It takes an eternity for this typically over-simplistic and idiotic Stephen King-based film to finally get out of the starting blocks. About half-an-hour is spent on needless introductions to various boring characters and their irrelevant little personal problems that might excite bored housewives and apathetic pensioners in soapy dramas, but this is supposed to be the horror genre (or so I naively thought). The mutt fails to look all that fearsome, which Leonard Maltin, the notoriously clueless/hopeless and always grinning film critic, would disagree with: he considers Cujo to be 'genuinely frightening'. (I often do have to wonder if Maltin is genuinely thick - or merely likes to do favors for his Hollywood friends...) It's both illogical and inconsistent the way Wallace survives an attack with only a leg injury. And, naturally, her car breaks down just when she needs it to save her life: this is one of the oldest horror-film clichés; trust King to use it to minimum effect. The premise is imbecilic, too banal, even for a horror film: a rabid mutt attacks a family. Is that it? This sort of thing barely constitutes a 3-minute sub-sub-plot in your average zombie film. I think even Cujo must have sensed that he was starring in a turkey. Mutts have terrible agents... But what I really don't understand is how people can actually throw themselves at the 'Cujo' book and read it from cover to cover? These SK fans must be immortal: that's the only explanation, i.e. why they treat time as such a meaningless commodity.

Bodycount: 3.


Anyone who has seen the trailer for this film would be forgiven for thinking this film is an out and out comedy. In actual fact it's a light-hearted, though not overly funny, romp about a couple of highwaymen.

There are numerous faults in the film. The script and plot are weak and the love aspect of the story is strangely dull. Yet despite all this it is quite enjoyable, thanks largely to the two leads Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller. These two fine actors, Carlyle in particular, are always good to watch and here there exists a good chemistry between them.

Director Jake Scott is the next generation of the family whose brothers, Ridley and Tony, have given us films such as Alien, Blade Runner, True Romance and more recently G.I. Jane and Enemy of The State. His debut is directed with energy and enthusiasm, which keeps the film fizzling along, although without the strong cast he assembled the results might not have worked as well.

In short if you're looking for an easy enjoyable film to pass an hour and a half then you could do a lot worse than Plunkett and Macleane. If on the other hand you fancy something subtle, historically accurate and thought provoking, go elsewhere. 7/10.


Yes this movie is predictable and definitely not award-material. But then it doesn't try to be anything it is not. A fun-filled romp with real funny one-liners, a stellar and very funny performance by Peter O'Toole, a grounding and down to earth performance from Joan Plowright. The band's performance was on the spot, each one playing their role in a deft, comical manner. The music was good though not great but filled out the movie nicely. From some of the negative comments I deduced that the subtlety of some of the humour went over their heads. A good example is the comment about the 'strange baseball-like game', well my dear American, that was cricket -from which baseball is derived- and the explaining of it to the ignorant US band was very funny for those that do know cricket. Also no, you were not supposed to wince when Carl broke a window; it was funny how Lord Foxley said 'oh yes!' to get more money for breakage and the manager said at the same time 'oh no' also referring to the money. Jeez, it seems that every joke must be explained to some people... All-in-all I enjoyed it and had some great laughs! Well worth seeing.


There are two things that I noticed in this film. (This is not a spoiler, just a mistake in storytelling.) When Cole takes Bill to his first B&E, he finds the 'box'. As soon as Cole finds it he says, 'The box. Everyone's got a box'. A minute later, just before he dumps the contents on the floor he says, 'We're actually very fortunate. You don't see these often'.

Observation #2 (Spoiler Alert!)

I had to watch the thing three times, I couldn't figure a couple of things out. Then I watched the Chronological version and saw that they were having flash backs from the latter to the previous during the time changes. So at some points we were actually watching three different times in about 1 min of wall time.

That was a good thing because I don't know how many more times I could watch it before returning it to Netflix.

Color me obsessive.


After a meteorite lands in 'Boston' (really somewhere in the Isle of Man), a hideous, fanged alien monster is released and is on the loose in a local girl's school, causing mayhem and turning the students into zombie-like creatures. This film is apparently a loose (and I stress loose) remake of the 1986 film with the same name, as it features the same monster but a different plot. Both films are terrible, but to the credit of the 1986 version, it was watchable. This isn't. Let's start with all the problemsthe acting, especially from the lead professor, was very, very bad. This film is supposed to take place in Boston (we know this because the film makers had the ingenious idea of putting 'Boston police' or 'Boston gas company' on everything), yet everyone seems to have rather muddled British accents (At least they didn't try using Boston accents, thank God). The script is a big flawed mess. The best example of how dumb the writing is when it's established that you can turn the zombie-students back into humans by removing a necklace containing a piece of the meteorite. Is that what our brave heroes do? No, they run around SHOOTING the zombie-students instead. Nice. Director Paul Matthews, who also wrote/directed the weak 1995 monster movie 'Grim', clearly doesn't know how to pace his films. The movie is terribly boring in places. The lighting is awful. The film looks cheap and bland. One of the most disappointing aspects is the lack of notable gore. 99% of the death scenes involve the creature popping out of a dark corner and dragging someone away, while we hear they're 'horrified' screams off in the distance. This convention never worked well in the past, and certainly doesn't work here. The visual effects were AWFUL. The CG opening sequence in space looked like it could have been created on Microsoft Slideshow for God's sake! The 'explosion' of the Gas tanks at the end was just as awful. Okay, I like to consider myself a fair critic, so I'll give credit where credit's due--the creature effects were actually pretty cool. Gotta love those close-ups of slimy, drooling teeth!

To sum the film up, 'Breeders' is a terrible, cheaply made horror movie that should be avoided like the Ebola virus. Not recommended.

1.5/10.


Well, as Goethe once said, there really isn't any point in trying to pass a negative judgement that aspires to be objective on 'something that has had a great effect'. 'La Maman et La Putain' has surely passed into history as an influence on much of what's been done in France and elsewhere in the past thirty years and no one interested in the history of film, certainly, should be dissuaded from watching it. To express a purely subjective judgement, however, I feel compelled to disagree with almost every other review posted here and say to people: 'Don't watch it; it's a waste of hours of your time that will just leave you feeling rather sick and angry.' And by that I don't mean 'sick and angry' about 'the human condition' or anything so general and profound as that, because that is exactly the line that most critics have adopted in their fulsome praise of the film - 'an ordeal to watch in its ruthless dissection of our emotional cowardice and cruelty' and so on - and, if it really managed to put across a universally or even broadly relevant message of this sort, then the director would have good reason to be satisfied with himself, however pessimistic his conclusions may be. My beef with the film is rather that I don't see this hours-long record of empty vanity and petty treachery as being justified or excused by any GENERALLY relevant message at all. All three main characters are deeply morally unattractive individuals: Alexandre to the greatest degree, of course, because we see by far the most of him and because he seldom shuts up for more than thirty seconds; Marie perhaps to the least degree, because we see the least of her. Alexandre's affected and pretentious monologues have a kind of amusement value, of course, but the amusement wears thin as one comes more and more clearly to realize that Jean-Pierre Léaud is most likely not even acting and that, with absurd remarks like 'un homme beau comme un film de Nicholas Ray', he really was just reproducing word-for-word opinions that were accepted as authentic and profound by the milieu in which he, along with the director Eustache, had been living for about ten years by the time of the making of the film. I suppose if the tone of relentless superficiality and triviality had been sustained throughout 100% of the film, it might have worked as a long sardonic comedy about a particularly shallow, worthless and despicable post-'68 milieu. What made, however, this viewer at least extremely angry with the director was his granting of at least one lengthy scene each to Alexandre and Veronika in which we are clearly expected to empathize with and feel for them as if they shared a moral universe with us. If a man can get away with living in the flat of and professing to love one woman, sleeping (mostly in this very flat) with another, and running around Paris proposing marriage to yet a third, well, I suppose I can wish him the best of luck in the dog-eat-dog world he's chosen to create for himself. What I can't, however, in all conscience do is listen even for a moment to maudlin monologues from him in which he speaks about his 'anxiety' and his 'despair'. The same goes double for the even more despicable Veronika, whom we are shown barging drunk into the apartment and even the bed shared by Marie and Alexandre and behaving there with an infantile inconsistency tantamount to the most savage and heartless cruelty. As I say, if 'La Maman et La Putain' is intended to be nothing more nor other than a portrait of Alexandre, Veronika and Marie, three individuals whom any even halfway decent person would never admit into their company let alone their home, then I suppose there is a kind of legitimacy in praising the director for being 'unflinching' (though why one should even feel like 'flinching' once one had consciously opted to create such thoroughly repellent characters to filmically observe I can't imagine). The problem, however, is that the director is clearly convinced - and appears to have succeeded in convincing generations of critics - that Alexander, Veronika and Marie are somehow representative of human beings in general and of the limits of human beings' emotional capabilities. This latter idea, however, is arrant and offensive nonsense. There may indeed be an inherent fallibility and tendency to tragedy in human relations in general and sexual relations in particular. But the nature and degree of this fallibility and tendency to tragedy can only possibly be determined by people who make a sincere and serious effort to make such relations work. It surely needs no cinematic or authorial genius to convey to us the information that a man who behaves like Alexandre is going to end up hated, miserable, and alone, or that women who insist on expecting love from a man like Alexandre are going to end up disappointed and bitter. Watch 'La Maman et La Putain' if you're historically interested in what passed for culture and human interaction in a certain post-'68 Parisian milieu which was probably, unfortunately, not restricted to just a few particularly anti-social types like these. But please don't make the mistake of believing that what is recorded here has any general relevance for humanity in the way that a film by Jean Renoir or Martin Scorsese might be argued to have.


This is one of the worst movies i've ever encountered, but i want to say that some of the criticisms i had heard turned out to be unwarranted..

As far as pure film-making technique goes, this director is competent. He's held back by the limited budget and the VHS camera, but the actual editing, camera angles, camera movements and scene staging are pretty professional. i've seen many movies where the 'directing' was much worse. At least the scenes flow in a way that is not confusing and he has a few clever shots here and there. Also, the forest scenes contained a decent atmosphere. There is only so much you can do with a VHS camera, and he does a nice job as far as the technicalities go. As far as artistic merit, there is none. The scene where the camera pans down so that we can watch a guy urinate in the woods for 15 seconds sort of epitomizes the artistic style of the whole film. This is pure trash... Total garbage.

The gore is decent for a film in this budget range. , it's obviously fake but there's lot's of it, and it's very outlandish..

I saw the American version with the intentionally campy dubbing. This was a good idea (and it's the only thing that allowed me to make it through the film)... Unfortunately, it's overdone, especially towards the end.

It's really a terrible film, but i have to recommend it for it's camp value. It's really hard to find a movie that's worse than this and that sort of puts it in a unique category.


Ghost Train is a fine and entertaining film, typical of the better British comedy chillers of the 1930s and 40s. The antics of comedian Arthur Askey are not as funny as they once apparently were, but this can be overcome by viewing him as a period piece or a curiosity.

For a low-budget wartime production, Ghost Train is atmospheric, effective, and it provides some genuine suspense. Great fun for a dark (and, yes, stormy) night. Lighten up, take off the critic's hat, and enjoy.


Miranda Cosgrove is known for her debut in 'School of Rock' with Jack Black and her role as Megan in the show 'Drake and Josh' and she has become a fan favorite amongst the Nickelodeon public, so it isn't a surprise that Dan Schneider would create a show just for her. Unfortunately, it ends up being as bad as, if not worse than, 'The Amanda Show'.

'iCarly' is about three friends, Carly, Sam, and Freddie, who have become idols in the junior high community through a webcam show called 'iCarly'. Carly and Sam are the hosts and Freddie shoots and puts it up on the internet. Carly also has an older brother named Spencer, acted by the hilarious Jerry Trainor who is known for his work in 'Drake and Josh' as Crazy Steve.

Well, let me tell you this. Don't believe the 8.3 out of 10 this show received because it is pathetic in nearly every aspect. Dan Schneider probably went through about 5 minutes of studying teenage interests because all I see is him saying 'iPod? iPhone? iHome? Aha! Teenagers love anything beginning with 'i'!' and a majority of gigs that were used in 'Drake and Josh', if not, then they are just really dry and forced jokes that don't even count on a generousity chuckle, such as 'You want me to turn up the AC to 60 degrees?' 'No. We want you to turn it up to 60 pickles!' Not only that, but if you look closely, nearly all the sets in the shows were used in 'Drake and Josh' and 'Ned's Declassified' that were simply spit-and-polished with random stuff to try and make it look different.

The scenes where the show is showing a broadcast of the iCarly network is just as terrible as the entire series itself. The dialogue in them is atrociously bad, which may be accepted by some since it IS just two friends playing around in front of a camera, but what's the deal with the really odd, humorless antics they do like 'Random Dancing!'? And it just gets worse from there.

In terms of acting, Miranda and Jennette aren't at their best, by far. Nathan Kress, who played Freddie, isn't believable at times, but he does an okay job. The person who really steals the show is the humorous prowess of Jerry Trainor, who fits in his 'protective older brother' role very well and his wide-eyed loud-mouthed acting can make for some pretty funny segments. Too bad they aren't frequent, because that might have given the show an extra star in my opinion.

Dan Schneider must have made this show for the sole purpose of giving Miranda Cosgrove her own cable-born playground to hop around and spew unfunny jokes and pathetic cue-card lines in every direction, because everyone else has exceptional talent buried underneath the poorly-done script and weightless acting. Dan Schneider did a great job with 'Drake and Josh' so it's a real disappointment that 'iCarly' is such a failure. Jerry Trainor's acting saved this show from a 1 out of 10 rating, but he alone can't save 'iCarly' from being as horrible as it is.


I was able to watch this movie in its entirety and was deeply moved by it. I wasn't sure if it was really a comedy or a drama - it had elements of both. Mary Tyler Moore and Valerie Harper both looked wonderful - our image of 60-year-old women has certainly changed since Aunt Bee! They are vibrant, beautiful, sexy! The only drawback in this movie was that there was absolutely no mention of other characters in either the 'MTM' or 'Rhoda' shows from the 1970's. I'd have thought that since it was set in New York City (where 'Rhoda' had been set) that at least some mention would have been made of her sister Brenda or that Julie Kavner would have appeared, assuming of course she was still in the Big Apple.

It is my hope that ABC will make this a series and bring back for guest appearances all the old casts of these shows. By the way, what was wrong with CBS doing this reunion, or an eventual series? Wasn't that the network that carried the 'MTM' and 'Rhoda' shows?


Being a fan of Billy Bob Thornton, and the diversity of his skills, I noticed this movie listed, and was surprised I hadn't heard of it.

I'd traveled more than usual during both the period it was being filmed in 2000, and when it hit theaters more than 2-1/2 years later (that passage of time is the first clue all was not well with the production).

Now Patrick Swayze can't act for sour apples, but Thornton has more than enough ability to make-up for the difference between them. And Charlize Theron is someone whom it would be a pleasure to see, even if it showed her watching paint dry.

Being curious, I checked this site's production info. It made a whopping < $600 per screen its opening weekend, and just over $400 each, after its month's theater run in latter 2002. Overall gross was $261K, which I'd doubt could cover cast and crew's hotel and food for a week on location.

The story is pretty benign, and even the use of the usually interesting locale of Reno is as dull as the rest of the goings-on.

It's something like several SNL bits all pieced together, none individually too great at all, and the overall presentation even worse.

Whatever, the expenses for this production had to be considerable - even if all worked for less than their usual fees - so the one thing which made it a barely tolerable opus was the quality of the filming and Billy Bob's present (albeit understandably somewhat laconic here , compared with his usual work.

Think of the three superb, totally diverse characters he portrayed in 'Sling Blade,' 'Bandits' and 'Bad Santa,' and you know he realized this work was below standard, long before the viewers had the opportunity to confirm this. One star for him, even here, and one because production was better than, say, the typical 'Lifetime' flick.


A friend told me of John Fante last summer after we got into a conversation about Charles Bukowski. I did not know that Fante was a favorite writer of Bukowski's - an author with similar edge and humor except from one generation earlier. 'Ask the Dust' was the first Fante book I read, and it remains one of my favorite novels. The novel was a brilliant piece of writing about a sad, frightened young writer posing to himself and the outside world as an overconfident, masterfully talented author who had no idea how to write about the real world experiences he had none of. In the novel the protagonist is a virgin, with no idea how to win the graces of the women he desperately wants to write about in magazines. The story of his bizarre relationship with Camilla, how he settles for his first sexual experience with a 'wounded' admirer, and how he eventually is left with nothing but the story of his failed attempts at love is biting and real, with no touching Hollywood ending. The film adaptation stays true to the book for a while, but meanders into the cinematic trap of love persevering through racism, sickness and death. The heart of this story lies in the fact that Bandini is a jerk and Camilla is f-ing crazy, and their love never was and never would be the real thing, no matter how much either of them wanted to find it in each other. This movie tore out the real meaning of the story out and replaced it with schlock. I can't believe the man who wrote Chinatown could read this book and make a movie about it that got it so wrong.


It's hard to imagine that 'The Battle of Elderbush Gulch', directed by the legendary D.W. Griffith, was made a way back in 1914. It is a showcase for Griffith's emerging style.

 The story centers around a group of settlers called the Cameron Brothers and their families which include a young waif (Mae Marsh) sent out from the east to live with her uncles and a young wife (Lillian Gish) who has just given birth. A group of Indians tries to capture the waif's pet dogs and are driven off by the men folk. During the confrontation the Indian Chief's son (Henry B. Wathall) is killed. The Indian chief plots his revenge and launches an attack on the small community of Elderbush Gulch.

 It is this attack, which is quite brutal and graphic for this or any other time, that forms the core of the picture. The Indians slaughter the towns folk, women and children alike and drive them out of town towards the Cameron's homestead. The newborn baby becomes separated from its mother and all hell breaks loose. Someone goes for help and returns in the nick of time with the calvary.

 The battle scenes contain some graphic violence. For example, we see a woman being scalped alive and there is also a sequence where we see a horse being shot down. I have never seen an animal being slain so convincingly on screen. Mr.Griffith was becoming a master of staging large scale battle scenes, a talent that he would use extensively in his epic Civil War drama, 'The Birth of a Nation' released the following year.

 Even though it runs a scant 29 minutes, 'The Battle of Elderbush Gulch' is nonetheless an exciting and historic bit of film making. See if you can spot Lionel Barrymore and Harry Carey in bit parts.


I actually trawled through the entire set of reviews, searching for the ones which gave this film less than 5 stars. They were few and far between. Which is utterly baffling! Yes, I know it's a Disney film and it isn't directed by Christopher Nolan, but good Lord. This is straight-to-the-bargain-bucket nonsense. They should've had done with it and animated the bloody thing.

And what's even worse is the fact that IMDb won't let me simply finish my rant there, because my review needs to be longer!

The 'Awesome' in-game camera shots are LITERALLY taken from Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf on the Playstation, the story plods like a sulking school boy, the multi-stranded character and plot development cripples an already weak setup, and the grand finale is plain boring.

Aside from that, it really was the greatest film I've ever seen in my entire life.

Good, authentic-looking costumes, sets and sports equipment. There, I said it.


At first, I thought the Ring would be a more than normal movie with it's ordinary plot. How surprised was I! Of course, the plot is simple - one girl is in love with two men - but Hitchcock brings it to us on a silver platter, with laughter and fear, with compassion and anguish. The way he depicts the popular crowds of the fair, the strength of the attraction of the girl to both men, the tragic elements that come together with techniques that open the mind to most of his greatest movies(North by Northwest, the Rope, etc.). The master did it great even before his thirties!


With some wine, some friends and some good humor, I had a really good time watching this film. I particularly enjoyed the performance of Jilon Ghai (as 'Randy'), who was such a kick in the pants! His scenes with Charity Rahmer ('Michelle') were wildly amusing. I wouldn't want him coming on to me, but it was great watching 'Randy' try to score with 'Michelle' and even better seeing the results! Of course, the girls in the film are lots of fun to watch too. AND, a friend of mine showed me the PLAYBOY issue that had Pilar Lastra as the Playmate of the Month. She's definitely a looker. All in all, this film totally served its purpose, which was to entertain us in a light and care-free way.


It may be difficult to believe, but the basic plot of this abysmal flick has been lifted from Hitchcock's perennial classic, 'Vertigo'. To see Edward James Olmos in the part once played by James Stewart is heart-breaking; Sean Young is better, but still a poor substitute for Kim Novak.


What is wrong with CURACAO ( Also known as DEADLY CURRENTS though what the reasonn for the name change is I have no idea ) can probably be summed up where a woman says to her lover :

' Keep it down baby , I'm trying to sleep '

It's not the dialogue that's the problem or the way it's delivered , it's the fact the actress has has a Central European accent . Nothing wrong with that until it's revealed her character is from Philidelphia in the United States ! This what struck me about this thriller while watching it - The way accents don't match their characters . Apart from the Philly woman with a German accent we see a South African with an English accent , a local police chief who sounds like he's an Irishman impersonating a Gestapo officer and worst of all George C Scott playing someone who's either Dutch or British with an accent that sounds like it might be American tinged with South African . You soon give up following what's on screen and end up concentrating on what nationality a character might be due to the strange way they speak . It's interesting to note that this site hasn't given this movie a country of origin . With so many different actors from different countries you do feel that this was produced by the United Nations

Even if you're not curious about accents or dialects you'll probably have to give up following the action anyway because CURACAO is plot less . Things happen like a boat exploding , and a hostage situation and the hero being recruited as an agent for South African intelligence but you're left scratching your head wondering what the heck this is all leading to . I was lost


Dumbland is not for all. In fact Dumbland maybe in for nobody except Lynch and that's what make it funny and a collective cartoon. Violent? Yes. Profanity? Yes. Absurd? Yes. A piece of garbage? Never. Dumbland is a wonderful picture of some Americans that don't have brains and hit wife and kids for fun. From México I can say I love it! My favorite episodes are: 1- My teeths are bleeding, all the noise around and violence make me wanna scream and put me behind my bed. 2- Get the stick! Yeah baby get it and learn a lesson: some people never be thankful for your actions. 3- Ants. The more Lynch episode of all, music, surrealism and a very sweet revenge...


An axellent second installment that manages to be just as good as the first.

Once again, the casting is just wonderful. I like how the first and second episode have nothing in common except for the wit and cleverness.

The second episode is just very funny, very silly and very enjoyable. It is the very first Christmas episode, about a woman who is tormented by a serial killer dressed as Santa after having killed her own husband. Just like the first episode; karma.

The most humorous scene is a tie between the murder of her husband and her phone call, first faking her fear until it becomes real.


Sri Lanka... not a country I've ever given much thought to, I have to admit. I didn't even know it was near India, let alone that there has been a bloody civil war going on there since 1983. It seems that the rebels of the Tamil minority have been in an ongoing conflict with the military regime that runs the country for many years, causing many deaths and widespread suffering on the island.

Mani Ratman's latest film, A PECK ON THE CHEEK, tells the story of a young girl named Amudha, who is separated from her Sri Lankan parents by the war and raised by a young Indian couple. Amudha is a bright and mischievous girl, whose life is turned upside down when her parents tell her that she was adopted as a child. Although her adopted parents love her as much as could be, and have raised her without prejudice along with their biological children, Amudha cannot help but want to learn more about her biological family.

Mani Ratman is probably best known for his 1998 film DIL SE, which hides a story about terrorism and politics inside a love story (or is it the other way around?). A PECK ON THE CHEEK inhabits similar territory, but is perhaps more ambitious in the ground it covers. The central theme that binds the movie is of love between all the various members of a family, and especially that between a child and her adopted parents. It's a pretty honest and open look at feelings, that can be extremely touching and heartwarming at some times and quite painful at others. It's an emotionally complex film, with characters that are somewhat idealised but still behave in a very human way.

The film revolves around 9 year old Amudha, played with charm and vivaciousness by young actress P.S. Keerthana in her first and only acting role. She's a princess and a monster, always getting into trouble but so disarmingly charming nobody can stay mad at her for long. The young actress is perfectly cast for the role, and does a tremendous job in the various and often difficult emotional scenes required of her.

A PECK ON THE CHEEK has such an innocent name I was quite unprepared for the intensity of the experience. Never has such a small act come with such an enormous emotional impact, I dare say. The film is a bold and artistic effort to explore issues that are not frequently covered on the silver screen.

Mani Ratman's direction is superb, very confident and mature - the most sophisticated work I've seen from this director yet. The film is visually very stylish, with some excellent camerawork and imagery. A.R. Rahman provides the film's soundtrack, which is not as good as his classic DIL SE or BOMBAY music (based on first impressions at least) but still shows his great musical talent.

I'm not aware of a DVD release for the film yet - I saw it in Tamil with English subtitles thanks to the San Francisco International Film Festival, of which the film was undoubtedly the highlight. The production is a truly world class effort, and I am sure it will be popular with western audiences as it begins to receive wider exposure.

Recommended.


heres a fun fact, I was the baby in the movie, the one in the crib. :) I am 19 years old now. my parents took me to try out for the part, we lived in Texas at the time.I think I only made like 80 bucks for it, but i wasn't in it very long. My parents said i would cry when i was supposed to be happy and would be happy when i was supposed to cry. I was all mixed up. Strange and funny fact i suppose.. and no I am not a child actress. I am livin' in San Antonio, workin' at a walgreens. I graduated here in Texas but I lived in Maryland most my life. This Movie is a great movie, though, good concept. I have seen it several times in my short 19 years.


This movie may superficially appear to be flaky and for teenie-boppers. It seems to be the stereotypical high school movie. But in fact, it takes an honest and touching look at the high school experience. It doesn't propose some unrealistic ending where the geeks and the popular kids reconcile. It doesn't change what happened in adolescence; it just attempts to reckon with it. This is a really great, fun, heart-warming movie, good for teens and for those who can still remember being one...


I can not believe I wasted my money to rent this movie. I thought it was a porn flick when it started and it never got any better. The acting, the music drowning out the actors. Horrible. Save your money! You have to read the movie all the way through b\c they knew the music would drowned out the speaking lines. I never got the part about the slaughterhouse or the need to continue to show cows and pigs being butchered. What did that have to do with the 'real' BTK killer? I understand why there were no famous actors\actresses in this movie. The script would have turned me away within the first page of reading. You would be better off watching paint dry.


There is an old saying that relates to the rousing new film by Joe Johnston that goes something like this: 'The man who thinks he can and the man who thinks he can't are both right.' That is a highly presumptuous statement referring to self motivating and belief in an individual, which, in this movie, stand true even after road blocks and family trouble stand in the way.

'October Sky' is about a young man who believes in himself named Homer Hickam, growing up in a strict, traditional family in the 1950's. Homer loves in a small coal mining town where nearly every man grows up to be a miner. All of his friends, Quentin, Roy, and O'Dell all think that their life after high school will be like everyone else's. Homer is not exited about that future.

One night, while everyone stares at the sky, a Russian space craft called Sputnik passes overhead. This is something new for Homer, and he finds it spectacular and overwhelming. From this point on, his look at life will never be the same.

First, he tells everyone that he wants to work in the rocket scientist area for an occupation. Flabbergasted at what he says, his family passes that idea over their heads and continues with life as usual His friends, however, think that this idea may have some potential. After all, Quentin is a very smart individual when it comes to this kind of thing.

When the four friends start to test model rockets, and blow a white picket fence to smithereens, then what seems to be a forest fire is scared by them, they're forced to end their progresses.

The performances in this movie are absolutely riveting from start to finish. All of the actors give performances as if this is the real mumbo jumbo here. Standing out in all of the glory: Laura Dern as Miss Riley. This very well may be Academy award material if the judges can remember back to the beginning of the year when this film is released.

The characters are also extremely well developed. Not only to the filmmakers give clear, apparent reason why Homer is interested in the subject, but they also explain to the audience how they are succeeding in their studding of rocketry. We clearly understand all of the characters' motives and beliefs, especially the father, who is bent over on everlasting tradition.

The film, unfortunately, loses some of its momentum at mid-point because of a silly, recycled romantic sub-plot involving Homer's love interest and how his brother stole her from him. This type of this is becoming so awfully common in high-school movies, not that this film is aimed at high-schoolers. The actors stare at each other mindlessly, like the are in a trance. I put up with it without complaining in 1997's 'Inventing the Abbots,' but I have had just about enough this.

But that is just a minor complaint. With an authentic looking time period, cinematography worth an Oscar and clips of the real life Homer and friends at the end, whom all hit it big with their dreams, especially Homer, this is the first great film of 1999.


There are people out there who will greenlight anything! That is the only explanation I can offer as to why the House of the Dead movie exists. And that's only scary part to the whole movie. It's so bad you'll go off movies forever. I seriously wanted to switch this off and turn the TV over to the Paint Drying channel but I was bound by my word to suffer the whole thing. I don't know why I do these bad things to myself.

As if it matters, here's the basic jist of the 'story'. A group of twenty-somethings are so desperate to go out to some island in the Pacific Northwest (Canada actually, because it's cheap) for the 'Rave of the Century' (which consists of about 8 people and un-raving music) that they pay some craggy old fisherman $1000 to take them there after they miss the main ferry. That's gotta be some rave to be worth all that dough! The fisherman warns them that the island is also known as the Island of the Dead (hang on-I thought this was HOUSE of the Dead?) and that they are all doomed yadda yadda yadda.

First faults here. Why would a tiny little rave (of the Century my foot!) be held on some remote island? Why would anyone willingly pay loads of money to get it? Why pay even more to the craggy old fisherman to take them back when they could just come back with the others?

Once they arrive they discover that the rave (which consists of about 2 tents, a small stage and a port-a-john) has been smashed, there's blood everywhere and no one is around. What would any rationally thinking person do? Run for their lives of course. But no, these clueless, obviously blind people decide to go look for them. Soon enough they discover an old ramshackle house that's 50 times as big on the inside as it is on the outside. Another half hour of stumbling around in the forest follows, as an excuse to kill of some of the lesser characters, and after much tedium they arrive back at the house again. The characters, like the movie, go nowhere.

Jammed into this ghastly disaster is a superabundance of gibberish dialogue, heinous acting, mumbo-jumbo exposition and zillions of clips from the once-popular arcade game of the same name. Why this was universally accepted as a good idea with the filmmakers I'll never know. The clips have no reference to any of the scenes and only degrade this trash even further, if that is at all possible.

It has nothing to do with the game save for some cheap, throwaway line at the end. It makes Resident Evil look like cinematic glory. Hell, even the Double Dragon movie seems multi-Oscar worthy in comparison to this junk. The only one who comes out of this with his dignity still intact is Jurgen Prochnow. He could have just taken his money and ran but he tries his best with the awful script and brings a tiny bit of pathos to his character. The rest of the cast suck I'm afraid. The characters are idiots and deserve to die.

Plus, if you cut out the swearing and pointless nudity, I see no reason why this film cannot be shown on Saturday morning TV. It's not frightening in the slightest. Pirates of the Caribbean is more scary than the skeletal bad guys in this film. And where did all those bad guys come from anyway? There were only a few people on the island to begin with. I guess this justifies the reason they chose to reuse footage over and over. I kid you not, you'll see the same zombie die a dozen times.

Who's ultimately to blame for that scandalous waste of celluloid? None other than director Uwe Boll. His control over the movie is non-existent. You can clearly the see actors have no idea what they should be doing and that the zombies aren't really taking it all seriously. The actors seem like they're reading off cue cards as they constantly pause in the middle of long sentences and carry on talking as soon as they see the next card. It all feels very unnatural.

Plus the film is shot like a two-part mini-series. I have indeed seen better TV productions. And don't get me started on the editing. The film is an incoherent babble with thousands upon thousands of pointless shots and dozens of meaningless camera pans. No real skill or talent was put into making this at all. It truly baffles and boggles the mind how movies this unfathomably bad can get made and George A. Romero can't even get anyone to take his calls. House of the Dead makes some idiotic reference to Romero in a lazy attempt to be 'post-modern' but it only irritates that they think THIS is in the same league as a REAL zombie movie.

For what it's worth, the 1.85:1 anamorphic picture looks great and the Dolby 5.1 soundtrack is clean but very unimpressive and only serves to pronounce the heavily over-used ADR even more. The DVD comes with extras but why torture yourself. Isn't this review warning enough? Stay away! You are all doomed I tell you! Doomed! Doomed!!!


You know, this is one of those 'Emperor's New Clothes' films. It's like, so off the wall and strange that you're SUPPOSED to like it if you're really into film. Well, I think that's a bunch of bologna. Films like this which hide under the cloak of Dada or surrealism make me nuts. Some person has this bad dream, perhaps brought on by eating the aforementioned bologna right before going to bed, remembers most of it (unfortunately) and then puts it on film and we're all supposed to marvel at their creative genius. I have bizarre dreams too, sometimes, that make absolutely no sense but I don't feel the need to put them on film, expose everybody else to them and call it art. Weirdness does not, in of itself, mean something is interesting. True Dada or surrealistic expression has SOME intent and intellectual thought behind it. If other people don't get it, that doesn't make it profound, it just makes it incomprehensible. Bizarreness for bizarreness sake, for me, is not good, let alone great, art. And comparing 'Tuvalu' to 'Delicatesen' is like comparing 'The Godfather I & II' to 'The Godfather III'---same genre, NOT in the same league.


Jean Luc Godard's Marxist polemic is as close to unwatchable a film as you're likely to see from an internationally respected filmmaker. Bits of political theater, mind-numbingly boring and interminable, are interspersed with the making of 'Sympathy for the Devil', featuring the Rolling Stones in the studio.

The process of the song's development, from Mick Jagger playing a demo on acoustic guitar, to the backing vocals being recorded towards the end, is fascinating, and it's worth renting this film just to see the bits with the Stones. Almost half the movie is devoted to this, so thanks to the miracle of chapter stops, you can skip all the bizarre political skits and just watch the Stones put a song together.

When I had this on laserdisc, I valiantly attempted to watch it all, but I don't see how anyone could get through it. I finally gave up and just chapter-skipped my way to the Stones segments.


As was mentioned before in other comments, the major problem of NVA is that it cannot decide what it wants to be, slapstick of the cheapest kind or an honest parody of the East German Army. There are a couple of moments which are quite moving, for example when one of the recruits returns from the army prison in Schwedt with a completely broken personality. But in the end, Leander Haußmann goes for the infantile humour. No wonder the film flopped at the German box office as it's historically untruthful to the real situation in those training camps and led by an actor who is unfortunately incapable of giving a nuanced performance.

However, there is the camera work of Frank Griebe who - as always - does a wonderful job. If it wasn't for his beautiful images I would have rated the film far worse.


Kim Novak's a witch on the prowl for a mortal lover, and James Stewart's her choice. Scintillating comedy of manners, from the Broadway stage; shot by James Wong Howe in Witch Color, and performed by a sterling cast. Ernie Kovacs is wonderful as the perpetually dishevelled writer Redlitch. I love this movie, though few others seem to. Kim alone makes it a winner in my Book. Ha! My #5 film of 1958.


Despite the apparent structural similarity with The Simpsons - loud fat dad, housewifey mum, 3 children, a pet, typical suburban home, Family Guy is actually functionally and stylistically opposite to The Simpsons. Its avid use (and sometimes too much) of cutaway gags has been its main stay since the first season. While some hit the nail on the head (The Rhea Perlman and Danny Devito bit in Season 5 is spine-snappingly hilarious), others are less successful, coming across as contrived. And they can be annoying, especially when they don't advance the story line. (The Jesus bits are entirely unfunny and insulting)

The chemistry between Stewie and Brian Griffin lends itself to pure comedy gold, so much so that Chris and Meg only manage to fulfill the role of the obligatory teenagers in your typical dysfunctional family.

However, the feature film Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story, is MINDNUMBINGLY horrible. Thank goodness it went straight to DVD.

Contrary to tiresome comparisons with the perennial Simpsons, Seth Macfarlane's approach with Family Guy is actually very different - it's much more politically incorrect, and amazingly, a lot more brazen.

Creator of Ren and Stimpy, John Kricfalusi, famously criticized Family Guy for having 'extremely low' graphic standards from a cartoonist's standpoint. I don't think it looks that bad though, the detailing and accuracy of some of the spoofs are quite successful.

All in all, a great series to go with a great big bowl of chips smothered in ranch sauce and ass jokes.


i know technically this isn't the greatest TV show ever,i mean it was shot on video and its limitations show in both the audio and visual aspect of it.the acting can at time be also a little crumby.but,i love this show so much.it scared the hell out of me when it first aired in 1988.of course it would i was 5 years old.but i recently purchased the DVD of the first 3 episodes,which unfortunately i hear is now deleted.and i also heard warner's aren't going to release any more due to the first DVD's bad sales.also the TV show didn't have the same feel as the movies,in fact i thought it had a more sinister tone.even though the colour palette is similar to nightmare on elm street 4(both that film and the TV show were made the same year),this has more of a serious tone whereas the fims were progressively getting more and more sardonic and jokey.not a bad thing,i like freddy as the clown wise cracker.but i think that was the strenght of this TV show,you didn't have freddy popping up every minutes cracking a joke before and after he kills somebody.in fact this has more of a dream feel to it,reinforced by the soft focus of the lense.im not sure if its deliberate on the part of the shows creators or just to the limitations of being shot on video. i love this show,and taken not as a companion piece to the movies can be very enjoyable.much better than anything on TV today.


I cant see how some people cant find this film funny i saw the end of it on Sky Movies in 2001 thought i would by the DVD since then i have laughed my balls of with lines like Rik Mayalls laugh 'HAHAHAHAHAHAHA' and Eddies 'Hello night porter' when they never get any phone calls overall i think this film is very very funny.


The first movie is pretty good. This one is pretty bad.

Recycles a lot of footage (including the opening credits and end title) from Criminally Insane. The new footage, shot on video, really sticks out as poorly done. Scenes lack proper lighting, the sound is sometimes nearly inaudible, there's even video glitches like the picture rolling and so on.

Like all bad sequels, it basically just repeats the story of the first one. Ethel kills everybody who shares her living space, often for reasons having to do with them getting in the way of food she wants.

At least it is only an extra on the DVD for the first one, which also includes the same director's film Satan's Black Wedding. Too bad it doesn't include the Death Nurse movies though.


I have recently seen this production on DVD. It is the first time I have seen it since it was originally broadcast in 1983 and it was just as good as I remembered. At first as was worried it would seem old fashioned and I suppose it is a little dated and very wordy as the BBC serials were back then. (I miss those wonderful costume dramas that seemed to be always on Sunday afternoons back then) But that aside it is as near perfect as it could have been. I am a bit of a 'Jane Eyre' purist as it is my favourite book and have never seen another production that is a faithful to the book as this one. I have recently re-read the book as well and some of the dialogue is just spot on. Reading the scene near the end where Rochester questions Jane about what St John was like I noticed their words were exactly reproduced on screen by Dalton and Clarke and done perfectly.

All the other productions that have been done all seem lacking in some way, some even leave out the 'Rivers' family and their connection to Jane altogether. I also think this is the only production to include the 'Gypsy' scene done correctly.

The casting is perfect, Zelah Clarke is like Jane is described in the book 'small plain and dark' and I disagree that she looked too old. Timothy Dalton may be a little too handsome but he is absolutely perfect as Rochester, portraying every aspect of his character just right and acting his socks off! I agree with other comment that he even appears quite scary at time, like in the scene when he turns around slowly at the church when the wedding is interrupted, his expression is fantastically frightening. But then in another favourite scene his joy is wonderful to see when Jane runs down the stairs and into his arms the morning after they declare their love for one another. A love that is wonderfully portrayed and totally believable. Oh to be loved by a man like that! There were a couple of scenes that were strangely missing however, like when Jane climbs in to bed with the dying Helen and also when Rochester takes Jane shopping for her wedding things (I thought that one was in it but maybe my memory is playing tricks).

Finally if you never see another production of Jane Eyre - you simply most see this one it is simply perfection!


I think Hollywood should seriously consider NEVER doing another 'Biblical' film again, if Noah's Ark is going to be the norm. Aside from the horrible, completely uninspired acting from the whole cast (Voight and Steenburgen undoubtedly rue the day the agreed to do this film), the time line has been completely rearranged. I also missed the part in Genesis about the pirate fight on the deck of the ark or the traveling salesman coming by on his paddle boat. Hello? EVERYONE else was dead except for Noah and his family according to scripture. God stacked lumber and added plans to build the ark when Noah questioned how?? I also don't remember reading anything about Noah's wife constantly nagging him during the 40 days, or Noah wandering around glassy-eyed and dazed all the time. The script writer obviously had very little knowledge of the book of Genesis, or just didn't care that his abomination of a story completely mocked it.


Worst De Niro Scorsese collaboration in this horrible agonizing violent overlong mess. Scorsese is totally out of his element in this film with the horror cliched suddenly loud phone ringing and door slamming gimmicks that seem laughable and embarrassing coming from such a master craftsman. The cast is totally wasted here and the southern accents are very annoying and forced. Nick Noltie plays the wimpiest lawyer in history who would ever believe he can defend anyone ! De Niro's psychotic Bowden is nothing more than the typical 90's movie psycho killer. The scene with De Niro and Lewis early on is very awkward and the climax goes on and on and we should all be more than tired of the on psycho stalker that never dies. One of my most horrible movie experiences. Rent the original it's 100 times better.


Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.

Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie:

* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.

* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.

* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.

* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.

* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.

* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.

In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.


David Cronenberg movies are easily identifiable, or at least elements within the movie stand out as his trademarks. Fetishism, the blurring between the organic and inorganic, squishy throbbing things that shouldn't be squishy and throbbing. 'eXistenZ' is classic Cronenberg. Briefly, it's about a future generation of computer games, but instead of a video monitor, visuals are supplied by your mind. The game plugs directly into a 'bio port' in the base of your spine and while the game is running, the player can't tell reality from game. Jennifer Jason Leigh plays the game's developer, guiding a novitiate marketeer, Jude Law, through the game's paces. While in the game they uncover strange goings-on and possible crimes. But are they real, or is it the game? Not even the game's author knows.

The movie is quite a treat, keeping the viewer engaged, but in the dark until the final minutes. Another thing I like about 'eXistenZ' is that it doesn't use a heavy reliance on special effects, it's the story itself that propels the movie. Recommended for the Saturday night when science fiction is called for.


'Gone With The Wind' is one of the most overrated movies in history. It is a film loved by mothers, grandmothers, and shut-ins who go to the movies once every five years. As a zombie movie, it blows. There isn't a shambling corpse in sight, and it's terribly light in the gore department. 'Zombie 3', on the other hand, is big on shambling corpses and quite generous with its blood-spilling -- therefore, it is better than 'Gone With the Wind'. It is also not overrated. Most reviewers are under no delusions that it is rubbish. It is, however, not boring rubbish. After a terrorist steals a virus, he drops it while being pursued by a helicopter, and the chemicals leak into the ground. The terrorist, who has been exposed to the nasty concoction, hides in a hotel room where he slowly morphs into a flesh-eating zombie. One of his first victim's is a cleaning lady. Once she's bitten, Lucio Fulci's brand of hell breaks loose. As usual for a Fulci flick, the acting is atrocious, the storyline is riddled with plot holes, and the gore is plentiful. Turns out the film was directed by Fulci and Bruno Mattei, so that explains its rather schizophrenic nature. It is badly shot, too, poorly edited, and the sound design is flat. Still, it is saved by its gleeful adherence to the goriest of murders and its impatient pacing. Definitely worth picking up if you're an undead completest. Or don't like 'Gone With The Wind', undoubtedly the worst zombie movie of all time.


No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring, disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then, Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a château (whose step-mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement.


Whoever wrote the 'nice' post about this must have been a friend of these guys. This is bad even for backyard wrestling. In fact this isn't even backyard wrestling really, it's a few guys hitting each other on a trampoline. Each guys is about 45 lbs wet and there is not one ounce of entertainment value in this. It is just a few bored kids that even give yard tards a bad name, if that is possible. If you want to see some entertaining backyard wrestling, pick up Backyard Wrestling A Pleasure for Pain. It stars the 2 biggest names in BYW, MDogg20 and Josh Prohibition. These guys are good. They have actually went since yarding it and gotten professionally trained as 'real' pro wrestlers. They went legit and have gotten better. I recommend checking out those 2 guys. MDogg is insane and off the hook. So don't waste your time or your cash on this crappy DVD, there are 'better' back yard videos out there.


Writing something genuine and true is challenging. Knowing how to shoot it and putting it together without making it trivial is even better. Ishai Setton's movie is one of those where you can recognize Life in all its simplicity and beauty. I have been touched by 'The big bad Swim' and from now on, I will promote it as far as I can. It is just a shame that I can't have something to show to my friends (you know, such as a DVD???), because talking is good...but giving something to see is better. Everyone can't go to festivals to discover pearls like that and this movie's really worth to be put out there! A big THANK YOU to the staff of this master piece, and I am waiting for it to be distributed.


This movie maked me cry at the end! I watch at least 3-4 movies a week. I seen loads of great movies, even more crap - ones. But when ending scene - catharsic at it's core - came I Cried! And if you didn't - you have serious problems! The story is archetypal - nothing new or original. But it's real - because that sort of things really happened and that people really exist. Glam isn't my sort of music but I really admire all that they went through in early 70's... At some point this directed me toward Velvet Goldmine! Docudramas never really work very good. But this movie really meked us believe it all...Because they don't try to make it as a path full of glorious concerts, present musicians that are superheroes, groupie girls that are stupid and emotionally numb, they don't glorify drugs and alcohol, they promote rehabilitation and redemption that comes even 20 years late... Once again great movie. Since 'Leaving Las Vegas' I was never so moved by a movie.


Considering its pedigree, this should be a far more enjoyable film than it is. Even with a lip-smacking collection of eccentrics in the cast - what aficionado would not eagerly anticipate a movie which brings together Lemmon, Lanchester, Kovacs and Gingold? - the entire event is dully paced, drearily shot and, more often than not, witless.

Kim Novak's gifts were not essentially comic, as she went on to confirm in Kiss Me Stupid. James Stewart was a fine comedian, as he ably demonstrated in movies from ranging from The Philadelphia Story to Harvey. I think he comes out better from this mess than anyone else does. Except maybe the cat.


***SPOILERS*** Whatever else can (or can't) be said about it, SURFACE is superbly crafted. The cinematography is simply stunning (to say the least) and the fx are nothing if not state-of-the-art. Conceptually, the show offers a little bit of everything- and for just about everybody (parents, kids, fantasy and/or fx fans). CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND by way of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON with a bit of JAWS and GODZILLA thrown in for good measure, say. And there wasn't a single sour note struck acting-wise, either; some surprisingly solid casting, here. This series SURFACEd, seemingly, from out of nowhere and, by sheer dint of its straightforward storytelling, carried the viewer along for the better part of an entire season. All things considered, a job very well done. I only hope it reSURFACEs next season...


I saw this movie while it was under limited release, mainly for the novelty of seeing Pierce Brosnan with a moustache, but it turned out to be one of the funniest movies I have seen all year. It starts out almost as a thriller, but steadily progresses into a hilarious piece of work full of one-liners and great comedic energy between Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear. Also, while I say this movie is a comedy, it doesn't forget it has a heart at times and can be very touching when it needs to be. When I went into the theater I didn't know what to expect much more than a moustache, but what I got was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. Leaving the theater I felt very fulfilled from the film and plan to see it again in wide release. I recommend it to anyone who appreciates a good comedy with a well-written script and a big moustache.


This film was sheer boredom from beginning to end. Ok, so i salute Boorman for raising the worldwide recognition of events in Burma, but that is all he achieves. About 10 minutes into the film i thought 'oh no, here we go again', and i could have told you exactly what was going to occur in the next 80 minutes or so. Patricia Arquette was out of her depth in such a role, and her acting was wooden and unconvincing. Mind you, being saddled with such an awfully conventional script, maybe boredom set in, and was such reflected on the screen. A lot of the film was just plain laughable. At one stage, Arquette's elderly companion is shot, and he is prostrate on the ground. In the next scene, he is sprinting through the forest, obviously attempting to break the world 100 meters record! - or maybe he's just trying to run away from Boorman!!. If you find it hard to sleep one night then play Beyond Rangoon on your VCR and you'll be snoring in no time. I very rarely critisize a film as heavily as this, but in this case it is completely justified.


Director Vincenzo Natali's Cypher is a complex and imaginative thriller which, although requiring some suspension of belief and plenty of concentration, manages to be a thoroughly entertaining experience.

Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), a stay-at-home husband with an overbearing wife, decides to add a bit of spice to his mundane existence by getting a job as an industrial spy at high-tech company Digi Corp. His job is to travel to conferences across the country (under the assumed identity of Jack Thursby) and secretly broadcast the speeches given back to his bosses, via a nifty little electronic pen-gizmo.

In reality, however, the speeches are merely a cover for far more nefarious activities. Morgan, along with his fellow conference attendees, is being brainwashed. The drugged water they are drinking puts them into a temporary coma, during which they are told to forget their pasts and permanently adopt their new identities. Once they are totally convinced that they are someone else, they are told to apply for jobs with rival companies, where they are able to indulge in corporate espionage without suspicion.

But Digi Corp's plans are scuppered by the intervention of shady operative-for-hire Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who opens Morgan's eyes to what is really happening. She gives Morgan an antidote to the mind altering drugs so that he can resist the brainwashing techniques. She also warns him that if Digi Corp suspects that he does not fully believe he is Jack Thursby, then he will be 'eliminated'. Morgan plays along, and applies for a job at rival business Sunways.

However, arriving at his new workplace, he is given a polygraph test and is immediately rumbled as a spy. Fortunately, the bosses at Sunways see this as an ideal opportunity to feed false data to Digi Corp and Morgan becomes a double agent.

From hereon in, things get progressively more complicated; the plot twists and turns and poor old Morgan ends up not being able to trust anyone. In an exciting finale, all eventually becomes clear (but only if you've been following events very carefully).

Director Natali handles proceedings confidently and certainly has a great ability to produce a classy looking film for a relatively low budget. He manages to get some great performances from his talented cast; Jeremy Northam,in particular, is fantastichis portrayal of the initially somewhat nervous Morgan is played to perfection.

Cypher is another fascinating movie from a director who is willing to take chances and I eagerly look forward to his forthcoming projects, High Rise and Necropolis.


Dreamquest is by far, the best porn movie I've ever viewed. This is a must see!!! And if you're skeptical about your little ones watching it, just skip over the naughty scenes. Of course, this shortens the movie to a length of about 15 minutes. But even then it's enjoyable. This movie is quite excellent and beats out almost any movie...even Shawshank Redemption.


The original 'Cube' is a fantastic B-movie rich with paranoia, meaty characterization, and fine over-the-top performances. It's creepy, cryptic, and cool. And it stands perfectly well, on its own, without a stupid sequel like 'Cube Zero.'

This third (!) film in the Cube series is part retread (most of the booby traps are sadly recycled), part aberration. It takes the bold step of explaining what the cube is - something that was never revealed in the first movie - but, since said explanation is bland, I'd rather it was kept a secret. There are some potentially interesting references to the society that exists outside of the cube, but they never develop beyond hints about some kind of political-religious totalitarian state. So, what little social commentary there is feels flat and unfocused.

What works? Basically nothing. The acting is purely amateur hour, the pacing is slow (how much of this movie consists of two nerds watching a screen?), and the gore effects, while revolting, fail to convince. In short, 'Cube Zero' reminded me of a 'Cube' fan-fic, a sloppy and sophomoric clone of a good movie that definitely did not need a sequel.


You want the worst horror movie of the 21st century? El Chupacabra is it. 'Manos:The Hands of Fate' is THE worst movie of all time, but El Chupacabra certainly is the worst movie of this century. It also has to have the distinction of having the absolute worst leading actor ever. Eric Alegria, the actor in the lead role, has never done another film other than El Chupacabra, gee - I wonder why.

Apparently the monster is attacking people, but everyone that is attacked moves really slowly and is really stupid. And, there are no cops at all in this town just two idiot detectives - Hello! Cops show up on the scene of homicides first, then the detectives come! And, apparently the monster only attacks in one person's backyard, and some deserted area by the docks. Or...thats the only places the filmmakers could get access to film.

This 'film' is the reason why IMDb must allow us to give negative stars. This easily deserves -10 stars, or at least 0. They should allow a 0 rating.


It is hard to describe Bug in words, it is one of those films that truly has to be seen to be understood. It follows a narrative that is more fluid and interesting than anything I have seen lately in a Hollywood release. As its characters react to the chain of events in different ways, and as the events dictate different paths for the characters to follow, the audience is merely an observer. The almost Proustian narrative flow of thought to thought, the very spontaneity in the script will have you glued to the screen, waiting anxiously to see how it all works out in the end. And as far as the thematic elements...there is a particular sequence in the film that goes from melancholy, to bright and beautiful, and then to tragic, all within the span of about a minute. And it works.

This movie is pure magic. It reminds one why independent film is perhaps the brightest star the film industry currently has. Perhaps with more movies of Bug's quality, people will start to take notice.


Given its time of release, the story that unravels in 1950 thriller 'Panic in the Streets' was hardly a surprise. The corpse of a mysterious illegal immigrant is found and passed off as a nobody until further examination from a public health inspector who claims the corpse carries a strain of bubonic plague. Yet with the current drama in the world today, this strangely helps this film in appearing credible for today's viewers. The cast and crew are flawless. Richard Widmark in his first role following his breakthrough performance in 'Night and the City,' Jack Palance in his chilling film debut, also starring in this film are Paul Douglas and a young (and rather cute) Barbara Bel Geddes. A whole slew of uncredited, non-professional actors (typical of director Kazan) fill in the remaining slots. Elia Kazan directs, Joe MacDonald films (he would later work with Richard Widmark again in 1953's much superior 'Pickup on South Street') and the great Alfred Newman scores it. Nearly everyone involved here has done better work, 'Panic in the Streets' is quite the rewarding watch, nonetheless. Especially for the film-noir enthusiast.


If you enjoyed films like Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, you are going to LOVE Two Hands. It has the same type of black humor beat to it and will keep you entertained through the whole film. Like Pulp Fiction, it has the wacky scenarios that the characters get into and how they deal with them. Along with Gallipoli and Picnic at Hanging Rock, this has to be one of the best Australian films I've seen. It also stars a young Heath Ledger before he got real big in the states.

This is a terribly underrated movie that I believe is just as good as Pulp Fiction and those greats. You have to see it!


Robin Williams gave a fine performance in The Night Listener as did the other cast members. However, the movie seems rushed and leaves too many loose ends to be considered a 'must see.' I think the problem happens because there isn't a strong enough relationship established between the caller and the Gabriel Noon(I had to spell it this way, because IMDb wants to auto correct the right spelling to 'No one') character. The movie runs a little over 01:30 and within the first 15 minutes, or so it seems, Noon begins his search for Pete Logande, the boy caller.

This happens after he talks to the mysterious caller about 3 or 4 times. The conversations aren't too in-depth mostly consisting of how are you... I'm in the hospital...why did you boyfriend move out... etc. In the book, the kid almost becomes Noon's shrink and vice versa and the reader understands why he goes in search of this boy, once he finds out the kid disappears and thinks he might be a hoax.

In the movie, Noon becomes obsessed with finding Logande, but the audience is left to wonder why? Since there really isn't a strong enough bond established between Noon and the caller, why bother? Who cares if the caller doesn't exist?

I know there's a difference between a book and a movie, but those calls and that relationship was critical to establish on screen, because it provides the foundation for the rest of the movie. Since it doesn't, the movie falls apart.

This is surprising because of Maupin's other work, Tales of the City. When it was made into a mini-series, it worked beautifully.


A friend brought me this movie and at first I was hesitating, the pace in the movie was so slow that it was admittedly boring at the beginning. But the life scenes were attractive, it's like observing than watching.

It turned out to be simply stunning throughout the film, the way how the director handled the life scenes to reflect the reality was confounding but somehow also overwhelming. It's like understanding the real life of a lively person than watching a movie.

Mr Alejandro Polanco and Miss Isamar Gonzales did their roles so well that it's more like telling us their own stories. Indeed they used their real names in the movie.


I'm a big fan of camp, but when every plot 'twist' is predictable and bad, while obviously not trying to be, even I lose interest. I was going to rate this a 3, but the ending dropped it a point easily. Its only saving grace is that I hated other movies more. Not enough beer in the world for this one.


Joel schumacher Made a heck of a choice when he decided on this cast and this script. The story is well written and well laid out, and this entirely new cast of 10 or 12 central characters was absolutely brilliant. It seemed that there were 6 'leads' and about a half dozen supporting, and by far this is the best thing about the movie, the fresh young faces of tomorrow. It has been a long time since hollywood has touched the controversial vietnam war films,which says something for the'story that needed to be told'(as stated by schumacher) and Tigerland lands in that handful of top war movies period. Yet it can not be labeled as a war movie because it seemed to be based more on the human spirit of Bozz and the others. I Think anyone who just wants to see a good film with out all of the special FX, but just good, gritty drama should go see Tigerland, obviously Shumachers Best works in the past 8 years.


Fassbinder's most lavish production sacrifices little of his talent for identifying and deconstructing a locus of suffering in long, mobile takes that somehow also act as social encapsulations; here, it's much more overt, since the story takes place in war-torn Germany at the end of WWII, and the central character is a woman (Hanna Schygulla as Maria) who capitalizes on vulnerabilities (both economic and gender-related) to catapult herself up the ladder of a prominent textile corp. that makes coveted goods like lederhosen available to indigent workers (as she once was). Married amidst allied air raids, Maria and her new husband Herrmann are allowed a brief honeymoon before he's shipped out to the Russian front. In his absence, her despair is great: she spends most days at the train station, waiting for him to return. When he is reported dead, she abruptly stops grieving and takes a job as a barmaid/prostitute at a brothel catering to American GI's.

When he returns, things get plenty messy, as circumstances (and his sense of noble self-sacrifice) conspire to keep them apart. The message is Fassbinder's M.O. writ large: 'Love is colder than death,' but not only is Maria contending with her own sanity and a husband largely incapable of loving her, but a country in deep flux with no discernible light at the end of the tunnel. Fassbinder is making some kind of statement on post-war Germany selling out to the highest bidder, but as with all his films, I tend to block those elements out and focus on the unbearable passions on display: Fassbinder's as evoked through his characters; his actors' as filtered through their real-life connections with Fassbinder. Taken together, his films can be either unbearable or indescribably mesmeric, often at once; this falls somewhere in-between, although definitely closer to the latter. While I didn't like it quite as much as The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant or Katzelmacher, Maria Braun certainly has a greater scope and what's more, I could feel its passion and authentic detail to human emotions.


The Giant Claw is in fierce competition with films like, 'Robot Monster' and 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' for worst film of all time. A phony looking giant vulture attacks 'Lionel Trains' in this completely unconscious film. The script is so bad that everything the characters say to one another is ridiculous. It's no wonder that this film is a prime target in the movie, 'It Came From Hollywood,' where this gem is hammered for the line, 'A Bird As Big As A Battleship', with gleeful, endless needling. The line pops up relentlessly through the course of the film, so there's no escaping it. There are several shots from, 'The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms' and 'Earth vs. The Flying Saucers' among other sci-fi films from the 50's to beef up the scraggly vulture's attacks. At one point the big vulture is responsible for a few deaths, so the military puts the entire world under martial law and no one is allowed to go out of their homes. Of course, the huge buzzard is mainly concerned with pursuing the stars of this classic, Jeff Morrow & Mara Corday, wherever they might be. Yet the director is so lame that he doesn't even provide for a few honey shots of pretty Mara in a decent dress and black heels for a little relief from the tedium of this zero star thriller. That's the second time this blunder has been made. In 'Tarantula', Mara Corday struts around in hot dresses for the whole film, but is relegated to pants throughout, 'The Giant Scorpion'. The budget for this film must have been not more than thirty or forty thousand dollars and I doubt whether Morrow or Corday got more than three thousand to make it. It looks like the whole thing was shot right out of somebody's garage.


My impression, having seen this documentary, is that Nathaniel Kahn ended up with more questions than he had before he made the film.

He took five years to make it, a labour of love and longing. I can only imagine the turmoil of the editing process, what to leave in, what to take out.

His father, the renowned architect Louis Kahn,comes across as a man too selfish and self-absorbed to be emotionally available to even one wife not alone three. But like many men of his character, he attracted women who were spellbound by the remoteness and entranced by the creativity.

One of his mistresses said he was 'accessible' but that is never explored. Other comments by people who knew him well suffer the same fate. A pity.

The tension between the three half-siblings in the room of a home Louis designed is also palpable. The unsaid hovers over the conversation. The only tracks that his father left were in the buildings he left behind, some great, some not so great.

I was captivated by the music ship and the Salk Institute. Saddened by the baby mothers who got caught forever by his callous impregnations never more exemplified than what he said to the director's mother upon being told of her pregnancy - 'not again!'

8 out of 10, beautifully filmed, genuine.

It appears, in this case at least, the son is not the father of the man.


Joe D'Amato might have made some other notable movies in his very long and very prolific career- prolific, of course, by turns of making VERY cheap Z-grade movies in Italy's big exploitation boom of the late 70s early 70s- but Porno Holocaust isn't one of them, or at least shouldn't be. Granted, I should not expect much from a movie with such a title, but I thought considering the back of the box's description that it might have some fun horror scenes with the 'horny, mutant, cannibal zombie'. Turns out the zombie doesn't appear until more than halfway into the movie, and at every turn we get instead a tawdry sex scene as hardcore as one can imagine. Which is fine. But it's not very enjoyable, except in the most 'what the f*** is this BS' kind of way. There's laughable dialog involving lobsters costing more from mail-order Japan than in Paris, hot, slim women play biologists and zoologists who have particular sexual hang-ups (letting the door be unlocked to be raped, and a bi-polar kind of enjoyment out of getting gang-banged).

It all leads up to the island, where the 'main attraction' is a guy who early on just spends an absolutely pathetic (forget ludicrous) amount of time just staring at the newcomers to the radioactive wasteland of the shot-on-Caribbean island, and once revealed has a face like one of the guards in Jabba's palace and has a sweet potato for a main genital. But much dumber than anything before it is the 'relationship' that develops between the monster and a dark-skinned lady who has an inordinate amount of time to escape, but just sits there, blank-faced, as the monster brings gifts and for what must be a racially-motivated exploitation move on the part of the filmmakers the monster ONLY rapes and kills the white women, and not her. And it ends, of course, with a 'happy' ending. I use quotes, of course, out of a kind of shock that this could have any kind of legitimate ending at all.

Bottom line, this is NOT what you might expect, as possibly being a bloody horror movie with plenty of tacky but cool looking Italian monster-zombies devouring human flesh. If anything what violence is in the film is done on a shoe-string; a log hit to the face is immediately cut to the bloody aftermath, which is like the aftermath of a tomato hitting someone. So really, the last part of the title is meant more for market sake. Yet even as a porno movie it has little to go on except as a reason for the cast and crew to get a paid vacation to the Caribbean (as an interview with George Eastman suggests, this was just one of a few quickies made while on the island). Its got penny-bought schlocky camera-work and similar actors, filled with genitalia about 3/4 of the whole time and with wretched lip-syncing and music like Nino Rota forced at gun-point to make something snappy in a bordello, and it's STILL a piece of celluloid dung all the same; all of this could be an immense guilty pleasure, but it isn't.


This is a great idea for a film but it, unfortunately, doesn't turn out to be a great movie. What starts out as a sweet and almost goofy romantic comedy about a Fluffer in love with his Fluffee spirals out of control into a bizarre combination of genres and a veritable stew of plots, with liberal borrowings from BOOGIE NIGHTS, THELMA AND LOUISE, SHOWGIRLS, FRISK, and even a curious 'dash' of 400 BLOWS thrown in towards the end. (At least the director did his research!) The result is not necessarily boring but, in the end, this slick, well-produced flick doesn't quite add up to anything. However, the actors all do a game job with the material and there are a few good laughs at the behind-the-scenes world of gay porn.


It's become extremely difficult to find a good horror movie anymore, thought this movie was a good thriller.

Could have had better production values but what kept me going was the suspense and the twists. I had real reservations before seeing this movie (because of the cover). I was afraid that it would be excessively bloody and gory. I was wrong.

Although there is a lot of scary parts, there is a lot of suspense and drama too.

The acting in Dead Line was better than what you would expect from a micro budget horror flick. The characters were believable

The movie is really thrilling and quite scary at moments so it makes you grab your seat until the ending credits roll

Because of its production values (the sound is not very good for example) 8/10.


This is an excellent stand-up DVD! Eddie Izzard is the funniest person I have seen in years. His routine is hilarious and makes for great conversation with others who have seen it. I HIGHLY recommend this one. The part about the history of Europe is a bit slow, but the ending jokes in French are quite good, because you don't have to speak French to get it (although if you do, it is still hilarious). Also, the parts about being a transvestite are quite good. The first scene (about San Francisco) is not great, but funny the first time. Skip over those if you can. It's almost not worth watching. However, this really is a funny, funny stand-up show that everyone should see. 'I was dead at the time!'


I've watched this film a few times and I never really liked it. I'm not a fan so termed 'nu horror', so I can't be dismissed on that account. I found it a little sleazy, I think the thing that irks me about Hammers is the sexploitation aspect, not sex mind you, but Sexploitation. I'm surprised at how many people have rated this film so highly, so I'll have another look at it. But for me, it wasn't creepy, it had no atmosphere, just a bit of 'omigod, look at those bad/stupid London prostitute women and that little innocent Anna about to get raped by yet another nasty man, ooherh!' I suppose ultimately for me, the film had no depth whatsoever, just a bunch of nasty priggish men and women only there for the titillation value. This no doubt was to some degree what Victorian England was like, but the sets are even too clunky and dull impart a sense of Victorian menace. Roger Corman's horrors on the other hand, now that's style, atmosphere and elegant horror. For me, this was just exploitative, flat footed trash.


I've never been a huge fan of Almodovar, but, generally, I've always found something to enjoy in his films. Unfortunately, I had more trouble finding something to enjoy in Broken Embraces then I would normally think I would.

I find the biggest failure in Broken Embraces to be the characters and the lack of depth they display. The film is essentially a love story, one that is tragic, and one that wants to involve the viewer in their stories. I found this problematic from the beginning.

In the opening scene, our 'hero' the director/screenwriter, Mateo, is having sex with a very attractive young woman whom he just met. His agent comes in as the woman bashfully leaves.

In the opening scene, our 'hero' the director/screenwriter, Mateo, is having sex with a very attractive young woman whom he just met. His agent comes in, and rolls her eyes, as the woman bashfully leaves. Mateo babbles something about needing to enjoy life as the only thing he has left. Having been blinded in a tragic car accident that also killed his 'true' love Lena, played by Penelope Cruz, the viewer might buy into to this notion except the rest of the film really never illustrates why Lena was the love of his life or any depth to his character or any other.

Cruz plays Lena the mistress to an industrialist named Ernesto Martel. From the outset, their union is rather a pathetic one, as Martel clutches jealousy to Lena, and Lena avoids uncertainty of being on her own by staying with the much older Martel. To skip ahead, Martel finances a film for Mateo so he can keep tabs on the star of the film, Lena. Naturally, without any back story, Lena and Mateo fall in love. And, in Almodovar's world it really is that simple. Mateo, in the opening scene, has sex with a sexy young woman, now Mateo falls in love with Lena, later it's revealed he had a son with his agent after their love affair. Her son responds to this information with a laugh and an, 'Oh, well.' Again, no depth, no understanding for any of these characters, it all just happens. From the beginning of the film to the end, I got no depth of emotion from Mateo. He is flat, and doesn't act much different from one scene to the next.

The one scene I did enjoy was when film producer, Martel, is watching video footage his son recorded under the guise of doing a documentary of Mateo. There are nice a moment of Martel watching obsessively as a lip reading confirms his worst fears. Later, Lena confronts Martel as he's watching the footage and speaks her part out loud matching the video footage of her lips as she talks. Some quite brilliant moments. Rather contrived, but still really fascinating.

Unfortunately, for me, the rest of the film left me rather bored. I couldn't care about these characters or their situations, so no amount of cleverness on Almodovar's part can make up for this lack of depth. I think if you're a fan of his work you'll enjoy this movie, but if you're like me, in between, then you'll find it lacking.


There is so much wrong with this movie. Greico with a girls wig, old man scientist time machine fixer, tough guy Jones who stays behind with a shotgun that has three rounds, Spider people with tentacle hands and bad teeth, etc. The make up was so bad and they only had a few visible spider people on screen at one time (Aliens Cameron technique could have been used) instead they chose to dress every spider person the same way...badly. The nice thing about Greico's acting is that he bobs his had at every syllable as if he is counting how many words he gets to speak in the script. It amazes me that with all of the information out there on DVD commentaries, people like this still exist who make movies. This movie could have been worse, how I don't know. Oh and one last thing. I am going on a SCI-FI movie hunt down. The people running that channel should not be allowed to procreate to further continue the nepotism that exist in Film and Television.


I don't know how to describe this movie. It's definitely one of the weirdest movies I've seen in a long time. It is very unsettling at times but also boring in other places. The scenes of dental torture are very elaborate and may attract anyone who's into gore & splatter. I found myself holding my teeth during some of the aforementioned scenes. The clever thing about the movie is that it plays with our fears and The Dentist is therefore quite unsettling.

The humor of the film is somehow hidden and may not be recognized by everyone. But if you're a fan of weird and strange entertainment and teeth getting drilled to dust this is just the film you were looking for.

If you read the comment and feel somehow attracted by this kind of entertainment, give it a try!

My rating: 4/10 (maybe a little too weird for my taste)


This series is formulaic and boring. The episodes are the same thing every week, simply with slightly varied settings. Some purely evil character does some dastardly deed, Walker goes after him, and it ends in a Karate match. The villains are super-cliché super-stereotypical evil villains, the good guys are all pure, honest and saintly, and the story lines are simplistic and unrealistic. After about 2 episodes, the show becomes totally unwatchable by all but the least discerning fans. Certainly not Norris's best work. His other work may be cliché but it usually does not drag on for weeks. If you enjoy formulaic,boring, repetitive clichéd snooze-fests, then this is for you.


I must agree with the very first comment: this movie sucks very, very hard. Despite having a very big B-list cast, the cover of this film (for those who aren't watching it on Comedy Central during a weekday which is probably the only exposure this film will ever get) tries to put the blame on Dangerfield but in reality is just a paycheck for every has-been comedian from the '80s. Randy Quaid? Check. Ed Begley, Jr? Check. The voice of Lisa Simpson? She can now say that Maximum Overdrive wasn't her only horrible flick: double check. And so many, many others.

The saddest thing about this flick is that it was so lazily written with already-told jokes. Nothing about this movie outside of its existence is funny. You're better off watching paint dry. This is definitely direct-to-video scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that still believes in the old video adage: throw an old-time star on the cover and you'll get some money back off of the rental. Considering the days of video rental are changing, consider this one of the last examples of putting out garbage.

The only use this movie has if you're having trouble falling asleep. It'll get you there.


I really liked this movie, and went back to see it two times more within a week.

Ms. Detmers nailed the performance - she was like a hungry cat on the prowl, toying with her prey. She lashes out in rage and lust, taking a 'too young' lover, and crashing hundreds of her terrorist fiancé's mother's pieces of fine china to the floor.

The film was full of beautiful touches. The Maserati, the wonderful wardrobe, the flower boxes along the rooftops. I particularly enjoyed the ancient Greek class and the recitation of 'Antigone'.

It had a feeling of 'Story of O' - that is, where people of means indulge in unrestrained sexual adventure. As she walks around the fantastic apartment in the buff, she is at ease - and why not, what is to restrain a 'Devil in the Flesh'?

The whole movie is a real treat!


'Tourist Trap' is a genuinely spooky low-budget horror film that will surely satisfy horror fans.It contains extremely strange atmosphere and there are some quite unnerving moments of total dread and fear.Some scenes are downright bizarre for example there is one scene when Chuck Connors sits down to have dinner with a mannequin that comes to life and starts conversing with him before its head falls off.There is very little gore,but the violence is quite strong for PG-rated horror film.The mannequins look very sinister and the climax is horrifying.David Schmoeller returned to make several other genre films including 'Crawlspace','Puppet Master' and 'Netherworld'.Still 'Tourist Trap' is definitely his best horror film,so if you want to be scared give this little gem a look.

Rated PG for Brief Nudity, Violence and Profanity.


So many early British sound films that I've seen on video suffer from either poor print transfer quality or poor sound or both. Fortunately, I was able to obtain a copy of this movie on a video of excellent quality, enabling me to focus on the story itself.

And, an excellent story it was. At first sight, the passengers on the ill-fated bus looked like a pretty boring lot (except for the always lovely Jessie Matthews). But, as the film went back to show each passenger's story on the day before the accident, I discovered that the cast, contrary to initial appearance, was a talented group of performers, skillfully directed so as to bring a real individuality to their distinctive characterizations.

Viewers may have different preferences as to which two passengers are going to meet a tragic end and which ones will survive. But, the movie holds your interest as it keeps you guessing. This film deserves a much wider audience - a real gem of early British Cinema.


I was never all that impressed by Night Gallery, but this one episode stands out.

A TV network executive auditions an odd act - a young, nerdy boy who proceeds to make prognostications. The exec dismisses the whole thing as a flaky waste of time until both predictions come true the next morning.

What first seemed a parlor act becomes a hit show as the kid's predictions prove consistently accurate.

Then, one day, he refuses to do the show. Facing imminent showtime, everyone's at wit's end, even threatening him with legal action if he doesn't fulfill his contract and make his daily predictions.

The young boy relents, and foretells a seemingly utopian tomorrow.

After the show, the befuddled executive asks for an explanation, only to learn why the complete truth is too terrifying to reveal.


Back in the 70's, when I had first seen this, I was in high school. It was cool then. Now as an adult I look back at it and I say to myself..yeah right. What was so funny? It has it's moments but they are few and far between. It is so dated that the jokes no longer stand up. Show this to a younger crowd and they will be totally lost. If you like this type of humor you may want to stick with Kentucky Fried Movie or Amazon Women From The Moon. Tunnel Vision as well as Groove tube are too dated for today's viewing.