If you find the depiction of violent murders and wanton police brutality expressed in a plot less film with glacial pacing entertaining, then you're bound to enjoy Surveillance. This film was garbage for both the mind and spirit. The notion that this is a 'thriller' is comical; that would imply some kind of tension and twists. You kept waiting for the story to actually finish 'starting'. It never rises above a glorification of weak-minded violent criminals and individuals from all walks of life. Picture all of the violence of 'No Country for Old Men' without any kind of chase or sympathetic characters. Thrill-killers run amok. The acting is good, mostly, but the script is a pile. Don't bother, and tell your friends to don't bother.


Not sure why the other comment on this film was so negative, but I loved this movie. I am a student of Asian art with a particular love of Korean art, culture and history. I thought this movie borough a very controversial and interesting character to life. Jang Seung-up is one of the (maybe the most) famous Korean artist and continues to be revered as a master. Given the tumult of the time in which he painted and his own conflicted nature, it is amazing that he produced so much work, in so many styles and with such skill. This movie honors his talent while taking a direct look at his erratic and somewhat self-destructive personality. The cinematography in MY opinion was beautiful, many of the outdoor panoramic shots looked like Korean landscape paintings (which I found a lovely conceit rather than 'overly arty') and I think that Choi Min-sik portrayed Jang Seun-up with a necessary intensity and unpredictability. I would highly recommend this film to art lovers and movie lovers alike.


This review owes its existence entirely to a review. We take a weekly TV magazine to see what is coming up, and duly decide what we will watch. Obligingly, there are brief reviews of most of the films scheduled to be shown on the five major terrestrial channels. In addition to the prose, each film is allocated a 1-5 star rating. 5 means Don't Miss (superior to 4 for Excellent!), down to 1 standing for Poor. We have learned from vast experience that, with few exceptions, stars are awarded for gross taste, foul language, offensive content, promiscuity, horror, blood & guts, and especially killing off the hero/heroine just when everyone was about to live happily ever after. (If that isn't done, the movie is denigrated as being 'predictable' - the worst insult imaginable!)

Brave New Girl was given only 1 star, thereby suggesting it was a candidate worthy of our time and attention. This was confirmed by the reviewer's description of the movie as being a 'truly awful tale', and, 'Stupid, just stupid'. We watched it, and my wife and I were glad we did so. The TV magazine reviewer further stated that the movie was 'not a reworking of War and Peace', with which we have to agree. Reading through the IMDb reviews for this title a day or two later, the urge to pick up my pen (so to speak) to add my halfpennyworth (pronounced harf'pen'uth (emphasis on the first syllable) for the uninitiated) became overwhelming.

Why did we take to this movie? Well, it's just a matter of taste. We like attractive characters, believable relationships between them, interesting situations, courtesy and respect, good triumphing over evil, and so on. We liked the integrity and personalities of Holly (Lindsey Haun), her Mum (Virginia Madsen), Ditz (Barbara Mamabolo), Grant (Nick Roth), Zoe (Joanne Boland) and the two male professors involved in the story. So what if the storyline includes a 'wicked witch of the west' in the form of Angela (Barbara Mamabolo), provided that she plays the part with some conviction. We appreciated the friendship depicted between the two room-mates, with one having a financially challenged upbringing by a loving single Mum, and the other having every material advantage but receiving little parental time and affection. Is it any wonder that Ditz felt the way she did about Holly's Mum? Is it surprising that Grant should take an immediate interest in Holly, considering the manner of their initial meeting, Holly's dazzling smiles and her lively self-possession? I think these issues and the events are believable enough, but it is necessary to pretend that the scholarship and other circumstances are realistic in order for the tale to have a setting.

My wife and I are greatly blessed by not having any significant musical education. This enables us to enjoy the sounds produced by instruments and voices without having our critical faculties intruding unduly on our listening, and thus spoiling the experience. We enjoyed both the classical pieces and the pop, which came over well on the TV, and we weren't struck by any lack of talent. Also, it mattered not that Holly's classical vocals were dubbed by someone else.

We enjoyed the movie enough to look for a DVD. The average delivered price we have paid per disk for the movies in our collection currently stands at £4.9484 (rounded to four decimal places). Brave New Girl was available from a trusted supplier on the Amazon Marketplace for £1.3516 (rounded to four decimal places) above this figure. Such a purchase would increase the average. Why I should resent this is a mystery to me, but it is a testimony to our enjoyment of this film that we placed an order anyway. I have awarded this film 7 IMDb stars out of ten, having docked one for overenthusiastic reception of the performances by the audiences, one for Britney advertising and one for something else I can't remember right now. (In case it hasn't tumbled, this review is an anthem in celebration of the use of brackets!)


Well, 'built' Doris Day (as Ethel S. 'Dynamite' Jackson) is mistaken for thespian Ethel Barrymore, and falls in love with dancer Ray Bolger (as S. 'Sam' Winthrop Putnam). Older Frenchman Claude Dauphin (as Philippe Fouquet) also digs Doris. Honestly What were they thinking? - This wildly inappropriate musical does feature Ms. Day prettily singing the standard 'April in Paris', and others. Certainly, there nothing as good as her Columbia recordings from the time; and, nothing approaches Day's stunning and forthcoming 'Secret Love'. Although the material does not serve him well, it's nice to see Mr. Bolger performing. Some of the musical numbers are obnoxious.

**** April in Paris (12/24/52) David Butler ~ Doris Day, Ray Bolger, Claude Dauphin


I have to say, Seventeen & Missing is much better than I expected. The perception I took from the previews was that it would be just humdrum but I was pleasantly surprised with this impressive mystery.

Dedee Pfeiffer is Emilie, a mom who insists her daughter, Lori (Tegan Moss), not attend a so-called graduation party one weeknight, but Lori ignores her mother's wishes and takes off for the party anyway. When Lori does not come home, Emilie knows something is wrong and she begins to have visions of her daughter and the events that led to her disappearance.

Seventeen & Missing is better than so many other TV movies of this type, as it is not so predictable. Pfeiffer is the reason to see this movie, and most of it comes off as believable. This LMN Original Movie premiered last night. 10/10


Abu, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD, helps King Ahmed regain his kingdom from a wicked sorcerer.

As Europe was going to war and significant sections of the world was going up in flames, Sir Alexander Korda's London Films unveiled this lavish escapist fare from the legends of The Arabian Nights. Replete with swords & sorcery, it gave audiences in 1940 a short respite from the headlines. It also is a fine piece of film making, featuring good acting and an intelligent script.

Conrad Veidt gets top billing and he deserves it, playing the evil magician Jaffar. His saturnine face with its piercing eyes makes one recall the macabre roles he played with such relish during Silent days. Here is a villain worth watching. As the boyish Thief, Sabu is perfectly cast in this, his third film. While not a hero in the typical sense of the word, his character is certainly heroic in deed & action.

The rest of the cast do fine work. John Justin is both energetic & sensitive as the unenlightened king who must learn about the realities of live the hard way; Sabu gets a significant part of the action (when he's not transformed into a dog) but Justin is appropriately athletic when needs must. Lovely June Duprez plays the endangered Princess of Basra, coveted by two very different men. Appearing late in the film, massive Rex Ingram shakes things up as a genie with an attitude.

Allan Jeayes uses his fine voice to good advantage as the Storyteller. Miles Malleson gets another eccentric role as the childlike Sultan of Basra, forever dithering on about his mechanical toys (Malleson was also responsible for the film's screen play & dialogue). Aged Morton Selten portrays the benevolent King of Legend. Mary Morris, later an exceptional stage actress, plays the dual roles of Jaffar's accomplice and the six-armed Silver Dancer.

The film was begun in Britain, but wartime difficulties made Korda move it to Southern California, which probably explains the presence of American Ingram in the cast. The art direction, in vibrant Technicolor, is most attractive, especially the fairy tale architecture in blues, whites & pinks.

*************************

Born Sabu Dastagir in 1924, Sabu was employed in the Maharaja of Mysore's stables when he was discovered by Korda's company and set before the cameras. His first four films (ELEPHANT BOY-1937, THE DRUM-1938, THE THIEF OF BAGDAD-1940, JUNGLE BOOK-1942) were his best and he found himself working out of Hollywood when they were completed. After distinguished military service in World War II he resumed his film career, but he became endlessly confined for years playing ethnic roles in undistinguished minor films, BLACK NARCISSUS (1947) being the one great exception. His final movie, Walt Disney's A TIGER WALKS (1964) was an improvement, but it was too late. Sabu had died of a heart attack in late 1963, only 39 years of age.


Fellow Giallo-fanatics: beware and/or proceed with caution  for this movie isn't exactly what it appears to be. It surely looks like a Giallo, with its juicy VHS cover (showing a busty naked girl and a big bloodied knife), rhythmic title and the names of two veteran Italian actors in the cast (John Phillip & Fernando Rey), but it's basically just an erotic thriller without much of a plot. The version I watched is presumably harshly censored  with a running time of barely 77 minutes  but then still there's a severe lack of suspense, character development and most of all sadistic (and typically Giallo) carnage. 'Eyes Behind the Wall' can briefly be summarized as the gathering of a bunch of perverted characters and the extended depiction of their sexuality issues. It's an interesting effort notwithstanding, because writer/director Giuliano Petrelli (his only film) clearly attempted to do something special, but the overall result is unsatisfying and regrettably tame. Inspired by Hitchcock's 'Rear Window', the main character is a frustrated elderly and wheelchair-bound writer. He and his much younger lover get their sexual kicks from spying on the single male tenant living across the road. The tenant, respectively, likes to perform gym exercises around the house whilst being naked and clearly has bisexual desires. Wheelchair guy sends his wife over and they have sex. Then, there's also Ottavio the butler who repeatedly rapes schoolgirls. Are there any normal characters in the story? Well no, of course not! The film benefices from a continuously ominous atmosphere, with a moody soundtrack and nifty photography, but none of it ever leads anywhere so it's all just sleaze & sex without significance. There's a truly bizarre twist/revelation at the end of the story, but it comes too late and too randomly to boost up the overall quality. Not recommended to fans of Italian horror/cult cinema, but maybe it is great viewing for psychology students, to analyze the characters Freud-style.


I have to confess that I know some of those involved, I was in the forerunner to The Planet, Evil Unleased, however this was more than 10 years ago and I had since lost contact with them. I happened to be watching BBC Scotland News and a piece regarding Scottish Cinema, this mentioned and showed clips from The Planet and comments from it's director Mark Stirton, this prompted me to order a copy of the film on DVD.

Now to the film, the level of acting, writing, directing and sfx is up there with some of the best around, OK it's not Star Wars but I've seen many a Hollywood product that is far inferior. It is very strange watching a film spoken in my local North East Scotland accent but that soon passed.

^Mild Spoilers^

The Planet draws on several sci-fi classics; Star Wars, Alien, Pitch Black, Forbidden Planet and Predator, a handful of the merchant crew of a deep space transport ship survive their craft being attacked and destroyed by unknown ships, they escape onto a deserted desert planet, one by one they are killed by invisible attackers, the ships only passenger, a mysterious prisoner also makes it to the planet, a battle ensues as the crew fight to survive.

The Planet is a brilliant piece of sci-fi film making that certainly hides it's limited budget, well done to Mark, Mike and all those involved, I look forward to your next work.


The plot was dull, the girls were sickening and the supposed Italian male lead had clearly never heard an Italian accent.Someone said the boys were cute in this film but it just seemed to be filled with mediocre people. There were literally no redeeming features about this film.

I think this is a graveyard for actors that will never work again, with the unfortunate exception of the Olsen twins who seem to fascinate people for no discernible reason.

I hope the Olsen twins find something out of the limelight to keep them away from the entertainment business. They have no place in it.


The performances by the male leads make this long-hard-journey west interesting throughout. The soundtrack by the Sons of The Pioneers is one of the most beautiful I have every heard. The journey itself is somewhat episodic, and Joanne Dru is badly miscast. Overall, this is a very heartwarming and heartfelt western.


Horrible acting, Bad story line, cheesy makeup, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have never seen a worse movie in my life, 5 minutes in I decided to fast forward to see if anything redeeming would happen... It didn't. (Aside from a nice breast shot) The movie apparently was filmed in some furniture warehouse, and the same warehouse was used for at least 90% of the sets. You even see this same red chair in several different 'locations' If you are going to make a film at least rent an office building and an apartment, not some warehouse which will echo all your actor's dialog.. (Note to producers) Renting a small office space and an apartment for a month is much cheaper than an entire warehouse, and both are quite a bit more versatile and believable) If you spend your money to rent this people I hope you got it with a return guarantee... You will be demanding your money back... I only spent $2.99 to rent this tonight and I feel ripped off.


This mess is so bad it doesn't even qualify as horror.

Debbie Rochon's talent is completely wasted in this film. She is not even the villain. The rest of the actors look like porno wannabes and the plot is so lame I won't even mention it.

Do yourself a favor and skip to the end credits to hear upcoming band TwoMarlowe perform 'Better Than Sex' it's total 80's Disco candy song. Nice up tempo song about Gambleing & Sex. Way more entertaining than 'Bleed'. Put it this way, When one has the equipment to copy videos, but decides only to record the song at the end of movie, you have a really 'BAD' movie.


The 14 year-old in me is immensely happy that they're now able to make really good looking fantasy movies, and that they're all the rage, what with Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia making loads of cash at the box office. This year will see (and already has seen) several more, most notably The Golden Compass, which has the most exciting trailer I've seen this year. Stardust, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, showed up in theaters this week with little more than a peep. I saw no previews for it, only a couple of commercials. The critical reaction is kind of blah. I wouldn't even have seen it if not for the fact that I have to wait on a friend to see The Bourne Ultimatum, and that nothing else interesting opened this weekend. Well, if you'll forgive the horrible pun, the stars must have been rightly aligned, because I went to see Stardust, and I loved it. It's not a huge movie like Lord of the Rings. The plot line is your very basic fantasy quest (the hero sets out to look for a fallen star) filled with obstacles. But within that basic outline, the story is lively and imaginative. It's simply aiming to be a lot of fun, and a charming little romance. And it succeeds wonderfully. There were a lot of big films this summer, but none of them were nearly as fun as this one. There's a lot going on, but the story is told well and is almost entirely coherent. It isn't a masterpiece, but it definitely can occupy the same kind of ground that something like The Princess Bride has (though I don't like it quite as much as the earlier film). A lot of fun to be had here if you're a fan of the genre.


The best independent film of 2001 - I went to see The Wind at the recommendation of friends who caught it at Dances with Films Festival in LA last summer - it's a great, scary, well made film. The score was amazing. Can't wait to see his next movie!


OZ is an old TV series released by HBO. It shows the life in one security prison called Oswald, but the main plot is focused on Emerald City, which is one of the prison levels.

Oz have an amazing plot and an outstanding cast! There are many of characters and almost all of them are very interesting. Basically they are divided in groups (gangs), the Sicilians, the Black people, the Aryans, the Gays, the Latinos and many others who doesn't have any specific group, but deal with many others like Ryan O'Reily (The Irish).

The plot is very well built, there are a lot of conspiracy inside, a lot of fight for the power. But all of this is not just exposed in form of violence, all is very intelligent and smart, nothing happens without a reason, all is connected and very interesting to guess! I really love this series, and who wanna see something intelligent, very well produced with a very good cast and performances, MUST see OZ!


When I read the summary of the movie, something like what happens when a man gets powers of a God, and how he later learns that having supernatural powers requires giant responsibility and strength, I though that was clever and original concept. Casting was promising too, Carrey, Freeman, Aniston... How can movie with a good idea and good actors, not to mention costs of filming, can be bad? It can. Idea is good, but script and story itself is terrible. Bruce Nolan is, let's be honest, a pretty mediocre journalist, with not exactly great stories (like a story of a giant cookie, what a faux pas, and the Niagara report is complete fiasco!), he's a man with a job he completely DESERVES (he's not a good journalist, he's a comedian), considering his potentials, with a nice home, sugar sweet girlfriend, and OH HORROR!!!! Dog who is not house trained!!! Yes, as soon as Bruce, at the beginning of the movie starts addressing GOd in a 'God, why do you hate me!' manner, average viewer must think: 'Why, what's wrong with your life, Bruce?'. Bruce is not, and definitely NOT the man with real problems in life. Most the troubles that happen to him are minor and not really worth of all that fuss he makes, and some of them are really only the result of his stupidity. Most people have really big problems, worth of attention, most people are more worth of attention that Bruce, who doesn't seem too human after all, doesn't look even realistic, too goofy and neurotic, but God still addresses to him. Why? Though Morgan Freeman looks nice as a God, I can't help but to ask what is he doing in this particularly bad movie. And what does Bruce do when God gives him his powers? God in this movie could as easily give his powers to a 5 year old kid and there hardly would be any difference. No, wait, a smart kid would probably use his God powers better than Bruce. What does Bruce do? Pulls the moon closer to earth to create romantic atmosphere, parts the red soup, lifts up a pretty woman's dress on the street, answers prayers via e-mail and make all of them come true!!!! No more, Bruce, please! What Bruce did could actually end the world, but in the movie, that doesn't happen, because this is 'nice, family, little movie' and doesn't make any sense at all!!! Not a hint of sarcasm, of real humor, of wittiness, of some dirty humor at least!!! Nothing. Just Carrey playing silly, which is starting to look pathetic on middle aged actor. Aniston here is understated. She plays pale, undeveloped character of Bruce's girlfriend Grace, and stays completely forgettable in this movie. Nobody in the right mind would believe that this two have any chemistry at all between them. When Grace says prayer for Bruce it sounds not only lame and pathetic, but completely false. These two are not meant to be together. I would give three stars, but I doubt movie deserves a one. Bad script, lame dialogs, lack of real humor, wittiness and any sophistication, as well as undeveloped characters and understated Freeman's and Aniston's roles, total lack of boldness and sarcasm, it all makes movie hardly worth ***. But OK, there were few funny moments, and Freeman is always nice to see in any movie so, lets leave three stars.


This intelligent, moving and beautiful film is a study in the ways people react to tradition (reminds me of William Faulkner's novels).

The characters all feel trapped by the weight of the roles they are expected to assume, and seek for a way to live within those roles rather than throw them off altogether. But as the story develops the two wives, trapped in loveless marriages, draw together. Drawing on the strength of their friendship and love, they give each other the courage to abandon their roles.

They have found that living within their traditions is no life at all, it is a sort of living death: without passion, without true connection to others, without fulfillment. Although they know there will be a price to be paid for their rebellion and freedom, it is a price much less dear than the sacrifice called for by a comfortable, predictable existence.

The screenplay is wonderful, the acting marvelous. Near perfect!


To say that this is a good show is not to say anything at all. After all, this show is made by the same crew responsible for Airplane and other hilarious and brilliant movies. Writing is superb. Even though the show is built on one-liners, they don't become overbearing or annoying. Leslie Nielsen is flexing his comedy muscle to the full extent as if saying: You ain't seen nothing yet. The format was definitely polished to introduce Naked Gun. When watching these movies, notice how many schticks are taken from the TV show. The brilliant part is that they don't have to be changed too much. The show was truly a testing ground for bigger and better versions to come later.


I really wanted to like this movie, because I love Troma and loved the trailer and loved 'Ghouls,' another of Ferrin's films. It did have some almost-good moments, like the oldies love song playing over the car crash scene, and a scene near the end where the protagonist gets some closure. But on the whole, it was just boring and mildly unpleasant.

The 'unimaginable' shocks that Ferrin came up with were really predictable and worn-out. Poop, murdering prostitutes, incest. Could have still been good, but poorly done. Unsure whether it was trying to offend, amuse, or both. Ultimately did neither.

IN conclusion, we watch Troma movies because we want films with heart. This film did not consistently feel like it had heart. There were some good scenes, but ultimately it was dull and unpleasant.


Wow, I forgot how great this movie was until I stumbled upon it while looking through the garage. It's a kind of strange combination of a bio of Michael Jackson, a collection of musical vignettes, and a story about a super hero fighting to save some little kids. The vignettes are good (especially Speed Demon), but the best part of this movie is the super hero segment, in which Michael Jackson turns into a car, a robot, and finally a spaceship (and it's just as weird as it sounds). Joe Pesci is hilarious, and has enough cool imagery and great music to entertain throughout!

The real gem however is the incredible 'Smooth Criminal' video, which makes the movie worth owning for that part alone!


I was fortunate to see a screening of this remarkable short film by Joshua Leonard before its premiere at the 2005 Sundance Festival. In twelve brief but exquisite minutes, Leonard takes us on a life-changing journey as he probes one of the most controversial contemporary social and ethical issues facing our society. The film embodies elegant direction, moving performances and a heart- rending story. Kelli Garner and Lucas Haas radiate as the two lovers. And, in his first venture into dramatic narrative, Leonard proves to be a director with a propitious future. I feel this short should be expanded into a feature film. It's difficult to describe talent, but as this debut film demonstrates, you know it when you see it!


Faqrscape is truly one of those shows that just has it all, great acting,great cast,great writing,sets,chemistry,muppets...it's got it all and then some, except a home. This fantastic series it's seem has it all except and ending. TPTB seem to think this is a series that is consecutive single set shows, when anyone who watches know this is an ongoing ,one epic, love story, that has an end that must been seen. If you have never watched Farscape do youself a favor and check it out on DVD when the Season 1 will be released in October....and Season 2 is the best there is! Watch the reruns on the SciFi channel to catch up and then the new season starts in January through March when most shows are going in to hiatis and be sure to watch. If all goes well we will get our ending!


I think the film is educational. However, it fails to treat the issue which sparked so much controversy: plural marriage. Also, the film fails to reveal what the LDS church espouses. Big opportunity was missed to tell the world what they actually believe. I could not get a clear idea of what it is LDS views are on central topics of religion.

I have many LDS friends and they are nice people. Would have been nice to get a clearer picture of how they view their prophet's more controversial statements. Maybe these statements are just too controversial to be treated in a film format, but it would have been great to hear the whole story of Joseph Smith's truly interesting life. After all, it gives insight into American thought on religion in the 18th century. Hope they do some documentaries on this fascinating subject, allowing historians to comment on Smith's life. We may have a Mormon president some day. After all, Smith ran for president.


I used to watch this too at junior school in Petersfield Hampshire around 1975. The odd thing is that from time to time I still think about it (I am now 40) The big question running through out the length of the series (no idea how many episodes 6??)was the identity of the person riding the motorcycle !'I've ask friends in the past about this series and they have no idea what I'm talking about and think its some kind of weird dream I've had. I've never understood to this day the educational benefit of this but thought at the time it was great but slightly scary. I seem to remember that there used to be a break of some sort in the middle of each episode. No idea why. Would love to see it again. Got hold of a short clip via the BBC cult website.


This is a very noir kind of episode. It begins with Jim returning from a weekend trip with a new girlfriend, the recently divorced Karen Mills (Pat Delaney--daughter in law of John Huston, who knew a few things about noir film) and her daughter. When they arrive, Karen goes in the house while Jim picks up her daughter from the back seat and carries her up to her room. He then discovers Karen has disappeared without a trace. Of course he calls Dennis and when the police arrive, they see no sign of Karen, but find her next door neighbor murdered in the bushes. So of course that makes Jim an immediate suspect.

This is a great little mystery and the first half of the story is shown by Rocky asking Jim to go over the story once again. Rocky suggests that by Jim telling him the story he might remember a little detail that he didn't think was important at the time, but now might lead to a clue as to what happened. It's a really well written scene and completes the transition of the Rocky character from a grifter to a concerned parent. It also goes a long way to show that Rocky isn't just some clueless old man either. As he says 'You come to me because I'm your father. And I'm smarter than you!' This is one of those times where we see where Jim got his smarts.

This episode also features an appearance by hottie Lara Parker, who played Angelique in the 'Dark Shadows' series and went on to play Laura Banner, Bruce's wife in the 'Incredible Hulk' series a few years later. She looks terrific here.

This episode also marks the first mention of the Minette crime family, a name that would keep popping up on the Rockford Files almost whenever they needed a mob family. This time, its Vincent Minette who Rockford helps apprehend.

Lt. Diehl (Tom Atkins) makes his first appearance on the series and Dennis is quietly demoted from a police lieutenant that he was on the earlier season one episodes to a police Sargent. I guess they figured it would be better to have Dennis less powerful and add some conflict between Jim and the police. Frankly, they were right, though I prefer the later Lt. Chapman to Lt. Diehl.

Not a lot of the typical 'Rockford' humor in this episode, but a good mystery with a lot of heart.


'Radio Flyer' is one of my most loved American movies.

The really great job of two boys, Joe Mazzello and Elija Wood, (in spite of terrible performance of T.Hanks at the beginning and ending...) with marvellous script of D.M.Evans and powerful and emotional directing of R.Donner plus Absolutely Incredibly Peerless Music Score of H.Zimmer allowed the 'Radio Flyer' to win one of the first places in my family's rating of movies.

It's so pity that that very good movie was underrating by some movie critics.

I just can't help waiting to see it on DVD.


Ok,so.....guy gets bitten by a bat and then turns into a bat (well,sorta). I can only assume this made sense to SOMEONE at the time! Aren't bats supposed to fly, use radar, and eat bugs instead of attacking humans tho?


This is one of the best episodes from the entire X-Files series, creepy beyond words. The tension and suspense in this episode is very well executed, in its entire 45 minutes it managed to be almost as scary as an entire movie. This episode joins the ranks of best episodes with such greats as 'Home', 'Humbug' 'Bad Blood' and 'Milagro' for being the best in their respective season.

Mulder and Scully's growing relationship is put to the test in this episode: Can they really trust each other? This episode also contains a tiny scene that will leave romantic viewers smiling.

Mulder: 'Bring your mittens'


Chucky's back...and it's about time! This time, with the help of Jennifer Tilly and a little spell from Voodoo For Dummies. Well, at least with this installment, the camp is back. This was the more gruesome of this series, so far. It has some good twists and some good action scenes.

This one was by far, the most fun of the series, and successfully, if unintentionally, bridges the gap between pure horror to horror/comedy.

I am looking forward to Seed of Chucky. It'll be a hoot!

'Jesus, the music scene's gone to h3ll since I've been dead!' Chucky

We needed the levity, as the doll thing's getting old. The added comedic element, and the better action scenes brings this one back up to equal the quality of the first, when the idea was fresh and new-ish.

6.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Right at this moment I am watching this movie for the second time (on television) and for the second time I fell into it when it was running for an hour already (I think I saw 2 minutes more this time) This movie is really impressing, the way Goldsworthy looks at nature, changes nature in a way that you yourself would never think of, really is amazing. This whole movie gives you a warm feeling, seeing him play with the world around him with such love. Or only seeing his hands, covered in dirt and with broken fingernails, it just touches you.


Almost a masterclass in how not to direct a movie. From the misjudged, often incomprehensible script onwards Dr Rey builds on a series of poor decisions that make the film an excruciating viewing experience. Sadly the film never rises beyond a kind of old fashioned, almost misogynistic gay camp in which women are over-wrought, OTT and middle aged and the men are young, vacuous and forever on the hunt for sex. The director was unable to pitch either the tone of the film or the level of the performances.

There is certainly a great deal of 'acting' going on. Dianne Wiest slips into a pale impersonation of her Bullets Over Broadway performance and poor old Jane Birkin flounders in her attempt to give a comic performance. Though you have to pity her as there is very little real comedy here. The whole thing feels like a very low rent version of Merchant Ivory's Le Divorce which, to be quite honest, wasn't very good, either.


I love John's work as a singer, but the movie was dull and 'no worth the time' to view.

I thought he did an 'ok' job at acting his part. When he says, 'your having an affair with the ol' man', to his co-star, I kinda chuckled at his facial movements... or lack thereof.

I would suggest the movie if you like John's music but not as a Saturday night video.

If you love his music, then the video has a little music from him in it, but not much.

So so.. at best


'Slaughter High' is, perhaps, the most underrated slasher flick of the 1980s. It is one of the few films in the genre that is enthralling throughout. That being said, it also relies heavily on the standard slasher formula: A group of young men and women get killed one by one gruesomely until the final showdown.

The reason why 'Slaughter High' stands above most movies in its genre is that it goes more over-the-top. Marty, the killer, has good reason to hold a grudge against his former classmates. They electrocuted him as he stood naked in a girl's locker room shower, jabbed at his crotch with a javelin, and, to top it off, rigged his science lab experiment so it could disfigure him.

So, the victims in this movie are about as unlikeable as you get. When they reunite years later -- at a high school reunion put on by Marty himself -- you realize they haven't matured all that much. They're a bunch of sociopaths.

It is mind-boggling why they would not wonder why they were the only ones to show up to the reunion, which, by the way, is held at a school that has since fell into disrepair. And who would think it's a good idea to drink beer and liquor found in the abandoned building in a room that happens to have their old lockers -- as well as Marty's -- on display? There are many leaps of faith the viewer needs to take to enjoy this film. The ending makes little or no sense. And the screenwriters have a strange understanding of how April Fool's Day works: The movie claims that pranks are no longer allowed after noon.

In all, the movie is one of the best examples of the slasher genre, despite all of its flaws. It is hard to understand why it hasn't yet found its way to DVD, when so many other run-of-the-mill slasher flicks are graced with special editions.


You can debate Prince's acting talent, or even his choice to parody his own life in this film. There is no debate about his musical talent either then or now. He seems like a shadowy has-been twenty years later, but the music remains relevant and fantastic.

Having lived through the hype of this movie (graduated high school in'85) I can tell you that there was nothing bigger at the time. From Tipper Gore (Al's wife) trying to censor 'Little Nikki' and every thing else under the sun via the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) to every 'Air Band' at the time impersonating Prince, it was the absolute hottest thing out. For a few weeks at least, Prince was bigger than Madonna and Michael Jackson.

We all waited for the film and were soooooo excited when it premiered. It didn't disappoint. EVERYONE was caught up. I was an MTV junkie at the time(they actually played music then....all the time)Prince played at least once or twice an hour. I must qualify this commentary by saying that, at that time, my favorites were Billy Idol, Oingo Boingo, The Fixx, Flock of Seagulls and others in the Punk/ New Wave genre' The music of Prince at the time transcended all types and styles. One of the reasons that some of it seems so cheesy and contrite now is that it was SOOOOOOOO big then. All the things that remind you of the 80's were iconic then. It was mainstream and it seems like a cliché' now. It got so popular that it became ridiculous. It's like the rappin' Granny commercial for Wendy's Hamburgers.

It looks stupid now because EVERYONE was caught up in it (sadly, kind of like a bizarre purple macarena or something. Anyway, I hope this gave you all a little insight.


This is a short, crudely animated series by David Lynch (as it says in the beginning), and it follows the misadventures of a backwoods, overall-wearing large man, with a wife who has a stress disorder and an annoying son. Both of those elements are harped upon repeatedly in the short episodes, and there's no real plot to be seen. It's easier if you think of this as an exceptionally odd, slightly macabre Looney Tunes- with far more gore, profanity, bloody violence, and occasional moments of hilarity.

I bought the DVD along with Eraserhead, having previously seen Eraserhead. Don't look to this series if you want an artistic masterpiece- this is anything but. In fact, it seems to almost be a statement against such things, as its rough style spits in the face of any sort of animation convention you may see. As Lynch says, 'If this is funny, it is only funny because we see the absurdity of it all.'


Halloween is the story of a boy who was misunderstood as a child. He takes out his problems on his older sister, whom he murders at the beginning of the film. This is just the start of things to come from Michael Myers.

Donald Pleasance plays the doctor who's been studying Myers for years. He knows that something is different about him, something mysteriously evil. This evil will not be contained, and it cannot be stopped.

After an escape from an institution, Myers tracks down his younger sister. If he kills her, there may be an end to the troubles of this misunderstood boy. But he seems to have problems in finishing his sister off as other people get in the way. He manages to take them out while still looking for that one girl he needs.

There have been a lot of those horror movies involving teenagers getting hacked to pieces by a masked or gruesome killer. But this one started it all, sort of. If you think about it, most of those horror movies we all remember are the ones that have Freddy Kruger or Jason chasing around half naked girls. Well, if it wasn't for Halloween, those characters wouldn't have haunted our dreams when we were children.

Halloween's director, John Carpenter, got a lot out of the horror movies of the '50s and combined everything he knew into one film that scared the hell out of a lot of people back in the late '70s. This films solidified him as a director to watch and also jump started the career of Jamie Lee Curtis, who plays the girl being stalked by the masked killer.

This film may seem cliché today, but back then there wasn't much out there like this. It's been copied from and ripped off of, but Halloween will always remain the quintessential teenage horror movie. It still gives you chills listening to Carpenter's thrilling music while we see another victim get chased by that shadowy Michael Myers.


Maiden Voyage is just that. I'd like to say straight away that I watched 5mins of this before I just couldn't stand it anymore. As already stated in another comment, this film doesn't fall into the whole 'so bad it's good' thing, it's just bad. The acting is awful, the sfx are poor, and the story is bland and stupid. Even the extras suck, the 'bag guy guards' and such appear to hold their weapons like water pistols.

Don't even bother watching this film, the only thing special about it is that, no matter how low your expectations are, you will still be disappointed.


I've loved this movie ever since it first came out. I was about nine years old, and now I'm 27. I remember playing the video game on Sega Genisis. I had so much fun, I would love to show my son this movie. He likes Michael Jackson as well and I know he will love this movie just as I did when I was a kid. Even though he's much younger than I was when I first saw it. I can't wait for it to come out on DVD! I hope it comes out on DVD! Please let it come out on DVD!! I'm dying to see it again!!! Well that is my comment I hope that one day soon I'll get to view this movie again. I love all of the videos in this movie. My favorite mini-video is Badder!


A typical romp through Cheech and Chong's reality which includes drugs, singing, more drugs, cars and driving, even more drugs, Pee Wee, aliens, gasoline, laundry, stand up comedy, surprisingly more drugs and SPACE COKE !!. It is not as coherent or plausible as Up in Smoke but it still is incredibly funny, without becoming as strange as Nice Dreams. There are some classic scenes, which include the opening scene where they get some gas for their car and the drive to work. Also funny is Cheech's song (Mexican-Americans) and Chong's follow up song. Another notable scene is the welfare office scene with Jones (human noise machine), from the Police Academy series, and the old laughing man. All in all, this is a great follow up to Up in Smoke and is quite watchable when sober or not.

-Celluloid Rehab


Horror movie??really???? i cant believe how bad this movie was,what the point of this movie??? the movie almost 1h and 30 min and the first 70 minutes of it,is just lena walking around with this stupid look on her face after she had an accident....not much talking at all,not even much actions at all.. i have to say tho,the last 20 minuets it got little tiny action.. and was still stupid....... and the end oh my god,i don't know where to begin,it also end up with this stupid look on lena face lol.. don't get me wrong i love Lena Headey,i think she is great actress,but i don't know what got into her to do this movie.. don't waste your time and watching it,because this movie has no story,has no acting ..and has no point...not to mention how slow this movie goes and it feels like you been watching it forever.


Usually, I don't think Hollywood productions are fit to be called film, so I call them 'movies' instead. But this piece of elephant manure, is not even fit to be called a movie, hence the quotes in the title.

Where shall i start? 1. If this isn't the start of geriatric casting, it sure is the epitome of it. Stefanie Powers is supposed to play someone even LESS than half her age, she's supposed to play an 18 year old, and she is FORTY effing TWO!!!!

2. A horrible and stupid mindless portrayal of Paris and France, where we see cliché characters such as: the sympathetic grumpy shop owner, the bitchy queen of models, the fairy god mother ex-queen of models, etc. This film is surpassed only in this respect by the Da Vinci Code, (which reviewers correctly determined was a comedy).

3. It's highly and utterly ridiculous to have no nudity in a film about a time and a place where nudity was so common place, especially if the whole focus is about that

4. The horrible accents!!!

5. The Nana Mouskouri elevator-music!!!

I could go on, but i think this is enough. And I was able to make these observations after watching this crap for just half an hour, WHILE surfing the internet and talking to my friends about math equations ... I mean ...!!!!!

I invite everyone to add to my list. :) :P :D


I happened to have seen this movie this morning on TCM. Very bad acting, low budget and poor plot are the impressions I felt while watching the movie. The only highlight of the movie was watching tender young Rita Moreno, (23 years old), playing a teenage Indian squaw in love with an older man in his 50's. She reminded me of a earlier version of Sue Lyon as Lolita (1962), only a more innocent Lolita. She bounces up and down like a 1950's teeny bopper, almost as if you would expect her to be chewing gum, falling all over this old man, willing to give him anything, as he plays it off like she's a hindrance to him. Any man in his 50's that had a beautiful, virgin, teenage girl willing to do ANYTHING for him and be his bride, would be insane not to take advantage of her. It's too bad that the censorship board back when this movie was released didn't permit more of an expansion of a character such as Rita Moreno's. The only reason why I gave this movie a 3 instead of a 1 is Rita Moreno's appearance in the movie.


Excellent film. I cried when she cried, I loved when they loved , I was frustrated when they were. This film touched my heart. It was a reality check for me since this is reality for me, a 19 year old soldier


Fast paced and funny satire about that original 'reality TV', the soap opera. The script by playwright Robert Harling is packed with one liners and ridiculous situations. The best of them is the climax, a live broadcast that quickly deteriorates into bad improv and a brain transplant. Keven Kline's murdering of his lines, due to not wearing his glasses, is hilarious. 'Her brain will laterally explore within the next few houses.' The brilliant cast is on the same page as Kline. Sally Field, Elizabeth Shue, Cathy Moriarty, Robert Downey Jr., Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher, Garry Marshall, and Kathy Najimy are all perfect. It is a treat to see a cast click like it does in this movie. This is a classic that has somehow slipped through the cracks.

P.S. The score by Alan Silvestri is an added bonus. It fits the soap opera with it's flamboyant and melodramatic air.


The French Naudet brothers did something nobody else did, they had a video camera the day that this tragedy happened. They were in Building #2, when you could see papers drifting down, people hitting the ground from jumping from such a height.

I mean it goes as far as when both buildings collapsed they went running, their camera was still running, when the white dust covered them, they found a shop doorway and got inside, but all this footage is real and I think they did a fantastic job of capturing it for us.

Ten stars goes to the Naudet brothers that filmed this extraordinary film that I watch every 9/11 so I'll never forget what this country went through. I believe if I remember right, it shows the first death of the priest of the firefighters, while he was being carried to the church and his honorable funeral.


Not to be confused with the above average supernatural thriller 'The Sentinel'. The Sentinel was a big bore of a movie for me, not delivering the consistent action, a couple of critics promised on the back. To me it seemed like everyone was Halfassing it, and only there to make some quick cash, because this felt very much like a made for TV film. The Sentinel is a rehash of several better films, like 'In The Line Of Fire' this does not have any originality in it, and watching Michael Douglas run around, felt kinda silly in my opinion. The Main problem besides it's unoriginality, had to be the poor pace. I often got distracted while trying to view this movie, while looking how much run time was left, more then once. Not only the miscasting with Eva Longoria, who couldn't convince worth a lick.

Performances. Michael Douglas is usually a dependable actor, here is obviously going through the motions. He does not convince as a man on a run, or a secret agent. His chemistry with Bassinger, was also off. I'm a big fan of Kiefer Sutherland, but here he is only OK, nothing more then that. He tries to come across as a gruff, but managed to be more bland then anything else, and to be honest, he didn't seem that interested. Eva Longoria Parker is pretty mediocre. She does not convince in her role, and was pure eye candy. Kim Basinger is pretty terrible as the 1st lady. She looks bored to tears, and her role is a throw away, more then anything else. Martin Donovan has a big part in the end, but not enough to matter for me.

Bottom line. The Sentinel is yet, another political thriller, that bored me to tears. It's too old, too tired, and most importantly the lack of effort sucked. Not recommended.

4/10


Can you people please stop believing everything this man says. Get

your facts straight before you start praising this liar. He's not even

from Flint. He just says that to keep his 'blue collar' look. He's

from a rich suburb next to Flint. I mean he went to a private school.

His parents paid for him to go to school. Wow, that sure does seem

like they suffered a lot from Flint going to the dumps. He was also born in Canada. Oh wait, that makes him a Canadian citizen. I wish he would just move there. Instead he lives here in his 1 million dollar New York apartment. Thats working class right there. I sure can't wait for his DVD set to come out. I want to here him talking about how big corporations are bad. Where will I get those dvds? Oh yeah, at Target and Wal-Mart. The two biggest corporations in America, which were also the only two stores allowed to sell them.


Can anybody do good CGI films besides Pixar? I mean really, animation looked antiquated by 2006 standards and even by 1995 Toy Story standards. Or maybe they spent all their budget on Hugh Jackman. Whatever their reasoning, the story truly did suck.

Somehow, Hugh Jackman is a rat - a rat that is flushed down a toilet. Yeah I know, seems stereotypical. But then the sewer mimicked the ways of London - to an extent. Throw in a promise of jewels (????) and an evil(??) frog and you get a pathetic attempt at entertainment.

I would like to say something entertained me. Maybe the hookup in the movie? Or maybe the happily-ever-after rat relationship. But nothing did. It had the talent, but it blew up. D-


This critique tells the story of 4 little friends who went to watch Angels and Demons the movie on the first night it came out, even though it was a school night, because 'Angels and Demons is worth it.' Two of the four had read the book. Of those that didn't, a guy, was wearing pink skinny jeans. This was the least eventful part of the evening after watching the abhorrent Angels and Demons.

The movie starts out in a lab where the antimatter is being created while another process is going on. And apparently someone knows about it or something. Notice how very confused I am.. I don't get what happened: they were just making the antimatter. Vittoria finds her own father dead... WHAT? The Illuminati symbol sent to Langdon is a PRINTOUT, not a burn on someone's chest. They take out the X-33 scene. They take out Maxmillian Kohler. They, pretty much, take out CERN and the symbology connected to it. They take out the Hassasin and replace him with some religious, British dude. They take out the Illuminati Diamond. They take out Vittoria's near-rape scene. They take out Langond's fight with the Hassasin (now British dude on crack). They take out the press dude following them around. They take out the death of the fourth cardinal. They take out the fact that the Camerlengo becomes pope. They take out the Camerlengo's grand scheme. They take out Langdon's being in the helicopter and landing on that island toward the end. They take out the fact that Vittoria's father was a scientific priest. They take out Langdon's fun and most unfortunately, they take out Vittoria's sexual appeal.

Other than the movie COMPLETELY losing focus of the details, the movie is acted HORRIBLY. One must admit, though, there were some good things. For example, the Sistine Chapel recreation must have been extremely difficult and it was extremely well done. The explosion scene was MIND-BLOWING. Other than that, SCREW THIS MOVIE FOR RUINING THE BOOK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T READ IT.


A beautiful, sensitive film that brings home the futility and cruelty of wars no matter what the so-called reasons. The performance of Cage and Cruz were quite impressive, but it is to the older Greek characters that go the highest praises. Irene Papas is as gorgeous as ever! Though some scenes seems a little long at times, this film will be a heavy Oscar contender.


I've watched almost all of the Gundam/Mech anime that have showed in the US and this by far has the best story. The way its plot twists and turns has u riveted. Gundam Wing is a series that mainly focuses on politics and war. The series follows a group of five 15 year old boys who have been trained to pilot state of the art mobile suits known as Gundams. The Gundam pilots were trained to battle a powerful insurgency known as Oz. As things begin to heat up between OZ and the Gundam pilots, new political groups will form and old ones will dissipate. Old conflicts will end and new ones will arise. To obtain peace the Gundam pilots must come to grips with the events taking place in their world and put an end to all the fighting. But, how far are people willing to go to obtain their goal. I recommend this anime to anyone who is looking for a show that has a deep plot.


An interesting change from the first one. there was more mystery to this movie then the first. Even when it ends your asking yourself what happened who was the killer. There are some good parts through the movie, the first half starts off slow and then in the last half the pace picks up. All up the movie is enjoyable. The story is 22 years after the events that occured in the first film, Norman Bates is out of an asylum and back to the Bates motel, but when a woman turns up claiming to be his real mother, things start going wrong. Perkins plays an aged Norman well again and the scene at the end was excellent, he swang that spade awfully hard.


This movie is more Lupin then most, especially coming from Funimation. Other then the bad dub, it isn't bad.

The first hour is a lot like the Comic (which is what all Lupin the 3rd stuff is based on). Lupin's trying to get a huge treasure. Fujiko's using Lupin's weakness to women to try to get something out of it. The last bit isn't that bad, he's with another women, but of course Fujiko's still him number one.

A lot of the other Lupin movies are more Family with cuss words then Lupin. Any good Lupin fan I think will be pleasantly surprised (I know I was after hearing so many bad things about this movie). It might be a bit better without the little animations rolling during the credits (they make it a little mushy) but overall, it isn't a bad film. Good enough to be one of the few I'd watch again of the Lupin III movies.


I got this DVD well over 2 years ago and only decided to watch it yesterday. I don't know why it took me so long as I do like the Inspector Gadget show and even the new Gadget and the Gadgetinis. While it may have a bright color pallet and all the technical sophistication of a modern animated movie, there are some old things missing that bog this Gadget right down the toilet.

First of all the classic Inspector Gadget theme song and music is completely absent. The composer tries to compromise by doing a score that sounds similar but it's still just no good enough. The Gadget-mobile is now a talking car, not a car that can turn into a van. Plus it looks a lot cuter and rounder instead of being plain cool. Penny no longer has her computer book and she and Brain hardly make an appearance at all.

The plot is non-existent. There's something about a transformation formula and Doctor Claw using for some never revealed evil but that's all I got. What the deal was with the short/giant Italian guy I will never know. It had nothing to do with anything.

And if the title is anything to go by, his last case is wrapped up in no way whatsoever. And he stays on the force so why it's called 'last case' is a mystery also.

I wasn't impressed at all. This is an affront to a great animated show that is strangely absent on DVD, but don't let that prompt you into buying whatever Inspector Gadget DVDs you can. I sold this mere seconds after finally watching it. No kid will like or appreciate this and no fan of the old show with tolerate it.


I've just been at the cinema in down town Prague watching this film.

Not due to the poster I found very Holywood old-fashioned heroic

style. Not due to the high level starring which remind me that most

of those high starring French films are usually pathetic. But just

because there are not so many films in my French mother tongue in a

city like Prague. And because I love Adjani, Depardieu and Rappenau's

Cyrano. Then I decided to write up this small comment because I think

I really don't agree with the comment main stream on this film on imdb.

I was not disappointed. The film just look like the poster. The

characters are just as stupid as they look like. For a while I

thought Adjani would be like a caricature -- just a funny character

you can laugh at. No she is not! For example when she decides to tell

Depardieu she is the one who murdered the fat one she killed at the

beginning of the film then come the violins in a big fat pathetic

music which should make you cry and realize Adajani's character is a

deeper person as she looks like. Maybe this was humor at the 10th

level but I am sorry my sense of humor is not that high! If I want to

see some funny French film on the WWII I watch once again La Grande

Vadrouille! It is definitively more fun! I have also read on imdb

that Lemoine is making a great performance in this film. I have to

say I have never seen a so bad acting! (Well I have never seen any Ed

Wood's film). Nevertheless the film is good filmed with a lot of good

(very costly) scenes like the one with the Pantheon in the morning

when the German army arrives at Paris or when the refugees settle down

on a bridge in Bordeaux. I think Rappeneau is a good filmmaker but

that he does better with a good script. It was easy with Cyrano. He

had not to write the dialogs!

I give 1/10.


Screening as part of a series of funny shorts at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras film festival, this film was definitely a highlight. The script is great and the direction and acting was terrific. As another posting said, the actors' comedic timing really made this film. Lots of fun.


'They were always trying to get me killed,' Alec Guinness once wrote of The Man In the White Suit's technicians. 'They thought actors got in the way of things.' He went on to describe how he'd been given a wire rope to climb down and, assured it was safe, narrowly avoided serious injury when it suddenly snapped mid-descent.

'People get in the way of things' might be a maxim tailor-made for White Suit inventor Sidney Stratton (fittingly played blank slate-fashion by Alec Guinness) in Alexander Mackendrick's definitive Ealing film of 1951. Certainly, he cares only about his work, its realisation - and sod the consequences. And similarly, with the exception of a couple of peripheral characters, there's almost nobody to root for in this chilly satire on capital and labour.

Told in flashback, the film concerns Stratton's invention of a dirt-resistant, everlasting fibre (fashioned into the white suit of the title), and subsequent attempts by the clothing industry and its unions to suppress it.

While the industry fears the bottom will drop out of the market, the shop floor stewards worry about finding themselves out of a job. Abduction and bribery attempts follow, with both money and an industry chief's daughter on offer (Daphne, the delectable, 4-packs-a-day-voiced Joan Greenwood), to the tragi-comic end.

'What's to become of my bit of washing when there's no washing to do?' bemoans Stratton's landlady near the close. A notion Stratton hadn't even considered - and has disregarded again by the movie's ambiguous coda.

A superior, if decidedly downbeat comedy, expertly performed - and pretty much answering the oft-raised question of whatever happened to the everlasting light bulb and the car that ran on water...


This a fascinatingly awful movie. It make so little sense that it starts to make a kind of weird internal logic of its own. Well, it would if it didn't keep darting off up side-alleys until eventually floundering under the weight of its own indecisiveness. The movie can't make up its mind whether it is a straight forward 'Man Turns Into Monster' flick (like all those 1950s 'THE INCREDIBLE insert verb ING MAN' movies), or a ghastly big business conspiracy theory movie, or a mystical afterlife contact story, or... or what? Take your pick. It's just a mess. Grotesquely over the top and firing off in all directions, leaving loose ends flapping all over the place. It was as if Tobe Hooper had been taking David Lynch pills. Unfortunately he didn't take enough.


'Five Days' is billed as something special, a crime drama that consists of a series of episodes, each set on one particular day of a police enquiry. But in fact, this element of the story turns out to be rather less significant than might at first be thought, as the fact that the action in each episode is confined to 24 hours is hardly noticeable, and very little distinguishes the program from countless other crime stories. In fact one almost can't help drawing comparisons to the last 'Prime Suspect', as one of the sub-plots focuses on a single, cynical female cop approaching retirement: and it's not just the absence of Helen Mirren that makes the comparisons unfavourable. There's a lot of earnest over-emoting, manipulative music and a set of characters seemingly contrived so that each one is in some sense sympathetic, in another suspicious. And it's possible to guess the guilty party well before the end, not because of the internal dynamic of the story, but rather because of the construction of the drama as a whole: certain things must be true, to justify the way that the series focuses on certain characters at certain times. In spite of these failings, the series grew on me: by the end, I was quite gripped. But it's a sad sign that the BBC, which once made the likes of 'The Singing Detective', boasted of this of 'possibly the best drama of the year': for there's little true originality on offer here, and the claim reveals a lack of ambition that is dreadfully disappointing. 'Five Days' is in fact not rubbish; but it is formulaic, and one would hope that the very best the BBC had to offer would be something a little more innovative and fresh.


The three names that mean the most to this film are Burt Reynolds, Mark Wahlberg, and Julianne Moore. These three deliver the strongest performances, but the entire cast does a wonderful job. The film although about the porn industry does not let itself get out of hand with it's own sexual premise. On the other hand there were many scenes that involved drug use and although important to understanding the characters lifestyle, I think there was some overkill in this department. Paul Thomas Anderson has not done a great deal of directing, but he may have been picked for this film based on his 1988 work 'The Dirk Diggler Story.' One thing that was brilliantly portrayed is the family like atmosphere between the characters as they work, live, and party together. Although not a typical family they certainly seem to care for each other. The wonderful soundtrack really helps give you a feel for the period during a time when disco was the rage. There are many disco favorites on it and some other wonderful songs as well.

The story is about a gifted young man named Eddie Adams (Wahlberg) that gets invited into the porn industry. He changes his name to Dirk Diggler and becomes and adult film star almost overnight. Jack Horner (Reynolds) is the director that takes his films very seriously as he believes his work is more than just pornography, but that they are true art. However Dirk becomes overly dependent on drugs and soon heads down a dangerous road where he stands to loose everything. Although a greater focus is placed on the character Dirk there are subplots for the other characters and their trials in life. You will find yourself wishing for and hoping their situations improve. All-in-all a well done film.


This film is terrible. I was really looking forward to it, as I thought 'Lantana' was great.

The following review may contain *spoilers*

*****

First, the good things: it looks great, some of the performances are OK. The bad things are everything else about it.

The story, as you possibly know, is about some blokes who go fishing and discover a body, with the twist that they find it on Friday but continue fishing and finally report it on Sunday when they get back into mobile (cell phone) range. However the film takes it's time (boy does it take its time) getting to this central event.

Of the ensemble of characters (about a dozen), not one seems to like another one (which is, I suppose, consistent, because they are all unlikable). I was extremely frustrated by the failure to adequately explain how the characters are related, and it was not until near the end of the movie that I could vaguely construct the family tree.

It's hard to think of a film us unrelentingly grim, which is a failure in the structure of the story, as the character's lives seem just as bad before the fishing trip as after. Once you've set the bar so high, it's hard to up-it short of everyone committing suicide.

There are silly lapses in logic. The killer dumps the body in the lake, and then it somehow drifts miles upstream into the mountains. The fishermen walk out Sunday morning, but for some reason Byrne gets home late at night after his wife has gone to bed. Then first thing the next morning the cops bang on the door to get him to come down to the station. Um, they haven't heard of the telephone? Down at the station, the media know the whole story, less than 24 hours after they reported the body?

Totally missing from the story is the debate the blokes surely had after they find the body. This is a mystery - everyone asks them 'how could you do that?' and the audience is asking the same question. (The debate about what to do with the body is the key scene in 'Deliverance'). I know exactly what I'd do in their situation. Someone needs to walk out to the car, drive to mobile range, call the cops, wait, and them guide them back to the location. If the others wait at camp and fish, who cares?

A lot of all this just seems false. The only thing that rung true was that, as the girl was black, the local aboriginals seized on the fishermen's actions as racist - 'wouldn't have done it if it was a white girl.'

Throughout there is a curious indifference to who might have killed the girl (I think the subject is mentioned once), and there is no mystery, as the audience sees the killer in the opening scene.

So I'm sitting there simultaneously bored and confused, when there's a twist - not in the plot, but the theme. Suddenly it becomes about the quiet dignity of the bereaved aboriginals leading to a ludicrous ending with some incoherent stuff about black-white reconciliation. Huh?

This is Australian film 'at its finest', according to The Age.


I saw it in a posh movie theater where the audience is usually white, educated, and urban. The showing I attended had a sprinkling of African-Americans, and it made the difference in audience-reaction between the two groups a wonderful social commentary on the state of race relations in this country. Basically, the white folks were AFRAID to laugh or laughed nervously at the funny bits --and there are many! -- because they'd be 'laughting at Blacks', while the Blacks also stayed pretty silent because many couldn't laugh at themselves in front of the whites.

I, on the other hand, being Asian (and thus belonging to neither group), had a great time viewing this satire of rap culture and its egos/trappings/values/pseudo-philosophies. The cast is talented and does at great job becoming the characters portrayed. The songs are too funny to be believed.

This film is one of the best pseudo-documentaries to come along, including 'A Mighty Wind'


This is like a zoology textbook, given that its depiction of animals is so accurate. However, here are a few details that appear to have been slightly modified during the transition to film:

- Handgun bullets never hit giant Komodo dragons. It doesn't matter how many times you shoot at the Komodo, bullets just won't go near it.

- The best way to avoid being eaten by a giant Cobra, or a giant Komodo dragon, is just to stand there. The exception to this rule is if you've been told to stay very still, in which case you should run off, until the Komodo is right next to you, and then you should stand there, expecting defeat.

- Minutes of choppy slow motion footage behind the credits really makes for enjoyable watching.

- $5,000 is a memory enhancement tool, and an ample substitute for losing your boating license/getting arrested.

- Members of elite army units don't see giant Komodo dragons coming until they are within one metre of the over-sized beings. Maybe the computer-generated nature of these dragons has something to do with it.

- When filming a news story aiming on exposing illegal animal testing, a reporter and a cameraman with one camera is all the gear and personnel you will need; sound gear, a second camera, microphones etc are all superfluous.

- When you hear a loud animal scream, and one person has a gun, he should take it out and point it at the nearest person.

- When you take a gun out, the sound of the safety being taken off will be made, even if your finger is nowhere near the safety

- Reporters agree to go half-way around the world in order to expose something - without having the faintest idea what they're exposing. Background research and vague knowledge are out of fashion in modern journalism.

- Handguns hold at least 52 bullets in one clip, and then more than that in the next clip. Despite that, those with guns claim that they will need more ammo.

- Expensive cameras (also, remember that the reporter only has one camera) are regularly left behind without even a moment's hesitation or regret. These cameras amazingly manage to make their way back to the reporter all by themselves.

- The blonde girl really is the stupid one.

- The same girl that says not to go into a house because a Komodo dragon can easily run right through it, thus making it unsafe, takes a team into a building made of the same material for protection - and nobody says a word about it.

- High-tech facilities look like simple offices with high school chemistry sets.

- Genetically-modified snakes grow from normal size to 100 feet long in a matter of a day, but don't grow at all in the weeks either side.

- The military routinely destroys entire islands when people don't meet contact deadlines.

- Men with guns don't necessarily change the direction they're shooting when their target is no longer right in front of them. Instead, they just keep shooting into the air.

- The better looking you are, the greater your chance of surviving giant creatures.

- Women's intuition is reliable enough to change even the most stubborn of minds.

- Any time you're being hunted by giant creatures is a great time to hit on girls half your age.

- Animal noises are an appropriate masking noise for 'swearing' at the same volume.

- Old Israeli and Russian planes are regularly used by the US Military.


It was surprising that a silent film could be so easy to watch. The economy with which it has been edited and the films structure itself are the main elements that contribute to this.

The film really captures the spirit of the revolution that it is dealing with - you really sympathise with the sailors and citizens. Of course, this film has it's own agenda, but as it is a practically redundant cause, it can be viewed as a piece of entertainment in a much clearer sense.

The tension created on the screen is excellent - starting with the battleship itself, and then moving onto the mainland. Things escalate believably and for a film of it's era, it really is quite unflinching in revealing the sacrifices made by the characters in the film.

This really is worth sitting through, (that is if you can adjust your modern viewing habits for 90mins).


What is this ? A low budget sex comedy ? Anyway it describes perfectly the people in Spain. They could come up with a better idea, I mean they do this kind of movies since the 60s.. and people like them ! This is neither a teen comedy nor a family one (you can't let your 12 year old watch 2 guys in bed kissing, he'll never want to go to Spain). This should be rated 'R', because only people 35+ seem to laugh watching :S I'm truly disappointed, maybe I don't like gays (which is quite an important part of the movie).

Foreign humor is awful in films (except Kusturica), stick with doing dramas! If you want a new comedy try Talladega Nights


It is a nice comedy. It has the great features of the childhood, lying or trying to get away from own generated troubles. The casting is great, great acting. And the special effects ? Well, some stunts are really impressive. Watch it! :)


The early career of Abe Lincoln is beautifully presented by Ford. Not that anyone alive has seen footage of the real Lincoln, but Fonda, wearing a fake nose, is uncanny as Lincoln, with the voice, delivery, walk, and other mannerisms - exactly as one would imagine Lincoln to have been. Ford, in the first of three consecutive films he made with Fonda, is at the top of his form, perfectly evoking early 19th century America. The story focuses on a pair accused of murder that Lincoln defends and the courtroom scenes are quite well done. The supporting cast includes many of Ford's regulars. This was Alice Brady's last film, as she died months after its release.


****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of 'The Crater Lake Monster' to be a total surprise****

A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call 'The Crater Lake Monster' amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.

The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for 'The Crater Lake Monster'. It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't 'superheating' the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.

The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.

The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like 'The Crater Lake Monster'. I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter.

The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this?


'The Shop Around the Corner (1940)' is a pleasant romantic comedy, not the sort that I will hold dear to me until the end of my days, but nonetheless a film thoroughly deserving of its reputation. By 1940, director Ernst Lubitsch had long ago taken Hollywood by storm, and his famed 'Lubitsch touch' had become a sparkling commercial trademark. This film was planned for a 1939 release, but scheduling conflicts meant that James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan were unavailable for filming. Rather than substituting either of his main stars, Lubitsch decided to postpone production, in the meantime directing Greta Garbo in 'Ninotchka (1939).' When it was finally completed, 'The Shop Around the Corner' appears to have been met with relative indifference, receiving zero Oscar nominations despite an excellent screenplay by Samson Raphaelson and fine performances from its two leads and Frank Morgan in a supporting role. Time, nevertheless, has betrayed the film's massive and enduring influence, with high-profile remakes including 'In the Good Old Summertime (1949)' and 'You've Got Mail (1998).'

At its surface, one might assume 'The Shop Around the Corner' to simply be the story of two lovers, Klara Novak (Sullavan) and Alfred Kralik (Stewart), who love each other without knowing it. However, Lubitsch's film runs much deeper than that. It's the story of Matuschek and Company, a stylish gift shop in Budapest, and the various human relationships that make the store such a close-knit family. When store-owner Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) begins to suspect his oldest employee of having an affair with his wife, we witness the breakdown of two families, both at home and at work. There's absolutely no reason why the story should not have been set in the United States  perhaps in the blustery streets of New York  but Lubitsch was deliberately recreating the passions and memories of his former years in Europe, the quaintness of love and life before war brought terror and bloodshed to every doorstep. This subtle subtext brings a more meaningful, personal touch to the film  in fact, even as I write this review, I'm beginning to appreciate the story even more.

Sullavan and Stewart are both lovely in their respective roles, but I think that it's the supporting cast that really make the film. Each character brings a distinctive personality to the mix, and their interactions are always believable and enjoyable. I especially liked how Lubitsch knowingly directed much of our sympathy towards Hugo Matuschek, who, in any other film, would have been restricted to an underdeveloped, two-dimensional portrayal. Matuschek may have lost the love of his family, but he recaptures it in the affection of his employees, and you feel a heartwarming glow when, in the bitter cold of a Christmas Eve snowstorm, he finds companionship in a freckle-faced young errand-boy (Charles Smith). This genuine warmth towards a supporting character strikes me as being similar to several of Billy Wilder's later creations, for example, Boom Boom Jackson in 'The Fortune Cookie (1966)' or Carlo Carlucci in 'Avanti! (1972).' Of course, it doesn't really need saying, but Billy Wilder learned from the best.


I must have been around ten years old when my uncle took me and my brother to see this martial arts movie at the ' DRIVE IN ' at the circle drive in in Long Beach. The Title was ' HAMMER OF GOD ' from which i can never forget for some reason, but what i do remember are the different scenes that have left an imprint on my mind forever.

My brother always reminds me of the movie although it has been forever it seems since we seen the movie. From time to time throwout the years i would look for it at the rental stores and from time to time i would check on the web and for some reason it appears like it is never available or no one knows what movie I'm talking about.

If i only knew if and were it was available i would love to purchase that movie. If anyone is aware of its availability please inform me.


David Arquette is a young and naive home security alarm

salesman taken under the wing of Stanley Tucci. Arquette is a

golden boy, scoring a big sale on his first call- to widow Kate

Capshaw and her dopey son Ryan Reynolds. Things are going

well for Arquette, he is appearing in commercials for the security

firm and he is falling in love with Capshaw.

Then Tucci and his right hand woman Mary McCormack let him in

on a little secret- they sometimes break into the houses of their

clients in order to scare them and to get their neighbors to buy

security systems from the firm. Arquette decides not to get

involved, taking Capshaw to meet his family, and going through life

with a goofy smile on his face. Then, someone breaks into

Capshaw's home and murders her and her son. Arquette suspects Tucci, and sets a series of traps, resulting in a gun to his

boss' head as Tucci pleads his innocence.

Based on a stage play, 'The Alarmist' is not opened up well. The

scenes where Arquette takes the Capshaw to meet his parents

are badly played and completely unfunny. They are also out of line

with the character Capshaw is playing, as she gets drunk and tells

sexually explicit stories to Arquette's mom Michael Learned. Other

than these scenes, Capshaw is not given much to do, but she

does a lot with the little she is given.

Stanley Tucci, looking just like Terry O'Quinn, is a riot as the

security firm owner. He is a creep who really does not understand

Arquette's moral revulsion. However, when he turns into a

sniveling whiner after Arquette kidnaps him, he is hilarious. Mary

McCormack seems to have been groomed for a bigger role, but

she mostly stands around and agrees with Tucci. Ryan Reynolds

is too old to play a dumb teenager, but he is funny, especially

telling his own explicit sexual story to Arquette.

The screenplay lurches from romantic comedy to dark comedy too

soon. Capshaw meeting the parents is completely unmotivated,

except to give her a reason to get out of town so someone can

break into her house. Capshaw and Reynolds are in the film just

to give Arquette a reason to take revenge on Tucci.

Arquette, who has proven he is a good actor, is awful here. He

relies on the constipated mugging that got him through those

AT&T ads, and he is not a strong enough presence to build this

weak film around. Actually, Reynolds might have been a better

choice in the role.

Dunsky's direction is good, nothing that will win an Oscar soon.

Christophe Beck's light jazzy score recalls the type of film noir this

film tries to be, and it is really catchy on top of that.

Despite the pluses, Arquette's failure as a lead and the script's

schizophrenic quality sinks the film. I do not recommend it.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, some gore,

strong profanity, brief female nudity, sexual content, strong sexual

references, and adult situations.


This is a really funny (and sexy) movie - that is not just silly but has great acting. It's the kind of movie where the characters are so entertaining that you feel like you are connected to everyone in the theater. I saw it at the Boston film festival, and I found myself frequently laughing out loud with everyone else, and also moved by some of the movie's more serious parts. It's a unique movie about two doctors, and I don't want to give anything away but there are some powerful scenes as well really funny ones - plus the dialogue is great. Wood Harris' character has a unique relationship with his girlfriend Zoe Saldana, and Brian White and Mya are also funny and sexy in their roles. If you get a chance to see it - go - you won't be disappointed. It's worth seeing again. Wood Harris deserves an award.


This film is a cash in. A cash in reliant on a rousing theme tune created for an earlier classic. Yul Brynner has long since jumped ship and so have most of the production values. Lee Van Cleef takes over the lead role of Chris. I can't think of any actor who looks less like Brynner than Van Cleef. Hey, he could have at least shaved off his hair and lost the moustache, just for the sake of continuity. Some correctional centres show this movie in order to punish offenders. One step out of line and The Magnificent Seven Ride! is brought to the fore and wielded. They didn't even bother trying to make this movie not look like a TV movie! Abysmal.


It's difficult to find anything worth of praise with this movie. It's not the worst picture ever made, but that's not saying a whole lot. The plot is quite incoherent and unbelievable; it seems that the producers wanted to make a space movie, but decided to make it underwater to cash in at the success of The Abyss. In some scenes it seems as if the story indeed was set to outer space initially; the sub has a landing gear, the technicians are worried of a rip in a rubber diving suit at the depths of several kilometers, where the pressure would crush the diver and the suit like an empty beer can.

The movie starts out okay, with planning of a recovery of a lost naval sub. After that the movie takes a plunge along with the Siren 2.

Effects are so-so. The navigational screens are all done on Commodore 64 (remember, this is 1990, not 1983), the sub is controlled like no other sub ever; instead of control consoles, the officers have keyboards with which they enter long number sequences to control various functions of the ship. The interior of the ship isn't too convincing either.

The final scenes leap from awkward to absurd. Welcome to the fifties, you can check your suspension of disbelief at the door.

I fail to see enjoyment factor here. The movie is neither good nor hilariously bad MST3k-style (until you get to the final scene), it's like eating a slightly bad apple.


Unremittingly bleak and depressing, the film evokes as well as could be desired the legendary misery and emptiness that characterised Houellebecq's controversial novel of the same name. Like many French films, its manner is one of wistful profundity but it is painfully slow - or should that be, slowly painful? While this is an excellent and challenging film, it is not an enjoyable one and its difficult to think of any time when one might be in the 'right' mood to see it.


I bought this film on DVD despite the 'stale' review and that was idiotic... That review was completely accurate and I have never seen any worse 'erotic' film in my long life! Even if it partly was lovely filmed and had interesting surroundings, plus a nice cover... But my own Extreme Erotica (c) films are over 100 times more erotic (just in the soft delicious aspect) with probably less than 100 times of this films budget! The story have no logical connection with the first film or the famous book... Or any new (exciting) element of slave training, except some very strange and sad developments... Then did the main male character - Klaus Kinski - not look a bit like the second Master of 'O' he try to play... And not even lovely Arielle Dombasle, did look delicious in any scene!


I actually didn't start watching the show until it came on FX. I was bored and had nothing to watch and saw that the show's reruns were premiering so i decided to watch it. I was so upset that I had not watched the show when it first aired on t.v. I loved the show so much!Finally a show for everyone to enjoy. I remember Full House and Family Matters and Step by Step and they were okay shows but just not funny enough. They would make dumb jokes and laugh over things that were just plain stupid, but not That 70s Show. That 70s Show was hilarious, smart and so real. I think it was the best show ever made and I'm very sorry that it ended. Although I love this show, I do think it should have ended on the seventh season when Eric and Kelso leave. The last season was just not right, Eric was the main character and the show should have ended when his character leaves. I still love this show and I hope TV starts making more shows like this one.


On the back burner for years (so it was reported) this television reunion of two of the most beloved characters in sitcom history started off badly - and went straight downhill from there. Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore) and her best friend Rhoda Morgenstern (Valerie Harper) meet in New York after a long estrangement and catch up on each other's lives. What a novel concept! But, sad to relate, nothing worth talking about (let alone making a movie about) has happened to either of them in the intervening years. So, instead, the script contents itself with throwing out one hoary old plot device after another (most having to do with older women in the workplace), while completely missing the quirky charm and sophistication that made the original show a winner. The supporting cast is instantly forgettable, the humor is nonexistent, and the chemistry which Moore and Harper once had together is gone. Moore allegedly stalled this project for years, waiting for 'just the right script' before committing herself. If this was the one she considered 'right', what on earth were the ones she turned down like? It's not the age of the characters that does this in (for time inevitably marches on), but the almost complete lack of imagination coupled with a blatant disregard for the elements that made the series work. At one time this was intended as a pilot but, all to obviously, it failed to generate any interest among potential sponsors. Or for that matter, among potential audiences. Quickly and mercifully forgotten, the film is a travesty and an insult to a classic.


If you haven't seen the first one you have to at least know someone who has and you have to know it was painful to sit through. There just wasn't anything good to say about it at all. So what's different with the second one? Why bother making a sequel for a movie that was wretched? This one doesn't take itself too seriously. It knows it was made for TV and doesn't try to impress with great or serious dialogue. There are moments where it tries to get 'serious' or 'intense' but these moments are so corny you have to laugh.

Thankfully gone are any elements of Uwe Boll and any hint that this originated from a video game (other than the title of course). Don't go into this movie expecting anything worth mentioning to your friends unless they're into camp, lame zombie movies, or are interested in making a drinking game out of this movie. Take two shots whenever Ed Quinn's character mentions his dead brother! Take one shot whenever a bullet would have been better place in the head of a zombie instead of pumping three in the chest! etc etc.


I'm 60 years old, a guitarist, (lead/rhythm), and over the last forty years, I've been in four bands, it's all there, the fights, the foul-ups, the rotten food, the worse accommodation, always travelling, little or no money, and every one was drunk or high. But, the clubs, the fans, and the music, made it all worth it! Just like Strange Fruit! I'm too damn old for it now, and the arthritis in the hands and hips mean no more rocking, but for the length of that video, it all came back, and it was all there! The birds, the brawls, and the booze! And I was young again! It's just like Billy Connolly's voice over, God likes that 70's stuff! Rock On Forever!


It actually pains me to say it, but this movie was horrible on every level. The blame does not lie entirely with Van Damme as you can see he tried his best, but let's face it, he's almost fifty, how much more can you ask of him? I find it so hard to believe that the same people who put together Undisputed 2; arguably the best (western) martial arts movie in years, created this. Everything from the plot, to the dialog, to the editing, to the overall acting was just horribly put together and in many cases outright boring and nonsensical. Scott Adkins who's fight scenes seemed more like a demo reel, was also terribly underused and not even the main villain which is such a shame because 1) He is more than capable of playing that role and 2) The actual main villain was not only not intimidating at all but also quite annoying. Again, not blaming Van Damme. I will always be a fan, but avoid this one.


I liked Chiba in Street Fighter, and I figured hey, no matter how stupid this movie will be, I'll at least get to see him kick some ass, right? Wrong. This is a dull, dreary mess of pointless talking, half-assed scriptwriting and meaningless scheming. There are few action scenes of any kind, even fewer martial arts scenes, and the few that are are shot and edited so poorly that you can't even make out what in the world is going on. The dub is also atrocious, and perhaps the idiocy that is this movie is best illustrated by the fact that it supposedly features the Italian Mafia... EXCEPT THEY'RE ALL Japanese! Avoid like the plague--you would see better martial arts by looking through the window of your local preschool karate class for five minutes.


If you rent a movie titled 'Exterminators of the year 3000,' the odds are good you know what you're getting yourself into. I myself was sold by the promising descriptions of 'nuke mutants,' 'motor-psychos,' and of course the 'exterminators' themselves which, according to the back of the movie-store case, are all cavorting around a post-apocalyptic barren wasteland wreaking all sorts of mayhem. Let the wacky hijinks and low budget buffoonery ensue--at least, such were my hopes for this 'film.'

Now I like the occasional terrible movie, and if you're reading the comments on Exterminators of the Year 3000, you probably do too. That being said, I rated this film a solid '1(awful)'--not because I completely hated the film but because it is one of the most legitimately dreadful efforts at movie-making I have ever seen. The dialogue, the acting, the cinematography, the sound-editing, the editing in general, the plot, etc., etc., etc--all are worthy of what must surely be low spectator expectations given that marvelous title.

So what is really 'good' about this bad movie? It does have several of what my circle affectionately terms 'quality kills.' A quality kill, for those few of you unfamiliar with the phrase, isn't a hard and fast term, but in general refers to someone killed in a particularly gruesome, creative, or ridiculous fashion.

Exterminators of the Year 3000 also has a fair supply of 'dialogue-so-bad-it-becomes-funny,' provided in great part by Crazy Bull, the aptly titled leader of the hapless motor-psycho gang--who incidentally also provide most of the quality kills (if you're hoping for big things from the nuke mutants, think again, they play essentially zero part in the movie...shucks!). Crazy Bull, however, is all you could ask for in a b-movie motor-psycho. Shakespearean paraphrase and oddly PG-style insults are all he knows how to say...and that's terrific.

Despite its quality kills and bad dialogue, however, if you're looking for a truly entertaining bad movie, Exterminators of the Year 3000 does disappoint somewhat in that with its draw limited to things like silly and outdated special effects, quality killing, and bad dialogue, there is simply not enough to justify a full feature length, owing principally to the forty minutes or so in which the audience is forced to follow the characters in protracted and boring car 'chases' and long desert hiking sequences...All in all, a pretty good awful movie, but hey, it's no Death Race 2000.