Received this DVD from the ACCENT range which is a label which specializes in art-house flics, they released Irreversible and a range of Bergman's opus.

The thing that struck me about Alex Frayne's strangely titled film MODERN LOVE is that it is an impeccable film that breathes with perfection and vision, a film that takes us into the mind of Mr Joe Average, replete with voices in the head, visions, and madness. It's set in rural redneck Australia, the film doesn't trivialise or praise the folks like so many Australian movies. ie our films are full of 'loveable rogues' or people with 'hearts of gold' etc etc etc.

Not in this film. The spirit of Stanley Kubrick looms large here, it's not flawless, but has a mesmerising attention to details, a romantic streak and a mood that is bracing if not embraceable.

Minor quibbles...the transfer looks faulty - front credits were sliced, they don't fit in frame.

Also, one of the short films is corrupted, it stops half way.


This movie is stunningly free from storytelling. It's a pure experience where the music overshadow the visual impression. - Words cannot of course enough express what should be expressed, but it is the requirement of the chattering classes that chatter is put forward, entered into production lines of mediocrity and therefore a necessity in order to express any sensible thought or opinion about something which should not need to be degraded by chatter. Therefore these elaborate opinions are put forward to satisfy those empty minds which need to be filled by noise that you will not find however hard you try in this movie.


Rollerskating vampires?! I'm sorry but even for the 80's that's just way too cheesy to be remotely scary... You can excuse the original the odd kitsch moment because it was parodying old movies and TV shows, but that's been done once, so the sequel needed to be a little less camp, not even more outlandish! Plus, the first movie had the presence of Chris Sarandon - a man who could even make stalking discotheques in casual knitwear seem seductive! - that this one sorely lacks, so there was no 'danger' in anything that happened, it just seemed silly.

Admittedly I only saw this once when I was 7, but by then already being a huge fan of the original I remember being disgusted. To me, there is no sequel to Fright Night, just a tacky spoof that doesn't deserve any appraisal whatsoever.


I have seen many, many films from China - and Hong Kong. This is the worst. No, the worst one was 'Unknown Pleasures'. I watched 'Platform' yesterday evening and thought that Jia Zhang Ke's other two films must be better. This evening I was disappointed again. I will not be watching 'Xiao Wu' tomorrow evening because I have just placed all three films in the bin! Whoever gave this film, 'Platform' ten out of ten, needs to watch more cinema! The photography was very poor: it was very difficult to differentiate between some of the characters because of the lack of close-up work. The storyline was so disjointed that I fast-forwarded it towards the end out of pure frustration. I would not recommend this film to anyone. Give me Zhang Yimou or Chen Kage any day. These are true masters of Chinese cinema, not pretentious con men!


If you enjoy riddles and suspense, you will enjoy this movie. Truth be told it was mostly the Adrian Paul part that got me to pick it up, I knew almost nothing about the movie beforehand. Plot is: Sarah (Carly Pope), a student of philosophy and metaphysics, starts playing a mysterious riddle game trying to figure out 'the reason' and gets involved in 'the game' by solving riddles. Vern (Adrian Paul) is a shop owner, also a riddle fanatic, and also gets entangled in the game. Myth has it that if you solve the game, the meaning of existence (referred to as 'The Design') is revealed. Brendan Fehr's character is a 'village idiot' type hanging around the shop who turns out to be more than he seems. All in all, I thought the movie was pretty well done. And it's definitely an original concept, a rare find these days! I personally happen to like riddles and puns, so while most of them weren't very difficult, it was still a fun movie. Well worth the rental.

 So, if you haven't seen it -- get it! :-D


Canadian film-maker Ron Switzer delivers a solid, non-stop thrill ride of relentless horror with the superb 1991 sci-fi film 'Science Crazed'. A hideous monster takes revenge on his mother, a police officer and tenants of an apartment building. Brilliant practical make-up and special effects designs create a truly terrifying monster, especially when lurking through the atmospheric shadows and smoke of the gloomy apartment settings. The characters are developed beautifully with outstanding and surprisingly touching performances from an ensemble cast. Produced by Donna Switzer, newcomer Ron Switzer also penned the film's face-paced script, weaving together an engaging roller-coaster ride of twists, turns, and terror that keeps you guessing until the last frame. Science Crazed will no doubt leave you haunted long after the shocking conclusion. Highly recommended!


Good luck finding this film to even watch - it's not yet released on tape or DVD. I saw on release in the early '70's, was lucky enough to catch it via American Cinematheque's preservation efforts, and it still has some tangible moments that stayed with me for thirty years.

No reason to repeat rwint's accurate comments here. As a come-out Director soon after the soaring success of Five Easy Pieces, Jack N has been said to have managed the low budget effort as best as possible, and it certainly shows in the wandering and meandering that could have used some re-cutting. But it's also a memorable icon for it's time: the all very intense clashes of late 60's college sports, student movements, sexual revolution, and more.

Why see this film? It was probably a ground breaker in some scenes: the frisky male bonding in the after-game showers; Karen Black's scene with Tepper in the car will catch you a little off guard - but it's the first use of a word I hadn't witnessed in film before; and the casual and unexpected use of nudity overall. There are probably others I'm omitting.

Look for a nice surprise of a young Cindy Williams in one of her first films; a thin David Ogend Stiers; Mike Warren fresh out of his powder-blue UCLA uniform and readying for a dark-blue TV uniform; Robert Towne - Actor; and a whole lot of folks simply playing themselves.

Now: any connection between Harry Gittes last name, Robert Towne, and a certain character in Chinatown and the Two Jakes?

It gets a '7' based on Karen Black. You'll see why.


Parts: The Clonus Horror is not that bad of a movie. I have the MST3K version of it on tape and it is hilarious, but its still not the worst film the have ever done. I would go so far as to say that it was better than 80% of the movies they have made fun of. The concept could have worked if they had a better script, more money and decent actors. It could have become a classic if it was not so boring and had a bit more excitement. Sadly it was botched in production and ended up on MST3K.


It's hard to praise this film much. The CGI for the dragon was well done, but lacked proper modelling for light and shadow. Also, the same footage is used endlessly of the dragon stomping through corridors which becomes slightly tedious.

I was amazed to see 'Marcus Aurelius' in the acting credits, wondering what an ex-Emperor of the Roman Empire was doing acting in this film! Like 'Whoopie Goldberg' it must be an alias, and can one blame him for using one if he appears in this stinker.

The story might been interesting, but the acting is flat, and direction is tedious. If you MUST watch this film, go around to your friend's house and get drunk while doing so - then it'll be enjoyable.


Roger Corman is undeniably one of the most versatile and unpredictable directors/producers in history. He was single-handedly responsible for some of my favorite horror films ever (like the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations 'Masque of the Red Death' and 'Pit and the Pendulum') as well as some insufferably cheap and tacky rubbish quickies (like 'Creature from the Haunted Sea' and 'She Gods of the Shark Reef'). Corman also made a couple of movies that are simply unclassifiable and  simply put  nearly impossible to judge properly. 'The Trip', for example, as well as this imaginatively titled 'Gas-s-s-s' can somewhat be labeled as psychedelic exploitation. In other words, they're incredibly strange hippie-culture influenced movies. Half of the time you haven't got the slightest idea what's going on, who these characters are that walk back and forth through the screen and where the hell this whole thing is going. The plot is simply and yet highly effective: a strange but deadly nerve gas is accidentally unleashed and promptly annihilates that the entire world population over the age of 25. This *could* be the basic premise of an atmospheric, gritty and nail-bitingly suspenseful post-apocalyptic Sci-Fi landmark, but writer George Armitage and Roger Corman decided to turn it into a 'trippy' road-movie comedy. None of the characters is even trying to prevent their inevitable upcoming deaths; they just party out in the streets and found little juvenile crime syndicates. 'Gas-s-s-s' is a disappointingly boring and tries overly hard to be bizarre. The entire script appears to be improvised at the spot and not at all funny. Definitely not my cup of tea, but the film does have a loyal fan base and many admirers, so who am I to say that it's not worth your time or money?


I'll admit that I've never seen 'Waiting for Guffman', 1997's critically acclaimed comedy mockumentary about a small town thats that stages a pageant. When the advertising for Best in Show had the tagline 'From the Team That Brought You Waiting for Guffman', a fair number of critics out there implied in their reviews that only people that are familiar with the film or its filmmakers and cast would have a good time seeing this film. For shame, critics, for shame times two! Any critic that implies something like that with any film probably doesn't want to share the film's wealth with the rest of the world, but this is one film that I hope people will experience, now that its video/dvd. 'Best in Show' is, without a doubt, the best comedy of 2000.

The film begins with a mockumentary style, introducing the main competitors (not to mention screwballs) of the annual Mayflower 'Best In Show' competition, where dogs of all breeds come to compete to see who is the top dog. We have the loveable and gullable Harry Pepper (Guest) with his bloodhound, the simple Gerry & Cookie Fleck (Levy & O'Hara) with their terriors, nut-case yuppies Hamilton & Meg Swan (Hitchcock & Posey), the gay dog groomers Scott Dolan & Stefan Vanderhoof (Higgins & McKean), and the airheaded millionare Sheri Ann Ward Cabot (Coolidge) along with her trainer Christy Cummings (Lynch). They all have their minds on one simple object: The Blue Ribbon, which will be awarded to the best dog. And...do I have to tell you the rest?

Director/writer/star Guest's idea of humor is one that assures me that there are comedies out there that are worth laughing at, and that the idiocy of films like 'American Pie' or other pointless 'teenage' flicks won't take over the world after all. His idea is simple: make your comedy not just funny, but SMART funny. But instead of following in the brilliant footsteps of films like 'Zero Effect' and 'High Fidelity', he used a rather unusual approach (and as I understand, he also used this approach for 'Guffman'). Whether you notice or not, a very large part of the film is improvisation. In other words, what the actors say and do were probably not written in the script, maybe even not even dreamed of by Guest and co-writer/star Levy. But with a gentle hand from Guest, he and the actors pulled off a hilarious theatrical feat that probably would have flopped if handled by other, less adept actors. Now that's smart!

The cast is, of course, what makes improv work the most. All of them are a (comedic) marvel to behold, especially Guest as Pepper. But the real standout has to be Fred Williard as Buck Laughlin, the clueless announcer at the competition who can spin out the most outrageously funny stories and comments that no announcer would even dream of...that is, if the announcer was trying to be funny. Williard can go from talking about the dog to suddenly going on and on about how much he can bench press. There's even a part were he gives out an idea for a new marketing strategy: have sexy women pose in tight shirts and shorts with the dogs and imply something like 'have a doggie-style of a time'. Its priceless, as is his performance.

I hope that people engage in this 90-minute 'dogumentary'. The film deserves so much recognition. It did get nominated for Best Picture-Comedy at the Golden Globes, but didn't win. I can't see why. I mean, in the comedy department, it is best in show.

GRADE: A


This film is one of those that has a resounding familiarity to it. It is earthy, grounded and a film that will make you think...and smile. Paul Reiser and Peter Falk take you on a journey that you will not forget. The soundtrack is beautifully varied and fitting; and the film itself is like a breath of fresh air. This surely deserves recognition for both the film and the actors! Finally, a piece of art that departs from the obvious love story and the frequent special affects that are seen today. Never have I walked out from a movie with such deep warmth and feeling of thoughtfulness in my heart; for it felt as if someone had just wrapped it in a fluffy fleece blanket. To see this film is to find a real treasure and delight in it.


That movie while slightly flawed was entirely entertaining. About half an hour into Be Cool, I started to have Hollywood Homicide flashbacks. But guess what? This is worse. Even the dance number is bad. I like most of the cast in this movie, so that makes me feel bad about writing a negative review of it but I feel obligated. The Rock, Andre 3000, and Vince Vaughn were in a comedy. No one else seemed to decide what movie genre they were acting in. I feel bad for Travolta because he brought the same Chili Palmer from Get Shorty to this movie. He was totally consistent in the role, but this movie is so different from the original that the character sticks out like a sore thumb. I was going to give this movie 4/10 because I like the actors so much but there is a conversation in the movie about a certain song that is so asinine I couldn't believe the performers actually said it. If you want to go to the movies this weekend there should still be some Oscar contenders out there. That would be a much better way to spend your time.


It's just a bad film.Not as bad as R.I.C.C.O. but bad.It got me hooked at the beginging then totally lost me after that.The acting was way off then on then going way way way off.Do not see this movie at all costs,TRUST ME WITH ALL MY HEART!!!!The directors who are brothers are not the next HUGHES BROTHERS,who made really great films like DEAD PRESIDENTS,FROM HELL,AMERICAN PIMP,and MENACE II SOCIETY.The only person who made me watch this was the acting of Paris Campbell,who will be a great actor one day if he makes better films than this.Christina Caparoula also did a nice job for what she got.I hope THE FITTEST is 10 times better than this piece of crap!


I don't think this cartoon was as bad as some may think. Of course, I was only five at the time it came out. But, I did find it very entertaining at the time and would still give it a look today if given the opportunity. Batman and Robin being voiced by Adam West and Burt Ward was a nice touch, and gave it a sense of familiarity for me as I was also watching re-runs of the campy 1960's live action show 'Batman' at that age. This cartoon also introduced some new twists I had forgotten all about, like 'Bat-Mite' for instance. Looking back on it, I'm sure he was likely as annoying as many think, but he didn't bother me much at the time. The best I can recall, his voice sounded like a cross between Dumb Donald and Orko. Gee, I wonder why? :) Anyway, give it a look if you can and make up your own mind. You might be surprised.


This game is not exactly the best N64 game ever. Sure, it's good, but only when there's 4 players. Without 4 players, the only fun thing to do is take remote mines and see how many people you can kill. But half of this game are levels where you have to save Natalya, so you'll have to limit your use of remote mines in those levels, and that gets quite boring. The graphics don't exactly reach the level of Super Mario 64 or even Mario Kart 64. And if you're talking a great multiplayer in a 1st-person shooter, you'll have to go with Perfect Dark. At least you can play 'multiplayer' by yourself.


Before this, the flawed 'Slaughterhouse Five' was the best. But this screen adaptation of 'Mother Night' is very true to the book and keeps the comedy, mystery, and tragedy intent. Thankfully it wasn't Hollywood-ized or idiotized a la the movie of 'Breakfast of Champions.' Another good thing about this movie is that you don't have to be familiar with the book to follow it (as I think you do for Slaughterhouse Five). That's probably true of Breakfast of Champions also but they did such a bad job of that you're better off just reading the book and not seeing the movie! Nick Nolte did an excellent job in this film.


Baldwin has really stooped low to make such movies. The script, the music, just about everything in this movie is a waste of time.

The sound FX do not sound real, they stick out way too much (technical gadgets etc.) If they are trying to make a movie about things like this, at least try to get real with it and drop those extra bleeps and beeps, because those gadgets don't really make loud sounds like that. Natural sounds like footsteps and such are non-existent, which gives it a void-like atmosphere.

Directing seems to be OK for such a low budget film (I sure hope it was a low budget production), although it does seem fairly amateurish at times.

Most characters seem empty and false, they simply haven't casted this movie very well. I'd imagine it would've been a better idea to make Baldwin speak some Spanish than to make Spanish actors speak English, when we all know that theirs is the language which is more vibrant and alive, that is why the actors performance can suffer greatly if an odd language is used. I mean, could finally someone realise how stupid it sounds to make international actors speak English with a bad accent? It's should've a long ago buried corpse in movie production. The production team ever heard of subtitles? This movie again manages to depict European police as lazy and corrupt, the societies as vulnerable and helpless. I mean if the plot again goes like 'The Interpol can't do jack, so let's call one American to bring down this international syndicate' or whatever.

Sony Pictures treads on the same path as Columbia before it, just producing movies for the hell of it. I'd imagine them to have some self respect also. Are buyers supposed to buy every dirty title just because Sony puts out something good a few times a year?! Maybe they should've used the same team as who were making Di Que Si - Say I Do. It's spoken in Spanish and Paz Vega and Santi Millan do a decent job keeping the movie afloat. Looks and sounds much better! Come on Sony, wake up, produce less, sell more.


Movie watchers often say great movies must have 3 memorable

scenes to be considered truly great. Broadcast news doesn't have

three, it has twice that. This movie is extremely well written by

James Brooks. Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks have never been

better. I love this movie for many reasons. It is great because it

makes you laugh and it makes you cry. Albert Brooks has several

great lines and many unforgettable scenes: # 1(laughed) 'I can

sing and read, I am singing while I read,' with Midnight Train to

Georgia playing in the background. # 2(laughed) Telling the

William Hurt character that 'You really blew the lid off of nookie,'

after watching Hurt's report on date-rape. #3 (Cried) When Aaron

(A. Brooks) finally tells Jayne (Hunter) that he loves her and she

can't end up with Hurt's character because he represents

everything about journalism Jayne finds dispicable. Finally, #4 (laughed) who can forget the scene where Aaron

anchors the weekend news....hilarious. This movie should have won an Oscar! It has everything I love in

movies, great acting, intelligent script, and even a Jack Nicholson

cameo!


I really can't say anything bad *or* good about this thing. Its characters are likable enough, it's capably produced and designed, and professional-looking (except for that cheesy monster suit). However, it has no originality, no ideas, and nothing you haven't seen in ALIEN, PREDATOR, ARMAGEDDON and/or OUTLAND. It's just another formula, cookie-cutter, 'grimy corporate drones in deep space versus unstoppable monster' flick. Pretty much a waste of time.


Good footage of World War I-era ships and planes supplement this excellent war drama set in the Adriatic. Walter Huston is excellent as the commanding officer who knows his place and his place has no room for personal feelings. The safety of the ship and the mission must always come first. Robert Montgomery is the Lieutenant who has not yet mastered the role that a leader must play in combat. He makes bad decisions, endangering the submarine and its crew but finally becomes a 'real man' after he is court martialed and dismissed from the Navy. Robert Young plays a lieutenant junior grade and Jimmy Durante as a cook. Paralleling the war drama is an equally important wartime love triangle between Montgomery and Madge Evans who plays Huston's daughter and the wife of a tragically injured aviator. Recommended.


Not even the most ardent stooge fan could possibly like the movie, (I one of them) the stooges just aren't given any material to work with. It is really a shame too because this is the only feature length movie the stooges did with Curly, and this one effort by them is painfully unfunny, when it could have had great potential. Awful musical numbers don't help any either. The short they did with the same title has more laughs.


The story is about the life of common people from Antwerp, living their lives. So I said it, and there is nothing more actually to tell about the story. The movie is fast, like an MTV-flick, and well photographed and we feel that the director is talented and should do more films. So let's forget about this one and hope for the best with the next Deus-Barman picture.


I agree with one of the other comment writers about good story & good actors but mismatched, and I would also say rushed. It has been about 24years since I read the book as it was in school. But I felt that you would need to know the story of Jane Eyre when watching this one as bits are left out & therefore it doesn't fully make sense. For example Jane & Mr Rochester have hardly spoken & suddenly he is proposing marriage!!! The actors don't have time to let the audience know how their character feels about each thing happening in the story.The actors are good but aren't given enough time to do this story justice. I'm sorry to say it but I didn't really enjoy this version.The 1970 version with Susanna York & George C Scott would be the Jane Eyre movie of my preference BUT you should check out the 1983 BBC mini series version with Zelah Clarke & Timothy Dalton in the 2 main roles. I love it so much I watch it regularly.There is an abridged version which goes for 225mins or the full version for 330mins.


An interesting idea for a film, both showing the last dragon on earth and showing the struggle he and someone evil have together. When he was younger, Einon got stabbed in the heart, so Bowen (Dennis Quaid) took him to the dark lord who gave him half his heart. Now grown up Einon (David Thewlis) is now the selfish and evil king. Meanwhile, Bowen is using a new friend Draco the Dragon (voiced by Sir Sean Connery) to get rewards for 'killing' dragons. But because Einon has half of Draco's hear, they both feel the pain in one of them is hurt, or killed. Also starring Pete Postlethwaite as Gilbert of Glockenspur, Jason Isaacs as Lord Felton, Julie Christie as Queen Aislinn and John Gielgud as King Arthur. It was nominated for the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Worth watching!


Seeing this show gives me respect for MTV, though i imagine that MTV sees this random, edgy material as its main selling point and is much less concerned with the pertinent truths it expresses.

I write and play music for a living and this show gets me really emotionally riled up. For me, Wondsershowzen serves a completely distinct function from most TV. Instead of dulling or distracting the senses, (which can be often really nice at times), it awakens my spirit of right and wrong. It makes me very uncomfortable, but in a very comforting way.

I don't think a lot of viewers absorb most of this show's content, but if they do, kudos to television viewers everywhere.


Bergman´s tale about how the hell of the war can drive a sensible couple of musicians to the barbarousness. With many memorable scenes throughout the film, I found particularly remarkable that close to the end where Ullmann and Von Sydow go in a boat completely surrounded by corpses of soldiers floating on the sea. A fascinating masterpiece!


Danny Glover and Carey Elwes obviously forgot how to act when they made this movie, the acting is absolutely atrocious. The pay-off is even worse. I feel sorry for Danny Glover, I hope he got paid well for this because it makes him look completely foolish, the same goes for Mr. Elwes.An absolute slap in the face to any horror movie fan. Despicable. This is probably the worst display of acting by veteran actors I have ever seen. I wonder if they bothered to look at the script, or if they did it must have said 'forget everything you know about acting' because this makes the two of them look ridiculous. For two seasoned veterans to act this way is appalling, I hope the pay check was very large, I thought, at first, it was a spoof. If you can find satisfaction in this movie then more power to you.


I saw this movie a few months ago on cable, and it was fantastic. William H Macy is one of my favorite actors, and his performance was just amazing. He makes you care for his character, even when he is clearly doing the wrong thing, and Neve Campbell gives a performance that is with out a doubt the best performance I have seen by an actress this year. She is fantastic as a wild young woman who is wise beyond her years.

Donald Sutherland is just plain creepy as Macy's father, and John Ritter is fine as a shrink stuck in the middle of everything that is happening.

I wish that this was in the theater because I feel that it's a movie that should be view by a wider audience. That's a shame, because it's a hell of allot better that most of the new movies coming into the theater now.


I don't know about the real Cobb but I got the distinct impression that the filmmakers' aim was to try to soften his jagged edges and reputation, not give us a true portrait of the man himself. In the movie, besides a few racist remarks, he's shown to be just another hard-nosed, cantakerous old coot (he's so full of life!) with a heart of gold(more or less). This is also the worst acting I've seen T.L.Jones do(he brings nothing new or subtle to his stereotyped character). He just doesn't flesh out Cobb in a way that pulls me into the movie. Not for one minute did I forget that it was Tommy Lee Jones on the screen pretending to be Ty Cobb. Robert Wuhl didnt impress either. The 'comedic' elements in this movie were just distracting and didnt ring true at all. A bloody waste of time, it is


Took a chance to see if perhaps a really good WWI film had slipped my notice--this isn't it. John Phillip Law and Don Stroud are both stiff in their acting and miscast for their roles. The dialogue is dumb or non-existent; the flying sequences are okay but pretty repetitive. Compared to the terrific 'Blue Max' this movie should never have been made. Watch George Peppard,James Mason, and Usula Andress in the BM and you get why that movie is one of the best war films ever made and this isn't. Recently released on DVD Richtofen and Brown is presented as some great 'lost classic' from the 70's, I resold mine the day after I bought it. Don't waste your time or $.


Some ugly weirdo who had three families, cheated on and neglected all of them, built ugly useless buildings all over which are now unappreciated and crumbling. His bastard half-Jew son runs around interviewing random Jewish senile people who we care nothing about and shows his dreadful narrating and writing skills while tragic piano music plays. This goes on for almost two boring hours and amounts to nothing.

All you shallow hippie people who watch these stupid documentaries, eating salads and yogurt, think all this crap is so important. It's not. Save the whales. No one cares.


From the writer of 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?' and 'Hush .. Hush, Sweet Charlotte,' this tail-end of the sixties horror cycle has some eerie and campy fun. Micheál Macliammóir does a Victor Buono-type bit, but too often the movie totters dangerously close to a bad musical ... there's a particularly awful children's recital about halfway through. Debbie taps, tangos and tricks up a lá Harlow, while Winters' religious fanatic has a lesbian edge to her. Agnes Moorehead checks in as an evangelist. Weaver has nothing to do - and even has to pay a gigolo to dance with Debbie.


for a movie like this little hidden gem to come out in the 80s, its shocking how not a lot of people know about it.

this movie is definitely worth a look. it has all the things you need for a horror movie. especially the good old chills.

i remember watching this movie for the first time about 15 years ago, but i couldn't remember the name of it, so i came to IMDb a few years ago to ask for help on finding the title. i eventually got the name of the title, and bought the movie. i still love it as much as i did all those years ago.

buy this movie!!


Gregory Peck's acting was excellent, as one would expect, and the cinematography quite stunning even when playing directly into some melodramatic 'moment.' But, the rest of the film was overacted and hard to watch, for me anyway. I tried to like it, but had to fast-forward through the last thirty minutes or so. I feel I wasted a couple of good hours. Had it not been for Gregory Peck, I wouldn't have lasted fifteen minutes. 4/10.


This show is like watching someone who is in training to someday host a show. There are some good comedy ideas and tons of mediocre ones. It doesn't look like the writers know the difference between what's funny and what's just weird or gross.

It has its moments. When Spike hosed down a neighbor who had been letting her dog soil his lawn repeatedly, it hit it's peak. But the hilarious moments are too few, and there's too many experimental comedy bits that miss the mark.

The show's better than, say, watching a test pattern or the QVC network, but it needs some better writers.

Reading the glowingly positive IMDb comments on this show, I am convinced that most of them were written by show staffers and by relatives and personal friends of Spike.

It just isn't very good most of the time.


-SPOILERS------------ I am a fan of 60's-70's french cinema but not necessarily of the more modern,so to be honest i watched this because of Bellucci.She is very young here,extremely beautiful and on top of this supposedly this movie is where they met with Cassel,so it gives it some extra importance.

The movie begins with a very nice style reminiscent of DePalma.Then suddenly we are thrown to flashback,and the back and forth goes on which gets tiring.I don't mind one flash back,but do it and get it over with man!!!Anyway,the movie is still interesting to me until a point when the first and definite hole in the plot,that allows for the rest of the story,never lets me enjoy the rest.I can allow for little holes here and there,but not to base an entire plot on hot air.This is the story of a man who is literally searching for an old flame.This is the main plot.I will go along,when the story at some point will convince me that there are really mysterious things going on,but in this story there's nothing really mysterious.Bellucci-Cassel are a couple ,then Bellucci urgently has to leave for some job in Italy(not the farthest place on earth from Paris)and she leaves him a message,which for reasons later explained he doesn't get.OK,so what?Don't these people have phones?Supposedly she was away for 2months(not a century exactly) and wouldn't she call her boyfriend in Paris to see how he's doing? Of course not.Instead,even after she gets back she forgets all about him.And thats fine,but later in the movie she tells her friend that it was her greatest love and was ready to commit for the first time in her life.Yet she failed to give him a call for 2months and then never tried to get back with him.And what about Cassel's character?He was supposedly unable to locate her in Italy,really hard to find someone in Italy,its probably like Siberia,especially an actress who is probably listed even in the arts papers.And after 2months when she would be back,really hard to find her and ask for an explanation. One thinks she wanted to avoid him,but no,we find out they simply couldn't meet.So hard to meet in Paris. OK,i don't need to go further,because this is the incident where the entire movie is based. What is even worse,Bellucci is not really the star of this movie but this other girl Bohringer is.


The first mystery is to guess what Welles' original film was like. That makes this a real adventure -- to see an incomplete skeleton and using cinematic forensics, imagine the beautiful woman it once supported.

If you do, you will both see and experience perhaps one of the best film mysteries ever. As mysteries go, the narrative is rather ordinary: a simple diversion, one jealous husband as red herring.

What's rather miraculous is Welles' placement of the story in an artificial eye seeing a dark, dark multifaceted world. The first real noir, but even darker. It's not an obviously twisted world, unless you think about the camera. What we can see firsthand is someone creating a vocabulary that would later become common.

For all the celebration, Kane was a success because of the great drama and story. The camera's eye was shocking, but experimental. Welles would go from there to explore the mystery narrative and the self-reference of Shakespeare with this eye. Othello and MacBeth are both begun in this period, and I consider them part of a single vision with this.

The noir feel here hinges on the notion that people are not in charge of their lives, even a little -- they are manipulated by random factors in the environment. So in telling this story, Welles has to make the environment into a character. Several characters as suspects in the mystery.

Thus we have the famous lighting, blocking and angles we know (and have since seen countless times). And we have the deliberately closed sets: the park, yacht, picnic area, aquarium, dock, courtroom, Chinese theater and funhouse. I am certain that what was cut by the barbarians was lots and lots of 'external' narrative dealing not with character but with these strange environments.

My own solution to the mystery is that the funhouse did it, among the other character-environments introduced as suspects. In other words, the manipulation of Black Irish (who we know from notes and one scene typing at the union hall was an aspiring novelist) was neither: a force of human conspiracy (the park or the civilized version, the courtroom) nor of nature (the picnic or the civilized version, the aquarium).

Instead it was a matter of deliberate caprice by the gods for amusement. This is of course a self-reference to what Welles is doing: putting these people (including himself) through hell for our own caprice, a matter underscored by the Peking Opera set with Welles doped up. And of course leading to the funhouse where the environment directly tinkers with perception.

More about the self-reference: surely there is conscious comment on his relationship with his soon to be exwife. But I believe there is strong subconscious comment on his own taunting the environment in which he worked, the studio environment. Surely Welles was as much screwed with, and in much the same way, as his character. And that screwing took the form of the murder of this film, leaving the rotting corpse mentioned at the beginning of this comment.

That poor Rita comes from China ties up the whole thing, the Chinese theater, the expected rape from above, the loss of the woman. The investment in environment beyond all.


It is always a nice suprise when a film made for TV turns out to be entertaining such as Little Richard. This is a very watchable film about the story of Rock and Roller ,Little Richard played by an actor called Leon who i have never seen before but does an very good job. As most TV films , this is a little tamer than if made for Cinema which is a shame because i am sure there is lot we could have seen about Little Richard that was controversial. Instead we see a lot religous rubbish which is the only thing that spoils the film and eventually spoilt a very promising career. All in all this film is good and the acting is above average fot a TV film. 7 out of 10.


You'd have more excitement cutting off your testicles than watching this, clearly a trick to get you to rent 'Descent' instead of 'The Descent', which is a much better movie.

This is a total rip off of 'The Core' and much, much worse as regards special effects, I could do better with a box of cornflakes and a roll of tinfoil, I mean come on!....that 'Mole' thing, bore more resemblance to a vibrating dildo than a subterranean vehicle .

Don't watch it - if you do you'll find the room your in has a funny smell for days after and you'll have this nagging feeling in the back of your head that you should go kill yourself or something.


this is quite possibly the worst acting i have ever seen in a movie... ever. and what is up with the casting. the leading lady in this movie has some kind of nose dis-figuration and is almost impossible to look at for any period of time without becoming fixated on her nose. you could go to your local grocery store on a Sunday afternoon and easily find 50 more qualified, better looking possible leading ladies. i made the unfortunate mistake of renting this movie because it had a 'cool' DVD case. This movie looks like it is just some class project for a group of multimedia students at a local technical college. i would rather have spent the hour or so that this movie was on watching public access television... at least the special effects are better and the people on there are more attractive than anyone you will see in this film


Yes, I felt like I had been gutted after first seeing it. But not until the next day did I begin to see the true brilliance of this creation. I won't repeat much of what has already been said by those who appreciate the film, but there is one new area I want to touch on... **SPOILERS** Why exactly did the teacher put the broken glass in the student's pocket? Most reviewers have noted that it only reflected her cruelty and reaction to an unsatisfactory performance. I must disagree. Watch the scene again. Huppert is moved to tears as she watches her student playing on stage. The student is quite an expressive girl (crying & vocalizing her fears)- just the opposite of Huppert's character. There is a scene later in the film, after the girl is injured, when Huppert discusses the accident with the girl's mother. The mother, visibly upset, states 'We gave up everything so she could study piano' and Huppert immediately snaps 'You mean SHE gave up everything, don't you.'

So it was my thought that Huppert was simply saving this young expressive student from her own destiny. She didn't want the girl to end up like HER, repressed & hardened, condemned to a life of recitals...gradually killing the soul in the pursuit of perfection. Maybe she saw herself on the stage years ago, before things grew bad. Maybe she wished she had escaped when she was that age. Is she ruining the student's life, or simply freeing her?

For me, that realization made all the difference in what I experienced through this film. Brilliant.


DOC SAVAGE: THE MAN OF BRONZE (1 outta 5 stars)

Dreadful, dreadful movie... based on the pulp magazine/paperback series by Lester Dent/Kenneth Robeson... about a super-heroic adventure hero in the '30s and his five assistants, all experts in some field of endeavor that allows them to combat evil. It was a pretty hokey series... but kinda fun to read when I was a teenager. I knew they made a movie version in the '70s, starring Ron (Tarzan) Ely... but I never got a chance to see it. It never played in theaters where I lived and was never shown on TV. Now that I have finally seen the film I can understand why. The plot and characters are never treated seriously... it's all kind of tongue-in-cheek and campy... kind of like the old Batman TV series... only without the benefit of being funny... or having any visual flair. Corny dialogue, cheesy special effects, dumb stereotypes, crummy action scenes and bad, bad acting. Actually, I find it kind of fascinating in its badness... what could they have possibly been thinking? Arnold Schwarzenegger was rumoured to be starring in a modern-day remake... but I don't imagine that would have turned out to be much better.


As I have matured, my fascination with the Academy Awards has evolved from intense interest to casual amusement. As in a few other comments that I have written, the bizarre results of Academy Award voting are often difficult to explain. The omission of 'In Cold Blood' in 1967 as one of the five Best Picture nominees is one of those inexplicable instances, especially when one of the nominations that year went to the wretched and unwatchable 'Dr. Dolittle.' While only an insomniac or masochist would tune in to that Rex Harrison disaster, Richard Brook's powerful adaptation of Truman Capotes non-fiction novel retains its ability to capture the viewer's attention and leave him or her completely drained by the final fade out. While there is nothing particularly graphic or gruesome on screen, the film is definitely adult material. Based on a Nebraska multiple murder in the 1950's and filmed in the actual locations where the murders took place, 'In Cold Blood' was filmed by master cinematographer Conrad Hall in stark black and white, and his screen compositions demand to be seen in their correct widescreen aspect ratio. Together with Quincy Jones's unsettling score, Hall's work should have been credited above the title with Brook's screenplay as the three pillars on which this intense classic is built. The performances are fine as well. Scott Wilson is all cold charm and Robert Blake intense introversion as the two killers. (There is an inside joke at one point when Blake speaks of Bogart and 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madre' while the duo are driving to Mexico. As a child star, Blake sold the lottery ticket to Bogart in that John Huston film.) The film, like the book, is definitely slanted towards the killers and has an anti-capital punishment tilt, although the remorselessness of the murderers somewhat negates that sentiment despite the difficult-to-watch final scenes. Some have criticized the film because it does focus on the criminals, their backgrounds, and lives, while the Clutter family, which was literally murdered in cold blood in the middle of the night, come across as one-dimensional characters of little import. This lack of balance comes from the book as Capote spent much time with the two killers while they were on death row. The Clutter family was apparently not researched to the same depth. However, whatever feelings one may have for or against capital punishment, 'In Cold Blood' will leave you mired deep in conflicting thoughts. Run a double bill with 'Dead Man Walking,' and you may not speak for days.


The curse of Monkey Island is a brilliant video game and its a stroke of genius from the video game designers at lucasarts to have created this sequel. All the characters are brilliant, the voice overs for the characters were realistic and funny. A lot of effort went into this game and it deserves the 10 i gave in the vote, keep up the good work lucasarts!


The 1930' were a golden age of Los Angeles with its film industry and great potential of various other possibilities to become rich and famous and happy. People were arriving there hoping to fulfill their dreams. Expecting open arms and welcoming offers there were only a few who managed to succeed and find their way to stardom, majority then condemned to live starving, disillusioned and unwanted, searching for a bit of respect in dirty bars and nasty hotel rooms.

Young Italian-American writer Arturo Bandini arrives to LA on a similar quest - to spread his charms around to get one of those beautiful wealthy women and to write an excellent novel that would set him on a career path, having so far written a single short story published in an obscure anthology. Wishing to create a romantic masterpiece he seems to be unable to produce anything without experiencing it himself though, occasionally, he sends pieces of magazine stories to a local editor that helps him survive. He is proud to present himself as an Italian but deep in his heart he truly feels his Italian origin as a burden. The little money and the courage to conquer the world he once had are all long gone and watching his dream turning into a hangover he holds a last single nickel to spend.

The coffee she brought him was cold and sour and spitting a curse on her triggers a never-ending relationship of insults, unspoken excuses and a love concealed beneath. Camilla being an uneducated girl trying to receive US citizenship through a marriage also carries her heavy cross of a non-perspective racial heritage. Though she is much of a stronger and life experienced person her situation as a beautiful Mexican woman is much harder to deal with than Arturo is able to realize.

Is it obvious that Arturo eventually finds his inspiration to work on the novel? Is it possible that their love finally finds its place in the sun? Is it likely that their romance takes an unlucky turn?

It is very surprising to find out that the chemistry between the two main characters, performed by Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, does not work. The relationship lacks the raw and authentic feelings. Hayek though livelier a character compared to Farrell's forgot to arm Camilla with the passion and strength of her once brilliant character Frida. Also it is hard to have faith in a character which being intelligent but uneducated and illiterate uses quite difficult vocabulary and complicated sentences. A tougher character of a Phil Marlowe sort would definitely suit Farrell better, though he looks stunning in a period costume, he seems very lost trying to find the fragile world of a twenty-year old dreamer balancing between a hidden love and desire to be true to himself.

Feeling embarrassed watching the two on the screen is not right. Their relationship might have been wild but it is more likely what a thunder and a lightning are without a storm, far from real passion, feelings just described not felt inside. It is very sad that such a potential of an interesting script and good actors was wasted, turned into a grey average of soon-to-be-forgotten.


Very, very humdrum movie fare here with Stella Stevens taking directions from someone in disguise(it didn't take me long to guess who it was) in Old Nevada Town outside Vegas for a money heist in the Circus Circus Hotel in Las Vegas. Stevens leads her girl gang of three, and they find out that they must act much quicker than had been anticipated. Despite some neat looks at Las Vegas in the 70's, very average yet credible acting from most involved, and a plot line with potential, Las Vegas Lady lays one big boring egg. It seems forever for the film to kick into gear,and when it does it just sputters here and there and never really speeds up. I was somewhat disappointed with this film. Sure, I wasn't expecting anything great, but I at least thought this might be one of those neat exploitation films from the 70's or something like it. Not even close. No one dies. There is a lame gunfight between creaky Stuart Whitman and officious George DiCenzo, one year prior to his grand performance as the prosecuting attorney Bugliosa in Helter Skelter. The gunfight has all the suspense of watching a waterfall. There is one punch and one head hit with a blunt instrument. Beyond that nothing in terms of action. And as for the girls, don't expect much there either. Stella and her girls(both very mediocre yet pretty talents, get in a sauna and a bath. What do we see? Nothing but a fleeting side profile. Stella wears these nice open blouses accentuating her real talents, but I wish she would have been a bit more open with her performance. That way I could write one thing that would recommend the film. Alas, it was not to be, and I have little to say in this film's favor. It isn't a horrible film in any way, it just has nothing going for it either. YAWN.


I was very excited when Paranormal State first came on A&E. I thought that it may bring some more interesting ghostly evidence. The production value looked good and I really love the logo. Then, after about few episodes in, I started to feel that this show may not be looking for evidence but had a strong religious agenda.

It seems like every case they investigate has some big powerful evil demon that can't even make a teacup move on camera, yet everyone is terrified. Then comes some power of Christ ritual that saves everyone.

Also, there is very little focus on other members of the team. The entire show focuses on Ryan and he feels like one of those people that hands you pamphlets about his church on the street.

Has paranormal phenomenon and demons become the new missionaries of Christianity, scaring people to convert? Really, this should be on a Christian network. I was very disappointed.


This is just one of those movies that continually make you groan and that I wished was over. The problems are many and the good points are few. I feel the main problem with this movie is that it has what amounts to a cheesy plot and they try to make it out to be a epic movie, which a movie about super evil monkeys and smart ones that sign just is not epic, it is cheese. When you have cheese you make the movie more fun. Granted, the final scene with the monkeys and that laser was very nice to watch and more of things of that nature was needed. Instead the actors are doing such a serious job that you feel the movie just has a corny plot amid all the serious tension the movie is trying to set up. The plot revolves around a woman trying to find what happened to her missing ex-husband while also searching for some sort of legendary diamonds. She uses these two guys who trained an ape to do sign language and now wish to return her to the wild as cover to get into the country and begin the mediocre adventure of a lifetime. The only things that make this movie somewhat tolerable is Ernie Hudson's character and the laser attack at the end.


A reporter, Craig Milford, who works for The James Keller Public Telecommunication Center, has an interview with a German professor of a Floridian university, who made an unknown creature based upon some substance of meteor(s). But then a man named Anderson, who is trying to control the whole planet with the creature, and his man kill the professor and his assistants and plunder the creature. So Craig and his new female psychic partner, Joanna Fitzgerald, who can communicate not only with human being but also with alien friend(s) of the creature, begin to find the creature and try to send it to an alien spaceship... This film has some great casts and staffs. For instance, it has the actor, David Warbeck of THE BEYOND, the actress, Laura Trotter of NIGHTMARE CITY, the special visual effects creator, Sergio Stivaletti of Dario Argento's masterpieces, and the director (and also the story- writer), Alberto De Martino of THE MAN WITH ICY EYES and THE KILLER IS ON THE PHONE. And these talented people make an incredibly bad film, named, nothing but this MIAMI GOLEM which is essentially a confusedly combined film of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND with E.T.THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL. And this not-only-confused-but-also-crammed film has something worth; genetic engineering with psychical research. Consequently the film has at least one scientific and/or technical flaw; genetic engineering and psychical research are never compatible. (Strangely enough, regarding this strangely childish combination of genetic engineering and psychical research, the leading character, Craig, himself says THERE MUST BE A BETTER EXPLANATION to the short-haired psychic, Joanna. But, after all, the whole story of the film doesn't and can't present any kind of BETTER EXPLANATION.) In addition, this film has something more laughable; its problematic music. What the composer, who is credited as Robert Marry, provides is nothing but the strangely insistent BEVERLY-HILLS-COP-tasted music. I don't want to say this Italianised theme of BEVERLY HILLS COP per se is particularly bad music, but I have to say it seems to be manifestly clear the music does not have the fitness for this film per se at all. Indeed just who can think BEVERLY HILLS COP has the compatibility with genetic engineering and/or psychical research?


Pistol-packing Pam Grier takes names and kicks butt as the heroine in 'Asylum of Satan' director William Girdler's entertaining blaxploitation actioneer 'Sheba Baby,' co-starring D'Urville Martin and Austin Stoker. 'Sheba Baby' is one of several tough chick flicks that Grier appeared in during the 1970s, including 'Coffy,' 'Foxy Brown,' and 'Friday Foster.' The short-lived Girdler co-wrote this thoroughly routine private eye potboiler with producer David Shelton in one night and it features a headstrong female shamus that refuses to rely on a man to help her take care of business. Unfortunately, 'Sheba Baby' isn't nearly as good as the blaxploitation movies that Grier made under the supervision of director Jack Hill. Hill helmed the African-American North Carolina native in 'Coffy,' 'Foxy Brown,' 'The Big Bird Cage,' and 'The Big Doll House.' Anybody that analyzes images of African-American women in cinema should be familiar with these epics. The chief problem with 'Sheba Baby' is that our heroine gets too many convenient breaks. Naturally, the secondary villains are trigger happy clowns that couldn't hit the side of a barn with a howitzer. As the main antagonist, Dick Merrifield qualifies as both an egotistical as well as smarmy villain with choice lines like: 'Anything worth having is worth stealing.' Additionally, composer Monk Huggins does provide a strong, atmospheric orchestral soundtrack, and the best song, with Barbara Mason warbling it, is 'Good Man Is Gone.' 'Sheba Baby' casts Grier as stylist Chicago gumshoe Sheba Shayne. She leaves the Windy City to return to her hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, to help out her father. When she arrives in Louisville, Sheba learns that her father, Andy (Rudy Challenger of 'Detroit 9000'), is having trouble with a local black gangster nicknamed Pilot (cigar-chomping D'Urville Martin of 'Hammer') who demands that Andy sell out his loan company to Pilot or die.

Initially, Pilot dispatches a goon squad to trash Andy's office, but our heroine's father catches them in the act. They turn Sheba's father into a punching bag. Interestingly, during the fight scene, Girdler rarely shows fists smashing flesh. Earlier, Andy's right-hand man, Brick Williams (Austin Stoker of 'Horror High'), had sent Sheba a telegram requesting that she return to Louisville, but she didn't receive it immediately thanks to her lazy partner who didn't know where to find her. Brick and Sheba hook up, rekindle their romantic flames, and share a night in the sack. Brick spends most of his time urging Sheba to remain calm in the face of adversity. As a former Louisville, Kentucky, police woman, Sheba prefers to shoot first and ask questions second. After she arrives home, Sheba borrows her father's car and barely escapes being blown to bits. As she is walking out the door to get into her father's car, Andy receives another harassing call from Pilot. Previously, Andy had refused to discuss the prospect of selling his loan company to Pilot, but Andy changes his mind and agrees to talk with the hoodlum. A gratified Pilot warns Andy about the dynamite that has been attached to his ignition with a delayed action fuse. In other words, cranking up the car won't trigger the explosion; the explosion comes ten seconds later. Andy and Brick rescue Sheba before the car blows up. Earlier, Sheba had agreed to let her father handle his problems without her interference. 'Dad, I know you think I'm doing a man's job, but I'm not going to sit on the sidelines just because I'm a woman,' Sheba tells him. After her near-death experience, Sheba vows to learn who sabotaged her father's car. She grilles an old contact from her days as a cop and threatens the guy with her gun to extract the information. Only after Sheba has ground the guy's face into a bucket of chlorine dust does he relent and tell her about a pay-off at the town's railroad museum. Brick accompanies Sheba and shooting ensues with a flustered Pilot getting away by the skin of his chin.

Later, Pilot sends a quintet of out-of-town contract thugs armed-to-the-teeth to trash Andy's office. These gunsels ignore their no-kill orders. Not only do they shoot the loan company office to ribbons, but they also blast Sheba's dad with a shotgun. Sheba retaliates in short order. Wielding her nickel-plated revolver, she guns down three of the four assailants Dirty Harry style. The last hit-man discards his weapon and pleads for mercy. Sheba has her finger on the trigger when Homicide Detective Phil Jackson (Charles Kissinger of 'Abby') and a uniform cop arrive on the scene. At the hospital, Andy Shayne dies holding his daughter's hand. Naturally, Pilot is furious at this revelation and his fury borders on apoplexy. Afterward, Sheba tracks down a loan shark, Walker (Christopher Joy of 'Cleopatra Jones'), and pries information out of him about the Pilot while she holds him at gunpoint in a car wash. This is one of the better staged scenes with lots of ominous shots of the car wash equipment whirling and humming. Walker warns Pilot about Sheba. Pilot and his henchmen confront Sheba in a parking lot and swap lead. Sheba flees on foot to a nearby carnival. While the police corner one of Pilot's men, she deals with the others. Pilot shoots one of his own accidentally and Sheba runs him down. She pins Pilot to a roller-coaster track and threatens to hold him there until the roller-coaster cuts his head off. Pilot manages to escape after he has spilled his guts to Sheba about the identity and phone number of the big man, Shark (Dick Merrifield of 'The Hellcats'), whose reputation is so immaculate that Detective Jackson describes him as 'the guy with all the right answers.' 'Sheba Baby' isn't top-notch Pam Grier. However, the idea that our heroine can handle everything by herself without help from guys makes it interesting as well as entertaining chick flick.


I miss Dark Angel!..

I understand not ever one likes it, but as far as I'm concerned the show should not have been canceled, especially for another space show mock up...

I'm reading the books now. they are doing a pretty good job of explaining somethings, but I still think we should get a TV movie or something.

THE FREAK NATION LIVES!!!!!!!!


I was in Blockbuster and I saw a film called 'Dark Harvest'. The cover art looked great, the plot wasn't that bad, and the tagline (You reap what you sow) made the movie look pretty good. But I was dumb that day, because I did something I should have never done. I rented a 'Straight To Video Independent Horror Film' Walking out with my much better rentals, I went home, popped Dark Harvest in the DVD player and it began. I figured I would watch the trailer after the film was done (BAD IDEA) but went ahead and watched it anyway. NOW to the review.*POSSIBLE SPOILERS* First off, the acting by the 'kids' sucks, and the scene when the 2 (main characters) are talking, the lighting sucks, and the buildings even look fake! Now they go to this house, where Sean Connel's (I think he's the main character, I don't care) relatives lived there. All of a sudden one by one, they all start getting killed by...(gasp) A KILLER SCARECROW!!!! AHHH!!!!! The scarecrow is obviously the definition of low budget, and the scenes where the scarecrow is computerized looks so fake it's hilarious. It makes dinosaur noises and everything! And then at the end...they shoot the scarecrow with a gun (that is red for god's sake and looks like it was purchased at a local family dollar) and it pauses for a while and then.....(gasp) BLOWS UP!!!!!!

Save yourself some time, I'm telling you this movie sucks. if you need to pass an hour and a half, look at the wall, because looking at the wall is A+ fun compared to this disaster. It is quite funny though.

Overall Grade: F If there was anything lower **F-** Than I would give it that.


I didn't have much high hopes for this one. Before seeing it, the story yelled 'stereotype' at me.

I mean... come on! It's so stupid the plot line about the innocent android that realizes that the people who created him are immoral, then decides to change everything.

I had to see it three times. The first two times I fell asleep because I was so incredibly bored by it. It's very rare that movies bore me so much I fall asleep during them. The third time I forced myself to watch it, simply to be able to warn people about it.

I got the distinct impression that the people responsible for this mess had tried to take all the cool/neat things from other scifi/action movies, and put them together to make a kick-ass movie! They took the android/robot, lots of action, thin story, stereotype characters, and a big fight in the end and threw it together. Unfortunately, the movie sucks. The acting is so wooden you could build a house out of it, the storyline/plot is absolutely laughable, the camerawork and editing is horrid, the direction is non-existent, and to top it all off, everything is so cliche and ridiculous that it just annoys the hell out of you.

I was left with the feeling that I could've spent the time watching this one doing something much more creative, like trimming my fingernails, or watching the grass grow.


Film historians have said much about ancient epics that have been the interest of many directors from the beginning of cinema. The pioneers of such epics, particularly biblical ones, were D.W Griffith with his 'mother of all epics' INTOLERANCE (1916), and Cecil B DeMille with his flair for magnificent spectacles, costumes and lavish scenes. Who can forget his TEN COMMANDMENTS (1923, 1956) or THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932)? Nevertheless, here comes another epic, made in the 1950s, directed by Michael Curtiz, and based on the novel by Mika Waltari, 'The Egyptian.' Michael Curtiz, already famous for his great classic CASABLANCA (1941) wonderfully manages to adjust his film to the audiences of that time, to entail the most important ideas and facts from the thick novel, and to recreate the lifestyle of the Egyptians who lived in one of the most amazing periods, in the reign of Akhnaton.

The first and most important fact for me in this movie is the psychological development of the main character that Edmund Purdom plays. Sinuhe, having been brought up in a simple family by his step parents, becomes a physician. All his life, he never stops asking a question 'why?' and searching for the answer. Alluring love that he finds in a courtesan Nefer (Bella Darvi) leads him to financial and spiritual disaster. He has to repair the mistakes by hard work in the House of Death and starting to build up his reputation from nothing. First, he thinks that the only cure is revenge. However, in the long run, he realizes that 'eye for eye' is no solution. Finally, what stands before him in very strange circumstances is the temptation to be a pharaoh. Nevertheless, there is one moment he finds the answer for his questions that touched him throughout his life... The story of the main character, though based on the book, is so interesting psychologically that every open minded person should consider this aspect in the film. The main character's psychological struggle is intensified by the times he lived in, the times when, probably for the first time to that extend, the power of sword clashed with the power of thought.

Curtiz's movie also retains one rule that all films of his era kept to: great cast and lavish sets. There are mostly British actors and actresses who give very nice performances. How is it possible not to mention the mainstay of ancient epic, Victor Mature. This time, he is not Demetrius, Hannibal or Samson but Horemheb - a fighter, a lover, at last a pharaoh. Jean Simmons appears in a very delicate role of Merit, a woman who loved Sinuhe all her life but it was too late when he realized that. Peter Ustinov, probably most famous for his gorgeous performance as Nero in QUO VADIS? three years earlier, does a great job as Kaptah, Sinuhe's friend. The royalty of the film is also played by two great cast, Gene Tierney and Michael Wilding. Tierney is excellent as cold, desirous of power Baketamon, the sister of pharaoh. Wilding gives a marvelous performance as 'insane' Akhnaton. When I was in Louvre in Paris and saw Akhnaton's original face carved in stone, he looked very much the same as the actor in the film. Bella Darvi, an actress born in Poland, is quite memorable as a wicked courtesan Nefer. And there is one more actress who appears only in one scene but whom it is hard to forget, Judith Evelyn as Taia, pharaoh's mother. This voice, these eyes!

The sets are magnificent. The director recreated the most probable image of the outdoor temple of Aaton, the god that the Egyptians worshiped to in the reign of Amenhotep IV. I also loved the scene of pharaoh's first entrance. What a glorious picture that forever lasts in one's memory!!! However, there is also one aspect that I would like to draw the attention of all people interested to see the film. The Egyptian is similar to other epics in many respects, but it also stands out as a unique film. There are very few films which make such a wonderful use of different curiosities as for ancient times. There is a mention of iron used first by the Hetites. It's also the only film about ancient Egypt which talks openly of Egyptians' magnificent curing abilities. It memorably shows the contrasts of lifestyles, particularly the moment of a slave's death for whom no one cares followed by the announcement and consequently the widespread mourning after the death of pharaoh. Finally, 'The Egyptian' shows one historical fact: there were other nations except for Jews (before Christ) where the spirit of God shone in some human hearts. Yet, the only difference was that it did not survive that long as at Jews' because it did not have a strong fundament. The scene of Akhnaton's death supplies you with so many biblical and Christian values that you may think you watch a religious movie.

All things considered, I highly recommend Michael Curtiz' film. It is a great production at multiple levels: an entertainment for epic fans, an admiration of marvelous performances for cinema fans, a soul feast for spiritual people. Finally, it is a beautiful story of extraordinary things which happened thirteen centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.


hello all Denver fans!

i couldn't agree more with you guys! This show was so cool and cute, i i watched it as a kid in the late 80s. Among Denver are other favourite too, such as Care Bears and Rainbow Brite. I am 24 now, but it is still one of my favourite shows, and my favourite cartoon from the 80s. It brings back all the memories. The theme tune was great too, i get goosebumps whenever i hear it. It is sad that it lasted such a short time, but it has remained a firm favourite. Its great that i am not alone and that there are people out there who liked it too. This is one of the cartoon shows i shall keep for future generations.

Viva Denver! :)


I love the TV contest. Hate to see it end. There are so many talented contestants. It's a shame that only 2 will be picked. I love watching the judges also. At times they are as entertaining as the contestants. I have been watching the show faithfully every Sunday night. Wouldn't miss it for the world. It's the best reality show that's ever been on television. Good luck to all the contestants, though I have already chosen the two who I would like to see play Danny and Sandy on Broadway. I am anxious to see if my decisions are correct. I am not aware of how long the contest will go on until a Danny and Sandy are chosen but I will keep watching until the end.


This is an absolute great show. Jessica Alba, besides being the most beautiful women in the world, is a great actress. She does a great job of portraying Max, and I could never see anyone else doing that role. She is definitely one of a kind and absolutely gorgeous.


I heard about this series in 2001 which a friend of mine was recording off the television each week. I never bothered to watch though I became acquainted with the series through the magazine which I looked at every now and then in bookstores. I recently purchased series one on DVD and have become addicted to this fascinating and original series. The characters at first seem unlikeable but it is amazing how fast they grow and develop into a united force. As they begin to care for one another it becomes easy to care what happens to them (bearing in mind that this is only a TV series and they are fictional).

However it isn't the PC world of Star Trek and so whilst every character shows a good trait they each have their own flaws and demons that they must deal with. Indivual story lines mixed in with an overall multiple story-arc make this one of the most complex and rewarding television experiences I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. I absolutely enjoy watching each of the characters interact with one another.

This strange new world we are introduced to is brilliantly portrayed through the eyes of astronaut John Crichton and as he learns and adapts to being on the other side of the galaxy, strange alien creatures, different cultures, being hunted by a character that wants him dead and being treated as inferior by his comrades we can easily relate to what he must be feeling. As he becomes used to his surroundings so do the viewers and his compassionate, strong-willed and brave character is a joy to watch.

I have watched only seven episodes of Farscape season one and look forward to continuing through seasons two-four and the mini-series. Maybe one day we can all enjoy a season five. Highly recommended viewing and well worth setting time aside to watch. Buy and enjoy! 10/10.


I'm from Australia and have watched with respect the extraordinary culture surrounding rugby union in New Zealand. I can totally appreciate the comments made by Kiwis in relation to this movie. It was a total insult to a race of people and their beloved sport.

Whoever was involved in the making of this atrocious movie should be made to formally apologize to anyone who had the misfortune of watching it. Note: people do NOT kneel down and cry while slowly reciting the Hakka. What a pitiful scene this was.

Are we supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for this idiot who nearly killed his girlfriend, who refused to listen to any advice from anyone with half a brain, then apparently saw the light? What a thoroughly dislikable character (with the visits to children's hospitals doing nothing to redeem his despicable personality).

And why are people even making a movie about Americans playing rugby? They barely even feature in the sport on the world stage, not so much as to even warrant an attempt at making a movie about it (yes, Rugby's a 'world' sport, unlike gridiron and baseball)?


I watched it last night and again this morning - that's how much I liked it. There is something about this movie... When the movie was almost over, I was about to cry. I would strongly recommend 'Latter Days' to my friends - it's definitely worth seeing! I agree with those who say that some parts of the movie do not look very realistic. For example, both main characters are totally cute and in perfect physical shape (although, round is also a type of shape:) ). I rarely meet people like this as singles and I have never met any in couples. Other parts of the movie, including all those 'coincidences', do not look very realistic as well. BUT, after all it is A MOVIE, not a life story.


A remarkable example of cinematic alchemy at work, with a trite'n'turgid lump of lead script (penned by numbingly mediocre Hollywood hack nonpareil Jole Schumacher, no less) being magically converted into a choice chunk of exquisitely gleaming 24-carat musical drama gold thanks to brisk direction, fresh, engaging performances, spot-on production values, a flavorsome recreation of 50's era New York, an infectiously effervescent roll-with-the-punches tone, and a truly wondrous rhythm and blues score by the great Curtis Mayfield.

The story, loosely based on the real life exploits of the Supremes, prosaically documents the arduous rags-to-riches climb of three bright-eyed, impoverished black teenage girl singers who desperately yearn to escape their ratty, unrewarding ghetto plight and make it big in the razzle-dazzle world of commercial R&B music. All the obvious pratfalls of instant wealth and success -- egos run destructively amok, drugs, corruption, fighting to retain your integrity, and so on -- are predictably paraded forth, but luckily the uniformly excellent work evident in the film's other departments almost completely cancels out Schumacher's flat, uninspired plotting. The first-rate acting helps out a lot. Irene Cara, Lonette McKee, and Dwan Smith are sensationally sexy, vibrant and appealing leads -- and great singers to boot. Comparably fine performances are also turned in by a charmingly boyish pre-'Miami Vice' Philip Michael Thomas as the group's patient, gentlemanly manager, Dorian Harewood as McKee's venal, aggressively amorous hound dog boyfriend, and perennial blaxploitation baddie Tony ('Hell Up in Harlem,' 'Bucktown') King as a dangerously seductive, smooth operating, stone cold nasty gangster. The tone dips and dovetails from funny and poignant to melancholy and blithesome without ever skipping a beat, deftly evolving into a glowing, uplifting ode to the human spirit's extraordinary ability to effectively surmount extremely difficult and intimidating odds.

Veteran editor Sam O'Stern acquits himself superbly in his directorial debut. Bruce Surtees' luminescent cinematography and Gordon Scott's expert editing are both flawless. O'Stern's firm grasp of period atmosphere, keen eye for tiny, but telling little details, and unerring sense of busy, unbroken pace are just as impressive. No fooling about Curtis Mayfield's impeccable soundtrack contributions, either. 'Jump,' 'What Can I Do With This Feeling,' 'Givin' Up,' 'Take My Hand Precious Lord,' 'Lovin' You Baby,' and 'Look Into Your Heart' are all terrifically tuneful, soulful, almost unbelievably fantastic songs, with the sweetly sultry love jones number 'Something He Can Feel,' which was later covered by both Aretha Franklin and En Vogue, clearly copping top musical honors as the best-ever song in the entire movie. The net result of all these above cited outstanding attributes persuasively illustrates that sometimes it's not the screenplay so much as what's done with said script which in turn determines a film's overall sterling quality.


A charming boy and his mother move to a middle of nowhere town, cats and death soon follow them. That about sums it up.

I'll admit that I am a little freaked out by cats after seeing this movie. But in all seriousness in spite of the numerous things that are wrong with this film, and believe me there is plenty of that to go around, it is overall a very enjoyable viewing experience.

The characters are more like caricatures here with only their basis instincts to rely on. Fear, greed, pride lust or anger seems to be all that motivate these people. Although it can be argued that that seeming failing, in actuality, serves the telling of the story. The supernatural premise and the fact that it is a Stephen King screenplay(not that I have anything specific against Mr. King) are quite nicely supported by some interesting FX work, makeup and quite suitable music. The absolute gem of this film is without a doubt Alice Krige who plays Mary Brady, the otherworldly mother.

King manages to take a simple story of outsider, or people who are a little different(okay - a lot in this case), trying to fit in and twists it into a campy over the top little horror gem that has to be in the collection of any horror fan.


This film is totally unbelievable. The only way a girl would perform this act on a dog is if she had serious mental health issues or had a long history of sexual abuse or was under duress. Yet we are asked to believe that an otherwise 'normal' healthy female just got a bit bored and 'made a little mistake' and oops had a sexual encounter with a dog. What's more it never had any detrimental affect on her ever again except when she tells someone.

Not she was raped by a dog or the dog did something she couldn't resist - she actively initiated oral sex and completed this activity with a pet dog of her own choice. She wasn't on drugs or anything she just 'felt like it'.

The rest of the film seeks to put this action in a light of 'hey it could happen to anyone she's only being honest'.

But really for this to be believed we have to believe that this is a woman who is capable of doing absolutely ANYTHING if she 'just feels like it'. Think about it - could she have considered the rights and wrongs of this action before carrying it out? If she had she would have stopped in her tracks. Human beings have instinctive boundaries for reasons. If we are now to start considering bestiality as a 'cute' little aberration, what is next? Child abuse? Yet the 'heroine' is portrayed as a hard done by, nice girl who had one moment of aberration. If she had been forced to carry out this act by an abuser - the story might have made more sense and I would have been able to accept the storyline. But there is no way that anyone carries out the prolonged activity required and referred to even once - if there is not some deep, disturbance that requires a great deal of psychiatric help. This is NO WAY a one off happening in an otherwise perfect life.

I know this is just a film, but it is through normalising behaviour such as this via the media that society becomes desensitised and more and more awful realities become possible.

I could imagine an abuser showing this to a child to persuade them that it isn't such a big deal and then moving on with their agenda. It could also be used by an abuser to underline to a child not to tell about the abuse - because look how people will react to you if you do.

This is not about truth. The director WANTS people to think it's about truth. This is about degradation and how easily people (the viewing public)can be manipulated into accepting the most appalling concepts if wrapped up in the right way. The watching public are being manipulated, degraded and laughed at.

This is a film in which the actors and the viewers are being humiliated and made fools of in a very sophisticated way by a clever but extremely disturbed film writer.

This film appears to me to be being used as a vehicle for the creator of the film to get off on the excitement of playing with your mind in an abusive manner. I don't know whether it is conscious on their part - but it is the most classic example of Mind F***k that I have ever encountered.

I hope that this doesn't offend anyone too much. But if you watched this film - I don't think there is any room left to be offended by anything any more.


I'm not sure how related they are, but I'm almost certain that Lost and Delirious is a remake of this movie (or the story that it's based on). Very similar plotline, and even some of the scenes and sets seem to be very, very similar. Lost & Delirious is actually a much better movie, so see that one instead.

This one moves very slowly, but being a late 60s French movie, that is to be expected of the style. Told in a retrospect from the perspective of one of the girls revisiting the school. The editing of the flashbacks with the current scenes is a little bit confusing at first, particularly since the audio from each overlaps (ie, hearing flashbacks while seeing the present and vice versa). Also, the 'girls' are a bit old to think that they are in a boarding school. Finally, not much character development to even get you attached to the movie.


A surprisingly great cartoon in the same league as Batman:TAS and its ilk, I enjoyed it in my youth and recently had been able to watch them all again, great voice acting from Tim Curry, Richard Moll, Tony Jay, and Maurice LaMarche in various roles. The only qualm I had was Rob Paulsons voice seemed a little too old for the title character, but that wasn't a big deal as the stories were great, and the fact that the whole thing has a great time loop twist ending. Some people say it was a cop-out, but I found it refreshing compared to many series that just leave things hanging. Hopefully one day they put this series out on DVD, unfortunately it came out at a time when DVD's weren't yet prevalent and the cartoon probably only served to sell a particular type of toy, which I never found appealing despite the entertaining cartoon.


Im the type of person who always goes 2 to horror section when I'm picking a film, so i picked five across the eyes, i was disgusted with this film and thought there was no story line and no point that you could enjoy it,it made my skin crawl to think that people like to watch films that just encourage violence for the hell of it it was low budget and very rubbish! i think i could of done better myself. i think that it was the worst film i have ever seen in my life and you should not bother to watch it the actors were rubbish the camera was awful the picture was bad and the sound was not up to scratch, i think it was a little bit like a cheep rip of off the baler which project and it has not worked at all it was foul.


I will admit that I did not give this movie much of a chance. I decided pretty early on that this just wasn't my kind of movie.

For the most part, it has an excellent look in terms of its cinematography. The scenes of early 70's Manhattan look very good, as does the lead actress. It is a very crisp black and white, which could almost make the movie feel undated and fresh. However, some of the other techniques the filmmakers employ shoot that prospect all to hell. The disjointed editing is VERY late-60's, somewhere between surrealism and new wave. The story also feels like it came from a very specific time, somewhere between free love idealism and artsy experimentation.

The film follows a young girl around the city as she looks for a man who she had anonymous phone sex with. As she meets other odd characters, she reveals her quirks and they reveal theirs. The movie seems to be meant as an off-the-wall, irreverent comedy, but adds an avant-garde feel. I would expect that if you like Andy Warhol movies, you would be very excited to discover The Telephone Book.

Some problems I had: Near the end of the movie, one character tells a rambling anecdote that lasts over twelve minutes-brutal to sit through. Also, there is a very explicit animation sequence that I found gross and juvenile that serves as the film's climax. I did laugh out loud four or five times, and I liked the ending (minus the flat-out disgusting animation). And when the film switched to color for the final phone-booth-at-night sequence, I actually liked the way it looked even better. It ended up being one of those experiences where I felt like I could have really liked it if it been a little different. But this is what the filmmakers gave us. It is obscure, artsy, and way left of the dial, but none of those are reasons to recommend it on their own. I didn't find it to be unique or creative so much as forced and pretentious.


I've been looking forward to watching 'Wirey Spindell' since having happened across Schaffer's 'Fall'. Unfortunately, I found 'WS' to be a wandering, unengaging, boring bunch of claptrap pieced together with, what apparently is Schaeffer's signature, a mix of story, narration, and poetry. The film recounts the sexual and other experiences of a Manhattan man about to be married through self-narrated flashbacks. Like beads on a string, Schaffer apparently has strung together every little sexual life experience, while neglecting to tend to the beauty of the necklace. The result is a disjointed rambling story about a boy growing up which fails to engender empathy and leaves the viewer disconnected, unsatisfied, and with a bad after taste which taints the mechanical feel-good ending. A mediocre indie and a step backward for Schaeffer.


'All men are guilty,' says the chief of the police. 'They're born innocent but it doesn't last.' Add this bit of nihilism to Jean-Pierre Melville's fascination with the idea of the crook's code of honor and you have Le Cercle Rouge. This code of honor among crooks, however, is not simply a cliché; it's a figment of the imagination even when film moralists -- realistic moralists by their viewpoint, romantic moralists by most others' -- began to make movies on the subject. Their theme is that it isn't what one does, but how one does it. We most often wind up with stories all about experienced men with their own sense of honor, stories where fate, fatalism and the code run things.

For most of humanity, except screen writers and movie directors, this would seriously get in the way of living one's life, raising one's children and being a good friend. This mannered fatalism is something of a self-indulgent notion. Le Cercle Rouge is, in my view, a classic film for people who may secretly enjoy the adventure of just missing the last bus home. But where Melville's Le Samourai - Criterion Collection, in my opinion, is style dominating story, Le Cercle Rouge manages the great trick of combining style with a strong story and with compelling actors. The point of the movie, in my view, is nonsense...but the movie itself is a first-class experience.

Melville's hopeless tale of three crooks -- Cory (Alain Delon), Vogel (Gian-Maria Volonte) and Jansen (Yves Montand) - is based on a bit of wisdom which is, maybe, attributed to the Buddha: That all men who are destined to meet, will...along with their destiny they cannot change. Maybe, because some believe Melville himself came up with the wording if not the thought. Either way, we know right at the start that this movie will not end happily, will depend upon fate and coincidence to set things up for us, and will leave us recalling the nihilistic philosophies we discovered and loved when we were in high school. Once Corey and Vogel meet and then gather in the unique talents of Jansen, we are off on a one-way ride to rob an exclusive, heavily protected jewelry story on the Place Vendome. The tension arises because we not only know the French police are after Vogel, we also realize that some determined crooks are after Corey.

The great pleasure of the movie, for me, came from admiring the work that Delon, Volonte and Montand brought to their characters, and the intelligent ruthlessness that Andre Bouvril brought to his character, the police captain Mattei. Melville hooked me as he developed these characters and their own situations; he built me up emotionally and then released me when he brought me to appreciate their probable fate and let me see see it happen. Melville establishes his set pieces -- the escape from the train, the escape from the woods, the later shootout in the woods, the meetings with Mattei and a man who refuses to inform -- with intriguing possibilities. He builds tension in all these cases by taking his time; a rare trait in movie making and an even rarer trait now. And Melville takes the time to build up Mattei as an individual. Mattei is a rueful, experienced man. He's a loner. He has a set routine when he returns to his apartment -- he greets his three cats affectionately, he draws his bath and while the tub is filling he sets out food for them. I don't know who Mattei is destined to meet, but I hope it's someone who likes cats.

Nihilism is always fashionable among some creative people and some critics. In most cases, I think it's a much harder task to set nihilism aside and to simply live one's life without damaging too many people. (And that's even more challenging to show compellingly in a film.) Le Cercle Rouge is a movie which, for me, tells me little, but it is in its own way, I think, a beautifully put together film.


The plot is so manipulative, counting completely on the most uncredible and unthinkable decisions of the adults in each and every parenting decision. The children are super as far as charm and delivery of the lines but as I say, the whole plot depends on each and every adult being complete idiots, and therefore in THAT case, making more sense out of their actions (and at the same time being the only way to explain the boys actions of total mistrust). Why would sweey charming little boys take a baby from the shore? How did the baby get to the shore and at the same time account for it being the LAST place to be searched? Why would the 2 boys NEVER be informed an instead at the same time a baby is missing nobody gives a fig about them running around with food and diapers with all that commotion going on and literally every other place it searched? There is just no possible justification to ask the audience to believe this. Asking to believe it would then do to trial (even the informal setting) is too insulting to bare.


This film is one of the best of all time, certainly in the horror genre. The claustrophobic atmosphere is outstanding, the music is just as good as the film and the killer is as creepy as can be! Actors are fantastic, RIP Donald Pleasance you were fantastic as Dr Loomis, he made the film even better. Without him the film would be missing a vital ingredient. Jamie Lee Curtis is also superb as our beloved scream queen! Her innocence makes her unaware of the real evil that is after her until she finds her friends grossly murdered in the house, which of course is one of the films best scenes. She gives a tremendous performance. I loved this film since it scared me like hell back when I seen it in the very early 80's and I still watch it to this day as it is a marvellous movie that just brings you in to this world were you could be gutted like a fish at every turn! The fact that it is a simple format of a mad man in a mask whom has escaped from a mental asylum and ready to kill everyone in sight without them having any idea that he is there, is just shockingly terrifying and indulges you even more into the movie as the events though fiction could easily be come true. We all know that unfortunately evil does exist in this world and a mad man with a knife is certainly not uncommon, a very disturbing an deep fear for all of this. Death at any turn. Halloween of course shows this in it's most terrifying way. Horror should be believable, and that is what makes the film enjoyable. It's just a simple story that is made into an excellent and terrifying atmosphere. As well as Psycho's superb storyline, both of which I adore, I believe there formats are the best horror has to offer. To me Halloween and Psycho are the best films I have ever seen and I will watch them all my life and never grow tired of them. Halloween is undoubtedly one of the best movies of all time.


Some of the posters seem less than gruntled because this is neither Mark Twain nor Rodgers and Hart but clearly it doesn't pretend to be either. You'll look a long time to find a greater Rodgers and Hart fan than me but Burke and Van Heusen weren't exactly chopped liver in addition to which they knew Der Bingle inside out and tailored some great songs - But Beautiful, Moonlight Becomes You, It's Always You, The Day After Forever, etc - to fit his highly personal style and here they come up with yet another fine - and unfairly neglected - ballad, Once And For Always, plus a couple of upbeat philosophy-lite entries in If You Stub Your Toe On The Moon and Busy Doing Nothing. The flimsy plot isn't meant to be taken seriously - why else make Merlin a heavy when in most, if not all, of the other versions he is more a friend/mentor to Arthur - so if you start wondering aloud why Sir Lancelot who has been sold to historians as the epitome of chivalry and uprightness metamorphoses into a schoolyard bully you're not going to get much fun out of what is essentially a fun movie. On balance it does what it sets out to do, entertain, so good luck to it.


One of the best true-crime movies ever made and very faithful to Truman Capote's book which invented the true-crime novel genre. Haunting Quincy Jones musical score and terrific acting by Scott Wilson and Robert Blake as Dick and Perry, the killers. Why Wilson didn't go on to be a big star after this movie is a mystery to me.

The black and white cinematography and editing in this movie are top notch. The re-creation of the murders is frightening and since it leaves the actual murders to your imagination, even more scary than if they had shown the shotgun going off. The movie was filmed in the actual Clutter house which had been sold to another person after the murders. The movie has a very documentary feel---besides the scenes at the actual Clutter home other scenes were filmed at the gas stations and stores the killers actually went to. Nancy Clutter's beloved horse, Babe, is even in the movie. Will Geer has a great turn as the prosecutor in the short trial scene which is not only filmed in the actual courtroom but has several of the real Clutter murder jurors portraying themselves as the jury for the movie.

This is a solid movie, scary every time you see it.


what a great little film, lots of good roles from some random stars. Basically there are these pot growers that get caught up in a comical adventure. At points the film makes you believe everyone is going to end up dead! Which adds to the comedy. When the character of John Lithgow (3rd Rock) re-appears - its impossible not to imagine the trip, this may have caused, like a total paradox. The film is full of twists and turns that keep you guessing all the way to the end. Billy Bob Thornton Astronaut Farmer) is brilliant, in fact looking back, the character is fairly similar in the fact he holds the family of pot growers together. Everyone involved in this film should get a big thumbs up.

As i say' the final scene is a dream; however a nightmare at the same time. I love it when Hank Azaria (carter) says at the end do you think we should do this every year? I felt my self wishing they would.

I'm not going to say this film is good for everyone, but as a lover of stoner movies i give it 10/10. - My advice have a joint ready; kick back and enjoy!


I looked forward to watching this film and then realised that any hope of a coherent dialogue between the actors was swamped by the unnecessary swearing. Now I am not a prude in any way, but to shout obscenities at each other does not a good film make. Ewan Bremner is arguably one of the worst actors in the world at this time (witness his performance in the god awful Life of Stuff) & his 'Cockney' accent is almost as bad as his Edinburgh accent. Avoid. How many more of these films 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang', 'Beautiful Creatures' do we have to suffer before the film makers realise that the f-word, the c- word etc does not replace proper dialogue.


Stay Alive is a bland horror movie about a video game that kills people the same way they die inside the game. The friends that play this game soon figure this out, and then realise they must defeat the Blood Countess from the video game or accept their fates. We've had video tapes in The Ring, a deadly website in FearDotCom. Now it's onto video games. Stay Alive does some things well; the character development is quite a bit deeper than it usually would be in a horror movie. We really see into some of the characters feelings and past and get to know them all quite well, so the audience may gain some emotions for them. The film is also very suspenseful. Tense, unnerving moments are frequently played through the film, accompanied by unsettling, creepy music. There are plenty of jumps and jolts for the viewer. This can be ideal once or twice, but these false scares that Hollywood seems to enjoy overplaying in horror films nowadays, wears thin in Stay Alive. The camera will tend to provide sharp angles or quick flashes in order to give viewers a very quick glimpse of a demon or witch, and try to scare them with this sudden burst on the screen. Why? The gore is obviously very weak because of the film's certificate. The script to Stay Alive is very cheesy and quite laughable, and the characters tend to play it too melodramatically and confusingly. Also, clichés come in from every direction, for instance people wandering around on their own in search of a strange noise or if they have spotted a figure in the dark, they will go and investigate it. However the computer graphics used for the video game segments are rather impressive and look colourful and sharp, working well with the other parts of the film. But overall, there is just not enough to hold out on with this film. Stretching at just over a hundred minutes, it won't be a battle to Stay Alive, but rather, Stay Awake.