'A Guy Thing' may not be a classic, but it sure is a good, funny comedy. The plot focuses on Paul (Jason Lee), who wakes up the morning after his bachelor party with no memory and Becky (Julia Stiles) lying naked in his bed. Before he can figure out what happened, he rushes Becky out of his apartment because his fiance Karen (Selma Blair) is coming. After that, as you could imagine, chaos ensues.

Almost every single scene in 'A Guy Thing' delivers loud laughs. The funniest moments come from when Paul imagines what could happen if he tells Karen. Selma Blair is a truly talented comedian, and the worst thing about this film is that she goes underused. Although, she turns out to be more funny than Stiles' character, who actually isn't that interesting. Of course, not every comedy is perfect.

As I said, 'A Guy Thing' is no classic, but it's not bad either, 7/10.


Ahh this film had so much potential! A good cast of quality B actors, the thighs of Jessica Simpson and... that is about it!

I believe some guy in some unnamed marketing department had an idea. Basically, lets do a kind of Legally Blond film, but do it in New York. That big bright city of chances, power and money and where everyone is a heartless, power/money hungry person. Let's add to this Jessica Simpson, small town bimbo, that brother of Owen Wilson and for some no apparent reason Andy Dick (only because of him you should ignore this film).

Basic story line:

Boy leaves girl for NY, girl follows, boy cheats, girl stays in NY with cousin, gets a job under false pretenses, mucks up, is courted by other boy (Brother Wilson) and together save the day and kiss.

a few words come to mind when reflecting upon this film, i.e. dire, awful, unbearable, intolerable and xenophobic

Just don't watch this film, you will be happier. One reviewer referred to Guantanamo and i definitely agree with him. This film induces shock. And I know what you are thinking... at least at some point will I see Simpson naked or close too. It's not gonna happen, spare yourself the time and YouTube her. You will have better sexy time!

The films editing is flimsy, the acting is unbearable, and why do they use blue screens?

In conclusion; this is cinematic treason which should be punished to the maximum

Another question why does Willie Nelson always play a kind of father figure in almost every Jessica Simpson flick and why are there no black, Latin, Asian or European people in this movie?


And I love it!!! Wonder Showzen will pick up a cult audience and once it's canceled, the DVD sales will go though the roof. This is a very funny show in it's own ways. It's a parody of children's shows, namely Sesame Street. Our puppet characters consist of Chauncy, a yellow furry monster with a hat, whose our host. Clarence is a blue lizard like thing that does his own segments where he goes out on the streets. Him is a weird dog like thing that refers to himself in the third person. Wordsworth is the smart one whose brain always shows. Then there's the newscaster and the pink puppet. It's a very funny show, not really as nasty as you'd expect, but more the situations. They take 7 year olds out on the street, tell them what to say, and have them make mean jokes that they don't understand. My favorite segments are Clarence's videos, especially when somebody doesn't want to be filmed. I prefer TV Funhouse, which was a similar show, but this is still a very funny show that I hope lasts for years to come.

My rating: *** 1/4 out of ****. 30 mins. TV MA.


An hulking alien beastie crash-lands on Earth and soon wrecks havoc upon the populace first using his laser ray gun to dissolve into dust almost every human he catches sight off (that is when his aim isn't terribly off) and later his bare claws with which he likes to rip out and eat human spleen!

All in all, it's pretty silly stuff. I do have to give it some points for being somewhat fun at times. I actually enjoyed the mindless ray gun battle at the beginning and some of the later over the top gore effects. However it doesn't help when the monster provides the movie's only truly entertaining moments and he isn't on screen for a large portion of the film's running time. The acting throughout this is just plain awful and amateurish and our lead hero Sheriff Cinder is much too unattractive to be bagging the film's hottest chick. I also have to take off points for blatantly copying THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951) on several occasions. When the monster isn't on a rampage, NIGHTBEAST is far too dull and eventually his attacks become so repetitive and predictable even they become less fun. Watch this one back to back with the 1951 THING and see the difference characterization, attention to plot and detail and creating suspense makes to a monster on the loose movie.


This video rocked! Eddie is one of the funniest comics I have ever seen. Not only does he have class, he makes some of the funniest observations on history and culture that I have ever seen. Eddie is the most original and most intelligent comic I've seen in a VERY long time. Tell all those other stand-ups to get off the stage and let this 'executive' reign!


This movie was bad to say the least!!! The plethora of superb cars are disgraced to have have been showcased in this LAME movie. It starts off with a race from L.A. to Las Vegas to be completed in 1HR 45min...in a Ferrari F430. I did that in 1HR 50min in a tiny 4cylinder 140HP 1993 Honda Accord. Seriously...this movie does not do justice to these cars. Obviously these writers are just that and probably drive under the speed limit with their hands @ 10 & 2 o'clock. I remember seeing on the news how Eddie Griffin crashed a 1.5 million dollar Ferrari Enzo going 30-40MPH>>> youtube.com/watch?v=cNVrMZX2kms

And...the director ANDY CHENG is THE biggest SELLOUT!!! He brings shame to his own race. I wonder just how many people he orally pleased just to break into Hollywood. He partook in a movie that portrays Asian Americans in such a negative and FALSE way. Asian women>>cheap money grubbing whores. Asian men>>losing compulsive gamblers & thugs that get beat all the time . What the heck is all the fear about asians?? Why the need to always portray them in such a negative connotation?? I am SO sick of the way Hollywood ALWAYS portrays asians in SUCH a negative and false pretext.


The subject notwithstanding, this is an amateur, exhibitionist movie--or an effort at one--which is about as interesting and daring as a moody high school student's composition book full of death 'poetry'. To be sure, it will disturb viewers who are hell-bent on being disturbed, but the success will be attributable to themselves, not to the director. To genuinely get under somebody's skin requires sensibility, discipline, technique, and talent, as well as an eye and an ear. The film does contain one evocative image, shown as a still (and also used on the video case), but with no development leading up to or away from it. If the director had had an eye, he would have seen it as a possible starting point for an interesting movie--that is, a movie.


Wow, pretty amazing that something this bad could actually be made. I am giving this movie a 2 because it is so bad it has a certain 'car wreck' kind of appeal. Its so bad its comical and that does have a certain entertainment value. Plus there is a bit of gratuitous nudity and that is always appreciated.

So where do I begin. The acting is beyond awful, its like you are watching a high school play being filmed. Theresa Russell must have done something really bad to have been forced to make this movie and her acting reflects how happy she is to be in the middle of this mess.

The rest of the cast is simply silly with the casting of Dan Cortese as an FBI agent the cherry on the top of this piece of crap. His acting actually had me laughing at loud.

As for the screenplay and the directing C. Courtney Joyner and Mark L. Lester should simply be taken out back and shot.


I found this to be a so-so romance/drama that has a nice ending and a generally nice feel to it. It's not a Hallmark Hall Of Fame-type family film with sleeping-before-marriage considered 'normal' behavior but considering it stars Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro, I would have expected a lot rougher movie, at least language-wise.

The most memorable part of the film is the portrayal of how difficult it must be to learn how to read and write when you are already an adult. That's the big theme of the movie and it involves some touching scenes but, to be honest, the film isn't that memorable.

It's still a fairly mild, nice tale that I would be happy to recommend.


This is a neat little crime drama which packs a lot into its 65 minute running time. It has all the right ingredients - a mystery corpse, a weary middle-aged cop Corrigan (Walter Kinsella) and his rookie sidekick Tobin (John Miles), a shadowy killer on the loose and even love interest for the Tobin in the shape of a female botanist Mary (Patricia Wright) who helps solve the crime. There's also a terrific shoot-out finale which takes place in a stone cutters yard.

Watch out for a terrific goof near the start of this movie where Lt. Corrigan refers to the dead woman as 'Tatooed Tilly' BEFORE the coroner reveals that she had a tattoo (confusing huh?). Also later when Tobin is chasing the killer across the back yards he is suddenly shown going in the wrong direction at one point - no wonder he didn't catch him!


I found it almost impossible to empathize with Ricci's character in this film. If she was supposed to be a depressive, I think the screenwriter and director neglected to research depressives before making this film because Ricci's character was more a depiction of a self-centered, worthless sh!tbag than a victim and survivor of depression.

The forced attempt at introspective narration was as ludicrous as the pained interactions between her and the people around her.

Sorry but I couldn't buy it. This is straight to video schlock. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.


Harold Pinter rewrites Anthony Schaeffer's classic play about a man going to visit the husband of his lover and having it all go sideways. The original film starred Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. Caine has the Olivier role in this version and he's paired with Jude Law. Here the film is directed by Kenneth Branaugh.

The acting is spectacular. Both Caine and Law are gangbusters in their respective roles. I really like the chemistry and the clashing of personalities. It's wonderful and enough of a reason to watch when the script's direction goes haywire.

Harold Pinter's dialog is crisp and sharp and often very witty and I understand why he was chosen to rewrite the play (which is updated to make use of surveillance cameras and the like).The problem is that how the script moves the characters around is awful. Michale Caine walks Law through his odd modern house with sliding doors and panels for no really good reason. Conversations happen repeatedly in different locations. I know Pinter has done that in his plays, but in this case it becomes tedious. Why do we need to have the pair go over and over and over the fact that Law is sleeping with Caine's wife? It would be okay if at some point Law said enough we've done this, but he doesn't he acts as if each time is the first time. The script also doesn't move Caine through his manipulation of Law all that well. To begin with he's blindly angry to start so he has no chance to turn around and scare us.(Never mind a late in the game revelation that makes you wonder why he bothered) In the original we never suspected what was up. here we do and while it gives an edge it also somehow feels false since its so clear we are forced to wonder why Law's Milo doesn't see he's being set up. There are a few other instances but to say more would give away too much.

Thinking about the film in retrospect I think its a film of missed opportunities and missteps. The opportunities squandered are the chance to have better fireworks between Caine and Law. Missteps in that the choice of a garish setting and odd shifts in plot take away from the creation of a tension and a believable thriller. Instead we get some smart dialog and great performances in a film that doesn't let them be real.

despite some great performances and witty dialog this is only a 4 out of 10 because the rest of the script just doesn't work


This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Worse than the most abhorrent American dross; worse than Glitter - Mariah Carey in American dross par excellence. I can only imagine that the writer and producer were taking huge amounts of recreational pharmaceuticals, and when discussing the plot actually thought it was a good idea. it's not. It is abject rubbish from very bowels of Satan himself (who could probably have written a better script had he put his mind to it). Robert Jones as Exce Producer, spending our tax payers money (lottery money folks) on this piece of nonsense, should be accountable. Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to re-make Deathline??? I ask you - camp as a Christmas Tree, Deathline ... 'Mind the doors' is classic of really bad British film, we really don't need a reminder. And we certainly don't need a poor, second rate, badly scripted, badly developed and badly piece of rubbish like this. All this this from the UK funding agency that brought us Sex Lives of the Potato Men... I rest my case.

Do Not Pay ANY money to see this. It is absolute and utter crap - the one saving grace for the producers is that they got a huge wedge of cash... our cash... for making it. They should hang their heads in shame.

I am staggered at the low, low standard of this film. It makes me Mgr that our national body for the support of film actually thought it was worth supporting. There is no hope for the British film industry whilst idiots are running the show. Harvey Wienstein where are you? Come back, we forgive you!!!


If you still remember that summer when you had your first kiss, first boy/girlfriend, or first puppy love fling...this film is for you! OK so this movie would and will never win an Oscar BUT as a Dominican I loved it...there are some things in the movie that might just go right over your head if you are not part of the culture...the kids being raised by a grandma who's both mother and father, the youngest son being babied and bathed with a Cafe Bustelo tin (sooo Dominican!), Judy being harassed by the neighborhood men, going to church and lighting a prayer candle...the film's brilliance was in those small details. Granted, it was not a pull out all the works cinematic extravaganza but it wasn't meant to be NOR was it meant to be an educational tool for those wanting to learn about Latin culture ( tip: make new friends instead). More of a bitter-sweet, faux-cumentery, this film kept it real without taking itself too seriously. As in the tradition of 'Y Tu Mama Tambien' this was simply one boy's coming of age tale. I recommend it (especialmente si eres Dominicano!) =o)


what a refreshing change from the PG movies that have teen girls jumping in and out of bed, young high school boys counting how many girls they can 'hook up' with, kids drinking, doing drugs, etc., etc., etc. Carl Hiaasen has written so many books that are enjoyable but hardly classic literature. but he has finally written something that Middle School kids WANT to read. And this movie sends a message to kids that maybe they can make a difference, that maybe their voices can be heard. Filmed in South Florida, the scenery is beautiful and natural and REAL. Who cares if its predictable, and a little corny. So was FREE WILLY and look how well that did. This is a good family movie..........a rare breed.


Despite some moments in heavy rain, an encounter with a drunk as well as an organ grinder with a gypsy and a monkey, and a stay in a sanitarium, this Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle silent comedy short with support from Buster Keaton and Al St. John is only fitfully amusing though there is a quite funny sequence of Arbuckle in drag flirting with Buster that's the ultimate in 'meet cute' scenes especially since it's one of the few times we see The Great Stone Face smile and laugh in the movies! Also, many scenes seem to have been jump cut edited possibly because of overuse of the film stock. Still, if you're an Arbuckle or Keaton completist, Good Night, Nurse! is certainly worth a look.


I anticipated this movie to be decent and possibly cliché, but I was completely wrong! Charlie Cox (I had never heard of him until now) played an incredibly good leading man; he was so earnest and romantic, me and my friend that saw the movie with me totally fell in love with him.

Claire Danes, who I did like before (LOVED her in Romeo and Juliet), made me enjoy her even more. Her acting was fantastic, I couldn't even tell that she was American. The chemistry between her and Charlie Cox was extremely good, the casting was quite perfect.

Robert DeNiro and Michelle Pfeiffer were equally well-casted; DeNiro as that gay pirate...priceless, priceless. I laughed so hard at that one scene where Septimus comes on the ship...oh my god, wow. Pfeiffer played a decent villain, I liked her as the snippy mother in Hairspray. But she had the right amount of melodrama and snide comments throughout the movie.

Overall, it was funny (but not slap-stick at all!), romantic, the special effects weren't totally frequent but when they were, they were great; the cameos from Ricky Gervais and Peter O'Toole were also well-placed.

I totally recommend this movie to anyone who likes fantasy movies like the Princess Bride or even Lord of the Rings. It kept my interest the entire time and I will be buying the DVD when it comes out!


I ran across this several years ago while channel surfing on a Sunday afternoon. Though it was obviously a cheesy TV movie from the 70s, the direction and score were well done enough that it grabbed my attention, and indeed I was hooked and had to watch it through to the end. I recently got the opportunity to buy a foreign DVD of this film (oops, didn't notice a domestic one had finally come out a couple months prior), and was very pleased to be able to watch it again (and in its entirety).

I don't wholly understand the phenomenon, but somehow the 70s seem to have a lock on horror movies that are actually scary. The decades prior to the 70s produced some beautifully shot films and the bulk of our enduring horror icons, but are they actually scary? No, not very. Likewise in the years since the 70s we've gotten horror movies that are cooler, more exciting, have much better production values and sophisticated special effects, are more fun, funnier, have effective 'jump' moments, and some very creative uses of gore, but again... they aren't really scary! There's just something about the atmosphere of the 70s horror films. The grainy film quality. The spookily dark scenes unilluminated by vast high-tech lighting rigs. The 'edge of dreamland' muted quality of the dialogue and the weird and stridently EQ'd scores. The odd sense of unease and ugliness permeating everything. Everything that works to undermine most movies of the 70s, in the case of horror, works in its favor.

Specifically, in this film, the quiet, intense shots of the devil dog staring people down is fairly unnerving. So much more effective than if they had gone the more obvious route of having the dog be growling, slavering, and overtly hostile ('Cujo'?). The filmmakers wisely save that for when the dog appears in its full-on supernatural form. The effects when that occurs, while unsophisticated by today's standards, literally gave me chills. The bizarre, vaguely-defined, 'I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at' look intuitively strikes me as more like how a real supernatural vision would be, rather than the hyper-real, crystal clear optical printer / digital compositor confections of latter-day horror films.

While the human characters in this film are not as satisfyingly rendered as their nemesis or the world they inhabit, the actors all do a decent job. The pairing of the brother and sister from the 'Witch Mountain' movies as, yes, brother and sister, is a rather cheesy bit of stunt casting, but they do fine. Yvette Mimieux always manages to be entertaining if unspectacular. Richard Crenna earns more and more empathy from the audience as the film progresses. His self-doubt as he wonders whether his family's alienness is truly due to a supernatural plot or whether he's merely succumbing to paranoid schizophrenia is pretty well handled, though his thought that getting a routine physical may provide an explanation for what he's been experiencing is absurd in its naïveté.

The movie's The-End-Question-Mark type ending is one of the only ones I've seen that doesn't feel like a cheap gimmick, and actually made me think about the choices these characters would be faced with next and what they'd be likely to do and how they'd feel about it.

Detractors of this film may say it's merely a feature-length vehicle for some neato glowing retina shots, but hey, you could say the same thing about 'Blade Runner'. :-)


Where this movie is faithful to Burroughs' vision, it is excellent; where it departs from Burroughs, it is superb. It is a tale of family, of the seeking of a father by a real and emotional orphan. Lambert's speaking of one of the most anguished lines in all of cinema 'He was my Father!' is enough to bring tears to the eyes of the most cynical critic. Not a perfect motion picture - the notorious over-dubbing of McDowell's voice by Glenn Close is unconscionable and only explicable in terms of a very British error - but a fine if flawed masterpiece and a noble farewell to Sir Ralph Richardson.


I got this movie in the $5 bin at walmart. I would not recommend watching this move. I might give it to one of my friends if I am angry at them and want them to suffer for 2 hours.

I looked at the cover and skimmed through the summary and thought it was a war movie. I wish I would have known how boring this movie was going to be before turning it on. It was my mistake to think something was going to happen in this movie. It's just about a group of people going from one boot camp to another. The drill sargents treat the soldiers very badly and the main character tries to help people get out of fighting in Vietnam.

Okay, here is my rant about this movie: To me, this movie is slow and hard to watch. It was just one of those movies that you put in and are stuck watching because you want to turn it off but your hanging on to a string of hope that it might pick up towards the end. It doesn't. After the movie was over I through it behind my T.V. because I was angry that I wasted almost 2 hours of my life watching it, and another 10 minutes writing this review to warn people about it.


Coen Brothers-wannabe from writer-director Paul Chart relies far too much on ideas lifted from other (better) movies, yet does manage to create a creepy atmosphere that keeps one watching. Robert Forster cuts loose as never before playing a psychopathic psychiatrist (ha ha) who goes on a killing spree in the desert. The film is unusual, but in its attempt to keep one step ahead of the audience, it becomes alienating and off-putting (with a role for Amanda Plummer that is downright humiliating). An admittedly bravura finale, many quirky bits of business--and Forster looking great in the nude--make this a curiosity item, nothing more. Veteran movie-director Irvin Kershner produced, and maybe should directed as well (could Paul Chart be a pseudonym?). *1/2 from ****


Nightmare Weekend stars a cast of ridiculous actors with even less of an idea of what is going on than the director had, if you can imagine that. There is no decipherable plot or story, the special effects are a joke, and even the sound is terrible. This film was directed by Henry Sala. It was the only film that he ever directed, and the reason is obvious.


DO NOT WATCH THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A FILM. I have wasted time and money on this and am pretty p**sed off about it.

The acting is comparable with high school plays. The script is shocking. There is no plot. Twenty minutes from the end (which I believe I should be rewarded for reaching) I had a headache from all the screaming, crying and wailing the five girls make.

The majority of the violence is (rare for a film nowadays) suggested rather than graphically depicted but I found the characters so damn irritating that I wanted to see them, and indeed every single person involved in the making of this piece of s**t, die in the most horrible ways possible.

I spend ten more minutes of my life saving you from a very poor 100 minutes of yours. Don't do it.


I watched the Pie-lette last night and the word that comes to mind is 'original.' It is a word not used much in TV as they all tend to copy whatever the other network is doing and you end up with seven nights of crime shows, unfunny comedies, and reality crap.

The first thing that hit me like a brick was the presence of Jim Dale. Those not familiar with the British 'Carry On ...' series or those who have not listened to a Harry Potter book, may not be familiar with Dale. I am not sure whether his presence as narrator adds or distracts. I will have to tune in more, but it does give the show a 'Harry Potter' atmosphere. Maybe that's a good thing.

Lee Pace (Infamous, The White Countess) has a gift. It never explains where he got it, but he can bring someone back from the dead for a minute. He teams with Chi McBride ('Boston Public,' Roll Bounce) to solve murders using this talent. Everything is fine and funny until he comes across a childhood love, Anna Friel (Goal! The Dream Begins, Timeline) and things really get complicated. He can't send her back and he can never touch her. Boy, would that make a relationship difficult.

I will be tuning in to see where this series goes in the expectation that it will continue to entertain.


The story is about Ankush (Abhay Deol) - who is professional marriage witness, in short he acts as a witness for couples in marriage registration office - and Megha (Soha Ali Khan) who ran away from her home at Nainital to get married to her love interest Dhiraj (Shayan Munshi). The story starts with Megha waiting at the marriage registration office for Dhiraj to show up but for some reason he does not show up. So Ankush comes in the picture here, who had approached Megha with the intention of earning Rs. 200 for his Witness job and he ends up helping her by providing shelter to her. Ankush grows on his side by working in a bank as an Agent… Ankush falls in love with Megha and she too falls in love with him (or kind of love), both agree for the marriage and Dhiraj comes back in the picture. Unexpected circumstances happen, actually I should say, expected circumstances with unexpected reactions and then….

Actually the movie story is bit different than the movies we see and I do not think so it will be accepted by the masses but if you are a movie freak like me and love to watch something different, then you will definitely like the movie. The movie is just an innocent love story drafted very well by the characters of Abhay Deol and Soha Ali Khan. The characters are so natural that you feel as if things are happening to the guy next door. The background music of the film also plays a very good role, it is just too good. The way Delhi is shown is very good and gives a fresh feeling.

so let's cut it out and sum it up.

Story: A very common story carried very well and transformed to a wonderful experience.

Music: Well, as it was Himesh Reshammiya creation, so I did not expect much but still I liked couple of songs of the movie including the Qawwali.

Acting: Abhay Deol was the most impressive, very natural and innocent acting but he should stay away from singing in the songs. Soha Ali Khan, she is a doll, a very cute doll I must say. Again very innocent and natural acting and these both actors perfectly fit into their characters. Apart from these two, Shayan Munshi needs some acting lessons and may be few layers of fat to cover the bones. Other actors did their job well.

Stars: I would also give it 3.5 stars out of 5. You will enjoy the movie if watched in the theatre, I would recommend watching it in theatre if you are a movie freak and accept uncommon stories. Otherwise wait for the DVD to arrive. The movie will definitely won't be liked by the masses and the business it can do is from word of mouth publicity.


I must say I thought the show Greek would be really ridiculous and stupid. Since I am part of a sorority I didn't want them to make Greek organizations look bad....

but I think Greek is hilarious. Yes, they do have the stereotypical sorority and fraternity but it's not mocking but just cute humor.

All the characters are pretty likable minus Rebecca Logan (I just can't stand her), Casey and Rusty have good chemistry as brother and sister. Then there is Cappie. Who doesn't love a guy like Cappie haha His character brings so much to the show. Rusty's room mate, Dale played by Clark Duke, is hilarious as well.

It's definitely fun to watch so tune in for season 2. I can't wait till it is back on!!


I have to mention two failures for you to understand that this movie brilliantly succeeded where they failed: 'A Scanner Darkly' and 'Immortel Ad Vitam'. If you were excited by the concepts of these two movies and felt woefully disappointed (like me), you will probably enjoy Renaissance. It immerses you into the world of a future Paris. It is not quite dystopian. They did the animation so well that I thought it was rotoscoped, but from what I can tell, it was not, it was merely motion capture. The facial expressions are amazing! Not since TRON have I seen a fantasy world so well displayed in an animation/live hybrid. The Black and White medium is used to slowly direct your attention to the subject of the scene; my favorite effect was what they did with headlight beams, watch for it. The director plays with your attention and confusion but you are satisfied eventually by finding the thread that he wants you to find. The overall effect is a harsh and gritty urban world filled with small surprises.

The plot is secondary, but it isn't terrible. It is noir-ish. There is a backstory for most of the major characters giving them some depth. There is weather. There are 'sets' so you can feel like you are in different places in Paris. There is some action, and even a car chase. I am going to have to see this one again to get everything. I also recommend a very large screen to view it as the 'sets' are detailed and the credits are small.


I realize it's a small statistical sampling (8 votes as of this posting), but 5.9 out of 10? I'm giving this movie a 3 and even that's generous. I've tried to watch this movie three times now (the Saturday night 9 p.m. premiere on SciFi Channel, and the Saturday night at 1 a.m. and Thursday night re-broadcasts) and I've fallen asleep all three times before the movie ends. Which leaves me with a laundry list of unanswered questions. For example, is Lance Henriksen that strapped for cash that he has to keep playing supporting roles in these god-awful 'Pumpkinhead' sequels? Is Henriksen contractually banned from doing any non-'Pumpkinhead' movies? Can't the creators of this franchise do better than a monster that looks like a geriatric, emaciated 'Alien' who walks like he has a stick jammed up his a**? When are the hick characters in these movies going to realize that handguns and rifles don't hurt the 'Pumpkinhead?' Why don't they try jamming another stick up this thing's a** instead? And, lastly, are the writers of this movie so creatively challenged that they couldn't come up with names for the two feuding families more original than the Hatfields and the McCoys? While you're at it, why not write a screenplay about a fictional president and name him George Bush? Someday I may have the mental stamina to watch this movie all the way through without drifting off to sleep. Until then, if somebody has the answers, please let me know.


OK - you want to test somebody on how comfortable they are with their adolescence and the embarrassing and maniacal changes therin - then get their immediate reaction from watching this uproarious doc about kids making socially relevant horror flicks in the suburban 80's. More than any movie I has ever seen, the film deals with burdening sexuality and ego in a way that is completely human, never dull, and flushed in the kind of inherent goodness of youth that is discolored by the fear-frenzied adult world where any quirk in youth is accredited to anything from insanity to perversion. Mini-mogul Darren Stien seems to be reaching for a deeper understanding of his triumphs and misgivings as the patriarch of strict kid's world. What he finds in himself and others isn't always pretty - but shows how one can improve and reconcile with age. What does change mean without reflection. I love this movie.


Looking back at the career of Alfred Hitchcock, it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. It is likely a sign of how ahead of his time Hitchcock was, always attempting to push the envelope, and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining, but always with a deeper, more poignant motive on his mind. Strangers on a Train, one of Hitchcock's first and more underrated hits, is a perfect example of these traits - an entertaining and suspenseful story, even when viewed over 50 years later, yes, but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique.

Arguably one of the pioneering 'suspense thrillers', Strangers on a Train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects, but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). The brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick, careful editing are what really make the film stand out, drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience's focus even in slower scenes. If there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker Hitchcock was, simply watching five minutes of Strangers on a Train should be enough to disavow such sentiments; every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed, all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. Sadly enough, there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing - Bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable, and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film's most tense and engaging scene. These are only brief moments, but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film.

But what really makes Strangers on a Train stand out is the story premise. As Hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée, it's wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. Sure it's fairly straightforward, but the concept of 'swapping murders' is simply one that would not fly in films of today's day and age, which makes it all the more entertaining to watch; the film's brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. One can't help but notice the deeper themes Hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well, especially the concept of 'darkness in humanity's heart', demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder, as well as Bruno's own cavalier attitude towards death. Hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (Bruno popping a child's balloon with his cigarette is priceless), and irony, shooting suspenseful scenes in happy, easy-going environments, such as the iconic carnival scenes, to create an even more eerie atmosphere. This may be a suspense thriller, yes, but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable.

The antagonistic figure of Bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by Robert Walker, sadly in his last film role, but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes Strangers on a Train so memorable, as the character is a marvel to behold. Here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure, all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. Rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment, Bruno is a calm, controlled, psychotic mess. He speaks of murder in such an offhand tone, yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. Bruno could seem to represent the 'Id', as Freud would put it, the inner, darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. It makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure, Guy Haines, and how bland and uninteresting he seems, almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing.

Yet despite this implied message, Hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for Guy at every turn, and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. It's a testament to actor Farley Granger's talent that despite Robert Walker's villain easily stealing the show, Granger's hero still comes across as sympathetic, still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. Superb support is given by Ruth Roman, who manages to overcome the clichée and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure, Kasey Rogers giving a stunning performance as Guy's horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife, and Patricia Hitchcock, proving that she is far more talented than being simply 'the director's daughter' would imply. The superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful Walker) really bring the film to life, adding so much more merit to the film than simply Hitchcock's breathtaking stylistics.

All in all, Strangers on a Train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers, but it's still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems, considering it was released half a century ago. Once again, Hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique, and the film's surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. Highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience!

-9/10


At the beginning it was almost a shock to see Norma Shearer without her makeup. Then she glamorizes herself and becomes the life of the party.

Anyway, she divorces her husband, makes herself over and gets on with her life; or so she thinks. Somewhat keeps you guessing if they'll get back together.


This movie can best be described as a very long episode of a very bad sitcom. How many vaguely humorous misunderstandings can you cram into just one movie? Notes are misplaced, bags are switched, conversations are misheard, people get mixed up, situations are misinterpreted, and somewhere along the line people are supposed to laugh about something. The writers are really struggling to keep everything going, which makes the dialogues feel really forced. If anyone in this movie acted like a real person all this would be resolved in around two minutes or so and everyone could go back to their lives, but they have to keep the misunderstandings going. At times this movie also tries to go for some juvenile laughs, but all those do is remember you about how funny 'American Pie' was. The scene with the nerd telling the hooker (who he thinks is a foreign exchange student) to 'eat his sausage' goes on forever, not one second of it is funny. I've got to give this movie some credit though: because of the subplot about stolen money, it's not as boring as it could have been. It also has a laugh here and there, but then sadly goes back to yet another character misunderstanding stuff. Overall this movie is just way too lame.


I went to see Glenn McQuaid's 'I Sell The Dead' in it's North American premiere at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival. Seeing as this is the second showing worldwide I didn't quite know what to expect of this film, especially having not seen the short film that inspired this big screen adaptation.

I'll start off with a slightly more elaborate plot synopsis, without giving away any spoilers.

This movie is about Arthur Blake, how he became a grave robber and the interesting and supernatural discoveries that both he and his mentor discovered.

The costume and set design in this film were excellent. I was amazed to hear that the entire film was shot in and around New York. The costumes were very accurate to the time, really bringing you as a viewer into the mindset of the time. This movie works just as well as a period-piece as it does a horror-comedy.

The interaction between the two leads was very fluid. They played off each others acting with ease. The dialogue between the two was very well written, with Glenn adding his comedic touch even in tense situations.

The story is very encompassing and the ball gets rolling from the very start. I'd compare it to a visual page turner, always wondering just what will happen next. The characters themselves are all very vivid and unique adding different emotional layers to the film itself.

All in all, I recommend this film for anyone in the mood for some dark humour, with a bit of horror mixed in.

9/10


This installment of Masters of Horror was terrible. Apparently, Mr. Carpenter needs to learn a thing or two about pacing and decent, plausible dialog. There were times when I literally shouted at the TV for something to happen. Maybe he thinks he building suspense, but Carpenter needs to trim back that overdone, over-simplified musical score of his (or his son's) and advance the action a little bit. How many times did the girl say, 'Oh no, I can't have this baby!' and 'Oh, no here it comes'? Carpenter takes elements from much, much better films (Assault on Precinct 13 and The Thing) and throws them in here as if we are supposed to acknowledge and appreciate his trademark style. What is lacking here is genuine suspense and energy. It's as though he's sleepwalking through the process of movie making.

For better Carpenter films, stick to the tried and true classics-- The Thing, Halloween, and They Live. For better masters of horror episodes, check out my personal favorites: Family, Jenifer, and Dreams in the Witch House.


1st watched 8/26/2001 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Tobe Hooper): Scary, yet sadistic(which makes sense) portrayal of a relative of the Marquis De Sade carrying out the same sadistic acts and enjoying it that supposedly his predecessor did. This Tobe Hooper film really doesn't do a whole lot different than his similar in style Freddy Krueger movies with the same star (Freddy himself - Robert Englund) playing a dual role(the Marquis De Sade and his relative). It is also seems like it wants to really poke at Christianity but then loses that in the end much to my chagrin but leaving an inconsistent feel to the movie. Could have been much worse if excesses were taken in sex and violence, but they try to keep this at a minimal despite some disgusting scenes. My final thought is why would Hooper want to make this movie. It obviously took awhile to actually get distributed, then it has to be advertised gruesomely and with Hooper's name in the title to hopefully make some money on his name and his gore. It's obvious this didn't work.


I wanted to like this film, yes its a SAW, blah blah blah ripoff but I like those films. If done well this had all the ingredients of being a good, not brilliant, but good film....unfortunately those ingredients had gone off! The acting was terrible, and this was first seen when the captives are introduced with their captor one by one (hoods taken off), the remarks and one liners are just terrible, yes I know, bad writing....but this is more than that, it was bad writing coupled with bad acting. Two of the captives had been in a relationship with each other and did not even acknowledge this until a lot further into the film.....

Sorry, Im even wondering why I am bothering to review this movie at all.

I will end with PLOT HOLES, PLOT HOLES & MORE PLOT HOLES! DISAPPOINTING!


I first remember bumping into this zaniness from the Zucker brothers and Jim Abrahams, back in the early days at Comedy Central. Back in those days (the 90's) their programming consisted of Benny Hill reruns and the original MST3k, complete with bearded host.

Capt. Frank Drebin (played by the stone-faced, dead-pan filibuster, Leslie Nielson) is a process created first from the amalgamation of various stereotypical police television show protagonists (think Dragnet meets Starsky & Hutch the Show), boiled in a flask full of well-known police television show plots and scenarios. This is distilled, 3 times to produce the most pure policeman every made. Forget about Simon Pegg in Hot Fuzz (for now. save it for later). Frank Drebin is clueless at most times, a terrible driver, a terrible shot, macho yet sensitive and vulnerable. He is a master of the police investigative methodology (a.k.a - ask Johnny the Leathery Old Shoe-Shine Boy). This does not make him a bad cop. Cops get lucky also. Capt Drebin (notice he's a Captain here) has perfected it. Along with his partner, Nordberg, and the rest of force, perfectly parody the police drama over the course of 6 golden episodes.

The show is a treasure trove of hilarious dialog and quotable quote-ables. Most of the sight gags are a bit dated and silly. The magic never came from the sight gags,however. At its core was a nonsensical and straight-faced conversation and activities in the foreground, with crazy things occurring in the background. The movies can best be described as 90 minute compilations of the best gags from this series. Think of Monty Python's And Now For Something Completely Different.....

If you liked Airplane 1 & 2, Naked Gun 1,2,3, or Top Secret, then you will definitely enjoy this.

I always liked the series better than the movies, even though I saw the movies first. Why? 2 words : No O.J.


This is an action packed film that makes me feel very peaceful and relaxed every time I see it. The film (short of its conclusion) demonstrates that in the face of extreme odds, it is still possible to prevail.

This film is very refreshing, and likely to be banned at any moment. Get a copy of it before the thought police burn every copy they can find. They don't want you to have hope for the future, or to think you have a chance.

On the other hand, should Political Correctness fail to supress it, this would be an excellent movie to release on DVD. Such a release could contain interviews with the writer and director, and related goodies. I'm sure it would sell some copies, and I would be one of the first to buy it.

- Mincka


What if Somerset Maugham had written a novel about a coal miner who decided to search for transcendental enlightenment by trying to join a country club? If he had, he could have called it The Razor's Edge, since the Katha-Upanishad tells us, 'The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard.' But Maugham decided to stick with the well-bred class, and so we have Darryl F. Zanuck's version of Larry Darrell, recently returned from WWI, carefully groomed, well connected in society and determined to find himself by becoming a coal miner.

Or, as Maugham tells us, 'This is the young man of whom I write. He is not famous. It may be that when at last his life comes to an end he will leave no more trace of his sojourn on this earth than a stone thrown into a river leaves on the surface of the water. Yet it may be that the way of life he has chosen for himself may have an ever growing influence over his fellow men, so that, long after his death, perhaps, it will be realized that lived in this age a very remarkable creature.'

The Razor's Edge has all of Zanuck's cultural taste that money could buy. It's so earnest, so sincere...so self-important. As Larry goes about his search for wisdom, working in mines, on merchant ships, climbing a Himalayan mountain to learn from an ancient wise man, we have his selfish girl friend, Isabel, played by Gene Tierney, his tragic childhood chum played by Anne Baxter, the girlfriend's snobbish and impeccably clad uncle played by Clifton Webb, and Willie Maugham himself, played by Herbert Marshall, taking notes. The movie is so insufferably smug about goodness that the only thing that perks it up a bit is Clifton Webb as Elliot Templeton. 'If I live to be a hundred I shall never understand how any young man can come to Paris without evening clothes.' Webb has some good lines, but we wind up appreciating Clifton Webb, not Elliot Templeton.

Zanuck wanted a prestige hit for Twentieth Century when he bought the rights to Maugham's novel. He waited a year until Tyrone Power was released from military service. He made sure there were well-dressed extras by the dozens, a score that sounds as if it were meant for a cathedral and he even wrote some of the scenes himself. The effort is as self-conscious as a fat man wearing a rented tux. Despite Hollywood's view of things in The Razor's Edge, I can tell you that for most people hard work doesn't bring enlightenment, just weariness and low pay.

After nearly two-and-a-half hours, we last see Larry carrying his duffle bag on board a tramp steamer in a gale. He's going to work his way back to America from Europe with a contented smile on his face. 'My dear,' Somerset Maugham says to Isabel at the same time in an elaborately decorated parlor, 'Larry has found what we all want and what very few of us ever get. I don't think anyone can fail to be better, and nobler, kinder for knowing him. You see, my dear, goodness is after all the greatest force in the world...and he's got it!' Larry and the audience both need a healthy dose of Dramamine.

Maugham, lest we forget, was a fine writer of plays, novels, essays and short stories. To see how the movies could do him justice, watch the way some of his short stories were brought to the screen in Encore, Trio and Quartet. And instead of wasting time with Larry Darrell, spend some time with Lawrence Durrell. The Alexandria Quartet is a good read.


Despite the pans of reviewers, I liked this movie. In fact, I liked it better than Interview With a Vampire and I liked this Lestat (Stuart Townsend) better than Cruise's attempt. All the major players from the series were present: Talbot, Lestat, Armand, Maharet, Khayman, Pandora, Mael, Marius and a half-dozen more (albeit most of them in cameo). Marius, Lestat and Akasha were the main players (and Jesse of the Talamasca). Also, despite other reviews, I think this movie and the music was faithful to Anne Rice's portrayal and ethos, at least as I perceive it. Aailiyah was pretty good as Akasha, in places compelling (her first entrance and mini dance scene). The movie didn't capture the breadth of the books series but I thought it was a nice supplement.

I'm a big fan of this series mostly due to Anne Rice's style, sensitivities and treatments. And I found this movie a faithful and often superlative representation of the author's vision.


The thirty years that have passed since the making of this movie have made the suspense wither somewhat, and will not keep the public as attentive as I am sure it did in 1979. It is still entertaining enough though - and regains some of it's power when one finds out its sad relevance today (check out the story of FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse nuclear plant). With the top of the line actors and steady pace one can learn to overlook the dated '70s environment, and see it for the political critique that it is. I doubt however it will survive the test of time. It might not be entirely forgotten thanks to its cast, but otherwise the dialog, setting and score will make a remake of this movie unavoidable . As the oil situation now is comparable to the situation in the 70's, and alternative sources of energy are again becoming a hotter topic, we can only hope the current generation gets blockbuster warnings about the risks of (privatized) nuclear power like this.


I am a fan of Ed Harris' work and I really had high expectations about this film. Having so good actors as Harris and Von Sydow is always a big advantage for a director but if the script is bad what can you do? I really think that Needful Things is the worst movie of Harris' filmography and that getting involved with it was a huge mistake. Anyway, I've seen much worse movies in my life but Needful Things was a disappointment because of the waste of acting talent. The story as an overall seems too unbelievable and fake. I don't know if that is because of the book, 'cause I haven't read it. But if the script was so bad, I can't see the reason for filming it. Maybe it was the commercial success of King's books, or the need for low-quality movies for the VHS era of the 90's. Whatever the reason was, though, this movie was a very bad choice for anyone involved.


Seeing this movie was the most fun I've had at the cinema in a long time. However, I am not able to say whether this is a good or a bad film, because such simple qualifications simply cannot be applied. This picture has everything any movie could ever have. It has characteristics of a romantic comedy, a political commentary, a thriller, a drama, an action movie, a musical, and an absurdist self-conscious art film. It's all in there, adding up to a myth.

The basic premise is about an Indian couple, Nandini (Karishma Kapoor) and Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), happily living in Canada, who rush to India to visit the husband's parents after a disturbing news report. The rest of the story takes place in India, where the couple find themselves in the midst of a plot of fratricidal violence. At one point, the story borrows from 'Not without my baby,' but to call Shakti a remake of anything would be an injustice.

The ostensible story line takes a backseat to a number of astonishing interruptions, including Shah Rukh Khan's dream of Aishwarya Rai which comes as if out of another movie. In fact, the two stars are on all the posters, but they appear really late in the film, and only Shah Rukh ends up being a real character. Yet he makes up for it with a spirited and truly unexpected performance.

Karishma Kapoor is the one with most work to do in this film, and she does an admirable job, having to link up the film's twists and turns with a show of believable emotion. Another notable presence is Nana Patekar, who plays Narsimha, the tyrannical father of the husband Shekhar. Nana Patekar dominates every scene he's in with a scary but nuanced character.

The movie is not without its share of realism. Violence is rampant, but truly disturbing in the abuse received by most of the female characters, with Karishma getting soundly beaten on a number of occasions. At times, this violence is clearly disturbing but ultimately it becomes surreal as every dramatic sequence is usually followed by such comic and spectacular turns that the overall effect is nothing but cathartic.

I have seen a share of Bollywood releases, and the mixing of genres and incredible plot resolutions are certainly their norm. But 'Shakti' raises the bar by absorbing an even greater masala without becoming ridiculous. It is a film that achieves the grandeur of a Shakespearian tragedy, where the audience of the rabble and royalty is equally entertained. It is pure, gratuitous cinema, and the director Krishna Vamsi must have had a dream of a good time by throwing in every trick in the book. Perhaps, the all-important message of violence begetting violence and the inspiring extents of motherly love were not the thoughts on my mind, but I came out of watching 'Shakti' exhilarated. Making movies can be the most fun in the world!


Terminus Paradis was exceptional, but 'Niki ardelean' comes too late. We already have enough of this and we want something new.

Big directors should have no problems seeing beyond their time, not behind. Why people see Romania only as a postrevolutionary country?

We are just born not reincarnated, and nobody gives a s**t anymore about old times. Most people dont remember or dont want to remember, and the new generation of movie consumers dont understand a bit. This should be the first day of romanian movie not the final song - priveghi! Maybe younger directors should make the move.


Well it was a nice surprise after all. its trailer did not predict a good film at all, it was even a bit misleading. Especially the part of Jeff Bridges was a positive surprise, well written, sardonic and funny. Less real though, I do not think a guy who got where he got would show signs of such irreverence towards everything that his current company stands for. One does not become a top suit just to doubt it all suddenly again. The ending of the film, during the showing of Dolce Vita, was too corny, cliché and quite disappointing. And of course a guy like Pegg's character would not last past his first week in a blitz New York magazine like this. I hope one day I will see a decent role written for Megan Fox, here she looked a poor actress playing a bimbo. And by the way, I do not see why she is the 'sex symbol' of the year, I see hotter girls on nearly every cover of every magazine.


The sight of Kareena Kapoor in a two-piece bikini is about the only thing that wakes you up from your sleep while watching Tashan  the mega-disappointing, mind-numbing new film at the cinemas this weekend. Bad films are bad films and we see some every week, but Tashan is not just a bad film, it's a terrible film. Terrible because it takes its audience for granted, terrible also because the filmmakers expect to get away without a plot or any common sense only because they've got big movie stars onboard.Written and directed by Vijay Krishna Acharya, Tashan is what you'd describe as a road movie, but one that's going in all the wrong directions. Saif Ali Khan stars as Jimmy Cliff, a call-centre executive who's hired to teach English to Bhaiyyaji - that's Anil Kapoor playing an ambitious UP gangster, desperate to go cool. Jimmy's got his eye on Pooja, the gangster's pretty young assistant (played by Kareena Kapoor), who uses Jimmy to swindle her boss of 25 crore rupees. Determined to recover his money and also to punish both Jimmy and Pooja, Bhaiyyaji recruits his most trusted henchman to do the job. So you have Akshay Kumar as Bachchan Pandey, the gangster's faithful aide from Kanpur, who tracks down the culprits and recovers the stolen money that's hidden across the length and breadth of the country.Much like those bad eighties potboilers, Tashan too is held together by a threadbare script centred on a vendetta plot. But the treatment's so over-the-top, so indulgent that it fails to establish any connect. Instead of a coherent screenplay or a traditional three-act structure, you get a handful of set pieces around which most of the scenes are loosely constructed. That garish item song in the desert, the bullet-dodging action scene at a Rajasthani fort, Kareeena's bikini moment, even that ridiculous climatic action scene complete with shaolin monks, a water scooter zipping through a dirty naala, and believe it or not, even a Dhanno-style horse-driven tonga. In all fairness, not all these set pieces are badly done - the item song in the desert is quite neat actually - but very little of it makes any sense in the larger picture, because you're just going from one piece to another without any help from the script really. Little do you expect in a seemingly fast-paced road movie, to find a sickeningly sentimental flashback track about childhood sweethearts.You see the problem with Tashan is nobody associated with this film knew what film they were making. What's more, I don't think they cared either - the film reeks of arrogance. Arbitrarily packing in elements of every genre without actually bothering to stop and see if the mix does work, Tashan is like an overcooked stew.There are films that kill you softly, and then there's Tashan, a film that kills you with excess. Packaged snazzily with glossy-finish camera-work, exotic locations and fancy costumes, every frame of the film probably cost lakhs to put together, but it still feels like a hollow piece in the end because the story doesn't hold. Borrowing narrative from Tarantino and style from Stephen Chow doesn't help either because they don't blend with the film's wafer-thin plot. One may have complained a little less if the characters were more engaging, but Anil Kapoor's grating Hinglish dialogue makes you want to slit your wrists, and Saif Ali Khan fumbles through the film foolishly, unable to find his feet. Kareena Kapoor, meanwhile, queen of over-the-top delivery, does a decent job. But of course, if Tashan is salvaged to some extent, it's thanks to Akshay Kumar's irresistible presence and his spontaneous approach to the character. You cringe when he's cupping his crotch repeatedly, and you scowl when he delivers those double-meaning dialogues, but not for a moment can you take your eyes off the screen when he's up there.Despite some good music from Vishal-Shekhar, the songs seem like they're only prolonging your misery. Well that's because Tashan is a test of your patience. In case you didn't know, Tashan means style. I'm sorry to say, this film has none.


The good things first: I agree with another viewer who said that Gene Raymond has a marvelous drunk scene. He does -- I was tickled to finally get a chance to laugh. And there were other moments I found amusing -- Raymond's parents in the bathroom with the defective plumbing, and the scene in the restaurant with Robert Montgomery trying to make Carole Lombard jealous by mouthing sweet nothings to a stranger.

But overall, I was dismayed. I love Carol Lombard and most of Hitchcock. And I understand the restrictions laid on productions by the Hays Code. But this was embarrassing and awful to watch. Of course I knew they'd end up together, this is a romantic comedy after all. But it made no sense, it happened too fast. Plus I can't believe the professions of love when confronted with such hurtful behavior, both physical and confrontational.


Director John Madden, of Shakespeare in Love fame, gives us another pretty bad film in Ethan Frome. The plot centers around a new reverend coming into the town of Starkfield where he learns the story of the local crippled man Ethan Frome's sick wife and one-time romantic tryst with the maid. Adapted by Richard Nelson from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edith Wharton's novel, this film isn't interesting in the least thanks to an abysmally weak script and poor direction that turns scenes that are supposed to be poignant into laughable schmaltz. Still, there are other aspects apart of the film that work - the cinematography is well done, Rachel Portman contributes a lovely score, and while no one is at their best, Liam Neeson, Joan Allen, Patricia Arquette, and Tate Donovan work well in their roles. But overall, Ethan Frome is only marginally worthwhile and is easily forgotten.


I watched this movie recently together with my sister who likes the performances of Sophia Loren. I'm a person who they call a Cultural Barbarian. I hate art in any kind of shape or form. Rambo is more my kind of movie, action, kills, blood, horror. If you recognize yourself in this avoid this movie like the plague. No one dies, no action, no nudity, nothing of the kind. Let me give you a résumé in a few sentences. It starts out with 5 minutes in black and white Nazi propaganda. Every Italian in a housing block attends a parade in honor of Hitler, except for a housewife, an anti fascist and a caretaker. The housewife who is cheated by her husband, meets the anti fascist. She falls in love with him, wants to make love to him, but the anti fascist is gay. Despite of this they make love with each other. At the end of the day, the housewife reads a book from her gay lover, and the guy himself is deported by agents. The end. You want an even shorter résumé? BORING... That short enough? The guy should have used his gun in the beginning of this movie and shoot himself, to save the audience from this atrocity. On a side note my sister loved this movie. Like I said, I'm a Cultural Barbarian...


An independent feature can now be seen as both a work of film art and a video resume. Enter Broken, and aggressively promoted, twenty minute short with style and enthusiams to spare. But is it any good as a film, or does it only work as a demo piece? Ah, there in lies the rub.

Broken is the story of Bonnie Clayton who is abducted after awakening from a reoccurring nightmare one night by 'a sadistic stranger and his colorful entourage' (quote from the video box). As she's held captive, it becomes obvious that her abductors know things about her that even she didn't know about herself. While they question her, a black-clad soldier guns his way into their hideout in an attempt to rescue her. Mayhem ensues.

Fortunately for us, director Alex Ferrari seems to know what he's doing, or at least he's very good at faking it. Broken does not suffer from any lack of visual flair, which is especially commendable considering its budget and the inexperience of all involved. What it does suffer from is weak and kind of derivative writing. Think Long Kiss Goodnight meets The Matrix, written ten minutes after reading Fight Club. The good news for Ferrari and producer/writer Jorge Rodriguez is that the story elements are easily ignored for the oodles of eye candy on display. Does the plot really matter that much in a twenty minute short meant to show off the technical skills of its creators? No, not really.

Though it would be unfair of me to overlook any negative aspects in light of the films budget and length. Broken is no genre classic. The biggest problem was that it actually would have worked better as a full-length feature. The final 'twist' doesn't get enough build up time to be shocking. If Ferrari were allowed the time to slow burn the feature as needed, plot elements would seem less random, and the film more complete. Here's to knowing he's getting the chance.

Audio Broken's Dolby Digital 5.1 presentation is second to none in the indie world. I've never heard such aggressive surround from such a small feature. The Matrix inspired soundtrack is very rich and deep, gunshots have punch, and even the dialogue gets in on the surround effects. Of everything presented on this disc, it is the audio that speaks the praise for modern independent DVD production. Also included is an equally impressive Dolby 2.0 surround track, which is the menu default.

Extras There are literally hours of making of features to be found on this disc. There are so many extras, in fact, that I find it unrealistic to list and describe each of them here, while still expecting my readers to continue reading. Whatever shortcomings the actual short may have, the DVD is unprecedented in its informational resources. People who enjoyed the film can learn all there is to know about its production, including everything from the conceptual art to the promotional campaign. Those with plans to make an indie film of their own can learn just about everything they need to know from these features.

The extras are broken down into categorical menus. These include: pre-production, production, post-production, after the short, and cast and crew bios. From a critical standpoint, I found that some of the sections were quite short. Had they been edited into one featurette per menu option, they would've been less frustrating to navigate, as the curser defaults to the top selection with every return to the main section menu. This is, of course, just nitpicking, but perhaps for future DVD releases the filmmakers will take my advice to heart.

It has six audio commentaries and hours of interview footage and talented people, and despite the consonant salesmanship, their true colours do shine through.

The willingness to share their film-making secrets with anyone who picks up this DVD is quite generous. From the extras I learned what editing and effects software is most reliable and effective, what brand of camera creates the most professional look for the lowest price, even where to get cheap air soft weaponry. On top of this, I was given several alternate options, in case I found myself unable to locate any products used on this particular production. Wannabe filmmakers unwilling to read a book on the subject would do well to watch this DVD.

Overall I've scored the actual short as a 6 out of 10, but wish there was an option for feature length potential and effort, because I'd have scored it an 8 or 9 in these fields. I recommend the DVD for its features and as a perfect example of what can be done with a mere eight thousand American dollars. Those who purchase the DVD can think of themselves as ghost producers for a larger project, as the more attention these guys get, the more funding the feature-length version will get.


After 'Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman' with Alison Hayes opened the doors for women to be just as dangerous as men, there was obviously an open market for other movies to pick up and carry the torch and what more a lovely actress than Dorothy Provine from 'It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World' to play the role. The downsize is that cute and blonde Provine may just be too sweet and innocent looking to step into Allison Hayes' size 50 shoes. This role really needed someone with an amount of smoldering sex appeal; Provine is more the girl next door type. She may have taken and done this role to prove she could be sexy, but the material lets her down. Lou Costello, however, proves he can do a movie without Bud Abbott feeding him lines and he even interjects a dramatic role in some of his scenes when he not turning to Gale Gordon as his front man for gags. Gordon, however, establishes that all he can be is blustery, perturbed and pushy, much the same character he creates later on 'The Lucy Show.' Charles Lane also plays the same role in everything he does: a straight man, and his screen time is limited. The special effects are convincing for the time, but I would have liked Dorothy to have been a little more than cheesecake and dressing and at least have been allowed to become dangerous. As the movie's lead character, she takes second billing to Costello who is in all of the movie with Dorothy several times vanishing like a sub-plot. The whole movie put together just can't decide if it's supposed to be science fiction, a comedy or just a parody of the Allison Hayes classic. There's a lot of good scenes, some very funny humor and some very ridiculous camp that affects the rest of the film. Still, I do like this movie for it's empowerment of women; there's not enough movies out there like this one. If this movie had a chance to be remade today, I'd highly recommend Courtney Cox and Jason Alexander in the lead roles and allow me to completely re-write the original script. Courtney tops my lists of actresses who I believe could and should adequately play gorgeous giantesses; although, I have to admit that if either of the titanic beauties Allison or Dorothy came after me, I'd go quietly !!


... Hawk Heaven for lovers of French cinema and by extension French Screen actors/actresses. At its worst it's an indulgence, actors getting to bitch about other actors, question the validity of acting as a profession at all, etc whilst at its best it's a glorious celebration/send-up of some of the finest actors currently working. From a simple premise - Jean-Pierre Marielle's request for water being ignored in a restaurant - Blier spins off in all directions and allows the cream of French cinema to strut their stuff before the camera even throwing in nods to those no longer around (Jean Gabin, Lino Ventura) including the Director's father, Bernard, one of the great stalwarts of French cinema, from whom he fields a celestial phone call at the end of the film. Discursive and prolix, yes, guilty as charged but also something of a guilty pleasure.


Hitchcock was of the opinion that audiences aren't really interested in what puts protagonists into danger - only that they ARE in danger, and need to escape.

This film proves Hitchcock was not 100% correct. Police believe Jean Simmons is guilty of a crime, when she plainly isn't. Trevor Howard decides their best course of action is to run for it. And so, the body of the movie has our charismatic pair dodging on and off trains, buses and coaches - jumping across rocks at the top of a waterfall - scrambling across dockyard roofs.

All good exciting stuff - but I couldn't get out of my mind that it was all unnecessary. They should have stayed put.

In other words, the MacGuffin wasn't strong enough.


This is the start of a new and interesting Star Trek series. It has a 'down to earth'-kind of feel with darker and less 'plaggy' scenography.

The characters need some more time to develop but they have potential. One thing that is fairly disappointing (with all Star Trek series really) is that they portray such a gloomy picture of the equality between men and women in the future when they paint a very positive picture about everything else. (Earth has stopped war, famine etc)

 The female characters here are two, subcommander T'Pol who is vulcan and communications officer Hoshi who is human. Hoshi is quite wimpy and T'Pol is made to be a 'vulcan babe'.

 Some of the crew attitudes feel a bit too American (as opposed to the more international feel of the TNG-crew) but creates interesting dynamics.

 A very good pilot though for a very good series.


The Sea Is Watching has been made from an original Akira Kurosawa script, and it is indeed a lush and warm film. Watching it will be a pleasure !

Kei Kumai as director is certainly no equal to the old but everlasting master (particularly the mass scenes in the beginning of the film has some terrible acting), but the overall mood and scenery is very enjoyable. Another thing that is missed here: Kurosawa always managed to let the characters be so much more then what they are actually showing and doing.

Probably that was his magic on set while shooting; and just maybe this script was not fully up to par yet.

Maybe we just miss the eye of the master.

This is one lovely and sweet film, but it is no Kurosawa. To expect that might well be very silly...


This has to be the worst, and I mean worst biker movie ever made! And that's saying a lot because the line of stinkers is long and smelly!

Now at least we know what happened to Ginger after she was rescued from Gilligan's Island! A frightened looking Tina Louise(she was probably afraid someone would see this mess!)is a stranded motorist who is tormented by the most repulsive motorcycle gang in film history. But, don't worry fans! Batman, I mean Adam West as a hick-town doctor comes to the rescue! Pow! Crush! Boom! Holy Toledo Batman!

The only good points of this 'bomb' are some cute women, some laughable fight scenes, and the still 'sexy' Tina Louise!


Bad Movie - saw it at the TIFF and the movie gives me a sense of 'been there done that' - it reminds me alot of the movie Blow - expect the Blow was actually interesting.

This one story told two ways and both times it is not told that well.


Uhhh ... so, did they even have writers for this? Maybe I'm picky, but I like a little dialog with my movies. And, as far as slasher films go, just a sliver of character development will suffice.

Unfortunately, The Prey provides neitherand if you think I'm being hyperbolic, you'll just have to see it for yourself. Scene after scene, we just get actors standing around, looking forlorn and awkward, abandoned by any sense of a script. Outside of calling out each other's names when they get separated in the woods (natch), the only instances where these people say something substantive is when one character explains the constellation Orion (clearly plagiarized from Funk & Wagnalls; scintillating slasher fare, no?) and another rehashes an old campfire tale that doesn't even have anything to do with the plot (wait, what IS the plot?) At other times, The Prey actually has the gall to film its characters with the boom mic just far away enough so that we can't exactly hear what they're saying. So we get entire scenes wherein the actors are murmuring! Deliberately! Seriously, I've seen more dialog in a silent film. It's as if the filmmakers sat down at a bar somewhere in Rancho Cucamonga in the heyday of the '80s slasher craze and one looked at the other and said, 'Hey, I gotta really sweet idea for a gory decapitation gag. Let's somehow pad an entire feature around it.' And ... well, they did.

To be fair, The Prey probably had some sort of writer on board. I mean, somebody had to jot down the scene sequence and label the dailies. However, I am fully convinced that this film did not have an editor of any kind whatsoever. There are glaring pauses, boring tableaux, and zero sense of pacing throughout. The filmmakers don't have anything else in the 'script' to film, so they fill out the running time with exhaustive taxonomies of the flora and fauna that inhabit the forest in which our wild and crazy teens are getting sliced and diced. These critters are all filmed in straightforward, noontime daylight in a completely reserved fashion and with no attempt at atmospheric photography. If it feels like a science film, that's because it is. I'm pretty sure this is all nature show stock footageall that's missing is a stuffy narration from some National Geographic alderman.

More exciting footage that was graciously spared from the cutting room floor: a scene in which two men discuss cucumber and cream cheese sandwiches, and another scene wherein a supporting character strums away on a banjo for what feels like an entire minute-and-a- half! A minute-and-a-half! That's a lot of banjoing to commit to celluloid to begin with, let alone insert into the final cut of the film! Way to go, guys! Brevity and concision are the real victims of this slaughterfest.

Admittedly, the film picks up quite a bit of steam (comparatively) in the last 25 minutes, into which much of the carnage is condensed and where a rip-off of Béla Bartók's 'Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta' cuts in. Vaudeville great Jackie Coogan makes a fun appearance as a tubby, bumbly park ranger (this was his last role, if you can believe it). And there are some nice gory moments, including a splattery neck tearing and the aforementioned decapitation. The make-up used for the killer (Carel Struycken, aka 'Lurch' from the Addams Family movies) is also quite effective, and makes him look like a strange hybrid of young Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger. Plus, if you love wacky, straight-outta-left-field endings, you need to check out how they wrap this puppy up. You'll do a spit take, I promise.

Usually, I love films that are on this level of ineptitude, but the first three-quarters of The Prey are just so interminably boring that they pretty much spoil the rest. Overall, this is a largely pallid and tedious affair, and, while it ain't all bad, it should really only be seen by debilitated slasher completists. Why do we do this to ourselves, anyway?


INSPECTOR GADGET (1999) **

Starring: Matthew Broderick, Rupert Everett, Joely Fisher, Andy Dick, Dabney Coleman Director: David Kellogg 80 minutes Rated PG

By Blake French:

Disney's new film, 'Inspector Gadget' is about a cop named John who survives a major accident and is saved by a state of the art experimental operation that turns him into a robotic machine-like agent who has tools and contraptions of all sorts built into his body at his use when he says 'Go Go,' only to be called Inspector Gadget!

The actual movie's structure is much like the body formation of Inspector Gadget himself. It is noisy, fragmented, energetic and consist of a bunch of half hearted contraptions thrown together to make something that doesn't have much in common with anything else present. The film is basically a series of zany action sequences that are kind of pasted together with characters and an uneven story that only kids between the ages of 6-9 would enjoy.

The cop who is dramatically reinvented is played by Matthew Broderick, who, until 'Inspector Gadget,' was on a success spree with movies like 'Election.' His character becomes Inspector Gadget after an encounter with the film's heavy handed villain named Claw. He is played by Rupert Everett, who has already experienced catastrophe this year with the dreadful 'William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Nights Dream.'

There is a romantic subplot in this movie as well as ample amounts of scenes involving Inspector Gadget's wacky body parts and mechanism elements. It has Gadget and Claw drooling over the attractive character Brenda, played by Joely Fisher, for both her looks and her knowledge of a specific invention made by her late father, who was earlier killed by Claw. Competition evolves into fight scenes and a reason for many happenings in the film. Also a major character is the Gadget Mobil, a life like automobile that is devised for Inspector Gadget himself. It is voiced by D.L. Hughly from the sitcom comedy 'The Hughly's.'

'Inspector Gadget' is a movie that I found quite bad. I know, I am not exactly a target audience of the filmmakers, but even my ten year old relative found the film to his disliking. The movie is full of distinct flaws and obvious problems. I never found myself caring about the characters. There is no mood development beyond some neat opening credits, unlike the much worse 1997 film, 'Mr. Magoo,' which opened using clips of the original cartoon. Is it too much to ask for that same type of thing in this comedy-which is seldom funny and hardly ever convincing. The overall production design is nothing but a mess of incomplete sight gags and consists of one joke: Inspector Gadget's bumbling goofiness.

In movies like this the audience lusts for boundaries-something to help make out what can happen and what can not. In 'Inspector Gadget' there are no such boundaries. This is truthfully nothing more than a party time for the actors, who surly had lots of fun. I am reminded of another lacking comedy released a few years ago called 'Blankman' which again, contained lots of props and energy, and the actors certainly had fun time with all the gizmos and props, but it too lacked something needed for every movie: audience participation.

A character that I found being left out a lot is Gadgets daughter, who by the end of the movie, I still has not clue of what her name was. She is used only as a plot device-and I question how she was used to further the plot as well. For her presence brings nothing relevant or productive to the film. We never know her reactions to her father's operation or accidents. Thus, this is someone who could have been completely left out and would have not affected the movie a bit.

In closing, I'd like to state that 'Inspector Gadget' is an awful, insufficient excuse for a children's comedy. And believe it or not, I find myself comparing this film to last years violent and very anti-young audience action picture 'Blade.' I am stating once again that I had much rather have a movie where nothing happens than one in which everything happens. 'Inspector Gadget' had so much going for it at the same time, it made literally made me dizzy.


Darcy and her young daughter Pamela are heading out to the country where her mum's boyfriend Peter left his doctor's position in the city to become a writer and fix up a bed and breakfast inn. Although this inn has a terrible past and Pamela learns from one the girl's who lives in the town that a deformed witch once reside in that house. They called her the 'Tooth Fairy' as she would kill kids after getting their last baby tooth. This work on the inn, has awoken the 'Tooth Fairy'. Now she has her sights on Pamela and her last baby tooth, but if any gets in the way they face the same fate that awaits Pamela.

This flick's old folk myth of the 'Tooth Fairy' doesn't paint her in a very generous way, as you would believe when you were a child. Don't they just love turning happy childhood memories into nightmares! Another one which did fall into the same category was 'Darkness Falls (2003)'. I can't compare how similar they are in the premises, because I haven't seen the latter, but I mostly read they have basically share the same idea. For a little straight to DVD film, this DTV effort looks good and has some promising images surrounding the senseless and traditionally by the book plot device. Low expectations are needed, as I wouldn't class it as an success, but I found it be to marginally entertaining.

Cory Strode and Cookie Rae Brown's story or background for this 'Tooth Fairy' character is completely bare with it leaning more towards a slasher vehicle than anything really supernatural. Silly is a good way to describe what's happening in this poorly scripted story, but it never really feels like a fairytale horror. The dialogues can seem rather redundant and morally hounded. While the acting is simply sub-par with the bland characters they have to work off, but director Chuck Bowman offers up some inventive blood splatter and terribly nasty jolts. This kinda makes up for the lack of suspense, the zero scares and generic tone. His direction is reasonably earnest and visually able, where he gets some atmospheric lighting contrasting well with its slick photography. The promising opening scene is creepily effective. His pacing can slow up in parts and there's the odd and unnecessary slow-motion scene put in, but nonetheless it never gets too stodgy with something active occurring which made sure that I wasn't bored.

The make-up special effects provided the goods, as there's enough repulsive gruel and the Tooth Fairy's appearance is especially gooey. The figure of the tooth Fairy can look threatening in its black robe, bubbling make-up and swift movements. Being on location helps carve out a more natural feel and can get atmospherically rich in its sense of eeriness. Child actors can be incredibly annoying, but Nicole Muñoz was decent in her part. Lochlyn Munro and Chandra West are somewhat solid, but can be a little too causal in their performances as Peter and Darcey. The radiantly gorgeous Carrie Anne Fleming is one of their lodgers. P.J Soles shows up in small part as a superstitious neighbour who tries to warn them about the evil that lurks at the inn.

I thought it was a okay time-waster that has a sound concept, which just isn't fleshed out enough and the execution is pretty textbook stuff. Watchable nonsense, but at the same time extremely forgettable.


The movie that would be included if Mystery Science Theater 3000 had a home game version! The source material for tacky comments in this movie are endless. I found the video of Terror in the Jungle at a garage sale. What a find!


Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. It is so cheesily filmed, the focus is not even on this supposed 'real half-caste', it is more on the crew coming from Hollywood to make the movie. No cinematic significance whatsoever, and if I could take back the almost 1 1/2 hours that I spent watching this film, I would feel much better.

At first, it starts out giving you the impression it will be filmed somewhat generically, like an actual Hollywood production. However, then they go into the narration of the story, and it's filmed so f***ing terribly. It's supposed to be a take on 'Blair Witch Project' really, since they pretty much use what you would think is 'real camera footage', it's not, don't be fooled.

Worst movie I have ever seen . . . on the positive side, it has like one semi-scary scene in it, and the visuals of the half-caste weren't too bad looking at all. DON'T RENT


This is not Michael Madsen's fault, he was hardly in it. This movie was just awful. If you want to laugh and be bored, go ahead and watch this movie. Words cannot describe how idiotic it is. Sorry Michael. The cinematography was dark. All the other actors are unknowns. When watching it, it feels like a soft porn, but with no nudity or heated scenes. This movie had sexual overtones, since it is about a underground S & M killer. The acting was bad, except Michael Madsen's parts. He looked like he wanted to laugh. I hope he got paid well for this lousy movie. It is something I would not be proud of. It is not even a B movie for cable, it is more like a F and it should never be shown, ever.


there are three kinds of bad films - the cheap, the boring, and the tasteless. the only really bad movies are boring and tasteless.

boring films are just, well, boring - if you don't leave quickly enough, you fall asleep.

tasteless films actually have their defenders; but the fact remains that they are masturbatory aids for very sick people.

only the cheap bad films are really funny, because the filmmakers wanted to make their films so desperately, they way-over-reached beyond their abilities and available resources.

Bo Derek is just naturally boring and tasteless; fortunately, fate and a lack of funds and skill redeem her by making her seem cheap as well. this film is hilarious and it may well be the last really funny-bad film ever made.

i first saw this in a theater, may god forgive me; i was laughing so hard i was rolling off my seat, and so too with most of the rest of the audience.

it's clear that Derek and her husband-promoter, conceived of this film as, partly, a satire; unfortunately, the dereks clearly lacked any of the necessary resources to pull that off; consequently, the 'satirical' element comes off as some school-girl's impression of some gay young man's impression of frank gorshin's impression of the riddler in batman trying to pretend he's robin - it doesn't fly over our heads, it has no clue where any human head might be.

on the other hand, there are some supposedly serious moments in this film - it is supposed to be an action film, remember - that are so astoundingly cheesy, one wonders if someone squirted spoiled milk in one's eye.

as for Derek's infamous tendency to reveal her breasts - i can't imagine a less erotic nudity photographic display, she is so weird looking with those broad shoulders, i can't imagine what any one ever saw in her.

as for the plot - such as it is - well, it isn't; Derek chases around Africa, and god alone knows why. then her father - Harris - pretends to act in some maniacal puppet-show, and then of course there's the hunk'o'Tarzan that seems to have wondered in from advertisement without knowing that the subject's changed - probably because he hasn't seen a script - apparently no one has.

negligible camera work, shoddy editing - if it weren't for the 3-way with the chimp, the film would be unbearable -

as it is, it's a real hoot.


Bored and unhappy young babe Zandalee (a winningly sultry and vibrant performance by luscious brunette knockout Erika Anderson) feels trapped in a stale and loveless marriage to failed poet and decent, yet dull businessman Thierry Martin (a solid and credible portrayal by Judge Reinhold). Zandalee has a torrid adulterous fling with sleazy and arrogant artist Johnny Collins (deliciously played to the slimy hilt by Nicolas Cage). Can the relationship between Thierry and Zandalee be salvaged? Or is everything going to fall apart and go to seed? Director Sam Pillsbury and screenwriter Mari Kornhauser lay on the tawdry soap opera-style histrionics something thick while attempting to tell a wannabe serious and insightful story about desire run amok and its potentially dangerous consequences; the plot goes gloriously off the rails in the laughably histrionic last third. The dialogue is likewise hilariously silly and vulgar (sample line: 'I wanna shake you naked and eat you alive'). Better still, this flick certainly delivers plenty of tasty female nudity (the gorgeously statuesque Anderson looks smoking hot in the buff) and sizzling semi-pornographic soft-core sex scenes (Johnny and Zandalee doing the dirty deed in a church confessional booth rates as a definite steamy highlight). The tart'n'tangy New Orleans setting adds extra spice to the already steamy proceedings. With his long, scruffy black hair, greasy mustache, foul mouth, and coarse manners, Cage's Johnny is an absolute hoot as the single most grossly unappealing 'romantic' lead to ever ooze his way onto celluloid. The cast deserve props for acting with admirable sincerity: Anderson, Cage and Reinhold all do respectable work with their parts, with fine support from Joe Pantoliano as Zandalee's merry flamboyant homosexual friend Gerri, Viveca Lindfors as Theirry's wise, perceptive mother Tatta, Aaron Neville as friendly bartender Jack, and Steve Buscemi as a funny, blithely shameless thief. Walt Lloyd's sharp and gleaming cinematography gives the picture an attractive glossy look. The flavorsome, harmonic score by Pray for Rain likewise hits the spot. A delightfully campy and seamy riot.


I can not say this movie was a hilarious, but I must have had a grin on my face the entire time. I like this darker kind of comedy; 'very bad things', '8 heads in a duffel bag' or 'coldblooded'

The way the main character tries to get away with murder is a lot of fun to watch. To me it was not much of a surprise what the ending would be, but the way that ending came about was. Another thing that sticks out, is the way they have managed to involve the audience. The way Terry looks at us is hilarious, you can almost pretend you're his accomplice.


The potential movie extravaganza, set during the 19th century, failed to produce. With big-name actors like Maggie Smith, Albert Finney, and many others, there was no reason for the movie to fail. However, the movie lacked an ending, had a sorry excuse for a plot line, and fell to pieces with its continuity. A typical story of a rich girl and a poor boy, brought together by love and destroyed by beauty (or lack thereof) and disapproval, has a touching side of a mother's early death and an absentee father. The father, played by Finney, is a disturbed man, tormenting his daughter in life as well as death. He believes his daughter's lack of good looks would ruin his fortune by marrying beneath their social status. The actors vainly attempted to salvage what was left of the storyline. Washington Square is a black hole of ruin and destruction, wasting precious time of those who sorrowfully watch. I give this movie a 1 instead of a 0, purely for the actors' attempts. Save yourself, stay clear of Washington Square.


Elephants Dream was supposed to be the flagship project of the open source community. And while it was a very interesting idea in concept, in reality it has failed miserably.

The film is beautifully rendered, which is probably the only redeeming factor. A huge problem with them, however, is the vast overruse of light bloom. It's horrible, although I guess it helps give the film a dreamlike quality.

One thing to note is the terrible voice acting. While Proog's voice actor is at least semi-competent, Emo's voice actor is HORRIBLE. I guess when you have a budget that basically amounts to zero, you can't afford to hire real voice actors. To me it seems like they hired one of the animators to do his voice.

As a whole, the movie doesn't really go anywhere. To me it seems like it's more of a 'look what we can do' kind of movie instead of a real film. The plot goes nowhere and fails at really showing any interesting point. The whole movie feels like it was made as an excuse to make interesting looking areas.

Overall, it may be worth a quick download from the official site, but don't expect anything except pretty graphics.


Lars von Trier's Europa is a worthy echo of The Third Man, about an American coming to post-World War II Europe and finds himself entangled in a dangerous mystery.

Jean-Marc Barr plays Leopold Kessler, a German-American who refused to join the US Army during the war, arrives in Frankfurt as soon as the war is over to work with his uncle as a sleeping car conductor on the Zentropa Railway. What he doesn't know is the war is still secretly going on with an underground terrorist group called the Werewolves who target American allies. Leopold is strongly against taking any sides, but is drawn in and seduced by Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa), the femme fatale daughter of the owner of the railway company. Her father was a Nazi sympathizer, but is pardoned by the American Colonel Harris (Eddie Considine) because he can help get the German transportation system up and running again. The colonel soon enlists, or forces, Leopold to be a spy (without giving him a choice or chance to think about it) to see if the Werewolves might carry out attacks on the trains.

Soon, Leopold is stuck in an adventure by being involved with both sides of the conflict in a mysterious and film noir-ish way, where everyone and everything is not what it seems. Its amazing to watch the naive Leopold deal with everything (his lover, the terrorists, the colonel, annoying passengers, his disgruntled uncle, even the railway company's officials who come to examine his work ethic) before he finally boils over and humorously and violently takes control. The film is endlessly unpredictable.

The film stylishly shot, it always takes place at night during the winter with lots of falling snow. Its shot in black and white with shots of color randomly appearing throughout. Also, background screens displaying images that counter act with the images up front. Add Max von Sydow's hypnotic narration, and Europa becomes a dreamlike place that's out of this world.

This is now a personal favorite film of mine.