Apparently this Australian film based on Nevil Shute's novel exists in more than one form. Beware heavily cut versions sometimes shown on cable or satellite, running anywhere from 95 minutes to 2 hours. Only the full 5 hour miniseries version tells the story properly. It is a very close realisation of the story, suffering only from editorial faults commonly found in TV movies: choppiness and episodic progression. But this excellent cast carries the story forward very well with generally good production values accompanying their work. Yuki Shimoda is notable as 'Gunso Mifune', one of the guards assigned to accompany the women on their agonising trek. In the end he becomes a friend. You will agonise with him when his loss of face leads him into death.Helen Morse as 'Jean Paget', pretty but not a great beauty (she resembles Sigourney Weaver a bit)registers just the right amount of spunk and winsomeness as the occasion demands. The miniseries properly emphasises the beautiful love stories, three of them: 'Joe' and 'Jean', 'Noel' and 'Jean', and 'Jean' and Willstown. Gordon Jackson plays 'Noel Strachan' appealingly, but as a somewhat younger man than Nevil Shute indicated in the novel. The third love affair I mentioned doesn't get quite the emphasis it is due, and the full significance of the title is diminished. 'Jean' is devoted to the goal of bringing businesses to Willstown that will attract young women and girls and their civilising influence to this god-forsaken out back town. She wants to make it 'A Town Like Alice'; Alice Springs, that is. We get only a few hints of this in several scenes. If you have the five hours to spare, this miniseries is a truly rewarding experience. Nevil Shute based his novel about the cruelty of the Japanese military in shunting a large group of women and children from one place to another on the Maylay Peninsula on a true occurrence. It happened on Sumatra, according to Shute, though, rather than on the peninsula. The crucifixion of 'Joe' by a Japanese officer for stealing chickens to feed the women is probably fiction, but the cruelty of the Japanese in dealing with prisoners is certainly a matter of record.


Don't be fooled by the plot out-line as it is described on the cover (at least the Swedish version). The story on this seems rather interesting, with speculative hints. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is the absolute most sad movie experience I've ever had... It is plain and right AWFUL and should not be sold or rented to anyone. If you still think the plot seems intriguing, reflect on this: telephones can move, run and kill people as can also any other electric appliance. It can throw things at you, haunt you and run after you. PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE it is a disgrace for the horror genre...


I am an avid fan of Lucio Fulci, and yet I must say that 'Zombi 3' (aka. 'Zombie Flesh Eaters 2') of 1988, which he made with two other directors, Bruno Mattei and Claudi Fragasso, was quite a disappointment. Especially compared to its great predecessor, Fulci's very own Gore classic 'Zombi 2' (aka. 'Zombie Felsh Eaters'/'Zombie') of 1979, this is vastly disappointing. Sure, the low rating of 4.5 already suggests that it's not a good film, but, these low ratings usually come from people who are not into Italian Zombie flicks, and as enthusiastic fan of Italian Horror films and low-budget Exploitation cinema, I love many films that have only been rewarded with much lower ratings. Also, many of my fellow Italian Horror buffs seem to think of this film as underrated, which I sadly cannot agree with. Not that the film was a complete disaster. It has some redeeming qualities, above all Fulci's nauseating gore effects, that are always a pleasure to watch for an Italian Horror/Gore buff. The basic idea behind the film is also not bad (allthough far from original) and I liked the ruthless portrayal of the military. Sadly, that's about it. While the great predecessor 'Zombi 2' was extremely gory, but beyond that also genuinely creepy, this is not creepy or scary for a minute, and the nauseating and often grotesque gore is the only true reason to watch 'Zombi 3'. The film is sometimes fun to watch, but only for the gore, and as an unintentional comedy. I guess that it was mainly the gore that came from Fulci, and the disappointing rest that came from Mattei and Fragasso, the first of which was involved in a bunch of nasty cult-flicks (such as D'Amato's 'Porno Holocaust'), and the second of which is responsible for one of the worst movies ever made, the god-awful 'Troll 2'. Overall, this is definitely watchable for the gore, but, out of all Fulci films I've seen so far, this is definitely the worst, and I've seen the majority of this great filmmaker's repertoire. I am a Fulci fan, and I always will be, but this sure isn't his magic moment. It may be fun for the gore, but I recommend to watch any other Fulci film before this!


This is such a fantastic movie, a Western about a self-concerned man (Jimmy Stewart) going up to the Klondike for gold. On the way, he gets hassled by a local sheriff in Alaska (John McIntire, giving a wonderfully evil performance), whom he hassles back. McIntire threatens that he'll be a dead man if he ever comes back through his town, which is, unfortunately, the only way back to the States. The main chunk of the story is about the peaceful Klondike town of Dawson being turned upside down by new residents from McIntire's town. Ruth Roman, for instance, who has come with Stewart and his two companions (Jay C. Flippen and Walter Brennen, who plays Stewart's best friend), builds a saloon (a Hollywood front for a whorehouse) and tries to run the town's restaurant and hang-out place out of business. She paves the way for McIntire and his goons to come up, too. In 1953, Jimmy Stewart and director Anthony Mann made one of the peaks of the Western genre, The Naked Spur. The Far Country is just the tiniest bit less, and it contains 99.9% of what made that film so special without, of course, feeling like a cheap copy. Like The Naked Spur, The Far Country boasts beautiful, on-location cinematography. The landscape is gorgeous. Stewart gives one of his best performances (nearly equal to his biggest success of 1954, Rear Window). I suppose it could be considered cliche, as he starts out a selfish loner and learns how that kind of existence plays out in the end. Still, Stewart plays it so damn well, he makes this character very human. And the supporting performances are universally fantastic. In addition to those I've mentioned, the adorable French actress Corinne Calvet is very good. And I ought to single out Walter Brennen, as well. He seems to have specialized in playing best friends. His relationship with Stewart is very touching, since he is, at first, the only character who is able to bring out any humanity in the cynical man. The screenplay is very well written, and Mann's direction is impeccable. A masterpiece. 10/10.


Sure, he became rapidly uneven after this film, but from 'Knife In the Water' up till 'The Tenant', Roman Polanski could always be counted on to deliver something fascinating and unique. Despite many running themes (alienation, paranoia), no two of his films are really alike. The story of this is somewhat similar to his own 'Repulsion' from ten years earlier, but the tone is completely different. 'The Tenant' manages to balance darker than dark absurdity (I'm a bit hesitant on calling it humor, even though the protagonists bizarre behavior and dialog was occasionally funny) with some truly suspenseful paranoia. Polanski was always a master at building unease, and moments in this film are almost unbearably creepy. The overall weirdness of the film is also a plus.

In addition to Polanski's exquisite as usual direction, the rest of the cast and crew offer great contributions. Polanski the actor is often overshadowed by Polanski the director, but his performance here truly captures his characters awkwardness and sense of being an outcast. The themes of social discrimination make this film more than just strangeness for the sake of being strange. The rest of the cast offers strong performances also, especially Isabelle Adjani's sympathetic turn, and Melyvn Douglas and Shelley Winters' appropriately annoying ones. 'The Tenant' is often underrated because of how ready people are to heap praise on both 'Repulsion' and 'Rosemary's Baby', but its just as brilliant as either of those classics. (9/10)


This is absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.

Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking 'huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?' or 'so how did that aspect of the character come about?' I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.

Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.

If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.

Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good.


This is the only movie I've seen Prince in but it don't matter. And I thought he was only great at singing boy was I wrong. This is probably his best performance. The music is great. Thats why it won the Oscar in 1984 for best music to a movie (or something like that). Now he has an Oscar and Grammies under his belt. Although the cursing gets in the way with the film (just make sure no little kids or in the room). There isn't to much to say without revealing the plot. You should really go out and get this movie your collection isn't complete unless you got this movie in it. What else could I possibly say except for go and get this movie now!


Bashki should be congratulated for attempting to convert one of the great works of English fiction into a movie, and then slapped silly for this attempt. The animation was poor, the characters looked ridiculous, the music was overwhelmingly blaring, and the film was a ramshackle blitz through the first book and a half of Tolkien's masterpiece. I can still remember my sheer disappointment and loathing for the movie when I first saw it. Now I realize that any attempt to convert a book into a movie is bound to fail in many ways, simply because of the medium, but this movie, regardless of the source of the story, is just plain pathetic. Bashki is capable of much more.


Hey everyone...

There really isn't much to say for this movie at all. The basic plot is that a guy (Brandon) takes a few friends on a trip to his cabin in the woods for a weekend holiday away from work. After picking up a girl on the way there, things start going badly wrong for all of them.

The storyline alone (written by the actor playing Brandon, I believe, although I could be wrong here) is unlikely and unconvincing, and is acted out accordingly. The 'Clown Killer' himself is a rather a sad excuse for a psychotic killer. Far from being a dark, mysterious but most of all, intelligent predator, we are instead offered a rather clumsy, nursery rhyme-singing buffoon who appears to be going through a minor mid life crisis. The only thing that warranted the writing of this comment were the sex scenes and whatever gore there was in the film (the quality of the film led me to derive some enjoyment out of such things).

In short, this film falls below every possible set standard. Admittedly, I was sharing a few beers with a close friend as I watched this, so we managed to scrape together some relative entertainment value out of this film and it is therefore only fair to mention that S.I.C.K did fall just shy of a two rating. However, in reality, (and with the benefit of hindsight) the one star rating is a more than legitimate score for this film.

1 star out of ten.


I'm sick and tired of people complaining that Never Say Never Again is just a weak remake of Thunderball. Yes, that movie's influence is unmistakable, but the tremendous and almost universal inferiority of re-made films is reserved for such thoughtless and unintelligent films like the 1998 re-make of Psycho. While it's true that the opening theme of the twelfth (and Connery's last) Bond film is one of the worst of the entire series, the film itself still manages to stand on its own, despite many other weaknesses. Besides that, even the weak title song is made to blend pretty nicely with the closing dialogue in the film.

Sure, Sean Connery was getting a little on in age when this movie was filmed (at least by James Bond standards), but there is plenty of evidence in the narrative that makes it clear that this was not exactly unknown to the filmmakers. James Bond is near retirement before he is handed his assignment, having spent most of recent time teaching, not doing, and there is even the tongue in cheek insistence from M that he pay more attention to his health, dieting and training and getting more exercise and whatnot. Besides, this is James Bond, remember? This guy is supposed to be some kind of super human, and all of his fans are getting all upset because he's got some gray hairs. When this guy retires at the end of the film, M sends poor `Small-Fawcett' (in a hilarious cameo from Rowan Atkinson) to tell Bond that without him, he worries about the safety of the free world, and all of you people can't get over the fact that he's not a sprightly young man anymore. Come on, Sean Connery could STILL play James Bond just as good as he ever could, or at least better than anyone else ever has been able to.

The majority of the film deals with the elaborate plan to steal nuclear missiles and hold the world hostage (as Dr. Evil would say, `Oh hell, let's just do what we always do'), so there's clearly not much new there, but this is one of the Bond films that had the better one liners. There's the amusing scene where Bond is asked for a urine sample  `If you could just fill this beaker for me' `From here?' There are a lot of good one-liners, but the sexual innuendos aimed at Mr. Bond are especially prevalent in this installment. But then later he happens to throw that very urine sample into a villain's face, making him scream as if his face were burning off. Not a very good attempt at comic relief, especially since this guy had been kicking Bond's ass with some sort of super-spring device that could cut through pretty much anything. And of course, Kim Basinger stars in this film as one of the best Bond girls of the entire series.

It's no secret that Never Say Never Again has dated badly, and one of the things that has dated the worst is the special effects  with the one exception of the flying missiles, which were obviously fake but still impressive for 1982. The colored contact lens at the beginning of the film was totally without effect, and the laser watch was one of the worst things in the entire movie, second only to those damn sharks. Evidently, Fatima Blush put some sort of device on his scuba tank that attracted sharks (granted, they did have weird guiding mechanisms of their own), in a scene that more than likely inspired the classic line, `I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with FRICKIN' laser beams attached to their heads!' And then, of course, there is the exploding hotel room scene which was redone in an episode of The Simpsons, and which was obviously followed by another obligatory and overly casual one-liner from James.

The domination video game created by Largo, the film's villain, is an especially memorable scene, and the film also boasts what is probably the best motorcycle chase in the entire series (far to superior to the laughable one in Tomorrow Never Dies). But despite many strengths, the film's weaknesses are left clearer in the audience's mind at the end of the film due in large part to the anticlimactic underwater conclusion (one of the more obvious parts borrowed from Thunderball, and inferiorly recreated). Never mind the fact that Largo revealed some crucial information to Bond as he left him in the tower alive (Dr. Evil's brilliance, once again, `I'll just leave him there without actually witnessing his death and just assume everything went to plan. What?'), the climax of what is expected to be a fast-paced action film should never take place in a muted underwater atmosphere.

All in all, Never Say Never Again ranks very highly on the James Bond scale, and Connery's wink at the end of the film (as well as the two closing lines) suggested at the time that he may still return for another turn as Bond. Clearly, this is no longer very likely, so we can only hope.


Henry Fool is a better film. But this is the perfect way to follow-up a film like 'Henry Fool.' To take Henry very seriously, his 'lies' and his mysterious aura. Even the opening shot of 'Henry Fool' when Simon puts his ear to the ground as Henry comes walking over the hill is more fully manifest through 'Fay Grim.' The over-the-top jokes, that are more or less meta-jokes (about the writing of the film and the jokes themselves), are good but the opening of the film is a little saturated in them. Also Hartley's use of Dutch angles throughout the film is jarring, yes, it's intention, but it feels forced and over-used, it goes beyond jarring to, what I'd like to call, annoying. It's a flawed film, but a must see for any Hartley or 'Henry Fool' fan.

And don't listen to stupid reviews, don't watch this unless you've seen the first film. The intrigue, satire and wit of this movie is totally lost if you haven't seen Henry Fool. It's a sequel. That's just dumb.


I give this movie 3 out of 10 because I have watched zillions of movies and I can tell clearly what an intellectual movie with a mind-teasing message should look like. Definitely, The Broken is not one of those movies. I have to admit that the movie made me think a lot trying to understand what the whole thing was trying to lead to and despite the explanations I've read in prior comments, they seemed only an exaggeration just to have one self in the intellectual league of people. the photo on the cover clearly shows that the Broken is the broken upper piece of the face which normally contains the brain. It's a clear message that once this part of the body is broken the rest will be deformed and lifeless. So, you start waiting on the movie characters to show their defected sides and this is not obvious in any of the scenes because the movie starts right away without any introduction to the characters and their lives before. Though we see the father holding a rifle when his children try to surprise him as if he is aware he has enemies but still this is not a very strong clue. Had the clues been planted more in the movie, one would have said about that it is a masterpiece indeed. But though the movie was so slow in pace, it was at the same time so empty with no metaphorical scenes at all. And the reuniting of the evil dad with the evil Gena at the end is a strong refuting evidence of the existential messages that some people spoke about in other comments. Furthermore, if Gena truly lives in the apartment as her brother tells her at the end, then how come she is the evil one? I bet I can defy any theory about this movie with so many questions that can only lead to one conclusion: This movie is a pretentious one and a waste of time. Obviously it shows someone trying to make out of a meaningless mystery something which is of no value at all. I am a huge fan of horror movies and specially slasher ones that some people call popcorn movies. Horror movies are not supposed to convey deep messages! They're supposed to uncover the beautiful mask of life and show you the other dark side of it which is the truest, I guess. Horror movies should have blood, screams, intensity, skeletons, body organs and parts. Because that is the real horror and it's never away from reality. I have watched almost all horror movies and I can prove that each one of them can be as real as the sunrising. Nothing is unreal as long as the mind had thought of. For instance, the horror movie 'Train' with all the slashing and tensity of it and its similarity almost in everything with 'Hostel', it speaks about a very real thing which is selling body organs illegally by abducting people in foreign places where no one would ask or search for them.

And even if we considered the Broken a movie that has an existential message, it is still very poorly presented and the least scary. I prefer the addiction message presented in Requiem for a Dream which went beyond drug addiction to highlight the fact that any kind of addiction whether for sex, TV, safety/being pampered, etc... can be so destructive and it scared the hell out of me. And those who always criticize horror movies for being meaningless and very commercial, are usually just bunch of people who get scared easily and simply don't like this genre but this doesn't mean that there are fans of such movies and that they have a lot to offer to the viewer from adrenaline turmoils, ecstasy, leadership lessons (believe it or not!), entertainment to most importantly the face to face interview with the essence of life, as ugly and scary as it may seems, Death!


I thought Nick Gomez's look at the gritty streets of New Jersey, where car-jackings are at an all-time high, was both thought-provoking and entertaining. This is just as good as movies like Boyz n the Hood or Menace II Society or Above the Rim. I thought the actors and the scenarios were suitable, it had a gritty realistic feel to it and was very atmospheric, whether on purpose or by raw coincidence. I liked this movie a lot, an underrated gem i found on TV and glad i caught it. Go watch this movie if you get a shot. If they don't have a DVD, they should release one. Well done Nick Gomez. IMDb Rating: 5.9. My Rating: 9/10


This movie deserves more than a 1. But I'm giving it a one because so many fricken fan boys have given it a 10 resulting in it getting a rating that'll take it into the top 100 list. Seriously it's not that great its not that bad. Its a stupid cult classic with so many fricken fan boys it's ridiculous. These are the types who probably still laugh at Chuck Norris jokes and still say 'I'm rick james b!tch' No matter how old or annoying it gets. I dread having to hear 'I'm tired of MFn snakes on this MFn plane' months from now from idiots trying to be funny. Its crappy plot crap acting etc. Its Okay to love a bad movie, but you still gotta admit its a bad movie.

Wait for the Marine starring John Cena if you wanna see a real movie


Following is an intriguing thriller that requires constant awareness to be completely understood. The plot has many twists and uses displaced chronology. The event sequence complicates following Following. If you are willing to pay attention, it is an exciting movie full of noir earmarks. With the running time at 70 minutes, there is a lot to take in, but the fast pace helps to keep the viewer enthralled.

Bill is a lonely, untidy fellow who takes up shadowing people and seeing where they go-what they do. He is a bit too conspicuous, however, and eventually gets caught by a well dressed, clean-cut bloke named Cobb. Cobb entangles Bill in a world the poor boy is not prepared to live in. Cobb is a smart rogue who seems to have complete control over the other characters. By the end of the film the disjointed story is explained thoroughly. The film is an excellent first effort from the talented Christoper Nolan, who would go on to make Memento, one of the most original movies of our time.


I don't get it! The teenage leads in 'Horror Star' supposedly all are devoted horror fans, yet when their favorite idol (Conrad Radzoff) passes away, they dig up his corpse and do all sorts of disrespectful stuff with it, like disco-dancing it around the house and throw food leftovers at it. That doesn't sound like something real horror fans would do, now does it? I'm a big horror fan and I immensely idolize departed icons like Vincent Price, Peter Cushing and Boris Karloff, but it would never come to my mind to ridicule their memory. No wonder Conrad comes back from the dead  admittedly, after a séance  to wipe them all off the face of the earth! Mr. Radzoff already wasn't known for his friendliness in life, since he occasionally killed the directors that disagreed with his visions, and even after his death he suffers from a tremendous ego. Even inside his tomb there are video messages to petrify possible visitors and the group of teenagers will vividly experience that he also enjoys the murdering business outside his film sets. 'Horror Star' (a.k.a. 'Frightmare' and 'Body Snatchers') is a pretty lame 80's horror flick, but there are a handful of cheesy & gory highlights to enjoy. The film mainly suffers from its own stupid plot, since no one  not even a film school student  is stupid enough to steal a recently buried corpse and actually think he'll get away with it, and there are too many tedious moments to struggle through. Conrad's video-speeches from beyond the grave are overly talkative and definitely undermine the tension, but on the other hand his killing methods are pleasingly inventive. One teenager enjoys the experience of getting cremated alive and another one (Jeffrey Combs in one of his first roles!) loses his head in a delightful decapitation sequence. In the absolute messiest sequence, a poor girl' head is crushed by a coffin. Writer/director Norman Thaddeus Vane wanted to bring homage to vintage horror cinema and he obviously how to make film look sinister. The locations and scenery are great, but Vane lacked the necessary funds to provide his film with a proper continuity and editing-job. The acting performances are overall decent, with Ferdy Mayne (imitating Christopher Lee) and Jeffrey Combs delivering the most memorable roles. 'Horror Star' can hardly be called a must-see or even a good film, but it's worth tracking down in case you're an admirer of enthusiastically made B-horror.


This is NOT as bad a movie as some reviewers, and as the summary at the IMDB page for this movie, say it is. Why? First is the fact that in 1984 the movie makers were daring enough to confront, as one of the plot elements, the issue of domestic violence -- so reviewers who complain about the plot are sadly missing one of the main points! Second, without the plot element of Prince's movie relationship with his abusive father, the musical climax wouldn't work as well as it does -- so those reviewers who say that only the music is good have, once again, missed one of the points -- specifically, WHY it is so good...because all of the music in this film has a plot element backdrop that makes the music more effective. Third, give this movie a break! For first-time movie producers and director, this is just not that bad! There are far worse movies out there by accomplished movie people!! And last, the reviewers who say that the music is 'good' have also missed the point -- check out the range of stylistic musical treatments, the variety, the musicianship, and the stage performance of Prince -- truly one of a kind, going musically where no one else was going during the 1980's, and with a style seen in the work of other artists (clothes and movement: which costuming elements came first, Michael Jackson's or Prince's? Also, see if you can spot the splayed fingers sweeping in front of the eyes that Prince does in this movie, long before Quentin Tarentino's 'Pulp Fiction'). As the sum of its parts, not a bad movie at all.


Alice Dodgson,a New York doctor gets her license suspended when she treats one of her patients with an unapproved drug,resulting in the patient's death.Without a job,Alice is forced to go to Jamaica,where she tends to the brother of a wealthy white landowner.The brother thinks he's a zombie and is deeply involved in the local people's voodoo practices and rituals.'Ritual' is a mediocre horror flick.The action is pretty dull,the plot twists are silly and there is no suspense.There is a bit of gore as someone is killing off white people with a machete,but not too much.The cinematography is decent,however the acting is truly woeful.Definitely one to avoid.4 out of 10.


I had the misfortune to see this film recently and have to sit through it. A friend purchased it for £1 and insisted we watch it as it sounded good from the story on the back cover.

10 minutes into the film it was apparent that the actors were amateurs and this was an extremely low budget effort.

The scenes were very poorly acted, the script was stupid and the story contained many scenes which seemed unnecessarily long, just so the movie would be of a reasonable length.

For instance when the lead character rents a warehouse, the film spends a ridiculous amount of time on this scene, with meaningless dialogue which serves no real purpose or necessity to the plot.

The lead actor is supposedly carrying out revenge on a woman who sleeps with guys to give them HIV, he never once thinks to get tested. Instead he turns into a crazed killer deciding to torture her before killing her and sawing her into pieces.

If this sounds good and you are thinking this will have lots of gore, think again. This film has no real gory sequences and is quite tame for this type of film.

It does not scare, it does not make you think, it does not offer fast paced fun. It may however put you to sleep, it is certain to bore you to tears, so please save yourself the despair and follow my heading.

AVOID THIS FILM 1/2 out of 10 (this does not deserve even 1)

The film was 78 minutes but seemed as if it was 2 1/2 hours.


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is not a shred of historical accuracy, in fact reality is reversed. Just one example: Morgan preyed on the few ethnic Chinese he encountered. The acting is over the top, the script is a poorly written lie. I have never seen worse fake beards.

Hopper arrived in Australia and reportedly only would make the film if the script was totally rewritten so he could be a hero. Since the script was ten made up on the fly, the may explain how bad it is and how disjointed the movie is.

Any movie about Ned Kelly is a lot better than this film.


I hate this programme: not only is the very concept ludicrous, but it tries so hard to be feasible (something that was left out of similar 'I confess' ending programmes like, Muder: She Wrote).

Sigh. Why is it that the writers can't ever be intelligent enough in this programme to come up with evidence that would stick and win a decision in court?

Come on: after X-amount of years of the cases being unsolved, why must EVERY SUSPECT, EVERY EPISODE *CONFESS* (damn it!) to a murder which would otherwise go unsolved?

I bet all police wish that criminals were this good sportsmen: 'Aw, shucks, officer, you're a bright one - I guess if you've uncovered enough to convince yourself I did it, I may as well admit to it and make it easier for you in court. What can I say? It's a fair cop.'

Absolute dog s**t and an insult to those of us with with enough brains to even have heard of I.Q.


A gentle story, hinting at fury, with a redemptive message and glorious celebration. The photography is wondrously well executed. Cinematographers look at this kind of film to hone their craft not just for what the eye can do to enhance a story, but what the right camera vocabulary can do to heighten an emotion. Feeding the soul is by definition what this movie addresses, but with an elegance and grace of delivery that simply doesn't not happen much anymore, at least with this degree of taste, restraint and finesse. If you care about story and character development, this is a also a great movie to see as an example of what simple lines and the right delivery can do to completely fill out a character's impression. Match all this with a film score that is almost minimalist in character and also perfectly conceived, and you'll 'get' this movie.


Some things need to be clarified. The picture of Mark Ferris is not the Mark Ferris who starred in this movie. I know that because he was my dad. Please remove that picture. Also, Mark Ferris was the writer, at least one of them. I have been trying to find a copy or a way to see this movie again. It has been years and if someone can point me in the direction of obtaining a copy, that would be great. The movie wasn't all that bad, and trying to compare it to todays world of Star Wars and other high tech sci fi's it futile. If you watch it, just enjoy it for the rediculousness and humor it possesses. Lighten up on being movie snobs and enjoy some less creative and innovated films.


Spunky journalist Holly Hunter produces investigative news reports for a major news network. She's a motor-mouthed maverick, dazzlingly good at her job and with little time for romantic relationships. Enter William Hurt and Albert Brooks, two men who vie for her love.

Brooks is an old school journalist who adores Holly because she represents everything good about journalism. They both believe that the media exists to test the Gods, educate the public and fight for truth. Children of the sixties, they embody hippie values. They're defenders of the public good. Knights who fight valiantly with pen and camera.

William Hurt, in contrast, is a far more complex character. Initially awkward, clumsy and self-depreciating, he gradually reveals himself to be a sexy and manipulative high achiever, skilled at climbing the corporate ladder. Unlike Holly and Brooks, he's symbolic of modern media values: news as spectacle, journalism as entertainment, news anchor as celebrity, truth as subject to editing board. We want to despise him and his blip-time junk food journalism, but we just can't quite manage it. He's playing the game by its own rules. Do we condemn him for lacking a moral backbone? Do we condemn the game? Can the game exist if its rules are disobeyed? How have these rules evolved?

This isn't Lumet's and Chayefsky's 'Network', and so the film never bothers to answer or raise these questions. Content to keep things on the level of light comedy, it ends with Hurt being promoted to London Division and Brooks being booted to a tiny community network. Holly, having rejected both men, remains caught between them. The last bastion of media integrity, this spunky reporter remembers her roots, mourns the loss of Brooks and warns herself to be on the guard of future William Hurts.

It's a cute ending, but compared to 'Network' the film seems positively trite. Chayefsky's vision is one in which global media, despite its ubiquity, offers less meaningful information. He foresees a world in which globalisation has homogenized cultures, information has become subject to corporatisation and a handful of media monopolies control all international news. This is a world in which the truth is subject to shareholder meetings and economic interests. A world in which viewer ratings determine content and opinion polls dictate top stories.

Perhaps this is why 'Broadcast News', which longs for the glory days of journalism, ends on such a bittersweet note. It knows what the future holds. Made in 1987, its been living it for at least a decade.

But today, in the digital age, things are even worse. Mergers and acquisitions have left a very small number of massive firms dominating the communication landscape. With this has come the hyper-commercialism of content, the barrier between the creative/editorial side and the commercial side all but collapsed. Today everyone might be able to start their own blog or website, but these are grass roots affairs. As the communication reach of the individual increases (due to technological progress - email, internet, electricity, air mail etc) the size of the individual's world increases likewise. He must project his voice both further and louder, futilely battling that deafening white noise, the incessant verbal static that is the global community.

So ultimately you need two things according to democratic theory. Firstly, you need a rigorous coming of people in power and people who want to be in power, both in the private and public sector. Secondly, you need a wide range of informed opinions on all important issues of the day. In a democratic society the media system as a whole should produce this sort of culture. Unfortunately, the structure we currently have in the global system works directly against the needs of democratic journalism and a democratic society.

8/10  This is lightweight stuff, but a witty script, some funny moments and a brief cameo by Jack Nicholson, elevate it above most other films about journalism. Interestingly, unlike most films about the media, it never dips into satire, and instead plays things as a straight love triangle.

Worth one viewing.


'Loulou' delights in the same way an expensive, high quality French wine does. It leaves you with a very fine aftertaste.

'Loulou's theme isn't new. The film doesn't carry an original plot either. Its colored picturing shows fine, but not extraordinary. Its setting is serious. Its elegant styling never and nowhere puts any weight on your mind.

Whatever one further may say about 'Loulou', it's beyond doubt that this very French film stands out for its excellent acting. The three leads convincingly reflect all numerous doubts and tenses sparkling between them, making the plot alive. Their acting fully invites you to participate, to make friends.

For those around at the time, 'Loulou' also provides an extra bonus: its perfectly captured mood of 1980.


All Dogs Go To Heaven Is The Most Cutest Animated Film To Have Dogs In 1989. The Previous Don Bluth Film The Land Before Time(1988) Became A Success. Dogs Are So Cute As Little Mice. Aw, I Just Want To Hug Them When They're Cute. Where Was I? Oh, Yes. Its Animation Is Beautiful, The Characters Are Great When They're Perfectly Voiced And The Songs Are Cute And Touching. It Opened In November 17 1989 The Same Date As The Little Mermaid Produced By Walt Disney Feature Animation.

The Part Where Charlie Got Killed By Carface Was So Unforgivable. Carface Is So Mean Because He Wanted To Kill Charlie. Shame On Him! The Love Survive Song Performed By Irene Cara And Freddie Jackson Was So Beautiful. All Dogs Go To Heaven Is The Best Animated Movie Ever.


Every once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.

Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG.


I fully agree with the previous reviewer. There's no chemistry between Spencer Tracy and Hedy Lamarr, and the focus of the film is on their relationship. Hedy Lamarr isn't at her best, and Spencer Tracy appears to be naive, simple and overly-hopeful -- both in love and life; an idealist role that played out best in 'Boys Town'. If you can make it through the ridiculous crowd scene by the train station...whoa...it's rather slapstick and not worthy of any actor in the cast. Not the best acting on anybody's part. Miscast and mismatched. Story is empty and various and disenfranchised input is apparent. Hedy Lamarr is her absolutely stunning herself, which is truly the best part of the film. Spencer Tracy can't match the sophistication of her beauty and wardrobe, and the film doesn't come off as believable for at least that reason.


It's rare that I get the opportunity to review a film for IMDb that relates to my own life in such a close way. However, as someone living with cerebral palsy (albeit less severe than Michael, one of the main characters in the film) I don't wish to give this film a 'free pass' just because it tackles a subject that's rarely approached; and when it is, is normally treated with po-faced seriousness. There WERE minor problems I had with the film; and I'd like to address those first, so that people are clear that it isn't my situation which has clouded my judgement of this overall excellent film!

* Parts of it I felt were unashamedly crowd-pleasing, at the expense of realism. If I had a pound for every time a well-meaning member of the public has mentioned electric-wheelchair racing to me, I'd be much the richer man; but speaking personally, that fits more into the public perception of how we deal with our disadvantages, rather than the reality of what actually goes on. Same thing with spending time watching disabled people go to the pub - it's not a big deal to those of us who actually do it, as much as it might be admirable for outsiders looking in. I appreciate that this is from the previously sheltered perspective of Michael; but I still think he'd be concentrating more on enjoying the experience, rather than reflecting on what a big deal it was that he was actually there, in the first place. As such, the amount of time we spend seeing them have fun felt like a bit too much.

* I felt that the terminal nature of Rory's illness was brought to our attention far too late; meaning that it was just used as a cheap sentimental device to come between the pair, rather than something everybody knew all along was going to have to be dealt with.

To balance those criticisms, I have to dish out a heap of praise, as well. Although I thought some scenes showing them getting to grips with normal life were a touch overdone; the script also ventured into some tricky places I wouldn't have expected, and comes out with a lot of credit for doing so. For instance raising the issue of love and relationships; and showing the daily apparatus often used to aid and assist the lives of non able-bodied people. Also, despite the blunt emotional shock tactic of death being sprung upon us, the movie as a whole is far less sappy than anyone has a right to expect these type of films to be.

Brenda Fricker can and has been performing variations of her role capably on autopilot for what seems like years; but Robertson and McAvoy share a special interaction that must be noted. Inside, I'm doing cartwheels that a group of people somewhere have finally made a film doing justice to the lust for life of many disabled persons.


In 1692 Salem, a devious child's lies about a slave's involvement in witchcraft sends an entire community into an uproar. Costume drama starring Claudette Colbert and Fred MacMurray isn't stuffy, though neither is it a vivid depiction of contagious hysteria. Worked on by three writers (Walter Ferris, Durward Grimstead, and Bradley King), the story elements are rather interesting (especially coming out of Hollywood in 1937), though to anyone who has since read Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible', the hoked-up melodrama on display here won't be tolerated for very long. Biggest problem with the picture may lie in the casting: Colbert and MacMurray are an ill-matched pair of lovers hindered by the witch-hunt, MacMurray being far too contemporary a presence for these surroundings. *1/2 from ****


Wimpy stuffed shirt Armand Louque (blandly played by veteran character actor Dean Jagger in a rare lead role) joins a group of researchers who want to find and destroy the secret technique of creating zombies. Armand falls for the lovely Claire Duval (fetching blonde Dorothy Stone), who uses the meek sap to get Armand's colleague Clifford Grayson (the hopelessly wooden Robert Noland) to marry her. Furious over being used and spurned by Claire, Armand uses his knowledge of voodoo to get revenge. Sound exciting? Well, it sure ain't. For starters, Victor Halperin's static (non)direction lets the meandering and uneventful talk-ridden story plod along at an excruciatingly slow pace. Worse yet, Halperin crucially fails to bring any tension, atmosphere and momentum to the hideously tedious proceedings. The mostly blah acting from a largely insipid cast doesn't help matters any; only George Cleveland as the hearty General Duval and E. Alyn Warren as the irascible Dr. Trevissant manage to enliven things a bit with their welcome and refreshing hammy histrionics. The drippy stock film library score, the painfully obvious stagebound sets, and the crude cinematography are pretty lousy and unimpressive as well. In fact, this feeble excuse for a fright feature is so crummy that not even the uncredited starkly staring eyes of the great Bela Lugosi can alleviate the brain-numbing boredom. A dismally dull dud.


This film is a great disappointment. Director Vicente Aranda has provided many interesting films throughout his long career, some of them were highlighted by strong and powerful performances by Spanish actress Victoria Abril. In JUANA LA LOCA, he relies on a gifted actress as well , newcomer Pilar Lopez de Ayala, but this is barely the sole positive element in an otherwise terrible mess of a movie. While Lopez de Ayala tries hard to portray Juana as a romantic and passionate young woman, completely obsessed by love to her handsome husband, it seems as if she weren't able to develop her character over this one-dimensional feature; Juana was an important figure in Spanish history, and politics of that time were essential in her storyline... but here she's introduced as a romantic leading lady out of a soap opera; this is a real pity, and the film a missing opportunity to show the way personal lives can influence History and vice versa. Worst of all, Italian actors Daniele Liotti and Manuela Arcuri turn out in real bad performances, which, in the case of Liotti is a real problem as he portrays Felipe el Hermoso, a pivotal role in this story. It seems a clear choice to attract young audiences, as both of them look like top-models of this era. On the other hand, talented actors such as Giuliano Gemma and Rosana Pastor are completely wasted in supporting roles clearly underdeveloped. Even if this was a big-budgeted film, little care was taken in bringing a good screenplay or creating 'period pieces' on the screen. Costumes are particularly grotesque in some of the group scenes, as if they were taken from stock material,without regarding of a real coherence. All in all, the main problem with JUANA LA LOCA (and this is what makes the difference with far superior historical films as LA REINE MARGOT or ELIZABETH) is the lack of a director's point of view. This a strange turn in Aranda's career, as he was able to develop it in other works (LIBERTARIAS and AMANTES come to my mind), creating very personal and interesting movies, while this JUANA really is no more than a routine academic historical piece... and a not very good one at that!


This series gets 2 stars solely because it puts some of Dickens' Bleak House on film and perhaps someone will read the book. Contrary to what is probably received opinion, Diana Rigg was poor as Lady Dedlock. She was clunky and wooden. Lady D. is a reserved character but not a martinet. Denholm Elliot is wrong, wrong, wrong for Mr. Jarndyce. So I'll interrupt myself and respond to all those people who are saying: 'I didn't read the book, so I don't have to take this guy's opinion because he's basing his evaluations on the book.' True and not true. For ex, Diana Rigg is bad in her role because of poor acting whether or not you've read the book. On the other hand, Denholm Elliot is a passable Jarndyce (although too old). The series fails not because it's unfair to compare it to the book, but because the various plot lines and characters just don't coalesce to make a coherent, dramatic, mysterious andcompelling entertainment. It is dull and flat. If you want to make apossibly good Bleak House, you need to expend 20 hours of film in 10 two hour episodes. But I suggest that producers etc. leave Dickens alone (even A Christmas Carol). Television deadens the genius of Dickens as manifested in his ingenious plots and unforgettable characters.


The Western society has been fed ideas about India being a poor country. Movies like these only make those beliefs stronger. Such illustrations make it all the more difficult for Indians to be accepted abroad. Agreed there are poor and homeless in India, but why is there no representation of educated people if not the successful ones.

I totally hated the idea of the movie portraying Patrick Swayze as another Mother Teressa. In my opinion this movie has shown India in a very bad light giving wrong notions. It is unjust to discuss only one aspect of the society. Exactly the reason why people ask me, 'When we go to India, can we hire an elephant right outside the airport so we do not have to walk on the roads so full of filth and snakes?'

Those who want a second opinion on contemporary Indian society should watch 'Monsoon Wedding'.


A typical Goth chick (Rainbow Harvest looking like a cross between Winona Ryder in Beetlejuice and Boy George) gets even with people she feels have wronged her with the help of an old haunted mirror that she finds in the new house she and her mom (horror mainstay, Karen Black, the only remotely good thing about this travesty) buy. The acting's pretty laughably bad (especially when Rainbow interacts with the aforementioned mirror) and there are no scares or suspense to be had. This film inexplicably spawned thus for 3 sequels each slightly more atrocious than the last. People looking for a similarly themed, but far superior cinematic endeavor would be well advised to just search out the episode of 'Friday the 13th: the Series' where a geeky girl finds an old cursed compact mirror. That packs more chills in it's scant 40 minutes than this whole franchise has provided across it's 4 films.

My Grade: D

Eye Candy: Charlie Spradling provides the obligatory T&A


Armored

The best part about driving an armored vehicle is that if any bums approach you at a red light asking for money, you can shoot them in the face.

And while the armoured guards in this thriller aren't using their protective power to purge the drifter population, they are using their position to fleece their employer.

When newcomer Ty (Columbus Short) lands a job with an armored trunk company, he feels like he has found his lot in life. Unfortunately, however, when he discovers that his co- workers (Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Laurence Fishburne) are plotting to take the $42 M shipment for themselves, Ty must fortify himself  and the funds  inside the armored truck.

A tedious caper with a plodding plot and phoned-in performances, Armored is an utterly forgettable film.

Besides, if you really want to jack millions, it's a lot simpler to just disguise yourself as an ATM. (Red Light)


This screened at Sundance last night to a receptive if mute crowd. Clearly the story is worth relating, it's powerful and true, but did the director have to cast every single role with a recognizable face? I mean, really, you spend have your time saying 'Oh look, it's the guy from 'Armageddon'', or 'Hey, it's Easy Rider!' and you lose sight of the story. Perhaps it's the only way this guy could get his movie made, but it's a little distracting, sort of like 'The Love Boat', or those old Towering Inferno movies, that were 'chock o' block with stars!'. I wish he's just told the story simply with less famous faces. Also, the camera work seems kind of lazy, like there wasn't any thought about where to put the camera to best tell the story. All in all, I thought it was okay, but could have been really good.


It's a long time ago I saw this movie and still it's one of the worst I've ever seen. I like lots of kind of movies; sci-fi, action, drama, thrillers and sometimes even horror. Not a combination of two. This could have been a wonderful movie, but they all blew it up. I didn't want to see this movie, but friends of mine insisted to watch it. I didn't know it was such a crap. I loved the first part, in which Clooney and Tarantino drove through Texas, killing everybody on their way (especially the scene with the liquor shooting was excellent), but at its turning point, in the titty twister bar everything changed. Stupid Vampires took over the place and what could have been a perfect gangster movie became a stupid horror movie like 'Nightmare on Elmsteet'. If you like horror, watch a real horror movie. And when you love bloodstolling thrillers don't watch it at all, you will be very disappointed at the end.


As has been stated countless times, 'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is NOT a remake of the (generally disregarded) mid-'80s sequel to Wes Craven's 1977 original. But wishing to give this postmodern sequel-to-a-remake the official stamp of Diminishing Returns, Craven himself (a double threat alongside his son, Jonathan) has decided to pen a film that is of the same quality--in plain English, HORRIBLE. Former music-video director Martin Weisz takes the reins from Alexandre Aja, and is clearly in way over his head--yet one wonders how anyone could have created a watchable film from the Cravens' Screen writing 101 scrawl. Not only are the characters (in this case, a gang of goofball National Guards(wo)men sent to investigate the turbulent hills of the original remake) completely obnoxious and prone to really annoying genre pitfalls (played without a lick of irony, mind you), but they are constantly cracking jokes that aren't funny. After viewing their total ineptitude during a training exercise, their fate against the repulsive, roaming cannibals is painfully obvious. Only this time out--as in the original '80s sequel--the script is so simplistic (barely existent, actually) that any potential subtext is jettisoned in favor of upping the ante in repulsive shocks (we're treated to a combo childbirth-murder during the opening credits, plus a gratuitous rape for those who haven't ejected the DVD by the midpoint!). Even the mutants in this outing are personality-free freaks of no memorable stature--the tacky, rubbery-looking makeup FX seems, like the rest of the film, to be trying to hide its face from embarrassment. I really groaned at the lame 'surprise' at the end of Aja's otherwise excellent film, and the producers quite literally go for broke at the end of 'Hills 2,' setting the stage--VERY lamely setting the stage--for a third installment...yet the Cravens and Weisz have created a film that is such a cynical bastardization of what made the 1977/2006 versions work that they'd be hard-pressed to find an audience after this insulting slap in the face.


`Bruce Almighty' will sweep the Academy Awards with a record 14 Oscar wins! It will surpass `Titanic' as the highest grossing film of all time! Jim Carrey's illustriousness will be at such a supreme level that he will announce his presidential candidacy for the 2004 White House playoffs. Almighty then! These grandeur fantasies would only transpire if the filmmakers (Carrey included) would possess the powers of God. That very same premise is the paramount ingredient in Carrey's new laugh riot `Bruce Almighty'. Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a televison reporter who is so utterly obsessed in being the main anchor that he holds God to total culpability for his own contretemps. God, heavenly played by Morgan Freeman, grants Bruce the `Gift of God'(his powers) in order to challenge him if he can do God's job any better. Obviously, Bruce gets `carreyed' away with his newfound blissful faculties and uses them selfishly. Carrey is back in his habitual almighty comedic form in `Bruce Almighty'. Jennifer Aniston was not `mis.pittiful' as Bruce's girlfriend. However, my premier kudos goes to Director Tom Shadyac for not letting the dog out of the house for #2, and showing us the most hilarious doggoned bathroom scene of all time! `Bruce Almighty' is not the most in-depth Carrey film, but it is still an almighty chuckling exhibition of `Carreyism'! **** Good


I also saw The Last Stop at the Moving Pictures Film Festival in Prince George. I have to confess, the only reason I went to see it is because I am a huge Callum Keith Rennie fan. And he didn't let me down. He gave a good performance of a rather unsympathetic character and provided about the only comic relief in the whole movie.

The movie itself is the usual 'lots of bad people trapped in a snow storm together' storyline, but it did have a couple of twists that kept me guessing. The characterizations were strong and the whole cast performed fairly well. The only problems I had with the cast was Rose McGowan. She was so cold throughout the movie that we didn't get any idea of her character's personality or motivations. Other than her and a few small problems with continuity, this was a well-written, well acted thriller.


The title of the film seems quite appropriate given the persona of the lead character, Fanda. He's an older man living in the late autumn of his life, yet frolics about as a jubilant school boy who's just entered a spring meadow. The frailties of old age and the warning signs of death are all illusions to him. His wife supports this idea when she observes, 'Fanda laughs at funerals and death.' In other words, death is not something Fanda takes too seriously; he has more important things to do than worry about what already is inevitable. Life, however, and the pursuit of living life to its fullest, is the philosophy that governs Fanda's existence. He is not one to merely exist, but must live for each day and each passing moment, for tomorrow is not guaranteed.

The film seems to make a strong commentary about living as though there is no tomorrow, let alone death. Too many people take life much too seriously and consequently miss out on the actual living part of life. Fanda's wife for example; she's so worried about preparing for death, not in some religiously connotative way, but in a far too practical, even lifeless way that she forgets how to smile, laugh and just have a good time. Her humanity seems to have transformed into zombie auto-pilot mode. Fanda, to the contrary, is perhaps too blithe and absent-minded for his own good. He needs a person like his wife, Emilie, to help balance him.

It's as though Fanda possesses the invincible spirit of a child, like a kid trapped in an older man's body. He is introduced as the adventurous type; he pretends to be people he's not in order to get gain, squanders money, factiously lies and is always up for a good laugh. Deep-down, though, he is a kind-hearted and gentle old man who wishes to be submissive to his overly pragmatic wife. The two off-set each other quite nicely, though neither one of them truly appreciates the binary quality of their relationship until they metaphorically chance upon death: meaning, their divorce. It is during this courtroom scene that Fanda realizes the reality of death and what it means if he is separated from his only love. His wife emotionally recalls all of his flaws, yet is tenderly drawn to continue to love him despite his crazy behavior. In this moment of her forgiving him, Fanda realizes his selfish behavior of driving his wife bonkers and makes an internal commitment to make her happy.

Ironically, though, after making this commitment he becomes what his wife later calls, 'a living corpse.' The life-blood within him drains away as he becomes more like hera zombie going through day-to-day motions. He doesn't seem to live anymore, but exist. For example, he gives up his zany pranks, doesn't squander money, quits smoking on account of his wife (not his health), and overall, just acquiesces to whatever she wants of him. Succinctly put, he changes on account of wanting to make her happy. Thus, the binary quality of their relationship begins to slowly vanish. Realizing that her husband is not who he used to be, there is a part of Emilie that misses the old Fanda. She misses her husband's aloofness and the fights they used to have, because it was in those moments that they were truly living, not just simply existing.

I believe the filmmakers were trying to get across a specific message here; that true and loving relationships will not always be easy or convenient, but often times will take sacrifice and endurance to wade through the seemingly bad times. The possibility of death at any moment is what reminds people to live for every moment. Life is often taken for granted, but when threatened with deathbe it literal or figurativepeople awake from their ungrateful slumbers and are aroused to start living life to its fullest. It's as though they are scared that they'll never live again, so they better make the most of it while they have it. Fanda and Emilie had been married 44 years with fights along the way, but it wasn't till they were both threatened with the possibility of death-like-separation that they began to show their true colors. As the old maxim goes, 'Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation.' They both begin to see what matters most in life and that is the people they meet along the way. More importantly, the intimate relationships they make with their significant others.


I admit it's very silly, but I've practically memorized the damn thing! It holds a lot of good childhood memories for me (my brother and I saw it opening day) and I have respect for any movie with FNM on the soundtrack.


I could not believe how awful this film was; I rarely watch commercial TV, but thought 'Well, Diane Keaton is always worth watching'. I stand corrected. Everyone involved should be hanging their heads in shame.

I realize there are not a lot of great roles for women of a certain age, but the script to this was so inept, clichéd and baffling that I am surprised it ever got into development or that Ms. Keaton thought she could make a silk purse out of this sow's ear. None of the characters had a shred of believability and were so incredibly unlikeable. The acting looked like exercises in a BEGINNING class - I stared in open-mouthed horror through most of this wondering 'What were they thinking?'. Very, very sad that it has come to this. Don't waste your time.


What percentage of movies does a person go to see these days that leave them wondering what happened to their eight to ten dollars? ANSWER: TOO MANY! This movie isn't like that. It is a story about real people that are sometimes a combination of both likable and unlikable.

Downside:

Not enough character development & some plot lines left twisting in the wind.

Upside:

Forces viewers to think about the choices they have made for good or bad in their own lives.

Well acted by: Scott Cohen, Judd Hirsch, Susan Floyd, Ato Essandoh and Elliot Korte.

Contains some good lighthearted humor.


Been lurking for a couple of years or so. I have never been moved to post on here before, so perhaps this movie is worth a star for that, but I doubt it. I just watched it on DVD, having missed it in the movies due to illness and never got around to watching it till now. I had not read extensively about it, certainly not even thought about the movie in some months. It was just what the buddy picked up in the store, so it got watched.

Bad mistake.

The shot I spoke of in the the summary up top is in the trailer and on the poster. Right from the off, Jason Statham has hair. Like in no other GR movie. Or any JS movie that I've seen. At least not in the quantities on display here. And Ray Liotta in underpants SHOULD be advance warned. It's scary and funny but not in a ha-ha-humour way. Its more in an almost-TheOffice-but-slightly-mutated-and-so-failing-sort-of-humour way. They each say the same thing: 'This movie is not like anything you expect this movie to be.'

Now, based on previous, extensive, movie-watching experience, I expected this movie to be a few things. Like:

() Coherent,

() Interesting or engaging,

() Not a complete and utter farrago of navel-gazing,

() Something more substantive than a motley bunch of badly-realised fables from what is just a standard eastern mystic ideology dressed up as a 'cool, modern, self-aware art-form',

() Hopefully better than 'The Idiots'.

As you may have guessed by my tone, it thoroughly failed to check any box above. Instead it was:

(x) Badly edited {pace all over the shop, 70s-amateur high-8 style jump cuts, incomprehensible 'plot' 'twists!!!' delivered through hackneyed flash-back montages, I could go on...},

(x) Shot as if by a depressed 14yr-old goth who'd just spent the weekend watching Truffaut and Godard with the drapes drawn

(x) So up its own behind with the whole 'I'm really smart, me' motif/ message, that it feels determined to repeat it every 20 minutes or so, just to make sure the dumb people (ie: everyone who doesn't like it) in the audience make sure they get the point,

(x) A genuine waste of my time.

As for the undoubted ability of some people to 'get' something from this, fine. I'm glad you enjoyed it. One poster said something that caught my attention: under-25s probably understood it better because of the editing. Maybe, but editing is supposed to make your work more accessible, not less. As for the 'Genius is only recognised by the enlightened' brigade out there, go suck an onion and grow up. There is nothing more presumptuous and self-serving than people who say the reason another person doesn't know great art is because they don't understand the 'craft /materials /moon cycle /filaments of supreme rational thought' which the 'auteur /poet/ artist/ palm reader/ idiot savant' is using to explain his or her 'vision /grand scheme /oneness with Gaea /great big bucket of dog-sick'.

For me and many, many more people, its garbage.

Movies, art, stories, poetry, anything designed to be viewed by another human is supposed to be engaging and moving. In some direction be it metaphorical, spiritual, emotional or whatever you're having yourself.

The only way this moved me was forward in time, two hours closer to my own inevitable demise. 'The greatest trick He ever pulled was making You believe Any Part of this movie meant Anything at All'

And now, please, by all means, toast my buns for me.


I enjoyed this film which I thought was well written and acted.

There was plenty of humour and a thought-provoking storyline. A warm and enjoyable experience with an emotional ending.Good fun.


Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is a dark, profound, and lasting novel that portrays the futility and irony taking place in Africa. If you are looking for a great book to read over the weekend this is not the book for you. Conrad holds nothing back when describing 19th century imperialism, but the novel is meaningless without giving it the reflection and consideration it deserves. If I read this novel looking for a great adventure story I would say that I wasted my time, but looking at in the perspective of explaining the futility of 19th century civilization, I would say this is one of the most significant novels I have ever read. Because of the fact that I read this novel in my English class, and we analyzed every page, I think I appreciated the book more than someone would who was just reading it for entertainment. I am not going to lie, this book was difficult and it challenges the reader to dig deep into this novel to find the true meaning. The movie on the other hand I found tiresome and boring. The movie, 'Heart of Darkness' comes no where near giving the book justice. The movie left out many key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story. If you are having difficulty understanding and visualizing the novel then the movie might be a good recourse but I would not recommend seeing the movie as an alternative to the novel or even a different perspective.


This movie is an amusing and utterly sarcastic view of pop culture and the producers thereof. I was impressed with the photography that consisted of vivid colors and spin doctored settings, especially when you think that this is Zukovic's first large scale attempt.

One warning, do not take the movie's message that seriously. It is not for mass consumption ( and that is not a compliment). The message is a somewhat stylized post-college, neophyte view of society.

I did enjoy the basic plot line of a fictitious 'zine editor verbally whipping the mobocracy of the 90's.


This movie is a coveted member of my movie library. While not a mainstream film, it is, in my view, a highly effective film noir in which Eric Roberts is totally underrated as an actor. (I would qualify him as a much better actor than his sister, Julia, who is overrated, but that's another review...) Roberts plays the down-on-his-luck ex-reporter with the perfect mix of narrative precision and jaded idealism: two ingredients that are part and parcel of any effective film noir. The first-person narration by Roberts enhances the quality of the movie, and keeps us guessing on the real motive behind the crime.

Set in Palm Springs, everything about the setting in the movie progresses slowly as a metaphor for the theme of oppression: Asch (Roberts) is oppressed by his past; the police are oppressed by the rich residents of Palm Springs who treat them as servants; the rich, meanwhile, are oppressed by boredom (watch Johnny Depp's classic performance as the insightful rich kid who only wants to be loved...); the isolation of each character is omnipresent and is further augmented by the heat and isolation of the desert.

There is an audience for this film if they're looking for a more contemporary version of film noir. While there are elements of the film that might have been tighter, I recommend getting a copy of this film and putting it right between The Big Sleep and Chinatown in your movie library. (The film is based on the Arthur Lyons book, CASTLES BURNING, and if you like Roberts's acting in this one, you may want to get a copy of The Ambulance, in which he showcases his funnier, lighter side.) BEST LINE IN THE FILM: 'Careful? Careful of what? I should've asked. Only fools ignore the strange warnings of trailer park ladies.'


The biggest surprise in this movie was the performance of Daryl Hannah. Rather than playing the stereotypical ditzy blonde roles that she usually does she plays a street-smart, intelligent, world-weary character. She doesn't have a huge role but she does a great job portraying Lois Harlan as a woman tired of, although used to, covering up for her boss' indiscretions.


Things get dull early an often in this in this mawkish jazz bio fiction written and directed by Spike Lee.

Bleek Gilliam (Denzell Washington) is a happenin' jazz trumpeter that fronts a quintet packing them in at Below the Underdog. His problems include an incompetent manager, a stage hogging sax player and two girlfriends that he's playing musical mattress with. The real love of his life though is his trumpet and his music. The band's manager, Giant, has a dangerous gambling problem and proves to be an ineffective negotiator with greedy club owners and would be best jettisoned but Bleek remains loyal for as long as possible. It will prove to his undoing as an artist but ironically contribute to his growth as a man.

As Bleek, Denzell Washington is all wrong as the ambitious trumpeter with a babe on each arm. He's too sweet a guy to be so self centered about his art, dispensing patience and love to those close to him with a low key remoteness. He simply lacks the fire. Wesley Snipes who plays Henderson the sax player would have been far more suited for the role but even he would have to mouth the flaccid throw away scribblings of Lee's torpid dialogue. As Giant, Lee hits the trifecta with an abysmal performance to match his writing and direction. Loosely attempting to mirror the grubby but sympathetic Ratso Rizzo to Bleek's Joe Buck he adopts a limp and even the 'I'm walkin' here' moment from Midnight Cowboy. In this case you wish the taxi would run him over and be done with it.

Lee's script is all tepid argument, heavy handed ribbing and veiled insult with some requisite clumsy editorializing that Lee has to inject to remain down. The scenes between the band members backstage and in rehearsal lack spark and are only surpassed in dreariness by the Bleek, Giant conversations that have an ad lib look and go in circles. Completing this travesty is Lee's pretentious visual style. Tracking shots, zooms and pans are wasted and without significance to scenes. They just wander.

Blues is Lee's love letter to jazz (made implicit by the mountains of memorabilia plastered all over the sets) and it's all sentimental clap trap that lacks passion and verve. Jazz on film is better served by Tavernier's 'Round Midnight' and Eastwood's 'Bird' which get below the surface, reveal more sides of the form, the pain behind it in addition to offering infinitely superior lead performances by Forrest Whitaker and the real deal Dexter Gordon. This Spike Lee Joint doesn't even offer a mild buzz. It's some pretty bad homegrown.


Heart of Darkness Movie Review Could a book that is well known for its eloquent wording and complicated concepts ever be made into a movie good enough to portray the deep meaning in the book? So far, that goal hasn't been achieved. The Heart of Darkness was attempted to be made into a movie in 1993, but it was a failure in comparison to the book.

It is hard enough to make any book into a movie. There always is the worry that it won't be as descriptive or have the same meaning. So why the novel, The Heart of Darkness, is made into a movie, I am clueless. There is so much description and hidden meaning throughout the entire book. When just reading the words plainly, I think that a person would think it is pretty boring and wouldn't get the symbolism. I think that is what happened in the movie; the movie just skimmed the story at the surface.

The movie didn't even follow the full storyline of the book, major changes were made that I thought made the movie worse. For example, the manager did not go along on the boat with Marlow and the rest of the crew, the spy did instead. I think that took out some major plots and took out the great deception of the manager in relation to Kurtz. Also, Kurtz wasn't even on the steamboat when he died, which especially made the entire journey even more futile, which just got annoying after a while. And when Marlow was telling Kurtz's fiancée about his final moments and words, it was no where near as descriptive or important, the fiancée didn't even get that upset.

As far as the acting went, none of the actors did a very good job except for the actor that played Mfumu. In my opinion, Kurtz was not very evil, and that was kind of an important thing in the book. Also, other characters such as Marlow, the manager, and the fiancé didn't do the characters justice that they deserved from the book. Their acting wasn't very exciting or memorable at all. Over all, I don't think that this book should have even been attempted to be made into a movie. I think it is fine to use some of the themes in a different story line like in Apocalypse Now. But as for following the same exact story line of the book, it just does it shame.


Everyone I know loves this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. I hated this film so much that I had to turn it off mid-film because of the repulsion. Way too much time is spent on weepiness and emotional bedlam, the point of the Bullock character being devastated by her divorce is jackhammered into the viewer's head excessively. Enough already!! And why didn't we hear more about her ex-husband? He is portrayed as nothing but a suit who comes by once in a while. Something must of made her want to marry him, what was it? What is it about him that makes her so devastated upon their divorce? More time could of been spent on that rather than yet one more shot of Bullock lying crumpled on the bedroom floor. The dialogue is stilted, cliched and terrible, much like one of those corny 'ABC Afterschool Specials' or something. There is no imagination or creativity about anything in this film, it is all very predictable and therefore boring. This movie also goes into overdrive on the cutsiness factor, very stupid and not funny like it was supposed to be! This is just another one of those horribly done 'I am woman, hear me roar' films, much like 'Waiting To Exhale'. If you want to see 'I am woman, hear me roar' films that are truly entertaining, original and well-done, then see 'Gas Food Lodging' or 'Ruby in Paradise'. Skip this crap!! I give 'Hope Floats' 3/10.


This subject matter deserves a much better script, and final result, than this movie serves up. The script is full of holes because it was never conceived as a story, but rather a string of nightmare scenarios loosely knitted together. The gaps and loose ends in the story line are numerous. The scene where the kidnap victim is told that her parents are not dead, and have been looking for her since she was taken, is just bizarre. It is written as a cathartic therapy moment with the head of the shelter for runaways handing her a 'missing poster' from when she was eight. In the real world, if the head of a shelter for runaways found out that he had, under his roof, a solved kidnapping, what would have followed would have been an immediate call to the police. It's a law enforcement issue not a 12 minute segment for Oprah. Everything that follows from there to the end is so short shrift that I can only conclude that the first 90 minutes was for pure gratuitous exploitation. Funny, that's what this movie is supposed to be condemning. In the end it seems to have joined in.


I loved the first 'American Graffiti' with all my heart and soul that I considered it to be the best movie about rock n' roll along with being the best teenager flick I've ever seen. The first film spawned the careers of George Lucas who would later do the blockbuster epic 'Star Wars' before doing the prequels two decades later while making Richard Dreyfuss a star in Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and other films as well.

Somehow without those two, the magic died off.

'More American Graffiti' shows audiences what happened to the rest of the characters later on in the sixties where Steve (Ron Howard) and Laurie (Cindy Williams) are protesting against the Vietnam War while their friend Terry 'The Toad' Fields (Charles Martin Smith) is in the war himself and trying to get out. John Milner (Paul Le Mat) is still the hot drag racer in California where he never quite left home. The rest of the supporting actors in the film from Candy Clark's Debbie (Terry's Girlfriend), to the Pharaoh's gang members, along with Harrison Ford and others really don't do much. The original film showed teenagers cruising the streets without any bloodshed with the early music of rock n' roll from Buddy Holly, The Fleetwoods, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Bill Haley and the Comets, Buddy Knox and more that brought back the nostalgia bug in classic music. The soundtrack for 'More American Graffiti' is a mixture of rock, soul, country, hippie music, and whatever fitted the mood during the late 60's of protesting, drugs, sacrifices and more.

After watching 'More American Graffiti' it looked like it wanted to show audience members what happened after the title epilogue of the four main characters in the first film (with the exception of Dreyfuss's character) where it wasn't necessary. This film wasn't necessary either as I was glad to see that neither Lucas or Dreyfuss moved on to bigger and better projects.


A straight-forward X File that shows that action is always the equal of intelligence. Rob Bowman's direction is crisp and sharp, the episode looks just as fresh now as it did almost a decade ago. David and Gillian both give fine performances and both seem to relish the lack of baggage - it's a standalone X File that even non-fans could happen upon and enjoy. Junior Brown gives both the leads a run for their money during his scene with them, he's so convincing that you could believe the crew drove to the middle of nowhere and knocked on the first door they came to. Bryan Cranston is intense and energetic as Patrick Crump, he has since admitted in interviews that he knew next to nothing about the X Files prior to this role, a fact that makes his hit-the-floor-running performance all the more incredible. A brilliantly dumb episode.


A SUPERMAN Cartoon.

When America unveils its colossal new bomber, the JAPOTEURS, an elite force of Japanese spies & saboteurs, strikes. Stealing the behemoth, with intrepid girl reporter Lois Lane aboard, and the destination either Tokyo or destruction, it's time for Superman to get involved...

This was another in the series of excellent cartoons initially created by Max Fleischer for Paramount Studio. They feature great animation and taut, fast-moving plots. Meant to be shown in movie theaters, they are miles ahead of their Saturday Morning counterparts. Bud Collyer is the voice of Superman; Joan Alexander does the honors for Lois Lane.


I sure would like to see a resurrection of a up dated Seahunt series with the tech they have today it would bring back the kid excitement in me.I grew up on black and white TV and Seahunt with Gunsmoke were my hero's every week.You have my vote for a comeback of a new sea hunt.We need a change of pace in TV and this would work for a world of under water adventure.Oh by the way thank you for an outlet like this to view many viewpoints about TV and the many movies.So any ole way I believe I've got what I wanna say.Would be nice to read some more plus points about sea hunt.If my rhymes would be 10 lines would you let me submit,or leave me out to be in doubt and have me to quit,If this is so then I must go so lets do it.


This was just a terrible movie. It hurt me to watch it. Almost every action was unmotivated within the context of the movie, the acting was really poor (P.Diddy was the best actor which really says something about the movie) and the plot was generally predictable. Some links to Carlito's Way were okay, for example his dream of one day moving to the Carribien, but on the whole they were weak. The love interest in my opinion was flat out wrong but hey that's debatable. Anyways I really wasn't expecting much before watching the movie and I guess you could say even those expectations weren't met. I feel bad for Jay Hernandez because he actually is a decent actor (Friday Night Lights). He's lucky though because I'm sure there won't be too many people watching this movie. I generally give movies a decent rating if they spark my interest at all so I'm gonna go ahead and give this one two stars. Better luck next time. And yes I did enjoy Carlito's Way.


I saw this movie in a theater while on vacation in Pablo CO. I had just quit my biomedical engineering job at a hospital. I consider the script to be a exaggeration of the real type of stuff that goes on in hospitals.

The idiots that put it down on production value don't get the point and probably have never been hospitalized. And never worked in one for sure. Billy Jack (same era) was very poorly produced but had a significant social comment and was a very good movie with a real social message.

I have ever since been looking for this movie this is the first site I have found where it get mentioned.


The opening 5 minutes gave me hope. Then Meyers proved he only had one good idea for the rest of the movie. Absolute lowest common denominator humor. Painful viewing. A complete chore. Written no doubt in less than a week, just like the first one. Give Meyers the hook and lock him in a cell with Adam Sandler and Will Farrell. And don't let him out until he's developed a decent script for something, anything. He has it in him. These Austin Powers things are just embarrassing.

Let Goldmember sink without trace.


This movie is a bizarre fantasy tale, that I'm sure doesn't appeal to anyone over 10, but is too strange for children. The plot is stupid, and the acting is some of the worst I've ever seen.

25-year old Kathy Ireland plays a teenage girl who acts like a 9-year old. She seems to have gotten her character's voice by listening to Alvin and the Chipmunks. Her high pitched, screechy baby voice gets annoying the second she starts talking. All of the other acting is bad, but really Kathy Ireland is by far the worst. The plot is also terrible and is kind of a mix between Alice in Wonderland and Mad Max. Wanda Saknussemm (Ireland) gets a letter saying her father, who left her a long time ago, fell down a bottomless pit in Africa, and when she goes to find him, she falls into an underground world full of strange Australian accented people. It's one of the corniest movie you'll ever see, with terrible lines throughout.

It's annoying the effects this movie uses for character development. Kathy Ireland is a nerd who won't do anything or go anywhere. She flies to Africa....wow, what development! She drops her glasses and then doesn't need them. Why does dropping one's glasses represent them not becoming a nerd. It should represent her descent into blindness. It's just stupid. The only positive I can think is there are semi-good special effects and camera work, and the musical score sounds OK.

Overall this a ridiculous family fantasy that will only appeal to those who expect nothing from a movie.

My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 84 mins. PG for violence.


I saw this movie awhile back and can't seem to track it down. Does anyone know where I can get a hold of it? I feel it is worth seeing again.

I'm sorry to say I had never heard of Chloe Nicholle until this film. Yes she can act. When I first began to track this movie down I mistook it for another one of her movies, Sex Spa. The plot seems similar to me but the roles are reversed.

This is the first film I've seen Dru Berrymore. I looked up some of her other films and I feel she looks better as a blonde.

I agree this is a good introductory movie. Not too soft. Not too hard. You got to start somewhere.


Wow! I'm shocked to learn that it's a small world and that we are all interconnected. What a waste of 88 minutes. John Dunne put it much better in one sentence. 'No man is an island.' The acting wasn't bad. The kids gave it all they had but at times the thread got so thin I couldn't follow it and the only real 'hero' in the film ends up in jail after being tormented by a meter maid. I don't know. I just don't get it. Oh well.


With this topic, it is so easy to take cheap shots. You know, the guy with hairy legs trying to look like Marilyn Monroe. Not here -- Adrian Pasdar does a superb job of making Gerald a REAL person, someone you care deeply about, and as a result you feel for his plight trying to live both as Gerald and Geraldine. Not only that, but as Geraldine, he looks HOT! And the chemistry between him and Julie Walters is electric. These are two characters who feel love for one another, and it comes through even when they simply look at each other over the breakfast table. Even the potentially cheesy sub-story line of corporate takeovers is believable, and you find yourself cheering at the end! At least I did!


If in the 90's you're adapting a book written in the 50's, set the bloody thing in the 50's and not the '90's. See, 40 year old mores and values tend not to play as well, or ring as true, that far down the road. It's a simple rule that Hollywood habitually keeps violating. And that's the problem with this film. It should have been set in the era it was written in. You'd think that would be a no-brainer, but nooo. I'd elaborate, but bmacv's comment spells it out quite well. I'll limit my commentary to Rachel Ward. She looks like she dieted her ass completely out of existence for this role. As a result, she looks like a crack ho' on chemotherapy, and is about as sexy as a gay leather couch in drag. I found her 'I could die at any moment' look quite disconcerting, and it greatly detracted from her supposed 'hotness' and the 'sexual tension' the film intended to create. Other than that, the film was quite good; a 7+ out of 10.


I have yesterday seen the second part. And I must say, it was actually better then the first one. At the begin, I realized, It is actually a sequel, not a remake but not a good one. I do not like the old movies and series of Galactica, because the cylons saw like toasters (just as it was mentioned in this new movie) and were completely harmless for the old galactica. This movie turns the sides - the Humans were harmless but the whole movie was for me completely chaotic and stupid. Many scenes were unnecessary, for instance the story of the 'computer expert' - completely a crap. If I were a scriptwriter I would leave him die in his house, killed by the cylon woman. And the evacuation from the planet? Oh, please if it would be bombed by 50 Megatons (why exactly 50 MT??) nukes, they would be dead killed by the radiation. And how is it actually possible that the big fleet of cylon was completely hidden before the attack? Aha, it was possibly this computer virus, created by the cylon - the script was probably written by ten-years-old school boy. The good side of the movie is, that the humans are at last defeated!! Really defeated, the population is near the extinction (children are dieing - two times explicit in the movie: 1. a baby!!! maybe one month old and a girl in age of max ten - what a violence...). And the bad-asses won and I think it is the first time in such sci-fi galaxy fight movie. I also appreciate the design of the cylons (not only of the humanoid cylon:-) a good job with these ships - I like the design of the ships by both of them - human an cylons. The human ships are a good never version of the old ones. And galactica - really pretty with these docks, I liked that. But this is all, only the design is not enough. The acting was really bad, the whole plot was expectable (only two things not - the human-cylon on the ragnardocks and the human-cylon at the end).The dialogs were trivial (and in the Slovak dabbing just stupid, but that is not fault of the movie). The whole movie looked like a pilot film for a series, but who would shoot such series? What it would be about? One star for the design the second one for the near extinction of humanity.


The first of the Italian rip-offs of the French soft porn blockbuster (though it might be interesting to note that the boot-shaped country actually got their first with Cesare Canevari's 1968 IO, EMMANUELLE starring Erika Blanc) is a very different kettle of fish than the sleazy sequels provided by the late, questionably great Joe D'Amato. It is much closer in spirit to the now very dated Just Jaeckin film from 1973, taking a pokerfaced look at male/female relationships, questioning such then hot topics as fidelity and jealousy, all in luxurious exotic surroundings. Unlike D'Amato, director Albert Thomas (aka Adalberto Albertini, who also made the hard to find YELLOW EMANUELLE, actually a sexed-up version of MADAME BUTTERFLY !) does not present us with predatory drug lords, snuff movie makers or rampaging cannibals, making for an admittedly less sensational yet far more erotic viewing experience.

Photo journalist Mae Jordan aka 'Emanuelle' (lovely Java-born Laura Gemser in her first lead role following bit parts as a Thai masseuse in EMMANUELLE 2 and an 'unspoilt native' in Just Jaeckin's portion of the rarely seen COLLECTIONS PRIVEES) flies down to Nairobi where she's to shoot the stills accompanying an article by noted British writer Anne, played by the very Teutonic Karin Schubert with a butch haircut that takes some getting used to. Anne shares an 'open relationship' (remember when this was made) with her Italian husband Gianni (Angelo Infanti), meaning that both pretty much jump anything with a pulse. Contrary to her subsequent reputation, Emanuelle appears positively reticent compared to her heavy breathing hosts, smoldering seductively at Gianni by way of foreplay until the exquisitely tantalizing pay-off. Okay, so she does make up for this lack of wantonness at the end when she does an entire male hockey team on the train. I kid you not.

Production on this sexploitation classic is quite impressive, especially the superb cinematography. And Nico Fidenco's musical theme is a solid favorite of anyone with more than a passing interest in the genre, a hilarious Eurotrash pop ditty (try to make out those totally nonsensical lyrics and have a full evening's worth of fun with the family !) that turns up throughout the entire film in every conceivable type of rendition from slow 'n' sexy to hip-gyrating disco.

This is entirely Laura Gemser's show though. Billed simply as 'Emanuelle' (as was another actress on the same director's elusive EMANUELLE NERA 2), she lights up the screen from start to finish. Not yet submitted to endless rape scenarios (as she would be once D'Amato took over), she seems much more relaxed than in later films, even smiling from time to time, a rare occasion as anyone who has seen some of the lady's work surely knows. A flawless Eurasian rather than as the title suggests black beauty (she hails from Dutch India now Indonesia and is actually quite close in physical appearance to the supposed author of the novel Emmanuelle Arsan), she projects a slightly passive, even submissive sensuality which somehow detaches her from the 'depravity' her morally corrupted cohorts indulge in. Unlike the French film, cheapskate moralizing is kept to a bare minimum, almost thrown in as an afterthought near film's end when Emanuelle tells Gianni that he hasn't lost her as he never possessed her to begin with. I swear you could hear audiences of the Just Jaeckin version groan whenever Alain Cuny's supremely irritating Mario showed up on screen as it meant we were in for too many minutes of halfbacks libertine philosophizing as an alibi for getting the divine Sylvia Kristel (now living in the Belgian capital of Brussels by the way...) to disrobe, the real reasons theaters were packed for years on end. Gemser's later husband, Gabriele Tinti (now deceased, she has remarried), appears on the sidelines as the constantly drunk 'Scottish' (huh ?) writer who forces himself briefly on Emanuelle amid the African ruins at some point, but no real sex scene though.


I watched this as part of my course at Aberystwyth University and it baffles me how this does not have a distributor in the UK. Well actually, it doesn't, because this film is everything a Hollywood film isn't - original, creative, quirky and humorous. It seems that today no-one really wants to see this type of movie as, in the simplest terms, it doesn't conform to the generic conventions most young viewers look for in a film.

I haven't written a review for the IMDb for ages but felt inclined to give this film a special mention, even if it is during my 30 minute break between classes! Essentially, it is about nothing, as the two main characters are plunged into their own world of nothingness through a hate of the world. The brilliance here is how the director sustains interest through the majority of the run time with only two characters and when the only mise-en-scene consists of half a house and a vast white, empty space. This is due in large part to the stellar performances of the actors, both of whom offer some great laughs while at the same time being able to add significant emotional depth to their roles.

I'd love to write some more but am on quite a time limit. However I encourage anyone and everyone to give this film a try. A very unique concept is brought to the screen in a coherent and well-executed fashion, with the combination of good performances, a strong script, nice sound design and (fairly) impressive visuals creating a very entertaining movie.

It's just a shame so few people know about Nothing....


I really have no idea how to comment on this movie. The special effects were lackluster, the acting was terrible and if there was a plot to it all, it was on the back of the box. I don't think I can remember a movie being THIS bad in a long time, and I'm a big fan of lesbian sex and boobies!! ;) Even that couldn't save this movie from being just a terrible excuse to pay someone to stand (or lay in this case) in front of a camera.

I was pretty much let down by the overall 'zombie' effect. Since apparently in this movie, zombies are so commonplace that running over a couple here and there, and casually talking about it at a gas station (one with an in-house windshield repair but no interior bathroom), the zombie-movie genre isn't even a factor until the end. Even then, a cameo by a dozen zombies ripping off a girl's clothes doesn't really constitute being a zombie movie.

On to the vampires: Apparently all the zombies are male and all the vampires are female, which is OK by me. I'm not sure how vampires are out in the daylight, or the why/how of a soldier vampire came to be standing in the middle of the road, still holding his gun with a stake through his heart, just waiting for the Queen of the Vampires to flick it all the way through. The last segment in the old nunnery made no sense, and when one hot lesbian vampire asks the other hot lesbian vampire 'Do you think we did the right thing?' by killing the two apparent heroes in the movie, that about put it over the top.

The acting and special effects were at an all-time low also. You could almost see the hoses that the fake blood was pumped out of during the closeup of the zombie who got ran over by the General. Speaking of the General, where did they find THIS Kenny Rogers look-alike anyways? No idea what he was the General of, aside of generally confusing and misplaced.

All in all, watch the movie if you have nothing better to do or if you have the strong urge to waste $3. Just my $0.02.