I sat through this on TV hoping because of the names in it that it would be worth the time...but dear Gussie, whoever thought this script was worth producing? The basic idea is excellent but the execution is appallingly bad, with a constantly illogical sequence of scenes, an ending that is almost laughably melodramatic and poor Rock Hudson wanders through this with an understandably confused look on his slightly sagging face. Looks like a bad B movie from the 40's...


This film is good,but not Schaffner`s best. My favourite is Papillon and Patton,but this is a sad and very nice film. Kris Kristoffersen is good in this movie and really makes a difference. I am going to miss Schaffner and this is his last film.

A good film by a great director! 7,5/10


Unfortunately, because of US viewers' tendency to shun subtitles, this movie has not received the distribution nor attention it merits. Its subtle themes of belonging, identity, racial relations and especially how colonialism harms all parties, transcend the obvious dramatic tensions, the nostalgic memories of the protaganiste's childhood, and the exoticism of her relationship with her parents' 'houseboy,' perhaps the only 'real' human she knows. We won't even look at her mother's relationship with this elegant man. There! i hope i've given you enough of a hook to take it in, whether you speak French or like subtitles or not. I challenge you to be as brave, strong and aware as La P'tite.


'Opposing Force [1986]' wasn't as good as 'Dr. Strangelove' and it wasn't as good as 'The Bridge on the River Kwai'. Heck, it wasn't even as good as 'G.I. Jane', which is pretty sad.

The film revolves around a basic ethical problem: In a simulated prisoner-of-war situation, how far can you go before you start breaking the law? What exactly IS the law in such a situation? How can you simulate the torture of someone without actually torturing someone? Can you intentionally inflict pain? How about breaking bones? Mock executions? Sexual abuse? Severe blood loss? Real guns with bullets? Death? Somewhere between these is a really fuzzy line dividing 'acceptable' from 'atrocious'.

Now, what could you do if you found yourself in such a training program and the lines between simulation and reality begin to vanish? What could you do? This movie attempts to portray this dilemma.

I found it interesting to see the types of tactics used in 'resistance training'. I have a brother who went through the USAF's POW training program. According to him, it was pretty close to the mark technically.

The film has a fairly good premise, but it doesn't have a particularly good story. I wondered if it might be based on some actual event, but it became pretty apparent that it wasn't when the explosions started. They must have changed scriptwriters three quarters into the film, because it takes a real extreme turn and devolves into a somewhat pointless shoot-em-up with lots of distracting explosions.

I found it to have a rather unsatisfying ending; again, kind of pointless. I'm left wondering what the point of the whole thing was - I'm beginning to suspect there simply wasn't one. It could have been much better with just a little more story to go along with the fireworks.


A classic late 50's film. The superannuated headliners (Joan Crawford and Louis Jordan) are not at their best, but the direction, cinematography, and acting of the younger cast are compelling. In a 50's sense (which I love).

The look and feel of the artsy (over-artsy?) contemporary film 'Far from heaven' reflects exactly this sort of film (and I suspect this film may be one of the models). A silly plot, of course (hey, it's 1959!), but as a film-- glorious! As a reflection of the society, extremely interesting. And as witness to how Hollywood breaks away from the idealistic portrayal of American sexual mores, fascinating.


Irene Jacob is mesmerizing in this final installment of Krzysztof Kieslowski's trilogy and the story is infinitely satisfying as it succeeds in tying all three films together. I am simply in awe of the amount of talent it took to do one of these stories, let alone all three. Everything seems to fit together so precisely, all the elements of filmmaking so eloquently executed, and the end result so much greater than the sum of the individual parts. Trois Couleurs is epic in nature and belongs on any list of great cinematic achievements. Simply brilliant!


This might be the worst film ever made, and is possibly worth seeing for that reason alone. Streisand is laughably unbelievable as a young woman posing as a man in order to study Judaism. The soundtrack is torturous, featuring Barbara belting out some of the weakest blather ever put to film. And don't even get me started on the plot. You will actually get more chuckles out of this film than many comedies because it is soooooooo terrible. The rampant ego of Streisand, thinking she could somehow raise this stinker to Oscar heights, led to this disaster. I'm pretty sure the novelist, Isaac Bashevis Singer, hated this film and never forgave Streisand. I can't blame him. This movie is like watching a car wreck in slow motion for two hours with the soundtrack of 'The Sound of Music' being played backwards on an old turntable. It's truly that bad. I'm amazed that anyone from Streisand enjoyed this movie on the level that it was intended.


After some quite OK Dutch action flicks, like Lek and Van God Los, Gerrard Verhage wants to make a movie about the life of a Dutch mobster. Well, mobster is a big word for Klaas Bruinsma. He isn't a real international big guy like George Jung (Blow) or Pablo Escobar. He is just an Amsterdam lowlife who made some money by selling soft-drugs. Things are often blown up in the Netherlands, and this movie is just an other example. But even then, the movie could be very nice if the story was okay told. Now there are major jumps in time: one day KLaas is just an ordinary drug-boy, the next shot he seems to be a big player in the drug-scene. Nobody knows how's that possible (except for those who read the book). The acting is really bad, the non-Dutch movie-watchers get to see one of the worst actresses in the Netherlands: Chantal Janzen. When you think she finally gets naked, then you are watching a stand in model. So: bad acting + bad montage + crap story = De Dominee.

Please don't watch it, even if other people say it's good, because it isn't. I've warned you.


I really truly enjoyed this movie. (Which is why it surprised me that it got such a low rating from so many users at this site!) I am not saying that it is a cinematic masterpiece but it was a great way to spend a cold, snowy Saturday night. It is funny, poignant, and a great tales of the ups and downs of female friendships lasting through difficult times and the bad things that female friends tend to do to each others! (fess up ladies, we have ALL BEEN THERE!) Bill Paterson shines as the Reverand Gerald Marsden and Andie McDowell proves that she can be a fine actress when the role is right and she puts her mind to it. (And truly, there is the best 'wedding escape' that I have ever seen or dreamed up in this film ... more guts than anyone I have ever known!) You will laugh and you will cry --- ignore any marketing campaigns and how this film is being marketing .... it is a hidden gem that should have done TONNES of box office. (now I have to look around to purchase a copy!)


I have been using IMDb for years and I never wanted to get involved in the commentary of moviesuntil now. This documentary has so many problems that I hardly know what to say. I am not a Muslim, nor am I an Islamic studies expert, but I know enough to shed some light on the obvious one-sided viewpoint that this documentary espouses.

The problems with this movie begin with the fact that it is a documentary. Most of the documentaries that I have seen anchor themselves around a few valid points and then surround those points with debatable interpretations and misinformation. This is certainly the case with Islam: What the West Needs to Know. Yes, there are fundamentalists around the world, and some of them are Muslim, but to build a documentary about all of Islam around a small percentage of radicalized people is incredibly misleading. This is really a documentary about the fundamentalist aspects of Islam and nothing more.

For those who would like to more objectively explore some of the issues raised in this documentary, here are several points that may help.

There was nothing positive about Islam presented in the documentary.

The documentary focuses on the Middle East, but more Muslims live outside of that region. More Muslims live in China, believe it or not, than in Saudi Arabia. About 40% of all Muslims live in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Indonesia.

The translation of the Qur'an used in the documentary is a questionable one. I watched the documentary while viewing another translation and the differences were striking. I had been warned about the translation that was used in the documentary and now I know why. Surrah 98:6 is a good example. The documentary suggests that the Surrah says that disbelievers will go to hell. But the translation I have reads instead: 'Those who reject Truth among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists will be in hellfire.' The difference is that those who reject Truth are those people who know about God and the Truth of God and decide to reject it anyways.

The movie mentioned that there is no morality inherent in Islam, but this is not true. Although it is true that much comes from the Qur'an and Hadith, Islam also recognizes a concept called 'Urf or 'normative behavior.' Obviously what is normative can be interpreted many ways, but 'Urf is meant to be 'good' behavior, what an average person would consider right or wrong.

The documentary presents Shar'ia (Islamic Law) as being one unified body of knowledge that all Muslims follow. This is simply not true. There are many Islamic schools of law and they range from progressive and modernist to fundamentalist in the way they interpret law.

The Hadith tradition is similar. There are thousands of Hadith and each school of law accepts some and rejects others. Using the Hadith without serious scholarship to determine which ones are accurate, real and applicable, is indiscriminately picking and choosing quotations from history that fit what you want to say which is what the documentary did.

What I hope people realize is that fundamentalism is the problem, not Islam or any other religion. Christianity has fundamentalists that shoot abortion clinic doctors and so on. I know this is not the same as suicide bombing, just understand that the righteousness of fundamentalism is arguably the problem. If you feel you have THE answer, then everyone else must be wrong. But if you feel you have AN answer you can work together with other people's views about politics, religion, God, or whatever.


this video is 100% retarded. besides the brain cell killing acting and plot, it's way too long. don't waste your money at the video store. i actually was mad that i sat through this garbage and spent money on it. just absolutely awful.


this movie had a lot of blood in it when the sabretooth attack it also i loved it when that guy and the women were having some good time and then the sabretooth attacked the women and ate her stomach and took the liver out. that was the best and the 1ton sabretooth walking on its front legs hilarious to make this movie better more action and less talking if you know what i mean and also please please people who made this movie don't make anothwer movie like this movies ending cause it was terrible 1 sabretooth alive and killed that women in the end this movie reminds me of the grudges ending always there's 1 enemy left! OK damn it this movie sucks i can 't believe it i loved it when my lil bro got freaked from the attacks stomach takin out and the blood ya


I was really hoping that this would be a funny show, given all the hype and the clever preview clips. And talk about hype, I even heard an interview with the show's creator on the BBC World Today - a show that is broadcast all over the world.

Unfortunately, this show doesn't even come close to delivering. All of the jokes are obvious - the kind that sound kind of funny the first time you hear them but after that seem lame - and they are not given any new treatment or twist. All of the characters are one-dimensional. The acting is - well - mediocre (I'm being nice). It's the classic CBC recipe - one that always fails.

If you're Muslim I think you would have to be stupid to believe any of the white characters, and if you're white you'd probably be offended a little by the fact that almost all of the white characters are portrayed as either bigoted, ignorant, or both. Not that making fun of white people is a problem - most of the better comedies are rooted in that. It's only a problem when it isn't funny - as in this show.

Canada is bursting with funny people - so many that we export them to Hollywood on a regular basis. So how come the producers of this show couldn't find any?


One of my favourite films, whenever it is on, although I do admit one time missing it when it was on Foxtel last year.

Despite the age of the film it doesn't look like that and the story even though it'd been done a thousand times before still felt entertaining. There were one or two little niggles for me in the story but I looked past them and just enjoyed the film for what it was.

Overall I give it a 7/10


My observations: Postwar hilarity. Tom Drake and Grandpa from 'Meet Me in St. Louis' two years later (the year I was born). Donna Reed charming and pretty. Margaret Hamilton good as always; smaller part than in 'Wizard of Oz'. Spring Byington way prettier, also with the prerequisite perky small nose lacked by Hamilton. Tent scene at end with former boy next door was hilarious. As a two year veteran of Army tents, he looked pretty youthful and inexperienced when I looked into his eyes.

I used to work in a department store, and it was just as elegant as this one. Sadly, it has disappeared and faded into obscurity. We were famous for those great show windows that were used to lure passersby into the store, to get them to buy all of that wonderful merchandise.

10/10


George Sluizer's remake of his own - superior - film is a complete waste of time. Why was it even attempted? Kiefer Sutherland plays Jeff Harriman, whose girlfriend (Sandra Bullock, who only has a small amount of screen time)is abducted at a service station by Barney Cousins (Jeff Bridges). Now, Barney is portrayed as the kind of guy that no one would trust in a month of Sundays - he lopes about like Frankenstein's Monster but without the sympathy, and Bridges' acting is totally awful. Sutherland comes across a little better when his character turns detective with the help of new love interest Rita Baker (Nancy Travis).

A major problem with this version of 'The Vanishing' is its obvious need to cater to Hollywood audiences by avoiding the bleak ending of the original film. Here the ending is happy which seems forced and unbelievable, and completely wrecks the story. However by this time the damage has been done as Jeff Bridges turns the bad guy into a huge laugh.


This film is dreadful. It has absolutely zero laughs. Hebrew Hammer (Adam Goldberg) sets out to save Hannukah from Evil Santa (Andy Dick). Perhaps a promising enough basis for a plot, in actual fact the film does not progress beyond this premise. While there are some (far and few) nice touches and the plot is relatively coherent, it is laboured, hackneyed and ultimately, mindlessly boring. This despite the fact that Goldberg, Dick and Greer (Hammer's client/love interest) all have quite considerable screen presence. Despite being played for what might be described as whacky over-the-top gags, this film is consistently middle-class middle-of-the-road muck. DO NOT waste 85 minutes of your life on this. (note- the music was good..!)


(My Synopsis) Rae (Christina Ricci) was a high school slut and nymphomaniac who connects with Ronnie (Justin Timberlake) to fulfill her needs. Ronnie must report to his National Guard unit and leaves Rae all alone. Rae is not alone for long, because she is the town tramp with a powerful need to hook-up with a man. After a party, Rae is taken home by a friend who ends up beating her half to death and throws her on the side of the road. The next day, Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson) finds Rae and carries her home. Lazarus gives medical care to Rae, and believes that he can also save her from herself. Rae is like a dog in heat so Lazarus puts a 40 pound chain around her and his radiator to keep her from going out looking for men. Lazarus has problems of his own, because his wife has just left him for another man. Lazarus turns to his blues music to relieve his pain.

(My Comment) The movie has a deep meaning to it once you get past the sex and violence. The film has a different feel to it. The story is raw and almost puts you in the movie as if you were there. The 40 pound chain is a good metaphor, and symbolic of a chastity belt. You don't give love away to anyone, but you keep it for your true love. The chain could also be a parallel to a wife who is chained to the kitchen, yet Rae didn't cook. Rae only wanted to have sex all the time whereas a wife may not. I think Craig Brewer (writer & director) has made an extraordinary movie, and Samuel L. Jackson sings a mean blues song. The story is emotionally charged, tackling the subjects of race, religion, music, and sex all into one. (Paramount Classics, Run time 1:56, Rated R)(8/10)


I was happy to find out that at least now this movie is beginning to get the appreciation it deserves (just view those votes). Not top-class action like 'Die Hard' or 'Lethal Weapon', but still something like a solid 7 out of 10: fine script, good actors with working chemistry, and a director who knows what he wants (sadly, this was director Harlin's last good film. 'Deep Blue Sea' managed to reach 'an OK rollercoaster-ride'- status, but 'Cutthroat Island, and especially, 'Driven' are well-deserved flops!) Personally I think the turn-off at the box-office might have been the 'Woman as an action star'-theme. Well, give her a chance, because Davis does deliver a performance above par. And, after all, this film doesn't concentrate so much on the 'feminine'-side, but instead on good ol' action, buddyism (Jackson as a sidekick is given a lot of room in here, plus his share of action- and about a thousand killer wisecracks!) and on the plot (from Shane Black, the writer of 'Lethal Weapon' and 'The Last Boy Scout'. The latter of which as a movie is on very many levels much like this one...the theme, the clever plot, also as good and as underrated!) Overall: if one hasn't seen this one yet, don't forget to rent it for the next quiet Saturday night!


I was never a big fan of horror movies. They usually try cheap tricks to scare their audiences like loud noises and creepy children. They usually lack originality and contain overacting galore. The only horror movie i like was Stir of Echoes with Kevin Bacon. It was well-acted, and had a great story. But it has been joined and maybe even surpassed by Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, quite possibly the scariest movie ever.

The movie follows a writer (Jack Nicholson) and his family who agree to watch over a hotel while it is closed for the winter. There were rumors of the place being haunted and the last resident went crazy and murdered his family. But Jack is convinced it will be OK and he can use the quiet to overcome his writer's block. After months of solitude and silence however, Jack becomes a grumpy and later violent. Is it cabin fever or is there something in the hotel that is driving him mad?

One of the creepiest parts about the movie is the feeling of isolation that Kubrick makes. The hotel is very silent, and the rooms are huge, yet always empty. It is also eerily calm when Jack's son is riding his bike through the barren hallways. Jack Nicholson's performance is also one of his very best, scaring the hell out of me and making me sure to get out once in awhile. My favorite scene is when he is talking to a ghost from inside a walk-in refrigerator.

The Shining is tops for horror movies in my opinion, beating the snot out of crap like the Ring and The Blair Witch Project. It may be a oldie, but is definitely a goodie. 8/10


'The Godfather', 'Citizen Kane', 'Star Wars', 'Goodfellas' None of the above compare to the complex brilliance of 'The Sopranos'. Each and every character has layers upon layers of absolute verity, completely and utterly three dimensional. We care about Tony Soprano wholeheartedly, despite the fact that in the simplest model of good vs. evil, he is evil. Soprano is the most provocative, intricate, and fascinating protagonist ever created to this point in history. If you're in the mood to be overtly challenged as a viewer, and to be forever altered on your feelings toward entertainment, watch 'The Sopranos'. I defy anybody to sit down and watch the very first episode of Season 1, and not want to continue with the series. Each season is completely brilliant in its own way. DVDs are essential to anybody's collection **** of out 4


This has got to be the worst piece of crap I have ever seen. Randy Quaid funny as a supporting actor in the original, but not as the leading. Too much Eddie. The original is a classic. Like the original, the supporting actor carried the show. Ed Asner was very funny. He is the Eddie of Christmas Vaction 2! How come Snots still looks the same after all those years and everyone else in the original looks 14 years older. After 15 minutes of watching this movie I don't believe I had even laughed yet. The island thing just didn't work. If it wasn't for the good looking South Pacific female guide on the island the movie would have been a total loss. I sat on this review for a week and yes, I still think the movie should never have been made. Lets hope there is not a THIRD!

Shawn Gearin


'The Curse of Frankenstein' sticks faithfully to Mary Shelley's story for one word of the title, which wouldn't be so bad if the changes were any good at all. The tragedy of the creature destroying Frankenstein's family has been completely excised and replaced with... nothing. The heart and moral centre of the story is gone. It doesn't help that this Frankenstein is a conniving, devious murderer; he deserves everything he gets. The plot is basically a shallow checklist of Frankenstein clichés. Even taken on its own terms, this is rubbish: a bland, rambling film featuring a shite-looking creature with a pudding bowl haircut. As it's the first of Hammer's horror films, directed by Terence Fisher and starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, its place in horror history is secure. But it's crap.


I'm surprised with the amount of negative reviews on this film. If you don't like this movie for what it is - a silly, over-the-top, mob story - then you are simply reading too much into it. This film is a classic tale of a mob wife trying to escape 'the life' and the troubles that follow her. Michelle Pfeiffer is terrificly 80's 'jersey, who is an uncertain, uncomfortable mob wife while Matthew Modine is an anal retentive-like mob tracking cop who falls for her. The plot is mostly predictable and cutesy and Mercedes Ruel steals the show as the Queen of Mob Wives. If you aren't looking for something too dynamic and complex, this movie is absolutely entertaining and an 80's cult classic. You won't be able to stop watching if you start.


I saw this movie for the first time a little over a year ago. I've seen it 4 more times since. I had never heard of it before and I consider myself knowledgeable of classic cinema. A true, polished, diamond in the rough.

This gem of a movie revolves around Jon Voight (lead character 'Conrack') as a young schoolteacher assigned to Yamacraw Island to teach the islands' children, all in one school. At first, the students reveal they know very little of the world beyond their island home. The heart of the movie is Conrack finding inspiration to awaken their young minds to the world around them. The students quickly reward their teacher with an eagerness to learn and a remarkable ability to grasp concepts that, only a short time before, had been foreign to them. Conrack uses unconventional and clever teaching techniques that happen to be, oh a little fun! God forbid. Learning AND fun? Together? Can't be, or so says the ones in charge. To avoid a spoiler, I shall just say that Conrack finds resistance with the boss man....and the ending is truly bittersweet.

I am a 35 year old white male with some teaching experience, so I should identify with the lead character, Pat Conroy (aka, Conrack, Mr. Petroy). But I don't, I identify with the black kids. As a kid, I was bussed to the school on the other side of town from the 4th to the 6th grade, circa 1979. These kids in the movie remind me of my classmates then. Luckily, in 4th grade as a 8 or 9 year old, one doesn't understand racism. I just remember we were all being kids, playing 4-square, kickball, hide-and-seek, and running relays.

This movie is very moving. There are delightful and poignant moments from beginning to end, non-stop. I found myself many times with tears in my eyes, then suddenly laughing out loud. It's a funny movie.

'Git away from that winda!!'.... 'Sir, if you're prepared to accept crap, I should tell you that rabbit just did it in your lap.'..... 'So, you the white schoolteacher, Mr. Conrack. My grands LOVE Mr. Conrack. You a good looking teacher, you a good looking white man.'..... 'wind 15 mph from the east. Small boat warning. Small boats beware. Big boats OK, don't gotta worry 'bout nothing.'.... 'not a fry cook, but Eleanor Roosevelt, not a share-cropper, but (something Latin)...that's Latin..hey wait!'.... 'Conrack sing like a frog....I sing good, whatcha talkin' 'bout?!'.

It still mystifies me that I still hear nothing about this movie or that it has very little reputation or following. I intend to seek out more reviews, comments, background, and 'making of' tidbits, if they are out there. What amazes me is the acting given from the untrained kids. One of the kids, Mary, I understand was an actress, and you can tell. However, the other kids have plenty of lines and genuine reactions. I wonder how they did it! I'm guessing that Conrack and Mary had precise dialogue to work with while some of the scenes unfold naturally or ad-libbed.

Conrack is a special movie. In my opinion, it is one of the very few movies that are so good AND so unknown. Others in that category are King Rat ('65), Dark Passage ('47 with Bogie and Bacall), Gods Must Be Crazy ('80), and Bad Day at Black Rock ('55). I recommend them all. But first, take a seat in the class of Mr. Conrack.


Zombi 3 starts as a group of heavily armed men steal a experimental chemical developed to reanimate the dead, while trying to escape the man is shot at & the metal container holding the chemical is breached. The man gets some of the green chemical on a wound on his hand which soon after turns him into a flesh eating cannibalistic zombie. Within hours the surrounding area is crawling with the flesh easting undead on the look out for fresh victims, Kenny (Deran Sarafian) & his army buddies find themselves in big trouble as they stop to help Patricia (Beatrice Ring) & her friend Lia (Deborah Bergammi) who has been pecked by zombie birds (!). General Morton is in charge of the situation & has to stop the zombie plague from spread throughout the whole world! But will he & his men succeed?

This Italian produced film was to be directed by Italian zombie gore film auteur Lucio Fulci but the story goes he suffered a stroke & therefore couldn't finish the film so producer Franco Gaudenzi asked second unit director Bruno Mattei & writer Claudio Fragasso to step in & complete the film. Apparently Mattei & Fragasso did more than just finish it they actually disregarded a lot of the footage Fulci shot & added a lot of their own & Zombi 3 ended up as nearly a straight 50/50 split. The script by Fragasso is an absolute mess, none of it is well thought out & is just as stupid as it gets. The scenes of zombie birds attacking people are not only technically inept but the whole idea is just absurd. The zombies themselves have no consistency whatsoever, look at the scene where Patricia is on the bridge & the zombies are slow as they shuffle along but then look at the scene earlier on where she was attacked by the zombie with the machete because that one runs around like it's on steroids, then for no reasonable explanation about 10 minutes before the film finishes the zombies suddenly develop the ability to speak which also looks daft. There are so many things wrong with Zombi 3, scene after scene of terribly thought out & ineptly directed action, awful character's & really dull broken English dialogue which doesn't make sense half the time. Then there's the embarrassing scene where the zombie head inside the fridge suddenly develops the ability to fly through the air & bite someones neck, the scene when the guy's in white contamination suits at the end are about to kill Kenny & Roger but instead of using their automatic rifles they decide to try & kill them by hand, even when Kenny picks up a gun himself they still refuse to use their rifles & when Kenny starts to shoot them all they still refuse to use their rifles & it's one of the most ineptly handled scenes ever put to film & then there's the end where Kenny takes off in the helicopter but can't rest it down on the ground for literally a few seconds to pick his buddy up & then a load of zombies suddenly spring up from under some piles of grass, what? Since when did zombies hide themselves yet alone under piles of grass? This all may sound 'fun' but believe me it's not, it's a really bad film that is just boring, repetitive & simply doesn't work on any level as a piece of entertainment except for a few unintentional laughs.

It's hard to know who was responsible for what exactly but none of the footage is particularly well shot. It has a bland lifeless feel about it & for some reason the makers have tried to bath every scene in mist, the problem is they clearly only had one fog machine & you can see that at one corner of the screen the mist is noticeably thicker as it is coming straight out of the machine & thinning out as it disperses across the scene. Since a lot of it is set during the day it doesn't add any sort of atmosphere whatsoever & when they do get it right & the mist is evenly spread across the screen it just looks like they shot the scene on a foggy day! The direction is poor with no consistency & it just looks & feels bottom of the barrel stuff. Even the blood & gore isn't up to much, there's a gory hand severing at the start, a scene when something rips out of a pregnant woman's stomach, a legless woman (what actually took her legs off in the pool by the way & why didn't it take the legs off the guy who jumped in to save her?) & a few OK looking zombies is as gory as it gets. For anyone hoping to see a gore fest the likes of which Fulci regularly served up during the late 70's & early 80's will be very disappointed, there aren't any decent feeding scenes, no intestines, no stand out 'head shots' & very little gore at all.

Technically the film is poor, the special effects are cheap looking, the cinematography is dull, the music is terrible, the locations are bland & it has rock bottom production values. This was actually shot in the Philippines to keep the cost down to a minimum. The entire film is obviously dubbed, the acting still looks awful though & the English version seems to have been written by someone who doesn't understand the language that well.

Zombi 3 is not a sequel to Fulci's classic zombie gore fest Zombi 2 (1979), it has nothing to do with it at all apart from the cash-in title. I'm sorry but Zombi 3 is an amateurish mess of a film, it's boring, it makes no sense, it's not funny enough to be entertaining & it lacks any decent gore. One to avoid.


I had just reached thirteen when I first saw this series and I am watching it again, on DVD, over thirty years later. The pictures over the opening credits have never left me. It has affected my view of the world and the peoples in it. My parents were with me long enough to have seen the series with me, and we always discussed the programme afterwards. It gave me a love for studying history and the highest marks I got in our school's public exams!

Sir Laurence Olivier's voice and delivery is timeless and perfect. I get the feeling that the people who lived through it would feel that this is their version of the history of the Second World War. I cannot imagine ever getting bored looking at it. Maybe an similar Cold War series could now be contemplated, although who could replace Sir Laurence is difficult to imagine.

Buy it!


This film has me seriously doubting again whether Armando de Ossorio was a good filmmaker or not... His BLIND DEAD films are praised by many fans. This I can understand. But wanna-be Gothic vampire trite like MALENKA doesn't show any signs from a gifted filmmaker. And that also goes for SERPIENTE DE MAR. It features horrible acting, a dumb plot, stupid events, a lot of other things you can expect from a bad monster-movie and also veteran actor Ray Milland, who does his best to mumble his way through this film while not having much of a clue about what he's doing in it. Apparently Milland was already very ill while shooting SERPIENTE DE MAR (his last theatrical feature) and going out with a ridiculous stinker like this, makes it all the more sad. One last appearance alongside Peter Cushing in a made-for-TV film directed by Roy Ward Baker (also in 1984) doesn't change much about it.

But the sock puppet/sea serpent is a hoot to behold. Watch it swirl up a lighthouse and crush it. See it destroy a harbour with miniature boats. Look at it demolish bridges and munch on charming miniature trains.

Good Badness? Yes. 3/10 and 7/10


I really enjoyed this old black and white talkie. At first I didn't recognize Harold Lloyd as Mr. Cobb, a missionary to China coming home to find a wife. There were many twists and turns in Mr. Cobb's attempts to clean up city hall. His methods of making the punishment fit the crime would likely be illegal, but this is not a movie based on reality. This would be a perfect movie for children except that there is female near nudity (pasties only on Grace Bradley)! The old telephones are enchanting. The only fault is a problem typical of the day - Caucasians are used to represent Chinese men. This is offset by the positive way the Chinese are portrayed. They are the wise, good and friendly guys. Trivia - a Bekins truck appears in the movie when the police run out of Black Marias.


I remember having a pretty low regard for a venture like this when it was first released. James 'Not Jim' Belushi, a hammy kid actress, and a cheesy title in a John Hughes formula. You couldn't have paid me to see it 15 years ago. But, I got caught up watching it while wasting away a Sunday afternoon, and it hits me on a couple of levels. The fairy tale (part Pretty Woman, part reverse Pretty Woman), the very vulnerable, Elizabeth_Perkins_in_Miracle_On_42nd_Street -like performance by Kelly Lynch, the escapism. Over all, it gently pulls some very nice strings. It's pretty hard not to fall into the story, develop a crush on Kelly Lynch, identify with James Belushi, dislike the stiff bad guy boyfriend, and laugh at the Curley Sue lines. Has all the ups and downs, with a happy ending, and the kind of message you want to hear. Go ahead, waste your time on this movie, it's worth it.


Though I can't claim to be a comic book fanatic, I have read my share, so I guess I'm part of the audience of this film, and I wasn't disappointed. It does run out of steam near the end, it's almost overflowing with ideas, and it seems like Lena Olin, one of my favorite actresses, was left on the cutting room floor. Also, a little of Hank Azaria's Blue Raja can go a long way. Still, it's easy to forgive all of these faults when you have a film which is this much fun. All the actors seem to be having a blast with their roles, especially William H. Macy as the straight-arrow Shoveler, and Janeane Garofalo as The Bowler. And unlike some, I found the design of the city to make the joke even funnier. I also liked how disco was the music of choice of the bad guys; somehow, it seemed appropriate.


Remember - before there was Sidney, there was Dudley.

Dudley Digges is barely recalled today - because his heyday as a fixture in sound movies was the late 1920s and through the 1930s. Except for one major performance: the ship's good natured, if tipsy doctor in the 1935 MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, most of his films are barely revived. More's the pity because he was a wonderful actor. In 1931 he played Casper Gutman (the original actor to play that villain) opposite Ricardo Cortez's Sam Spade in the first THE MALTESE FALCON. Similarly, about the same time, he played the recording angel in Leslie Howard's version of OUTWARD BOUND - the same role that Sidney Greenstreet tackled in BETWEEN TWO WORLDS a decade later.

Digges could be likable and lovable (that ship's doctor again), or detestable (in CHINA SEAS, as the judgmental First Mate sneering at poor Lewis Stone but then proving he's as big a coward in a moment of crisis). He held his own against Paul Robeson in THE EMPEROR JONES. He is the Chinese freedom fighter working with Gary Cooper in THE GENERAL DIED AT DAWN. Digges could do anything.

Here, he is Mr. Thompson, the hypocritical and thieving warden of a reform school that Frankie Darro and his friends are sent to for committing a robbery and injuring a Greek-American store owner (it is the latest incident for most of them). Digges is as bad here as in CHINA SEAS, but it is a close thing to totally dislike him. He's able to somehow transcend his roles...more later about that.

Darro has a gang of urban delinquents (including a Jewish boy and 'Farina' from 'OUR GANG'). As pointed out in another review, it is a prototype of the Bowery Boys. We see them shake down car owners to pay them to 'watch and protect' their autos. When one guy won't do it, they calmly wreck his car. The snatch and grab robbery at the store of the Greek-American is also rather graphically shown - his skull getting fractured when pushed.

The boys are rounded up and brought before stern but decent judge Arthur Byron, who realizes that he can't leave the kids with their parents: the parents are unable to watch them, or are incompetent. Unfortunately there are three racial stereotypes in this sequence: a Jewish father who is more concerned with his business than with his son, Farina's stereotype 'Yassum' father, and the an Italian father whose willingness to cooperate gets his son out of going to the reform school.

Once there the boys find the regime oppressive. Occasionally one of the guards or the nurse (Madge Evans) tries to speak up for them. But Digges has no time for coddling. His is a regime determined to break the boys so they behave themselves. Unfortunately, Digges and his bookkeeper partner are greedy. They have been serving inferior food to the boys and pocketing the profit.

One day a new official comes from the state to look at the reform school. It's Jimmy Cagney, who is a hack ward heeler whose gang got the vote out for Edward Maxwell. As a reward (he could not get the Park Commissioner post) Cagney was made an Assistant school inspector. He is supported by his hanger-on pal and factotum Allan Jenkins (in his first Warner Brother film).

The irony is that if Digges were a bit more careful, Cagney would probably have let him continue running things. But Cagney arrives to see Darro brought to Digges for fighting. The Warden and Darrow have had problems about respect earlier, and Digges now intends to punish Darro who flees - but get seriously injured by Digges' barbed wire fences and his free use of a whip. Cagney stops Digges and lets Evans treat Darro's injuries. And she explains the reality of the situation to Cagney, and her own idea of real reformatory reform of the boys by building up trust in them with responsibility.

The film follows this to the end, showing that Cagney and Evans are on the right path, turning the reformatory as a 'republic' for the boys to run properly. This leads to conflict with Digges, whose profiteering is reduced as he is no longer getting supplies. But the scheme is derailed when Cagney himself finds he may be in serious trouble with the law. Digges sees his opportunity and fully takes it. But then he goes too far...far more than he ever bargained for.

The 1930s had many films showing kids taking steps to right wrongs and change things. Darro appeared in such as WILD BOYS OF THE ROAD. Cecil B. De Mille did THIS DAY AND AGE, where the kids teach a lesson to a gangster played by Charles Bickford that scares the hell out of him. So it went in the 1930s. THE MAYOR OF HELL reaches a similar intensity of vengeance and juvenile justice seeking. But that's the one problem of the film. Digges' character is a knave and hypocrite, so we never really cheer for him, yet if he wasn't a thief we might go along with his view (even if it is counter-productive). The scenes at the start of Darro and his gang preying on people actually make the harshness Digges would follow seem fairly understandable (even if his thieving ways are not). Also he has one moment when he's justifiably angry at Cagney - at that point in hiding from his own clash with the law - giving orders over a phone from long distance to a befuddled Digges. When Digges learns what's actually happened he is justifiably furious at Cagney lecturing him about proper behavior. It is the closest thing to making Mr. Thompson sympathetic in this fine movie.


A most awaited film of the year 2002. After three and half years of hibernation,Rajini has acted in this movie. The hype for this film was toooooo high..

This is not a typical Rajini film, in this film he gives some spiritual messages also. But it also includes typical Rajini actions,style,songs etc. Its a good entertaining movie and gives good messages also.

I will rate this movie as Good instead of Excellent because of the screenplay. Its a must watch movie. Dont miss it!


This movie is wonderful. What separates it from other 50's sci-fi is the fact that the alien has no features, no face, eyes, anything, yet it can't be killed. I especially like the idea that this film doesn't take place over a few days, it takes place in one night, lasting supposedly past midnight.It's also scary that once the blob gets on you, you can't get it off. you're stuck in it, as it dissolves your flesh and slowly devours your body. My all time favorite 50's sci-fi film, and what is sometimes considered the quintessential one. I can see why this rocketed Steve McQueen to stardom. All this and a catchy theme song! How can you go wrong?


I'm the sort of person who went down to the local library and read books on Babbage's difference engine whilst my schoolmates were playing football etc.. So, if there is any such thing as a target audience for this film, then I guess I'd probably be included in that.

Maybe I just need to watch it again. A previous reviewer mentioned not to watch this film whilst being tired. Maybe that was my mistake.

I tried my best to enjoy this film, and there are aspects of it that I do like, but overall I found it amateurish and quite plodding.

Being somewhat of a self confessed computer nerd, I just can't help but pick up on the exact time frame when the movie was actually made, and how the employed graphics reflect that time (i.e. 1997). Having played games of the era c.f. 'Mind Grind' to cite one example, this film cannot escape that 16-bit colour low res multimedia explosion of that time. Now thankfully this has somewhat lessened in more recent years in the gaming world at least, in favour of actual game play.

Having to resort to watching this movie via a German FTA satellite channel (as I don't think it's ever been aired on UK FTA TV, well not recently anyway), I was mildly amused to see the end credits note Gottdog (God dog) had 4 people working on it's design. Maybe it's mean spirited of me to be amused by this, given that ten years have elapsed since the movie was made, nevertheless the end result makes movie graphics from the eighties look good by comparison.

But, as for the main story, I agree that the format isn't the best idea. Like others I agree that Ada deserves a film without the sci-fi angle, and a more straightforward biographical approach would perhaps be better suited to covering the life story of this remarkable lady.

There are fundamental mistakes that undermine my enjoyment of this movie. First of all the underlying idea that somehow lost real-world information from the past can be accurately reconstructed through some sort of extrapolation via software based intelligent agents, seems somehow ludicrous.

Also, the theme running through the movie that a computing device can indeed predict the mechanics of all things through the course of time (e.g. the winds) is now known not to be the case.

OK, so the Victorians may have held this view, but the 20th century works of Gödel proving that no mathematical system can be complete, Turing's works on the limits of computability, not to mention chaos theory and quantum mechanics, have all completely undermined these ideas, which seem central to how the modern day researcher's software is supposed to work.

Finally, the clicking of the mouse in the air to mean 'programming' is also just plain wrong, as previously mentioned.

This film maybe could have been OK, but at least some technical and scientific consultation would have given the film some much needed credit in the believability stakes.

I won't forget the film though, as like 'Pi', it is clearly a unique work, but with too many fatal mistakes for me to truly enjoy it, 3/10 from me.


I was expecting this to be just like the others, tries to be scary- ends up looking silly. Somewhere along the line the writers must have realised this and so took the film in a totally different direction basically ignoring the other films. This feels like a different film rather than the fourth entry in the Child's Play series. The new idea works making this the best in the series by far.


When I sat down in the cinema to see this I was expecting to see a sort of stylish tongue-in-cheek action film, which had been implied by the trailers. However, it very quickly became apparent that this film was trying to be more.

Normally, I don't approve of films that try to entertain in as many ways possible. For instance, this film tries to mix action with comedy, romance, lightheartedness and gritty seriousness all at once. Most of the time this sort of approach doesn't work in films (just look at Batman Forever) but I was was pleasantly surprised to see that in this case, they pulled it off.

The end result is a highly entertaining film that should appeal to most mature cinemagoers. (However, the weak of stomach should really be warned of one or two scenes.) Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller pull of a brilliant double act and Ken Stott does a excellent villain. This mixed in with superb costumes and a few decent action scenes makes for a very enjoyable watch.

However, the big let-down here for me is that in having 'The Gentleman Highwayman' there was a real opportunity for some good dialogue but the script was definitely lacking in punchiness and there were few belly laughs. Okay, so the lines weren't terrible but to me it does highlight a problem with recent British films; ignoring a few notable exceptions the screenplays being written today are still relatively mediocre when compared to some of Hollywood's efforts.


This is a stunning movie. Raw and sublimely moving. It felt like a very gripping, intelligent stage play (but without the overly theatrical feeling one actually gets from watching people on a stage) which plays on everyone's terror of a white lie escalating to monstrous consequences. All of the main players are mesmerising. Tom Wilkinson broke my heart at the end... and everyone else's judging by the amount of fumbling for hankies and hands going up to faces among males and females alike. Julian Fellowes has triumphed again. He's a national treasure. Gosford Park, Vanity Fair, Mary Poppins... and now this. Can he do no wrong?! GO AND SEE IT! This is a film for real grown-ups.


This is Classic Disney at its live action cartoon best! Bumbling college student Dexter Riley (Kurt Russell) develops a mysterious liquid invisibility formula that actually makes objects disappear and helps him to save his cash strapped college. Further experimentation reveals that it works amazingly well on humans too! Riley's startling discovery takes some hilarious new twists when a gang of crooks headed by the notorious A.J. Arno (Cesar Romero) steal the formula and attempt to use it for their less-than-legal activities. Dazzling special effects and a fast-paced story make this lively film a textbook case of college comedy! I love this movie! This movie has always filled me with a sense of wonder and joy.A pleasant little comedy that the entire family can enjoy. Not much violence or sex and absolutely no swearing, makes this a movie that parents can watch with their children.Merely one in a series of Kurt Russell movies set at Medvale College. A pleasant little series set in a wholesome America before terrorists, when people valued integrity more than cash! I highly recommend this movie!


I'm just throwing in this review to show that I'm not crazy -- I like a lot of Wynorski's work -- Deathstalker 2, Chopping Mall, Against the Law are fast-paced and highly enjoyable -- just to prove I'm not blind, I have to mention this, along with some Shannon Tweed 'Body Chemistry 3 or 4 or something', are the lousy ones -- I've got nothing against drawn-out sex sequences, but Julie Strain's breasts are so unnatural looking you can't help but stare at them - which may be the desired effect but I didn't enjoy staring at them -- and several members of this cast seem depressed or disinterested -- The 'erotic thriller' was the worst thing to happen to low-budget flicks ever, and thank God that their day has more-or-less done.


Warner Brothers social responsibility at its most ham-handed, with sermonizing every five minutes or so about how we're Americans, we don't run from trouble, we face up to our responsibilities. It also suggests that if you're willing to perjure yourself to protect your family from clearly deadly gangsters, you're un-American. Walter Huston, looking bored, is the frustrated DA, and the 'average American family' includes such familiar faces as Sally Blane (looking a lot like her sister, Loretta Young) and Dickie Moore, as an allegedly adorable moppet. Both are regularly crowded out of the frame by Chic Sale, only 47 then but playing an octogenarian Civil War veteran, ponderously jumping and 'amusingly' nipping at Prohibition hooch and moralizing about how we're Americans, dag nabbit. His St. Vitus Dance old-coot performance is tiresome schtick; it's like Walter Brennan based his entire career on it. William Wellman directs efficiently and quickly, much like his earlier 'Public Enemy,' but he and the screenwriter neglect to show what happens to this family after the happy fadeout -- i.e., they'd probably be rubbed out by the Mob.


great mystery, but the film goes down hill from there. The beginning is promising with a car wreck and a woman and her daughter being burned alive in front of a police officer, Edward. He is traumatized over this and is seen popping pills. A mysterious letter turns up from an old girlfriend asking for help in finding her missing daughter. So Ed travels to an island commune of mainly woman. They don't like outsiders. A lot of filler is with Ed shown looking around town for the girl. That made the movie too long. It finally gets a little better toward the end when we learn of the crazy rituals the woman perform and finally of the sinister plan in store for Edward.

Overall, not a well written story and too long.

FINAL VERDICT: I would skip this.


Another vast conspiracy movie that tries to blame the US government and the Armed Forces (especially the Army) for every disaster since the Great Flood. Anyone who has ever served time in the US military can see how bogus this film is. Uniforms, equipment, sets, and mannerisms are all wrong. (And of course, all Senior Officers are either corrupt criminals or total idiots.) Blatant propaganda with no attempt at objectivity. Most of the theories presented have been disproven over the past few years. Uses every cliche', rumor, and Urban Legend from the Gulf-all are presented as gospel. (The truth is, no one knows for sure why some GW vets are sick and others are healthy as horses.) PS This is not new. War is NOT fun and I know WWII, Korean, and Viet Nam vets with some pretty serious ailments, too. (And the government has the responsibility to take care of all of them.) Sensationalistic movies like this will not solve the problem!


This film has been on my wish list for ten years and I only recently found it on DVD when my partner's grandson was given it. He watched it at and was thrilled to learn that it was about my generation - born in 1930 and evacuated in 1939 and he wanted to know more about it - and me. Luckily I borrowed it from him and watched it on my own and I cried all through it. Not only did it capture the emotions, the class distinction, the hardship and the warmth of human relationships of those years (as well as the cruelties (spoken and unspoken); but it was accurate! I am also a bit of an anorak when it comes to ARP uniforms, ambulances (LCC) in the right colour (white) and all the impedimenta of the management of bomb sites and the work of the Heavy Rescue Brigades. I couldn't fault any of this from my memories, and the sandbagged Anderson shelter and the WVS canteens brought it all back. The difference between the relatively unspoiled life in the village and war-torn London was also sharply presented I re-lived 1939/40 and my own evacuation from London with this production! I know Jack Gold's work, of course, and one would expect no more from him than this meticulous detail; but it went far beyond the accurate representation of the facts and touched deep chords about human responses and the only half-uttered value judgements of those years. It was certainly one of the great high spots in John Thaw's acting career and of Gold's direction and deserves to be better known. It is a magnificent film and I have already ordered a couple of copies to send to friends.


This movie came as a huge disappointment. The anime series ended with a relatively stupid plot twist and the rushed introduction of a pretty lame villain, but I expected Shamballa to tie up all the loose ends. Unfortunately, it didn't. It added more plot holes than it resolved, and confused more than it clarified. The animation and voice acting were great, but with an idiotic plot, dull setting (most of the movie doesn't even take place in dull WWII Earth rather than the Alchemy world), and disappointing ending (Ed is useless for the rest of his days in a world with no alchemy, and he ditches Winry?), it was altogether pretty lackluster. Do yourself a favor-- disregard the last half of the anime as well as this movie, and read the manga.


This film is right up there with The Oscar and Moment by Moment as one of unintentionally funny films of all time.

It is worth the rental for a some wildly great laugh's.

The story is absolutely ludicrous.nothing in life would happen like this.it's so completely unbelievable. the way James Woods tries and hustle heavy hitters, than they give this supposed two-bit hustler a job 3000 miles away in LA what a joke

I love the old beat VW bug to signify how low they've gotten in life because of all the `tootski's'.

Sean Young is as unbelievably bad as the, 'I'll love you forever, no matter what, wife' you'll ever see.if it wasn't so funny you would throw up at how sugary sweet Young tries to project herself.and as bad acting as you'll ever see.

James Wood overacts throughout the whole movie and he's so extremely funny and is way, way over the top, it's just not to be believed, Woods seems like a parody of a cocaine fiend off Saturday Night Live.but watching Woods on `ludes' is worth the price of the rental.<br /><br />I love it when Woods tells the guy who wants to give him some more `ludes' that he doesn't do that stuff anymore, right before that, Woods just did three giant lines of coke.

This is some very funny stuff.

The ending is so comical but right on par with the rest of the movie.


In 1990 I saw Kathy Ireland in person - I was at UNT in Denton during the filming of 'Necessary Roughness.' Strangely enough, the voice she's using in this film isn't too far off from her real speaking voice.

Anyway, the plot goes like this: Kathy gets a letter telling her that her father's fallen into a bottomless pit in Africa. She goes and investigates the site of her father's death, only to get sucked into a subterranean world that's part dystopian nightmare, part uninspiring fantasy, and inhabited by rejects from the Plasmatics. This movie really wastes the talent of Linda Kerridge, who, in my opinion, could have been someone had she gotten that one big role that was right for her. Anyway, the main hero of the story, Gus, is a very lame Mark 'Jacko' Jackson rip-off. The original is annoying enough to begin with, but this guy really is torture to watch. Eventually the nebbish Wanda comes out of her shell and ends up wearing a bikini top and a sarong at the end. If you're going to have Kathy Ireland in a film in skimpy clothing, it'd better be a bikini. Anyway, the film was just all around bad and rightfully skewered by MST3K.

Avoid this one if possible.


OK, so this film may not have won any Oscars, but it is not a bad film. The original 'D.O.A.' is undoubtedly a better film, but that does not mean this film is bad.

The film stars Dennis Quaid in one of his early roles, when he was first becoming really famous, after 'The Right Stuff' made him a star, and a very lovely looking Meg Ryan, when she was still now quite famous.

This is more of an 'update' of the 1950 film, rather than a remake, since the setting is different and the characters too, are different. The plot is pretty much the same. A man (this time an English professor at the University of Texas at Austin) is poisoned and he has only 24 hours to find out who poisoned him and why. Meg Ryan plays a young college student who tries to help him. Jane Kaczmarek plays Quaid's estranged wife, in a low key, but intense performance; she steals every scene she is in. Daniel Stern (also in an early role, before 'Home Alone' made him famous) plays Quaid's colleague. Charlotte Rampling is fine too in a supporting role.

The entire cast is top notch; The film is stylish, with a quick pace that keeps you guessing until the end.

I think this is a film that is certainly worth watching as a thriller, and as a modern version of a classic film.


This is a pretty silly film, including what may well be the least erotic come-on ever to make it to the big screen (the heroine pours V-8 all over herself and invites the hero to lick it off -- yuck!). And yet it also features the resplendent Lucinda Dickey in what is far and away her most erotic performance. In those long ago days, women -- even action heroines -- with real muscles were a rarity, and I can still remember the way my jaw dropped when Dickey took off her shirt, revealing the most powerfully built female back and biceps I'd ever seen. Dickey's beauty and vitality carry the film: she could have been a female Schwarzenegger if anybody had had the vision to promote her.


Reading some of the comments on the message boards here I was expecting this movie to be a complete letdown - but when I watched it I could not stop laughing! It has officially become my new favourite movie.

I don't know what all the hate here is about, maybe it's because a movie of this kind has never really been around before. I am at a loss to name another completely female driven comedy. Plenty of comedies will have one or two actresses in the lead, but there will be a lot of supporting male characters. This one was almost ALL women - with the exception of Seth Meyers, Justin Hartley and the brief appearance of Will Arnett - and it worked. All of the actresses delivered very funny performances (especially Missi Pyle) from a quirky and lovable script.

The charm of this film, to me, seems to be in its subtle feminist message: accepting who you are, female success in the public sphere, the strength of female friendships and breaking gender roles. Light-hearted though it is, each of the lead characters face a challenge as their attempts to be more 'fun' conflict with their feminist values and who they knew themselves to be.

Missi Pyle proposed that this film missed a theatrical release because of its all-female cast and lack of a big-name actor to get the studios behind it, and I have to agree. Everyone I've recommended this film to has loved it and I think it's a shame that a comedy celebrating female dorkiness hasn't been widely accepted and successful.

I highly recommend this film to anyone with an open mind or a love of female-centred comedy.


In this glorious telling of a weekend shared among literary greats. Mary and Percy Shelly,Lord Byron and others created a entrancing group. Showing their quests for sexual enlightenment. Personal freedoms from political to moral. Liberal drug use for both stimulations and as addiction. Their creative views of life and writing. Describing without boring the viewer how each writer seeks to find their muse. Along with the distractions and affections each share. With breathtaking scenery that does not detract but very much enhances the story. Well created characters from grim to loving then angry to peaceful. With some of the most lovely and scene enhancing costuming to be had.


As much as I hated the movie that this series follows I can at least says that Zangief was amusing. The animated series is quite possibly one of the worst things ever produced. The animation is quite often inconsistent, although it does stay consistently bad. The shape of a characters face is even capable of drastically changing in the same shot. The script and voice acting also leave something to be desired since most of the cast seems about as talented as the cast of a third grade drama play. Characters like Cammy and DJ are so forced into stereotypes of their nationalities that episodes containing them are almost physically painful to watch, not that the series isn't painful on a regular basis anyway. Episode plots seem to strive to reach new levels of lame with every turn and are so full of plot holes it amazes me they had time to show commercials. Truthfully, it amazes me anyone wold pay to advertise during the show. In addition to being a bad series it is an even worse adaptation of Street Fighter. Many of the characters maintain the failed adaptations from the movie. Examples include Ken and Ryu being idiot con men (even though Ken is supposed to be rich), Blanka being Guiles friend Charlie, and Chun Li being a reporter. It takes talent to take something as bad as the movie and make it worse.


It came by surprise. . .the impact & resoloution this film had on my automatic way of being reactive to people & situations. Most vividly was the stirring of the emotion anger. Much like the way a spoiled child would be when reacting to not getting their way. . .a temper tantrum if you will. Thinking I was hiding this anger from others was the most ridiculous farce of all. What was this costing me? Soooo much love. . .sooo many blessings. Now I'm present to how incredible humbling myself feels, and having an ongoing attitude of gratitude for life. . .for what is happening in the moment, without my wild expectations for life to be a particular way, the way I think life or people 'should' be. This film has contributed to the freedom I now feel to connect with others, without limits & expectations. . .and to connect with genuine love. . .without fear of loss. . .just to love first, and accept what love is given.


Wow. Something of a surprise. Though flawed, it is far better that I expected.

The brand new space liner Arcturus with some 3,000 passengers is in the final days of its sixteen day trip to Jupiter. Without warning, the ship's Cerebral (central computer) sounds a disaster alarm and orders everyone to evacuate.

Soon, there are only a handful of people remaining including one of the ship's astrogators (Penny), the captain (Cary), and the director of the shipping line (Kenyon).

It turns out that the alarm was false and that the main Cerebral is acting

erratically. The remaining passengers and crew must escape the ship and

avoid personal conflicts in order to survive.

The film starts out very well. The opening commercial is a very nice touch. There are obvious parallels to 2001: A Space Odyssey and to the historic

sinking of the Titanic. The film does slow down at times and has pacing

problems, but is generally well made and well acted.


I may not have the longest of attention-spans, but this is the second movie I have refused to see all the way through, and I even bought it on DVD because of its 'classic' status.

At first, I thought that the director was playing a big joke, so I kept waiting for a resolution, something to laugh at, something to keep my interest, but this resolution never came. Rather, the writing was laughably amateurish, the movie dragged on and felt disjointed, like someone cut a TV series to feature-length. The Academy must have been on drugs when they nominated this movie for no less than eight Oscars.

Once again, I repeat myself. This is the second movie I have refused to watch all the way through. The first was 'Exterminator'. I hope this gives you an indication of how bad it really is. 1/10


'Gespenster' (2005) forms, together with 'Yella' (2007), and 'Jerichow' (2008), the Gespenster-trilogy of director Christian Petzold, doubtless one of the creme-De-la-creme German movie directors of our time.

Roughly, 'Gespenster' tells the story of a French woman whose daughter had been kidnapped as a 3 years old child while the mother turned around her head for 1 minute in Berlin - and has never been seen ever. Since then, the mother keeps traveling to Berlin whenever there is a possibility and searches, by aid of time-dilated photography, for girls of the age of approximately the present age of her age. As we hear later in the movie, the mother was already a lot of times convinced that she had found her daughter Marie. However, this time, when she meets Nina, everything comes quite different.

The movie does not bring solutions, not even part-solutions, and insofar, it is rather disappointing. We are not getting equipped either in order to decide if the mother is really insane or not, if her actual daughter is still alive or not. Most disappointing is the end. After what we have witnessed in the movie, it is an imposition for the watcher that he is let alone as the auteur leaves Nina alone. The simple walking away symbolizing that nothing has changed, can be a strong effect of dramaturgy (f.ex. in 'Umberto D.'), but in 'Gespenster', it is displaced.

Since critics have been suggesting Freudian motives in this movie, let me give my own attempt: Why is it that similar persons do not know one another, especially not the persons that another similar person knows? This is quite an insane question, agreed, from the standpoint of Aristotelian logic, according to which the notion of the individual holds. The individual is such a person that does not share any of its defining characteristics with anyone else. So, the Aristotelian answer to my question is: They do not know one another because their similarity is by pure change. Everybody who is not insane, believes that. However, what about the case if these similar persons share other similarities which can hardly be by change, e.g. scarfs on their left under ankle or a heart-shaped birthmark under their right shoulder-blade? This is the metaphysical context out of which this movie is made, although I am not sure whether even the director has realized that. Despite our modern, Aristotelian world, the superstition, conserved in the mythologies of people around the globe that similar people also share parts of their individuality, and that individuality, therefore, is not something erratic, but rather diffusional, so that the borders between persons are open, such and similar believes build a strong backbone of irrational-ism despite our otherwise strongly rational thinking - a source of Gespenster of the most interesting kind.


First of all this was not a three hour movie - Two hours, ten minutes... last time i checked commercials aren't actually part of a movie! Perhaps, though, it should've been a two parter for a total of about 3 hours? Yeah, would have gotten more in, been able to explore some more emotion. Overall, though, it was an interesting look into the lives of Lucy and Desi. I watch I Love Lucy from time to time and love it but never have I read or seen a biography, never knew anything about their lives off the screen. Because of this movie I do now but I'm not so sure that's a good thing. Everything here no one really needed to know. This was essentially a movie that didn't need to be made. But it was made and the reason is because Lucy & Desi are still such huge stars and certain people in American society feel that the rest of society needs to know ALL about our tv and movie stars. That is definitely so not true and very, very sad.

Anyway, what was shown here in Lucy was pretty good. Two complaints - the actress who played Viv Vance - not great casting at all. And the switch from Madeline Zima to Rachel York.... uhhh, like Lucy had plastic surgery and all of a sudden she's a whole new person!? That wasn't too great. But the story went on and focused on the rocky relationship between Lucy & Desi. No, the kids were not shown very much at all and that wasn't necessarily a drawback to this movie because like I said, this focused mainly just on Lucy & Desi. Had there been more time, had the story been more about Lucy's entire life, then maybe the kids woulda been there more. But they weren't so we got to see the likes of Gable & Lombard, Red Skelton and Buster Keaton very briefly instead. Wow, that was one thing about this story that I thought was really cool: his presence and influence in Lucy's life. Really neat and it's too bad that wasn't explored more. Oh well. What was explored was done well, for the most part. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever watch this again and I don't think this movie'll be that memorable. For someone who digs I Love Lucy but isn't an enormous Lucille Ball fan, this should be an interesting watch. My grade for this: B


Follows the same path as most sequels. First one was great. Second was average and this one, full of bad acting and some stupid dialog and well as a lot of suspension of disbelief, this movie was weak.

Too predictable and I just couldn't stand that Henry Wrinkler-like boss with that stupid eye, there was so much more they could have done with this. I liked the first one a lot. I wish they would have went more down those lines, rather than what they did here.

There was too much unexplained that needed to be explained, what time period this was in and why why why is there an old fashioned phone in that room?

I understand there is another one in the works.

Blah!


The Other Boleyn Girl - not to be confused with the book it claims to be based upon. This movie is not even close to a faithful adaptation. I could understand them changing or elaborating on a few things. The book is not perfection, but it was well-written and became very popular. I could understand if the BBC wanted to make this a little more faithful to what actually happened, who Anne Boleyn really was - but it's not even close to being historically accurate either. It's just fluff. Mindless, made-up fluff. A real shame.

To begin with, the writer and director seemed to think it was a good idea to setup the story like it was a reality TV show. Seriously. They have the Boleyns sitting in front of the camera, confessing how they REALLY feel about what's happening in their lives. Anne Boleyn sits in a confessional (not the church kind, the Real World kind) and chooses what she wants to tell and what she wants to just sit and smile about. She looks stupid having to use such a modern cinematic device in a film set in the 1500s. It's 'The Real World: Tudor England!'

Jodhi May is a very good actress and after 'The Aristocrats' and 'A Turn of the Screw' I was becoming a real fan of hers. But she should never have been cast as Anne. Actually I think she would have been a better Mary. Natascha McElhone was a poor choice. She's a good actress, sure, but she has very modern features and does not appear convincing in period costume. (Honestly, I spent the first half of the film trying to figure out if she was 'that girl' from 'The Truman Show.' She was.) She's also too old to play the teen-aged Mary so for some unknown reason they made Mary the oldest of the sisters. It makes no sense, I know. It's like the BBC seemed to forget that these people actually lived. They're twisting the story around and making things up left and right. I feel ridiculous having to correct the BBC on historical inaccuracies, but REALLY!

Apart from the two sisters the rest of the cast was actually very well chosen. Steven Mackintosh struck me as a brilliant choice for George, and his casting was the real reason I decided to seek out this movie. Big mistake. He does a great job, sure, but he's hardly in this. How can anyone pretend they're adapting The Other Boleyn Girl and hardly mention George Boleyn? That's just absurd. Philip Glenister was another very good casting decision, but yet again, was hardly in the finished product.

The real problem with this is the script. There's just no getting around that. It's bad. It's really, really bad. It's too melodramatic and not engaging. Anne is portrayed as an air-head, Mary as the ringleader, and George as the follower. Mary's first husband is hardly mentioned, her relationship with the king is never explained - they simply do not tell the story Phillippa Gregory wrote. The whole thing comes across as a great big waste. I have no desire to see this thing a second time. I guess I'll just have to read the book again and hope that the Natalie Portman version due out next year will be much better.

*Note: As of this writing, the only way of obtaining this miniseries in the USA is on the last disc of the miniseries 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII.' That's a great miniseries but can cost $50 to $60 and that's way to much to spend if you're just looking for this piece of garbage.


This isn't art, it's inner-urban, politically-correct propaganda! Jindabyne's political intolerance is beyond unforgivable... it doesn't see people as individuals, but rather, as members of categories.

This is the most patronisingly offensive Australian movie I can recall ever (and it's up against some pretty stiff competition!). A message movie, every tired theme beloved of the trendy left is there: Aborigines are victims; white men are violent or alcoholics; white women aren't that bad -particularly if they are lesbians - but they're most likely of a depressive nature.

Four men who go away fishing, find the body of a murdered woman (Aboriginal, naturally) and leave her in the river for several days while they catch trout. It's a strange decision taken with almost no discussion, as if the men are animals. The one man who briefly demurs is the goodie... we know this because he's living with a bisexual woman - he likes to hold his baby a lot - and eventually moves to a more fashionable costal location (away from all these beastly bush-dwellers).

This is a film made by those trendy urbanites who live in fear of the Australian landscape and those evil rednecks who reside within. It's ignorance of country life is almost as shocking as its contempt. The film is shot through with long-distance views of the bush backed by foreboding, mysterious music. It's made very clear by the end that Aboriginal people are the only ones at home in this landscape. It concludes with an excruciatingly implausible scene of black-white reconciliation.

In Jindabyne, country life is reduced to little more than a backdrop for a story that by implication proclaims the superiority of the values of enlightened leftist urban dwellers over those of other Australians.

This film was not made by people with real jobs but funded by the Government's Film Finance Corporation. It's a product of the artsy set, that soulless void populated by the beautiful people for whom lavish government funding sustains these patronisingly offensive projects (which are as detached from real life as possible), as opposed to actually making popular films people want to see. It doesn't matter if the film is a stinker, they still get paid.

Spare yourself from wasting time, avoid it like the plague. More jaded social commentary than actual entertainment, this film deserves to pan!


I don't care if some people voted this movie to be bad. If you want the Truth this is a Very Good Movie! It has every thing a movie should have. You really should Get this one.


There are some things I will never understand; why underwear comes in packs of threes when clearly thats not enough is an example. Similarly, I will never understand this film, and that is brilliant. If you approach this film expecting an actual movie, you might as well be approaching Satan expecting a hug; although that may well be possible if you greet this film's Satanic figures. Take Pitch for instance; the most ineffectual, camp, unhellish portrayal of a devil since Freddy Mercury and Wayne Sleep joined forces to create a ten foot Satan costume from red body paint and horns covered with condoms. However, it does create some of the most hilarious moments of any film ever. Seriously, this is no understatement. The same can be applied to every other character, bar the little girl who acts so sickly innocent she's probably overcompensating for some serious crime she's part of. Then again, if Santa's inter-space recon station is real, there is no chance she could have avoided him this long. Put simply, if you haven't seen this movie, you cannot consider yourself a serious buff. The achingly funny characterisation, acting, concept, and almost-under-the-radar racism makes this a must see above any film to date (if you're after pure laughter that is).


Disappointing, predictable film in which a woman (Mc Teer) travels with her daughter from state to state because she can't maintain relationships and find happiness. In this genre 'Anywhere but here' starring Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman gave a much better insight into a mother/daughter relationship. With Better acting as well.


I have recently seen this movie due to Jake's recent success with Brokeback Mountain. I figured I would see the movies that I missed. I had no expectations going into the film so was astounded that I had missed this movie at all. It's a gripping father and son tale, and it is also an underdog story. I even shed a tear at the finale of this wonderful tale. This movie appeals to all ages. The only reason I give it a 9 out of 10 is that it slows down a little in the middle, but it comes back strong in the end. The acting was great, the story was magnificent, and the cinematography was captivating given the setting of the film. GO SEE THIS MOVIE! Rent it, buy it, watch it, LOVE IT! I know I did!


This film has a decidedly weird setting, taking place in a school that's really old to begin with but it certainly doesn't look like any sterile medical school environment. Very Gothic and atmospheric. As for the film itself, well, OK, the premise is a bit far-fetched but hey, that's why we watch movies, isn't it? And it's less far-fetched than some of the garbage that's out these days, that's for sure. Medical students are experimenting with 'short term' death, as in allowing themselves to be briefly dead so they can experience what the afterlife is like. It's kind of nice, in some cases, till parts of it come back with the voyager and start meddling in their earthbound lives. I hadn't seen this film in years till I got it on DVD and I have to say that I'd forgotten just how good it was. And it struck me that Julia Roberts looks truly beautiful in this film, not like actresses of today that are supposedly gorgeous but are dressed and made-up like cheap hookers. Ahh, the good old days. Anyway, this is a great flick, perhaps not for fundamentalist Christians but many others may enjoy it. 8 out of 10 stars.


Doctor Who is amazing. It is everyones 'cup of tea'. It must be. The boys will like the monsters and the action and adventure and the girls will like the emotion and feelings that go around.

Billie Piper was extraordinary as Rose Tyler. She was so emotional and made Rose so real.

David Tennant is also so witty and funny and it is so enjoyable to watch.

But now Billie has left and Rose is stuck on a parallel universe with her on-off boyfriend Mickey and her mother and father (he died when Rose was a baby but this Pete Tyler is from the Parallel universe). It will be very strange with Martha being the new companion, as I have only ever seen it with Rose (Apart from the Runaway Bride with Catherine Tate).

Freema better be good!!!

But nobody can beat Rose!!!


I thought sleeper cell was interesting, and exciting to watch, up until the last episode, when nothing happens, its F****** BS, you Americans portray Muslims as terrorists, and the Americans as hero's, its the other way around, i hate it when every American TV show ends up predictable, i was hoping the bombs would go off in that stadium, but i knew it would'nt, it takes the joy out of watching it when you know that the good guys are going to save the day, yet again, Americans are the biggest terrorists, g bush the leader of them all, he is to blame for 9/11, and I'm P***** off that you keep throwing these shows at us, which are all the f****** same! i've a good show about terrorism, its called ' The Whitehorse' and bush himself the cell leader, its the same with 24, how ever 24 was good, sleeper cell is a mock and should never make a season 2, its F***** joke! and so are you American producers.


I had great expectations surrounding this movie (not as it was an apocalypse now or an 8 1/2, but high enough), and when i saw it on cable, they were all shattered. Starting by the acting (poor,almost mediocre, an astonishing waste of good actors and talent) and the story itself: Since when does a 5 men squad go out on patrol on a supposed «hot» zone???To suicide??That´s one big mistake, that costs the film dearly. Very good actors do very poor acting here, like Sean Penn, that recently repeated the irritating way of talking on «I am Sam», and Michael J. Fox, that wastes a good opportunity to beat Charlie Sheen on «Platoon», performing just «average». But the most irritating character was Diaz (played by John Leguizamo, another stupid waste of fine talent by the director), that was a cheesy,scared and insecure kind of person, even more irritating that Jar Jar Binks (yes,you heard it). The battle sequences are average, the only one that really stands out is the opening sequence, with Michael J. Fox trapped by his feet on a VC tunnel.Mr. de Palma has a weak work here, and if it wasn´t for films like «Scarface» and «The Untouchables» (these ones excellent films), i would consider him a «bluff» director: too much publicity, bad filming.

3/10


This is an adaptation of an Edith Wharton work, whose writing is amazing. Sadly, this movie never shakes the feeling that these 20th century movie people don't grasp the 19th century repression and desperation Wharton's work depicts. Ward and Dalton aren't so bad, but Alicia Witt's wooden performance made me wince. She was supposed to be playing the restless element of the story, but she stood like a stick the whole movie long, and I never believed a word out of her mouth. When she asks Sela Ward 'Why can't I move you?' near the end of the film, I couldn't help but answer: 'That's what I've been wondering for the last hour and a half!!!'


Being a big fan of the 'other' PLANET OF THE APES films, I rented this DVD despite my aversion to all things Tim Burton. Once again, he doesn't fail to disappoint with his uninspired direction. Even the ape makeup looks second rate, which is unforgivable considering the monstrous budget of this monstrosity. Mark Wahlberg proves once and for all that he is not an actor (as if BOOGIE NIGHTS wasn't proof enough). I was embarrassed for genuine talents such as Tim Roth and Helena Bonham Carter. No doubt their paychecks motivated them since it couldn't possibly have been the cliche-ridden screenplay. I rented this DVD on a special $1 night and I still feel ripped off.


A heroic young trail scout leads a large party of pioneers along THE BIG TRAIL to the West, with Indian attacks, natural disasters & romantic complications all part of the adventure.

As sweeping & magnificent as its story, Raoul Walsh's THE BIG TRAIL is a wonderful film, as entertaining as it was more than seven decades ago. With very good acting and excellent production values, it lives up to its reputation as the talkies' first epic Western.

John Wayne, pulled from obscurity for his first important movie role, looks impossibly young, but he immediately impresses with the natural charm & masculine authority he brings to the hero's role; he quietly dominates the film with the attributes which would someday make him a huge star. Marguerite Churchill is fetching as a lovely Southern belle who slowly warms to the Duke's attentions. Dialect comic El Brendel is great fun as a Swedish immigrant beset with mule & mother-in-law woes; his appearance in a scene signals laughs for the viewer.

Looking & sounding like a human grizzly bear, Tyrone Power Sr., vast & repulsive, makes a wonderful villain. Slick cardsharp Ian Keith is a sophisticated bad guy. (His famous physical similarity to John Gilbert is very apparent here.) Silent movie character actor Tully Marshall is impressive as a wily old mountain man who helps guide the wagon train. Corpulent Russ Powell, as a friendly fur trapper, puts his vocal talent for making nonsense noises to good use. Sharp-eyed movie mavens will spot Ward Bond as one of the Missouri settlers.

What will surprise many modern viewers is that THE BIG TRAIL was filmed in an early wide screen process, called Grandeur. More than living up to its name, the picture looks marvelous, with Walsh showing a mastery of the new technology. He fills the screen, every portion of it, with action. Notice during the crowd scenes, how everyone is busy doing real work, which adds so much to the verisimilitude of these sequences. Walsh deserves great credit for being one of the first directors to use wide screen. In addition, the film is blessedly free of the rear projection photography which blights so many older films. It should also be stressed that it is only natural that the soundtrack sounds a little primitive; talkies were still in their cradle. That Walsh was able to use a microphone at all, with most of the scenes shot out of doors, is more kudos for him.

THE BIG TRAIL was not a box office success. In 1930, William Haines' comedies were the big money makers and the public was looking for fare other than intelligent Westerns. Most of the cast slipped into obscurity, including Wayne. It would not be until 1939, when John Ford rescued him in STAGECOACH, that John Wayne's legend would begin in earnest. And despite its grand & sweeping vistas, it would be another 25 years before wide screen caught on with Hollywood, largely as an answer to the economic threat from television.


For a country that has produced some of the world's finest dramatists and has such a rich musical heritage it has always been a source of bewilderment to me why so much of Ireland's home-grown cinema has been so appalling. Perhaps because, by its very nature, those talented in the field of Irish cinema have been quick to abandon their native shore for careers in Britain or America, (Colin Farrell is a recent case in point), and that the really successful Irish directors that have continued to work in Ireland and with Irish subjects have made their films with international money and an eye on the international market. I am thinking particularly of Jim Sheridan and Neil Jordan who alternate between films with an Irish setting and projects filmed abroad.

'Middletown', however, is very much an Irish film even if two of its principal actors are English. It's certainly well-made of its kind and might have bucked the trend that Irish films aren't really very good; (Paddy Breathnach's 'I Went Down', written by the brilliant young playwright Conor McPherson, is a crucial exception). Unfortunately this tale of fundamentalism set in a fictitious Irish town, presumably in the North of Ireland judging by the accents, (Mid-Ulster Bible-Belt, if you ask me), and presumably in the recent past, (the fifties? the sixties?), is so over-the-top that it really is quite ridiculous.

Nothing in the film rings true and you can't help feeling it's writer, Daragh Carville, has been strongly influenced by Flannery O'Connor and that the whole thing might have made more sense had it been set in the American bible-belt and not in Ireland where even the most extreme Protestant fundamentalist was never quite as loony as this. It's all meant be to be grim in a grand guignol kind of way and it certainly is, though I was more prone to giggles than frisson's at the right Reverand Matthew Macfayden's antics. He has the Ulster accent off pat and there is nothing wrong with his acting or indeed that of Daniel Mays as his brother, Gerard McSorley as his father or Eva Birthistle as Mays' wife but the script is so appallingly derivative that good acting can do nothing to save the film. So rather than a step up the ladder for Irish cinema 'Middletown' is, I'm afraid, just another nail in its coffin.


I'm no slouch at finding 'redeeming social value.' Whatever book or film people want to suppress, from Huck Finn/Heart of Darkness to, I don't know, Deep Throat or the latest hostage beheading, I sincerely wish they wouldn't. I'm not a lover of porn or of violence-as-entertainment, but what of them I chance upon I tend to see camera angles, cuts, pans, lighting, rhythms, nearly to the exclusion of fear or titillation, sometimes even missing filmmakers' or actors' intent. Even from footage that reasonable people may argue should never have existed, I always imagine there's something to learn. I wonder more at how a film does than about what it does. Maybe that's wrong of me. Wiser but harder than deconstructing unpleasant cinema, might be to see cuts, pans, etc., at one with and inseparable from no matter what content. I ask myself what horror filmmakers and church architects have in common. Add in political filmmakers, fascist and not. All manipulate with light, space, and sound in order to alter perception and mood. How different are their goals? How different are the goals of those who film real atrocities for use as propaganda?

When the original All Night Long (ANL) trilogy appeared on my shelf, I left it unwatched for nearly year. Curiosity had made me buy it. I sampled a few minutes of '1' the day it arrived, up to the awkwardly sound-effected street corner stabbing that seems really an attack on film viewers' sensibility, found it inept but effective. I'd have to come back to it, certainly, but didn't relish the prospect. Clearly this wasn't the sublime horror of Kairo, Cure, Angel Dust, Lain, the rawer but still traditionally framed horror of the first Evil Dead Trap, the overtly political work of Koji Wakamatsu, or even the brilliant crudity of early Cronenberg.

Maybe that word 'attack' is key. Matsumura attacks not his characters, but his viewers. I can't watch these at this point in history without thinking of both Abu Garib (some of which I think I recall was evidenced on video) and the hostage videos, but also about Godard's torturers (in Le Petit soldat?) to whom atrocity is just a job, a fraction of a person's workday. And then there's the prolonged Northern California news story whose details I barely remember but can't entirely forget because it too entails 'cinema,' a duo of serial killers notorious, if suggestion isn't playing games with my memory, for having videotaped themselves torturing victims.

All three ANL entries are revenge cinema, vigilante exercises, but I'm attaching these notes ANL3 because it's the most ambitious and may constitute a turning point for director Matsumura. (I haven't seen the entries that followed ANL3.) Through the first two offerings, I imagined a camera fallen into the hands of one of those fringe kids from middle or grammar school who obsessively draw war scenes or other atrocities. (Or as if one of Matsumura's revenge-crazed characters had turned writer-director. Anyone watching these who hasn't seen Michael Powell's Peeping Tom would do well to see it.) But ANL3 seems to aspire to mainstream. Matsumura's protagonist grows carnivorous plants, allowing for some typically Japanese cool close-up nature shots. There's also, for the first time a Matsumura film, a traditionally erotic sequence: Kikuo's female boss sneaks up and begins to caress him while he's peeping at the love hotel's customers. Kikou finds himself unhappily sandwiched between. He's a middleman voyeur. The brief thrill comes from the layers of voyeurism. There's even a philosophical/poetic garbage sifter, a garbage voyeur who somehow makes me think of the poem repeated in Wakamatsu's not-at-all-what-it-sounds-like Go, Go, Secondtime Virgin.

I'm getting nowhere with this, and it's getting in the way of my commenting other films. Can't escape the suspicion that a few years on I'll walk into a Matsumura retrospective at my local film archive, maybe hosted by some learned character who's caught onto something I'm missing.

How much does it matter whether the director is or simply 'gets' his lethally muddled protagonists? Does he even have to understand them? Maybe a director's job is just to spew it out, then let critics, sociologists, and the rest of us hash things out. Maybe directorial or artistic responsibility is a bogus notion.

My final struggle with this thing had me wondering what on earth a woman thinks watching these overwhelmingly male exercises. We put women through this over and over, from Star Wars to et cetera and et cetera and on and on and on and on, but is anything quite as male-skewed as the All Night Longs?


I am normally skeptical about watching films or mini-series based on novels because the screenplay is always different from the novel. Fortunately, I was wrong! The screenplay was very close to the novel (I guess it helps that the author was an executive producer and writer, huh?)

The cast is outstanding. I can't describe how much I enjoyed seeing such a wide range of actors (from Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee to Robert Ri'chard and Bianca Lawson).

The location setting... I was expecting to see the homes and cottages I imagined in my mind: what I saw on screen was slightly different. However, it wasn't enough to make me dislike the mini-series.

I recommend this for anyone who has read the novel: you will not be disappointed if you have. 8 out of 10 stars!


From the late teens to the 1920s, Stan Laurel was a solo act in films. During this time period, Laurel was definitely NOT among the upper echelons of talent and his humor isn't nearly as good as contemporaries such as Lloyd or Keaton. However, for second-tier short comedies, he did create a decent niche. As far as the quality of the films go, they varied wildly. Some, such as DR. PYCKLE AND MR. PRYDE, were terrific, whereas most were of average to below average in quality.

FROZEN HEARTS is an odd film. Like many of the films he made for Hal Roach and distributed by Pathé during this period, the costumes were absolutely first-rate and the film looked very nice. However, despite this and having support from the likes of James Finlayson, one thing they forgot to include in this film was humor. None of the jokes seem to work and the film looks almost like a drama, not a comedy. Only the really silly intertitle cards betray the type film it's supposed to be.

My advice is try to see all his Laurel and Hardy films and then see the solo films. In addition to DR. PYCKLE, try seeing THE SOILERS and MUD AND SAND--two of his more tolerable solo shorts.


Friz Freleng's 'All Abir-r-r-d' is one of the best Sylvester and Tweety cartoons. Unlike the many repetitive cartoons in the series which simply transplant the same tired gags to a new setting, 'All Abir-r-r-d' makes the most of its concept. Tweety and Sylvester are domestic pets who are being sent unattended across country by train. With both a watchful official and a vicious bulldog to deal with, Sylvester has his work cut out. The Sylvester and Tweety cartoons always benefited from some extra participants and 'All Abir-r-r-d' is a good example of how much these additional characters help. Although they are not especially memorable creations, they throw some more obstacles in Sylvester's path and make for a more interesting battle. This early Sylvester and Tweety short presses many of the right buttons and, while Tweety is often particularly irritating with his forced cuteness, there's some deliciously violent antics between Sylvester and the dog, culminating in a surprisingly brutal climax which is unfortunately marred by a final unfunny non-quip by Tweety.


What to say about this movie. Well it is about a bunch of good students who have some bad drugs and turn into delinquent students that sell more of the bad drugs to people. Two of those people have adverse effects as one turns into a toxic avenger type and his girlfriend throws up some creature that grows in the school's basement. That is about all there is to it and they stretch it out for 84 minutes. This movie is pretty bad and should be locked away forever. Though that is not fair, some people like Troma's movies and they can watch it if they want. Troma movies for me though, are the worst movies there are out there. I just watched this one out of morbid curiosity.