Ang Lee clearly likes to ease into a film, to catch action, characters and setting on the hoof, as they emerge. Covering the haphazard endgame of the American civil war via the haphazard actions of a young militia, unformed in mind or manhood, this is an ideal approach. The film turns out to be about the formation of personalities, adulthood and relationships. Lee also shows the beautiful panoramas of the mid-south as a silent character, enduring the strife like a hardy parent.

James Schamus' script is probably the standard bearer for this film; close behind it are a number of well-appointed performances that carry it admirably. Jeffrey Wright's name alone could carry this film for me. He's brilliant here but in a slow burning role: instead we are treated to very good (if not revelatory) performances from a large, often recognisable ensemble.

A noble, optimistic film. One to watch if you don't fancy the harder, more bittersweet Cold Mountain or The Claim, for example. 7/10


This series adds new information and background to the book and includes personal appearances by the author and by archaeologists and other anthropologists. It brings the book to life and makes even more sense of the author's subsequent opus, *Collapse*.

Diamond himself comes off as personable and caring, not just a disinterested or disengaged academic. This series makes it clear that his book was not just a response to a need to 'publish or perish,' as the saying goes about academe, but a deeply considered answer to a question from someone he respects, 'Why you white people got so much cargo, and we have so little?' Because he respected the intelligence of the questioner and his community, Diamond looked for an answer that didn't insult that intelligence or that community. I like to think of his answer in a very simple way, in the same spirit as 'South Park's' 'Blame Canada': 'Blame wheat!'


This movie was awful. It centered too much around Eddie, Clark Griswald's brother-in-law. Eddie works much better when changing good quips such as in 'Christmas Vacation' and 'Vacation'.

I really don't understand how a movie like this would be given the thumbs up. Now, don't get me wrong, I like Randy Quaid, but just felt this movie was totally wrong for him and for the character in general. This movie leaves much to be desired and really needed some bigger name actors.


This was supposed to be set in the 'Bible Belt' of Northern Ireland. Well, as someone who grew up there,and was a child in the era depicted in the film it just didn't ring true! The accents were all over the place - anything but County Antrim/Derry. The church didn't resemble any I have ever seen. 'The Church of God' is a pentecostal denomination but the one in the film was certainly not pentecostal! The elderly minister at the beginning was dressed in the robes of the Church of Ireland (Anglican)- and no C.of I. would call itself 'The Church of God'. The minister was often addressed as 'Reverend' - they may do that in some parts of the world but I never heard it when I lived in that area. Ministers were addressed as 'Mr ......'

This film was very badly researched and cast - fairly typical of Irish cinema - annoying! A film can have a great plot, but if it doesn't look authentic, it is rubbish.


I carefully checked if there's another movie named as this one, and there isn't ! But I really don't think we all saw the same movie ! There's no way ! How can you vote more than '1' for this movie ?! The idea of this movie let's say it's acceptable. Oh, and the acting of Dan Gordon (Chris) is quite good. But those are the only two things acceptable in this project. The others are... awful ? It's a very delicate word to describe the acting of the other actors, the directing, the (so said) 'special' effects, even the way that the crew was filming ! I don't even like the way that the camera operators were moving to record the scenes ! This may be the most miserable film I've ever seen. I really don't remember a movie lower than this one... Maybe there is, but... I don't think so... Ehh, what's done, it's done... That's the movie and there's too late for anyone to change anything. I've voted '1', but my realistic vote starts with a '-' (minus) in front....


I saw this film in its entirety in the 1960s & 70s, yes it IS gruesome, and could be the progenitor of the 'Faces of Death' series popular in the 80s & 90s. Considering the state of so-called 'driver education' these days, this one should be required viewing for everyone preparing to learn to drive. When you see violent death in all its gore & horror, you certainly (if you have any sensibility at all) get a truer perspective on the responsibilities required to drive safely, what one instant of thoughtlessness or inattentiveness at the wheel can do. I worked for Bell Telephone in the 70s & 80s, and at one point was assigned to conduct a safety class. I found this film in the company library, showed it at the session, a number of people got physically sick and had to leave the room! Incredibly, most of them later said 'I never knew a car accident could be so terrible!' This film, and another, 'RED ASPHALT', is certainly reality in its most graphic form. I'll never forget it, I only wish I could have found a copy when my children were attending 'driver's ed' in high school!


THE TOY BOX (1971) BOMB

Sure, I like looking at nude women. While I prefer hardcore porn flicks, I'll take softcore exploitation grindhouse junk like this too under the right circumstances. Well, these aren't the right circumstances. These aren't ANY circumstances. There's supposed to be a horrific subplot lurking in here somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can untangle it. This is another of those amateurish steaming piles of badly made manure that bores you to tears rather than stimulates you, despite all the simulated sex going on all over the place. Bah -- if I want to see good sex scenes, I'll watch the real stuff.


I can't believe I actually bought this movie! It sucks! ... Where I live Mexican movies Mexican movies are never advertised, or even available ... you can't find them in the regular rental places... so I had to buy it ... I really like Mexican movies! They bring me closer to my roots, and my people, and they are way different that what your normally used to... but this one was soo predictable!!! Your could guess what was going to happen... I'ts not a horrible movie! It just wasn't worth what I paid for it! jaja... but if you have time and are truly bored then yeah u should watch it.. but if you love Mexican movies, and love theater itself then don't watch it it'll be painful! lol


I am shocked by all the good reviews on the cover of this movie and on IMDb. It belongs in the $2 bin at your local video store. To say that this is a B movie is extremely generous.

Besides lacking a single redeemable character, only slightly better than average acting, and an ugly 80's style picture quality, the script for this film is dull and lifeless. This film is not only boring--it is pathetic. (Admittedly, there is occasionally some mildly interesting chemistry between the two main characters.) Even the final plot twist--rather, the only plot twist--does not save this film.

Rent 'Diamond Men' if you must, but do not hesitate to turn it off once you become appraised of its worthlessness. 2 out of 10.


All this talk about this being a bad movie is nonsense. As a matter of fact this is the best movie I've ever seen. It's an excellent story and the actors in the movie are some of the best. I would not give criticism to any of the actors. That movie is the best and it will always stay that way.


well, i may be bias as i grew up watching a VHS copy of this film that is now ready to snap and have just spent the last couple of hours tracking down a DVD copy as a birthday pressie for my Dad. The film is so harmless and inoffensive it suits all ages.... much better than anything Disney ever made in my opinion (and i used to work in the Disney Store!!!). The characters are enjoyable and the award for best scene is a tie between the disrupted wedding (especially the musical talents of Swat, the fly. and Smack the mosquito), and the amazing night club scene. The musical numbers still have me humming 20 years after i first watched it. there is no other film that i can better recommend whilst baby-sitting, and in fact every child i know (thanks to my Hoppity loving parents) have seen this film, many times. It will always get top marks for its fabulous love story, a brilliant baddy and over all originality.


Zombi 3 has an interesting history in it's making. Firstly, it is a sequel to Fulci's hit Zombi 2, with Zombi 2 itself being of course a marketing ploy to trick people into thinking it was a sequel to George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead aka Zombi. Confusing enough? Basically, none of the films have anything to do with one another, but who cares when they make money. I guess Fulci himself starting to not care about the production about half way through Zombi 3 when he decided to walk out. Bruno Mattei was brought on board to help pad the film with additional scenes to lengthen the running time.

Zombi 3's plot is your typical zombie fare. Scientists develop a serum on an island in the Philippines, terrorists steal it unleashing a plague, and zombie run amok. The scientists want to create an antidote, while the military is set on mowing down everyone without prejudice. There are also brief inserts of a Radio DJ preaching about how we treat the planet.

Overall, I actually liked this film. I heard horrible things, but I find the goofy dialogue quite enjoyable. The film seems to be an attempt at raising awareness about pollution, corrupted military, Man playing God, etc. I get the feeling this was at one point a serious film, but it veered off in a weird direction, presumably when Mattei came on board.

Besides ripping off other zombie flicks, this was very reminiscent of Romero's The Crazies. You hear the Radio DJ breaking the good news with, 'When you see the men in white suits & gas masks, Run to them for Help.' This is of course played to the images of the men in white gunning down zombies. Later, they straight up steal a scene from Crazies in which one of the regular, uncontaminated people is killed by mistake.

The gore factor is pretty good in this one with zombie hordes around every corner. How is it cool? Let me count the ways1. Zombie Birth 2. Flying Zombie Head 3. Zombie Birds. 4. Zombie with no legs swimming in a pool. My favorite zombie was the machete-wielding maniac at the gas station. He was bad ass and nearly tore down the entire building trying to kill a girl.

Favorite Quote  When a sergeant insists on cremating a zombie, the scientists asks, 'Don't you think that once the ash is in the air, it will fall to the ground, and contaminate everything?' To which the Sargeant boldly replies, 'Now you're talking science fiction.' He also continues to mention the 'Science Fiction' told by the scientists even at the end when everyone dies.

Extras: Gallery, Trailers, and Interviews, most notably the one with Mattei where he insists he directed 40% of the scenes, yet cannot recall which ones or any other significant details.

Bottom Line: A must see for zombie and Fulci fans.

Rating: 7/10

Molly Celaschi www.HorrorYearbook.com MySpace.com/HorrorYearbook


There aren't enough gay-themed movies and there aren't enough `coming out' movies. Every one is a welcome addition to the genre. Although the production values are high(the movie `looks' good, Matthias Freihof (Philipp) looks REAL good in a pair of jeans) this is a bad one. It is a period piece: gay life under an oppressive regime(East Berlin, 1989) a life that seems 40 years behind the west. In a way we're seeing our own history; what it might have been like for gays in the 40's and 50's here(it often reminded me of `Last Exit to Brooklyn :the book not the film).But it is unremittingly depressing and SLOW in a contrived way that evoked an old SCTV send up of Ingmar Bergman. It is so sloppily edited I wonder if the director just didn't hack at random. Yes, it is a miracle that this was filmed and released before The Wall came down and yes, life behind the `Curtain' was hard for gay people. A good director could have shown all that without stupefying the audience. A good director would have had me mark this one as one of the great coming-out movies and not one of the misses.


This film story is bad enough, which can happen in real life. I'm very can not understand when they show us this bad film. I say it was bad because there is some reason. 1. if Madonna was rich and can do everything she want, then why she falling in love with that bad man. 2. How can the story script is so weak? She was so rich, can do everything she want, but not dare to divorce her husband that is very impossible.

The words I LOVE YOU, it doesn't meant anything in this film.


I never really thought about watching this film. I kept seeing it perched on the horror movie shelf in my local video rental shop and never thought much about it. Just your run of the mill, bland zombie flick with a bit of gore and a sex scene. Nothing special, might as well watch Python...oh no wait, that's a terrible film.

I only decided to watch it when some of my friends saw it on TV and said it was an awful piece of trash. So, I decided to verify these tales, and only then did I realise how terrible the film hiding behind the bland and uninteresting DVD box cover was.

Not that the idea is bad in itself. A plane is a confined area, and would be a real death trap for the people on board should zombies make their appearance...a good premise for a zombie film. But this film took a good setting and crapped all over it with poor acting, unsteady camera work, annoying characters and a terrible score.

The characters all have different levels of hatefulness. There are two young couples who are basically friends going on a vacation in France. One couple is composed of a jock and his annoying bitchy girlfriend who is having an affair with Mr Jock's best friend, who came along with his girlfriend who is a blonde psycho. There is also a policeman escorting a con-man (an effeminate and highly annoying con-man). The policeman is probably one of the least irritating characters of the lot. Then there is a bunch of air hostesses who mostly end up as zombie chow...no I didn't watch the whole film, it was just too painful an experience to carry through, almost as bad as watching Cannibal Holocaust. Oh and there's also a golfer on holiday with his wife, some strange air marshal who really does not appear to be important until he's summoned to help deal with the zombie escapees, a trio of scientists who all fall victim to the undead and a couple of pilots. The camera work is often shaky, and although many people don't seem to mind, it can really get on your nerves after a while, like having a small fly buzz constantly around your head. It's small but it's there and it's annoying.

The adulterous couple are genuinely annoying. All they do is have sex in the plane's toilets while their spouses aren't looking...in fact all the young adults in this film are insanely annoying. They whine, bitch, argue and have some of the most inane and mind-buggeringly boring dialogue in the movie...yes, it makes you glad to see them die.

The score is atrocious. It is so generic and uninspired it kills any kind of suspense a scene could have generated and replaces it with the feeling that someone is scraping a blackboard with their nails and laughing at you. In fact, it sounds like the score from...Python! That film will never stop haunting me.

There is also a character that the film makers seemed incredibly intent on having in as many shots as possible. A nun, sitting near the young adults and clutching her Bible who is included in so many shots you start to wonder if she plays any major part in the film...but no she doesn't, so why have her in so many scenes? Was it because the film's creator's original project was a nun porn flick? Nobody will ever know.

The zombies look pretty good. Their makeup is good and they are probably far better actors than the living characters, they are far more convincing and likable! The guard responsible for keeping an eye on the scientist's illegal cargo was quite funny. A large crate appears to fall on him, and the camera briefly shows the audience that his leg has been pierced with some kind of sharp object...yet he doesn't scream, wince or moan in pain. He just grunts and squirms in an attempt to get the thing out of his leg...in fact he sounds more like an overweight man trying to scratch his back than a man in pain.

Ah well, all in all I give it 1 for the interesting setting and 1 for the zombies.

Watch this movie only if you like young adults bickering and throwing things at each other, and sadly, there really isn't anything funny about the whole thing so watching for a laugh would probably fail, unless you're high on some kind of psychoactive drug.


I don't know why I like this movie so well, but I never get tired of watching it.


'Happy Go Lovely' has only two things going for it. And those two things are Vera-Ellen's legs. This is a British (Excelsior Films) version of an M-G-M musical complete with second tier stars. I would imagine that Vera-Ellen took this role thinking that it might finally propel her to the status of a major musical star. But, I'm sorry to say, Ms. Ellen's chance did not pay off.

Opening with a horrible Scottish number and stumbling thru awful dialog to the next dull tune, this movie seems very heavy handed and sloppy. The predictable mistaken identity plot is very thin, and with the exception of David Niven, Cesar Romero (who is way over the top in his role of a Producer) and Bobby Howes (who is totally wasted in a nothing role) the rest of the cast is totally forgettable.

The choreography is boring, but Ms. Ellen gives it her all. She was never as famous as most of the other musical stars(and she shouldn't be since she couldn't sing and even had a 'dancing stand in' in several of her pictures'. But when she did dance, it was just entrancing.

It's too bad that this film that could have made her a star did not give her the tools she needed to shine.

4 out of 10


Revolution is a terrible movie, I don't care if you're a history teacher, news writer, Al Pacino fan, there's no way this movie can possibly earn a legitimate '10'.

The key point to the plot is Tom Dobb (Al) trying to get money from a note he got for radical patriots taking his boat. Everything revolves around that note. Tom's son joins the army to make up for the note, making Tom join the army as well, they go on an adventure trying to get out of the army, years later the war is over and they can finally turn in the note for their boat. The End.

It had a few battle scenes, and they were pretty mediocre at best. Transistions between scenes used 'five months later' and magically put the characters in some famous historical battle. The love story is a joke, and the movie as a whole is just hard to follow. So save your 'Notes' and watch the Patriot instead.


Superficically, 'Brigadoon' is a very promising entertainment package. Gene Kelly and Vincente Minnelli, the team behind 'An American in Paris', are reunited with a lot of the great craftsmen and women behind their previous collaborations. Gene's leading lady is Cyd Charisse, one of the best dancers of 40s/50s cinema, and unlike the generally superior 'It's Always Fair Weather' this film gave them the chance for not only one but two dances. Lerner and Loewe were the rising team behind such future hits as 'My Fair Lady' and Minnelli's musical masterpiece 'Gigi'; Lerner and Minnelli had already demonstrated their sanguine collaborative juices on the excellent 'American in Paris.'

What happened along the way? Why is the movie itself such a stupid bore? Minnelli himself didn't want to do the movie, despite his previous warm artistic and personal relationship with Lerner. Maybe it was because the movie's innate conservatism was just a bit too much of two steps forward for MGM and one step backward for Vincente Minnelli. But once trapped in this assignment like the denizens of Brigadoon are trapped within its city limits, Minnelli strove to turn it into something that would be entertaining in a specifically distracting, if not liberating way. The ultimate result is truly horrific to behold.

While aiming for the naive charm of previous Minnelli hits like 'Cabin in the Sky' and 'Meet Me in St. Louis', the plaid-tights wearing inhabitants of Brigadoon can conjure up none of the illusive nostalgia of those never-have-been locales. Its whimsy doesn't even match up to the glossy luster of 'Yolanda and the Thief' or 'The Pirate' because the highlands settings seem at the same time too specific for such an exotic fantasy and too generic for real human emotions. The only people in Brigadoon who I at least can relate to are the malcontented man who tries to escape and the unfortunate fellow-traveler played by Van Johnson who accidentally shoots him. The general proceedings in the township of Brigadoon itself are too arcane and provincial even to be attributed to a backwards form of Christianity: they seem positively pagan in their aspect. For example, in exchange for Brigadoon's immortality, the honorable and most generally 'good' pastor of the town has sacrificed his own place in the supposedly blessed refuge.

At one point we're assured that 'everybody's looking for their own Brigadoon.' Suffice it to say the box office for this picture confirms my own suspicion that most of us aren't looking for this kind of quasi-queasy paradise. The premise itself is ridiculous and almost insultingly patronizing, but could work if the players were perfect. But Kelly himself is the most patronizing thing about the movie, and Charisse is horribly miscast as a virginal optimist in much the same way as Lucille Bremer was miscast in 'Yolanda and the Thief.' Van Johnson does his best version of the classic Oscar Levant sidekick to Kelly (even lighting 3 cigarettes at one point like Levant in 'AIP'), and he provides a lot of amusing moments. But it says something in itself if the best part of a big budget extravaganza with all the best talents of MGM is a tossed-off Van Johnson performance.


this is the worst film I've seen in a long long time, never mind the fact that so many useful things keep appearing on this island 'how convenient!!!!', the acting is beyond poor from the outset, its like one of those really badly scripted soft porn films on channel 5, a complete waste of time, and i cant remember the lead actors name but i cant believe he still gets work!!! I've never seen him act 'I've seen him in lots of films... But I've never seen him act. here are a few of the blaringly obvious errors, apparently petrol lighters still work even when they've been soaked in sea water!!! also according to this film you can walk into the sea naked but come out wearing bikini bottoms (I'm guessing the camera man and editor were students)there are plenty more errors but I'm ranting now, besides its no so much the errors as the cast the script and the whole film avoid at all costs


It is enjoyable and fast-paced.

There is no way on Earth that the actor playing Mat could be eighteen. However, the main thing is that he does act eighteen very convincingly. It must be a credit to his audition that he convinced them to cast him. I quite soon accepted him as being a naive young country boy.

While his was the best performance, most of the others were also very engaging. In particular, the interplay between the policemen was natural and well-balanced, and worked very well.

It is only about 45 minutes long, so the plot is not complex. More key is the style of the whole thing. It is very slick and vibrant, and the backdrops are atmospheric, especially from the fact that all the colours are extremely rich. The gangland is identifiable to foreign audiences, but still manages to be distinctly Australian.


Was'nt really bad for Raw's first PPV of 006. But the ending was really really shocking to everyone in attendance & the ones who were watching at home.

FIRST MATCH- RIC FLAIR VS. EDGE W/ LITA FOR THE WWE INTERCONTINENTAL CHAMPIONSHIP Not a bad opener, these two can seriously put on a great match if they had more time to put on a wrestling match. Flair wins by DQ after Edge slams him with his MITB briefcase. 3/10 SECOND MATCH- TRISH STRATUS VS. MICKIE JAMES FOR THE WWE WOMEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP Not bad noticing the fact that this is the first time these Divas faced off in the ring together. Mickie goes for a modified Chick Kick, but Trish ducks & nails her own Chick Kick for the win to retain her title. 3/10 THIRD MATCH- TRIPLE H VS. BIG SHOW Seriously good this match was, really. The whole match HHH focuses on Big Show's injured arm but Big Show still fights back. Later HHH is able to topple down Big Show & nails a Pedigree for the win. 5/10 FOURTH MATCH- SHELTON BENJAMIN W/ MAMA VS. VISCERA {This was a bonus match} Not that bad, it was alright. After Viscera was down, behind the referee, Benjamin's mama got a purse {Which had bricks in it} & slammed Viscera on the head with it three times. Viscera got up only to get caught with a spinning heel kick by Benjamin for the win against the big man. 4/10

FIFTH MATCH- JERRY 'THE KING' LAWLER VS. GREGORY HELMS Boring, slow & sloppy. Both men didn't really put a very good effort. Jerry Lawler wins after a Fist Drop for the win. 2/10

SIXTH MATCH- TORRIE Wilson VS. VICTORIA VS. ASHLEY VS. MARIA VS. CANDICE MICHELLE IN A FIRST EVER WOMEN'S GAUNTLET MATCH It was pretty entertaining to me. Ashley {I think} eliminates Candice last to win the first ever Women's Gauntlet match. 5/10 SEVENTH MATCH- JOHN CENA VS. CHRIS MASTERS VS. CARLITO VS. SHAWN MICHAELS VS. KANE VS. KURT ANGLE W/ DAIVARI IN AN ELIMINATION CHAMBER MATCH FOR THE WWE CHAMPIONSHIP It was a cool Elimination chamber match. But nothing will top last year's Elimination Chamber which was the best. The last three are Masters, Cena & Carlito. Carlito turns his back on Masters & gets a roll-up on him to eliminate him. Seconds later Cena gets a roll-up on Carlito for the three count to win the Elimination Chamber & retain his WWE Title. But his night was not over yet. 7/10 After the match, Vince McMahon comes out & congratulates Cena for his victory. Vince McMahon states that his night is not over yet, & says that Edge cashes in his Money In The Bank opportunity to challenge Cena for the title. Edge comes out with Lita, gives the briefcase to Vince & heads off in the ring as Cena has one more match to go here tonight.

EIGHT MATCH- JOHN CENA VS. EDGE W/ LITA FOR THE WWE CHAMPIONSHIP {Cena who is busted open during the Chamber match} gets pounded straight away by Edge, Edge then nails a Spear on Cena, goes for the cover & to his shock Cena breaks out. Edge nails another Spear & covers for the shocking three count as he has beat Cena & has won the WWE Championship for the first time in his career. 1/10 So last year's New Years Revolution was better than this year's, but it was still alright. The EC match was also good & the shocking of Edge cashing in his MITB opportunity is definitely the most shockingest on the PPV show.

Overall: I'll give it 7/10 & a C


25 August 2003 League of Extraordinary Gentlemen:

Sean Connery is one of the all time greats and I have been a fan of his since the 1950's. I went to this movie because Sean Connery was the main actor. I had not read reviews or had any prior knowledge of the movie. The movie surprised me quite a bit. The scenery and sights were spectacular, but the plot was unreal to the point of being ridiculous. In my mind this was not one of his better movies it could be the worst. Why he chose to be in this movie is a mystery. For me, going to this movie was a waste of my time. I will continue to go to his movies and add his movies to my video collection. But I can't see wasting money to put this movie in my collection


The only reason for me for watching this little known Irish film was the question could Mike Myers have played a normal, dramatic character. Well, he could and his acting was pretty good but unfortunately that was probably the only good thing that I can say about this film. In the beginning film follows life of twelve years old orphan Mickey who lives with his brother and sister with their somewhat eccentric grandma. Despite some strong language it looks like a family film but after a while it becomes clearly that Pete's Meteor is a hardly suitable for young audience drama. And the worst is that it is a drama with so much ridiculous and even totally implausible plot. One preposterous story line turns into another and all the time there is no much sense in the events on screen. I suppose when a life drama needs a meteor or what is more something that looks like even more ridiculous spiritual content that's a really bad sign. The characters are not much better than a story. Despite all his troubles young Mickey by no means is not a likable character but it's clearly was somehow we were supposed to care about him and even feel strong sympathy to him. It doesn't work. The same thing with other characters. They are mostly as ridiculous as the story itself with the title character (although he wasn't the main character) as the only bright spot. Towards the end of the movie I still had a strong hope that there is something behind of all that improbability and absurdity. Unfortunately even if the writer of the story had such intentions (and I'm sure he had) in the film they are hidden and practically imperceptible under such a weird script.

Grade: 3 out of 10. Those of you who are interested in seeing Mike Myers as a drama actor can watch Pete's Meteor for that reason but the rest of viewers most likely will be bitterly disappointed.


With the release of Peter Jackson's famed 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, it is even easier to dismiss Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated Lord of the Rings film as inferior. I agree with the majority that Jackson's trilogy is the essential film adaptation of Tolkien's work, but that does not prevent me from enjoying Bakshi's ambitious pioneering effort. Jackson has admitted that he received at least some inspiration from seeing Bakshi's film and there are some clear similarities between their adaptations.

The film's colorful picturesque backdrops are excellent and the score is memorable. I was for the most part satisfied by the drawings of the characters. The pairs of Pippin and Merry and Eowyn and Galadriel are mostly indistinguishable from each other visually, the Balrog and Treebeard were unimpressive, but these points didn't bother me very much. However, the Nazgul are aptly drawn and made sufficiently eerie. The only character representation I was bothered by was Sam's; he was made to look unbecomingly silly.

This film is novel for its animation techniques. In addition to hand-drawn characters, live actors are incorporated into the animation through rotoscoping. It is quite apparent which characters are hand-drawn and which are rotoscoped, but none the less I found that the film's style was a novelty. The use of rotoscoped live actors for the battle scenes was a good decision and helped these scenes turn out well.

The voice acting was generally of high quality. Particularly good was John Hurt, who provided an authoritative voice for Aragorn. Aragorn isn't a favorite character of mine from the stories, but backed by John Hurt's voice he was my favorite character in this adaptation. My other favorite was William Squire, whose voice is appropriately strong for Gandalf. The only actor who seemed inappropriate was Michael Scholes as Sam, whose voice acting was irritating and added to Sam's unfortunately silly image. The only other bothersome part of the voice acting is the mispronunciation of character and place names. Particularly strange was the decision to frequently have Saruman referred to as 'Aruman'.

In producing this film, Ralph Bakshi expected to have the ability to produce two films. Hence, this film contains about half the story, from the start of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' to the end of the battle at Helm's Deep in 'The Two Towers'. The obvious implication of this is that the film's story is a highly condensed version of the story from the books. I enjoy the original stories and more thorough adaptations, but the liberties taken to compress the story didn't bother me, even the choice to leave Arwen out of the story. Enough of the key elements of the story were in this film to keep me engaged for the duration and there was even a novelty in being able to breeze through half the Lord of the Rings story in 132 minutes. The battle scenes were impressive and in particular the orc march to and battle at Helm's Deep were tremendous.

Ralph Bakshi's version of 'The Lord of the Rings' isn't perfect and no doubt a number of Lord of the Rings readers lament the cuts to the story. However, for me the drawbacks of this film were minor compared to the thrill of seeing an effective adaptation of half of a great trilogy. My only strong lament is that I am unable to see the second part of this 'first great tale' of The Lord of the Rings since Bakshi was not given the budget to create a sequel.


Set mostly in the back streets of Toronto NG is a dark , mysterious journey that takes the viewer into the minds of a young man and woman ( Vern and Sarah ) , each of whom has a fascination with riddles and a disastrous incident in their past . Fine dialogue and first-rate casting propel this low key, noirish journey into the girl's search for the meaning behind the word puzzles that keep appearing in her life. Aided by her , anything but enthusiastic, male friend, the two of them reach the end of their quest , but with a price to be paid. The film never intends to answer all of its mysteries , but does an excellent job in the exposition of several plot twists


I can't believe this terrible film was made by the same people who made Lepa Sela Lepo Gore. Watch that and skip this. The plot is muddled and the characters are mostly two-dimensional stereotypes. I suspect the editor went on vacation halfway through the film because quick, choppy cuts start to appear that only confuse matters rather than elucidate them. The ending doesn't make sense either.

This is predominantly a propaganda film made so Serbs can feel sorry for themselves and vilify America for the NATO bombings of 1999. They do this by perpetuating lies about Serbs being our allies during WWII, claiming the whole world is unjustly against them, and completely ignoring everything said and done by Slobodan Milosevic, like waging war on three neighboring countries. They seem intent on making a political film but only show a few seconds of Milosevic on a TV screen with no sound. A nationalist agenda obviously superseded any consideration of art which was not the case with Lepa Sela.

Regrettably, I recommended this film to a teacher when it played last week at the Seattle International Film Festival. He also cited the bad editing and confusing plot, and I had to apologize for the bad advice. You've been warned.


Unless somebody enlightens me, I really have no idea what this movie is about. It looks like a picture with a message but it´s far from it. This movie tells pointless story of a New York press agent and about his problems. And, that´s basically all. When that agent is played by Pacino, one must think that it must be something important. But it takes no hard thinking to figure out how meaningless and dull this movie is. To one of the best actors in the world, Al Pacino, this is the second movie of the year (the other is 'Simone') that deserves the title 'the most boring and the most pointless motion picture of the year'. So, what´s going on, Al?


I believe anyone who enjoyed Eisentein's Ivan the Terrible movies would enjoy this well crafted movie. This movie played out like 'Lord of the Ring: Return of the King', but without the special effect but as good and better drama.

We have the German, who dressed like KKK, conquered Novgorod of Russia. The Russian summoned Nevsky to lead them to fight the German to save Russia. Nikolai Cherkasov, who played Ivan in the Ivan the Terrible films, was charismatic as Nevsky. The first 10 min how he handled the passing by Mongol was captivating.

Many of the scenes were beautiful even in black and white. The anticipation of War did not require any dialogue such as 'how many enemy we will be killing', etc. Except for a few speeches, the film can basically be played out as a silent film. The fighting scene can hold up to those of the Civil War fighting scene of The Birth of a Nation.

Another strength of the movie is the great musical score, by Sergei Prokofiev. The music gave an epic feel to the movie in those scenes without dialogue.


FBI Agents Mulder and Scully get assigned to probe the mystery of what happened to an Arctic drilling team, in this early 'X-Files' episode that David Duchovny himself considers one of their first 'rockin'' episodes. It pays loving homage to the much lauded John Carpenter 1982 theatrical feature 'The Thing', and one can see the similarities. Visually, color and lighting schemes combine to give the story a hellish quality. Production design / art direction are especially impressive; the shots of the exterior of the Arctic camp are so reminiscent of the earlier film as to automatically create feelings of deja vu for some viewers. Naturally, our heroes are threatened by the weather, so the sound design, involving wind, evokes memories of 'The Thing'.

The culprit is an ancient worm that had been exposed to the team; once inside a host, it stimulates aggressive behavior. This allows the paranoia aspect to take full hold, and the way the script is set up we can't be too sure of who's infected and who's not. This gives rise to the inevitable scene of testing. This episode certainly works at portraying the way that tensions can cause breakdowns in groups. It even allows Mulder and Scully to have moments where they're not sure if they can trust each other.

Guest starring are a good small group of actors: Xander Berkeley, Felicity Huffman, and Steve Hytner as the scientists obliged to accompany Mulder and Scully on the mission, and Jeff Kober as the pilot who takes them to the camp. You can also see one time Jason Voorhees portrayer Ken Kirzinger as one of the ill-fated original team members.

Incidentally, there's one direct link between 'Ice' and 'The Thing': art director Graeme Murray, who worked on both projects.

8/10


If you like film, don't miss this one. If you prefer action, or horror, or romance, then you'll wonder what's happening. Everyone here is stuck in a gangster film. And what happens is transcendental murder.

There are few similar films. No doubt it will see limited release, and be hard to find. But the search will be worth it. If you want to study a mileu as a potential symbol, then this is indeed a film to study.

You can't watch it once. If you do you'll never see what's happening. Dark City is better. Joe Vrs. The Volcano is more fun. But Mad Dog Time could convert the gangsta crowd to symbolism. . .or at least to think twice before shooting again.


I grew up in the 90s; therefore, you must understand that i witnessed firsthand the premiers of the greatest DCOMs. I was there when Brink! appeared, Zenon, Halloweentown, Johnny Tsunami, etc, These movies constitute my childhood. When these movies came on, not only myself but whoever I was watching them with would stand completely in awe for 1h30, talk about it for the week to come and catch it again the next weekend. I don't think words could express the amount of excitement Zoog Disney brought.

Even when I watch them now, the dialog doesn't seem that bad (so effective in fact, that I actually remember parts of conversations literally word per word, from movies I saw over ten years ago). The characters are believable, funny, granted a little stereotypical but that's what makes Disney's charm...

I sat my little brother down in front of the Disney channel to try and convey and make him understand my feelings for DCOMs. Enter Stuck in the Suburbs... my brother looked at me slightly puzzled, asking me if I had always been gay. I feel more disappointed and betrayed now than, what could I compare this to?, when Han Solo found out Lando sold him out to Vader...

Half the movie, and I'm not exaggerating, is flashbacks. There is no talent in these young actors (some of which are older than I am) whatsoever. The plot is ridiculous; it feels like a bunch of old rotting corporate people over at Disney sat around a table and asked themselves 'How can we seem hip to these youngsters?' OK, maybe all the DCOMs were like that, but they at least made a little effort to not let us realize they think we're complete idiots.

And apparently this type of movie works... Stuck in the Suburbs is rated almost as much as Zenon or Airborne. How is this possible? DCOMs got even cheesier and people prefer them now? (though apparently the lack of curse words is enough to give it 10/10 for some people) Christ, it's a completely different generation.


This charmingly pleasant and tenderhearted sequel to the hugely successful 'The Legend of Boggy Creek' is a follow-up in name only. Stories abound in a sleepy, self-contained fishing community of a supposedly vicious Bigfoot creature called 'Big Bay Ty' that resides deep in the uninviting swamplands of Boggy Creek. Two bratty brothers and their older, more sensible tomboy sister (a sweetly feisty performance by cute, pigtailed future 'Different Strokes' sitcom star Dana Plato) go venturing into the treacherous marsh to check out if the creature of local legend may be in fact a real live being. The trio get hopelessly lost in a fierce storm and the furry, bear-like, humongous, but very gentle and benevolent Sasquatch comes to the kids' rescue.

Tom Moore's casual, no-frills direction relates this simple story at a leisurely pace, astutely capturing the workaday minutiae of the rural town in compellingly exact detail, drawing the assorted country characters with great warmth and affection, and thankfully developing the sentiment in an organic, restrained, unforced manner that never degenerates into sticky-sappy mush. The adorable Dawn Wells (Mary Ann on 'Gilligan's Island') gives an engagingly plucky portrayal of the kids' loving working class single mom while Jim Wilson and John Hofeus offer enjoyably irascible support as a couple of squabbling ol' hayseed curmudgeonly coots. Robert Bethard's capable, sunny cinematography displays the woodsy setting in all its sumptuously tranquil, achingly pure and fragile untouched by civilization splendor. Darrell Deck's score adeptly blends flesh-crawling synthesizer shudders and jubilant banjo-pluckin' country bluegrass into a tuneful sonic brew. In addition, this picture warrants special praise for the way it uncannily predicts the 90's kiddie feature Bigfoot vogue by a good 15-odd years in advance.


Much like Final Fantasy, if you look at a still shot - it doesn't look so bad. But when the people start moving, it's utterly horrifying. Uneven jerky motions, frightening lack of emotion, and lack of a feel of life in the face gives me the creeps. The characters do not even appear ALIVE/organic.

I saw a preview screening with my daughter, who actually fell asleep! She was not at all engaged. For the record, I thought her to be easily engaged by both Pixar-esque films as well as a number of the 'bad' 2D films like Sinbad.

The lighting is painful, giving the children the appearance of holding a flashlight under their chin at a campfire. The lip syncing is bad - worse actually than Final Fantasy.

I also seriously question having Hanks play five characters.... this was a major distraction throughout the film. The role of the conductor is eerie - although in a way I just can't pinpoint. It reminds me of my father's fake 'phone' voice when greeting clients.

I think this is why the multiple roles are distracting - you are accutely aware that the voice is the same, but yet distinctly different. It gives each character the feel of being ACTED, as opposed to being real human characters. The illusion of reality is broken by the multiple role playing of Hanks. I've seen the technique work - a la Eddie Murphy, but Hanks just can't come close to pulling it off with a voice alone, given the horrifying animation.

I would not waste my money on this - wait for the rental.


The line, of course, is from the Lord's Prayer - 'Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven'. Sweden, especially its far north, is not my idea of heaven -30 degree C winter temperatures are a little on the low side for me, but the good folk who live there no doubt think they are in God's own country.

The storyline here is a familiar one. Acclaimed international musician Daniel suffers health breakdown in mid-career, goes back to the little village in northern Sweden where he was born. Persuaded by the local pastor to help out with the church choir, he turns some unlikely talent into a class act, and they enter a contest held in Innsbruck Austria. There are echoes (sorry) of the band players of 'Brassed Off' the models of 'Calendar Girls' and the dancers of 'the Full Monty'. But of course he causes plenty of emotional upheaval as some of the more downtrodden villagers realise their worth and revolt against their oppressors. He faces hostile husbands and an increasingly dubious pastor, but nothing except death is going to stop him.

Despite the somewhat corny story, we get to know and like many of the characters, who come across as people rather than caricatures despite many of them being recognisable 'types'. I did wonder about the wife-beater being unpunished for so long  Sweden is one country in the world where such violence is pretty strongly discouraged (he was also a bit young to be one of the bullies of Daniel's youth) and the puritanical pastor with a secret passion for girlie magazines was a bit of a stereotype, but marvellously realised by Niklas Falk.

Michael Nyqvist is simply wonderful as Daniel, the frail but driven musician, and there's some nice music as well. I was rapt for the whole two hours. The ending is what you make of it, I guess, but it's not spoiling it to say Daniel achieves what he set out to do.


This show made me feel physically sick, and totally detached from British society as a whole. It was programmes such as this and Blue Peter that pretended that there were/are no class divisions in Britain. They'd always say things like; 'Go into your loft and you may find this..' or 'Go into your back garden tonight and...' - what about us 'scummy' working class kids who never never had a 'loft', and a 'back garden' which was nothing more than a 1 meter square of balcony on the 14th floor of a council block? Public service broadcasting - yeah right! And on top of that, it was awfully depressing to see those stupid, middle class, up-their-own-backside kids mess about with bits of old plastic having 'fun'... do me a favour, and 'why don't you' go and slit your wrists or do a coke overdose on 'Mama and Papa's' money... you make me sick


I don't see what the problem is with SOME people and their NEED for intellectual humor. You need to get your head out of your up-tight ass if you don't find this movie hilarious! If this isn't your 'cup of tea', so to speak, then look at it for what it truly is- a damn funny movie. Maybe they DID set out to make yet another drugs/T&A movie, but in this case, they've truly hit the spot. It's especially funny for the Ali G fans, because he delivers everything we've come to love and expect from him. So I say BIG UPS to Ali G, and if it's not your thing, don't whine- BATTY BOY!


Dreadful acting. A thinly veiled attempt to slam those on the left side of the aisle.

Women are subjugated and revolve around men. Tom Selleck shows his acting range from A to B.


I just watched it. A couple of laughs, but nothing to write home about. Jason Lee looked like he was having fun. The (long) DVD gag reel consists almost solely of him having fits of uncontrollable laughter. Selma Blair seemed to be punching a time clock, but then again, her character was supposed to be a stick in the mud, so 'well done' I guess? Jim Brolin was surprisingly funny. (Being married to Babs can't be a picnic.) The soundtrack was hip, and eclectic. Larry Miller, who played Julia Stiles father (hilariously), in 10 Things I Hate About You is funny here as well. He's great, but the best aspect of this movie was the casting of Julia Stiles. I could spend two hours watching her fold laundry, and I feel like I just did.


Brian Dennehy, Bill Paxton, Joe Pantalino and, best of all, Jeff Fahey, all in one film. Wow is all I can think to say about that. These are four of the most underrated actors in the biz and they work beautifully together. It's like poetry the way they play off each other and ooze the natural ability to seem as though they had been best buddies for eons for even shooting the film.

The film itself is fine and one that can be quite intense to view the first time, and the four stars help the re-watch-ability to a great extent. I cannot describe how good it was to see Bill Paxton and Jeff Fahey together on screen, the greatest moment being when they watch a couple from a distance and fill in the vocals themselves, it almost brought a tear to my eyes.

A good film, a great cast, go see. Why? Four words, Fahey, Dennehy, Paxton, Pantalino.


The latest film by the Spanish director Agusti Villaronga is a study on how children that experience violence and isolation within their remote community, develop into troubled young adults that need certain psychic tools to deal with their hidden mental frailty. Whether these tools are religion followed to a fanatical level, caring for others or simply putting on a macho image whilst engaging as a male-prostitute, Villaronga creates a successful examination of how these vices affect three teenagers living in Spain under Franco. The three witness the disturbing double death or their friends before they are teenagers and subsequently bury the emotions they feel with their peers frail corpses until they meet again once more at a hospital for those suffering form tuberculosis.

The cinematic style of the text is typically visually opulent as you would expect from the Spanish auteur and is extremely reminiscent of fellow Spaniard Pedro Almodovar's work with themes dealing with sexual desire, both heterosexual and homosexual. An element that is different between the two directors is that Villaronga favours a supernatural undertone spliced with claustrophobic, gritty realism opposed to Almodovar's use of surrealism, although both styles are similar.

The piece gives an insight into troubled young psyche and contains disturbing violence and scenes of a sexual nature. I highly recommend watching this film as it contains elements that will remain with the audience for a considerable period after viewing.


This movie had so much potential. Anyone who followed the story of Jeffrey knows that there are so many details overlooked in this movie it's ridiculous. Too much time and effort was spent in the movie on Dahmer's homosexual tendencies and his alcohol consumption. Where was the character development? The origins of any villain are always interesting and Dahmer was no exception. Where in the movie does it address his adolescence when he began killing and mutilating small animals? Instead we are giving a dizzying array of flashbacks that seek to explain the origin of the killer, but fail to address the major point in Dahmer's development. Also, the reason why the country became so intrigued with this story was the details - how he stored the bodies in his apartment and the lengths and measures he went to to accomplish this; his cannibalism and his desire for flesh, etc. I could go on, but to sum up, too many lagging points in the film, focused on his sexuality and not enough of the gore - the good stuff you would expect to see when the title of the movie is 'Dahmer.'


I couldn't wait to receive the DVD after hearing so much about the film. What a disappointment! This became one of the most confusing films I've ever viewed. There were so many characters introduced, some resembling others, that it became impossible to follow the story line. I could not understand how George Clooney received an acting award for the film since he was hardly involved, at least in the first half of the movie. My wife and I gave up after about an hour of misery and stopped the DVD. I might have considered fast forwarding to see if the ending was any better but after so much confusion decided that chances for improvement were slim. A co-worker told me that a lot of the movie 'comes together' in the last minute or less. I was glad I didn't waste another hour, waiting. I gave the DVD away the following day.


This movie is crappy beyond any limits. It's incredible - a very bad ripoff from Jaws and other (better) shark movies. A really bad one - everything is really pathetic. The story is purest crap, actors are bad, effects very cheap, no creativity whatsoever. It looks like some really debilitated children took Jaws script and arranged it randomly, then its parents took their 8 mm camera and shot the movie with their neighbors. The music is really inappropriate, just some 'elevator' music, bland and overly optimistic when nothing happens, then slightly less optimistic when shark is around or when children gets depressed (again listens to VERY LOUD elevator music). Carlo Maria (the author) should be so ashamed he should ask for his name to be erased from the titles!! The movie acts as perfect demonstration how crappy music will destroy ***ANY*** scene which is supposed to be thrilling. There is one major difference to Jaws though: In the beginning of Jaws there are comments about stupid people who try to kill shark with dynamite. Well, there is an attempt to kill a shark with dynamite. When this does not work, guys take an ***BIG LOAD*** of dynamite and spent like 1/4 of movie by placing explosives in some sunken ship. This IS really original way to catch the fish I have to admit! They use so much dynamite like they would try to kill a battleship (I would guess Bismarck class of battleship) or to dig another Panama channel. This is just incredible. I'm glad they did not try to use napalm-flamethrower or tactical nuclear strike to eliminate this bad, bad approximately 2 m shark. Well, there is mystic disappearing native Indian (who looks like German pensioner) too in this mess. This is not a movie, this is a warning example how bad the movies may be! As a warning it is useful. But the public should be protected from this crap. Most of Italian movies is bad, but this... this is really exceptional in the worst sense of the word.


After seeing A Texas Tale of Treason, the measly correspondence efforts by Cox could not even afford the massive collusion Stu directed with no budget. It tells a story about dedication, sweat, whiz, fire and punk rock. I love it! My favorite parts are the interviews with Marci (she's such a hot baby babe and she digs me but she just doesn't know it yet). The Japanese clerk muffing his lines, that cracked me up. The sex scene was really cool. I am going to see if Stu will come over sometime and do the box light wave thing when i'm doing it with my woman. The intro and of course my 5 seconds during closing credits. I know thats going to get me some chicks. I hope to see more from Antstuie because I know I can expect the unexpected.


especially when looking at the amount of crap that has made it to DVD. I found this movie very funny. Rip Torn is classic with his barbs; Rob Schneider if hilariously annoying as the over-compensating Ensign; Bruce Dern makes a great 'villain'. The entire cast seems to be having a blast, and it's not at the expense of the audience. If you like just plain fun comedy, and aren't looking too deeply into meaning, you just might fall in love with this one.


I enjoy B movies. I think Bruce Campbell is a very watchable actor. I love how he delivers his lines. 'Evil Dead 2 and 'Army of Darkness' were great movies. I liked 'Running Time'. However, I don't know if I'll ever watch this movie again...and I bought it. Now, after saying that, I bet the commentary tracks and special features will be worth watching! This movie just has far too many holes for me to actually enjoy, even as a cheapo movie. First off, Ted Raimi was annoying, just flat out annoying. There was nothing to his badly acted / written character that hasn't been done better a thousand times before. The directing sadly was sub par and the choice of some shots...yikes. I don't expect Woody Allen or James Cameron here, but Campbell did not deliver.

I did not purchase this thinking it was going to be an Oscar movie like 'Annie Hall', but still I'm disappointed. I would have been happy with 'Mallrats' or 'The Rhino Brothers'. I got much less. By the end of the movie there were no scenes that popped out to me, no dialogue that resonated within me. Even 'Hostel' had a classic line for petes sake! I do not recommend this movie.


I have found this epic to be of an astonishing, striking, even heartbreaking beauty. Some kind of monumentality in beauty and decorative richness, a magnificent dramatic movement and dynamism. The choreography herein is hugely enjoyable, the actors are thoroughly enjoyable. I have been a big fan of CROUCHING TIGER  as well, but this one was even better. They have Kitano's ingenuity in delighting in what is pleasurable. This beauty affirming adventure cinema is an act of courage. When was the suspense so exquisite and genuine? And the art of showing huge crowds, gigantic armies . The film has something deeply satisfying, and a steadfast good taste. There is an enormous pleasure in making such a deliberately impressing and clean show .It's good beyond words. Few, few adventure films ,let alone epics, gave me such an uninterrupted delight.

Fan can be monumental. is not monumental artbut is monumental fun,like Leone's movies, like some '60s epics; also like the hobbits trilogy. It is largesized fun.


For the most part, romance films were never my cup of tea. But Valley Girl is one of the few romance films I not only could sit through, but actually enjoy. Nicholas Cage is great in his first role and Deborah Foreman is cute beyond belief. There are some side stories that tend to become muddled, but not enough to diminish this film.


I only gave this film a 4 because I saw it in 3-d. If you don't see it in 3-d, I give it a 2. This movie is so bad it's not funny. Anyone can make a film like this for a weeks pay. Bad acting,effects and story!!! But it was cool to watch in 3d. Why can't they make good movies in the 3-d format???


It's hard to watch this movie without thinking forward to the television show it would become, especially if, like me, you happen to like the TV show more. But there's a lot to be said for the source.

Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau) is a top New York City sportswriter who lives in an eight-room apartment by himself, a casualty of divorce and his own stubbornly sloppy mindset. Enter his friend Felix Ungar (Jack Lemmon), needing a place to live after his wife threw him out for his stubbornly neatnik mindset. The result is a train wreck and one of the most beloved movie adaptations of a Neil Simon stage play.

First thing's first: I love that apartment! Poker table, novelty dart board, askew photos of baseball players, empty booze and beer containers, even a pair of Roman columns. It's a place where men can be boys. Simon and director Gene Saks do a great job opening up the stage play's single set, Oscar's living room, by moving the action into the bedrooms and kitchen and giving the mounting tension between Oscar and Felix more corners to bounce off of.

Neal Hefti's familiar score was heard on the TV show, but never so sweepingly orchestrated as it is here, in several different arrangements that make the on-screen action soar whenever its played. Real location work and night shots of Manhattan give the film an energy common to films shot in that place and time ('Buddwing,' 'The World Of Henry Orient,' 'Midnight Cowboy,' 'Manchurian Candidate,' 'Rosemary's Baby,' etc.)

Are Lemmon and Matthau too heavy in comparison to Tony Randall and Jack Klugman? To be fair, the movie is meant to be a more serious affair, dealing with the then-uncommon condition of mid-life divorce and the frustration inherent in not being able to make a relationship work. Simon has more in mind than entering Felix and Oscar in a game of 'Password' or a battle of wits with Howard Cosell. But I don't know...

Both Lemmon and Matthau were terrific comedians I enjoy watching especially in the middle of this film as I often do in their separate movies, but I never understood why they were regarded as a great comedy team. Here, in their best-regarded partnership, they seem to be acting in two different films; Lemmon in a comedy-drama and Matthau in a farce. Matthau is great in the beginning, charming us with his teddy-bear demeanor around the poker table, but near the end of the film he takes a turn much like Jack Torrance's in 'The Shining,' reacting to Felix cleaning up his apartment and serving tasty food to his friends in a way that totally upsets the delicate balance of blame.

While the ending bothers me, the part many see as the most jarring, the beginning, works fine as I see it. Watching Felix stumbling around trying to kill himself isn't great comedy, no, but it's a good way to get into a great comedy, setting us up with some real-life pain before bringing in the warmth and laughter. (Plus it has some great shots of the seedier parts of the city.) In the middle of the movie, this scene would have been a miscalculation, but it works as a way of establishing Felix's torment and a sense of sharp relief to come when we see Oscar and his poker friends bicker and feud.

That's where Simon's lines are so great. They are the underlying strength of the film. He gets the banter exactly right and real, and still makes it funny. 'I don't mind you talking, Felix. You got things to say. What's scaring me is I'm beginning to listen.' The TV show showed how wrong it is to assume the movie is always better, in fact the TV show once made a good point about 'assuming' anything at all, but the movie makes for a solid foundation and is a joy in its own right.


Just saw Baby Blue Marine again after 30 years. I still find it a pleasant and romantic film which catches a time which has been lost forever. The innocence and purity of a time now long gone, is truthfully captured in this small film. The acting is above average and Richard Gere's brief appearance as a shell-shocked Raider Marine war hero, holds a keen interest for any film buff or Gere fan. Jan-Micheal Vincent is in his prime and looks and acts like the 'All-American' boy. The late Bruno Kirby (who was billed as B.Kirby, Jr.) has a meaty role as 'Pop', a peace-loving, Marine Corp reject, dreaming of getting back home to his wife. If you're looking for sex, drugs, or rock and roll, this movie is not for you. If you're looking for action and adventure, the same applies. However, if you want to recapture a time in America of innocence, honor, romance, and love, then Baby Blue Marine is a movie for you.


It's a deeply stupid humor... but I loved it. Jean Dujardin is a great actor in this movie. Bérénice Béjo is cute. It makes fun of all the secret agents like James Bond: refreshing!!! It's probably the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. I already saw it three times and I still want to see it again. Buy the DVD as soon as you can. You won't regret it. It's the kind of movie in which you don't need to have a great scenario because it's a parody. The only defect is that OSS 117 is too short. It's a jewel. It's not really frequent to see a french movie get success in the USA but I think that this one has everything to succeed. Trust me!!!


Personally, the book was a very well written, amazing, thrilling piece that was not brought to justice to the movie. Watching the movie at 12.01 in the morning to see that major parts of the book were left out frustrated me, seeing that it affected the 'different' outcome of the movie. There was something to be desired out of this movie, but all in all, it lacked in plot.

For someone who has NOT read the book, I could see how this movie would be seen as inviting and entertaining with its controversy and suspense. However to a dedicated reader who has read it seven times, I did not see the strong connection between the two: both the movie and the novel.

With major characters missing (such as Maximilian Kohler) and the abrupt turn in plot with the survival of the last cardinal in the preferiti, the plot of the movie was slightly strewn thus leading to a different take in the conclusion of the story. The Hassassin too was portrayed as a common white man, compared to that of in the novel where he was portrayed as a Muslim; his motives in the book are predominately based his ties with the Illuminati, however, in the movie, his motives are based on money and seemed more like work than some personal tie to the task at hand.


almost 4 years after the events of 911, if asked what comes to mind about that day, most people would probably comment on things such as the sight of planes crashing into and the collapse of the twin towers, the scores of people being killed, acts of terrorism and heroism mixed together, etc. everyone who was alive at the time will never forget that day. yet for most of us the memories, although moving, are not on a personal level. now comes an extraordinary film which gives everyone who did not lose a friend or a family member a chance to become involved at a personal level in just what we lost on 911. this is a film that needs to be seen.


Here's a gritty, get-the-bad guys revenge story starring a relentless and rough Denzel Washington. He's three personalities here: a down-and-out-low-key-now drunk- former mercenary, then a loving father-type person to a little girl and then a brutal maniac on the loose seeking answers and revenge.

The story is about Washington hired to be a bodyguard for a little American girl living in Mexico, where kidnappings of children occur regularly (at least according to the movie.) He becomes attached to the kid, played winningly by THE child actress of our day, Dakota Fanning. When Fanning is kidnapped in front of him, Washington goes after the men responsible and spares no one. Beware: this film is not for the squeamish.

This is stylish film-making, which is good and bad. I liked it, but a number of people found it too frenetic for their tastes as the camera-work is one that could give you a headache. I thought it fit the tense storyline and was fascinating to view, but it's (the shaky camera) not for all tastes.

Besides the two stars, there is the always-interesting Christopher Walken, in an uncharacteristically low-key role, and a number of other fine actors.

The film panders to the base emotions in all of us, but it works.


Watched this with my girlfriend after stumbling over it while zaping channels.

I guess we both hoped for some kind of happy family cute Christmas movie, but were extremely disappointed.

the actor playing the soldier, seems to have 0 emotion whatsoever, his face looks the same, whether he's chopping down Christmas tree's, seeing the girl he loves being kissed by her boyfriend, or when he's happily surprised by the girl he loves, he's an awful actor, and at no pont did any of us do nothing but laugh at him.

Then there's the cute blond girl, blessed with the ability to count dot's and cheat on her boyfriend, what a catch! and her ambition in life is to live with her parents and count more dots.

So it's basically a story about a guy without any emotion or feelings who falls for a guy who count dots and cheats on her boyfriend, it's as predictable as it get's, and really a waste of time, you gain nothing by watching this, other than some weird laughs, because it's all so corny.

I love it when her dad says that he only eats french fries and not french wine, and they all laugh, that's the hillbilly attitude this movie is about, furthermore, if my girlfriends dad were bossing me around like, i'd tell him a thing or to, but not our army veteran, no sir, he let's everyone boss him around.

The movie is what First Blood would have been, if John Rambo were burn like the biggest wimp in the world.


Sad in every aspect, this poor excuse for a career boost for Connery was neither that nor the hit Warners wanted it to be. Overlong by 20 minutes and filled with embarrassing moments for everyone involved, this film and 'Robocop 2' are proof that Irvin Kershner did not have any real control over 'The Empire Strikes Back.' Connery hadn't been in a hit since he bowed out from Bond in 1971, but this didn't bring him back at all. 'Octopussy' was released several months before this film, and easily outgrossed it. Imagine that - a Roger Moore Bond not only better than a simultaneous Connery release, but outgrossing it (and compared to 'Never...,' 'Octopussy' is on par with '2001.'

The worst Bond theme song, even worse than 'The Man with the Golden Gun,' pointless scenes that drag on pointlessly (with the worst example being that ridiculous video game sequence - MY GOD - WHO CARES?!), and the most atrocious collection of non-talent as far as the fabled 'Bond Girls' go. Does anybody SERIOUSLY think Kim Basinger is attractive in this movie? There were girls in my high school who could never get dates who looked better than she does in this. And Barbara Carrera - just plain stupid - but the way Kershner has directed her to prance around all the time didn't help her out any. She is the seedling that would become the very impressive 'Onatop,' which was about the best feature of 'GoldenEye,' but that doesn't mean anything as you laboriously struggle through this film.

Casting Leiter as a black agent was an excellent idea, but the buddy-loke interaction Connery and he are supposed to have is awfully bad. Two actors never appeared so clumsily linked together - witness the scene where, to escape local authorities, they strip to their boxers and pretend to be out exercising - I can not imagine another scene in any movie that tried so hard so fruitlessly to get a laugh.


The chupacabra, according to this mockumentary, is a mysterious

creature that has been killing and eating Hispanic goats in Latin

America and Mexico for years. One has crossed the border into

southern Texas, and a cute, intrepid cryptozoologist (no, I did not

make up that word) go to an isolated ranch to find one. Her uncle

was killed by the creature, and some grainy video footage of the

monster exists. She takes a badass black guy with a gun and two

cameramen (for easy-to-edit coverage), and they go ahuntin' for

chupacabras. Ten minutes into the film, they find it.

The rest of the film has the team of documentarians getting

attacked by the bloodthirsty monster, and stilted dialogue. At one

point, the team runs into a couple of hottie witches who lead them

to the chupacabra's nest...for $100. If only the FBI knew about how

cheaply Tex-Mex witches could be bought as informants. Whole

decades of mythical beast reports could be cleared up with a

blank check.

In the end, after the bloody deaths of characters you don't give a

goat's patoot about, a chupacabra is captured, killed, and

autopsied. The only point of the autopsy scene is to highlight the

makeup department's efforts in such a cheap film.

The film is shot on video, just like 'BWP,' yet the cameraman

characters never reload their tapes or recharge their camera

batteries. The lead actress here is awful. The beauty of the

average 'BWP' was its use of improvisation during the production.

Here, all the lines are written, and are delivered like a poorly

rehearsed Christmas pageant.

The film is tinged with racism, as well. The only African-American

here is a loudmouthed gun nut. At one point, as the crew breaks

into an abandoned house, they find a trio of illegal immigrants who

comically ask them if they are from the INS. Chortle, chortle.

The monster itself is a guy in a rubber suit, and nothing more. For

such a lumbering and awkward beast, he is able to sneak up on

the cast pretty quietly, whether they have idiotically locked

themselves in a giant cage as bait, or cannot seem to get their

only vehicle started.

The gore is gruesome, but when surrounded by this kind of

stupidity, it loses all of its effectiveness. I do not know if this was

shot before or after 'BWP,' but I can honestly say this is the worst

film ever made in southern Texas about a mythical beast. Pray

there are not any sequels, I will start a letter writing campaign to

Troma.

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, strong

gore, and profanity.


This is a woeful Hollywood remake of a classic British film. Everything that made the original 'Italian Job' entertaining has been bled out of this festering sore of a movie 'scripted' by Donna and Wayne Powers and listlessly 'directed' by F Gary Gray. I am amazed that Troy Kennedy Martin (the screenwriter of the original film) allowed his name to be used in the credits for this pig's ear. Martin has worked on some of the finest film and TV projects of the last 40-odd years. Even being vaguely associated with this stinker is NOT A GOOD THING.

The humour is forced, the drama is laboured, all the characters are cookie-cutter likable crims (with the exception of Charlize Theron's implausible, beautiful safe cracker/rally driver)and the plot only matches the original on the following points:

(1) Three Minis (the modern BMW-made versions, but Minis nonetheless)

(2) Use of the names Croker and Bridger for 2 of the main characters

(3) Disrupting a city's traffic control system to provide a safe route through it.

(4) Er, that's it.

Otherwise, what you get is a bland and implausible American by-the-numbers heist movie in which a gang of jolly pirate chums eventually get the better of their evil associate. Believe me, it feels like an awful long time before they do. The cast do their best with what they're given but it seems that they all accepted it as a turd-polishing exercise after reading the script. None of the original film's quirky nature and distinctly British flavour has survived being fed into the Hollywood hamburger machine.

Do yourself a favour and watch the original 1969 movie instead of this sucking chest wound. It's a wonder that Noel Coward hasn't done an Aunt Nelly, jumped out of his grave and kicked the teeth of everyone involved in this tepid remake halfway down their throats.

Italian Job? More like Italian Jobbie.


Very tightly written, acted, and filmed. Violent, but not too much so. Whoever edited this knew exactly what he wanted to portray. There isn't a wasted scene in this movie. 'The Usual Suspects' was superb ensemble acting; this is a collection of outstanding individual performances. I rarely buy movies, but this one is worth owning.


This film reappeared on channel 13 in the 1990s when they did a series of comedies from Hollywood in the 1930s and 1940s. In fact, to the tune of 'The Jolly Fat Policeman', they had a montage of scenes from the films to introduce the series of people laughing, including one of Gary Cooper chortling when watching a film in a movie house - a sequence from this film.

It all begins innocently enough when Cooper, a millionaire, goes into a fancy department store in France to buy pajamas. But he only likes to sleep in the tops. The clerk (Tyler Brooke) insists that he cannot sell half a pair of pajamas as Cooper wants. Claudette Colbert hears the argument and offers to help - she only likes to sleep in pajama bottoms. What if Brooke sells them each half? Brooke has never had such an offer before, so he goes to the floor walker (Rolfe Sedan) and asks him if this can be done. He is disturbed too - the request is quite unconventional. Eventually they contact the store's owner (Charles Halton). Halton is in bed, and gets out - his skinny frame supporting only a pajama top (if a suitably long one for the sake of censorship). Can they sell the two customers one set of pajamas (half for each)? Properly horrified, Halton answers, 'No, of course not! That is Communism!!'. So the sale is not allowed. Apparently nobody thinks that Cooper can buy the total pair and sell half to Colbert.

Lubitsch's BLUEBEARD'S EIGHTH WIFE has had a reputation of falling flat, most viewers not liking it because of a misreading of Colbert's character. She is seen as quite mercenary towards Cooper - selling herself to him on her terms.

Actually Cooper's character is the nastier, as he is rich and figures that everything has a price. He is correct most of the time. Look at the way Colbert's aristocratic pauper of a father, Edward Everett Horton, sees his new son-in-law as a golden goose he can use. Cooper's willingness to marry Colbert somehow includes an agreement that if he is hesitant or chooses to not marry her he has to pay damages. Horton, when he realizes this, takes out a watch, and (in a most reassuring voice) says to Cooper - 'Take your time my boy!', to come to a decision. Later we see Horton's wardrobe has gotten more modern and fancier.

The film, script by Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett, compares well with their script for Mitchell Leisin's MIDNIGHT (also with Colbert, but with Don Ameche and John Barrymore). There Colbert is willing to sell herself for a money marriage to (to Francis Lederer), but it is complicated by a fictitious marriage to Ameche. She really loves Ameche (a taxi driver) but she explains to him in an unexpectedly realistic moment that her parents married 'for love' but poverty made them grow to hate each other. This is not found in BLUEBEARD'S EIGHTH WIFE, where Colbert does not have a background like that (she is, after all, the daughter of a Marquis). Her mercenary plotting is to teach Cooper a lesson about his standards.

The film has some nice work by the supporting staff, including Herman Bing as a private eye who turns out to be hiding things that Colbert learns about, and a young David Niven, who has a set of choice moments as a stand in punching bag and as a willing ear to Cooper. Coop tells Niven about his problems with Colbert, and how she is so infuriating. Niven listens respectfully. At the end, Cooper is touched by his willingness to hear what he had to say. 'Albert, how much do I pay you?', Cooper asks him. Niven thinks and says, 'Thirty five francs a week sir.'. Cooper looks deeply into his soul, and says (shaking his head), 'That's fair!'


As many people know, Mexican cinema was very poor after the so-called Golden Age of the Mexican Cinema, fortunately, during the late 90's, and early 21st century, great movies like La Ley de Herodes, Bajo California, Amores Perros, Y Tu Mamá También and, of course, El Coronel No Tiene Quien le Escriba, appeared. El Coronel..., is a wonderful movie, that retells the classic story by Gabriel García Márquez, by eliminating the magic realism elements, and replacing them with the crude reality lived in Mexico, not only by people like the Colonel, who wait for their pensions, but by more than the half of the Mexican population, who live in complete poverty. The film's characters, satirically represent classic characters found in Mexican society, such as the nationalist Colonel, the cold and even ambitious priest, the hypocrite, but at the same time loyal compadre, the tolerant and patient wife, the hidden homosexual, etc. This movie, is a must-see if you want to know more about Mexican society, and specially, if you want to watch a gorgeous movie, by one of Mexico's finest directors


I truly love horror films & try to give every one I see as much credit (or sometimes more) as possible, but this is really pushing the ticket...most of the cast were very like-able but hardly any of them could act at all - but then again think about the writing/dialogue of this mess...some good make-up but absolutely ridiculous special fx. All in all I give it 3 out of 10 - & am having second thoughts about that!!


Take someone you love or want to love and go see this film.

It touches you in all the right places.

All the other reviewers here have said it all.

Perhaps the cynical will not be impressed.

They only seem to like the stuff that leaves you depressed for days.

This film is Ga-run-teed to stay with you for life.

I am so gratified that the Director is not USC trained.

This validates my premise that there is too much mediocrity and conformity in film these days.

It is because of the USC lockstep mentality and inbreeding.

Hooray for Jeff Hare and Richard Marcus, cast and crew. Well Done!


I read the comment of Chris_m_grant from United States.

He wrote : ' A Fantastic documentary of 1924. This early 20th century geography of today's Iraq was powerful.'

I would like to thank Chris and people who are interested in Bakhtiari Nomads of Iran, the Zagros mountains and landscapes and have watched the movie Grass, A Nation's battle for life. These traditions you saw in the movie have endured for centuries and will go on as long as life endures. I am from this region of Iran myself. I am a Bakhtiari.

Chris, I am sorry to bother you but Bakhtiari region of Zardkuh is in Iran not in Irak as you mentioned in your comment. Iran and Irak are two different and distinct countries. Taking an Iranian for an Irankian is almost like taking an American for an Mexican. Thanks,

Ziba


I first saw this movie in a queer film festival. 10 minutes after the movie ended a gay couple walked up to me and asked me whether I needed help - I was still sitting, crying like a maniac. The movie is cheesy, it's bizarre, it's over the top, it's gay - but it is amazing. I do think that every character is plausible. Everett's character is mean to a woman who only tries to help, he brutally throws his (terrible) friends out, he does have a temper, he can harm a fly, the 'fly' that killed the love of his life, doubly so. Bates is a miracle, she is perfect, just like a role. A woman whose love and admiration is so strong that she even loves the homosexual lover of her idol is to me the essence of true love. I even understand Max (the husband), he is bored with his life, he's got a midlife crisis. He moves out, tries to lead an exciting life, only to realise a) that he's the really boring part in the relationship and b) that he loves his wife. I love the fact that she comes back to him in the end because I think that it gives the film the right balance between dream and reality. For in the end he's her husband and he might not be as exciting as Victor but he's real, he is the man she loves in a very down to earth way. I've watched it about 50 times and I do love this film, everything about it unconditionally. BTW, just read Rupert Everett's autobiography and UL is the only film that he talks of as one of the best films he ever made. To me it's the best film he ever made.


With the exception of the fine rack on Clara Evans...this show was pretty bad...so why did I watch it? Too much coffee, and had to relax before hitting the sack. Watching BB change into his lamest Big Chief outfit, was amusing at best, downright laughable at worst.

I could have made a better Skeltor and special effects on my Dell.

Boxlietner has seen better days, this guy is a year younger than me, and he's looking more and more like the Scarecrow from his TV series days back in the early 1980....the women eye candy need to go back to acting school, although Evans size 40 and playing a 17 year old(she's in her early 20s was a stretch)....the Sci-Fi Channel has done better that this...but for us folks that don't get out to the bars much anymore, I guess we have to take what we can get...after all anything that gets you away form CNN, MSNBC, and Fox coverage of Election 2008 these day is a good thing.


Yes,the movie is not a piece of art but the first time I watched it I was 10 years old,my parents were out and I stayed home with my two brothers.It was May 1970(I know that because I found a note about the cycle of horror movies that one network had).It's one of the most vivid memories I have with the guys.We ended all in one bed and covered up to the head! Our very first horror movie! We kept talking about it for years and laughing about the moment.Those were horror movies.Nowadays horror movies are always the same.Or was it better when we were kids enjoying without analyzing the plot and the cast and the dialogs? Most sure it was that.But for me this is a great movie!


I really liked the first part of this film in Africa for about an hour or so until the animal cruelty by civilized humans in Scotland got to me in the second half and made me so sad I couldn't watch some of it. However, this was done by the filmmaker to make a point that early natural scientists ruined everything alive they didn't understand by 'studying' it literally to death without considering the rights and comfort of the animals studied, which we know now shouldn't be studied anywhere but in the natural world they inhabit, and as unobtrusively as possible. I do recommend this film as it was a mostly serious and honest story of Tarzan and made a point of showing the gross animal cruelty that was rampant in the 19th century scientific world as well as the pure and simple, beautifully primitive life Tarzan lived as a young man who was found as a baby and raised by chimps after the violent death of his parents in the African jungle.

Christopher Lambert was wonderful and very soulful in his life of Tarzan role, as was Ralph Richardson in his last film role as Tarzan's ultra-rich, nobility-reeking gramps in Scotland. Andy MacDowell was pretty and pretty good as Tarzan's gussied-up and civilized 'Jane' in her first movie role. From his charismatic work in this film and his very haunting eyes, I cannot understand why Lambert did not later become a big star, but his really bad movie choices later may have done him in. The terrific Ian Holm, as a wounded Frenchman in Africa helped by Tarzan and who then escorted Tarzan back to his previously unknown, ancestral home in Scotland, was great as always.

I am so glad Tarzan got sick of and didn't stay in the animal-cruel civilized world at that time and went home to Africa in the end to live out his life with his gentle and loving ape 'relatives' who raised him instead of staying in Scotland and living like royalty, which would have ruined him if it didn't kill him first.


Like many situation comedies, 'The War at Home' is getting better with each episode. The characters are starting to become real and I believe them as a family. I agree with many that the first few episodes were not that funny; I thought the show would be canceled for sure. But with the absences of 'Malcolm in the Middle' and 'Arrested Development,' 'War' provides much needed live action comedy for FOX on Sunday nights. And when compared with the rest of the sitcoms airing right now 'War' is an even better choice.

Its appeal, at least for me, lies in its real situations. Teenagers have sex. Not every parent likes how their kids are turning out. Parents fight and call each other names. But rather than relying on being 'mean' like many shows, everything is nice in the end which is the number one rule of a good sitcom.

One detraction from the show is the narration during/in between scenes. The 'Arrested Development/Family Guy' style of flashbacks work well enough but the narration can be too much.

So anyone who needs something to watch on Sunday nights should check out 'The War at Home,' especially considering what is on the other major networks at that time.


Not many reviews, hence thought i would add one.

DO NOT GO BY THE OTHER REVIEWS! This was a excellent movie.

RKS is one of the very few Indian directors that can actually put together a really good movie.

AB and Akshay given yet another example of great acting, as does bhoomika too, which was a little unexpected, but great to watch.

Am surprised there has not been much hype around release.

Or filmfare/other awards nominations, considering how good the movie was.

Better then Khakee i thought and i thought Khakkee too was good movie.

Is a fairly long movie, but definitely worth it and while watching it, definitely does seem long.

Cant wait for RKS next movie and the next AB, Akshay movie they always seem to do well together... e.g. waqt.

Bhoomika too has acted really well in the movie and should do really well if she continue in the same fashion in the future.


While I hold its predecessor, 'Fast Times At Ridgemont High,' as a standard to which other teen comedies should be compared, 'The Wild Life' is one of the better lesser known films from that time-and a worthy sequel, if you can call it that. I believe its tagline reads, 'From the makers of FTARH, something even faster.' This definitely holds true. Though it may lack the depth of the former which tackles issues like first dates, teen sex, and abortions, 'The Wild Life' is, nonetheless, a great flick. It's pure chaotic fun, especially due to Chris Penn's over-the-top character, Thomas Drake. If Spicolli was high on coke instead of weed, he would be Drake. Eric Stoltz, in his first major role, is great as the straight-laced Bill Conrad. The two characters work well off one another. Think a younger, hipper Odd Couple, complete with 80's gloss. Outside of them there are so many other great things about this film worth mentioning. Lea Thompsom has never looked cuter, especially during the scenes of her working at the donut shop. Jenny Wright is just delectable and fun to watch. Rick Moranis plays a great nerd/perv who is dying to get in her pants. Thomas Drake's wrestler buddies are hysterical, especially Benny, the little Puerto Rican guy, who says some pretty memorable lines. One in particular that he yells out during a night out at a strip club had me on the floor the first time I saw it. That's saying something! Finally, the movie ends with one of the best 80's party scenes on film, ever. Look out for special appearances by Ron Wood of the Rolling Stones, Leo Penn (Sean and Chris Penn's dad), and a random Michael Jackson look-alike at the party. Throw in a score by none other than the man himself, Eddie Van Halen, and you can't go wrong. For Van Hagar fans, keep your ears open for riffs that would be found on such albums as 5150, OU812, and For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.

If anything disrupts the flow of the movie it is a small subplot involving Randy Quaid as a burned out Vietnam vet. It just seems out of place and unnecessary. Other than that, it's near perfect. If your a fan of mindless but fun 80's movies and have not yet seen this one, you're in for something special. RENT IT NOW!!!

p.s.-The credits say Cameron Crowe has a cameo as one of the cops in the film. Does he have his back turned during his scene because I have yet to find him. Someone please help me.


'Her Cardboard Lover' is Norma Shearer's last movie. She quit the movies and, I think, joined the Board of Directors at MGM. That was a good move on her part. 'Her Cardboard Lover' was talky and boring in parts. It was obvious there were only a handful of actors with speaking parts so they had a lot of dialogue to speak to keep this turkey afloat.

The story was a good idea about a wealthy woman (Norma Shearer) hiring a man (Robert Taylor) to make her playboy fiancee (George Sanders)jealous. I am surprised that the director, George Cukor, did not cut many of the talky scenes between Ms. Shearer and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Cukor served Ms. Shearer well in 'The Women' but not in this movie.

The best performance in the movie was given by Robert Taylor. During Mr. Taylor's career, he was given his best comedy roles in this movie and 'When Ladies Meet' in 1941. In 1942, he gave his best comedy performance in 'Her Cardboard Lover' and, up to then, his best dramatic performance in 'Johnny Eager.' He had a busy year. I think of all the actors at MGM, Mr. Taylor worked with all the major and minor actresses on the lot. Also, MGM gave Mr. Taylor all types of movies to make - most of them were successful. That is why MGM kept him for 25 years.

Mr. George Sanders was very good as a socialite heel. He played a similar role eight years later in 'All About Eve' for which he won an Oscar for a supporting role. As for Ms. Shearer, this was one of her worst performances, she was not funny and too dramatic for this comedy. It is strange that she made a great comedy in 1939, 'The Women', and gave her best performance. It was obvious that she was too old looking for her younger leading men in 'Her Cardboard Lover.' Also, it didn't help that some of her clothes were awful.

Too bad she and Mr. Taylor did not make another dramatic movie like their last movie together, the superb 'Escape'. The same comments about this movie can be said of another movie, 'Personal Property' that Mr. Taylor made in 1937 with Jean Harlow. It was too talky, boring, and the actress looked old. Ms. Harlow looked ill throughout the movie and nobody in Hollywood noticed to tell her to see a doctor, so in 1937, she died at age 26. What a waste! She was becoming a good actress and getting better roles.


I didn't see this movie when it originally came out, but there has been a couple songs sharing the title and the term still gets used from time to time and I figured there must be something to the flick, so I dug it up and gave a view. Now I would like the approximate hour and forty five minutes of my life back(it seemed much longer). There was nothing particularly bad about the movie, the acting was good, no large plot holes, of course there wasn't much plot to have holes in. There just wasn't a lot to the movie. There was some chemistry between the two but nothing compelling about their relationship; Nothing interesting about their story. Near the end when he attempts to chase down the train to catch his fleeing romance, neither my wife nor I wanted him to catch her. Honestly we figured they were better off with out each other and if they did get back together we really didn't care. So what's that say about this love story when even a 25 year old sappy romantic like my wife had no emotional investment in the relationship. I should have left this one in the 'missed' category.

Logan Lamech www.eloquentbooks.com/LingeringPoets.html


Follow-up to 1973's far better 'Cleopatra Jones' has statuesque black actress Tamara Dobson returning to her signature role as chic, super-tough narcotics agent, here busting a heroin ring in Hong Kong. Cross-pollination of blaxploitation action-flick and kung-fu B-movie is fun at the outset but eventually flags. The shoot-out finale is right off the assembly-line, and Dobson herself seems less energetic than before (she's still sexy, and she puts a unique spin on her comically-stilted dialogue, but these surroundings may have been too much of one thing for her--she's jaded). Stella Stevens plays the villainess this time; she's good, but can't match Shelley Winters in the predecessor. ** from ****


This movie is a definitive 5. I finally caught it on HBO the other night. I remember when it came out in theatres telling a friend that it would never be a hit because Americans didn't want movies about history, especially movies that were more about ideas than action. I don't know if that was the reason FMLB didn't do well, but now, having finally seen it, I can add a few observations of my own.

First, while Dwight Schultz has been fine in Star Trek and The A-Team, as the lead in this movie he is off-putting. I kept expecting him to shout out Jon Lovitz-like, 'I am ACT-ING!' He phrasing and tone of voice sounded like he was trying very had to be an ACT-OR, on a stage where he had to emphasize strangely various words and phrases.

Second, I enjoyed the sly positioning of Paul Newman's character as a manipulator who, at every turn, strives to herd these cats (the scientists) along to get to his goal.

Third, there was some discussion of the moral implications of creating the A bomb, and whether the US should use it. Probably not enough of this, or as in depth as warranted.

Finally, there seemed to be an awful lot of twists thrown in for dramatic effect. I don't know how much of the events in this movie are true to life, but things like having the test bomb slip in its chains or having a lab accident caused by a spilled coffee cup (and a scientist killed as a result) were stretching the bounds of believability. Maybe that stuff, or events that were similar, really happened, but it sure felt like various scenes were added solely for dramatic effect, which undermined the whole tone and purpose of the movie.

FMLB was OK. I need to read more about the actual events to know if it was over the top or just mostly accurate.


This movie makes no sense at all, there are plot holes big enough to drive enormous NYPD vehicles through. The characters do not act in any plausible way whatsoever. I will put my comments in the chat board, but save your time and money, this is stupid. I can't stand when Hollywood spends millions of dollars on flash bang equipment and uses fancy editing and cool music, and does not bother to have a plot that hangs together at even the most basic level. But it is nice to see Denzel W. prevail over the Man, who comes in 3 flavors, Jodi Foster, Mayor Bloomberg and Capt. Von Trapp. There is even a sweet little kid with a video game who is nice.


An EXTREMELY fast paced,exhilarating, interesting, detail rich book. Its a huge shame that the film had none of these qualities. not only was Tom Hanks' mild mannered portrayal or Robert Langdon Laughable, but the name changes to key characters, huge deviances from the original story line, and poor Irish/Italian accent from Carmalengo Played by Ewan Mcgregor, made for the worst book to film EVER.

As a huge fan of A&D the book, i had high hopes for a more lavish, true to book detailed movie, where it would start and finish just as the book did - leaving me wanting more.

All the film really did was depress me within the 1st 10 minutes.

what was impressive was how the... sorry! i couldn't even finish that sentence without laughing.

in short - Vittoria was the token hottie, a very second to Audrey Tatou and there were some very nice Alfa Romeos.

i would recommend reading the book to understand that, if Ron Howard must insist on making ANOTHER book to film, i would be happy saving my £6.40 for a KFC zinger meal and some chicken wings - far more entertaining and deeply more satisfying!