The back of the DVD for this movie raves, 'Chey is the Quentin Tarantino of Christian Films.' This isn't so much an insult to Quentin as it is to Christian films. This film is poorly written, stiffly acted and edited with a purposeless intensity. The scenes play out in a confusing and unrealistic way and are interspersed with some nice time-lapse photography. Flashbacks, fades to grey, freeze frames to tell the time (unimportant in the story) are all done with out any apparent reason other than to give the movie more cinematic credibility. The camera is haphazard, some nice crane shots are cut with ridiculous montages that have no significance. Poor blocking and lighting leave the viewer wondering who is talking to who in many scenes. Oh and the audio is terrible. The special effects were decent and thankfully limited. But this is all just technical. The movie fails to engage on an emotional level. The dialogue is so fake sounding and the actors seem to have only read it a moment before the camera was rolling. The story... the things that happen in sequence have no motivation behind them. The characters are struggling to take hold of one dimensionality. And the characters have to make a stance on Christianity and faith in every single scene. Take a queue from M. Night, engaging Christian films don't have to have the characters saying the name of Jesus Christ in every scene for the movie to be Christian. Goodness! Please don't try to show this to your unsaved friends with any expectations other than laughter.


The material is poor....the script's dreadful....the acting mediocre at best and the music telegraphs what the scene is supposed to be communicating like a kick in the head.

Give this one a miss....even Yancy Butlers not hot enough even in the semi nude scenes to save this tripe.

I'm amazed people rave about Yancy Butler.....given what I've seen here and in the couple of other things I've seen her in she hasn't got the depth or presence to be a star...and her off screen behaviour would tend to indicate she knows that as well.

Last thing is where was this shot? I don't recognise the externals.


Geoffrey Wright, the director of 'Romper Stomper', transplants Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' in the contemporary, criminal underworld of Melbourne, Australia. The result is a semi-awful piece of cinema. Sam Worthington is Macbeth, and walks around looking very self-conscious and bored. Victoria Hill, who wrote the script with Wright, is Lady Macbeth, and she's neither awful nor good. Lachy Hulme, who plays McDuff, is the only actor in the cast who exudes any kind of authority. The rest, including Gary Sweet, are wasted and misdirected. Shot on HD by the late Will Gibson, the movie's visuals lack character. Everything is too clean and too deliberately lit. Wright's direction is uninspired in the extreme and the action sequences are confusing and inept. Marketed erroneously as 'the most violent Australia movie ever', the film is violent at times and reasonably bloody, but it fails to deliver a single impactful moment. Slow moving and terribly pretentious, this umpteenth silver screen version of the classic play is the personification of wrong-headed.


Must confess to having seen a few howlers in my time, but this one is up there with the worst of them. Plot troubling to follow. Sex and violence thrown in to disorient and distract from the really poorly put together film.

I can only imagine that the cast will look back on the end product and wish it to gather dust on a shelf not to be disturbed for a generation or two. Sadly, in my case, I have the DVD. It will sit on the shelf and look at me from time to time.


This film, was one of my childhood favorites and I must say that, unlike some other films I liked in that period The Thief of Bagdad has held on to it's quality while I grew up. This is not merely a film to be enjoyed by children, it can be watched and enjoyed by adults as well. The only drawback there is, is that one can not see past the bad' effects (compared to the effects nowadays) like one could when one was a child. I remembered nothing of those effects, of course it had been about ten years since I'd seen this film, when I was about eleven years old. Who then watches effects? One only seeks good stories and entertainment and this is exactly what this film provides. In my mind this film is one of the first great adventure films of the 20th century. Coming to think of it I feel like the Indiana Jones films are quite a like this film. There is comedy, romance and adventure all in one, which creates a wonderful mixture that will capture you from the beginning until the end and although the film is old and the music and style of the films is clearly not modern, it succeeds in not being dusty and old. All of that is mainly due to the great story, the good directing and the good acting performances of the actors. In that department Sabu (as Abu) and Conrad Veidt (as Jaffar) stand out, providing the comedic and the chilling elements of the film for the most part. Great film and although an 'oldie', definitely a goldie'. I hope someone has the brain and guts to release this one on DVD someday.

8 out of 10


Weak plot, predictable violence, only semi interesting characters. Like the writer (also one of the stars?) was fictionalizing his own screw ups and added an incredulous fantasies of drugs and murder to make it 'hot'. From the predictable rap and house soundtrack, to the family conflicts, it's poorly acted, stereotypical, and ultimately terribly boring. Even the title has been done before - IMDb lists FIVE movies with the same name released in 2007-2008!!

Note: Saw it on Showtime, which listed the synopsis for one of the other movies. Was halfway thru before I realized no one was an undercover cop. Even tho another stereotype, would have made it interesting if it happened.


As the summary says you just made the most ignorant comment i have ever heard on an RPG. You seriously thought they were gay? Are you retarded? If you went to go save your best friend and someone decides out of the goodness of his heart to help you then you are in a serious debt to that man. Lavitz was a good person and each time they helped each other it made them closer as friends. They weren't gay lovers like your bitching about. And to let you know the game is set in a medieval time period. Back then, women did just prepare meals while the men fought. Do you even know your history? Do you know how long it took for women to be accepted in the army in present day? This game contains a lot of realism even though your too damn slow obviously to catch it, and you really need to spit out some solid proof instead of ignorant assumptions based off your misguided act to interpret the story.


Lt. Claude (Claudio Cassinelli) and several prisoners from his sunken ship wash ashore on an island owned by Edmond Rackham (Richard Johnson). Following a few random prisoner deaths, Rackham takes in Claude and his two remaining prisoners. Luckily for everyone, Barbara Bach just happens to be on the island too! Unluckily, there are some crazy fishmen who like to kill people.

This Italian produced exploiter seems to have it all - a touch of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON mixed with DR. MOREAU with a dash of WHITE ZOMBIE voodoo and Atlantis stuff. Despite some wonky looking fishmen costumes, the film does benefit from some beautiful location photography and a nice twist about halfway through. All of the actors are good and Joseph Cotton even pops up as a old biologist. Director Sergio Martino handles himself well enough as there is action ever 10 minutes or so. That can't be said for his belated follow-up THE FISHMEN AND THEIR QUEEN (1995), easily one of the wackiest and most off-base sequels since HIGHLANDER II.


Remade today, this film would be a very creepy, very disturbing dark comedy. Stalking, obsession, and a web of lies and manipulations are given a 1948 gloss of aren't-they-cute harmlessness. Drake plays the stalker, an unabashed user of people, alternately pathetic and manipulative, Grant plays the stalking victim, alternately angry and oblivious.

Vastly disturbing; I haven't been able to look at classic romances with the same suspension of disbelief since.


While Fred Schepisi's 'I.Q.' doesn't really have any important qualities, it's still worth seeing. Walter Matthau plays Albert Einstein, trying to help mechanic Ed Walters (Tim Robbins) fall in love with Princeton mathematics doctoral candidate Catherine Boyd (Meg Ryan). Probably the funniest scene is when Dr. Frizzyhead and friends (Lou Jacobi, Gene Saks and Joseph Maher) try to make Ed look like a scientist: he ends up looking like a French impressionist.

Obviously little of the movie is historically accurate, but that's not the point. It's not intended as anything except a light comedy, quite the opposite of Robbins's most famous movie from 1994 (The Shawshank Redemption). A movie about Einstein's whole life would have to focus not only on his scientific achievements, but also his political activism, namely how he wrote a letter on behalf of the Scottsboro Nine and came out against nuclear weapons (it got to the point where the FBI kept a file on him).

So anyway, this one is acceptable. Also starring Stephen Fry, Tony Shalhoub, Frank Whaley, Charles Durning and Keene Curtis.


I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker!


I would reccomend this film to everyone. Not only to the fans of the rocker Luciano Ligabue, but to all film-buffs. Because it's sincere, moving, funny and true. Because Ligabue is a born storyteller and a film lover, and every frame of his film is made with love and care. Because his characters are loved and ask to be loved. Because most of the Italian debut films are lousy and this one, done by an outsider, is a real joy to watch and to listen at. Because Stefano Accorsi is gorgeous and reminds me of Andrea Pazienza, who was, like Freccia, beautiful and talented and good and lost his life because of the heroin, that Ligabue shows as it is, unglamorous and ugly, without indulging in easy moralisms. Because it's a film that speaks to our heart, our ears, our souls. And because I lived the experience of the FM radios and it was exactly like that. Thanks, Luciano!


This was made in 2004 for gods sake, what happened to our state of the art special effects? What happened to our rough around the edges but still good actors? The actors in this movie were unbelievably horrible, there was one or two that weren't bad, but the rest, biggg thumbs down. Couldn't stand listening to the badly written dialogue, I mean, who the heck wrote that script? Please don't ever write again! Special effects? Don't even get me started on the special effects. SURELY they could have come up with better then fully fake looking green balls of light in the eye sockets. It looks so old and..lame frankly.! Even the easiest thing to make look real..the teeth, THEY looked so fake and stupid I would almost wipe a tear from my eye in annoyance. Come onnnn I cant believe this was even shown to the public.!


This movie was a poor movie. The plot was poor and the comedy they 'tried' to deliver came out poorly. The accidents seem contrived and predictable. I thought the actors tried to some extent but with this movie, it was so lame it can only go so far.One of the worst films I have seen and don't recommend it to anyone. The only accident to Mr. Accident was it's release.


Mario Van Peebles pops up for less than a five second cameo. Glenn Plummer shows up a little longer but its a ladies show all the way. Stacey Dash and Lisa Raye have been in better projects. Bobby Brown leers and mugs through his little time on screen. This is how it was pitched...Five tough women shootin' and lovin' in the Wild Wild West. Four black and one Asian. Oh and Lil' Kim is a tough talking' heartbreaker and Marie Matiko can bring in the pacific rim market. We can shoot it for less than 15 million. Straight to video and we'll double but more likely triple our dollars.

Greenlight that puppy.

You got it boss.


Of all the E.R.Burroughs screen adaptations that Doug McClure starred in the 70s, this is the stagiest of all. It's so stagy, you can taste the dust of the sets and feel the heath of the lamps above. The thing looks like a very, very big budget school play, or indeed, a very very low budget action movie, which it actually is. It's been said on many occasions that this was the last of the genre entries, and I do hope it was. The genre didn't die peacefully, but in horrible agony, amidst a lot of smoke, fake blood and lousy sound effects. Peter Cushing must have felt a boy again, as a nutty professor whose shirt stays white as snow after the gentlemen has dragged himself through the slimy crap-holes of the Underworld. What a sport he was, to accept a part in this mishmash and carry it so bravely.

Shot entirely on a sound stage and accompanied by then trendy, now unbearable synthesizer soundtrack, the main anti-attraction of this film are the cardboard monsters. Yes, there are always monsters like that in a Burroughs adaptation, but they rarely manage to be so completely ridiculous, helpless or void of any credibility. On a few occasions, during the elevated action-combat scenes where Mr McClure heroically attacks the creatures, you can almost hear the empty, hollow sound as his head bangs against the side of a triplodactocryptosaurus. Fortunately, the animals explode and go up in flames the minute they trip and fell over. Indeed, there is a great deal of unmotivated exploding as the film (and the genre) draws towards the finale. And lovely Miss Munroe loses her underworldly accent.

The triple bill, currently on the market, features this film plus two others - The Land That Time Forgot and The War Lords Of Atlantis. The first two are quite strong entries, especially the first one, with a lot of money invested and occasionally even fascinating script turns. Don't expect any of these qualities from this film. Get drunk with pals and laugh shamelessly at what you see. After all, the makers didn't have any shame either.


Nothing is fantastic! Simple as that! It's a film that shouldn't work, yet does. Natali stays in the realm of Sci-Fi, however this film is also a comedy. Cypher it seemed was a big budget draining affair for Natali (at $7.5million! Woo-hoo Pa!) so with Nothing he scales down again. This is low budget, independent film-making at it's best. Simple, good old fashioned storytelling and an attempt at making a film for artistic merit as apposed to Hollywood's usual reasons for mostly financial gain. Nothing is a film about Nothing and before you ask, no it is not anything like Seinfeld! Basically Andrew and Dave are a couple of losers. They live in a strange looking house beneath two freeways. Andrew is a telesales travel agent who is agoraphobic while Dave is Andrews best mate who stays with him rent free to help him out. Dave is tired of it however and has a gorgeous girlfriend who he wants to move in with. By bizarre mis-fortunes however, Dave finds out his girlfriend embezzled a huge amount of money from Daves work-place incriminating Dave, and Andrew is wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a girl scout (Canadian humour people!). As it turns out Andrew's house is to be demolished as well and he can't stop it happening as the house was built on land it should not have been built on. Both Andrew and Dave are inside the house when the police and the demolition team come calling. They are desperate and can't escape, and in the panic and confusion just as the police burst in everything fades to white. What has happened? Have Dave and Andrew died? They wake to find themselves still in the house only it is quiet. No police, no demolition team, no angry girl scout mother! What happens is Dave and Andy discover they have the ability to 'wish or hate away.' As it turns out they have hated away the entire outside world. They are left alone. The house is surrounded by nothing, which is portrayed as pure white. So what this means is that the films setting is a house set and then just white. The film is an interesting view on human isolation and the psyche and of course as they spend more time alone together with no food and no water, they begin to tire of each other. They discover they can hate away hunger, which is useful but obviously things get out of hand shall we say. I can't reveal much but I must say bouncing heads are quite a sight to behold.

This film is quirky, funny, interesting. The effects are simple yet effective and Natali brings together two buddies from Cube, David Hewlett, and Andrew Millar to lead the film. They have chemistry and also work very well. They have to hold 90% of the movie by themselves and much of it in a pure white background, yet it works. Certainly I expect this to get the same diabolical treatment as Cypher did and it should appear on DVD in a year or two in the states. Nothing is a top quality and unique film and although not as good as Cube or Cypher it once again proves Natali as one of the best up and comers.

Natali is someone who has really interested me in his three features so far and I cannot wait for his next feature. I prey to god he doesn't do the proposed Necropolis, written and directed by ADD sufferer, the ever crap Paul Anderson. Vincenzo old buddy if Paul comes round to your pad, RUN!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND!! I hope and prey this guy doesn't take to Hollywood like Alex Proyas did (with the enjoyable yet pussy-footed, sugar coated, helium light: I Robot!). Keep your eyes peeled for this guy. ****


Yes it is your typical direct to video action flick. And of course they do their best to change it up a little bit but fail miraculously. Snipes delivers his perfectly bland performance that he always does. Colloca proves that you don't need any talent to star in a film but just sex appeal. The worst part is that it didn't cover my bad movie basics which are: 1  Cheap looking villains. 2  Perfectly timed one-liners. 3  Intense car chases with massive explosions. 4  The hero hooking up with the hot chick. 5  Multitudes of nude or scantily clad women for no reason. OK so I lied, it covers those but does so horribly.


'on our own' is a touching story of four kids who run away from foster home after their mother dies, with only one suitcase, their dog Ralph and $9 they set off in their mums old car in search of their uncle Jack. On the way their car breaks down and they meet Peggy Williams, a schoolteacher on holidays and she offers to help them out. Together she and the children search for uncle Jack but are forced to hide from the authorities that plan to take them back into foster care as they do so. This film tells a story of love, friendship and how important it is to stick with your family as the children venture out on their amazing journey.


I was very unimpressed with Cinderella 2 and Jungle Book 2, but this is possibly worse than both titles. First of all, I didn't like the animation, very Saturday-morning-cartoon, only worse in some scenes. I liked some of the characters, namely Thunderbolt and Patch, but the other characters, like Cruella were mediocre. Cruella was truly villainous in the original, but she lost her quality in the sequel. What she said was nothing at all to write home about and her animation was kind of ugly. Also her artist companion Lars was a joke to be honest with you, and Roger seemed to have quit smoking overnight. The voice talents were very good though especially Barry Bostwick as Thunderbolt, with the exception of Jodi Benson, the accent ruined it for me. There were some good moments, but the whole plot seemed bloated for me, and highly suggestive of an extended TV episode. All in all, a hugely disappointing sequel to the most memorable of the 60s Disney movies along with Jungle Book. Sorry, I can only give this a 3/10, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Bethany Cox


This outstanding film has about the best acting that you'll ever see, and that alone makes this a must-see. The entire cast is excellent, but then again, it had to be in order to keep up with Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. It didn't take me long to get hooked on this film, and aside from a courtroom scene that is merely good, this is top-notch entertainment. This is a rare film that actually deserved all the Oscar recognition that it received. See it for yourself and you will definitely not be disappointed.


This is a low budget stop motion monster movie from Brett (A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell) Piper... and it delivers just what I'd expect from such a production: light-hearted (though cheesy) dialogue, some cute actresses and lots of stop motion critters. That's why I've given the film 10 out of 10 - because it delivers what I expected it to deliver... and a bit more: Brett doesn't penny-pinch when it comes to putting his critters on screen. He hurls lots of bugs at his cast for the finale. And, anyway, I LOVE stop motion monsters which, compared to CGI critters in bigger budgeted movies, just seem to be that much fun to watch.


One of the biggest French success of the year 2002, 'l'auberge espagnole' was also very well greeted abroad which is quite extraordinary for a French film. It is not difficult to define the reasons of this success. This movie made by one of the most interesting French film-makers of these last years, Cédric Klapisch, presents students coming from all over Europe and gathered all together under the same roof in Barcelona. These students are described like the ones you imagine or you see in everyday life: either untidy, either serious or with a sense of humor. I guess that if the movie worked so well, it is because a lot of students must have recognized themselves in the main characters' portraits and especially Xavier's.

We follow the movie and so his experience abroad as an Erasmus student through his eyes. Xavier is really an ordinary student with his qualities, his faults. An intelligent making with quite a lot of ingenious ideas perfectly expresses his lost mind and his anxiety about the world and being an Erasmus student. On that subject, the best examples can be found in two sequences. The first one is when Xavier asks a woman at university for the papers he has to send to prepare his DEA. When the same woman informs him about the different necessary procedures, all the papers appear on the screen when she is naming them! In the next sequence, Xavier's voice-over confides to the spectator his vision of the modern world. Now, where to find the second example? Well, the scene where Xavier has a thorough medical examination during which Klapisch films his visions is widely sufficient to speak of itself.

Moreover, the director wasn't really interested by his main character's studies. He left this point low-key. He rather put a lot of effort into Xavier's private life, of course, in his love affair with Anne Sophie but also and especially in his relations with his fellow tenants. It is a real friendship story that Klapisch shows us with its moments of happiness but also its arguments and its tensions. Through Xavier's adventure and at the end of his stay, he will have been initiated into life which will make him more mature. The message that the author wanted to transmit isn't difficult to guess. You naively believe that you live in an untidy and complicated world. You mustn't give up but intensively search to get what you want even if it is difficult.

Apart from this, we could also fear that with the topic, Cédric Klapisch wouldn't avoid a trap: the clichés. Let's be frank about it: they are included in the screenplay but the director does his best not to spread them too much in his movie. Then, the screenplay contains convenient and predictable moments: at the airport and before boarding we see Xavier shedding a tear after he left his family. But fortunately the shortcomings of the script stop here. Quite funny dialogs and cool young actors perfectly at ease in their roles make up the whole.

In spite of its weaknesses, 'l'auberge espagnole' is to be taken for a success in the movie of young people. Besides, the whole atmosphere it brings out lets us think that this movie is directed primarily to a young audience. Ultimately, the end of the movie and its big success let us suggest that Klapisch succumbed to a fashion that goes right for American cinema: the elaboration of sequels. And indeed, the film-maker currently works on a sequel entitled 'les poupées russes'. Let's hope that it will be as good as 'l'auberge espagnole'.


I never bothered to see this movie in theaters although I remember hearing the name over and over. I finally watched it this week and what a delight. For some reason, I was expecting it to not be very good so I was completely surprised when I sat down and stuck with it and then found myself completely pulled in. I read a lot of the other user comments and it impressed me how much people talk about her fighting in the ring, but what was wonderful about Diana is that she's a true fighter in life. All she needs to do is find her place where she be who she is and the ring helps her to get there. A very intelligent story and I'm amazed that this is the first time up for Michelle Rodriguez - what an excellent job she did. Adrian and her coach were also quite good.

This film is a little rough around the edges, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. The story, the will, and the performances completely outweigh any flaws (that usually come with indie filmmaking anyway). A compelling portrayal of a girl finding herself and triumphing over her circumstances and a K.O. for Michelle Rodriguez!


One star for the 'plot'. One star for the acting. One star for the dubbing into squeaky-voiced American. Five stars for Monica Broeke and Inge Maria Granzow, with their propensity for taking all their clothes off. And ten out of ten for the divine Emmanuelle Béart, two years before she made 'Manon des sources'. Béart also undresses a couple of times, but even fully-clothed her presence is enough to make this film eminently watchable. Watch out for the scene where she tells her friend about the three 'first times' for a girl. It's corny, but still far more erotic than the rather laughably choreographed 'love scenes' featuring Broeke, Granzow and Patrick Bauchau. Incidentally, the cinematography is not great; the stills for the closing credits are a better indication of what David Hamilton is capable of.


Any movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing.


Six Degrees is a wonderful show! I watched the entire season online since I just found it and was terribly disappointed that there will not be a season 2 :'( and to top it all off, ABC has now taken it off-line, so it is unable to be viewed online anymore. Why would ABC create such a wonderful show, with a great story line and with great characters just to pull it off the air without ever completing the tale. It seems it is left to our imagination to figure out what happens to all of our connected characters. Honestly though I feel that ABC could at least place the show online for viewers who enjoied it while they continue to air overrated reality TV shows. Six Degrees we will miss you.


The plot in this movie is very thin, and there is not much acting. Val Kilmer--I don't know why he agreed to do this movie--plays a minor role as a gang leader. In short, the movie is tedious to watch.

One guy, who sort of resembles an archeology/religion professor, is exploring a subterranean area of Moscow, that has some history connected to railway construction and the Bolshevik revolution. A church tragedy in that history makes the exploration 'spiritual' and spirits of a malevolent intent haunt the underground ruins. A friend of the professor decides to find his friend in the underground and hires a couple of Russian guides. The entire movie is based on this plot and contains much repeated footage of the underground, and some camera effects; much like those seen in 'Day Watch', 'Night Watch', etc.


You just need to see this as a poorly executed anti abortion propaganda and you will realize just how bad it really is. The main message of this movie is that even the sickest of persons can't commit an abortion. If you ask that's not a long way away from blowing up abortion clinics. So this guy wants to kill some poor girl but he has to convince her to do an abortion first. What a load of crap. And the worst part is that he has an convincing argument (bringing a child into a loveless environment), but that is supposed to be dismissed because he's a freak anyway. And the part with the bible pushers...first they throw this girl out just because she explains someone stole her money (that rule must be in the bible somewhere) and then on the end they are some sort of angel like deus ex machina delivering the killer from evil by harassing him on his front yard. Come on. Other downpoints include a very confusing scenario (and I don't mean in a good way)...so this guy is just some psycho why? Because his mother fed his some liver once? And I don't know about the rest of you but he seemed like the nicest person in the world throughout the whole move! even though he was a wearing girlie clothes, stealing money and taping girls in his car. If you forget the idiot story, this movie has a really great cinematography and Bob Hoskins was really great, and it has one of those funny little English cars in it. If it was actually about some psycho killer I'd give it a 7 at least.


I was one of the many fools who were sapped out into paying for this at the theater, even though I payed 4 bucks for matinée (before 6pm) prices.

The remake's story was ho-hum, the CGI Morlocks were lame, the Eloi were rastafarian to mimic today's fads (no I did not think the chick was hot at all), the re-killing of the hero's modern girlfriend was somewhat cruel, overall just a sad, bad remake.

I'll take Rod Taylor, Weena, and the fat glowing eyed surfer Morlocks over this junk any time. My estimation is that many of the reviewers who like this awful remake are young kids, which does not account for either good taste or a true value of the old classics which are largely unappreciated by today's confused and ever-wanting-more youth.

When the 60s version came out (I first saw it in the 70s for summer fun) it was pretty damn impressive and still holds up. You don't have to have an over abundance of CGI in a movie for it to be better. Too much of this looks fake. I can't say enough of how disappointingly bad the Morlocks looked and they ran and jumped around like they were in a child's video game. 3 stars out of 10.


Rules of Engagement is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. It is well constructed, superbly pieced together, and provides excellent footage to back up the assertions that it takes on. The movie's best quality is that it is not based on being sympathetic to the Dividians as much as it enlightens the audience to the blatant governmental mistakes and lies that surrounded the entire situation. I'm left with feelings of disturbing anxiety and extreme anger over the way that the government handled and then covered up a tragedy of this magnitude. The cover up is what left me really fuming. It is one thing to make a mistake in an operation and admit guilt, but another to look the American people squarely in the eye and lie to them. I guess it shouldn't surprise me with the history of our beloved country that has seen the JFK assassination, the Vietnam War, and other significant events that smell so bad of a cover up that you have to hold your nose every time you drive through Washington D.C. The footage from an airplane with special heat sensing technology and the autopsies on some of the bodies clearly show that the FBI is lying to the public. One of the things that I try to stay aware of when watching a documentary such as this is that I am usually only receiving testimony from one point of view. But again, that is without a doubt one of the brilliant successes of Rules of Engagement. It presents its evidence in such a concluding fashion that even if you were presented with statements from the FBI how could you really believe them. I remember clearly when the standoff was taking place the way the media presented the Dividians as this crazed group of cult rebels with David Koresh, the self professed reborn Jesus Christ, as their leader. None of this was truly factual but rather story spun from bits and pieces of facts. They were simply standing up for there rights to bear arms and practice their religion as American Citizens. If you were the ATF and you wanted to search the compound is attacking the building with a unit of men who are armed with rifles and bullet proof suits the way to go about doing it? If you are the FBI why engage in psychological warfare and offer little in actual negotiation to help solve the situation? Why pour gallons of harmful gas if you want to save children? Why open large holes within the compound structure when you know the possibility of starting a fire? Why lie about not firing weapons when it can be clearly shown on video? Unless. Unless you wanted to see the situation end up the way it did. The scene at the end when the Dividians Star of David flag blew off the flagpole into the fire and the ATF's was shortly thereafter raised up was an emotional climatic scene that made my head shake in disgust and my stomach turn uncontrollably. The filmmaker William Gazecki deserves one my highest congratulations. It takes a lot of guts to make a movie like this and I am sure there have been many repercussions from the government for it as well. Because of people like him the public can be shown real truth rather than crap that gets filtered through a media that presents information that can hardly be considered genuine. When I think back to how I felt at the time toward the Dividians because of the media's representation of David Koresh and how I felt after seeing this movie it is truly amazing. It reminds me of the line from the bible of a man who was healed by Jesus and asked by the elders how it happened 'before I was blind but now I can see' he kept telling them. Do yourself a favor and watch this movie. You may have to look for it but it is truly something special.


This was a great movie! It was a completely enjoyable adolescent fantasy. So what makes a movie great? Technical details? I think that if that were the sole criteria, our culture would be the poorer for it. So this movie is to 'The Godfather' as new wave music is to Mozart. The point is, it is one of the best movies of it's type I've seen. The women are all beautiful (as are only seen on California beaches when movies are being made). It has a little of everything, a kind of battlestar gallactica meets baywatch meets the playboy centerfold video meets Wayne's World. There is plenty of charm and a reasonable (albeit predictable) storyline that keeps you interested until the next bit of eye candy graces the screen. Joe Estevez may not have his brothers career, but does a good job of bringing focus to the story as the eternally adolescent Uncle Bud. Contains plenty of expected absurdities such as female rock band playing without the guitars plugged in. (Was that intentional?) If you're attracted to the box, rent the video, you won't regret it. As is promised, it is good non-violent erotic fun!


It's remarkable that for 'Young Mr. Lincoln's' supporting players Ford cast lesser known, other-than-star actors. This not only heightens his film's focus on the central character of Lincoln, but it also affords the audience a refreshing insight into Lincoln as a man of his place and time, a man embroiled, as each one of us inexorably is, in the issues and sentiments of his time and seeking his way to resolving them. It's not so much through Fonda's Lincoln's words and actions but in the faces, the reactions of the supporting players that Ford tells the story of the formation of the young Lincoln's worldview, sense of place in society and polity, and of how the people responded to Mr. Lincoln's words and deeds and placed their trust in this man whom they deemed to have earned their respect and heeding.

Give this a try: instead of focusing on Henry Fonda, next time you view 'Young Mr. Lincoln' shift your focus to the supporting characters - you will, I expect, be handsomely rewarded with a more profound appreciation of both Lincoln and Ford. I like to suspect that Ford's storytelling through the supporting characters' reactions to Fonda's Lincoln may have appealed to David Lean when he directed Omar Sharif in 'Doctor Zhivago', in which it's the supporting characters' reactions to Zhivago that actually tell about Zhivago.


Steven Seagal is a thief who specializes in robbing wealther drug dealers, giving to the poor and unfortunate..heh, Harlan, the Robin Hood. Anyway, Harlan wants to go straight for his girl, Jada(Mari Morrow), so he takes on a job as the driver of an armoured car for a Max Stevens(Kevin Tighe, wasted in an underwritten role). Max intends to have the millions for himself and his unscrupulous associates, with the intent of using his loader, Bruno(Robert Miano)to bring him the money, but Harlan has other plans. Escaping the police, hiding the money, and ditching Bruno(who had a loaded gun pointed at Harlan's head threatening to shoot him if he didn't drive)after evading capture by ramming a huge dump truck, Harlan passes out. Charged with the murder of police among other things as a result of the damage caused by the high-speed chase, Harlan is imprisoned and many wish to know where the money is. Harlan joins forces with an inmate, Ice(Treach), a leader of one of the many gangs in the prison, breaking out with the plans of finding Max and eliminating every member of his corrupt entourage. Soon DEA agent Rachel Knowles(Sarah Buxton) becomes part of this scenario thanks to her boss, Saunders(Nick Mancuso)who claims there's drugs involved. Also injected into the plot is Harlan's desire to save a children's hospital about to close and Jada has mysterious dreams regarding Max.

Seagal and Treach cut up with each other speaking in gangsta, while Buxton spends time trying to help Harlan, uncovering the possibility her boss is in cahoots with Max. Mancuso's character is an odd duck, allowing Rachel much leeway despite the threat she is to his career. Tighe shows up for five or so minutes tops, which is a shame. Seagal's Harlan escapes prison and finds each and every rich associate of Max's, inevitably discovering his whereabouts after cracking a few skulls, snapping some wrists, and breaking some bones. Treach speaks in his rapper speech and Seagal tries to answer him in kind, providing some unintentional laughs. As you'd expect, a lot of people get shot and Seagal doesn't break a sweat. It's interesting seeing Seagal in prison, among the convicts, helping Treach out when a group of 'Eses' plan to take him out.


It is so nice to see Bruce Willis come down off his action throne and let us see that he really is a talented actor. He shines in this film as the near-40-year-old image consultant who has totally lost touch with his inner child--until he meets him face to face. This is one of those rare films that doesn't talk down to its audience and truly offers something for the WHOLE family. It is about caring for each other, keeping some of the child inside you, and realizing that you don't grow up exactly the way you thought you would. Willis seems to be building an impressive track record for working with kids (just witness 'The Sixth Sense' with Haley Joel Osment), and he has great chemistry with Spencer Breslin here. There is some nice photography and music, and the ending is wonderful and uplifting. A great film to see with EVERY member of your family.


Would be promising if it were a student film. Never seems to know where it's going next, as if they decided on each next scene as they were making the film. As a result, much repetition and a deadening pace. There's an absolutely confusing procedure by which the ghosts affect people in this world: it involves the internet, phone calls, a computer science experiment, a suspicious grad student, withdrawn behavior, red rooms, dark stains, and _then_ suicides. Good luck figuring out the connections, or when a character is a ghost yet or just acting strangely. Characters are barely sketched, which could be OK, but they're completely uninteresting. It's far too long and ends just when it reaches a promising scenario, although the conclusion is nonsensical. Weakest moment: when 'the boss' sits down to give some incoherent advice.


This is a well done action movie. There are plenty of fight scenes, the acting is convincing (for this genre) and RS1 is awesome. I don't know why people feel compelled to trash RS1, I thought his effects were executed very nicely and his design looked great. The plot was acceptable for a martial arts movie.

Having said that, I must tell you Richard Sun is one of the worst actors from Hong Kong I have ever watched. At least RS1 had the right idea by killing him. Now, for all of you who thought Sam Lee (Alien) was a bad actor...he wasn't meant to be taken seriously! I have just had the pleasure of watching Gen-X Cops (prequel) and Sam Lee played the same character the same way!

Now, please, all of you guys who watch highly reviewed Oscar winners: DO NOT JUDGE THIS IS A THINKING MAN'S MOVIE! IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO REQUIRE THOUGHT! Just meant to be enjoyed, that's all. I hope they make another soon.


I got in to this excellent program in about season 4 and since then i have seen all the episodes got all the episodes on DVD and keeps getting better and better with the seasons of 9 and 10. It now may not have Richard Dean Anderson now but the addition of Ben Browder and Claudie Black it has still given the show more strength and original still even after 10 seasons. Sadly now the sci-fi channel got rid of this amazing show with no hope relay for a 11 season there are making two direct to DVD movie and hopefully more. Atlantis is still going strong on its 4th seasons. And there is a third spin off in the works the stargate franchise is nowhere near dead. This TV show is a must see for all sci-fi fans and people of genres because this has such a wide range of things to appeal to all ages and all types of people Watch IT !!!!! 10/10


I saw this film without to know what about were... I'm a fan of Branagh, even more his Shakespeare' films, and, in the beginning, I saw it only for this... and I finished with tears in my eyes, because the great, great serenity, values, affect and brave philosophy about Life of Helena's girl. Recommended to people who are bored with TV programming (in Spain, at least).


I love Tudor Chirila and maybe that's why i enjoyed the movie so much. Two days before the movie premiere I went to see his concert. I saw the trailer and the video 'zmeu' before the movie and I thought I had it all figured.. i was wrong: instead of a good movie i assisted a great one! i FELT the movie. it was sad.. it was funny.. but most of all it pictured LOVE.. I can't even begin to describe the soundtrack.. so i won't :) I'm not a movie critic.. I can't describe it in more words.. My kinda vague description is all because the play left me speechless.. thank god for the keyboard :) Thank you Tudor Giurgiu, thank you Maria Popistasu, thank you Ioana Barbu and THANK YOU TUDOR CHIRILA. Encore! :)


Usually I don't really like Emma Roberts so much, but after watching Nancy Drew it kind of changed my mind. The actors in the movies made the whole thing exciting and funny. Most of the time when you watch a mystery movie you can solve it before the middle of the show, but in this movie it's like you are actually there. The clues have to all fit together until you can finally understand the whole crime. I am still amazed how she found it out. The whole movie was really clever and the people who watched it with me loved the movie too. The clothes were my favorite part of the movie, it was so cute. I don't think there will be another movie like this until the sequel comes out. I give it a nine because the popular girls didn't really seem to have the part just right, but they still make me laugh. It was a really great movie and a great mystery. I definitely recommend watching it.


Just after watching the first one and it is very dumb. I happened to watch an episode of Bones first and then the Eleventh Hour. The 11th Hour should be embarrassed.

It is so weak. Stewart introduces himself as a Government Scientist. No mention of what kind of scientist just general sciency stuff. In a program about cloning they bring a caretaker, who was paid to dispose unsuccessful embryos, to a church and made him kneel before the statue of Jesus on the cross and ask forgiveness... and as well tell them where the bad guy is so as they can move the plot on. Now thats science at work :(

There is a dumb, not good dumb, bit where Picard rages at a TV that advertises skin scream that makes you look younger, shouting 'It's a lie', as his randy female assistant gets groped by the local hot bobbie next door.

The end of the first episode is like a bad cartoon where the bad old lady, named after Pinnochios daddy in order to move the clunky plot along, waves at Picard from the street as she gets in a taxi. Picard is one floor up and he looks out a window wistfully going... she got away. He could like try to run down.. or maybe ring the cops... or maybe get the number of the taxi and ring it in or maybe had anything other than... I am waving and getting into a taxi now and there is nothing you can do about it until next week ending... mahhahahahah.

Pity it's so stupid. At one point a grieving father is convinced by Picard that even if a replica clone son was born it would never be his son as his son had a soul. Yes that's right folks. The general scientist argues against cloning on the basis that every soul is unique and sure why else would you want to clone.

Although the general scientist Picard finds cloning a bit gooey he's all up for stem cell research and goes as far as to say that calamity will befall humanity if it isn't allowed. He has a pretty strident rant about how important it is. Of course he doesn't mention a single example. That kind of sums up the show. Buzz words and tawdriness.


Moonwalker by Michael Jackson is a real adventure film for the whole family!

Before the real story of the movie starts, we get a performance of the Bad Tour (Man In The Mirror), and it kicks off a great movie. After that we get a kind of a collage of Michael carrier, as it was until Moonwalker came out in 1988. After a few Music Videos also (Speed Demon, Leave Me Alone, etc.) the story starts.

The plot is basically that Michael and his 3 friends (who are kids) are being chased by the bad guy of the story 'Mr. Big', because they discovered his evil plans of getting children all over the world hocked on drugs. During the chase we see fantastic segments, fx. Michaels video for Smooth Criminal, which is absolutely fantastic with its dance sequences, etc. But then one of the kids get kidnapped by Mr. Big, and Michael will haft to save her before she gets a drug addict.

During the movie we see special effects not only amazing for those days standards, but also impressive today. For instance, see Michael turning in to a robot/spaceship in order to protect his friends! It's so cool!

The movie ends with a performance of Come Together (later published in Michaels double-album of HIStory), and you leave the movie with a magic feeling. Amazing!

I recommend this for every family who wants to spend a nice night together with candy and popcorn in front of the TV. And now some parents might stand up and say: 'But Michael Jackson is an alleged child abuser!' Yeah, he is indeed, but, come on, we all know it isn't true! Wait and see..


If you want to watch a film that is oddly shot, oddly lit, weird stories of these men (and one woman) who enjoy beating the crap out of each other, if you want to enjoy a story that goes nowhere of these two guys, one a boxer and the other a gay man, then you should watch this film.

After watching this film, I almost felt as badly bruised up and cut up, like the director (of the film) himself beat the hell out of me.

This is a movie where one is not meant to watch for plot or for great acting, this is a film to gawk at in horror and wonder. A lot like watching an airplane crash or a train wreck.

If you want to watch a great movie, a good movie, a 'B' movie, or even a mediocre movie, this movie is not it.

A warning to all who watch this film, please don't eat beforehand. You might want to puke by the end of the film.


Written by, directed by and starring the champ of camp Bruce Campbell. Easy on its easy to tell this is a budget on a shoestring affair; filmed independently in Bulgaria. All I can really say for sure is that silly is not always funny. Campbell plays an affluent American business man with a cheating wife(Antoinette Byron)and trying to close a business transaction before he is murdered. He hires a cabbie to drive him around a strange little town; not knowing that his wife is 'carrying on' with the taxi driver. Within moments of Campbell being bludgeoned; the cabbie is killed in the same location. A mad scientist(Stacy Keach)proceeds with an experiment putting the cabbie's brain inside the American's head. With massive stitches on his forehead, Campbell breaks free and roams the streets looking for his wife; all the while he is arguing with a strange voice inside his over-sized head. Campbell contorts his rubbery face making silly expressions as he argues with himself. Thus, Bruce is doing what he does best and no doubt his many fans will be pleased. I get the impression this must have been written as a straight comedy. Rounding out the cast are Ted Raimi, Tamara Gorski, and Vladmir Kolev. Watch for this on the Sci-Fi Channel.


Unfortunately, this film is typical of the watering down of a good film by numerous sequels. Universal made several serial monster films in the 1940s, which were pale imitations of the original. The intelligent Egyptologist Imhotep has been replaced by a leg-dragging Frankenstein in mummy wrappings, who exhibits no signs of intelligent life. This film is entertaining in spots but if you have seen The Mummy (1932), you will be disappointed.


To start this movie was sick. Here your wife is dying and you go strutting around town with this blond chic by your side. Then your wife dies and within 2 months you are together with this chic. Hank (James Brolin) is definitely moving fast throughout this movie. I called him Fast Hank. Fast Hank marries this beautiful lady and before you know it she is having sex with his best friends. The part that gets me is when she is 'doing it' in the barn with Kevin and gets caught by another one of Hanks friends. Kevin gets up and leaves, she drops her robe and BAM!! Right into the arms of this other guy and they start 'doing it' right then and there. I guess he is finishing up what Kevin started. HOW GROSS!!!! I am like this is lifetime movie??? Its a typical OLD MAN YOUNG WOMAN movie that says you can have my body if I get your money...


I was duped into watching this by the many friendly reviews here. Boy, are they way off mark! To give this 9 to 10 points and call it 'one of the best movies of the 1990ies' is just unjustifiable. The big problem here is lack of pace and a paper-thin plot. It's like slapstick on Prozac. Everything trundles along predictably and listlessly. The plot is weak to begin with -- two garbage men peep on their foxy neighbour, witness a murder and unravel a waste disposal conspiracy -- and the movie never manages to go much further. There are some amusing situations and decent acting, but that's not anywhere near enough to save this jalopy of a movie.

It's simply a comedy that doesn't get its fat ass off the ground, so why waste your time?


One way or the other, you can't get away from the basic message. The strong survive. Those who are psychically or emotionally sensitive, leave. They leave a hole behind in the lives of those who love them. A hole that is seen in it's finality as selfish. That's what Phoebe realizes in the end. Just prior to helping Wolf heal from his self-blame. She can accept closure to the missing ...of her sister. Beautiful European scenery. A lot of truth in it about idealism and addiction to the next big moment. For a moment, I thought of the Baader-Meinhoff gang who was around in the early 70s. I liked this movie as it reflected a time when I came of age myself.


This movie was in a sci-fi 50-pack a friend of mine got me for Christmas. It is very similar to the first Gozilla movie, and like that movie, has scenes with American actors inserted for no real reason. One interesting thing about the inserted scenes is that there's a Cold War tension portrayed between America and Russia. Like in Godzilla, Gamera is awakened by an atomic explosion and rampages across the world, paying close attention to Tokyo because no big monster movie is complete unless Tokyo bites it. All in all, this is an okay movie. Some of the scenes involving Gamera, particularly the scenes in Toly, are quite spectacular and have special effects that were pretty decent at the time. If you like Japanese giant monster movies, you'll really get a kick out of this one. I give it a 4 out of 10. Had this been the unedited Japanese version that I watched, it probably would've gotten a 5.


Now look, I won't lie to you, but I only got this movie for $3.99 from a friend because it had Danni Filth, the lead singer of the ever popular death metal band 'Cradle Of Filth' in it. I expected of course violence and gore at its finest, as that is what Mr Filth can be portrayed as, amongst a plot line.

But dear god, I was oh so wrong. This movie seriously bites, big time. Being a low budget film (haha, wait, make that ZERO BUDGET), this obviously lacks the beautiful Howard Stern orchestra musical scores and the Spielberg special effects. Nope, it's all one camera, bad angles, and bad blood scenes.

Take for example when our star and violent fiend, Mr Filth, violently kills a mugger. A grab at the throat, and blood spits out, but oh my, it looks like there's a juice packet filled with fake blood in the man's shirt.

To you Cradle Of Filth fans: You'll hear two songs throughout the movie, but with the camera angles and shoddy filming, they drag the overall pleasure of the song DOWN.

My final comment: Steer well away from it. It's blood, gore, breasts, and hey, even a shoddy story to go with it. So if you like appalling violence, near no voices (yes, there's hardly any words in this movie), then by all means, buy it. But if shoddy movies isn't your thing, then avoid it. Don't waste your money.


Yet another movie with an interesting premise and some wondrous special effects falling right into the trash can.

Boring direction and performances (with the exception of the lovely Annabel Schofield who is much cuter as a brunette and probably deserves better material, and the ever earnest Charlton Heston) earn the rating of a real stinker.

It's amazing to watch Heston perform up to his usual par and display how really bad this movie is. He even plays in a sub-plot that kept me interested just to see how it tied back into the main line of the movie. The way they ended up resolving it was that they didn't. It simply falls off the end.

Really. Don't waste your time on this one.


one may ask why? the characters snarl, yell, and chew the scenery without any perceptible reason except someone wanted to make a movie in barcelona. billie baldwin, is that the right one?, is forgettable in the cop/estranged-husband/loving-father-of-cute-little-blond-girl role. the story seems to have been cut and pasted from the scenes thrown away from adventure films in the last three years. ellen pompeo's lack of charisma is a black hole that seems to suck the energy out of every scene she is in. her true acting range is displayed when she takes her blouse off as the movies careens from one limp chase scene to another. unfortunately, the directing rarely goes bad enough to be camp or a parody. it is all just cliché, familiar in every respect. the director cast his own daughter as the precocious brat probably because no respectable agent would have permitted a client to ruin a career by being in such a lame, contrived and uninteresting movie. the only heist here is the theft of the investor's money and the viewer's time.


Bruce Willis, as usual, does an excellent job.

[warning: may be considered a 'spoiler']

While my friend thought it was good, I kept glancing at my watch during the entire movie wondering when it would end. After seeing such great flicks as 'The Patriot' and 'Chicken Run' I was really disappointed in Disney's 'The Kid.'

Willis plays a middle-aged man with a harsh and realistic attitude on putting a positive spin on people's images (he's an Image Consultant). An unknown kid shows up. Yes, it's him but younger, and even Lily Tomlin can see him. At this point I'm reminded of a cross between a poor 'Quantum Leap' episode and a bad time traveling flick.

Kid and Willis go through trying to figure out why he's in that time period. They figure it out. They meet Willis when he's older. Nevermind that it never goes into detail how old Willis teleports them between time periods and gets them together to begin with, how he got that knowledge to begin with, how he came to the realization that he needed to do this, and so on.

Basically, it's a very tired, unoriginal, uninspiring plot that has some great actors in it. The good news is that 'the Kid' actor is nowhere near as annoying as he's presented in the trailers on television.


A satire about greed and money, what? There is more greed in the intentions behind this fiasco than in any of the themes they pathetically try to make fun of. Jim Carrey's reign was certainly short lived. He is an unbearable presence on the screen. The insincerity of his portrayal is nothing short of creepy. He produced this, this 'masterpiece' as well, so he can't blame anyone here. 'The number one comedy in America' shout the desperate TV adds. Of course, Jim Carrey was suppose to guarantee full houses but the game is over. If I sound angry is because I am. I spent a sunny afternoon in California, plus, between tickets, parking, flat Cokes etc, almost 45 bucks on this thing, starring and produced by Mr Carry. Not anymore, do you hear? Not anymore.


This movie was horrendous... It had absolutely nothing to do with Dark Harvest. And the DVD was very misleading because it showed a scarecrow and a scythe, neither of which appeared in this movie.

The beginning was a jumble of random scenes that, most of which, had nothing to do with the movie, except that they sort of show that the man is psychic... but not too well...

After the first 10 minutes of the movie there is an hour of just the man character looking for his daughters. It gets vaguely interesting when the daughters meet two girls who died the year before. But that's the extent of it.

And why, might i ask, was this movie rated R? There were two drops of blood and 4 curse words. And how on earth did it get into a video store?? This movie was poorly acted, poorly filmed, poorly written, and overall horribly executed.


Or that's what the filmmakers would like you to believe, anyway.

This movie tries sooo hard to be cool it's ridiculous. Everything, from the look of the film, the cinematography, the editing, the dialogue and the acting, is geared in super cool mode from the get go. Just to make sure that no one misses how cool this film is, there's a soundtrack of really cool rock n roll tunes and a twangy western-surf-tex mex guitar playing constantly throughout the film. As a final reminder of how frickin cool this movie is, all the actors have been instructed to speak in a hoarse voice, because, as we all know, that's badass.

The plot (if there indeed is one) seems pretty straightforward. But as someone else already pointed out, the director and star of the film, seems fiercely determined not to tell that story, instead focusing on a plethora of naked babes and dialogue that's supposed to be badass, but grows tired surprisingly quick (did they have an contest to see how many times they could cram the words 'pussy' and 'f*ck' and its derivatives in an 80 minute film?).

This movie was absolutely horrible.


This three-hour Chinese epic, set in 220 B.C., may ultimately amount to a familiar theme of an Emperor's idealistic dream of peace through unification mutating into corrupted isolation, and there's nothing inherently challenging about the film, but it's a compelling narrative, crammed with intrigue and passion and betrayal and epic events told in vivid strokes. Even for those not drawn to such historical spectacles for their own sake, it's an astonishing feast for the eyes: the scene depicting the coup attempt of the Marquis is one of the most staggering evocations of physical space and grandeur in memory, and the battle scenes are memorable both in their scope and their immediacy. The title sums up the film's use of compelling contrasts - huge plainland vistas set against intimate horrors; the noblest of motives set against the most degraded; hope turning to dust. If you've never seen a three-hour Chinese epic, this wouldn't be a bad place to start.


The danish movie 'Slim Slam Slum' surprised me to be the worst movie i have seen to this date. I didn't think that it was possible to top my list of bad bad b-movies but this one deserves the gold. It's not funny. It's bad acting, It's bad filmed and the storyline is bad. The only positive thing i can say about this movie is it has three girls in it. I truly believe this flick has the potential to knock of the other danish movie 'Stjerner uden hjerner' as the badest danish film ever made! And that's truly something. Congratulations in advance!


This makes the third Errol Morris movie I've seen, and I'm increasingly not liking his style. He seems to find very interesting and varied characters, great personalities to create documentaries for, and then with tongue-in-cheek editing make fun of everything they are about. It's never really a direct caricaturation of them and Morris seems most of the time to be saying, 'But no, no, these people are really fascinating, really!', but there's always these subtle little canted angles and not-so-subtle editing techniques that show that Morris seems to be mocking them behind their back.

This movie tracks four people who break the traditional boundaries of organic separation... a man who studies African hairless molerats to find that they are amazingly ant-like, a lion tamer, a man who keeps a garden full of animal-shaped shrubbery, and a robot designer. The general theme of the film seems to revolve around the question of what designates animal, human, and life features? So the title of Fast, Cheap, & Out of Control doesn't really seem to mean anything in terms of the movie... right? Except of course Morris seems just a little disturbed by these individuals' passions (he might call them 'obsessions') making synthetic designs on life. I share not that fear and honestly don't appreciate some of the connections Morris makes in the film.

But I stress his subtlety. With no voice-over narration and leaving the words entirely to the interviewees, it's not as if Morris ever pounds that anxiety onto the spectators' collective head. Instead he mixes circus footage and ant footage together often at times when they're taken out of the context of the circus and the ants, showing a sort of collective absurdity behind what all of these people are talking about. I don't find them absurd, I find them all very neat and interesting individuals.

Unless, of course, he didn't intend such juxtapositions, which means he's just a bad craftsman instead of a silent subverter. Considering none of this films I've seen so far have particularly impressed me, I don't really care to find out what he's trying to do.

--PolarisDiB


The funniest movie from Britain I have ever seen, 'The Supergrass' is a tale of sex, drugs, cream teas, and murder by the seaside. Dennis Carter (Adrian Edmonson), average moron, is out to impress his so-called girlfriend, Andrea (Dawn French), because she thinks he is too law-abiding. So, to get her to come along with him on a romantic getaway, he comes up with a scheme that perhaps will impress her and entice her to spend some time with him. Trouble is, Dennis' lie is that he's somehow gotten involved in an international drugs ring, and while telling her, a couple of policemen overhear his boasting and nick him. And so begins this witty movie, full of slick comedy and crude jokes. Dennis is banged up in the local nick, and, much to the arresting officers' delight, there seems to be no way out (Andrea's earlier attempts to explain it was all a lie were dismissed by a hilarious melody of 'Stand by Your Man' by the two officers'). Then comes along Commander Robertson (Ronald Allen), Chief Intelligence, Scotland Yard. He makes a deal with Dennis, that if he helps him catch the drug smugglers, then he will be set free and allowed whatever he pleases. Dennis agrees, and is teamed up with Harvey Duncan (Peter Richardson), and Lesley Reynolds (Jennifer Saunders). The rest is an unforgettable rib-tickling experience, with Robbie Coltrane as Sergeant Troy adding humourous colour to the film. His walk along the dry-dock against 'Frankie Goes To Hollywood's Two Tribes' is superb, and probably the best scene in motion picture history. The two officers' who nick Dennis are wonderfully played by Michael Elphick and Patrick Durkin, and Alexei Sayle as the motorcycle cop is a laugh! If you want something good to watch on a Saturday night, then I suggest you rent this. You won't forget it!


Okay, I'll say it. This movie made me laugh so hard that it hurt. This statement may offend some of you who may think that this movie is nothing more than a waste of film. But the thing that most people don't get is that this movie was intended to be bad and cheezy. I mean, did people actually think that a movie about a killer snowman was intended to be a masterpiece? Just look at the 'scary' hologram on the jacket of the movie and you'll find your answer. Instead, like the original Jack Frost (which I thought was just as funny), this movie turned out to be a side-splitting journey into the depths of corny dialogue, bad one liners and horrible special effects. And it's all made to deliver laughter to us viewers. It certainly worked for me.

For example: Anne Tiler (to her troubled husband): What makes you frown so heavily darling?

If that chunk of dialogue doesn't make you laugh, then you have serious issues. Who in their right mind would utter those words in real life? Of course, no one because it was meant to sound ridiculous! Just take one viewing of this movie with an open mind and low expectations, and hopefully you'll see what's so damn funny about Jack Frost 2.


Turkish culture is complete with lots of different cultures. different cultures have different styles of music. Istanbul is like the mixture of turkey. it has mostly the same language but different dialects. this documentary shows us these different kinds of music with different dialects and different instruments. you can watch reportings with singers and groups, their performances , their daily life and learn their thoughts of music. the movie includes not only the music of Istanbul but the life in Istanbul , how people communicate and what they eat and drink. the surprising part is although i live in Istanbul i learned lots of things from this movie.


I loved All Dogs go to Heaven so much that I went to see the sequel in the theater, and I can't remember being more disappointed by a movie. The story stank worse than an over-aged sack of manure. I mean, come on! How could Carface possibly imagine being able to get revenge on an animal so much bigger than him, no matter how angry he was. Plus depicting Satan as a CAT?!?! How cliché can you get? So much for the story. Is it any wonder that Don Bluth, Burt Reynolds, Melba Moore, and Vic Tayback wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole? The animation was absolutely wretched. The colors were all washed out, and I can't count how many times I was able to see through objects that were supposed to be solid. It had to be the worst animation I've ever seen! I usually like animated movies, but not this BOMB!


I am very sorry to say this but 'Thunderbirds' does not even come up with a loud pop, never mind any thunder. At one stage I gave serious consideration to walking out of the cinema, I stayed in the forlorn hope that the film might improve. I was to be disappointed, it did not get any better, it got worse if that is at all possible. Had I gone to see the film with the thought that it was going to be a 'spoof' I would still have been let down. They had an excellent opportunity to make a great franchise of films here, they have totally wasted that opportunity. Bill Paxton and Sir Ben Kingsley should be embarrassed to have there names attached to this film and Jonathan Frakes well what can I say, he should be embarrassed and ashamed would not be to far from the truth. I saw this film at a pre-release showing, I had been waiting to see it most eagerly, having grown up in the sixties with the original shows. To say I was disappointed would be something of an understatement. One final thing I will say about the film was the puppets in the TV shows were just a bit more wooden than where the actors in the film.


I have been a Mario fan for as long as I can remember, I have very fond memories of playing Super Mario World as a kid, this game has brought back many of those memories while adding something new. Super Mario Galaxy is the latest installment in the amazing Mario franchise. There is much very different about this game from any other Mario before it, while still keeping intact the greatest elements of Mario, the first noticeable difference is that the story takes place in space.

The story begins much like any other Mario game, Mario receives a letter from Princess Peach inviting him to a celebration at her castle in the Mushroom Kingdom. Upon arriving at Peach's castle Mario finds Bowser and his son (Bowser Jr.) attacking the castle with their airships. Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and then lifts her castle up into space. In the midst of the castle being lifted into space Mario falls off and lands on an unknown planet. Mario is found by a talking star named Luma and is taken back to the Luma's home, a floating space station, here Mario meets many other Lumas and also meets their leader, a woman named Rosalina. Rosalina tells Mario that Bowser has taken away the space station's Power Stars and scattered them across the universe, it is up to Mario to help the Lumas find them and save Peach, thus the adventure begins.

The way you play the game is by flying from the space station to other galaxies, each galaxy consists of multiple planets that Mario travels amongst in levels via these shooting stars to retrieve the Power Stars. Mario can at many times walk all the way around planets without losing gravity, some planets are small and others are big, many planets are similar to classic Mario environments. The best thing about the game are the controls, all of the stuff like jumping and such is still the same, but the wiimote is used in many unique ways in this game. You shake the remote Mario will perform a spin that is used as the primary attack in the game, and it will as well activate the shooting stars. You can also point the remote at the screen and use the pointer to fire star bits at enemies or objects in the environment. Then there is the graphics, these are by far the best graphics on the Wii, it is just so hard to describe how great this game looks, you could probably almost say it looks as good as some 360 games.

My only minor gripes is that the going upside down effect takes some getting used to, and also the story is pretty weak. The worst part is that you lose all of your lives when you turn off the game, no matter how many you had when you last quit you restart at 4 lives. Still these minor problems aside it's a superb game that is highly entertaining and is very challenging. This is the type of game that we've been waiting for on the Wii.

A perfect 10 out of 10!


Is rich, ailing Elizabeth Taylor courting the Angel of Death on her island fortress in the Mediterranean, or is she just overreacting--or more precisely, overacting--as usual? Actually, both are applicable in director Joseph Losey's wandering, meandering mess called 'Boom', appropriately titled since tempers in the lush, luxurious setting are nearly ready to explode. Richard Burton climbs Taylor's mountain uninvited; she dresses him in a samurai's robe complete with saber. Though great-looking in widescreen, the picture is otherwise quite deadly, a failure even Liz 'n Dick-philes should shun (the stars' collective 'what the hell!' attitude to their late-'60s film careers reached an ego-mad nadir here). Pointless, confused, and maddening, 'Boom' is a catastrophe--although screenwriter Tennessee Williams, who adapted his own unsuccessful play 'The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore', was said to be quite fond of it! * from ****


Meatballs has been a main staple in my family for over 26 years! We saw this movie when it first came out and have seen it dozens of times since. Bill Murray is at his best and is most touching in the scenes where he reaches out to a lonely pre-teen boy and befriends him, while leading his CIT's into once mischievous scheme after another! The cast of characters are fun and zany and you really come to care about them and the relationships they have with each other. This is not another sleazy, dumb, teen sex-fest. It is funny and sweet and just all-around fun. Anyone who sees this will enjoy themselves. It is a must-see. Watch out for Spaz - he is by far the best character! (Especially during the camp social - while Bill Murray hams it up for the camera - just watch Spaz behind him dancing with the poor girl he picks to dance with!) By far, one of my very favorite comedies of all time!


cool flick. enjoyable to watch. hope to see more from Fred Carpenter soon. i really like the location setting with all the new york references. it was interesting the way it all unfolds in the end. the suspense factor was effective and the acting, though kept simple, was also effective in portraying the characters. there are a bunch of neat little tricks incorporated into this film that make all the better. i think the supporting actress did a great job in her role. the casting and directing in this film seem to be sewn together seamlessly and the quality of the shooting is quite impressive. the movie is not without its soft moments either, which gives it a nice sense of balance.


Has this ever happened to you? I go into my local video store and see a few new arrivals in the 'film noir' section. I spy a copy of a new arrival of a film I have never seen called NAKED ALIBI. Its from one of those mail order video companies that offers (mostly) 'dupey' looking copies of hard to find titles. The description on the box sounds good. The film has players I like (Sterling Hayden, Gloria Grahame, and Gene Barry). So I take it home and watch it. About ten minutes into this film I started having second thoughts. About half way through this film I started to dislike it. By the time the film ended, I not only disliked it, I despised it. The film opens with cops questioning Al Willis on suspicion of robbery. Other than being drunk, the police have nothing on him. When he pushes a cop and demands to be allowed to go home, the cops beat him up. Detective Conroy arrives, lets the cops finish the beating and then announces Willis is in the clear. Willis swears he will get revenge. Later one of the police officers is shot dead. With no evidence other that Willis is 'sore' about the beating, Conroy make Willis his sole suspect, despite the fact that his boss names a pair of mobsters as suspects. Conroy arrests him, but for lack evidence Willis is released. The next day two more cops are killed by a bomb. This time Conroy goes to the Bakery that Willis owns and tries to beat a confession out of him. Conroy doesn't know it but a local newsman whose paper has been accusing Conroys department of police brutality snaps a picture of Conroy trying strangle Willis and Conroy is fired. But Conroy continues his pursuit and Willis flees to Mexico where Willis has a mistress. Conroy manages to convince his mistress (who Willis treats rather rough) to help him prove Willis is a killer. What this film lacks is a convincing script. The script looks as if only a rough draft was written and shooting began before a finished script was completed. Things happen, characters personalities change, plot twists occur for no real reason other than that script calls for it. Other than the fact that Willis likes to tip a glass now and than, there is nothing in the early part of the film to make us think that he is a crazy killer that cheats on his wife. He treats his wife, his kid and employees well. Early in the film, one gets the impression that its Conroy is the one whose is a loose cannon. He seems to casually approve of police brutality. Conroy, for no reason is convinced from the very start Willis has criminal past. He seems to operate on the motto of the old Communist Bulgarian secret police; 'Everyone is guilty of something, we just have not found out about it yet.' Later Conroy shows kindness to Al's mistress and young son, now we are supposed to like him. Sorry! The early impression I got of Conroy stuck with me too long. And he is also a dumb cop. Only after he is fired and goes to Mexico does he run a background check on Willis and discovers that a warrant is out for him issued in Maryland. Why didn't he think of this before? Because this film hadn't used up enough running time. The cast is good. Gene Barry does well considering how poorly conceived his role of Al Willis is. I'm big fan of 40's and 50's crime thrillers but not only did I not think this film was good, it left a bad taste in my mouth (something many modern films do, but older films rarely do).


At the beginning of 'Loggerheads', we're introduced to three pairs of seemingly unrelated characters. To make matters even more confusing, we're informed (via titles on the screen) that the action is taking place in three separate time lines (between the years 1999 and 2001). It takes a great deal of time but eventually we come to see how the three pairs are related: Mark Austin, a young man in his 20s, gay and HIV Positive is estranged from his conservative parents, Elizabeth and Rev. Robert Austin.

Mark is now a drifter and arrives in Kure Beach, North Carolina, a seaside town, where he meets George (sensitively played by Michael Kelly), a gay motel owner and they eventually become involved with each other. Meanwhile, Mark's birth mother, Grace (played by Bonnie Hunt) has come to the point in her life where she has decided to find the son she gave up for adoption when she was 17. Similarly, Mark's adoptive mother, also has decided to track her estranged son as she misses him (despite the misgivings of her homophobic minister husband).

'Loggerheads' we're told is based on a true story and that perhaps is its Achilles Heel. Director/Writer Tim Kirkman tries too hard to create scenes fraught with dramatic tension where there is very little to be found. Take Mark and Georgethey're both sensitive souls who have little to disagree about. There's some slight tension when Grace faces off against an Adoption Agency Director who is forbidden by law to give her any information about her lost son as well as a slight conflict with her mother who denies that she disapproved of her when she became pregnant as a teenager. No sparks fly either between Elizabeth and Robert since the good Reverend has adamantly insisted from the beginning that he has no intention of reconciling with his son.

'Loggerheads' is similar to 'Brokeback Mountain' in that the gay couple are the good guys and the straight males (for example, the Kure Beach cop and the Reverend) are the baddies. The biggest letdown of the movie is that there is no interaction (and hence no dramatic conflict) between Mark and either one of his 'mothers'. Mark is already dead before either the birth or adoptive mother has a chance to reconcile with him.

Kirkman's theme is both a plea for tolerance and an exhortation for family members to express their heartfelt feelings before it's too late! Kirkman's sentiments are for the most part well-intentioned but they do not make for good drama. Loggerheads moves along at a snail's pace without providing any new revelations (or suspense) regarding such topics as AIDS, Adoption and Homophobia. Ultimately 'Loggerheads' fails due to a lack of originality.


irritating, illogical flow of events. pretty much every joke is so simple that it can hardly be regarded as one. no wonder the cinema was empty and people actually walked away, yes away. I stayed, since I was enjoying a wonderful ice-cream with nuts during the whole movie.


E. Elias Merhige's existentialist experiment in the enduring is definitely one hell of a boring watch. This is like something Alexander de Large was forced to watch in 'A Clockwork Orange.' But, despite just how unwatchable this film really is, it is a success.

If you are reading this and have not already seen the film, then it is too late. For me, at least, the payoff (after 3 separate viewings with lots of break in between mind you) was seeing the list of characters *after* the story was told. That's when the simple message hit home. But i wonder if Merhige could have told a 5 minutes story in about 30, instead of 78.

However, seeing as how the cast of credits is displayed prominently on the front page for this movie, the cat is already out of the bag and you surely will only appreciate this film if you appreciate existentialist film making from the early 20th century. Even then, you might puke.

4/10 (but i commend Merhige for crafted a piece of art, even if it is unwatchable)


it's hard to make a negative statement here after all this raving about how great deed poll is, how wonderful the actors did and so on and so on. i did not like the film. it's crappy!

there are orgies, they have taboo sex (gay sex, bi sex, oral sex, rape, anal sex, masturbation, brother-sister-sex, brother-brother-sex, sex on drugs, sex without drugs, sex, sex, sex seems to rule their world. i guess the director is desperately in need of a getting laid.) the story is just dirty and shameful. i wonder what made those people get up with this story. and above all: who cares?

the technical stuff didn't satisfy me as well. the sound is poor, so is the editing and the 'direction' is absent. the actors are admittedly fine, but guess what! it's their job! their job is to act! no need to jump off your seats if an actor did a decent job. do you applause when a bus driver brings you home safely? see?

i gave it 2/10 because after all this thing had something that i can't put in words. b movie charm? camp fun? nudity? i don't know.


This movie is about a side of Ireland that Americans don't normally see, the narrow-minded religiously prejudiced side of the 'friendliest race in the world'. The movie, by the admission of the inhabitants of Fethard who are old enough to remember the events, is fairly accurate (though they insist that the film-makers invented some of the more violent scenes just to spice up the action).

The movie was very unpopular in Ireland as it portrayed the Catholic church in a bad light, but the simple fact is that representatives of the Catholic church *did* organise vetoes of minorities (before Protestants it was the Jews).

The film is a fascinating insight into the whole issue of religion in Ireland


***SPOILERS*** This film depicts the brutal bloodbath caused by the retirement of Johnny Carson to determine who would succeed him. The impersonations of David Letterman and Jay Leno are performed in a satisfactory way by John Michael Higgins and Daniel Roebuck, though the performances weren't great. Reni Santoni is the best-performing of the 'execs' (he plays John Agoglia of NBC), and Warren Littlefield (played by Bob Baliban) is a close second. I was shocked at the way in which Littlefield eagerly discussed dumping Johnny Carson. This was Johnny Carson! This scene evinces the cut-throat, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world of television. Kathy Bates delivered the best performance of the film as Jay's agent, Helen Kushnick. Another commenter asserted that Leno was portrayed as a simpleton in the film. I respectfully disagree. The relationship with Kushnick bordered on something akin to domestic violence. She orders him around, and, when he rebels against her at the end, she tries to play the sympathy card (mentioning her dead husband and son); however, when Jay terminates their relationship, she turns violent again, screaming 'Don't you leave me, you two-faced bastard!' before smashing a picture on the floor. Overall, the movie is hilarious, and I wish that it were shown more often.


We, as a family, were so delighted with 'The Last of the Blonde Bombshells' we purchased a copy for our home video library.

The acting is A1 and the cast contains many favorite actors and singers. The theme is unusual and the script well written. The music/songs are timeless and takes us back to our young days when we sang the songs at the top of our voices. To outline the story here would spoil the 'plot' as it is really nice to sit back and enjoy the story as it unfolds.

Full marks to this most enjoyable and uplifting production and we heartily recommend it to anyone who is looking for a belly-laugh and lots of music.


My scalp still smarts from the burning coals heaped on it when I vowed I love this film. Bring on the coals; I'll walk over them as well to say again that I love 'Bend it Like Beckham.' Granted, there's a lot of 'in spite of' in that confession. It's a bit movie-of-the-week; the screenplay is on the paint-by-numbers side. And, most troublingly, the director's commentary implies that in this film beauty can be found primarily amongst the white of skin.

The film's genius is not in what's obvious to the Syd Field-doctored eye: character arcs, themes, construction. It's in both the surface and what lurks deep beneath, but not in those layers of artistic topsoil that reviewers seem most often to scratch at. Powerful, sometimes semi-clad female bodies not simply on display but kicking the crap out of a football do a better job of naturalizing female strength and agility than Lara Croft or Zhang Ziyi will ever do. These are real bodies (Keira Knightley's excepted) whose work is not to look great first and kick butt later. They are working bodies whose beauty is in their movement and self-determination. And, in my book, lead actress Parminder Nagra is one of the most gorgeous creatures ever captured on screen  not only because she can lay claim to that hackneyed adjective, 'luminous,' but because her performance has an honesty and un-bookish intelligence that's utterly compelling.

The result is a film women can enjoy without feeling like they're making a pact with the devil to do so. As in Chadha's 'Bride and Prejudice,' the relationships amongst women sizzle with a chemistry that can't be neatly slotted into the stodgy, Sweet Valley High categories of 'best friends' or 'sisters.' Perhaps Chadha is even right in her commentary to disavow the film's flirtation with lesbianism. 'Bend it Like Beckham' has an electricity that can't be reduced to the simple hetero/homosexual love triangle its conventionally structured script would suggest. The precise nature of its pleasure is, ultimately, a bit of a mystery  and is all the more seductive for it.

Oh yes, and did I mention that it's hilarious?


It started out with an interesting premise. I always like Civil War stuff and ancient secret societies. The more the film progressed, the more I realized that this was a B movie at best. In the latter half, it quickly became a C movie, then D, then F, then 'I wish that this wasn't a rental so that I could put it in the microwave!' I can't say that the acting in all cases was awful, just most. The writing, however... I never read the book. Maybe the book is well written. The screenplay was written by a 10 year old. It was ridiculously shallow, the dialog drab and uninteresting, the characters about as interesting as a 5 pound bag of fertilizer. I really hated this movie, as did my wife. I am a Christian and I have no problem with movies that promote or support Christianity. This movie did a great disservice to the cause. Awful, terrible, worthless. If you liked it, I strongly recommend Superman 4.


Team Spirit is maybe made by the best intentions, but it misses the warmth of 'All Stars' (1997) by Jean van de Velde. Most scenes are identic, just not that funny and not that well done. The actors repeat the same lines as in 'All Stars' but without much feeling.


Last night, I attended a screening of Badland with my cousin. We were kind of excited to learn once we got there that the director/writer, the producer (his wife), and several cast members were also in attendance and that there would be a discussion and Q&A after the movie. But once the movie was over and the credits started rolling (and the film really was not edited well enough and is too long), my cousin and I, without consulting each other, immediately got up and left. We found out once we started talking outside that we were both feeling so angry that not only did we not want to stay for the discussion, we couldn't even look at the cast and crew who had been standing near the exit and who we walked right by as we left.

I have figured out that the roots of my anger were planted during the scene in which Jerry slices his daughter Celina's palm with a big knife so that her blood could be used to leave a fake trail. It was unavoidable to connect in my mind the physical pain he inflicted on her body with the emotional pain he inflicted on her spirit by murdering her mother and two brothers in her presence, sparing her, and taking her with him when he fled. I've sliced my palm before (accidentally); even a fairly superficial cut is incredibly painful because the palm is so sensitive, and it is very slow to heal if you don't keep it immobile because you just keep opening it up trying to go about your life. But after a very short time with only a narrow strip of cloth tied clumsily around her palm and one scene with a big band-aid, it was as if she'd never been cut. My anger reached its peak--I won't spoil this moment for you--in Celina's final scene.

I got angry because Celina is by far the most sympathetic character in the film (the actress portraying her is a good one); I wasand you can't tell me a good screenwriter wouldn't know thisimmersed in feeling both her physical and emotional pain; and the screenwriter, by treating Celina's emotional pain so cavalierly and with such disrespect, also treated me, the audience member, cavalierly and with utter disrespect.

Sure, the script has moments of tears for Celina, and some dialogue that tells us she's hurting, somewhere, somehow. But by this time, we the audience are feeling so manipulated that we've shut down. The manipulation starts very early on in this movie, when Jerry's family's dialogue spells out for the audience that Jerry had psychiatric problems. Rule one, screenwriters: give your audience some credit. Let them do a good bit of the creative work on their own. Tell the story; don't explain to us everything we're supposed to think and feel. We don't like it.

My cousin also knew she was having trouble with the movie early on, dialogue-wise, when Jerry and his wife had little to say to each other besides f*** this, f*** that, f*** you. Some couples do indeed find themselves in relationships so bad that the f-bomb ends up being every other word out of their mouths. But it's like watching comedians who curse a lot. Some of them are really funny; the cursing is ancillary. But some of them substitute cursing for humor, and this screenwriter, to carry the metaphor to its conclusion, is no Chris Rock.

This husband and wife team bravely chose to tackle an awfully complex story with awfully complex characters. But they seem not to have realized that the meaning of a story, especially a complex one, will vary for each member of the audience. Successful storytelling requires paying attention to important factual details, not working desperately to interpret the meaning of the story for the whole audience.

I worked with Vietnam veterans for five years, I've heard more stories than most, and I'm always happy to see films released that bring their stories to a broader audience. It's important, on all kinds of different levels, that we hear them. But I am less than thrilled that this storyteller decided before the film even began what Jerry's story meant and proceeded to spell it out for us with a very heavy hand. Next time, pay more attention to the details.


Before I review this film, I must make a confession that is rather a bold statement to make as a film reviewer. Anyone who has already read any of my previous reviews may know that I've always been controversial in a low-key sense, giving high marks for flops such as 'Captain America' and 1985's 'Creature' and panning such film classics as Alistar Sim's 'A Christmas Carol' and 'Shakespeare in Love.' With that in mind, this confession might not come as a surprise:

The simple fact is, Christopher Lambert is probably one of my favorite actors. Woah, now, don't start getting crazy on me just yet. Let me explain myself: I by no means think he's the greatest actor in the world. I clearly confess that he is not. He is certainly no Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins, but I would say that his acting ability is probably somewhere up there with at least Bruce Willis. What I admire about him, however, are the human qualities that he brings into his action heroes. He is just an average guy who laughs and cries and bleeds, who is a hero because he has to be, not necessarily because he wants to be. It takes a lot, in my opinion, to be able to bring out those qualities in a character (especially in the movies he's worked in), and Lambert's heroes are a far cry from Schwartzennegger's or Stallone's. Quite frankly, Lambert's characters are easier for me to relate to. Hence, he's not the greatest actor in the world....He's just a personal favorite.

I can't say that same, however, for his films. However much I appretiate his acting, it would be foolish not to confess that his choice of films leave something to be desired. Most of them are, quite frankly, terrible, and any ridicule that he's gotten over the years from me isn't due to his acting, but rather his bad choice in scripts.

With that in mind, I can say that his debut film, 'Tarzan,' is one of his best films and probably his greatest performance. As I mentioned, it is effective becasue of the humaness he brings to the role, and for how seriously the director, writers and actors handle the material. This is a far leap from the B-movie action adventures with Johnny Weismeller from the 1940's. In fact, I would hesitate to call it an action movie. Instead, it is a serious drama that takes all of E.R. Burrough's material seriously, showing Tarzan's quest to discover his real family in Scotland after realizing that he doesn't fit in as a 'white ape.' He is torn in between his old family and his new one, which includes a wonderful Sir Ralph Richardson in his final role. In an attempt to adapt to humans, his ape instincts also kick in, and he can't decide what he loves more: His real family, or the one that he's always known. All in all, it is a wonderful commentary on society, and a wonderful character study.

If nothing else, it launched Lambert into international stardom, which continued will into the 1980's with films like 'Highlander' and 'he Sicilian.' Unfortunately, it didn't last. But just wait a while....His latest career moves such as 'Gideon' and 'Resurrection' have proven that though he still have a long way to go, he's a competent enough actor to be able to perhaps make a... ahem.... comeback if he'll just pick his roles better.

For now, however, here's the verdict on his first film:

*** out of ****


I remember this film from many years ago. Certainly the best film on the subject in my experience. The fact that I vividly remember so much of the film after so long a time testifies to its impact.

It is difficult to comment on the level of the performances because of the language barrier. But they were nonetheless very powerful.

This subject continues to fascinate us even with the passing of years. And it was most effectively treated here, with the proper proportion of historical perspective and skepticism.

I wish it would be shown on TV at least once. Or at least be available on tape or DVD. Or is it? Is some art film archive hoarding a copy of it??