I was really looking forward to watching this documentary on what I considered to be some of the most entertaining films ever made. Growing up in L.A. during the 60's many of these old black and white films were shown on the local stations. I even remember a Friday night show called 'Strange Tales of Science Fiction' that showcased a different Sci Fi flick every week. This documentary however spent way too much time on the opinions of the four famous filmmakers and how they felt about the classic movies of that genre and how they used them as inspiration in their filmaking.

That is not what I was hoping for in this documentary. It really could have been a comprehensive examination of the decade instead of a brief highlighting of the most well known films of the era. Anyone who has studied or been interested in these films are pretty familiar with standouts such as War of the Worlds, Forbidden Planet, The Thing, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. I would have liked to see some excerpts from lesser known films and perhaps some interviews with people involved in the making of these movies. I would have to agree the documentary was way too focused on Spielberg's opinions and was a type of commercial for his new release of War of the Worlds.


Oh mY God That has got to be one of the Most USELESS BRAINLESS STUPIDEST Comedy Ever Made!! What has Happened to Subhash Ghai, Even Apna Sapna Money Money Was Worth Watching

Eww! GOD This Movie Stinks

Do Not Watch it Save your Money Bad Movie Bad Cast Bad Jokes Bad Acting, even this movie is an Example of Shoe Polish being Rubbed on a Face

Trust me This movie does even make you smile, Vulgar Jokes, Cheap jokes,A Really Stupid Movie with No concepts

Rating 0 on 10

AWFUL Movie those are the two hours im never getting back....

Syed Shabbir Aly Naqvi of Pakistan


David and Bathsheba is a lavish Hollywood Biblical picture produced out of 20th Century Fox by Darryl F. Zanuck, directed by Henry King and starring Gregory Peck {King David}, Susan Hayward (Bathsheba), Raymond Massey (Nathan), Kieron Moore (Uriah) and Jayne Meadows (Michal).

The film is based around the second Old Testament book of Samuel from the Holy Bible. It follows King David, who as a child had slain the giant Goliath, and now we find him in adulthood as the second King of Israel. A tough and assured King, David however has affairs of the heart causing great problems. For once he spies Bathsheba taking a shower {re;bath}, it 's the start of a journey encompassing adultery and betrayal; a journey that will end in the judgement of God being called upon.

Typically for the genre, David & Bathsheba is a large, grandiose production. From its excellent set designs to it's positively gorgeous Technicolor photography {Leon Shamroy}, it has enough quality to warrant sitting along side the best the genre has to offer as regards production values. Untypically, tho, the film is sedately paced and relies on 99% of its worth being driven purely by dialogue. This is not one for action fans or anyone who needs some swash to go with their buckle. This is a very humanist picture, in fact lets not beat around the burning bush here, it's a Biblical love story flecked with sins of the heart. But that is no bad thing at all, because breaking it down we find it's very well acted {Peck has a stoic yet vulnerable thing going on real well & Hayward is pushing it to the max}, and it be a fine story directed with knowing skill by the often forgotten Henry King. And although some of the dialogue is admittedly cringe inducing, the character flow is never interrupted as Phillip Dunne's (The Ghost and Mrs. Muir) Oscar nominated screenplay holds the attention throughout.

Sometimes a forgotten picture in terms of the Biblical/Swords & Sandals genres (most likely because it is a talky piece that has heart as its main selling point), but really it's well worth the time of anyone interested in the most lavish of genres. 7/10


It has started quietly. If your are looking for an action-packed movie this is absolutely not the right choice. All characters are slowly depicted on the scene. Stroke after stroke on the scene canvas. None can take away his hands to the priest and so the sisters lifespan devotion can only remain into the village. Philippa and Martina know their destiny, belong only to the village. So when you understand that, you are on the movie scene, in the village that becomes the whole known world in that time. When, no technology can let you imagine anything else than the campaign, the village, the sea. You feel the rhythm of that ancient village's life. Watching the movie in a cold snowy late afternoon can cause you to approach this evening dinner with some sumptuous expectations ...

The final sentence that give a title to Babette's sacrifice far from Paris: An artist is never poor.

Superb photography. Many situations depict portraits and landscapes as they were styled on canvas there, in Jutland, in 18th century.


This movie has the made for TV stink all over it. Though, it started out with great intentions, featuring great looking sets and authentic props and costumes. The film quickly degenerated into horrible on the nose cheesy dialogue, and rushed TV sappy melodramatic acting. The characters were so sappy that at times I thought that they are about to degenerate into a bilious puddle of goo, and the action was so convoluted and poorly cut that it looked as it the soldiers were merely standing around and taking turns shooting at one another. The Germans were so unrealistically depicted that it was painful to watch. The only thing that the German officers talked about was how wonderful the Americans are. Please take my word for this. I am a huge fan of the war genre, and this movie is crap. Nevertheless, this DVD does have an excellent extra feature, covering letters from the WWI front lines, thus making this rental not a total waste of my time.


This movie was advertised on radio, television, magazines, etc. Almost every hour or every issue. So when we went to the Kinnepolis multiplex our expectations were very high. But oh boy, how sad this movie is! It is a movie in Hollywood style about a movie in a movie. Shades shows so clear we aren't ready to produce 'big Hollywood movies'. I am not a movie critic, but I think a good movie starts with a good script. And the script is a nightmare. Like my subject line says, it is nothing, and then looped. You could just stare to the television as well, without really seeing anything. That was the feeling we've got when we saw Shades. Shades is a BAD PRODUCTION!!!


Like Freddy's Revenge, this sequel takes a pretty weird idea and doesn't go to great lengths to squeeze a story out of it. Basically Alice from number 4 is pregnant and her baby is haunted by Freddy which gives him an outlet to haunt her friends. This has the least deaths out of the whole series and the wise-cracks are quite poor, so neither the horror fans or comedy fans are happy.

 I've not alot to say about this. It's moderately interesting to see the characters of Alice and Dan returning from four, but not worth watching a movie over. Uninspriring and unenjoyable, possibly only the competant direction saves it from being the worst in the series.


This movie has to rank with 'Welcome to the Jungle' and 'The Hitcher' and 'Dream Catcher' for sheer god-awfulness. You've got the most irritating heroine in gore history who spends most of her time sobbing and wailing and shrieking--all the time in the most horrendous rest stop toilet ever put on film. Why she spends so much time in this ghastly bathroom from hell is never explained. Even when the usual killer truck driver is trying to murder her, she refuses to leave the crapper. When a motorcycle cop comes to her rescue, the killer truck driver runs over the cop's legs while the heroine just looks on. Instead of grabbing his gun for protection, she drags the poor slob into the crapper and locks the door. Then the cop orders her to blow his brains out because of the pain. She does so--while wailing and sobbing and keening--and blows the back of his head off. Then--the cop, still alive, beg her to shoot him again because he's still in pain. He says this while the entire back of his head is all over the floor. The sobbing, wailing heroine shoots him again. The movie goes on and on like this, none of it making any sense. The heroine is so dislikable you really want the killer to off her early on. I saw this flick on the Sci-Fi channel so it didn't cost me anything to watch, but still I did watch, out of sheer fascination as to how a movie could end up so terribly bad.


Well, I guess I was in the mood for a movie that really grabbed me from the beginning. This movie wasn't it. It plodded along at a pretty slow, deliberate pace for the first 40 minutes, but there wasn't really anything in it that I was terribly interested in--there's an intriguing and mysterious feud between Jean Reno's character and an old man, but more of the first 40 minutes is dominated by the wanderings of the main character, whom I didn't know much about and couldn't really relate to at the time. He wanders around alone for the most part, he doesn't meet anyone; I imagine the director was trying to depict the loneliness of the human condition in this post-apocalyptic world or something, which is all good, but I still wish he'd trimmed it down from 40 minutes to 15, because it can get incredibly boring.

But after those 40 minutes, things start to get very interesting. I guess I won't really say more than that because I don't want to spoil anything. So if you've seen the first 15-30 minutes of this movie and are thinking about turning it off (like I was), just stick with it--it gets a lot better.

One of the most interesting things I found about this movie was the fact that it had no dialogue whatsoever, which really made me have to think about what was happening, how characters were feeling and what their motivations were, why things were how they were in this post-apocalyptic world, all of which gives the story a lot of room for audience interpretation. And it's amazing how much more satisfying a movie is when the actors aren't telling you exactly what's going on.


If you like movies about creepy towns, hotels, houses, states (ala the Eagles 'Hotel California'), etc. that possess the people that are 'just passing through,' read almost any Stephen King novel instead. If you like the setting of 'Disappearance' start by reading King's 'Desperation' but also check out 'The Shining', 'Salem's Lot' and 'Needful Things.'

The crow motif, the desert, the family driving in desperation to escape or avoid possession are tired. Why didn't they just make the film from the 'Desperation' novel? Maybe they approached King and he nixed? Must be.

Susan Dey and Harry Hamlin look happy to be reunited and they have both worn well over the years, but they're still TV and direct-to-DVD caliber actors.


The premise sucked me in, but it was clear about 30 seconds in that this was either David Lynch or something seriously terrible. Interesting to watch just to run through the fundamentalist laundry list. I can be a sucker for a stirring spiritual piece (Romero comes to mind), but there was nothing spiritual whatsoever about this one. The message seems to be that we must all pretend we have an iq of 80 (or simply get a lobotomy - Jennifer what happened to ya?) and blindly follow the Bible without any sort of self-examination whatsoever or we'll trigger the second coming. It's the kind of attitude that makes people fly jumbo jets into 110 story buildings (I work around the corner from the site of the former WTC). I like to think that God is a little greater than that.


I was really excited when I read 'The Canterville Ghost' would be shown on TV. However, I was deeply disappointed. I loved the original story written by Oscar Wilde and sadly nothing of that was transferred by the movie.


Being a big fan of the romantic comedy genre, and therefore having seen a large number of these films, it is rare that one strikes me as totally unique. For that matter, it is equally rare that I am gasping for breath through the laughter during several scenes. The love story is a little thin on the ground, but I'd say that's probably for the best, as this romantic comedy has the emphasis firmly on 'comedy', and in any case it stretches the bounds of credibility just a little more than I like most rom com's to do. The four scientists provided some of the funniest moments not just in this film, but in any film I've seen in a long while. I hesitated for the briefest of moments before finally choosing a '10' over a '9' as a rating, as I believe that far too many people use it indiscriminately, and therefore the maximum rating loses some of its impact. I'm also a big Meg Ryan fan, which helps, but this is one of the few films I've seen in which I'd say she is comprehensively overshadowed. She and Tim Robbins are cast as the leads, but for me play second fiddle to the antics of the bumbling intellectuals. A genuine laugh-out-loud type film.


(VERY mildly spoilerish)

I must start by saying that I'm not usually impressed by science-fiction, so Pitch Black (2000) was a pleasant surprise. It had me hooked from the very beginning with rhythm, intensity and visual outburst that left me fascinated and glued to my seat. I'm very happy to say that this movie was the best (okay, at least *one* of the best) science fiction piece that I've seen in a long, long time.

The plot in short might sound simple -- a (space) ship crashes on a supposedly deserted planet and the captain, Caroline Fry (impressive Radha Mitchell), must lead the survivors to safety. At first, a cold-blooded murderer, Riddick (Vin Diesel, who plays the role with very believable spare style), might seem like the group's biggest problem but as the dusk starts crawling in, the creatures of the night start awakening... This leads to a desperate attempt to escape from the bloodthirsty predators, which, as we all can guess, does not lead to a happy family picnic.

It's not the plot itself that makes the movie worth watching -- after all, let's face it, if you strip it down to the basics it's not *that* original -- but the skill in which it's told. The story flowed forward, didn't leave me yawning (at least not much) in any point. The directing was fabulous work. This was a very visual, even beautiful movie; the purple night view was a real treat. Although, 'beautiful' might not be the right word to use; yes, the images shown were candy to the eye, but they also added a touch of unspecified grotesqueness, eeriness, as if something was just about to burst out from under the still surface. (Not to mention that the monsters were really well done, they looked realistic, which seems to be rare nowadays [maybe people just can't be bothered to make them look real...])

I did not only enjoy the visual side of the movie but also the psychological aspect of the story. During the movie we get to see the characters unraveling -- some of them fall, some of them rise -- but what fascinated me the most was the developing of the character of Riddick. I enjoyed watching the change in him throughout the movie. To go even further, the other thing I enjoyed a lot with Riddick was the incredibly well and originally executed UST (Unresolved Sexual Tension) between Fry and him that 'didn't' (you'll get what I mean once you see it). [One can't deny that they had chemistry. Don't even try or I'll seek you out and make you listen to me playing Chopsticks until you scream *grin*] It was fresh. As Radha Mitchell once put it (a modified quote), 'Pitch Black is a really sexy movie with no sex', which is what makes it even more so interesting.

So, to summarize, I recommend this movie -- even if you're really not a fan of 'space stories'. The suspense was kept until the very end and, what's important, we were (or at least I was) left wanting for more. If you can't be bothered to think about psychology, subtext and such (as is my bad habit), you'll still find Pitch Black highly entertaining. Just kick off your shoes and enjoy.


The Last Dinosaur was one of those 'out of nowhere' movie-of-the-week films in the 1970's that was pretty exciting for the time especially to fans of Japanese Tokusatsu films. Originally slated for a theatrical release (around when the Dino King Kong was out in the previous December) it was suddenly pulled and made into a Friday Night ABC Movie of The Week. Rankin Bass-who were no strangers to Japanese co-productions were the guns behind this production, co-produced with Tsuburaya Productions of Japan-the people who brought us Ultraman in various forms. Starring mostly an American cast including the late Richard Boone, Joan Van Ark and the late Steven Keats, it told the tale of a prehistoric pocket of time in what was a superheated volcanic caldera somewhere at the frozen arctic circle, containing dinosaurs. It plays a lot like the films The Land Unknown(1956) and The Land That Time Forgot(1975) in feel and pace. Sure the dinosaurs were guys in suits(A Triceratops with front knees!) but they were filmed in such a way, the music and score was so well done, and the cast did a fine job that this didn't matter much to many of us brought up on Godzilla. The film has a lot of class to it, from the opening score by Nancy Wilson 'The Last Dinosaur' to the overall 'big' feeling of the film-the locations at hot springs in Northern Japan were excellent and lush- and the undeniable feeling of Kaiju Eiga to it. There are some amazing set pieces-the T-Rex's 'bone yard' and a tracking shot that takes us deep into the jungle to see the T-Rex eat a giant fish from a stream. Tsuburaya's FX people did their job in style here and aside from a few dodgy matte shots, they do their job well. This film is considered the best 1970's 'kaiju' film from Japan, even over the five Godzilla films made during that decade. Rankin Bass did several other co-productions with Tsuburaya providing the creatures or miniatures- The Bermuda Depths(1978) and The Ivory Ape(1980)-but neither measured up to the epic look of this film.


Guy Kibbee gives the viewer a lot of laughs. Like most candidates, he knows almost nothing. Warren William, a very, under rated actor, is superb in giving instructions to Kibbee; that is, he teaches him to say something which means nothing to the voting public. A campaign based on no comment, 'I'll take it under advisement,' and 'Maybe yes, but then again, maybe no,' is the nearly perfect way to win an election. Succinctly, the dumber the candidate, the greater the chance he or she will win. After all, the public can identify with such a person. With respect to the movie, it makes for a lot of comedy.


Eddie Murphy plays Chandler Jarrell, a man who devotes his time to finding lost children. When the beautiful Kee Nang {Charlotte Lewis} enters his life, she tells him he is the chosen one and he must find the Golden Child. Sceptical and driven purely by lust and intrigue, Jarrell gets involved without realising he's about to embark on a fantastical journey, one that involves peril and worst of all, the demon Sardo Numspa.

Is The Golden Child a product of its time?, by that i mean, was Eddie Murphy and The Golden Child's popularity exclusive to the late 1980s audiences?. For i can remember vividly how much this film entertained folk back in that decade, it's box office was $79,817,937, making it the 8th biggest earner of 1986, but since the 80s faded from memory it has become the in thing to deny Eddie Murphy pictures the comedy accolades that they actually once had. The Golden Child is not up with the more accepted 80s Murphy pictures like Trading Places and Beverly Hills Cop, but upon revisiting the film recently i personally find that it contains Murphy at his wisecracking, quipping and charming best!, seriously!.

Cashing in on a fantasy action formula that was reinvigorated and temp-lated by Raiders Of The Lost Ark in 1981, The Golden Child hits all the required genre buttons. Pretty girl, daring reluctant-hero with a quip in his armoury, dashing villain {Charles Dance so English i could kiss him myself}, wonderful colour, and a cute kid with mystical powers, the film only asks you to get involved in the fun, not to dissect and digress its worth as a cranial fantasy picture. Yes the CGI demon looks creaky now, and yes the genre had far better pictures in the 80s, 90s and beyond, but really if you agree with the disgraceful rating of 5 here on this site then you may just be taking this genre a little too serious, seriously. 7/10


Paulie sounds like the most saccharine, lachrymose and sentimental garbage you could ever find, yet it's actually much better than you might expect. The daftness of the plot could so easily have set the tone for the whole film, but actually in most other departments the film is charming.

In case you're wondering, Paulie is a parrot. Bought for a little girl with speech difficulties, Paulie becomes her best friend and goes everywhere with her. He even sits on her shoulder during speech therapy lessons, and eventually becomes a super-intelligent speaker himself. However, Paulie is sent away by the little girl's mother and he spends the rest of the film trying to get from N.Y.C to L.A to be re-united with her.

So, why does this awful-sounding film succeed relatively well? Firstly, it boasts some interesting and impressive animatronic effects. Secondly (and far more significantly) it has the courage to embrace its ludicrous premise and tells a genuinely moving, often humourous story without worrying too much about the obvious flaws in the storyline. Thirdly, it has several surprisingly strong performances, including Jay Mohr as a wily crook, Gena Rowlands as a kind old lady, and Cheech Marin (yes, the dope-smoking Cheech Marin!) as a musical immigrant. It might not be a classic, but Paulie is sound entertainment for kids of all ages.


I can find very little thats good to say about this film. I am sure the idea and script looked good on paper but the filmography and acting I am afraid is not the standards I would expect from some very talented people. I would doubt that this features highly in their CV Filmography. Michael Caine appeared wooden at times in his role as the Doctor, and at no time no did I actually believe in his character. The plot was unbelievable especially with regard to the victims son. Some of the scenes were very reminiscent of other films, that at times I wondered if it was actually a spoof thriller. The lighting at times was dark and this added to the feeling of watching a low budget movie with some big named stars, wondering why I bothered to watch it at all.


I'm 15, usually not kids my age usually watch these old classic movies. But this is one of my favorites. I was totally addicted after watching it for the first time. It's really good if u think about technology and movies back at that time, music is great, storyline is OK,choreography is great, must see it. I don't know why there's a prequel for this movie. Not many people like this movie, but i love classic love movies, they're so much better than movies now! This movie will make you smile, cry and make you start dancing. The music is absolutely ear catching and beautiful. I haven't seen Dirty Dancing 2 Harvana Nights(prequel), prequel should have star the original actors, thats what i hate about prequels, they ruin the original. No one wants a prequel, they want a sequel. Many people will agree that for a movie- the original, sequel and the 3rd one is enough. Beyond that, people wont be bothered to watch it. Who remembers the movie about the St Benard Beethoven? I think there's 5 movies altogether.


It's one of my favorite movies as much because of the location and music as the story line. Don't matter how many times I watch it, it doesn't seem to ever get old. I can almost say all the lines along with the characters now. The movie is supper funny and really sweet.


The movie celebrates life.

The world is setting itself for the innocent and the pure souls and everything has 'Happy End', just like in the closing scene of the movie.

The movie has wonderful soundtrack, mixture of Serbian neofolk, Gypsy music and jazz.

This movie is very refreshing piece of visual poetics.

The watching experience is like you've been sucked in another colorful, romantic and sometimes rough world.

Like Mr. Kusturica movie should be.


A snore gore. I saw this piece of horrible, stinking, worthless, junk at the Cameo Movie House (Now the famous Crobar Night-club)on Washington Avenue on South Beach in 1980 or 81. I was 17, and my three buddies and I laughed at this horrible, gross, piece of trash. The theater was on it's last legs and there were mostly drunks snoring and sleeping in the place. They didn't miss a darn thing. The Worst acting ever.These actors deserve the Academy Award for the worst, and I mean worst acting roles in the history of the cinema. Joke was, the theater was showing another Mi Mi Lay(A great name at least!) stinker...barf city. Enough said. If you're under 12 years old you might get a few chills. Over 12, you will be snoring after the opening credits. It's just amazing that anyone spent a cent on making this movie. And to think, it's considered a 'cult' classic. YUK!!!!


This is an interesting little flick made in 1967, with cool jazzy twangy soundtrack music and a plot that will make you laugh...OK, it's not really stupid but it's cheesy fun. I saw many similarities between this and 'Creature with the Blue Hand' (AKA The Bloody Dead) and they do have the same director! Scotland Yard's finest is investigating the murders of young ladies at a college. Seems that criminals are being let loose from a local prison to do the bidding of some evil person and then returned when their work is done. There's a nifty device hidden inside a bible that squirts prussic acid, and there's another device that is neither nifty nor clandestine, it looks like a large squirt gun and the victim must be pretty near soaked before they expire. Joachim Fuchsberger plays an Inspector and he mostly chews gum and looks off into the distance. There's a 'monk', and how anyone identifies this thing as a 'monk' is beyond me, it carries a whip and dresses in a red outfit with a red hood, more of a Klan member of a different color than a monk. There's all kinds of nifty devices like a fireplace hearth that goes up and down to admit the monk, and it steps right over the fire without setting his robe alight, a nifty trick right there. This is an odd combo of crime drama with goofy overtones, and while it's rather silly at times it is fun to watch. 7 out of 10, not bad....


Another Aussie masterpiece, this delves into the world of the unknown and the supernatural, and it does very well. It doesn't resort to the big special effects overkill like American flicks, it focuses more on emotional impact. A relatively simple plot that Rebecca Gibney & Co. bring to life. It follows the story of a couple who buy an old house that was supposedly home to a very old woman who never went outside, and whose husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances a century ago. Strange things begin to happen in the house, and John Adam begins to turn into the man who disappeared, who was actually a mass murderer. Highly recommended. 8/10


Jack Lemmon was one of the finest actors that had ever graced the screen. He could effortlessly switch from dramatic roles to comedic with ease, making most of his peers green with envy. While his performance in 'Save The Tiger' is Oscar-worthy, I feel it was given to him as he had missed out on his other opportunities to win the award due to other, better roles that had preceded this current one.

This is also one of those pretentious movies that comes out to basically showcase the talent of the cast, or in this case, one particular member. It's too bad the screenwriter's output didn't match that of Lemmon's. Don't waste your time with this one.


I saw this trailer and thought to myself my god is this movie for real, who would want to see this movie and at the same time i thought that, my girl friend turned to me and said 'we have to go see this movie'...enough said so i saw this about 5 minutes go and I tried to put on a brave face and enjoy the cheap scares but there weren't even any of those. It has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen the director has no influence no perspective the same shots were used again and again he did not build up suspense the cast probably were simply told scream cry run fall. I would love to see the script as the first 40 mins was mostly annoying girly giggles and bad music, there was absolutely no character development.

The plot is just...well there was no plot it was basically I know we will terrorize a high school group on their prom night with a stalker serial killer, That's brilliant! hmmm The acting was what you expect in a Australian soap opera hopeless, that main character the Blondie god dam she annoyed me. her longest line must have been half a sentence, and every time she was on camera she was just pulling another rude facial expression.

Please listen to me if you have any taste in movies don't go see this, and if your like me and don't have a choice well then I wish you good luck, maybe smuggle in an ipod or magazine. Can't believe this film got made!


I usually have a difficult time watching a TV movie, the extra long commercial breaks will break my concentration and I give up and find a good book. This one however made me put up with the adds and stay with it to the end. I realize the movie was based on a true story but it was not brought out why it took so long to find Denny? They had his name and I would presume his social security number. While he did move around a lot it would seem he would be found as soon as his number was entered for a job etc. The actors seemed a bit old for the part and a buried metal object when dug up had no rust. These were only technical glitches and did not take from the file. For a LifeTime Movie it was better than most.


'Citizen X' is the superbly told true story of the hunt for one of history's worst serial killers. What makes this story even more compelling is where and when it took place; the Soviet Union in the 1980's.

** Mild Spoilers **

 Viktor Burakov (magnificently played by Stephen Rea) is a newly promoted forensic investigator for the Rostov oblast militia. He discovers past and present unsolved murders, apparently by the same person. The murders are unsolved because no one has ever taken the trouble to properly investigate the evidence. He is driven to find and stop the killer. His only tools are his dedication, skill and honesty. His obstacles are the corruption and political ideology of the Soviet system that discourages the search for truth. His naiveté would have led to failure were it not for his boss, Col. Mikhail Fetisov (Donald Sutherland). Fetisov is a politically astute cynic who understands the game and knows how to deal with the Soviet bureaucracy. However, he also shares Burakov's desire to bring a murderer to justice, even if the official party line is 'There are no serial killers in the Soviet Union!'

 The cast is outstanding. The locations and sets are perfect recreations of latter day Soviet life. Randy Edelman's score is particularly good.

 More important, this film shows a dark and disturbing criminal phenomenon with both intensity and poignancy. This was a made-for-cable movie by HBO Films and they have become a great resource for films that would otherwise never be made.


Assault on Precinct 13 is the absolute dumbest film I've seen since Charlie's Angels 2. The shame lies in the fact that they had a good cast and a good premise to work with.

SPOILERS ............................................................. I know they've said this movie is a remake descendant of Rio Bravo but did the writers of this film actually watch Rio Bravo? Besides the fact that Rio Bravo is a western classic, the premise of the film was that the sheriff (John Wayne) had to keep a prisoner accused of murder from being liberated by his brother and his gang. No one wants to liberate anyone in Assault on Precinct 13. They want EVERYONE dead. So, my first question would have to be, WHY NOT JUST BURN THE WHOLE PLACE DOWN FROM THE START? Why 'assault' the place at all? I know the contrived plot turn was suppose to be clever and shocking but it didn't make sense and/or was presented properly. If the veteran cop was in on it from the start, why the need for this whole movie? If the veteran cop suddenly cut a deal at the back door during the siege, how did he even get the chance? As soon as he appeared at the door he would've been shot and they would've had their entry point. It's all just FUBAR.

What part of any city can an all out war take place at a police precinct (complete with helicopters and massive explosions) but no one notices?? However, as soon as there's a fire they have to 'leave before the fire department shows up'?????? How did they plan to cover up the chaos that was happening outside?? Police issue bullets in the walls, bullet casings, footprints, equipment usage, and the fact that there were going to be no bodies of 'Bishop's men' to be found? How about those police snipers? How could they possibly miss so badly so often? I like the fact that when the two detainees tried to run, the snipers were foiled by two tiny mounds of snow. As if it's not possible to shoot a high powered riffle through a pile of snow.

The set up was interesting although ridiculous but the movie just went off a cliff when they decided to kill that particular character with a bullet to the head for absolutely NO REASON at all. I know the makers of the film were going for shock but all they got was disgust at the cruelty and the anger of the audience. Don't you think that part of the reason why this thing is bombing at the box office is the fact that word of mouth has everyone telling friends and family to stay away from this one? That particular scene has to be a big part of that word of mouth (that and the fact that every plot turn is dumber then dirt). The conclusion remains steadily stupid as the villain pauses to deliver an Austin Powers-like diatribe instead of killing the helpless people who he has finally captured. I know several people have mentioned the closing scenes that take place in the woods of Detroit city (>snicker<) but why did Ethan's character just wander off in to the woods in the first place? He doesn't even look to see if the SUV with the secretary and his friend gets away? They just cut to him prowling slowly in the woods, pistol in hand. GACK. I could go on but won't. All I can say is that you want to avoid this stupidity at all cost.


I bought the DVD version of this movie on the recommendation of my wife who loved the version she saw aired in television. But the version put to DVD was a disaster. The lighting was poor to non-existent and entire scenes were simply excised. In one instance Adele is being put to bed, and we immediately cut to another scene - coming in in mid-sentence - where it's the next night. Characters such as Grace Poole and Mason are never even introduced, leaving one to wonder if they'd dozed off for a few minutes during the movie.

The DVD we saw was produced by Platinum Disc Corp and even at $6.32 it was a gyp.

Be careful which version of this movie you buy! We're sending this one back.


I think it was a pretty good film. It shows how someone grew up in an environment that created a rich and powerful man but unfortunately because of his ambition and the people around him it led to his destruction. It shows that you can't trust anyone especially in a world that deals with a lot of money and envy.The character that I mostly liked was Sebeva. She was another ambitious, powerful and ruthless woman in a man's world who loved and respected Kilo. She also knew that business was business and a dangerous one. Everything she did was risky but got the job done. She helped Kilo become rich with her connections. Overall, I really liked this film and have it in my collection and waiting for El Padrino 2.


I don't understand why this movie was released, it looked like something that you show your mates after you borrowed your mums handycam she bought in 1987. I am Australian and work for a video store in the UK and thought that if an Aussie film made it into our store it can't be all bad... boy was I wrong!

If anyone writes a good comment about this movie they are either lying or the makers of the film.

The picture was BAD, the sound was HORRIBLE and the acting, oh the acting, it was the WORST acting in the HISTORY OF FILM.

It makes me embarrassed and offended that they used the word 'Aussie' in the title because I am proud to be Australian and this movie is seen in other countries and may give people the wrong idea.

Please anyone who reads this and has seen this movie, take the time to find other Aussie movies to watch because you could choose any one of them and it would be better than that one.

I could have made a better film if I took a camera, filmed my but for an hour, ate the film waited for it to pass through my body then threw what came out at the television... no offence.

DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!!!!!!


I saw this film when it was first released. The memory of how bad it was has stayed with me almost forty years. I didn't want to trust my own sentiments about the movie when I saw it, so I consulted a movie review published in a major metropolitan newspaper the next day- sentiment confirmed, the reviewer wrote that the movie was incoherent, indecipherable, and uninspiring. A little research reveals that the producer was star Leslie Caron's husband, thus the whiff of nepotism suggests the beginning for this awful film. The film's roster of many capable actors - Caron, Warren Oates, Scatman Crothers, Gloria Grahame, and James Sikking among others - suggests that it holds some promise. But the death of this film is attributable to its terrible screenplay. The 'mystery' implicated is so obscure and so little revealed throughout the film that the viewer is left perplexed from scene to scene. The movie seems torn between being a detective mystery and an espionage thriller, but never settles upon one or the other. The sense of suspense is entirely absent. The main characters settle on playing dry, emotionless types in a fashion that inspires no empathy whatsoever. The cinematography is pedestrian. The result is that the hapless viewer loses interest in the characters, the plot, and, in the end, the film itself. I am little surprised that there is no version of this pathetic film available to purchase. I hope that if TCM finds a print of this film and feels compelled to air it that it is safely relegated to the 4:00 am slot.


Once upon a time in the mid 1990s I used to write for DOCTOR WHO fanzines and the whole of fandom was holding its breathe about the new American produced DOCTOR WHO TVM . As soon as it was announced that the Doctor`s arch enemy the Master was going to be played by Eric Roberts everyone scratched their heads and exclaimed ' Who is Eric Roberts ? ' . I should point out this was before the IMDB came online when all you had to do was type in a name into this website to their resume , but one helpful soul wrote into a publication I wrote for to explain that Eric Roberts was best known for a role where he starred opposite F Murray Abraham , the film was called BY THE SWORD and was about a fencing school . Actually looking back now Roberts is best known for THE POPE OF GREENWICH VILLAGE and RUNAWAY TRAIN but that didn`t stop the person putting the boot into both Roberts and BY THE SWORD and his mind was made up that this American Master with his southern drawl was going to a debacle . Strangely most fans were furious about Roberts playing the Master but after they saw the DOCTOR WHO TVM a great many fans ( Myself among them ) thought Roberts performance was the best thing about the disappointing American production

Yeah I`m digressing but BY THE SWORD was a film that I wanted to see simply because it was the first time I`d heard the name of Eric Roberts but I didn`t get the chance to see it untill this weekend and I was fairly disappointed with it . I know nothing about fencing ( Everyone else on this page seems duty bound to mention if they fence or not . I don`t fence ) so I don`t know how accurate it all is , but as mentioned the film feels somewhat anachronistic even if you saw it on its release in 1991 , the hairstyles seem a few years out of date along with its mixed teenage cast doing a little dance routine that makes you wonder if it wouldn`t have worked a lot better if it`d had been produced by Jerry Bruckheimer in the mid 1980s . You could argue this would have meant the relationship between Max Suba and Alexander Villard being off centre for most of the film but I wasn`t convinced about their love/hate relationship and Abraham and Roberts have given much better performances before and since BY THE SWORD


Its like if you took the general themes of The Usual Suspects and Fightclub, take away all their style and class and mixed them together with a lot of pretentious new wave 'i'm intellectual so my movie must be hard to make sense of' film maker rubbish, mashed in a few extra styles for good measure, chopped off the ending, there you have Revolver.

Yes, I did think about it for a little bit after watching, and yes it did kind of make sense, however that doesn't stop it being garbage.

Waste of money. Waste of time.

Up there as the worst Movie I have ever seen, with not even a bad movie novelty value to redeem it a little.


I used to work at the company that originally put out this film, Vestron Pictures. Vestron had the same problem that a lot of small independent film companies had, they didn't have a lot of money to put into the production values of their films. Not that money alone will buy you a good film. Look at Kevin Costner's Waterworld, for instance.

Sometimes, if you have a talented person in-house doing the acquisitions or development, you can create your own new talent. But at Vestron, there wasn't such a person and they always skimped in some crucial area. In this case, it was on the director and the writer. Which makes it pretty hard to have a decent movie, even with the great ensemble cast this film has.

I think the basic premise of this movie was 'Let's put a bunch of quirky characters in a room and see if anything interesting happens.' It's an intriguing idea, but not worth your time watching.

Most Vestron films ended up having a very distinctive look and feel to them. My wife and I developed the ability to spot this quality even in non-Vestron films. Many times, we were even able to spot that quality from watching only the trailer or TV ad. We'd sit there, watching the trailer or ad, and afterwards, we'd turn to each, and almost in sync, we'd say, 'Now that's a Vestron movie!' This is a Vestron movie.


This film has the worst editing I've ever seen. This is yet another film to avoid at all costs unless you view it via MST3K. On their website, they wonder why the Coast Guard cooperated with this film. I mean, they let them use a helicopter!


4 out of 10.

This film was neither funny as a whole nor was it even worthing investing any kind of emotion into the characters. Eugene Levy is probably the most funny.... The rest of the cast do their jobs, but the story never really gets very deep and there are a lot of holes in the plot that never get filled. This just wasn't very much fun, despite being funny at times.


I saw this film when it first came out in 1978, when I was a sophomore in high school. I took a date to see it. I didn't 'get any,' needless to say, because the film was so bad! Joan Rivers' career never tanked as badly as it deserved after making this awful, unfunny crap. In fact, unfunny isn't a severe enough term: this film is ANTI-FUNNY! You walk out feeling like any laughter that might have occurred was beaten out of you before it could happen. This isn't worth watching out of curiosity, or out of any sense of it being 'so-bad-it's-good.' Not even the gang at MST3K could've made this worth watching! The fact that Billy Crystal's career survived this early suicide attempt is a miracle.


The premise of this movie is ugghhhh. The guy is married and yet everyone on this site seems to think, 'Yeah, this is funny, cute, and a good movie.' What the Hell?!?! What is funny about immature girls fornicating with a married man with a new baby? What is cute about the fact that he is cheating on his wife? What have been wrong with them finding some teenage boys to have sex with before starting college? Noooo, that is not good enough, the guy has to be married, off-limits, off-the-market, that's the one we gotta have. Dumb-ass GIRLS! Then one of the girls decides that she 'loves' the guy. No, she just 'loves' the way he makes her feel. Two of the girls are having fun with it, they think it is funny and no one seems to have any moral problems with what they are doing. It just shameless, but yeah this is all good with everyone one this website. The dark-haired girl even has the audacity to have her dad pick her up from the guys house, under the ruse of baby sitting. This is a morally disgusting movie and where is the wife? Poor woman working and paying the bills while he screws the baby sitter.


Long, boring, blasphemous. Never have I been so glad to see ending credits roll.


Don't mind what this socially retarded person above says, this show is hilarious. It shows how a lot of single men are in a bar atmosphere, and also shows that women are not as gullible as men think they are.

The contest aspect of the how is really cool and original. Its not the standard reality show that we are all used to now a days.

Give it a chance everyone, we are only one episode in, we finally have some Canadian programming that isn't absolute crap. As Canadians what do we normally get, Bon Cop, Bad Cop, or Corner Gas. Come on people show that we are all not as prudish as the previous reviewer.

Way to go Comedy Network, giving a new show a chance. The panel is funny and the contestants so far are pretty good.


So I rented 'Still Crazy' instead. When I described Hardcore Logo to the guy at the video store, he said that sounded kind of like Still Crazy. So I rented it. Was I disappointed? Well, yes, as Still Crazy focuses on a classic rock band rather than a punk band, but that's OK. Still Crazy tells the story of the Strange Fruit, a rock band that broke up in the 70s at the peak of their popularity at a large rock festival. Twenty years later, the band members are all struggling to make a living, and are offered the opportunity to play a concert at the twenty year anniversary of this festival. They take up the offer and decide to reform on a permanent basis, touring Europe in the process. Some quite funny hijinks ensue, and all the characters go through subtle changes. Watching this movie, you feel more like a viewer of a carefully edited documentary than a participant. And that's not bad at all.


I love a good Western movie, but this was more like watching a play on stage or an act at the local street carnival show. I could only stand 38 minutes of it in hopes that it would improve, but it only got worse and I had to end it. Each actor(s) stated the lines as if reading directly from the script or cue cards. There was too much predictability to the lines and actions not as if a natural occurrence or conversation. The wig on Rachel Kimsey was obvious. The actresses playing Native American sisters, could have played non-native parts and should have. Wardrobe for the Native Americans could have been better and a little more authentic looking. If I decide to watch it with any friends in the future, I will do so, not with the expectations of watching a good Western, but with the expectations of watching an amateur comedy film production.


A friend gave me this movie because she liked it. I decided I would finally watch it. It was sooooooo long. I kept waiting for the suspense to happen but it never did. I kept waiting for something to happen after the opening scenes, and it never did. I stopped the movie and came back later. I actually forced myself to watch the rest of it hoping it would get better. It got worse. I kept asking myself, who are these people? Do they have feelings? are they just robots? I'm glad I didn't pay to see it or pay to rent it. The end would have been better if Dutch died from the gunshot wound. At least we would have gotten some emotion from the audience. Or maybe not.


Well, some people might go to see this to watch a trashy rubber and pvc clad bisexual vampire assassin kicking some ass. If that's what you want, and you wear a cloak, file your teeth to points and think that the name Lilith Silver is cool, you'll see a fine film.

If, like most people, an assassin dressed in gleaming, creaking rubber with HUGE cleavage, thick makeup and bad fangs makes you laugh, then this is one of the best comedies you'll see. I laughed so hard I nearly cried. Ridiculous acting, dialogue and plotting help to make this a better spoof than Dracula, Dead and Loving It could be...

It tries to be cool and goth, and all it succeeds in doing is making each scene hilarious. Even the tacked-on lesbian scene is funny (how *did* she get those boots off that quickly? They were laced up to *here*...)

Don't see it if you like good films. See it if you like terrible films and want to laugh until you fall over.... It isn't good, it's just bad.


This flick was even better then 'Waiting for Guffman'. The great strength in these two films lie in the brilliant character acting by Guest and Levy's little second-second city troupe. If one finds this movie boring or pointless, God help 'em, they just didn't get it. It is a mockumentary, something at which Guest and Levy have a genius for. At the end of the movie where Guest's southern down home dog lover tells us that to relax after the show, he went to Israel to work on a 'caboose', or when he tells us that ventriloquism is an ancient art and we see a hieroglyphic

of an ancient Egyptian holding a tiny ancient Egyptian in it's hand, I realized it is moments like this that make life worth living. Thank you Mr.Guest and Mr.Levy, and God bless you.


The idea was awesome, the actors were incredible, the story could of been very scary, but the writing was poor and there was no depth. I couldn't really get into this movie. I couldn't feel for the characters, there were a lot of cliffhangers, and the movie just ends very weirdly. Was it a happy ending? I don't know. Was it a sad ending? Again, I don't know. You leave the theater feeling unsatisfied. The movie had so much to give, but couldn't. Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should, right? I wouldn't really recommend this movie because you just can't say that you left the movie feeling like it was completed. You'll just be confused. Trust me, you will probably thank me if you don't watch this movie.

3/10


I bought the DVD out of a big bin for $4.99, thinking I'd lucked into some documentary pearl that would actually show extensive footage of the Karakoram mountains, and K2 in particular. Fast-forwarding through the film, I reached the climactic scene in which the climbers catch their first sight of ---- Mount Waddington, towering to all of 13,260 ft, in Canada's Coastal Range. At least one of the several bozos geared up to climb K2 clearly has no idea what the real mountain actually looks like -- he has to be assured by his friend and climbing partner that he wouldn't have been brought by said partner to an ugly mountain. Given that one of the film's premises is that 27 or so people have lost their lives on K2, you might think that the jerk in question might have taken a minute or two to bone up on a few basic facts, but the clown seems to think that preparations on this scale, while good enough for the likes of Reinhold Messner, are beneath him. To be honest, I haven't watched the whole thing. What I've seen makes me cringe. They say that you get what you pay for. At $4.99, I've been ripped off.


I sell the dead revolves around convicted grave robber Arthur Blake. Blake's friend and fellow grave robber Willie Grimes has just been executed and Blake is going to follow suit the next morning. While he sits in his cell awaiting his execution a priest named Father Duffy comes in and asks him if he will tell all he has seen as a grave robber. He then proceeds to give Father Duffy a quasi biography of his more interesting exploits.

The plot pretty much consists of several incidents only tied together by chronology. This prevents the viewer from ever getting bored but it also makes the events less significant as you could easily add or remove a lot of scenes without noticing it much. Though flawed, I thought overall this method added to the fun loving nature of the film and kept it very entertaining. Most of the various stories are good, specifically the alien, the Murphy's and the vampire, but others weren't so great.

The acting isn't amazing but I didn't find it bad at any point. Dominic Monaghan had a good performance as he managed to be serious when it mattered and also play very well into the comedic parts of the film.

The characters were not extremely in-depth, but they were all interesting. I also enjoyed how a number of the villains were done in a over-the-top almost comic book manner. The part with the back story of the Murphy's and their gang is priceless.

So overall, I Sell the Dead very successfully combines horror, comedy and sci-fi into a mish mash of fun and excitement. It is one of the more interesting and original movies I have seen in a while, and it's unfortunate that independent films like this don't get more recognition.


The book is fantastic, this film is not. There is no reason this film could not have embraced a futuristic technological vision of the book. Hell, total recall was released a few years later and that did a good job of it, even a clockwork orange released in the 70s did a good job of trying to make a futuristic world. The bleak German expressionistic colours, the black and white footage from the vision screens, there is no reason for this approach for when the film was made in 1984. The main character is in a white collar writing job yet he dresses like he works with oil and grease in a garage. This film decides to take a mock-communistic approach to set design, atmosphere and theme, yet the novel did not necessarily dictate a communist, worship-the-humble-worker theme itself. This book seriously needs to be adapted in a modern context as this book is more relevant today than ever before. I could not watch more than 20 minutes of this crap. The soundtrack is annoying, the lack of foresight is annoying, this film seems to have been made to deny a sense of realism or believability when that is exactly what is required to hammer the novel's messages to the viewer.


I love this film. There is something for everyone. It if funny, saddening, passionate and dramatic. The mixture of two completely different cultures creates a whole new world that the viewer cannot help but want to be a part of. I must admit that I am slightly biased, as Colin Firth is my favourite actor and so nothing that he does is wrong in my eyes (!), but in this film his tremendous acting talent is apparent and it is furthered even more by the beautiful acting of his co-star Nia Long. The problems that their love affair suffers makes it, ironically, more believable and the simple features like the contrast between the colours of Matthew's and Nimi's clothes alone, makes this film all the more enchanting. I defy anyone that cannot be moved by this story. I find it enchanting and have watched it at least ten times since I bought the film a week ago!


I just finished watching this movie and largely found it a waste of time with little or no redeeming factors. I really don't understand where all the positive reviews came from -- the animation is clunky and unrefined, the plot makes no sense at all from an objective standpoint, and there is no sense of intrigue or suspense in that which is trying to pass itself off as an intriguing and suspenseful film. I have never read the book so I can't say if the movie was faithful, but as with most movie adaptations, it tries too hard to cram as much information into the shortest amount of time possible. The result is a disjointed and illogical storyline that doesn't really let you understand or relate to the characters, or, actually, anything at all. Overall, I felt completely detached from the characters and the plot to the point where I couldn't bring myself to care about what happened to them, and the only way I can see how this animation could be considered beautiful is if your normal standard of animation is a Scooby-Doo cartoon.


This film is mediocre at best. Angie Harmon is as funny as a bag of hammers. Her bitchy demeanor from 'Law and Order' carries over in a failed attempt at comedy. Charlie Sheen is the only one to come out unscathed in this horrible anti-comedy. The only positive thing to come out of this mess is Charlie and Denise's marriage. Hopefully that effort produces better results.


'Delusion' is what you experience when you watch this flick and then believe you saw something worthwhile. This flick, which tells of a trio of semi-psycho travelers who are up to no good somewhere in the CA desert, is amateurish and just plain stupid. The film suffers from an awful story, a lousy screenplay, and some terrible direction just to mention a few of the deficits. If the flick has anything at all going for it, it's B-movie diva Rubin's even performance. Don't waste your time on this turkey. (D)


Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed 'La Casa' in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.

A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.

The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl / woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.

Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.

This is my truth - what is yours?


Barbara Payton is the suppose-to-be sultry sexy young hot Chickie wife of the geezer plantation owner somewhere in a jungley back lot set at a cheap studio in Hollywood. Raymond Burr wears his working shirt with the top button undone as the hunky chunky plantation foreman who Mrs Payton is desiring to blow the joint with. There is another girl, some sort of peasant slave thing that Burr used to fool around with but he's given her the old heave ho so the obligatory squatty old voo-doo hag is conjuring up a good spell to cast on him and the Payton tramp. I watched this only part way through because its really awful, so didn't even get to see the star of the show---which I guess is a gorilla that the voo-doo hag turned someone into or whatever.....who cares. I give this one half star out of a possible ten. It's not even campy, just really bad.


Great music, but ain't these people PATHETIC?!? A true period piece of The Trippy Sixties, and it left me depressed. The director paints the wrong side of the jetset life and it stings as a hornets nest. If the culture of the time led people to do these things, it appears to me that it was all a journey of no discovery, only despair. I tried, really tried, to like this film, but these people aren't anywhere on my page. Yes, it would be nice to see the world, go away for awhile, but I always plan to come BACK. Drugs aren't the cause of these characters' downfalls, it's their lousy attitudes  these guys passionately drink their cup of poison. They cheapen their lives, and in the end, cheapen the journey that is life. Has romance ever been so dark?

Cheers: Interesting scenery. Wonderful soundtrack by Pink Floyd.

Caveats: Dated. Drugs. Depressing. Thoroughly unlikable characters; they aren't flower children.

Only for the curious, since most packages swoon The Pink Floyd connection. ( Rare Floyd tracks many will have never heard before, as FM ain't what it was. )

Rating: Two Stars.


This is the kind of film one initially selects to make up the numbers from video rental.....only to discover an under-rated entertaining and enjoyable movie!! The opening sequence of the police arriving at a dark and rainy house wherein the 'wife' has committed murder.......or is it??....and the remainder of the film seeks to unravel what really happened....OK...the film is a bit 'campy'...but has good editing and dialogue.....professional acting.....often humorous......and the very last scene with the facial expression is one of the best of its' kind......definitely worth watching.....deserving at least a 7 or an 8!


This movie is great fun to watch if you love films of the organized crime variety. Those looking for a crime film starring a charismatic lead with dreams of taking over in a bad way may be slightly disappointed with the way this film strides.

It is a fun romp through a criminal underworld however and if you aren't familiar with Hong Kong films, then you may be pleasantly surprised by this one. I was somewhat disappointed by some of the choices made story-wise but overall a good crime film. Some things did not make sense but that seems to be the norm with films of the East.

People just randomly do things regardless of how their personalities were set up prior. It's a slightly annoying pattern that permeates even in this film.


While not quite as monstrously preposterous as later works, this slow-moving, repetitive giallo offers some nice touches in the first half, but grows more and more lethargic and silly as it stumbles to its lame denouement.

To be sure, the actors are above average - considering this is an Argento movie - and some moments show the director's visual skills, but whole sequences should've been cut and, basically, it's just the same exploitative trash as ever, wallowing in fake science and abnormal sexual depravity.

3 out of 10 genetic disorders


This DVD usually sells for around $20. I wouldn't pay this much for the DVD if I had known what I was getting, but regardless this is a pretty good disc. It displays the Knot in all their glory, with footage from their concerts... playing Surfacing, Wait and Bleed and Scissors among other tracks, including the 'Spit it Out' music video, which was apparently banned from MTV.

Slipknot, for those who don't know, is essentially a symphony of the damned: nine masked men who display total chaos on stage, with machine gun drums, squealing guitar and vocals that will tear your face off and leave you wanting more. For those who've never seen Slipknot before, I cannot recommend enough you get this DVD... probably off eBay or Amazon so you can get a better deal.

A short, though well made show of the Knot.

Seven out of ten.


I'm usually not one to say that a film is not worth watching, but this is certainly an extenuating circumstance. The only true upside to this film is Cornelia Sharpe, looking rather attractive, and the fact that this film is REALLY short.

The plot in the film is unbelievably boring and goes virtually nowhere throughout the film. None of the characters are even remotely interesting and there is no reason to care about anyone. I'm not sure why on earth Sean Connery agreed to do this film, but he should have definitely passed on this one.

The only reason I could see for seeing this film is if you are a die-hard Sean Connery fan and simply want to see everything he's done. Save this one for last though.

Well, if you by some miracle end up seeing this despite my review (or any of the other reviews on this site), then I hope you enjoy it more than I did. Thanks for reading.


Kannathil Muthamittal was simply one of the most touching and sincere movies ive seen in a long time. the story of an adopted girl who on her 9th birthday learns the truth about her parentage. she sets out in an endeavour to find out more about her real mother and learns that her mother is now a terrorist.

the greatness of the movie lies in its simplicity. mani ratnam generally has a tendency to create unreal and pompous overblown characters in this movie, every person seems real and their interactions are touching and sincere. this is the reason why this ranks as one of his best movies.

the movie is emotionally draining and tugs at the heart of the viewer, keerthana as the 9 year old amudha and simran as her adopted mother are simply brilliant. their relationship is the cornerstone of this movie. there are some notable flaws here, particularly the scene where amudha learns that she is an adopted child is jarring and seems totally unreal. it is hard to believe that such sensitive parents would break such a news in the manner that they did. another flaw is, surprisingly enough, the brilliant songs. they again seem forced and stand out, not gelling with the rest of the script.

having said these, this still is one of the most poignant and beautiful movies to come out of india in a long long time. this beauty is not just in the script or characters but in teh technical brilliance as well, ravi chandran's camera work is sheer poetry. all characters perform creditably and the realistic humour, especially in teh flashback scenes are entertaining.

a sincere 9!!


Shrek, anyone? Well, imagine Shrek in the ice age. Remember the ending of Shrek? Of cause you do. Now, imagine, that Shrek turns into a human, and so does the princess. Get it? Nice animation, actually, much more of an art work than Pixar and Disney pictures, which are trying to get as close to reality as possible in their drawings. Strong one-liners, some social comments that kids won't understand, the good guys win. One thing more: Scrat. By the way, how does everybody know his name is Scrat? 7/10


Being a HUGE fan of the bottom series i was really looking forward to the release of this film.I was eagerly anticipating a laugh a minute roller-coaster ride......alas.

Where to start on this mess?i think its a good start to say that its hardly richie and eddie on our screens in the first place as none of the jokes and one liners they usually deliver so well are funny.I was still waiting for the first laugh after a good 20 minutes of viewing.Many aspects of the story were pathetic and it was as if the film was full of those bad moments they rehearsed and decided to leave out of the final cut.

The overall sets and atmosphere surrounding the film is dark and dingy which i suppose is good if they want to portray the 'terrible' guest house the 2 buffoons attempt to run,but to me its just puts an even higher dampener on a sorry state of filming that should never have been created.

The acting,at times,is pathetic.Fenella Fielding is wasted as the loony Mrs Foxfur and i've seen Simon Pegg have much better outings.

I'd recommend Guest House Paradiso to anybody who is blind drunk because they might appreciate the terrible puns much more.But to any bottom fan who hasn't seen this film and is expecting true richie and eddie action you have been warned


Extremely poor action film starring the ever wooden Dolph Lundgren and Brandon Lee trapped in a sidekick role that never seems to gel. The action is at best average, a bit of nudity chucked in and yes Tia Carrera does use a body double!

The set-up is the usual renegade cop forced to break in a new partner on a big case, the makers at least try to give the formula a twist making Lundgren the cop with Oriental values and Lee the modern city slicker but there is zero character development making it almost comical, Lundgrens oriental warrior outfit for the big showdown has to be seen to be believed. The action sequences are by the numbers and Lee(who would go on to make the excellent The Crow) is never given the scope to show off any particular martial arts brilliance. But given his illustrious parentage he must have been under a hell of a lot of pressure and was far better served not having to live up to his father by taking on a very different role in The Crow which showed what a unique actor he may have become if not for his tragic and early death.

Unless your a hardcore Lundgren fan or a fan of poor 80's style action movies (think Cobra etc.) then avoid.

Poor 3/10


'White Noise' had potential to be one of the most talked about movies since 'The Exorcist' I think. Seeing as EVP is supposedly true it really had an easy passage to be a feared true fact. Not many movies come along that really instill fear into the minds of people. Like I said this movie could have, but did not. The movie degraded itself to a low class PG-13 scary movie. Nothing compared to 'The Ring' or 'The Sixth Sense' by any means. Someone really needs to just take charge in the horror movie industry and just make a movie that not only makes us think, but it makes us jump, scream, everything a horror movie should do. I'm honestly sick of the PG-13 Horror Genre, because its becoming a genre of its own. We need the old days back, the blood and gore days, the Freddy Kruger, the Jason, The Mike Myers days. Few movies can pull off a think about this mentality being so NOT scary. So why try to pull it off? A few good jumps in this movie amount to nothing but one of the stupidest endings in movie history with no resolution at all...don't waste your money on this movie.


If this film doesn't at least be selected for an oscar nominee for best foreign film I'm going to stop waking at nights watching the event. Fridrik Thor Fridriksson has proven that money isn't the key to making a good movie but originality. Out of a cold country comes a warm but thought-provoking film of a mentally ill man and his struggle against an insane world. After an insight like this, you question whether or not the man is crazy or the world he lives in.


Chop Shop. Written and directed by Ramin Bahrani ( Man Push Cart). Bahrani specializes in character driven studies in naturalist style films about the sort of little people that get passed by every day, without anyone ever really noticing they are there, in New York.

These are people who have been pushed to the very fringe of society. They exist in a sort of grey world, many of them migrants whose legal status in America is appears somewhat doubtful. Where do they come from ? How did they get there ? How do they cope ? Where will they end up ? These are not feel good stories as such, but stories about survival at its most basic, day to day level.

Ale is one such street kid. He has no education and hustles anyway he can, to save money, he is also not beyond turning to petty theft. Mostly he is anxious to be reunited with his older sister. We see him in the early scenes ringing a safe house looking for her, but not having any real success. A young friend, Carlos gets him a job in a chop shop, in the shadows of Shea baseball stadium. Eventually his older sister comes to live on site with him, but he is jealous of the motives of her friends and suspicious of how she makes extra money. He dreams of buying a food van and setting up a vending business with his older sister.

Bahrani shoots all his films on location. There is nothing glossy or glossed over about them. This is life as these people have to live it, in the raw. lt is not pretty although it is never ominous, and the slightly despairing air that hangs over much of the film, is the same one that hangs over these peoples' everyday lives.

The script is also very natural and the characters are given plenty of scope and room to work in. Polanco is outstanding in the lead role, and Gonzalez gives solid support as the older sister.


A somewhat fictionalized biographical portrait of Abraham Lincoln's early years from Director John Ford, concentrating primarily on a trial in which the young lawyer defends two brothers accused of murder.

The film offers an interesting portrayal of this important American figure and the film is well made, but seems somewhat incomplete without any of the great moments from his presidency or even his debates with Stephen Douglas. The obvious intent was to portray Lincoln as young man developing the attributes that would make him the great man he would become. But the result for me was that while I admired the portrayal it just wasn't as satisfying as I think it could have been with a greater scope.

In the role of Abraham Lincoln we have Henry Fonda who effectively displays a quiet strength. Fonda's performance includes some gangly mannerisms' and other affectations which are fairly effective in presenting a portrayal of Lincoln, particularly when combined with some effective makeup and the costuming which occasionally is a bit to overt.

The supporting cast is solid and surprisingly does not include that many of Ford's regular supporting cast (sometimes referred to as his stock company) but we do have Ward Bond one of the most prolific character actors in Hollywood. Bond has appeared in more of the AFI Top 100 Films than any other actor, both the original and revised list. He has also appeared in 11 Best Picture Nominees.

The film features one scene that would seem to have inspired a quite similar scene in 'To Kill a Mockingbird', where it would be done even better than it is here, even though that scene is one of the most effective in this film.


This is 1 hour and 24 minutes of pure boredom!!

In this 'Action'- movie, even the gun Baldwin uses (HK G3A3) sucks. It was sent to recycling by armed forces worldwide in the mid eighties, and is now only used by terrorists, bank robbers and military museums.

If I had known this movie was this bad, I would rather watch 10 episodes of MacGyver saving the planet.

No groove, no drive and no feel. Watch the Tupperware-channel  it's more exiting than this sorry excuse for a movie. This movie doesn't deserve a '0' on the scale. Better luck next time, Baldwin. Until then, I'll sit here watch my toenails grow  that is far more exiting than 'Target'.


This is classic 80's humor. If you were a teen in the 80's this was a summer hit to go see. It was a early look at those now super stars. This and Better off Dead just are fun and silly movies to sit back and enjoy. Everyone can admit they had a crazy summer when they were a teenager. Even crazy family and friends like these characters. To be introduced to some of these characters was so much fun. The uncle who is crazy sitting every waking moment at a radio waiting to win a million dollars, the grandmother who only likes the granddaughter and handed a bill to the kids after dinner, the twin brothers who look nothing alike, and to meet hoopz was so much fun. This may not of won an award but it is just a fun movie to get lost in one afternoon.


Christopher Nolan's first directorial effort, a year before he did 'Memento,' and this is almost as brilliant as that classic. He uses time differentials in a similar manner to tell his story, and it's a very clever one.

Bill is this young writer who begins following complete strangers around just to see where they live and what they're all about. One day, he follows this man, Cobb, who turns the tables and confronts Bill, who breaks down and confesses what he's up to.

Cobb is a burglar and he takes Bill along on a few jobs to teach him the ropes. Both men are voyeurs of a sort and a bond begins to grow between the two of them.

But there's an ulterior motive for Cobb nurturing this relationship, and it all ties in very smartly at the end. No, I won't spoil it but this is a very cool movie and I'm beginning to think Christopher Nolan is a genius.

If you like suspense films with surprise endings, this one is a must see.


... than this ;-) What would happen if Terry Gilliam and Douglas Adams would have worked together on one movie? This movie starts with a touch of Brazil... when, at a certain point, the story moves straight into the twilight zone... bringing up nothing new, but just nothing... and nothing is great fun! When Dave and Andrew starts to explore their new environment the movie gets really enjoyable... bouncing heads? well... yes ;-)

anyway... this movie was, imho, the biggest surprise at this year's FantasyFilmFest...

Just like in Cube and Cypher Natali gave this one a minimalistic, weird but very special design, which makes it hard to locate the place of the story or its time... timeless somehow...


Great movie about a great man. Thomas Kretschmann is first rate as in all of his other movies.I would never have envisioned him as Pope John Paul. It speaks volumes for the casting director. Why do they keep casting him as German officer in the movies? And he only came to universal attention after 'the pianist'? Of course he looks so hot in the uniforms. I know a lot of girls drool over his handsome face. But this guy is a great actor and has such great potentials. If you don't believe me, go watch 'Stalingrad'. I hope he will get a lot of excellent roles in the future with more diversity. Otherwise, what a heartbreaking waste of great talent.


This movies made me suffer and I LOVED IT! LOVED IT! It haunted me for days. I think Erika is the kind of character you simultaneously loathe and lament. The most terrifying sex scene ever caught on film. This is the best of Haneke's work so far. He is the only living director to redefine pace since Kubrick. The violence in this film is gorgeous. In a word, the film is about self-hatred. In a sentence, the film is about trying to find love in order to stop hating yourself and finding that that is a hopeless hope.


Released in 1965, but clearly shot years earlier, this is an inept little crime melodrama with some inept sexploitation up front. As usual for grindhouse flicks of era, there's a fair amount of undressing and dressing for no reason complemented by lousy music, annoying narration, and awkward editing. The coffee shop scene lays the excruciating groundwork, as we chop back and forth between characters to avoid actually seeing them speak their lines. All we get are reaction shots to the off-screen character's voice! 50s-pretty Misty Ayers strips to her French-cut panties a couple of times before the action gets started. She's accompanied continuously by what is apparently stock music from romantic to western to mother-does-the-dishes, mixed randomly to produce, among other things, the most thrilling cigarette lighting ever captured on film. Watch as he taps it! Watch as he strikes the match! Will he inhale or will he be captured by Apaches? Only time will tell!! The film tells the sordid tale of how Sally gets tricked into working in a whorehouse, falls for a dope, and can't escape. For some reason, we're treated to some of the most bored and boring hookers ever committed to film, literally doing their nails or knitting rather than entertaining the clientèle. Some stupendously lame comedy (boozy dame accidentally drinks milk! Har dee har!) and silent film acting doesn't help. This is one of the worst feature films I've ever seen, even on the Something Weird Video marquee. It's really more of a film curiosity for those interested in the history of cinema--very bad cinema.


Oh My God, this is so idiotic. Completely pointless, offensive, and repulsive. Why do the writers have such a problem with actually getting Zoey and Chase together we all want them too! in normal shows, there's actually MORE THAN ONE plot conflict in the show, wow, what a concept. also, you cant even tell the Zoey 101 episodes apart from each other because the same thing happens every time. Quinn exploits Dustin for some weird thing, Nicole is giggly and stupid, Zoey is just kinda there, Chase slobbers after her all the time but she amazingly fails to notice, and Logan is a jerk. repeat. Quinn exploits Dustin for some weird thing, Nicole is giggly and stupid, Zoey is just kinda there, Chase slobbers after her all the time but she amazingly fails to notice, and Logan is a jerk. repeat. it's like a shampoo bottle. and the end of the movie, omg again. so pointless NOTHING HAPPENS. it's like they specifically designed it so that the movie could fit between any two episodes of the show and the show would go completely unchanged after the movie plot.


I survived the first hour of this and came back for the last ten minutes, just to say I saw the end. If you want *real* mythology, flawlessly executed, look for Armand Assante's 'The Odyssey.' Great storytelling doesn't need to be tweaked - the stories are fantastic on their own. I only hope Sean Astin needed the money. And Sophocles and Ovid must be whirling in their graves - wherever those may be.

At least with Sorbo's version, the tongue was poked relentlessly in cheek - we knew it was mostly balderdash, but perhaps enough interest was generated in the backstory to send someone to the library.I'm surprised Halmi could turn out something so amusing (the TV series), and follow it with something so devoid of quality.


In sixth grade, every teacher I had decided it would be a great idea to make this movie the curriculum for an entire semester. Every class had something to do with this terrible show. We watched it in English and wrote in journals as if we were one of the characters. In math we talked about charts and other sea crap. In science we talked about whales (which was actually somewhat interesting, so this wasn't a 100% waste of time). All day everyday was torture. Not only that, but they would subject us to this horror twice a day by making us watch it in study hall as well. I could see if this was a new series or something, but it was, like, '93. I'm still trying to block this out.


Two old men sitting on a park bench . I don`t really have a problem with this scene - Only problem is that it`s not a scene it`s the entire movie<br /><br />Yup movies don`t get anymore low concept than this . They also don`t get anymore boring than this either , but there`s worse to come because these two old men are chalk and cheese . One is Nat Moyer who is Yiddish communist while the other is Midge Carter a former golden gloves champion who`s also black . Let me see now , a Jew and a black man sitting on a park bench getting along fine . Well I guess it`s possible though unlikely , but if this film has such an inoffensive scenario why play up to the Jewish stereotype ? Why make them loud tribilistic rabble rousers who take hebrew oaths ? Slightly ironic that the Jews seen at the start of the movie are exactly the type of Jews seen in Nazi propaganda films in the 1930s

Stereotypes aside moi dearz the problem with I`M NOT RAPPAPORT is that it`s written for an entirely different meduim than cinema , it`s based on a stage play and it shows . Walter Matthau sleepwalks through his role as Nat while this commentator almost slept through the whole movie


This infamous ending to Koen Wauters' career came to my attention through the 'Night of Bad Taste'. Judging by the comment index i wasn't the first and i am not to be the last person in Western Europe to learn that this musician (undoubtedly one of the best on our contemporary pop scene, even the Dutch agree on that) tried to be an actor. Whether he should have made the attempt or not cannot be judged.

In 'Intensive Care' he's quite likable, but he seems to be uncomfortable with the flick in which he is participating. No one can blame him. It deserves its ranking in Verheyen's Hall of Fame by all means & standards. The story of the Murderous Maniac Who is Supposed To Have Died In An Accident But Is Alive And Wrathful has been told dozens of times before, and even without original twists a director can deliver a more than mediocre story through innovative settings and cinematography.

 IC contents itself with a hospital wing and a couple of middle class houses. The pace is dull. The tension looses the last bit of its credibility to the musical score, for every appearance of the murderer is accompagnied by a tedious menacing melody, followed by orchestral outbursts during the murders, which or largely suggested and in any case as bloodless as a small budget can make them. The sex scene is gratuitous but not in the least appealing. The couple from Amsterdamned could have made it work, though. While dealing with the couple subject : the whole subplot between Wauters and the girl does not work. A more effective emotional connection could have been established on screen if they had just been fellow victims-to-be, who loosen their nerves halfway through physical intercourse. I will not even grant the other cast members the dignity of a mentioning, for they should all have been chopped up into tiny greasy pieces. As a matter of fact, most of them do. The ones i recall where obvious for the genre : a pretty nurse and two cops.

Hence, in a slasher, the cavalry only comes in time to need rescue itself. The (anti-) hero has to take out the villain, mostly through clever thinking, for former red berets don't often get parts in these films; they might overcome the illusion of invincibility that surrounds the killer. Translated to the events, Wauters kills the doctor and saves the dame in distress.

No people, i am not finished. This is not how the story goes. Wauters makes his heroic attempt but gets beaten up with a fury that comes close to 'A Clockwork Orange', so it is up to the girl to pick up the driller killer act and pierce through the doctors brains. Though this method ensures the killer's death more than the usual rounds of 9mm bullets, the doctor survives in order to enable IC to reach the 80 min mark.

I should have made my point by now. Intensive Care is a bad movie, which can only be enjoyed by Bad Taste lovers, who can verify Verheyen's catchy statements and make some up for themselves and that way try to sit through it. For example, the (unintended) parody value of the doctor's clown mask (Halloween) and the final confrontation in the park (the chase at the end of Friday the 13th).

However, let me conclude by giving an overview by a few measly elements which give IC a little credit. George Kennedy is not one of them. All he has to do is endure a horrible monologue by a fellow doctor/French actor and look horrified when they let him go down in flames in order to tag his big name on a stand-in. He could have played his Naked Gun part again, to end up as beef, but with a longer screen time. The finale may be one of them. I had never seen a maniac being brought down by launching fireworks into his guts in order to crush him against a flexible fence. It is good for a laugh.

Name one good truly point about Intensive Care ... Koen Wauters learned his lesson and devoted himself entirely to his musical career. It makes me wonder how many editions of the Paris-Dakar race he has to abort before coming to his senses.


Evidently, not many people have seen this movie, because no one is posting any more comments. This is not a movie to be missed. After all, it has won the George Peabody award as well as the Humanitas award. Paul Winfield should have won an award for his awesome performance in this movie. Eugene Logan who was a co-writer on this made for TV movie also was part of another movie on humanity, or loss of it, by being a technical adviser to Truman Capote's movie the Glass House. This movie is now available on DVD. If anyone is interested, I will post another letter telling how it was that Eugene Logan came to be the technical adviser to a movie of such an amazing person as Truman Capote. Thanks for reading this and I hope you will find a way to view these two movies.


Just seen Which Way to the Front? on TCM (UK) it is a truly awful film. If I'd paid at the pictures I'd have walked out.

A terrible mess of a film. Byers (Lewis) and his mates prance around in cast off uniforms from an Italian sci-fi movie of 1960's. Were the CND/Peace symbol badges on the uniforms meant to be Ironic? The sets were pure 1970, I'm sure a Hollywood TV back-lot could have provided a more realistic set.

The film is riddled with racism. The film takes the mickey out of veterans.

Not funny how Lewis every got to make another film is beyond me.


First of all, I must say that I love this film.

It was the first film that I saw from director Micheal Haneke and I was impressed that how good the direction was good !

Haneke surely knows how to direct actors. What I found intresting is also Haneke's scenario. At first, you saw a woman who is very straight and seems to be a good piano teacher and very well loved and respected from everybody in her entourage. Then you realise that she has a mother who is a controle freak and is too much present in her life. Now you know that she is deranged, that she has emotional problems, but you don't know exactly what. And then you fall into her dark side, but her dark side is only reveal when a student sendenly fall in love with her. She can't controled herself anymore.

The roles are very complexed and difficult to play, but Isabelle Huppert is marvellous in her role and she deserves the recognition she had at Cannes Festival. Benoit Maginel is very solid too, but a little bit eclipse by Huppert's performance.

There is one thing that I found strange in the scenario is how the character played by Magimel is not very credible. He is too talented! It is rare that a person is a piano virtuoso, but pass the most of the his time to play hockey and study... It think that it is a weak point, but only a minor flaw.

I just saw the movie once, so I can't do a very complete critic, because I didn't analysed the movie. I like what I saw ! so I give the film a 8.5/10

Oh yeah... as for the end, Haneke showed that he really wanted to shock his audience. A motivation that don't think is necessary to make movies, but Haneke does it with style and precision, that is why his film is better than Baise-Moi for example.

Vince


Whoever said that horror wasn't an educational film genre, huh? Thanks to this marvelous Hammer short movie, I now at least know NEVER to offer a strange visitor any wine and a slice of bread with salt in my own house, because he might just be hypnotist and this combination will give him the power to control my thoughts & mind forever! Thank you Hammer! The tenth episode in the House of Horror series is another one I've been looking forward to seeing, mainly because the guy in the director's chair was Don Sharp; one of Britain's finest filmmakers but still sadly underrated. Sharp was responsible for some very cool Hammer films, like 'Kiss of the Vampire' and 'Rasputin: The Mad Monk', as well as some overlooked independent productions like 'Dark Places' and 'Psychomania'. His contribution to House of Horror is easily one of the best in the series, with a complex yet fascinating plot outline and revolving on delightful occult themes. The plot centers on two antique dealers that stumble upon a strange object resembling a mirror, but it's actually an ancient scrying device that can be used to summon Choronzhon; the demonic guardian of the abyss. The mirror is heavily desired by a satanic cult since they need it for their ceremonies, but Michael is reluctant to sell it before knowing the real value of the device. When he picks up a clearly petrified girl who's running from the cult to avoid being sacrificed, Michael is drawn even deeper into an occult conspiracy. Satanic cults and the carnal sacrifice of young women are typical British horror topics, but David Fischer's screenplay is never dull and offers plenty of neat plot twits, among which a highly inventive climax. There's also plenty of tension to admire, the dialogs are wit and the acting performances are splendid (especially John Carson as the leader of the cult is genuinely eerie). Recommended!


Unlike most reviewers here, I hated this movie, simply because the writer/director's bloated ego was in the way of an otherwise potentially interesting topic. Too many film fans equate 'EXTREME self-indulgence' to 'film GENIUS!', but I don't buy into that cult of personality. A film should be about its subject, not its director (unless it's a Woody Allen film, of course). *SPOILER* (which is just as well, save your time...) There is nothing brilliant about of showing you the foot-long porn-star's you-know-what in the last frame- that's actually called a tacky maneuver that SCREAMS film-school hackism.

The poseur flick has achieved 'great film' status based on its indulgence and pandering to the audience  which, first and foremost, is the writer/director. But the rest of the audience should look down on the surly, brutal nature of the porn biz, too. The flick had an aloof angle to the porn industry, looking down on each and every player it could bash. No matter, just love your writer/director. Love those four-minute steadicam segments, which are supposed to show the energy of the moment, but somehow had all the verve of an off switch. Love the story- no matter how dull it is- about the gee-whiz rise and sordid fall of a porn star. But look down on it, too, of course. While the subject has the potential to be fascinating  innocence, money, degradation, beauty- your worshipful writer/director somehow managed to make it all look, again, DULL. Partly because of its run time. Here is something your auteur hero DIDN'T try: Giving the characters dimension. Or soul. Anything AT ALL to give a hoot about, aside from Genius That Paul Is, of course. But I'm not buying. I don't buy into indulgent hacks with astounding hype.

Another overlong auteurist hack piece, with fifty times more hype than quality. I know some of you agree. The rest will see likely see this indulgent flick again. Not my problem.


Just saw it....the story, the plot, the script makes absolute no sense!! Its Samvise the brave part 2(without the RING), its characters showing up out of the blue(for no reason),its Hercules hated by everyone(no one knows why), its Leelee Sobiesky showing her true talents(two of them), its crappy special effects, its a few good actors wasting their talents(did I mention Leelee's two talents??)... do I have to say more??? ITS JUST AWFUL, even for NBC-TV standards!!! Its just the lowest....what a waste! by the way: how can you people give this mini-series so many stars????? Its beyond me!.... Shame on you! Have to make 10 lines, so this is my final word: AVOID, AVOID, if u are considering buying it!


After having problems in Chicago, the Solomon family moves to a remote North Dakota farmhouse to start anew, but their attempts at an idyllic farming life is disrupted when their teen daughter Jess (Kristen Stewart) and her 3-year-old brother Ben start seeing and being attacked by supernatural beings who won't allow them to live in peace.

The Messengers starts off decently although it eventually becomes a generic horror film that's a lot more humorous than frightening. After reading the premise, I thought this could have been a decent movie since it sounded creepy and it held potential. Unfortunately, the film didn't live up to its potential although I should have expected this since the trailer was awful. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was full of silly sequences and bland dialog. The characters were not developed at all and most of them were acting like a bunch of idiots so it was hard to feel sympathy for them.

The directors did a horrible job at building up suspense. They mainly relied on cheap scares like loud noises and random jumps. The music was really over the top and it just made it easier for the viewer to telegraph the next 'scary' moment. I also didn't like how they pretty much just used one location for the whole movie. The house was the centerpiece of the story and that's where the majority of the filming took place so it got a little boring after awhile to see the same area. Also, I didn't like the close-ups of the actors. During a conversation, the camera would continually jerk from character to another in the span of five seconds and it got really annoying. The directors did create a decent atmosphere and they do get some points for making their movie stylish. However, since we have come a long way in terms of style and effects, it's not really that hard to make your movie look nice especially if you are working on a Hollywood film.

The acting was atrocious and if this movie had been released in December, I'm sure it would have received several Razzie nominations. Kristen Stewart showed some talent in Panic Room but you wouldn't be able to tell she has talent by watching her performance in The Messengers. She was okay at acting scared and that's it. The rest of the time she was dry and unconvincing. Penelope Anne Miller was just awful when it came to everything. It sounded like she was reading her lines and she had some of the worst facial expressions I have ever seen. Dylan McDermott was just very wooden and he showed almost no emotion. John Corbett gave the best performance and he had a couple of good scenes. The twins who played Ben were also decent and managed to out act many of the adult actors. Overall, this lame horror film is not worth watching because of it's blandness and lazy film-making. Rating 4/10