-numbingly awful in every respect you can honestly say you are less intelligent simply from watching it. I conducted a study and found that the average person loses 10 IQ points for every fifteen seconds they watch this show. That is second only to another Comedy Network abortion, Popcultured (19,863,221 IQ points per second lost) and pretty much a tie with Girls Will Be Girls. Keys to the VIP owes each and every one of us an apology. Whenever I watch this travesty of a show, I feel sad for society. How is it allowed to continue?


They probably should have called this movie The Map because the majority of the whole stupid film is revolved around a map of a cemetery. Not to mention how many of the same boring shots of the map there are. The only thing they show more than the map itself is the little beads of sweat that is constantly building up on the forehead of our main character. This of course was the film makers way of showing us how incredibly tense things are getting up on the Immortal Hills Cemetery. Come on now , couldn't they have shown us just one of the death scenes? We hear a whole lot about how everyone who is listed on the map is dropping like flies but we don't get to see anything. Some how I Bury The Living manged to keep my attention so i was fairly generous with the rating i gave it but i will not recommend this movie to anyone. Unless you have a deep fascination with maps or sweat i recommend renting a better I movie , such as I Spit On Your Grave or I Drink Your Blood.


Awww, I love this! The Tale of the Cat and the Moon doesn't really need an synopsis, as that's what it is... the cat chasing the moon, to a Spanish poem. It's the artistry that's interesting. In fact, there was this animated short called the Fan and the Flower that was an Academy Award winner last year (2005)... yeah, almost same thing, which leads me to believe it might just be a rip off.

But this is a really good short, with stark black & white shapes shifting and transitioning into beautiful motion and poetic seduction... If you believe cats are poetry in motion, see this and you'll believe it more.

Also, it has such a touching end.

--PolarisDiB


Wicked Little Things (known in Australia as 'Zombies') is a rare find  a film that promises one thing but delivers another. It is one of the few genre films to be made by Millennium Pictures, a European film studio known for making various B-grade action films & thrillers, some featuring action star Jean-Claude Van Damme.

Karen Tunny & her two daughters Sarah & Emma arrive in the Pennsylvanian town of Addytown in order to move into a large house that Karen's late husband owned after finding a miner's deed in his effects. Once arriving, they find that the house is very old & in need of repair. But the house's condition is the least of their problems, as they discover that the area is prone to disappearances & Karen is confronted by the area's owner & ordered to move out. Once night falls, the Tunnys find out the reason behind the vanishings: a group of zombie children, killed in a mine collapse in the area more than 85 years ago, come out to kill anything that goes in the woods. With the help of a grizzled neighbour, Karen attempts to end the curse before her & her children become the next victims.

I bought the DVD expecting a film with flesh-eating zombies, but was let down by one thing: the film is more akin to a ghost story than your usual zombie flick, with the dead children being the embodiment of a curse that haunts the woods, taking their revenge on anything that moves around at night (although the internal logic is somewhat flawed  the children can only be appeased by the sacrifice of animals & are repelled by blood wards on doors in the same manner that vampires are repelled by garlic & mirrors  aren't these kids supposed to be zombies?). The plot as such would not be a problem & would actually be entertaining, but the main problem is that the producers adapted a script with the intention of making a zombie film, only to fall flat on their faces with this effort.

As such, a film like this would be okay as a ghost story but, due to a poor script, becomes nothing more than an entirely routine effort. The film's greatest strength is the acting, with the cast giving better performances than the film deserves. Of particular note is Scout Taylor-Compton, who does her role quite well  it's a shame she ruins her genre cred with a very poor performance in the HALLOWEEN remake (or maybe it's just Rob Zombie's script).


The Grudge 2...Let's see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Japanese Horror Film or Horror or Grudge basher. I loved the first one and the Original Ju-On. I feel that much more justice could have been done for this one. Aubrey only existed to fill in what needed to be 'discovered' in the ending, (which if you've already seen Ju-On before this, you already know the whole movie) all it was really was a complete remake of Ju-On, just more closely followed than The Grudge. Though everyone may have thought that it's coming to America was a bit interesting, it was expected as the house burning in the end of The Grudge left the 2nd hungering for a new plot.

Save your $6.50 and wait for this to come out on DVD, rent it, watch it, then decide if you want to buy it. This movie is good for a fall asleep at 2 in the morning film. But overall, I'd say a 4 out of 10. Sorry Grudge fans, it's just...They just failed at this one.


I haven't seen this movie in years, the last time i did i was really drunk after 5 pints of tenant's at my local Witherspoon's but even then i though it was quite awful. this movie is pretty terrible compared to the other critters movies, the first two were quite good, 3 was quite crap but miles better than this. The story takes place 53 years after critter's 3, were Charlie the bounty hunter from the previous movies is found floating in a pod in outer space by a crew of some kind of space miner,em,people and taken on board. Once on board the last critter eggs left in the galaxy which Charlie has brought with him from Earth crack open and we then have critters on board the space ship, cue an obvious 'Alien' rip off and a lot of terrible FX and you pretty much have this movie in a nutshell. only good thing is when we are re-introduced to UG(or so we are lead to believe) who is now a villain and wants to preserve the critters instead of destroying them


this movie has a great chase scene, if you listen to the soundtrack when the cars are chasing each other , it sounds very much like the soundtrack from the movie bullet, you'll hear the shifting of a 4 speed and they'll show the brake pedal in Roy Schneider's car, it's an automatic brake pedal!, i think one of the funniest moments in the movie is when the bad guy Richard lynch is looking at the driver of the car they are in, like the guy is nuts!.........the crook who runs the garage is also the guy who in the the first rocky movie, rocky's boss. good movie! also when the door gets ripped off you can see the guy sitting in the car just flinging the door open, the guy who helps him out of the car kind of looks like Mr Brady from the Brady bunch doesn't he?