One of the most pleasurable aspects of movie viewing is to get lost in a film. To have it totally wash over you, so that you absorb it as it is, and thus, experience it to the fullest. Every time I see it, 'The Egyptian' is such a film. Over the years it is a picture critics have loved to hate. Many have thrown darts at its vulnerabilities. But perhaps it is because of the very tone the film brings with it rather than its most obvious characteristics. It is at once forbidding, remote, possibly dangerous; beware of what lies within! The haunting chords of the music, seen over the 20th-Fox logo, usher us into titles of other-worldly turquoise lettering.

Strange! Archaeological! Decadent! It is as if we are descending into some vault of antiquity, wherein might be great treasures, mixed with uncertain hazards. (One might imagine Darryl Zanuck commanding: 'Make it ancient!') Then, what a darkly dramatic story unfolds, all within the same tone set at the start.

Of Hollywood's mid-50s 'Egyptian Trilogy', 'The Ten Commandments' portrayed the civilization's sternness, the phenomenal 'Land of the Pharaohs' its nuts and bolts, while 'The Egyptian' shows it all, from glamour to tragedy, for us to wonder at.

No need to say much about the players here, but I think that, with the passage of time, Bella Darvi is being redeemed. What a perfect face for the role, right out of a Symbolist painting. If her acting does not please some, it might be argued that, in her role as a 'courtesan', she is obviously better in bed than yakking to some poor helpless admirer. I think that Curtiz captured the kinkiness of her sado-masochistic relationship with Edmund Purdom's character with aplomb, censorship being what it was at the time. Sir Peter Ustinov, in his memoirs, was pretty kind to 'The Egyptian', writing that it was 'like being lost in a huge set for 'Aida'. His pronunciation of the word 'beer' I have adopted myself ever after.(One of the film's historically accurate references: the Egyptian's invented beer!) Henry Daniell, egads, what a perfect performance. Gene Tierney, what a screen treasure. Bless DFZ for giving her this 'late' role. C'mon folks, don't be so hard on Victor Mature! He's a cheesemaker's son! Who rose to be pharaoh! Sounds like a peculiarly American opportunity. One of the best moments: John Carradine's existential observations on the sands of time. And Purdom's utterance about dwelling beyond the sunset of the world. If that isn't Grade 'A' epicness, what is?

Of course, along with everything else, the music is sublime. It is frequently noted that Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann created one of the screen's most compelling scores, perfectly harmonious, yet each theme is well developed, with a life of its own. Newman, pressed for time by DFZ, called in Herrmann, someone he could trust implicitly, to take up half the burden.

Benny, not the easiest guy to work with, obviously respected Newman enough to really deliver inspiring music. They alternated cues, an ingenious approach. No spoilers as to who did what here, but Benny brings an edge with him, mysterious, awesome sounds. Alfred brings fulsomeness, longing, poignancy. Both are consummately epic. Even when seen on a squeezed TV print, the effect of seeing the two composers' names side by side in the main credits, which the ultra-wide anamorphic screen could comfortably accommodate, is spine-tingling.

Leon Shamroy, the Dean of CinemaScope, does not let us down here. The lurid greens and moody shadows (probably distortions in all the terrible TV prints I've seen through the years) perfectly accompany the multi-dimensional script (by the great Philip Dunne and WB vet Casey Robinson, whom Curtiz must've brought with him to 20th). How remarkable it is that Shamroy, who was as much of an institution of cinematography at Fox as Newman was with music, would lens 'Cleopatra' a few years later, but in the brighter, sharper images of '60s Todd A-O. These old studio guys are really heroes of mine.

To me, who wants to fret about all the imperfections and criticism opportunities in a picture like this? I'd rather yield entirely to its spell, and dive off into its sea of lavishness, to emerge after the inspiring climax of 'The End' refreshed, moved, and hungry for more.

And yes, we should cry out to 20th-Fox for a DVD release worthy of DFZ's legacy.


Shakespeare would have been outraged. The writers mutilated Shakespeare's amazing work. Ariel is the only believable acting performance. The African voodoo, secluded swamp, and 'Gator Man' character make the movie a mockery of Shakespeare's true Tempest.

Don't waste your eye-sight on this movie.


This is one of those little Christmas movies for everyone. Our Scrooge is Ben Affleck, who decides money is not enough, so he rents the family who lives where he thought HIS family did. OK? This is a great little high school soap, PG-13, but the small sex references are comedy, so if your kid can't handle them, they can't live in the real world, either.

Now, Affleck is a hunk, and as usual walks through this fun, OMG, remember when we did..., ensemble piece as if he were at the end stages of some neuroinfectious disease. But that's OK, because even this old Oracle keeps hoping that if Ben's that well proportioned all over, well, there's hope for us ladies yet. Luckily, the rest of the ensemble--Catharine O'Hara, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate, Udo Kier and Josh Zuckerman--fill in and keep this shadow-side-Ozzie-and-Harriet Christmas alternately hilarious, comfortable and warm.

This movie is the kind you can jump up and get popcorn, and when you get back, everyone wants to back it up to show you what you missed.

This is a happy film, after all, and it leaves you feeling good about life, love, family, Christmas and Chanel. There really IS something for everyone.


That's what my friend Brian said about this movie after about an hour of it. He wasn't able to keep from dozing off. I had been ranting about how execrable it was and finally I relented and played it, having run out of adjectives for 'boring'.

Imagine if you will, the pinnacle of hack-work. Something so uninspired, so impossibly dreadful, that all you want to do after viewing it is sit alone in the dark and not speak to anybody. Some people labor under the illusion that this movie is watchable. It is not, not under any form of narcotic or brain damage. I would ONLY recommend this to someone in order to help them understand how truly unbearable it is. Don't believe me? Gather 'round.

Granted, as a nation, we in America don't always portray Middle Eastern peoples in a tasteful manner. But how about a kid in a sheik outfit bowing in salaam-fashion to a stack of Castrol motor oil bottles? You'll find that here. GET IT? THE ARAB WORSHIPS OIL. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Having the kid fly planes into a skyscraper would've been more appropriate. Who in their right mind would think that was a funny joke? It's not even close to 'cleverly offensive'. It just sucks and makes you want to punch whomever got paid to write that bit in the face.

In the middle of the film, a five-man singing group called the 'Landmines' takes the stage at an officers' ball. Okay- are you ready? The joke is THEY SING TERRIBLY AND OFF-KEY. Why did I write that in caps also? Because the joke is POUND, POUND, POUNDED INTO YOUR HEAD with a marathon of HORRENDOUS sight gags. They start off mediocre enough; glasses cracking, punch tumblers shattering... then there is, I am 100% serious, a two-frame stop-motion sequence of A WOMAN'S SHOES COMING OFF. You read that correctly- the music was so bad, in one frame, the woman's feet have shoes on. In the very next- the shoes are off!!! Get it, because the music was so bad, her shoes came off! What the F????

Then there is an endless montage of stock footage to drive home the point that the SINGING IS BAD. If any human being actually suffered through this scene in the theater without running like hell, I would be astonished. This movie is honestly like a practical joke to see how fast people would bolt out the doors. Robert Downey Sr. directs comedy the way his son commands respect by staying drug-free. Badly. Other things to watch out for:

1. The popular music shoehorned in wherever possible. Every time Liceman appears, a really inappropriate Iggy Pop song plays. Plus all the actors do their best to act like it got really chilly for some reason.

2. Barbara Bach's criminally awful accent. She sounds like she's trying to talk like a baby while rolling a marble around on her tongue. There is no nudity, and there are several scenes where the boys all moan and writhe from a glimpse of her cleavage, like they're in a community school acting class and they've been directed to act like aroused retarded people.

3. Liceman feeds his revolting dog a condom. Remember; when this movie came out throwing in 'abortion' and 'condom' was seen as 'edgy'.

4. Tom Poston plays a mincing, boy-hungry pedophile, back when Hollywood thought 'pedophile' and 'homosexual' were one in the same. Flat-out embarrassing.

5. Watch the ending. Nothing is wrong with your VCR. That is actually the ending. Tell me that doesn't make you want to explode everyone who's ever made any movie, ever.

Watch this at your own risk. Up The Academy has been known to actually make other movies, like The Jerk or Blazing Saddles, less funny simply by placing the videotape near them.


Once big action star who fell off the face of the earth ends up in a small town with a problem with drug dealers and a dead body of a federal agent. Reuniting with some former co-stars to clean up the town.

Low key, often to the point of blandness, 'action' comedy mostly just doesn't work. Part of the problem is the casting Chris Klien as a former action hero. he's not bad, but he's really not believable as some one who was taken to be a tough guy. As I said he's not bad, he's just just miscast for what his back story is. The real problem here is the combination of the script, which really isn't funny and seems artificial at times, and the direction which is pedestrian to the port of dullness. There is no life in the way things are set up. Its as if the director had a list of shots and went by that list. It makes for an un-engaging film. And yet the film occasionally springs to life, such as the in the final show down that ends the film. That sequence works, but because the earlier parts of the film floundered its drained of much of its power.

I can't really recommend the film. Its worth a shot if you're a fan of the actors or are a huge fan of independent cinema in all its forms, but otherwise this is just a disappointment.


The whole shorthand for supposedly being more aware in this weird time is that you are 'Blue'. The Blue State mentality. This is supposed to get us off the hook for what is/was happening during the last few years in our country (The USA). It doesn't get anyone off the hook but it makes us feel better, as though we aren't benefiting in any way from living here and getting all the good stuff that a US citizen gets just by being a US citizen.

But I'm so sick of bitching about this. It doesn't do any good. I haven't taken much action lately and I wonder how many people have. Maybe I'm just down because my job was 'outsourced' last month and now I'm looking for work in the shrinking tech support field where most of the jobs are quickly going to India and other places overseas. I'm thinking that soon it's not going to pay off to be a citizen here with the screwed up infrastructure and the shrinking job market and the obsession with war. These days it seems like anyone who speaks out gets jumped and questioned about there 'patriotism'. Anyway, back to this review: USA The Movie is an obscure DVD that makes me realize that some people have taken action, whether it's through politics, protesting or arts or media. The filmmaker is obviously passionate, knowledgeable, willing to go outside the norm, frustrated, unique, astute etc.

I looked through the whole site that's linked to the DVD and got lost in all the articles, essays etc.that are there. The DVD does that too, has references to different times, views and historical points. Sometimes someone does something out there.


After the success of Scooby-Doo, Where are You, they decided to give Scooby and Shaggy their own show. But unfortunately, they added a new character that spoilt Scooby-Doo success forever. They invented a new show with a new title, Scooby and Scrappy-Doo. It was Scrappy-Doo that made this show a complete failure, probably for both adults and kids together. Scrappy was the stupid brave puppy that always looked ready to beat someone up. Scooby and Shaggy were getting scared of the villain, and they were also trying to stop him. Scooby-Doo doesn't need any little annoying bastard puppy nephews. If they wanted Scooby-Doo to be more successful, they should have either killed or never thought up Scrappy. This was just poor, maybe your kids will prefer it!


You know those movies that are so unspeakably bad that you have to laugh? Half-caste wasn't one of them. Which sounds good, right? But no, it's not. It's not a bad attempt at a horror movie that's fun to watch because it's lame, or not well acted, or has bad special effects or anything else like that. No, Half-caste is just plain boring. They don't even make an attempt to be scary until the last 20 minutes are so. It's just kids running around in the African bush country and getting high off of elephant dung for the first 75% of the movie, and it's not even funny. The last 20 minutes, though, are HILARIOUS. I have no idea what happened, but it was really fun to watch that CGI leopard rip out the throats of all of those white guys I couldn't tell apart anyway. If you're in the mood for a bad horror movie, don't rent this one, because you'll go to sleep before they get to the fun stuff. If you do accidentally rent this movie, I'd recommend fast forwarding to the end, and skipping any scene that happens in daylight. You won't miss anything. You won't have any idea which character is which or exactly what is going on even if you do watch all of the back-story.


Ah, Channel 5 of local Mexican t.v. Everyday, at 2:00 a.m. they air Horror movies from the 70's to early 2000's. It was 'Return To Cabin By The Lake' the movie that aired yesterday. I regret for watching it.

The original 'Cabin By The Lake' was a regularly popular low budgeter and it was good accepted. The problem is that this sequel is horrible, not even unintentionally funny and tries to imitate the original. Ugh. The plot is really stupid in all the sense of the word.

The movie at some points looks like a soap-opera because of it's absurd dialogs, cinematography, and direction.

My advice is : avoid this one at all costs. It's a movie that it shouldn't be watched by anyone. Not even for lovers of mediocre film-making.

You have been warned.


This movie is honestly one of the greatest movies of all time...if you suffer from insomnia. It is a fool-proof way to guarantee hours of sleep at a time. As the movie slowly progresses, the audience slips into a state of unconsciousness and gradually loses sight of any sort of plot that the movie might actually contain. This effect is surely created due to the lack of sweet action/sweet babes.

Also, Mr. Eisenstein was obviously unable to master the art of montage. A prime example of this is the scene on the Odessa steps. For no apparent reason, an event that in real life would have taken a matter of seconds is transformed into a seven minute nightmare for any sane viewer. This editing flaw tarnishes any sort of realism in the entire film. Honestly, i've seen more realistic editing watching cartoons.

Some individuals who have commented on this title have hailed Battleship Potemkin as: 'One of the greatest movies of all time' and, 'Truly a masterpiece'. Well i'm writing this comment to persuade readers to avoid watching this film at all costs. My best guess is that my fellow Potemkin critics simply wrote the wrong words in their summaries. Surely what they meant to say was: 'One of the greatest snooze-fests of all time' and, 'Truly an epic fail'.

In conclusion, don't waste your time. If you are interested in watching a movie of far superior quality, go to www.youtube.com and watch a Halo 3 montage. If i played the movie 'Battleship Potemkin' in a game of slayer on guardian, i would shoot it in the face with my sniper rifle and then teabag its dead body. PEACE!


I remember this film as the other person that commented said. I recorded over it but wish I had it now just because it had to be one of the worst movies ever. Funny, in a real bad way. I remember the tag line on the box was 'The ultimate frontal lobotomy'. I got it from my mom, who got it from a friend at work who said it was the worst / cheesiest movie she had ever seen, so my mom said 'My son will probably love it.' and the woman gave it to her just to get it out of her possession. I then later taped over it, which I regret. I also remember the 'corck screw' thing was one of those ball catcher things.... the yellow cone shaped things, with a red 'button' at the end, and when you hit the red thing, it sends a ball flying. Well, they used that with a crank on one end, and a corkscrew in the funnel. When the killer killed they would show him coming forward with the 'weapon' and then cut to a close up of what appeared to be raw chicken and fake blood on the victims head. I don't know what else to say about this 'gem' except that if you like bad films, it doesn't get any worse than this.


This young filmmaker has a talent for capturing his audience quickly with unusual camera work and sparse but intense scripts. The concept here of combining animation with live footage is remarkably well-executed and the soundtrack is very good.

The decision to release the movie in twelve parts online puts the onus on the director to make each episode fascinating enough for the viewer to invest in buying each upcoming episode. I only wish all motion pictures had this kind of commitment to keeping their audiences entertained throughout their stories.

Highly recommended.


Both Disney and Bill Paxton did a fine job in conveying a story that is based in fact. You do not have to like the game of golf to appreciate the story of one man's struggle to overcome the odds. It could have been based on any sport or simply on any other situation which involves competition, though this one just happens to be related to Golf. The only problem I have with the story is that I would have liked to see a bit deeper into each of the main characters, esp. Mr. Ouimet. Mr. Francis Ouimet is a typical young man of his times, turn of the century America, where 'class lines' are well delineated and woe be it to anyone who deigns to try to rise above his 'class' standing. I did a bit of historical research and my biggest question was indeed answered, to my satisfaction. Although the circumstances are a bit different than those portrayed in the film, I came away with a feeling of content. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I believe you will too.


I have seen films come and go in my years,and when i see a disaster film i keep hoping i wont be disappointed.And with this one i was not in the least.The story of a whole country sinking into the ocean was a great concept written by sakyo komatsu,a novelist with intense theories on where this earth is going.The characters were top notch,and even though i am not Japanese,i didn't need a translator to give the idea of how people in their most desperate needs can come together for the common good.The special effects blew me away,i was literally on the edge of my seat watching the tidal waves lava flows and land explosions that must have taken months of work to perfect.As for the acting i thought yes,this is acting at its best,emotions run rampant throughout the film and i cried at the most severe scenes.For movie goers alike,you don't need to speak or understand Japanese to watch this film,you can get the idea and feeling from each person and character to understand it well and to follow it along like you are there.My hats off to Shinji Higuchi for directing it,i hope he can outdo his work with another mind blowing experience.As i said,....Fantastic Film.


I'm a collector of films starring Ms. Weaver, so I bought this only because of her being in it. I find it really odd that her early career is filled with so many awful movies. She started with incredible promise in Alien but then had a slew of bombs. These bombs include this movie, Deal of the Century, One Woman or Two, and Half Moon Street. She also appeared in The Year Of Living Dangerously, which was not a bomb, but her performance was less than notable. In the time between Alien and it's 1986 sequel, Aliens, the only movie she did that was worth anything was Ghostbusters. before the release of Aliens, I'm sure everyone thought this woman was on her way out. Luckily she wasn't.

Back to Eyewitness though, the film is boring. It doesn't create any suspense. William Hurt seems like a cardboard stand in, and the atmosphere is just to dry. Sigourney is decent but nothing worth remembering.

Watch this movie if you must but don't go in with any expectations of a decent movie. Watch better movies with these two stars like Accidental Tourist and Working Girl.


Well...I like this movie first of all because it's very well thought of... and well..because the um...director and others chose an extremely great actor to play Mike....and also my last reason because ( my opinion) Elijah Wood is so so hot!!!


Just want to inform you guys that this movie was actually pretty good !!!

Thought it was a lame ass movie, but not at all, many moments in this movie wore pretty horrifying.

This movie has enough blood, gore, and some sexy make out scenes of course, to keep any horror buff like me 100% satisfied! The cast was also pretty good IMO.

Even though its not a high budget movie, the effects wore definitely kinda creepy sometimes.

Worth watching if u like a kick ass horror movie thats for sure!!

- Tom


I blind bought this movie and am pretty upset that I paid as much as I did but I would say that it's at least worth a rent for some cool deaths and laughable acting. It is not a good movie in any way but I must say that I was pretty darn entertained. I guess it could be called so-bad-it's-good.

As I said, the acting is awful, I feel like I could have done a better job showing, at least, any emotion. The story is nothing new and has been done better. I guess I just have a soft spot for any carnival-esquire type film. I would say rent this or download it but definitely don't buy it. It is not worth more than one watch.


getting to work on this film when it was made back in the summer of 1990. Shot partly in the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC and the remaining parts in Winston-Salem. The massive offices of the RJ Reynolds were used in several office scenes and places in around the beautiful city that is know as the tulip capital of the world Winston-Salem! I enjoyed my work although it was exceedingly hard work building all the sets like the Golf of Mexico where Renee Russo and Jim Belushi went on their date. I also had a big hand in decorating the bar where Larry encounters the magical bartender Mr. Destiny. I tacked all those pics on the wall of sports heroes and decorated that phone booth where larry makes a phone call for a cab. I even put my mothers photo at eye level so i could freeze frame it and show it to her when we watched it. I remember dyeing the grass at his old house with green dye because it first had to be sodded(it was a new house in a new development and I guess they leased it for the movie)..then I had to cut that newly laid sod to make it look nice..man that was hard! As far as the movie, when we made it we had no idea what it would be like but after seeing it i fell in love with it because really tells the story of 'what if' as good as I ever had seen it, including the great It's a Wonderful Life. I cried so many times

i can't count. I got to meet the wonderful actor Michael Caine while shooting scenes at an old minor league ballpark where Larry's boyhood scenes were played and replayed. I remember after he had done a take an was heading back to his trailer, I ran him down and asked him for a picture and he was quite amiable and said 'why not!' He is a good guy and a really natural and forceful actor. I can't say the same for Jim Belushi..he was so full of himself, smoking big cuban cigars and talking loudly so

everyone in earshot could hear his every word. His career never did take off but he has had a decent TV career recently. I would say watch this movie if you ever get the chance. It's wonderful and really heartfelt and real. You can feel Larry's pain after he enters into the new world Mr. Destiny gives him after hitting the homer, and as he wants so badly for people to believe he is not this bad guy everyone thinks he is. They all think he belongs in a nuthouse! But eventually he wins people over but by then he wants his real life back so badly, especially his wonderful wife, played so beautifully by Linda Hamilton..and he wants his dog back! So see it.


I was lucky enough to get a free pass to an advance screening of 'Scoop' last night. Full house at the theatre and when the movie ended there was spontaneous applause. I didn't speak to anyone who disliked 'Scoop' although two teenagers sitting next to me sighed and fidgeted uncomfortably for most of the film. They were the exception though because everyone else including myself really enjoyed themselves.

'Scoop' is a quickly paced murder mystery. A young female journalism student is unwittingly maneuvered by forces beyond her control into trying to catch a serial killer on the loose. Plenty of hijinks ensue as she partners up with a traveling illusionist and falls in love with a frisky and charming young nobleman.

'Scoop' isn't a bad addition to the Woody Allen filmography. It isn't his best work but it is a very enjoyable and light hearted romp. I'd say it fits quite comfortably into being an average Woody Allen film, right in the middle of the pack. If you're a Woody Allen fan you'll probably enjoy yourself. If you're indifferent to his work then 'Scoop' might be enough to get you interested in seeing more. I don't think that anyone who dislikes his style of film-making and acting are going to change their mind. Woody plays the same kind of neurotic character we've grown so accustomed to although it borders dangerously close to forced and over the top in this film. While potentially aggravating for some who might find themselves wishing he'd hurry up and just spit out the words, Woody Allen fans know what to expect.

Very good performances all around in my opinion although I found myself missing Ian McShane who is excellent and not on camera nearly enough. Hugh Jackman is great as the charming nobleman and I think Woody Allen has found a new regular star to work with in Scarlett Johansson. I think that with 'Match Point' this is their second pairing and she's just magic with the material that Woody gives her. Could be the beginning of a beautiful relationship! I'm glad I saw the movie and definitely recommend it. More sophisticated comedy than movies like 'Scary Movie 4' so if your brand of comedy is the latter rather than the former, 'Scoop' probably isn't for you. If, on the other hand, you like a touch of class, sophistication and fun, 'Scoop' is for you. Probably not the Woody Allen film I'd introduce to a newcomer but all others should give it a try.


This for me was a wonderful introduction to the talents and beauty of Marion Davies. She is not only gorgeous but hilarious in this film. (I believe that Lucille Ball may have modeled her later career on Davies' style, that could be termed 'zany beauty'.) Vidor's direction is light but sure-handed, the story is a chestnut of course but the acting is marvelously contemporary, and the star-watching element for fans of the silent era, with many cameos, adds to the overall fun. It combines the elements of slapstick with adult drama and good old timeless romance quite well. For all movie fans who have a knee-jerk reaction to watching silent films, sit through this one and it may change your attitude.


I saw this film via one of the actors' agents, and it surely conforms with a great deal that comes out of Sth. Australia in terms of the overall *tone,* which is rightly dark and moody.

I thought the little boy in the film was excellent. Mostly kid actors are *hammed up* and embarrassing but not in this case. He was really very good. In terms of the *surrealism* thingy mentioned by jingo, well, I just think this film is plain 'weird.' It's a real weirdo film, with weirdo locations, storyline, weird stuff going on the whole time. But 'good' weird as opposed to 'bad'.

Its hard to think of other movies like it, but its not at all like CARS ATE Paris, maybe more like a REPULSION, but actually I think more like a Hammer movie from the 60's. Its certainly has an interesting mind working behind it.

JINGO, My question is also about the title. Why Modern Love?? Anyone? Also, jingo, what did you mean by 'god Forsaken' when you were talking about Australia, hmmm? Just curious


Anne Bancroft plays Estelle, a dying Jewish mother who asks her devoted son (Ron Silver) to locate reclusive one-time movie star Greta Garbo and introduce the two before Estelle checks out for good. Might've been entitled 'Bancroft Talks' as the actress assaults this uncertain comedic/dramatic/sentimental material for its duration. Hot-or-cold director Sidney Lumet can't get a consistent rhythm going, and Bancroft's constant overacting isn't scaled back at all by the filmmaker--he keeps her right upfront: cute, teary-eyed and ranting. Estelle becomes a drag on this scenario (not that the thinly-conceived plot has much going on besides). Silver and co-stars Carrie Fisher and Catherine Hicks end up with very little to do but support the star, and everyone is trampled by her hamming. *1/2 from ****


Just a comment on New Orleans accents...

An earlier reviewer noted the following: 'This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like 'broklynese' than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country.' There was also another comment along these lines from an English reviewer.

Many people in New Orleans do, in fact, sound 'broklynese'. I have never found out why. (It's mentioned in 'A Confederacy of Dunces' by John Kennedy Toole.) I always appreciate movies taking place in New Orleans that include this detail, as this one did. Too often it's just the Hollywood version of the standard Southern accent.


This movie had such a good premise to start with. Suspense, slashers, a secret society, and you really couldn't figure out who the bad guys were until the last quarter of the movie.

But it contained so many dumb clichés from the worst of the old American slasher/horror movies. Now, I love slasher/horror movies, but there are all the old clichés that have long disappeared from American cinema. For example, the old 'I hear noises in the basement and I'm home all alone and the basement light doesn't work, so I'll go down to investigate' cliché.

Three examples of these clichés just really irked me to no end:

1) When Potente finds out that there may be a secret society at work at the medical school carving up live bodies, she proceeds to ask questions and tell EVERYONE -- very publicly. In essence, she is saying, 'I found you out. Come kill me because I am telling everyone your secret.' And then she wonders why she finds blood smeared all over her bed and is brought her roommate's severed finger in a towel.

2) Even after one guy she met two weeks ago ends up on the dissection table and she finds out about this secret society disemboweling live people, she goes to the lab where all the dead bodies are stored 2-3 more times BY HERSELF AT NIGHT to investigate.

3) Her roommate gets killed. She gets chased by the killer, whom she knows, doesn't report him to the university or the police, then leaves the school to go home to visit her parents. Then she returns to school, apparently thinking that this guy who tried to kill her will let bygones be bygones and not try to kill her, even though she knows his secret. She was, of course, wrong.

For someone who was supposed to be so smart (she was studying to be a doctor in the best school in Germany), she acted like the cliché bimbo in a horror movie.

These things just made a potentially good movie very frustrating, and made me wish the ending would come even sooner. Halfway through the movie, I stopped routing for her and wished that she would end up on the dissection table, too.


This production never really got off the ground for me. The plot is so cut up as to be disjointed and the production is so short that unless you've read the novel or seen a better adaptation (like the 1995 one with Amanda Root) you're going to be a bit lost since there's no time for character development.

I liked Sally Hawkins as Anne, but the rest of the cast fell rather short of what they should have been. Mrs. Croft was far too old, as was Anne's elder sister Elizabeth. Mary uttered everything in such throbbing accents that the general peevishness and selfishness of her character was lost. Much better was Sophie Thompson's Mary, whose selfishness and sense of ill-usage is so well established that by the time Wentworth suggests Anne stay with the injured Louisa and Mary objects that she, as Louisa's sister in law, should stay instead, you can't imagine anyone less suited to do so. In this version, she might as well stay as she is insufficiently differentiated from anyone else in the production.

Rupert Penry-Jones is nice to look at, but he made a much better St. John Rivers (1995 Jane Eyre), probably because that character required less implied depth of feeling. I agree with the comments made earlier about the gig scene: seemed more like he was trying to get rid of Anne than do her a favor. Likewise the accident scene: it happens so fast and with so little context, you wonder what all the fuss is about. And moving the speech that Wentworth overhears in the novel to the beginning of this production is a critical misstep that only contributes to the disjointed nature of the script.

My other problem with this version was the lighting. Sometimes everything looked like a scene from the CSI morgue -- very very blue. Other times the lighting was so bad it was hard to make out the scene very well, like when Anne visits her old school friend, Mrs. Smith (who, by the way, is supposed to be more or less paralyzed. Having her run up to Anne on the street to tell her of Mr. Elliot's awful character was such a violation that for a minute I couldn't think who she was -- I thought she was one of the Musgrove girls. And she might as well have been. All the girls were pretty much interchangeable). And the running scene at the end...in an era where propriety was at a premium, it's hard to imagine gentle Anne tearing all over Bath like some demented hoyden. How silly can you get? It's too bad. Sally Hawkins had all the makings of a good Anne Elliot, but she was completely hamstrung by a poorly organized script and an over-truncated production.


After watching John preform this one of a kind show, I had to share.....It was really something to watch a grown man portray himself as a child. I like the fact that with every character he 'became,' you could picture what they looked like. It is more entertaining when you can understand the individual. 'Freak' is what real 'stand up' should be. John is REAL talent.


This movie is using cinematography fantastically, the depth of the camera catches each character. Denzel Washington and Kevin Kline put on awesome performances though Washingtons accent does die in certain scenes. How is this movie laying forgotten? unable to rent nor hire in recent times it threatens to be lost forever. a worrying idea. Attenborough at his best since Ghandi, this master piece stands for what it should in movies such as these, no worrying about gaining audiences rather a cry for freedom in the SOuth African Apartheid.Though critised for the biased nature, the movie is faithful to the book by Donald Woods and faithful to the message intended to express to the world. ta and peace


... but watch Mary McDonnell's performance closely. Her body language. Her fine body movements. Her subtle, but powerfully effective, reactions. This is an accomplished artist at the top of her craft. And the rest of the cast were pretty damned good, too! ;o)

This is perhaps the 3rd or 4th viewing for me, and I see more in it each time. What /IS/ this world coming to, anyway? -R.


So I decided to watch the entire Puppet Master series, and had just watched parts 1-3, which I thought were ALL excellent. They had a unique charm to them, and a certain intelligence that I really appreciated. About a year ago, I even saw Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys, which of course was bad, but still a terrific guilty pleasure and fun to watch.

From the very beginning of this film, I knew it was in trouble. The cheesy Power Rangers-style Egyptian skull villain who watches the Puppets 'Rita Repulsa-style' through his pyramid glass came straight out of left field! All of the additions to this franchise in this story were completely absurd! Suddenly we have a grand assortment of all kinds of new and random characters and plots that are a far cry from the first three films. I seriously doubt that when the first Puppet Master was being penned, the writers had visions of someday seeing an Egyptian Power Rangers villain, totem monsters, annoying twenty-somethings who seriously can't act (and are supposed to be brilliant scientists but never say anything intelligent), and a lame 'Decapitron' puppet who's head can morph into the ghost of Toulon.

Another thing that greatly disappointed me in this film was that it completely ignores what happened in the last entry (Part II, since III was a prequel). Suddenly, the puppets are back at Bodega Bay Inn, back in their case (minus Blade), and Toulon for some reason is willing to help his puppets again (he betrays them in part II for his love of Elsa). This isn't explained AT ALL...and so with that, and all of this other junk thrown in, I was no longer amused.

I'm a huge fan of ridiculous B movies, a connoisseur if you will. I even collect laser discs of rare B movies you can't find on DVD, and so it takes a lot for me to say that this was one of the most absurd movies I have ever seen in my life. I still love those puppets, the original ones, Blade, Tunneler, Pinhead, Jester and the rest, and if they had only stuck with what they had rather than trying to fix something that wasn't broken, well, the series might still be alive and in good health. That being said, even though the reviews aren't so great, I'm really interested in checking out Puppet Master Retro, sounds like an interesting one that pays great tribute to the original themes.


A German freshman, Stefan hitch hikes to Paris during summer break were he falls for a mysterious young woman he meets in the Paris freak scene. He then follows her in the famous isle of Ibiza, the hippie joint were meets Wolf, a man who throws Hitler-Jugend knives, owns bars and hotels and keeps Estelle under his thumb with dope. The couple tries to escape Wolf, Stefan gets hooked with dope and jealousy for Estelle, who's groovy and a free spirit. Great photography and music, plot is quite usual for the period but it's not an exploitation kind of movie, cold and dramatic. The moral is quite strong (he was looking for the sun...) but I would not say it's a film against drugs even it puts enphasy on drug use.


Yeah i saw the rough cuts. The unedited sex scenes. The dire cut scenes. Almost on a par with the film 'The Need' for awful acting. This movie is as bad as bad films get.the bad script, bad acting, bad effects, bad locations, bad stunts bad everything. The best 'actors' in the film were the lap dancers they hired for the vampire extras!

Sean Harry, the 'foppish actor' as someone else put it, makes a matchstick look talented here. His amazing ability to badly drive a car, when it is obviously being shook by people on the bonnet (check out the reflection in the windscreen), his inability to turn left, which is class. OH and don't forget the sex scene. plus his noteworthy use of a toy gun which the props guys couldn't even be bothered to disguise as a real gun. The other actors on screen could barely deliver their lines.It was as if half the time they were waiting for a line that wasn't there!

The 'special effects' were soooo good to the point that the guys who did it took their real names off the credits!

If you want a laugh at a party then rent this movie...then again there are plenty of good comedies that are just as funny and don't give money to people who don't deserve it.


Leos Carax is brilliant and is one of the best film and camera guys in the business so it should come as no surprise that Pola X is an almost perfect filming of the most gut wrenching story ever. Seriously. If I could have figured out some way to climb inside my video monitor, I would have thrashed Pierre to within an inch of his life. No one has the right to be that self absorbed and that stupid, both at the same time, except maybe Heathcliff in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. After spending 134 minutes with Pierre, I need a large glass of brandy. Never have I been so angry at a main character. Ok, having said that, Pola X is a stunning movie with one of the few totally honest sex scenes I've ever seen in any film....which means another piece of brilliant filmmaking....and I'm talking graphic here, by the way. Pola X will beat the hell out of you, though, so make sure you're up for it if you decide to watch it.


I like to think that I can appreciate a movie that is a bit out of the ordinary, and I certainly love a good movie that makes me think.

If you like out of the ordinary movies that make you think, then look elsewhere. This movie is so bad and so disjointed that the only thing you will be thinking after it is over is how it is possible you wasted 90 minutes of your life watching this.

A movie of this kind needs a driver to get buy in from the viewer. Why are we interested in the main characters? What motivates these characters through their existence? Why do they make the decisions they make? This movie makes a very weak attempt at doing these and fails in the process. There is no chemistry between these two actors, both of who are superb in their ability to be comfortable in any role. So why did they fail here? I strongly feel that they didn't know what their motivations were either, and when an actor doesn't know, their audience can't follow.

In sum, I have seen macromedia flash videos that offered more in the way of provoking thought, at least I have more interest in the morphed hamster who likes the moon than why this married family man would risk it all for a 'Code 46' violation.


(Possible ?? spoilers included, but nothing critical given away.)

I just watched this classic low budget movie on video, and was knocked out by the level of energy present on screen. All the actors do themselves proud, especially John Daniels, must see another of his films. Not only does this movie boast great performances, but manages stylish sequences, like when the baron throws someone out of a window and we see shards of glass falling into a swimming pool which erupts from the impact of the fallen man, i love the way slow-motion photography was used in 70's cinema, dreamy and hypnotic. Cool and witty black dudes spout great one liners while slimy seedy lumps of white trash come to unpleasant ends. I love it, my rating 10 / 10. If this ever comes out on dvd, count me in for a purchase.


'Pecker' is a young, unknown photographer from Baltimore who becomes a big star in the public, the media and the local art scene with his pictures showing the dirty reality of all-day life just as dirty underwear or human excrements. It's a typical topic of John Waters Baltimore-based independent comedies to show the weird sides of the American way of life between political correctness fashion and conservative backlashes by exploring the backgrounds of the middle class society of his hometown.

Edward Furlong of 'Terminator 2' fame plays Pecker, supported by Christina Ricchi, photographer Cindy Sherman, legendary Patricia Hearst and Water's long-time actress Mink Stole. Although the pacing of the plot becomes a big flaw sometimes and can't compete with the fast and furious joke attacks of Water's brilliant 'Serial Mom', it's still has some good laughs in it and some unforgettable scenes like a former junkie-girl who became a vegetarian by sniffing peas from a vegetable dish... 'Pecker' is a great comedy about the arrogance of the art scene, media hypes, middle-class sex angst and the strange ways of how to become a pop star without realizing it. Recommended!


It seems like people are attracted to shows that showcase pathetic lives that have no purpose what-so-ever. To me i give my sincerity to NBC for their dire efforts to make new changes in television, making laugh track free shows. They seem to always find big success, like The Office. When I first started to watch it seemed to me that it could have potential to be a smash hit. But after a couple of episodes, I really felt like going to church and donating every penny in my entire bank to pathetic people showcased in these lowlife, poor, disgraceful areas. And the end where they show Earl and the brother in bed together, it just seems to me that this show is trying to show the bad side of life, like street beggars or people who struggle to pay the rent and have no sense of what the real world of normal people in society are like. I just seem to always be disgusted when I watch the filth the people in this show live in. It's like Venice Beach in California, beautiful but so many hobos. Believe me I'm no rich guy, middle class, and not a clean freak either, a bit sloppy, but it just seems to me that the show just can't seem to get off of all the gruesome, schmuck people out there who have one leg. I just wish that they would show a little more class, not all filth and poorness and trailers and just below average life, it just seems to depress me. To me this show is nothing more than a showcase of what not to do in life, what not to be. It also shows me that education is the most important thing you can have because apparently these two don't have an ounce of smarts. This is a schmuck-u-mentary.


The director has no clue. I know ... That is the obvious comment. Maybe, we should delve into the story ... the relationships ... how about the quality of the actors?

The story is ... well, idiotic would be a simple yet honest answer.

The actors are ... they tried very hard. Can they be faulted for the director's choices?

All I can say is ...

Why was this made?

Well, isn't this an embarrassment to the Korean-American film industry?

Should we be selective about who we support?

Am I being too harsh? Check it out for yourself.


This movie was well done but it also made me feel very down at times as well. For anyone that is considering show business this is a must see as it shows the raw deal in what goes on for these struggling workers. The soundtrack was definitely cool and the acting and dancing complimented it nicely. Some of the student's attitudes might have been a little far-fetched like Leroy's especially because I'm sure someone like that would've been kicked out immediately for refusing to read and such if this was the real High School For Performing Arts. The Coco screen test is hard to watch for any people out there with weak stomachs, please heed my warning. While it's very gritty I know it's the truth on what happens so in this respect the movie is right on. Overall it's entertaining and even though some parts drag on the majority goes by really quickly.

Final Grouping:

Movies: Probably would've skipped this one.

DVD Purchase: Not something I'd need to see again and again.

Rental: Worth renting at least once in your life!


Have you ever had a cool image in your mind that you thought it would be nice to be in a movie: Like seeing a detective peeking through the cracks of a broken fence of some abandoned house? Or seeing a woman walking down a street looking cold and intense and awfully alert? Yeah. Imagine stretching that image to a whole movie, you pretty much got the idea of Broken, though there's no detectives in this movie, I'm just using it as a visual example. But, the intense looking woman is here and she filled pretty much 99% of the screen time. I got nothing to complain about that woman, she's a perfect choice for this role.

I consider myself a very open minded individual who can find enjoyment out of all kinds of artistic expressions and I can truly enjoy some really moody stuff. It would be really cool if I can frame one of the scene from this movie and hang it on the wall. Let's be honest here, the acting is superb. Some of the expressions on the actors face are what keep me watching.

Now onto the problem of this movie. Beyond the mood, there's not much anything else here. The director basically took an obsession of an idea and ran it far beyond what it was worth. I don't consider it to be a spoiler if I say the obsession is 'mirror'. Let's face it, this singular idea is all over the bloody place and that's all the director got to work with. Granted, there are a few twist and turn here and there. If you paid any attention, nothing is going to surprise you in the end, obvious plot holes aside.

Now, I'm not picking bones with this style of art since I enjoyed them most of the time. I still believe that we should judge an art base on the medium it uses to express whatever the artists want to express. Movie is not a piece of music, or a picture, or a painting, or even a poem, and certainly not just a cool image in your mind. It's all that plus a good story and character development. I consider the Lynch style of movie making cheating. It is irresponsible and cheap and a waste of the medium. We gave movies 2 hours running film time for a good reason. Therefore, we should judge it differently than judging a single frame of imagery such as a photograph or a painting.

This movie is not completely Lynch style, thank goodness. It has a linear development and eventually came to a conclusion. It does not have much story or character development. It presented itself rather seriously with characters composed of common folks, thus distance itself from other fantasy stuff at least from the surface. It does not offer any explanation of the fantasy element nor did it ever attempt to build a coherent world around it. The oddity came from nowhere and seems rather isolated and accidental. Maybe the coherency remains in director's head but from what I can see he did not put much effort into realizing it on the screen.

Where did he put his effort in then? It seems that he spent a lot of effort in building the mood and enhancing it with the music. The music often built up tension which eventually turn into a tease. Only in the later part of the movie the scare and tension materialized.

In the end, I felt like: OK, I know what you are trying to say here but is that the point you are trying to make by spending two hours building up all these tension? It is rather irrelevant with who the characters are and what kind of life they have. And we are given very little about who the characters are. All we have is this circumstance that just took placed. Disappointing but I guess the director did not have much material to work with and it shows.


Making the film as dark and visually fuzzy as possible in order to cover up the budget deficiencies is an often-used strategy in low-budget horror films, but this one takes it too far. It is SO poorly lit and murky (and it takes place almost entirely at night, to boot) that you often end up virtually looking at a black screen (although perhaps the bad video transfer may also have had something to do with that). Alas, 'murky' is also the best word to describe the movie's plot. The filmmakers throw in diverse (and unoriginal) horror ideas without any semblance of logic, and halfway through you get the feeling that they just about abandoned the effort to make a good horror film; you know it when you see characters who are supposed to be in mortal danger (or, in some occasions, even dead) making small talk....(*1/2)


A friend lent me this DVD, which he got from the director at a festival, I think. I went in warned that some of the technical aspects of the movie were a bit shaky and that the writing was good but not great. So maybe that colored my judgment but I have to admit that I liked this movie.

The standouts where the actors. Youssef Kerkor was really good as Ernie, the main character, kind of pathetic in a likable way. Adam Jones (who also directed) and Justin Lane were excellent as the roommates who drive Ernie mad. The Bill character (Justin Lane), who spends a lot of the film dressed like a panda, was by far my favorite; he seemed the least one-dimensional, and reminded me of an old college roommate so much I called the guy after watching the DVD. Really kind of lovable, and very funny. Some of the other acting was good, some was so-so, but none of it was bad. I also really liked the vigilante duo. Ridiculous and funny.

I'm giving this one high marks, even though it has some issues, because you can tell when you watch it that these people cared, and decided to make their movie their way. Well done to Adam Jones and crew.


This is an excellent film about the characters in a adult swimming class, their problems, relationships and interactions with each other. It should have managed a wider distribution as it's much better than similar films from major studios out at the same time.

The swimming instructor is an almost-Olympian, reduced to teaching adults basic lessons, and often the target of horndogging from his female students. He attempts, more or less, to fend them off, with varying results.

The students characters are mainstream U.S.A; teachers, policemen, college students and retired people, all of whom haven't learned to swim for some reason. The movie covers their relationships, including friends, relatives and romantic conquests as they go through the class. Several subplots provide amusing fodder, including a teacher going through a divorce, some high school students making a documentary, and a girl who is only in the class to meet guys.

This is a good date movie, or just one to watch when you're in the mood for a romantic drama with overtones of reality.


No this is not an Ed Wood movie. 'Angora Love' is Stan Laurel's and Oliver Hardy's last silent movie. The end of an era! In the '20's Laurel & Hardy left a real mark on the silent movie genre with movies that are still popular and being watched and aired regularly, this present day.

It's a shame that this movie is however not among their best.

The premise of the movie sounds good and is good. The boys team up with a goat this time, which of course leads them into trouble and for us some hilarious situations to watch. It however at the same time is extremely silly and just totally unbelievable to watch the boys doing comedy stuff with a goat. Most of the jokes in the movie still work good but the movie just however never gets truly hilarious or memorable. The comedy and story really feels lacking at times and is mostly too simple and predictable.

Of course still good and fun enough to watch for the fans but still a slightly disappointing last silent Laurel & Hardy entry.

7/10


Like I said its a hidden surprise. It well written well acted and well cast. I liked everything in this movie. Look its Hollywood all right but the brighter side. Angelina Jolie is great in this and I'm totally watching every movie with her in that I can get my hands on. Well worth a look.


Well I'll start with the good points. The movie was only 86 minutes long, and some of it was so bad it was funny. Now for the low points. My first warning sign came with an actual 'warning' on the film. When it started the following 'warning' was displayed: 'The film you are about to see contains graphic and disturbing images. Because contrary to popular belief being killed is neither fun, pretty or romantic.' I should have saved myself the 86 minutes and turned it off then. The first words of the film were: 'I'm at the glue factory.' It was some guy talking on his phone, and he was referring to a nursing home as a glue factory. I don't know why. So the basis of the movie is some kid is obsessed with the Zodiac Killer and starts imitating him. The budget for this film was at least 50 bucks and they must have used the cheapest cameras they could find. The acting was worse than me reading straight from a script. That's what is looked like they were doing. The script was horrible, and the big 'twist' was that this guy who wrote a biography on the Zodiac Killer was actually the Zodiac Killer. Of course they tried to show this subtly but made it totally obvious within the first 10 minutes. Without any more painful details of the plot, here were some horrible highlights of the movie. They try to make the Zodiac Killer compare himself to an 'army of one' because soldiers are really just murderers. Then they tried to make an attempt at 'Satanic Worship' by showing some guys in black hoods in a meeting. The great 'computer hacker' was able to get this kid's address when someone gave him the kid's name and phone number. For some reason he had to hack into the FBI to get someone address. I'm not sure why he didn't just look it up in the phone book or use whitepages.com. There was also a random allusion to 9/11 for no reason. I also learned that no matter where you get shot, blood will come out of your mouth within seconds.

So if you like really bad acting, sub-par scripts, bad camera work and an obvious plot, you'll love Zodiac Killer!


This is the most boring, pretentious, and stupid film I have seen in a long time. I saw it at the Academy in Beverly Hills, and there were quite a few people in the lobby who had left the screening and were seeking refuge there. All were solemnly shaking their heads and looking as though they had been to a funeral. What a waste of time and money. Even worse are the critics who gave this pretentious blimp good reviews. What's with them? Are they just afraid they won't be considered 'hip'? Were they bribed? This film is staggeringly bad. Don't take a date to it expecting to have an in-depth chat at the Cheesecake factory afterwards. If going to see this film was your idea, she'll browbeat you and hold it over you the rest of your life.


There's a lot of movies that have set release dates, only to get pulled from distribution due to a legal snafu of some kind, and then put in limbo for a long time. You can only wish a film as rotten as 'Slackers' remained in a coma for what it's worth, which is miniscule. Release dates were continually shifted around for this truly awful movie that is so much a bleep on the radar like it deserves. The premise kicks off under the guise of Ethan, a creepy nerd with a scary obsession for the campus bombshell Angela. Ethan devilishly enlists the aid of David and his friends who have been scamming the school for their entire run with blackmail to help win Angela. I don't like to give spoilers out, but for a piece of crap like this I can make an exception. Angela falls for David, Ethan intentionally screws everything up, the good guys win. That's what happens in a nutshell for another tired retread of the teen gross out genre. Gross humor is funny, it always has been dating back to the days of the immortal classic 'Animal House', to the likes of contemporaries like 'There's Something About Mary' and 'Road Trip' amongst dozens of others of which there are too many to mention. But when you use it as a plot point you can only get so far, case in point, Ethan has an Angela doll composed of her individual strands of hair of which he does god knows what with it. No one wants to take witness to watch Ethan urinating in the shower while singing to himself. No one wants to watch a young man singing 'She'll be coming around the mountain' with a sock on his penis. But nothing can prepare you for the full visual assault of seeing 50's bombshell Mamie Van Doren bare her breasts at 71 years old. I don't know if it's the story's lack of coherence, which cuts to scenes that make absolutely no sense. Director Dewey Nicks was a former fashion photographer, and after reviewing this film, you can only wish he'll go back to the profession. The worst thing you can do on any film, is to make it look like you're having fun, because you detract from your objectives, just like 'Slackers' does, by burying it's plot outline under a pile of gross out gags, pointless vignettes, and lack of construction. It's like a bunch of college students got drunk, took one's camcorder, and shot a bunch of random crap and compiled it together. If you want to see a teen gross out comedy that's actually good, then I suggest 'American Pie' and 'Animal House', or 'Road Trip', just something that's entertaining, and not dreadfully bad like 'Slackers'. Coincidentally Cameron Diaz makes a cameo in this film, just as she did in another bad film such as 'The Sweetest Thing' where the story treats gross humor like another plot, instead of a device much like this disaster.. If you pass by 'Slackers' at your local video store, just keep on walking, and let it end up at the bottom of the shelf like it deserves.


This is not especially well written. The songs are not memorable. The cast, however, squeezes a lot out of this Martin and Lewis in the Navy situation. They both look great as young sailors. They are believable. The scenes on the submarine show how cramped it must have been on those underwater missions in the 1950s and before.

Lots of sailors in many scenes. Hundreds perhaps, in a big outdoor exercise field, and again in a boxing arena.

You will see James Dean in his scene. He does stand out even though he is an extra here. In a scene where Jerry walks across a busy street we see some of his 'almost accident' comedy which he would bring into play years later in The Patsy.

Dean giving Jerry boxing instructions is a good comedy skit to watch for. Jerry in the boxing ring shows his high energy that was his trademark in the late '40s and early '50s. Dean and Jerry dancing is a bit of a treat. Not great, but better than most non dancing movies.

Worth seeing if you don't mind black and white. Good ending.

Tom Willett


Elvira, Mistress of The Dark, is a fun, camp horror comedy, in which the fourth wall is broken a couple of times and the jokes often stay below the navel. And the breasts of Cassandra Peterson become a character of their own.

Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) is stacked horror show hostess, who learns, that she has inherited her aunt Morgana. So she goes to a little town of Fallwell, which is ruled by the most horrendous monster ever to embrace the earth: Morality comity. Elviras boobacious appearance is, of course, too much for the prunes, but the kids of the town get a kick out of her different kind of approach on life. And of course there is even more sinister evil, her uncle Vincent (William Morgan Sheppard), who is after Elvira's mothers book of spells. See, Elvira actually is a real witch, she just doesn't know it. Yet.

For what it is, Elvira is quite funny film, even though the script does leave a lot of room for improvement. Most laughs come from the difference between Elvira and the people of good morals, but there are a couple of good visual gags as well. Over all direction is okay, but it never rises to be anything more than that. In all, a good, intentionally campy, comedy. If you like this kind of thing, that is.


This film uses all art-house clichés (slow pace, long static shots, minimal amount of dialog) to try to hide the fact that there really is nothing worth watching here: There is no plot to speak of, the characters are dreary (female lead) or cliché (Tersteeghe's character), and they do not ever talk to each other about anything that concerns their rather uneventful lives. The film is centered around a woman who finds out about her husbands adultery. Instead of confronting him, she half-heartedly takes revenge by committing adultery herself. After a fight and a reconciliation with her sister - who knew about the adultery without telling her - she asks her husband to stop cheating on her. They seem to be re-united as a family. Two other story lines - the planned move of the woman's elderly father with his young wife to Guernsey and the rivalry with the woman's sister - do not offer any interesting developments. The suicide of a colleague of the woman that seems to set off events in the film is not a subject in itself. For 2005 - or any other year for that matter - this is not enough to make an interesting film.

Moreover, what little possibilities for dramatic development there are in the script are not used or are consciously avoided, as when both the woman and her sister mark a particular piece of furniture from their fathers house which is going to be sold because of his planned move. Both sisters want this particular piece and given their rivalry in the past - over much more important things than furniture: men - this could in theory lead to a confrontation. Or the matter could be resolved by one sister giving way to the other. Either way, this would not be a very interesting or original development of the story but at least it would constitute some development. The film clearly sets this situation up (with both sisters looking intently at each other during the marking and one sister having mentioned she does not want to draw straws) but it cheats us out of any resolution: the scene simply ends and how this - in itself rather dreary and materialistic - issue is solved, is not shown.

Although almost completely absent, the dialog that is in the film is excruciatingly flat and tepid. For example, when during a visit to Guernsey, the 2 sisters address their rivalry it is in a three line dialog that has a childish 'yes it is - no it isn't' ring to it. The fight and reconciliation scene with the 2 sisters is completely without dialog - giving a highly artificial, overly stylised and unrealistic impression and considerably reducing its impact. The way the woman finally - finally! - addresses her husbands adultery in a single line of dialog has to be seen to be believed - and is at the same time completely unbelievable. The husband does not seem to have any noticeable reaction or if he has any, it is not shown. The woman does not mention her own adultery to her husband. The scene showing the woman, husband and their young son asleep on an airliner, watched by the sister is possibly meant as a happy end, but the way the characters addressed the issues of their lives in what went before makes this unlikely.

Because of its slow pace, uninteresting story, leaden direction and absurd lack of dialog, I found this film an example of everything that can be wrong with an art-house movie and a complete waste of time.


Words cannot describe how utterly abysmal this movie is. It is a series of random, unfunny clips about everything from a stupid Batman spoof to a guy getting it on with an old dead lady (REALLY disturbing). The only remotely amusing thing about the Underground Comedy Movie is watching Joey Buttafuoco, the best actor in this movie. Also, it is rated NC-17, shunning away the only people that might tolerate it.


I'm a next generation person...i've never saw the original doctor who but i have heard about the series that sparked a great fan base in the past and still making its mark in the 21'st century; the new 'Doctor who' started in 2005 but for those that live here in the states like myself we pretty much see it as new episodes on sci-fi channel or BBC America; from season one we are introduce to a new player Rose Tyler (Billie piper) and a pretty cool new doctor played by Christopher Eccelson (misspelled last name sorry). these two go on some many amazing and very extremely dangerous missions to save the world...every now and then they have companions from rose's ex-boyfriend mickey to the now ever present Jack harkness (who can now be seen on the spin off 'Torchwood'). From season one to season two the pace is just about right...the stories can be from the outlandishly weird to the most action packed paced driven but either way its one rollercoster ride from the start of the theme song which is very catchy.

in season two he becomes different and changes and now the new doctor (David Tennant) continues the fight to save the world with rose and from this point there can be some that say some of the season wasn't as good but i have to disagree and it was sad to see rose and the doctor part ways but it leaves the opening 'companion' role to Martha (played by the very sexy Freema Agyeman) who helps continue the fight to save mankind...season three now is more on the action/adventure level and sometimes on the emotional but not as much as the first two seasons; here the relationship between the doctor and Martha is fitting but the attractiveness CAN be rushed into at times and the obviousness comes into play that she's NOT rose Tyler being that you experienced her company in the first two seasons and not in the third season it can be a bit awkward it was for me cause you get use to rose and her ways and now to see someone who at times don't really question the doctor on an emotional level but all the same makes the pace very exciting for viewers which keeps you at the edge of your seat.

all in all this is one thrill ride of a television show i would give it more but there are some flaws to this show as well that i can't mention cause its sometimes hard to pick up but just one does which is the doctor and Martha's relationship is rushed and not leveled on the get to know you base; I've seen good shows on British TV but this is by far one of the coolest sci-fi adventures for the old and new generation to experience but you don't have to take my world for it...step into the tardis and join the adventure.


An under-appreciated, unseen gem. Estevez does a remarkable job of illustrating in poignant, heartbreaking fashion, the tension that arises between a son who's been to hell and back, and his parents, who can't begin to understand the emotional scarring left behind. It's not unlike Born on the Fourth of July, in that it deals with a soldiers' emotional and mental breakdown after serving in Vietnam, but while that one focused more on the politics of post-Vietnam (anti-war speeches, etc.), this one deals with a much more personal topic: Family. One man's struggle to return to normalcy after a life-altering experience, and his parents' failure to see the change that has occurred.

Estevez delivers a smoldering performance as Jeremy Collier. You can sense the pain and frustration bubbling beneath surface. There to match him inch for inch is his real-life father, Martin Sheen. It's a trip watching these two act off of each other, as you get the sense that they're constantly trying to one-up one another. It's like the presence of each other inspired the pair to do their best, and their performances triumph because of it.

Recommended to anyone who appreciates solid acting, writing and directing. And to any Vietnam war buff.

****/***** (8/10)


Gregory Peck's brilliant portrayal of Douglas MacArthur from the Battle of Corregidor in the Philippines at the start of the Pacific War largely through to his removal as UN Commander during the Korean War offers reason to believe all three of the above possibilities. Certainly the most controversial American General of the Second World War (and possibly ever) MacArthur is presented here as a man of massive contradictions. He claims that soldiers above all yearn for peace, yet he obviously glories in war; he consistently denies any political ambitions, yet almost everything he does is deliberately used to boost himself as a presidential candidate; he obviously believes that soldiers under his command have to follow his orders to the letter, yet he himself deliberately defies orders from the President of the United States; he shows great respect for other cultures (particularly in the Philippines and Japan) and yet is completely out of touch with his own country. All these things are held in balance throughout this movie, and in the end the viewer is left to draw his or her own conclusions about the man, although one is left with no doubt that MacArthur sincerely and passionately loved his country, and especially the Army he devoted his life to.

Peck's performance was, as I said, brilliant - to the point, actually, of overshadowing virtually everyone else in the film (which is perhaps appropriate, given who he was portraying!) with the possible exception of Ed Flanders. I though he offered a compelling look at Harry Truman and his attitude to MacArthur: sarcastic (repeatedly referring to MacArthur as 'His Majesty,') angry, frustrated and finally completely fed up with this General who simply won't respect his authority as President. Marj Dusay was also intriguing as MacArhur's wife Jean, devoted to her husband (whom she herself referred to as 'General,' although their relationship seems to have been a happy enough one.) I very much enjoyed this movie, although perhaps would have liked to have learned a little more about MacArthur's early life. I have always chuckled at MacArthur's reaction to Eisenhower being elected President ('He'll make a fine President - he was the best damn clerk I ever had' - which seems to sum up what MacArthur thought the role of the President should be, especially to his military commanders during wartime.) Well worth watching. 8/10


This is one of my favourite comedy films. Chris Farley is hilarious as the accident prone moron and David Spade is perfect playing the straight-man to Farley.

The dialogue between the two of them is brilliant. The scene where the two of them are in the car singing along to Superstar by The Carpenters is a classic.

Chris Farley was a great comic actor who had amazing potential - he will be sadly missed.


CQ was the worst film I saw this year. Nearly every film I choose to see in the theater is at least entertaining or has something to say. This film looked like like it was directed by a film student for his Intro. to Filmmaking class. His father makes great films. His sister made a good one. But brother Roman? NO! One critic had the audacity to compare this film to Godard's Le Mépris (Contempt). While Coppola, Jr. did take the same idea, a film about film, he tried too hard to make himself seem European, artsy, and witty, when it's all really just kitsch. The lead actor carries the same expression through the whole film, like he's either in awe or in shock of this film being made around him. Schwartzman somehow manages to pull off his role as a flamboyant director. Depardieu is alright. The one scene that has any real film spoof humor at all is, surprisingly, not the B-movie scenes, but rather one which takes place in Italy; a montage of shots of several various characters inside a very small car, driving around picking up and dropping off random people. This was the only thing that reminded me of the cinema I am guessing he was trying to spoof. Or rip-off. Or both. The documentary with the lead talking into the camera and filming various objects has been played out, the ending was tagged on for the sake of a 'twist' or artistic value... I suppose the funniest thing about this film was the film itself, and not in the way it intended. No wonder this film was sent back after a festival screening to be re-edited or re-shot or whatever, which makes me curious as to just how bad it was before. I can't believe it could have been worse than this. If you want to see a good parody of film check out the Austin Powers films. Any of them. The opening to the third is more entertaining and more genius than this entire film. Lil' Romy, for the sake of cinema, PLEASE go back to directing your cousin's music videos. Leave The Godfathers to daddy.


I heard many stories about this film being great... Well, I took my chance when I saw it for a cheap price at Ebay last month.

I watched it, and I have only a few comments about it:

1) Terrible story-line, 2) Terrible acting, 3) Bad fighting-scenes...

I never seen any worse movie in my life so far!! When the storyline is bad, than at least make the fights something more interesting. But BOTH are done ridiculously bad...

* The only positive thing about this movie (in my opinion) is Nikki Berwick. God, she looks nice in this movie.

That's about it...


As someone who was staggered at the incredible visuals of 'Hero,' I was anxious to see this film which was billed as being along the same lines, but better. It also featured an actress I like: Ziyi Zhang. Well, I was disappointed on both counts. I bought the DVD of this film sight-unseen, and that was a mistake. It was not better.

I realize these flying-through-the-air martial arts films are pure fantasy but this story is stretched so far past anything remotely believable it just made me shake my head in disappointing disbelief. A blind woman defeating hundreds of opponents? Sorry, that's going a little far. Also, the major male character 'Jin' (Takeshi Kaneshiro) was so annoying with his dialog, stupid look on his face and stupid laugh, that he ruined the film, too.

Despite the wonderful colors and amazing action scenes, this story - to me - just didn't have an appeal to make it a movie worth owning. This film is no 'Hero' of mine!


I enjoyed this film very much. It effectively combines humor, fantasy, and a few moments of horror with a solid film making effort from Higuchinsky. Brilliant visuals and a very original story concerning spirals. My only complaints are that it had its dull moments and wasn't as daring as it could have been. Still, I give this a solid 8 out of 10. The U.S. should take note of this and other fine Japanese horror/fantasy films that have come along recently and have them available on Region 1 DVD. Actually, Asian cinema in general, have some of the finest films that have been unnoticed by the American public because they're hard to find. I strongly recommend people to go look for these treasures, they're hard to find, but once you find them, you'll be glad you did.


Do not waste your time or your money on this movie. My roommate rented it because she thought it was the other movie called Descent (the flick about some travelers who get trapped in a cave). so, we decided to watch it anyways thinking it couldn't be that bad. It was. I can't believe this movie was actually produced and put out to the public. It was so horrible it was almost like an accident scene where you want to look away but you just can't make yourself. I honestly feel emotionally scarred. It went from being a semi-low budget movie in which a college girl gets assaulted by a boy she's dating to an all out porno flick. And really not a good one. I went from hating the woman's rapist to almost feeling bad for him. Almost. All in all, an awful movie that was definitely rated NC-17 for a reason. Don't waste your money. And don't let your kids watch it.


Director Jeremiah Checheck who brought us big budget debacles like 'The Avengers' and the remake of 'Diabolique' has directed this ripoff of the Die Hard concept, done on - what looks like - a Blair Witch budget.

A California nuclear reactor is overtaken by Arab terrorists. But - are you ready? - the terrorists aren't Arab; they're really disgruntled American soldiers masquerading as Arabs! We find out that they don't really intend to blow up the reactor just make a statement. We're not sure what the statement is but never mind. So there's really no threat. But then one of the terrorists decides to go it alone and actually blow up the plant because he's kind of crazy. So maybe there is a threat after all. But the army goes in and all the bad guys are killed. So there was no threat. Oh, and a good guy is killed too. Let that be a lesson to everybody.

If all of this sounds muddled and kinda of a waste of time then you got the idea of what watching Meltdown is all about.

The script never bothers to introduce the characters or to even give any personal details that might flesh them out or emotionally involve the audience. So we're left with one dimensional characters: the-expert-that-nobody-will-listen-to; the-trigger-happy-sergeant; the-slimy-politicians; the-dweeby-Engineers. The story skips from one cliché incident to the next in a formula composite of practically every action movie you've ever seen. But at nearly every turn, just when we think something may be at stake the script flinches and we find out there's actually nothing to worry about.

Like Die Hard, there's an police officer who's on the inside, unbenownst to the bad guys. The big twist is that the cop here is....A WOMAN! Oh and she's injured too. But not that bad, just enough to make her wince a couple times. Oh and instead of the walkie talkie that Bruce Willis had this cop has a magic cell phone that works everywhere...even underground! When he's not yelling at everybody else Bruce Greenwood - his jaw made out of granite - tries to soothe her over the walkie talkie. He even makes a joke once but we're afraid his face might crack. After all, this is serious business.

But mostly it's scene after scene of people arguing: the Military expert is arguing to wait it out (his reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound but he's supposed to be the smart guy in this movie so okaaaay); the people at the White House argue with him; the army sergeant argues with him too; the nice Pakistani Nuclear Engineer argues with the main terrorist. The dialogue is absolutely B Movie all the way and lines like, 'stop the broadcast! STOP THE BROADCAST!!!' may have you in rolling off your sofa as you wonder if the characters are actually referring to this silliness.

Maybe to compensate for the lack of production quality the camera-work is kept jittery in that faux documentary 21 Grams style that's supposed to lend immediacy and energy to the scenes but the way it's indiscriminately and amateurishly applied here it's downright annoying; even pretentious. Further attempts to ratchet up the tempo are made with the inclusion of nonsensical black and white footage that's randomly intercut with the main action. But this, too, is pretentious and annoying in that Blair Witch kinda way. In short, the stylistic attempts look very amateurish.

The music lives up to the visuals - it's synthy and cheap sounding. Sort of like a porn movie but with less melody and lots more heart beat sounds. The graphic treatment is howlingly bad too: cheesy graphics in huge red font scream out to us '9:28 pm' as though the timeclock actually makes some kind of difference.

Meltdown may work as a marketing concept but it's clear that the script was a second thought. FX - part of Fox - put this cheesy production together and dropped several million dollars on it. Now THAT'S what I call a meltdown!


Caddyshack II is one of those pictures which makes you ask 'Why?' As in; 'Why was it funded?': 'Why was it made?' and 'Why was it released into the public domain?'.

To say the least it's a bad film. It serves little purpose but to underline how superior its prequel was by setting an almost identical set of characters against each other in a similar storyline as a 'New money' land developer attempts to buy out the establishment's golf course sanctuary.

Right off the bat making the follow-up a whole 8 years after the original is somewhat bizarre. I mean if your going to cash in on highly successful picture such as the first one then you have a window of a few years to do so. But leaving it 8 years means that the formula is hardly fresh enough to simply do a follow up, or poor imitation as this is, so your sort of obliged to reward fans of the original by giving them at least reference to if not indeed actual contributions by the actors who made the first one so memorable. But there's little if any of this.

Instead we get cheap imitations. Okay the passing of Ted Knight in the interim years would have made it impossible to bring back the memorable Judge Smails but Robert Stack's inclusion as 'Chandler Young' (a fellow WASP elitist akin to the Smails character) is unimaginative and seriously lacking in the sort of anarchic frustration that made Knight's turn so watchable. Jackie Mason's 'Jack Hartounian' is a feeble attempt at recreating the non stop wisecracks delivered by the Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) character of the first. While Dangerfield's role was endlessly quotable Mason's is completely forgettable.

Bill Murray's laughably ridiculous groundskeeper 'Carl Spackler' and his war of attrition with the pesky local gofer is substituted for his Ghostbuster's co-star Dan Ackroyd's role as the militant 'Capt. Tom Everett' who's high pitched voice just splits your sides with frustration as opposed to the intended laughter.

Randy Quaid , brilliant as Cousin Ed in the National Lampoon's Vacation series, is quite the opposite here playing Hartounian's unstable lawyer. The looks of disbelief shown by the actor's looking on at Quaid's character's intended to be hilarious acts of inappropriate violence echo that of the audience. Your not laughing. Your just asking 'What the hell is he doing?'

Chevy Chase shows up, all be it occasionally and wisely rather fleetingly considering the disaster that's perpetrating itself around him,as club pro 'Tye Webb' in the films only direct reference to the original not withstanding the golf course itself that is. With his deeply tanned skin and loud Hawaiian shirts Chase looks like he's just got back from a lengthy summer vacation and needs a paycheck. He distances himself from the events in the actual picture enough that he takes little of the blame and leaves with some, all be it little, credibility still intact.

Jessica Lundy as Mason's daughter 'Kate' takes over from the 'Danny Noonan' role of the original as teenager struggling against class divides. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? At least in the first Danny (an Irish Catholic from a blue collar family) and his laughable attempts to make inroads into the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant dominated world of the golf club mover and shakers was played out to some memorable set pieces such as being dismissed by the resident Lutheran Bishop as well as being mocked by the offspring of the local yacht club. Lundy's embarrassment of her father's inability to fit-in is hinted at being because of his Jewish roots. That aside it may also have to do with him being a classless moron but such intricacy's are swept aside though I stopped caring long before they were resolved. At the end of the day Noonan was trying to get ahead in life. Miss Hartounian's biggest problem is getting the hob nobbers at the local golf club to like her multi-millionaire father so that she can get a date with the club's prodigal white kid. Or so I gathered.

Anyway in summation its poorly written, badly scripted with lame set pieces and wastes a lot of talent. Indeed kudos if you were able to sit through it to it's conclusion. It really is a penance. There is that question mark though of why did so many of the original actors not return as opposed to being replaced by performers who on paper at least looked their equals. Maybe they just weren't asked. Or perhaps I suspect they actually read the script. Stick to the original!!!


If you described any of the scenes; nightmares of children murdering you in your sleep, your infant daughter talking to ghosts, searching for your lost child in an abandoned mine at night, so petrified with fear that you can't move even though the blood from a murder victim is dripping onto you from the floor above  then I'd say you had a horror movie. But some how 'Wicked Little Things' just wasn't scary. I am a horror fan and I loved the location, the plot in principal and I liked the three leading ladies. I didn't want to see them come to harm, I wanted the 'bad guy' to get his just desserts, the rest of the cast are always simply cannon fodder so I was indifferent either way with them and it played out every cliché in the book - even down to the torch battery running out in the pitch dark just as you start to here whispering voices closing in on you.

I would still recommend that you watch it, but unless you are new to horror movies or under 12 years, you will have seen it all before.


Are we allowed to interfere with our fellowmen's everyday's life? Is it possible to intrude upon their intimacy, to penetrate the inwardness of their thoughts violating the privacy of their own home without being blamed? The director raises some doubts about these apparently solvable questions, almost sympathetic towards judge Jean Luis' destabilizing decision of coming to terms with his own inducted self-seclusion by means of fragments of lives embezzled by him.

'Trois couleurs: Rouge' is based on the concept of 'UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION CONCEIVED AS THE HUMAN DESIRE OF AN OPEN WINDOW ON THE WORLD'. The phone may be considered the main character of the story: after its performance in 'Dekalog 9' it gives in the beginning the encore to Kieslowski's onlookers, followed step by step in its fast run across the world. The director looks deeply into the faculty of communication of human beings, without taking up a definite position about the ethical side of individual behavior. Once again he points out to us the unpredictability of future events, venting careful descriptions about strange courses and recourses of life separated from each other by a considerable number of years. Inexplicable combinations oddly converging in a series of continuous and upsetting situations. - Some books falling to the pavement. - One of them opening casually on a fatal page, predetermining the destiny of a future profession, as in a past similar occurrence. - Glimpses of daily life meeting fleetingly, ideally joined by their fondness for the fictitious musician Van den Budermayer. - Human fortunes marked by the most ill-fated coincidence.

In this piece of work deserving to be seen with our heart's eyes instead of our mind's ones we can witness a dialectic game between judge Jean Luis' (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Valentine Dussaut (Irene Jacob, maybe the sweetest actress of our times, together with the beautiful Winona Ryder), in a generational conflict between the experience of a world-weary old man and the self-conscious immaturity of a nice girl on the point of facing the steepest path of her ascending way. Kieslowski talks about 'dialogue tests' between a disappointed human life and a youth unaware of her future, between a spiritless misanthropist and a spontaneous girl full of good sense of unselfishness.

And the final parade when the damp odor of tragedy still lingers in the air, with all the main characters of the whole trilogy in full evidence, saved by an accidental stroke of luck thank to the providential script cleverly written, gives us the extreme greetings of this movie master fully used up by his great passion for cinema. Only a sense of bitter regret and emptiness is left to remind us the existence of a void impossible to fill. GOOD-BYE KRZYSZTOF. WE MISS YOU SO MUCH!


If folks were really this stupid I could be the SRW - Supreme Ruler of the World. In this one Knotts plays a dimwitted bean counter for some little jerk water town run by a group of crooked simpletons only slightly brighter than he is. When things appear a bit shaky for the crooks they go for a frame-up of the patsy Figg. Plenty of laughs as Knotts does his usual bumbling, stumbling act. I especially appreciated the extension cord scene; asininity at it's highest level.


I now that these days, some people wan't see a movie without movie styling, so much Dogma, Lars Von, Watchosky Brothers, are changed what we expect in a movie, perhaps, Casomai is no-one-more-Independent-non-american movie, the movie take all movies resources and language to tell us a simple history about love and marriage, but much more .. Fully of views, lectures and let you thinking ... and I'm sure, you can't fell boried any second of a long 116 minutes. I calculate that don't have a single scene longer that 3 o 2 1/2 minutes.


This movie is really stupid and very boring most of the time. There are almost no 'ghoulies' in it at all. There is nothing good about this movie on any level. Just more bad actors pathetically attempting to make a movie so they can get enough money to eat. Avoid at all costs.


Many of the reviews and comments I have read about this movie say that this is a rather stale film and performance by Clara Bow. Although the story-line was rather typical of Clara's later silents, I still find it somewhat heart-stirring and incredibly fun. Clara plays a happy-go-lucky Hawaiian girl who will stop at nothing to win the man she loves...never mind that this man is married! Clara's lack of modesty was shocking in the day, but I believe it lends to the sweetness and general fun of the movie. Though definitely not a brilliant story-line (quite typical, actually), this movie is a nice showcase of Clara's ability to make the audience laugh.


Bring Back The A-team was a hour- long special screened on Channel 4 in the UK of last year and hosted by presenter and comedian Justin Lee Collins, the show attempted to track down and reunite the fellow cast members of the A-Team together, for the first time ever on TV. This has been something which has never been attempted before by anyone. Well, not by anyone that I know of, that is.

Justin makes a great presenter, and his eccentric personality and humorous banter shone throughout this programme. The attempts he makes in getting hold of the cast members is ever so funny, but also he was very persistent and eager to fulfil this task too, which is a credit to him i'd say. Mind you, he is great on TV anyway- be it by presenting a show such as this, or the Friday Night Project with his co-host, Alan Carr.

There were appearances and interviews with Dirk Benedict- the Faceman himself, Dwight Schultz- aka Howling Mad Murdock, Marla Heasley who played Tawnia Baker, Jack Ging aka General 'Bull' Full Bright, the creator of the A-team, Stephen J Cannell and the big man himself, Mr T aka BA Baracus. They were just fascinating to watch and hear what they had to say about the programme that became a global hit during the 80s, as they reminisce and relive the good and bad moments of the show: both during and behind the scenes. Unfortunately, no George Peppard but of course he is already in heaven, understandably and strangely enough no Melinda, who played Amy.

I just didn't understand why she wasn't featured in the show. Okay, she was axed after 3 seasons or whatever, but she was the first and original female member of the A-Team- only to be replaced Marla's Tawnia and so it would've been great to see and hear her side to the A-team story, in addition to the other cast members.

All in all, Bring Back The A-Team was a great documentary style of show. Perhaps, this could've been spread out more by means of which this could've been a six-part documentary. But nonetheless, this was a great effort on the part of JLC. Recommended


I am profoundly grateful to have seen this movie. The acting is astonishing, the movie itself is powerful and clear, and the issues involved are handled with subtlety and depth.

This is an important movie. It could be profoundly transformative.

I would pay good money never, ever to see it again. Because it *is* so good and so complex, it is extremely difficult to watch. I admit that my taste in movies tends strongly toward light entertainment; the visual medium can be so powerful that I tend to avoid it for anything really important. Those of you with greater fortitude than I have may find it easier to handle.

But I strongly encourage people to see it at least once. Preferably with others, so you can talk to each other, and have someone around to remind you that there's more to the world than the movie.