My Take: Steven Seagal is obviously too boring to be a lead in an action thriller, even a totally dull one.

Remember Steven Seagal? You don't? Don't worry, there's not much to catch up on. After starring in admittedly enjoyable crowd-pleasing films like UNDER SIEGE and EXECUTIVE DECISION, Seagal hits the low grounds of the bad movie abyss. Now, he stars in low-budgeted B-level action vehicles, some of which are made-for-TV 'Movie of the Week' entries that lost their way to the big screen. HALF PAST DEAD is among these, shall we say, dead action movies. A loud and lousy action film, sloppily directed and lazily written (and worse, badly acted). This is one of those bad movies that I don't need to watch until the ending to know it's bad. I didn't have the guts to have all my braincells die while wasting my time with this. It it this kind of bad films in which you realize, those other films you hate are not bad after all.

The plot (and the locale) is completely lifted from a similar picture, Michael Bay's THE ROCK, although similar may not be the word to describe it. Both movies are summer movies, and not meant to be taken so seriously. But in comparison, even THE ROCK (which isn't much in the writing department as much as the lights and sounds) has better characters, a more compelling plot, better action sequences and overall, a more entertaining atmosphere. Although there are action scenes in HALF PAST DEAD, none of them are exciting. All of which are sometimes tedious and predictable.

Although predictability seemed to be a welcome asset in summer action films, predictability has never tasted more sour in ones that aren't fun, and HALF PAST DEAD is never really fun, a lot of times it's just a pain in the head (hearing the bad rap music repeat over and over again throughout this film makes me yearn for an aspirin every second I hear them). The acting is horrendously mediocre, the plot is derivative, with no compelling or appealing characters whatsoever. Seagal's character, an undercover agent sent to Alcatraz to stop a criminal mastermind (Morris Chestnut), a very boring villain, is nothing to get excited about. Seagal's character is also provided with a sidekick (played by rap star Ja Rule) and a bunch of amigo inmates, and there's no chemistry going on here.

If starring in a series of other forgotten action vehicles (what were those films again?) killed of Seagal's career for good, HALF PAST DEAD is overkill. And audiences be warned: you're invited to feel the pain. Advice: avoid it at all costs.

Rating: 0 out of 5.


Shawn Michaels vs. Edge-8- Kind of hard to believe Shawn Michaels is in the opening match but still a great match by both men, Edge, whether you like or not is a great performer in the ring, and Shawn Michaels is just ageless when it comes to his performance The Undertaker vs. Heidenreich. Casket Match-2- OK, after a good opening match, now this, what a crappy match. Undertaker has given some great matches at the Royal Rumble, and 1998's Royal Rumble against Shawn Michaels was the same type of match, but this is way worse then that match.

Kurt Angle vs. Big Show vs. Bradshaw. Triple Threat WWE Championship-6- It's alright, i feel all three men could of given a better performance, this just really didn't show them at their best.

Randy Orton vs. Triple H. World Heavyweight Championship-9- Triple H gets a clean win, can you believe it, sure he takes out the Sledgehammer but doesn't use it. Randy Orton did great when acting like he got a concussion, but how he got the concussion is really ridiculous. I really liked this match, this was the best performance i've seen from HHH in forever.

The Royal Rumble Match-7- This was highly entertaining and i usually don't score the royal rumble match this high. The winner is again, very predictable, but just this had a lot of moments that were very entertaining to watch The segments with Flair and Guerrero are hilarious the best segments i've seen in a while.

Overall, this is a great PPV and a must own for wrestling fans.


First of all, let me say the I am LDS or rather, I am a Mormon. So when I watched this film, I automatically gave it the benefit of the doubt. I can usually find something redeeming in every movie I watch. And this one was no exception. It does have its redeeming moments. But they are few and far between.

One of the first things I noticed that bothered me very greatly was that it seemed as though Halestorm was ashamed of our Church! In the LDS Church, congregations are called 'wards' and the basketball court is in the 'cultural hall'. NEVER ONCE are either of these two names mentioned. The Church is never referred to by name and 'the standards' is as far as it goes in mentioning what our Church believes.

It makes me wonder if the directors are really LDS or LDS wannabes? This film had so much potential! It could have really shown our Church in a positive light and helped the public to see not only what we have to offer, but also what we believe. Instead it was only mildly entertaining and left much to be desired. If I were not already LDS, I'd be left thinking Mormons are stupid, idiotic and ashamed of their beliefs.

It is NOT a film I will recommend to my nonLDS friends.

Sorry Halestorm. You can do better than this!


OK, let me start off by saying this isn't a horrible movie by any means. It's just not good. I recall one poster saying the acting isn't campy it's just nuanced. No. I've seen nuanced Japanese and Asian acting. I'm sorry, you're wrong. This is camp.

The characters are totally unsympathetic, the deaths are totally random and utterly meaningless. The writing is bad. I'm fine with suspending disbelief, I'm fine with not having everything handed to me in terms of plot. But this movie has no plot. One reviewer stated 'This movie is set in a small town where people are going nuts over vortexes and spirals.' That's not a blurb, that's the entire freaking film. Congratulations, I've just saved you nearly an hour and a half. There is nothing more to it. No character development, no plot development, no explanations, no resolution. And not even the 'Acceptable within the realm of J-Horror' lack of resolution. Just nothing.

In addition, the musical score is done by someone who obviously wasn't actually watching the movie at the time because it's random enough to cause whiplash. Cognitive dissonance is one thing and done well it can be brilliant (see Dark Water), but here it just seems as if the score was designed to go with another movie all together.

The best example I can give is it's as if the Japanese remade Evil Dead without any of the clever bits or good acting. It just falls flat. It's J-horror without the horror.


I read a couple of good reviews on this board for 'Mr. Scarface', but for anyone uninitiated in the genre of Italian gangster films like myself, the picture will probably make very little sense. Indeed, after the initial setup involving the ten million lira scam, the picture devolved into a fairly routine revenge flick with a minor twist in the identity of Rick's (Al Cliver) character. The whole gang war plot got muddied up for me with the inclusion of Vinchenzo Napoli (Vittorio Caprioli), but as most other viewers commented, he's about the only one who gave this picture any life with his often ineffective attempts at violence. I found it somewhat unbelievable that Manzari's goons who chased Tony through the streets didn't actually stroke out before Tony even laid a hand on them. For all of his buildup as the title character, Jack Palance was wasted rather unceremoniously in an anticlimactic near finale, making the U.S. working title, 'Mr. Scarface', rather moot. I've seen enough spaghetti Westerns to know that they don't all work; I guess in this case, my first look at a spaghetti gangster flick didn't quite make it either.


If you want to see real evidence of what a misguided and unchecked government can do to 'un-popular' people, this movie provides it. Read what some people are saying about the 'Patriot Act' passed after 9/11 and then watch this movie. Is it worth it? Do we really want to give away our freedoms to these people? Regardless of what you saw on TV, you are not fully informed until you watch this movie. I apologize for quoting another reviewer, but it needs repeating: Roger Ebert of Siskel & Ebert said, 'What's interesting is if you're looking for people who are unbalanced zealots... you don't find them among the Branch Davidians, you find them among the FBI and the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; those are the people in this movie who deserve to be feared, I think.' I think every person responsible for 9/11 needs to be brought to justice, but I think the government has not shown a history of honoring it's duty to protect people's rights, and this movie proves it in dramatic fashion.


Sometimes a movie is so comprehensively awful it has a destructive effect on your morale. You begin to really ask yourself, what does it mean for our society that the standard is so terribly low? Can they honestly expect that we'll endure this many clichés and still be entertained?

Of course, it is still a Hollywood mainstay to make the GUN the major character, plot device, and the source of all conflict and resolution in films. Character needs a gun. Gets a gun. Can't do that because he has a gun. Puts his gun down first. OH MY GOD What are we going to do!? He has a gun! He waves it around, acting more malicious than real human beings ever do. He pushes it in someone's face for 90 minutes, shouting questions. The hallmark of any conclusion will be the comforting sound of police sirens.

It's a real challenge to make such a tired, hackneyed formula work again; a film has to be very clever and well executed. This one is neither. It has no life and no personality, and it will suck these components from YOU. it will make you feel WORSE about living in the time and space that you do. Really, who needs that!? So yes, I'll say it: I think this may well be the worst film I have ever seen. Anyone who was involved in the making of this sub- mediocre soul killing trash should be publicly embarrassed for the disservice they've done to us all.


Return to Frogtown was a hard film to track down. Well, I accomplished that mission and it had been sitting on the shelf for a good while. Wish it was kept that way! First, Sam Hell is of course not Roddy Piper. He is replaced by a dude with a large face, less charisma, and this poor actor is very soft-spoken for the part! Sam Hell is supposed to be rebellious and awesome. Here, he gets captured THREE times! What kind of a hero is that?! Spangle is replaced as well here by another actress. Why did we not get different characters here? This was stupid! Lou Ferrigno stars in this film and he is not even the hero. Common sense says let Lou be the hero of the film! Bad effects, poor acting, and just a forgettable film. Funny as they take shots at Ninja Turtles 2 with the whole concert scene in this movie. At least Ninja Turtles 2 was funny and not a bad movie! I really wanted to like Return to Frogtown, but I just cringed when the fight scenes would commence. This film makes Turtles 3 look like gold! Avoid this or you will be the one singing 'meaner, greener, talking turtle TV dinner!'


Most definitely the saddest movie I have ever seen. A must see, just so you can walk away and realise just how precious your life and loves are. The acting is superb, the story line potentially 'real'.

Remains a firm favourite of mine even after all this time.


For the attention of Chuck Davis and Emefy: I saw PHANTOM LADY many years ago, when I was not yet a jazz buff. There is an exhibition going until end of June in Paris's brand new MUSEE DU QUAI BRANLY, named LE SIECLE DU JAZZ, not to be missed, with as a special entertainment NINE excerpts from jazz movies, including PHANTOM LADY's famous drums sequence. I've seen Gene Krupa - and Elisha Cook Jr - in almost all their film appearances, and I can confirm the following: 1.Elisha Cook Jr was DUBBED in the movie. That was some progress, since in most of his other appearances he was KILLED (mainly in Howard Hawks's THE BIG SLEEP). 2. Krupa probably dubbed Cook in PL. I could recognize his style, since he had already graduated from the tom-tom used (and abused) at the beginning of his career - namely in 1937's Hollywood HOTEL's SING, SING, SING sequence - and eventually got everything that was possible from what we call in French 'la caisse claire'. 3. The sequence from PL, at least as shown in the Museum,is not censored.harry carasso, Paris, France


Dan Dailey gives a sincere and colorful performance as the great Dizzy Dean. His handling of the character is very true to life and captures the flavor of Dean's background and limited education. The film of course centers around Dizzy Deans rise to fame and his sudden trip to the sidelines with an injury he chose to ignore, much to his regret. His wife is splendidly portrayed by Joanna Dru who gives a very down to earth quality to the woman who loved and supported the ballplayer who rose to a 'dizzying height' so quickly. The portrayal of Dizzy's later career as a sportscaster is honest and unflinching, reflecting his troubles which stemmed from his poor education and his colorful language both on and off the air. Dizzy was quite a character and Daily has breathed life into his story with admirable skill. If you enjoyed this film, I recommend the comedy 'Kid from Left Field' (1953) wherein Daily plays a down and out has-been ballplayer idolized by his young son (Billy Chapin). Daily again fleshes out a ballplayer in a completely satisfying manner. I heartily recommend Pride of St. Louis to baseball fans everywhere.


i'm watching this horrid film as we speak. it is possibly one of the worst movies ever aired in my house. i'm sitting here with 3 friends and they agree. its not scary. its not funny. its not dramatic. it contains nothing appealing whatsoever. we are 49 minutes in the movie. we've only seen 2 critters. only one person has died. this movie is one big letdown. nothing about this horrible, horrible movie has made me want to watch the rest. i'm getting a movie hang over. i hope that everyone who had anything to do with making this movie dies. i don't just mean the actors. i mean the director, producers, the presidents from the studio that financed this movie. it is in full, the worst movie ever. it should make the IMDb worst 100 movies of all time. at number 1.


Reese Witherspoon plays Dani, a young country girl that falls madly in love with the new 17 year old neighbor, Court, played by Jason London. Court tries his best to make Dani realize that the difference in their ages would make a love relationship improbable. Soon the nubile charm of Dani starts winning over Court's will. Next enters the meeting of Dani's older sister, played by Emily Warfield, and the beginning of a short lived love/jealousy problem.

Tess Harper and Sam Waterston round out the cast. This is a fresh, free spirited; but heartbreaking drama that touches down deep. Feel free to cry.


It started off weird, the middle was weird, and the ending was weird, but I really, really liked it. A modern day version of Homer's Odyessy but that is really irrelevant. Interesting story and casting. Clooney was great and I applaud him for taking on such an adverterous role - so unlike anything he has done or ever will do again. Lots of surprise stars - why isn't Holly Hunter in more. Do something different tonight and watch this really different and unexpected flick.


This was a wonderfully clever and entertaining movie that I shall never tire of watching many, many times. The casting was magnificent in matching up the young with the older characters. There are those of us out here who really do appreciate good actors and an intelligent story format. As for Judi Dench, she is beautiful and a gift to any kind of production in which she stars. I always make a point to see Judi Dench in all her performances. She is a superb actress and a pleasure to watch as each transformation of her character comes to life. I can only be grateful when I see such an outstanding picture for most of the motion pictures made more recently lack good characters, good scripts and good acting. The movie public needs heroes, not deviant manikins, who lack ingenuity and talent. How wonderful to see old favorites like Leslie Caron, Olympia Dukakis and Cleo Laine. I would like to see this movie win the awards it deserves. Thank you again for a tremendous night of entertainment. I congratulate the writer, director, producer, and all those who did such a fine job.


In the year 2006, 'In Cold Blood'-a riveting thriller from 1967-has two new interesting contexts that it did not previous have. First, and most chillingly, is the fact that it's star, Robert Blake, was recently on trial for murdering his wife. Second, the recent Oscar winning biopic, 'Capote' showed the muddled back story of this haunting true crime tale's author, Truman Capote. These two new twists make the film timely for a modern audience.

As a stand alone film from it's era, 'In Cold Blood' is top notch in every way. Most notable is the stunning black and white cinematography from Conrad Hall (later of 'American Beauty' and 'Road to Perdition' fame). Many of the stills from this film of the Kansas farm house at night or the tree-lined back country roads could be sold as fine art photography. Combined with the cracker-jack direction from Brooks and superb editing in the early scenes (where we see the mundane daily life of the innocent family about to be senselessly slaughtered beautifully intertwined with the plotting of the two hapless killers), a rich brooding atmosphere is created that sets the stage for riveting suspense (even when everyone knows how this is all going to end due to the fact its all based on real life events). It's also great to see in this day and age how brilliantly staged a harrowing murder scene can be depicted where the graphic nature of the act is transmitted to the viewer subliminally with nary a drop of blood shown on screen.

The film is also anchored nicely by Robert Blake's eerie performance as the more sympathetic yet senselessly brutal side of the killing duo. The flashback scenes to his horrible childhood are extremely well done. Then there is the scene towards the end of the film where he is speaking to the reverend before being sent to the gallows and he makes his last 'confession' so to speak. It's one of those classic movie moments that is a perfect marriage of gritty acting, superb writing, flawless direction, and haunting photography. I dare you to erase from your mind the stark image of the rain's reflection from the window flowing down Robert Blake's pallid face in lieu of actual tears.

The only thing hampering 'In Cold Blood' is the slow moving middle act where the killers are on the lam and the forced nature of the social commentary at the end. The tacked-on political message about the death penalty is secondary to its compelling depiction of the mad killers and their prey.


I read all of Nancy Drew as a preteen and collect the books as a grown-up. I loved the effect used at the end (and a little bit at the beginning) of the movie where line drawings in the style of the books morphed into scenes from the movie. It was a neat way of pointing out connections between situations in the movie and the books. For example, the scenes with the Oriental antiques dealer were very reminiscent of many scenarios I remember from the books. I thought Ned was perfectly cast, and Emma Roberts was a wonderful 21st century interpretation of Nancy Drew. (Just like the picture of Betty Crocker, she keeps up with the times!)


I really like the show!! As a part of Greek Life, I can say that some things are over-exaggerated, but overall it's still pretty damn funny.

Rusty is a likable lead character, his roommate is HILARIOUS and the entire cast is entertaining in their own rights. I like that it focuses on individual situations as well as interpersonal relations with the organizations.

This show covers it all, and they do it without cursing or anything else that bad (how else could it be on ABC Family?).

My favorites are Cappie (of course), Rusty's roommate and pretty much all of Kappa Tau. This show is a great launch pad for them and I'm excited to see what doors this opens.

Please renew this show next summer, ABC Family. Like I said, love love LOVE it!!


Another Downey must-see! If you are an obsessed fan like me, you have got to see this movie! He plays Alex Finch, a 22 year old Yale grad who realizes that the life he just came into is the life he left 26 years earlier. Alex is the re-incarnation of Louie Jeffries, a no-nonsense lawyer happily married to Corrine (Cybil Sheppard). Louie is killed on their one-year anniversary when he is hit by a car. He demands to go back, only this time in the body of Alex Finch. Enter Robert Downey Jr., a lot of confusion, and a lot of laughs.

Although this movie is 15-years old, it still makes you wonder if there really is such a thing as re-incarnation. And if so, how often to you meet the same souls life after life. I don't know the answer. But I do know that you need to see this movie. It is a riot, and Downey looks SO GOOD in a tuxedo. This film makes you believe in love, and true love never dies. It just gets recycled.


I just watched this movie and have to say, I was very impressed. It's very creepy and has numerous moments that will make you jump out of seat! I had to smoke several 'emergency' cigarettes along the way to calm my nerves! If I had to criticise, I'd say that perhaps if anything, there were too many jump moments. It got to the point where every single new scene climaxed with a jump and this gradually wore away the startling effect, because you kind of new what was coming.

Although it contains virtually every cliché in the ghost genre, they were all done so well that it maintained the creepy, fear-factor. It had elements of The Shining, The 6th Sense and The Changeling (in particular, the soundtrack reminded me of The Changeling).

I would highly recommend this to anyone looking for a good old-fashioned scare!


i can't believe i actually watched this but i guess i just wanted to know if this movie would get unintentionally funnier and funnier towards the end. and it did. the climax was the poorest performance ever given by the defence lawyer - so out of real life that even for a fictional story it was far too weird. no way anyone on this planet can behave in front of a court like she did. and probably the worst prosecutor on earth. why was he in court anyway? he did nothing and absolutely nothing to prove her guilty. a simple search of her house would have resulted in the find of the rings. but no go. he preferred to say 'objection' 2 or 3 times during the whole trial - that was it. the blonde lunatic was given a truth-drug to prove her innocent but not Brett. the lunatic almost had an altar of Brett in her home that could have proved her sick obsession. but again no go. during the court scene i felt the silent urge to take the needlepoint out of her hand and bang it several times against her head. even real weirdos do not look that silly fake 'i am innocent' like she did. and what does this movie tell us? never marry a woman with a life insurance: as soon as she falls down the stairs her husband will be thrown into jail, guilty or not. evil, evil men.


This is one of the best movies I've seen. The acting is good, the plot is solid, and the whole movie is very believable, which adds a lot to the movie. I rate this at least a 9.


Having seen the Peter O'Toole version recently, I was ready to be awed by the smart writing in this version. Little time is spent on the fighting, which I prefer. Instead, we are shown all the many motives underlying both the French and English (who held Normandy) politicos and priests who put her to death. Even the worst hypocrite of them all, the archbishop, leaves us with the thought that 'Of course, she was innocent. The innocent have always had to suffer for the ambitions of the mighty. She had no idea what she was saying, no idea of the implications of blasphemy or going against the church. Unschooled, she had no idea of what the church's stand on such matters even was.'

Preminger was true to the myths surrounding her death, and I appreciated the preview on the tape that showed the flames reaching up and burning her. Why? They used gas jets in the movie, and 2 of them were stopped up. Suddenly, the air pressure blew out the stoppage and the flames leaped up right on her. Thankfully for her, they didn't have to repeat the shot as it was SO realistic: she WAS being burned!! Pretty traumatic introduction for an Iowa girl to her new career of acting.

John Gielgud performed outstandingly. He is the English politico who is orchestrating the show. He also makes the point that once you condemn someone to death, you don't want to be around to watch them die. You might shrink from your 'duty' the next time...not that such delicacies bother the soul of our would-be president. We Christians, even the most anti-Semitic have no problem with falling back on the Old Testament when it comes to capital punishment, even though it was overridden by Jesus' words. Bring on public executions like this little girl's. Smelling burnt flesh might bring us respectable folks to our souls' senses.

The only little 'pick' I have about this film is that we are not shown why the priest who has been so adamantly urging her burning becomes so suddenly so contrite, even to the point of madness. There should have been more expansion of his character, more dialogue--as the sudden 'coming to his senses' doesn't make sense.

And, whether Graham Greene does this deliberately or not, St. Joan is such a self-assured little upstart, you almost but not quite, are glad she meets her come-uppance. And, when she turned down life in prison, for some reason I thought of Anne Sexton, the poet who accused Sylvia Plath of 'stealing her death' when she committed suicide ...knowing such an action guarantees immortality. You gotta wonder!!

If ever there was a good example of obsessive thought and logic-tight compartments, this is one. St. Joan should have turned Buddhist and quieted the 'voices in her mind'.


(Only minor spoilers except as noted).

I've enjoyed a lot of Spanish cinema recently; both the actual Spanish cinema of people like Almodovar, and the Latin American cinema of directors like del Toro, whose superb 'Devil's Backbone', set in Civil War Spain, was the finest horror film of the last decade. It's no surprise, then, that this film is both well-made, well-acted, and manages to sustain that distinctively different Spanish atmosphere. But it's also as nasty and pointless a film as one could hope not to have to see.

What actually is the purpose of all this? We have no real idea what caused the creepy central character to embark on his killing spree, despite the fact that large amounts of narrative voice-over are drawn directly from his own narcissistic journal. In a routinely unpleasant opening sequence, set more than a decade earlier, we see the central character killing his girlfriend in a rage of jealousy and control-freakery ('if I can't have you nobody can.'). Oddly enough, that is perhaps one of the best sequences in the film, but it has no discernible relation to his subsequent killing spree, which appears completely different in both motivation and execution. What happened to him in jail to cause this change? We have no idea, though we do later discover, as an absurd sort of afterthought, that he obtained a law degree while imprisoned.

In Britain, in several of our notorious 'serial killer' or 'sex killer' cases, the terrible question arises; what about the wife? Did she know, or suspect what was going on? This is a question that this film could have asked, and indeed the wife does begin to emerge as one of the more intriguing characters. But banally, the answer to the question is quite clearly: 'No, she didn't'. Even when a dramatic opportunity like this is presented on a plate, the film still manages to bungle it. All we actually get, sketched perfunctorily out at the end, is her slightly amoral preparedness to cash in on the proceeds after the event. Compare this to the awful revelatory moment in Ten Rillington Place, where Christie's wife says 'you know what I mean.' thereby sealing her own fate and allowing us an appalled glimpse into unimaginable chasms of suppressed knowledge and horror.

(Major spoiler in this paragraph). In the meantime, we are supposed to believe that the killer himself is a criminal mastermind who comprehensively outwits the police, thereby securing the briefest of incarcerations in a mental hospital before being released so that he can kill again. How exactly did he achieve this? The plot gets extremely sketchy at this point; something to do with deliberately leaving certain clues for the police; but how this all works or why, or how the subsequent court case actually proceeds, remains a mystery.

I actually don't believe serial killers are like this. The Silence of the Lambs may be comic book stuff, but  Lecter aside  it gets its serial killers right. They are deeply disturbed, deeply dysfunctional, deeply inadequate people; not the creepily charming mastermind presented here (closely related to the equally implausible suave killer of The Last Horror Movie, or indeed even Man Bites Dog, though it appears not to have been noticed that that was a satire).

This film has little suspense, and bungles what little intrigue the plot might have generated. It has nothing useful to say about the motivations of serial killers, either generally, or in the specific cultural milieu of Spain. This is nothing more than a poorly plotted excuse to show some pretty misogynistic violence to women. And oddly, what makes that violence even more repulsive is a certain prissy failure of nerve even in how it is presented. The soft core character of what is actually shown just makes it seem even more repellently titillatory. Just one explicit shot, properly timed, would have been infinitely more shocking, and would have rendered all the rest completely unnecessary, freeing up more film time to flesh out the gaping holes in plot and characterisation. Instead we just get endless shots of young women vulnerably spreadeagled on a table in their pretty but slightly revealing underwear. Very, very creepy. I'm sorry to be rude; I love horror films, and can tolerate even the most extreme, to the extent even of worrying my partner. But I think anyone who finds this film good, or interesting, even I'd find myself edging away from. The purpose of a horror film is to scare you; this is just lascivious.

It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth indeed. I have to give this film more than one star just because it's competently executed, but morally it deserves none at all and should never have been made.


The Comeback starts off looking promising, with a brutal death scene by a mask wearing killer. The mask itself is pretty cool too, and looks almost identical to the one used in the 1990's slasher film 'Granny'. From then on the film is mostly boring. We get a few more deaths, which again are good, but there's not enough of them. The reason the deaths are so good is because they are frenzied and bloody. The story behind the film is actually rather interesting and would have worked very well had it not been so boring for the most part.

I would avoid this unless you're a die-hard collector - there's not enough here to even make it an average slasher flick.


I will say that at least the movie makes sense, but it's bad. The acting for the most part is not good (I think only Sky showed any promise) and you feel awkward watching it. All of the scenes that should be meaningful are really shallow, like when Ng comes out to her parents. There are a lot of corny details, like the kanji tattoo on the Sky's shoulder, the magnets on the girls' refrigerator and the god awful decor at the sets...and the music...and clothes..and everything. Real life has never been like this movie. The boy says at one point 'I'm gay, not corny.' And not aware. Even the commentary is awful, I turned it off after Ng talks about how she was weirded out playing a lesbian.


This is one of the best movies out there and that's saying a lot being that it was for television. I really wish it was on d.v.d.

Helen Hunt gave such a raw performance. She played a rookie cop thrown into serial killer case perfectly. When she falls apart because he kills another kid it was amazing. She is so alone, so he gets to her. When she talks about her mother! WOW!

Steven Weber as the serial killer was so shocking! He really brought her into his dark world. It was Oscar-worthy. When he talks about killing the kids, scary! When he realizes who she really is! What a scene!!

They really don't make them like that anymore. It was a real thriller without being gory.


My friend recommended this movie to me.Is should have known not to watch it because my friend is kind of a video game nerd. But the name and the cover made it look good for some reason. I was so wrong. I mean first of all, what is up with their suits? And the acting! It seems like they got the people off Barney. Except for Ben Kingsley. And why was he even in this movie? Did he think it was a comedy! But I have to say the special effects were pretty good. But that was like the only good thing in it. I mean seriously, the movie is worse than Pearl Harbor. And thats actually an understatement. Everyone must have thought 'oh I am getting paid so it doesn't matter if its the worst movie in the world.' I would understand why someone would make this kind of movie if they were directing, acting, producing, writing, and getting their hopeless life best friend to do filming and editing. Probably one of the worst sci-fi movies ever. One truly jacked up film


I've seen this film at least 4 times since '84 and it's still great every time I see it. It's a very compelling version of the opera Carmen, with amazing Flamenco dancing, bare bones sets, and, of course, wonderful music.

This telling of Carmen is a story within a story, with each paralleling the other, until the doubly tragic ending. Obviously a low budget Spanish production, the film contains dancing by some of Spain's premier Flamenco dancers. The combination of the soaring opera music and the sound of the dancers boots on the wooden stage, makes the telling of the story even more powerful.

It's independent movie making at it's best and probably my all time favorite foreign film.


This film tries hard but fails. Perhaps to non-Australian audiences it may have appeal as a travelogue, but to the native it is merely tedious.

Anyone who lives here knows Broken Hill is a rough, tough isolated mining town. If a couple of citified fruits turn up in drag, well it's all so predictable. Where have I come across that well-worn theme before? Oh yes -- Town Mouse and Country Mouse. Spare us.

I kept hoping it would improve but after the Broken Hill scene I could see where this was heading and so turned off the TV and went to bed.


I've seen a few bad action movies in my days, but this one's just plain awful. I feel it's a waste of time to even write this but I'll make it short. Why this movie suck? here are 10 reasons: 1. Very amateurly directed and cut. 2. Bad bad bad acting of the whole cast. 3. Silly dialogs and too many clichés. 4. Too many plot holes, a lot of scenes don't add up. 5. Bad photographing (and a lot of continuity issues). 6. Ridiculously bad performance by the lead female actress. 7. Unreliable action scenes (and not too good, either). 8. Even for a Snipes movie, he shows a big lack of acting materials. 9. Outrageous accents (of all the cast). 10. Last, but not least - too many implausible facts, such as a tournament of soccer in the U.S., CIA needing to do background checks to get new information about their employees, a mattress that is explosion proof and so on. In essence - it's a waste of time, it's not funny, not entertaining, not even as a joke - DON'T WATCH IT!!! Seriously, just don't.


The documentary begins with setting the perspective to several light years. The voyager is traveling our milky-way with the sounds of our earthly lives, as a space monument for (possible?) extraterrestrials.

The documentary contains footage of Willy Dixen, Robert Johnson, Skip James and J.B. Lenoir. The footage of J.B. has never been published before. The narrative is from 'blind Willie' Dixon. However, it's done by an actor. The film shows the work of all these early blues men followed by covers and interpretations by musicians, such as Nick Cave and the bad Seeds among others.

The Death of J.B. Lenoir (John Mayall's song) is a striking event in the story. Lenoir got political engaged and is considered to be of the league of Martin Luther King and peers. His political interests can be found in the themes of his lyrics.

Blues is found to be 'THE' native music of America. Blues is the roots and the rest is the fruits.

The title 'Soul of a Man' is after a Willie Dixon song.


Blood Surf AKA Krocodylus is a fair film that has an okay cast which includes Dax Miller, Taryn Reif, Kate Fischer, Duncan Regehr, Joel West, Matt Borlenghi, Maureen Larrazabal, Cris Vertido, Susan Africa, Archie Adamos, Rolando Santo Domingo, and Malecio Amayao. The acting by the actors is fairly good. The thrills are fairly good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed fairly good as well. Same thing goes for the music The film is fairly interesting and the movie does keeps you going until the end. This is a fairly thrilling film. If you the the cast in the film, Monsters, Giant Animal films, Horror, Thrillers, Mystery, and interesting films then I recommend you to see this film today!


WOW, a masterpiece of a movie not to be missed.

I had no idea what this movie was when I started watching it late night. I didn't find out it was a Stone film until after the film when I went on IMDb. Watching it, I was mesmerized. The cast, especially Eric Bogosian is just superb. One of the best scripts and camera work ever...The movie drew me in and kept me entranced until the very end...I did not dare blink for fear of missing something...Amazing how a small-budget film can be so engrossing and well made while huge-budget films that feature tons of action and computer generated special effects can be so incredibly boring. Don't miss this film...


This film, won't win any awards for greatness. But if you have an hour and a half free and fancy a bit of light hearted entertainment then you could do much worse than watch this...

The cast are mostly young and pretty, the script has some genuinely funny moments and the soundtrack is pretty cool too. Rupert Penry-Jones as Jake seems to have the most fun, while Laura Fraser as Justine is sweet, likable and funny.

I rented it because I like the series 'Spooks' that RPJ is currently starring in. And here he's young and buff and the perfect eye candy for a girls night in.

Get some wine and some ice cream and have a chuckle.


For me this movie is essentially like a feature length pilot episode for a TV series. It reminds me particularly of the British remake of the TV series Wallander, starring Kenneth Brannagh. People interviewed by the police are hardy, and often as bitter as the weather, the lead investigator has huge family problems, investigations invariably lead to cruelties of the distant past, and the plotting is labyrinthine with strange occurrences and subplots making sense only at the end. Both have excellent cinematography.

The plotting of Jar City is extraordinarily reminiscent of a standard UK or US crime series. Effectively you could take the plots of any of the episodes of Touch of Frost and transplant them on top of the bleak locale in this movie and have an effective sequel.

Really the script couldn't be more obviously from the cookie cutter. You get even the most familiar of motifs, such as the police going to the local prison to interview a manipulative and dangerous psychopath, who inevitably explodes at the end of the interview.

I'm absolutely convinced that this is scones and jam for many folk, but I feel it needs pointing out to people like myself who do not go to the cinema to watch television. What I felt a keen lack of was message. The movie takes as its theme the genetic studies in Iceland. Icelanders in genetic terms have remained largely isolated from the outside world, presenting a great opportunity for scientists to study their genetics. Lots of information concerning the heredity of the population has been kept, and many genetic diseases unique to Iceland can be traced effectively in a population that has refrained from interbreeding, and is remarkably genetically homogeneous (it's like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle of the London underground map, instead of a jigsaw puzzle of a field of daisies). A company called deCODE genetics attempted to set up a database carrying all the genetic and hereditary information for the entire population of Iceland. Due to privacy concerns this project was terminated, and at the end of last year deCODE genetics went bankrupt in Iceland. The episode is a rich topic for debate.

But in this movie genetics and medical science are not there for education's sake, they're there for weird atmosphere.

It's a grisly movie if you are interested in that, and there's often a morbid focus on food to accompany events, like a coroner who eats lunch in between incisions. The most queasy for me was when the lead inspector devours a sheep's head. Unfortunately for me this occasionally became farcical. The movie attempts the rather delicate task of mixing the grisly with the sentimental, and ended up providing unintentional humour towards the end. This is the equivalent, in cinematic terms, of attempting to prepare fugu, if you're not well-qualified, deft of hand and sharp of eye, you poison the client. This rather novice director should have lowered the tariff on his performance.

I walked out of this movie feeling rather bad about myself and about life in general.


It starts a little slow but give it a chance. In the spirit of the 'Wackiest Ship in the Arm' and the 'Pink Sub' this movie is about a not so orthodox group engaged in not so orthodox methods to outwit everyone. Rob Schneider is priceless as a LT that takes himself way too seriously which results in a failed mutiny attempt and 'pirate' crew makes him walk the plank. In contrast Kelsey Grammar(similar to Cary Grant)does not take anything to serious except the job. This movie is more about lines than plot. From the 'beered up' fisherman in Charleston harbor to the 'whale' decoy, their antics took me by surprise and I laughed out loud.


Michelle Pfeiffer and Matthew Modine are a joy to watch in this screwball comedy. Alec Baldwin, who was an up and coming star when the film was made, is a hoot. Dean Stockwell, in a sendup of John Gotti, is hysterical. But Mercedes Ruehl, as the paranoid and over the top Connie steals the movie.

Jonathan Demme, previously known for wacky comedies like 'Something Wild' and 'Melvin and Howard'-proves once again that he is a genius. I was not surprised at all when he went on to win the Oscar for directing 'Silence of The Lambs.' The performances he evokes from his actors in 'Married' are inspired, and the audience is taken along for a wild and wooly ride.

One of the cutest, most endearing films of the 80's, it stands head and shoulders above many of the satires of its era.


Some gorehound-friends recommended 'Live Feed' to me, and basically I can't really complain as the film certainly does deliver copious amounts of gross smut and buckets full of sleaze, but it is of course not a very good film. More than obviously cashing in on the latest trend in horror cinema, the so-called Torture Porn, Ryan Nicholson tries to surpass every other film in this sub genre (and that includes the role models 'Hostel' and 'Saw') with its sick & twisted make-up effects and thoroughly depraved shots of naked co-eds tried up, suffering and begging for their lives. There's no actual plot to describe. Five utterly brainless twenty-something friends take a trip to Asia. One of them has Asian roots, but other than that I don't really know why they opted to travel there instead of to Cancun. They're clearly not interested in the continents culture and even cause a hectic scene when they witness a local butchering a cute puppy dog on the market. The quintet subsequently dives into the lurid night life and one of them accidentally insults the leader of a criminal clan. A simply apology clearly doesn't suffice, as the gangster follow them into an adult theater and gradually subject all of them to vicious torture. One girl has her breast impaled and another poor wench even has a poisonous snake shoved down her throat; yikes. 'Live Feed' is surprisingly boring despite of all the bloodshed and the amateurish production values are quite difficult to overlook, even if you're used to watching independent fan-boy trash cinema like this. The fat bloke depicted on the cover, an oriental S&M executioner, is admittedly quite cool and he's also the most talented of the whole bunch, because he at least keeps his mouth shut the entire time. I wouldn't exactly recommend this pile of filth, but hey, if you like loud & hideous metal music, nauseating torture footage and dim-witted losers, go right ahead and watch!


I am ashamed of myself that I actually went to the theatre to watch this movie when it was first released. While I suppose its thinly veiled depiction of the Aristotle Onassis and Jackie Kennedy story is well enough done, it's a movie that should never have been made in the first place; hence, my low rating.

The film chronicles the tale of a wealthy Greek business shark called Theo Tomasis, who woos and wins the lovely young widow, Liz Cassidy, of a slain American President. Sound familiar? Yes, everything except the names.

The cast is not to be faulted. Anthony Quinn plays the Greek tycoon to perfection, and at least it's some consolation, having just read that Ari himself requested Quinn for the role. Jacqueline Bisset is of course beautiful and sophisticated in the part of (for all intents and purposes) Jackie, and James Franciscus has the all American good looks of the President.

I haven't seen this movie since it came out, nor do I wish to see it again. I seem to recall a fair bit of bad language and some general crudeness. Otherwise, I suppose it's a sensational and supposedly intimate glimpse into the jet setting lives of the rich and famous, frolicking aboard their yachts, beaches, pools etc. Yes, the scenery of the Greek islands is spectacular, the best part of the movie.

Of its type, it's okay, I suppose. There are no end of TV movies about the Kennedys, which I confess to occasionally tuning in to, and not to my credit. This is basically just another. Far better to allow Aristotle and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis to rest in peace.


As much as I dislike saying 'me too' in response to other comments - it's completely true that the first 30 minutes of this film have nothing whatsoever to do with the endless dirge that comprises the following 90.

Having been banned somewhere doesn't make a film watchable. Just because it doesn't resemble a Hollywood product does not make it credible.

Worse yet, in addition to no discernible plot (other than there are lots of muddy places in Russia and many people, even very old women, drink lots of vodka) a number of visuals are so unnecessarily nauseating I'm in to my second package of Rolaids.

As for spoilers - well, the film is so devoid of any narrative thread I couldn't write one if I tried.

Don't waste your time or money, and don't confuse this with good Russian cinema.


There is nothing original,humane or insightful in this film. The acting is average, images are amateurish, the writing lacks subtlety and the scenes are very basic...something close to a soap.

In 2:37,a suicide is used to turn the film into a suspense drama. We watch, partly, because we want to know who dies. The various characters each have a problem, and the film shows how bad each problem is for them, but only as a way to get them each to a place where you think they might kill themselves. Despite the different points of view offered by the camera on the key events, there is NEVER another way of seeing the events themselves. So in 2:37, the arseholes are arseholes, the angels are angels. This is simple stuff.

Without this complexity, the film emerges as a voyeuristic tale of youth sex and violence. You hardly get to know the kids as much as the breasts, bodies and limps that the filmmaker passes off as characterisation.

In the end, if you know ANYTHING about film in the last 5 years, 2:37 is just an immature rip off of Elephant - not a meditation, not a progression. Yet while the filmmaker and distributor use the alleged suicide of a friend at every chance to give the film some legitimacy, they never talk about Gus Van Sant or Elephant. The positive posts on IMDb curiously avoid any mention of this, or simply don't value originality. If you do want something with heart and voice - avoid this piece of youth exploitation. I was surprised by the filmmakers age when I found out after seeing this film - I had assumed a 13 year old had made it. The Twenty Somethings I've always known are too busy trying to express something real in them to lift the work of an old man.


When DEATHTRAP was first released, the poster--reproduced on the cover of this DVD--offered a graphic akin to a Rubik's Cube. It is an appropriate image: originally written for the stage by Ira Levin, who authored such memorable works as ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE STEPFORD WIVES, the play was one of Broadway's most famous twisters, and under Sidney Lumet's direction it translates to the screen extremely well.

DEATHTRAP is one of those films that it is very difficult to discuss, for to do so in any detail gives away the very plot for which it is famous. But the opening premise is extremely clever: Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) is the famous author of mystery plays, but these days he seems to have lost his touch. After a particularly brutal opening night, an old student named Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve) sends him a script for a play he has written. It is called 'Deathtrap,' and Sidney recognizes it as a surefire hit. Just the sort of hit that would revive his career... indeed, a hit to die for. And when Clifford visits to discuss the play, events suddenly begin to twist in the most unexpected manner possible.

Like Anthony Shaffer's equally twisty SLEUTH, DEATHTRAP is really a story more at home on the stage than the screen--to reach full power it needs the immediacy that a live performance offers. Still, under the expert guidance of director Sidney Lumet, it makes a more-than-respectable showing on the screen. Much of this is due to the cast, which is remarkably fine. Michael Caine gives a truly brilliant performance, Dyan Cannon is funny and endearing as Sidney's relentlessly anxious wife, and Christopher Reeve gives what might be the single finest performance in his regrettably short acting career. If you can't see it in a first-rate theatrical production, this will more than do until one comes along.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


If Saura hadn't done anything like this before, Iberia would be a milestone. Now it still deserves inclusion to honor a great director and a great cinematic conservator of Spanish culture, but he has done a lot like this before, and though we can applaud the riches he has given us, we have to pick and choose favorites and high points among similar films which include Blood Wedding (1981), Carmen (1983), El Amore Brujo (1986), Sevillanas (1992), Salomé (2002) and Tango (1998). I would choose Saura's 1995 Flamenco as his most unique and potent cultural document, next to which Iberia pales.

Iberia is conceived as a series of interpretations of the music of Isaac Manuel Francisco Albéniz (1860-1909) and in particular his 'Iberia' suite for piano. Isaac Albéniz was a great contributor to the externalization of Spanish musical culture -- its re-formatting for a non-Spanish audience. He moved to France in his early thirties and was influenced by French composers. His 'Iberia' suite is an imaginative synthesis of Spanish folk music with the styles of Liszt, Dukas and d'Indy. He traveled around performing his compositions, which are a kind of beautiful standardization of Spanish rhythms and melodies, not as homogenized as Ravel's Bolero but moving in that direction. Naturally, the Spanish have repossessed Albéniz, and in Iberia, the performers reinterpret his compositions in terms of various more ethnic and regional dances and styles. But the source is a tamed and diluted form of Spanish musical and dance culture compared to the echt Spanishness of pure flamenco. Flamenco, coming out of the region of Andalusia, is a deeply felt amalgam of gitane, Hispano-Arabic, and Jewish cultures. Iberia simply is the peninsula comprising Spain, Portugal, Andorra and Gibraltar; the very concept is more diluted.

Saura's Flamenco is an unstoppably intense ethnic mix of music, singing, dancing and that peacock manner of noble preening that is the essence of Spanish style, the way a man and a woman carries himself or herself with pride verging on arrogance and elegance and panache -- even bullfights and the moves of the torero are full of it -- in a series of electric sequences without introduction or conclusion; they just are. Saura always emphasized the staginess of his collaborations with choreographer Antonio Gades and other artists. In his 1995 Flamenco he dropped any pretense of a story and simply has singers, musicians, and dancers move on and off a big sound stage with nice lighting and screens, flats, and mirrors arranged by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, another of the Spanish filmmaker's important collaborators. The beginnings and endings of sequences in Flamenco are often rough, but atmospheric, marked only by the rumble and rustle of shuffling feet and a mixture of voices. Sometimes the film keeps feeding when a performance is over and you see the dancer bend over, sigh, or laugh; or somebody just unexpectedly says something. In Flamenco more than any of Saura's other musical films it's the rapt, intense interaction of singers and dancers and rhythmically clapping participant observers shouting impulsive olé's that is the 'story' and creates the magic. Because Saura has truly made magic, and perhaps best so when he dropped any sort of conventional story.

Iberia is in a similar style to some of Saura's purest musical films: no narration, no dialogue, only brief titles to indicate the type of song or the region, beginning with a pianist playing Albeniz's music and gradually moving to a series of dance sequences and a little singing. In flamenco music, the fundamental element is the unaccompanied voice, and that voice is the most unmistakable and unique contribution to world music. It relates to other songs in other ethnicities, but nothing quite equals its raw raucous unique ugly-beautiful cry that defies you to do anything but listen to it with the closest attention. Then comes the clapping and the foot stomping, and then the dancing, combined with the other elements. There is only one flamenco song in Iberia. If you love Saura's Flamenco, you'll want to see Iberia, but you'll be a bit disappointed. The style is there; some of the great voices and dancing and music are there. But Iberia's source and conception doom it to a lesser degree of power and make it a less rich and intense cultural experience.


SCARECROWS seems to be a botched horror meets supernatural film. A group of thugs pull off a paramilitary-like robbery of the payroll at Camp Pendleton in California. They high-jack a cargo plane kidnapping the pilot and his daughter with demands to be flown to Mexico. Along the way one greedy robber decides to bailout with the money landing in a cornfield monitored by strange looking scarecrows. These aren't just any run-of-the-mill scarecrows...they can kill. The acting is no better than the horrible dialog. And the attempts at humor are not funny. Very low budget and shot entirely in the dark.

The cast includes: Ted Vernon, Michael David Simms, Kristina Sanborn, B.J. Turner, Phil Zenderland and Victoria Christian.


This is one for the Golden Turkey book. It's another of those 'putting on a show' flicks. The dialogue is turgid. The music is terrible. The costumes may be the worst ever. And the Nick Castle choreography is hilariously dreadful. Check it out, oh ye who love bad flicks. Only Perry Como is tolerable.


Jeff Leroy wanted to makes fun of Scientology so built a horror movie around a cult similar to it. The twist is that instead of frail old L. Ron Hubbard as the cult leader, there's a centuries old space monster who turns his followers into vampires. Our hero is a dirty living college student who is doing research into the occult. His landlord is an attractive blonde who tries to get him to clean up his life with the help of the cult. It doesn't take him long to figure out that she's only after one thing: his blood. 'The Screaming' was shot very cheaply on video and I just plain ugly. The space monster (which looks like a giant winged cat that looks perpetually mad and has no skin) is alternately a clay-mation miniature and a large scale animatronics puppet, both of which look awful. The acting and writing are both terrible and the director doesn't even try to disguise the fact that this movie was made for nothing. Avoid this non-scary, pitiful little excuse.


Although I am a fan of Heather Thomas and I have a few of her old bikini posters around here somewhere, I can honestly say that if the only movie I had ever seen her in was 'Cyclone', I would never be able to guess why she had made it as far as she had in show business.

Directed by Fred Olen Ray (about as good an omen as seeing buzzards circle over head in the desert), this tale of a woman (Thomas) who must protect a high-tech motorcycle from unscrupulous types is about as 'B' movie as it gets (or in Fred Olen's case, 'B minus').

The cast itself should tell you something. It's not every movie that combines Thomas with actors the calibre of Beswick, Hall, Combs, Donahue, Tamblyn and Landau (!!). If you're lucky, very few movies do. And even though they seem to be having fun, shouldn't some of that fun be passed on to the audience? I vote yes, seems they voted no.

Of course, if you ever wanted to see Heather deliver an uppercut to another woman, use the 'F' word and get hooked up to battery cables, you've probably been looking for this one. Myself, I'll be content with old 'Fall Guy' reruns.

One star, given in hopes that when another 'Cyclone' hits town, Heather runs for shelter. I know I will.


At last!! Sandra Bullock is indeed a beautiful woman, but I've finally found a film that she gets to be an actress! Forget the predictable Keanu-fodder of SPEED, forget the predictable Kleenex-fodder of WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING - this tests her!

And she is great! A techno-feminist role that really works well on screen, on a subject that is very close to the bone. The issues raised don't seem far-fetched at all and the whole experience, helped along by a fine supporting cast, makes for quite an un-nerving couple of hours.

You may never enter another chat-room again, in fact I'm getting quite nervous just writing this review...er...bye!


After looking for this Bruceploitation for months, and then accidentally buying it cheap, it was disappointing. I heard about it on a DVD-R site, and it sounded crazy.

But no, what I got was a pretty bad martial arts movie. The kung fu-ing wasn't too bad, but the rest of the movie was pretty awful, and made the movie seem really, really long, much longer then it's 85 minute runtime.

On a positive note, the ape was funny for a couple of seconds (especially when I think they took the only close up of it's face from another movie), and the black guy who pops up half way through was funny because of the one line he said, which singlehandedly made all black people look like complete simpletons.

But it wasn't enough, sadly.

4/10


I only saw it once. This happened in 1952, I was seven, the movie 13.

We were so young... But I kept in mind, forever, the strong moments of Gunga's sacrifice.

I realized that time how much a people can be hardly submitted and used by a foreign nation. Under these historical circumstances, in the movie, the personal relation of friendship, a kind of friendship that ignores itself, the one raised between people who share daily life, who see each other faces, who knows each other names, but belong to different worlds, can only make appears. Then, in the most critical moments a troubling question emerges: 'Whom are we, in first, supposed to be loyal?', which People, family, motherland, the person you know close to you?. You do not have time to give a perfect answer, urgency is there, and it is for life or death. Gunga-Din gives his answer with sacrifice of himself. Somewhere, in a confuse manner, a problem remains unsolved, the emotion grows with the rhythm of the movie until somebody dies, just one life, nothing compared to so many other fictions or realities we can see today, because this death, this unique vanishing life I lived it, I shared with my child unconditional friendship. It was lived by the spectator I was. That day I loose Gunga-Din for ever. As I left behind, later, my pretty childhood, as I left from then so many worlds I lived in. I left all that for good and these lines are today a short visit I didn't expect to do this morning when getting up.


Someone on these Boards has predicated that the whole thing is being dreamed by the best friend of the protagonist, albeit a friend he hasn't seen for some 20 years. I'm reluctant to dismiss this out of hand but it does raise some viable questions. Why WOULD a telephone engineer - or a shoe salesman or butcher for that matter - WANT to create a mythical world and weave it around a friend populating it in the process with a set of equally mythical supporting characters. With an imagination that good the friend should be WRITING not Dreaming. Dream or not SOMEONE, and the obvious candidate is director Paolo Sorrentino, has created a very watchable world in which Tony Servillo makes stillness a Fine Art. We are asked to believe that forty-something Titta La Girolomo (Servillo) 'upset' the Mafia some years prior to our meeting him and as penance he is a virtual prisoner in a small Swiss hotel from which each week he drives to a local bank with a suitcase containing nine mill large in used notes. Other than this weekly trip he is free to do as he likes and what he likes to do is smoke, play cards with a man who cheats and a wife who reminds the husband how far they have fallen socially, and ignore the friendly overtures of Olivia Magnani, who has spent two years trying to get a smile and/or a 'good evening' out of him. For reasons best known to himself and which are inconsistent with a man who has no interest in anything or anyone, Servillo spends a certain amount of time every day applying a stethoscope to the wall of his bedroom and listening to the private conversations of his card-playing partners. Eventually he does respond to Magnani - he has to do so or they would be no film. This is plot 6f: the one about Destry, who never wears a gun, or Sean (Duke Wayne), the 'Quiet Man' who refuses to rise to provocation and fight until the obligatory scene where the gun is strapped on and the fists cocked - but instead of contenting himself with a polite come stai oggi he removes 100,000 from the suitcase and buys her a car. The final inconsistency occurs when Magnani tells him she will pick him up the following day at 4 pm in her car and they will drive into the mountains to celebrate his birthday. We've established that she lives locally so why she is then seen driving from somewhere miles away, ignoring a police roadblock to drive off the road and overturn the car is anyone's guess. This inconsistencies apart this remains a fine piece of film-making with an excellent lead performance and a very good supporting one.


I really enjoyed this documentary about Kenny and Spencer's attempt to pitch 'The Dawn'. Was a great look at how outsiders try to get to the inside to make it big.

The story was put together well and organized in an interesting manner that made the film flow well. Certainly worth a watch. My only complaint is that their appeared to be no closure. Perhaps that is part of the point. We expect it but in reality that is not what happened (or usually happens).

The film is also a great way to see the personality of Kenny and Spencer outside of their Canadian television show. You can see a bit of what is yet to come.

I look forward to a chance to see The Papal Chase.


I recently saw this movie in my International Business class. I was not expecting anything other then another boring documentary (not to say I don't love documentary I've just hard bad luck with movies in that class) Imagine my surprise when this movie, that's actually a movie, came up.

This film is a tell all of cultural differences in the work place and how they need to cooperate to get anywhere. The culture clash shows just how different the world is and just how differently we perceive ourselves until someone comes along and gives us a wake up call. I would highly recommend this film to anyone in business or who just wants a laugh, because yes it is funny.

Well, that's about it! Cheers


We usually think of the British as the experts at rendering great adventure from the Imperial age, with the likes of The Four Feathers (1939) and Zulu, simply because the Imperial age was, for the most part, British. Here, in The Wind and the Lion, we see a wonderful rendering of America's own Imperial age.

America's projection of power under Teddy Roosevelt is the backdrop for this conventional tale of the kidnapped damsel who, despite her gentility, is smitten by the rough, manly nobility of her captor, who in turn is disarmed by her beauty and scorn. (Politically correct prigs eager to see some slight of 'native' peoples or cultures can rest assured, that the way Arabs and Muslims are depicted here is far more flattering than the way their modern counterparts depict themselves on the current world stage.) What makes this story different are the terrific production values - faultless photography, composition and editing - the terrific casting - the underappreciated Brian Keith playing a bully Teddy - and vivid history.

Though The Wind and the Lion is told largely through the eyes of the son, every member of the family can identify with one of the characters, whether it be Sean Connery's noble brigand, Candace Bergen's feisty heroine, John Huston's wily John Hay or Steve Kanaly's spiffy, radiant, ruthless can-do lieutenant, Roosevelt's 'Big Stick'. There is a transcendent scene at the end, when the little boy is symbolically swept away by the dashing Moor on his white steed. This is high adventure at its best.


This movie has problems in its presentation, may even be offensive to people who are looking for temporal and cultural faithfulness, but it challenges the watcher to reflect on a variety of issues. One of these is the nature and character of the relationship between Jesus and Judas. Another is that of the historical nature of the Bible and faith. And third, is the humanity of Jesus. The tension of the Christ-betrayer relationship is developed and held through the movie. Judas' passion is presented as a darker parallel to that of Christ. When Judas takes his own life, the viewer can sense the angst. Peter's denial and guilt, however moving, are not as powerfully portrayed as the Judas drama. Chris Sarandon offers a novel and provocative Christ, whether believable or not. I would like to find this movie on DVD or even VHS, to use in study or discussion groups.


I was excited to discover this late sixties comedy staring some of my favorite people - Maggie Smith, a very young Bob Newhart and, of course, Peter Ustinov. My disappointment was thus compounded to discover the film doesn't work as either a comedy or a perfect heist film. Ustinov plays a small time crook just out of prison who sets his sites on a large American corporation based in London. Bluffing his way past dimwitted CEO Karl Malden and tech geek Newhart, Ustinov passes himself off as a computer expert and immediately plans the 'perfect heist' part of the film. To do this he needs to get passed a tamper proof security system that guards the corporation mainframe. And here is problem one. His perfect plan only works because everyone else in the film is remarkably trusting and stupid. His lame excuses are taken at face value and this must be the only computer center anywhere not to bother with video cameras. The second problem is the heist (fraud really) happens within the first 30 minutes of the film robbing the rest of the picture of much in way of dramatic tension. Maggie Smith is sadly miscast as Ustinov's ditsy next door neighbor/secretary who just can't keep a job. I love Maggie Smith but she just seems too together here, too composed, the part called for more of a wacky, physical comedian. Furthermore, Ustinov and Smith have no chemistry together, maybe it's the age difference, but the later romantic relationship, as devoid of actual romance as it is, still comes off a little creepy. Ustinov co-wrote the script, and it was thought well of at the time, but I found it unfunny, meandering and a sad waste of a great cast.


Perhaps the funniest 'backstage at Hollywood' movie ever, especially for a look at comedy short factories like Keystone.

Marion Davies should get a medal for bravery for taking a part where acting poorly in front of a camera is part of the role. Plenty of cameos for film buffs.


I am at a distinct disadvantage here. I have not seen the first two movies in this series, although I have seen a lot of Larry Cohen films. Fans of the series seem to think this is a good film. Judging it on it's own, it was pretty boring.

You never get a real good look at the maniac cop's (Robert Z'Dar) face, but what I did see was pretty grim. The death scenes seem to be staged to eat up the most film, not to give any thrills. Maybe if I saw the NC-17 Director's Cut, I may be more impressed.

The ending with the car chase with Z'Dar, Caitlin Dulany, and Robert Davi was pretty intense. best part of the movie.


I have seen this movie and anybody who has every been with the Marines or any branch of the service can appreciate the accuracy of this movie. It is a must have for any collection. Jack Webb does an excellent job as the hard drill instructor. My father went to Marine boot camp at Camp Penelton and says this movie is so accurate that he feels like he is back in basic training. There is a line in the movie where Jack Webbs character gets mad at a boot for killing a sand flea. Well let me tel you there are nothing but sand fleas at the camp. I have been there and can appreciate it. As a matter of fact the exit to the camp is Las Puljas which in English means city of the fleas. you must watch the movie to appreciate what I am saying. Anybody who is into WWII movies, all the battles start right here with the drill Sgt. A must have for you collection


As a helpful warning for others, I believe 'Skeleton Man' is actually worse than 'Raptor Island.' I have been using RI as an example of the worst original movie presented on the Sci-Fi channel, but SM is the most laughably incoherent and wretchedly designed movie I have yet seen. Yes, I did watch almost the whole thing, coming into it about 35 minutes into it. It drew me in with its pure ineptitude. What was Sci-Fi thinking? Once Skeleton Man and the surviving platoon leader (or whatever he was--I'm not good on military unit terminology) reached the chemical plant, the movie moved into a zone of impossible nonsense that was almost mesmerizing. I had the same idea as another viewer who wondered if more than one movie had someone been edited together to make one terrible whole.


Okay, this may not be the most sophisticated movie you'll ever see. Actually, there isn't a bit of 'sophisticatedlyness'* in it. It's puerile, adolescent, inoffensive, idiotic..And utterly hilarious. Basically, Richie and Eddie run the worst hotel in Britain. Cue some ridiculous antics with the guests while they beat each other up, try to get the rent money out of the only resident who is daft enough to stay, have an all night drinking binge with the boys from the power plant next door...And fall in lust with the beautiful actress who comes to stay to avoid the press. Give it a try if you're a fan of Rik and Ade and their work. If you're not...Don't get the movie. Simple as that.

*I'm not being thick, this is a word from another one of Rik's fab jaunts into the movie world ^_^


This movie was very good because it remember when I was young when I maked snow castle. It was so fun. This movie is interessant. This is a good quebeker movie with no much money and is also a magical movie because their wonderfull castle is very big and beautiful.


Best of the Zorro serials and one of my favorite serials, period. This is a period serial set right after the birth of Mexico. The new nation is counting on the gold produced by this one town to keep the republic solvent. However a gold god, Don del Oro is stirring up the Indians and stealing the gold for himself. Its Zorro and his band of men to the rescue. Reed Hadley is a winning Zorro and he cuts a dashing figure as he gets into a nice selection of scraps (most all of which were reused by the later Zorro serials as well as other serials as well).The story moves and its nicely not clear who the real bad guy is. There is a reason that I've seen this the most of any serial I've seen, its simply a great action adventure film. The only thing I can compare it to is the Mark of Zorro with Tyrone Power or one of the other swashbucklers of the period. Its super and highly recommended.


i think it is a nice movie; i think it is a very romanian movie through scenery and atmoshpere; i think it was not intended to be sensual (sensuality is a result, not a purpose); i think it is very natural; i think it is humane; i think it was interesting; i think the actors never made me think... waw lame acting (they are not Sean Connory & co) neither is the film a block buster, they are like the movie... normal ppl that can act...; i think the movie reached its intention; i think it made me feel things (or feel them again :) ); i think i'm not objective;

i really enjoyed it... that i know.


Forbidden Planet represents the kind of science fiction that is precious in cinema, especially from the 1950s. There was The Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds, but lest not forget this gem which took some of its story from Shakespeare's The Tempest to tell a tale of astronauts on a planet that has a doctor on it who has made a remarkable breakthrough. It's the kind of breakthrough that is not so much incredible to look at (though for 1956 it does look quite amazing to look at some of those sets and that gigantic machine the doctor creates), but with its emphasis on the characters and its themes of technology taken too far by the more primitive side of human nature even when we don't know we're channeling it.

On the surface- that is in the first ten minutes- it looks standard, if a little more professionally acted and directed with better skill than the B-movies of the period. A ship of astronauts are on a mission to the planet Altair-4 to bring back an expedition that went missing decades before. But the only one left is Dr. Morbis (Walter Pidgeon) and his daughter, who somehow were immune to an attack that left everyone else dead. Morbius appears to be a cordial and highly intelligent man, and his technology looks to be so impressive that the only thing the astronauts, led by the Skipper (Leslie Nielsen), can think to do is to report it back to their superiors on Earth.

But there's a catch - something is killing off members of the crew of the ship, one by one, every night, even when the others keep an eye out and then put up an invisible electric fence, which the invisible something goes through easily. Meanwhile, there's some romance possibly between the Skipper and Alraira, and there's a more pushy vibe from the doctor: you shouldn't have come to the planet to start, and now you need to go. What happens from this is even more fascinating, just on a purely intellectual level, but Forbidden Planet never forgets that its audience should also be entertained by this story while getting some useful ideas. While everyone may remember Robbie the Robot, and for good reason, perhaps the most unforgettable image for me is the monster realized on screen with the crew firing to no avail, animated with red electricity and looking so beastly that it looks out of Fantasia.

The acting from Pidgeon is subtle: you wouldn't expect him to be a villain, though something is there in the character and in the performance that speaks to this, and by the end it makes the character far more complex than one would expect. And the other performances are workmanlike but also excellent, from Nielsen as a born leader to Holliman providing some great comic relief as the Cook (who, I should add, helps with one of the funniest scenes in the film with those gallons of bourbon Robbie provides). And the effects for its time are extraordinary (sophisticated in a nostalgic pulp way for today too), and the music, done by electronics, is beautiful in its 'tones'. But ultimately it's the screenplay and careful direction from Hilcox that puts this a notch above the rest of the B-movie lot. When it's meant to be funny, it's intentionally so and it works. When it's dramatic it connects quite well even in its stiff moments with the actors. And when we are made to think about a horrible situation, it comes on gradually, with nuance, not shoved in our faces or injected with mega-action.

An inspiration for many other sci-fi films, and a fine marker of thoughtful science fiction stories and books from time-old, it's a classy and entertaining classic.


Crude, some times crass - to me that's the summation of Madhur Bhandarkar's latest work - Page 3. He has no point of view - just shallow, funny digs at stereotypes. What is the movie about?? Is it about reporting a clan of people (so called Page 3 types) who are so busy socializing and progressing their profiles in life - that they have no time for anything else. And you are either in it or out of it. Is it that there is no press at all to report everyday incidents. Madhur Bhandarkar forgets that there is a main newspaper and Page 3 is just a supplement; perhaps an entertainer for checking out who's who and what's what. Don't mix the two. And then there is power play - that would happen in every walk of life. So what have you told at the end of it all - nothing - just a few crude jokes strung together in an otherwise direction less movie.


Excellent movie, a realistic picture of contemporary Finland, touching and profound. One of the best Finnish films ever made. Captures marvelously the everyday life in a Central Finland small town, people's desires and weaknesses, joys and sorrows. The bright early fall sunshine creates a cool atmosphere to this lucid examination of people in a welfare society. Lampela is indeed one of the most promising Finnish filmmakers. He shows that it is possible to make gripping movies without machine guns and bloodshed. His next film Eila is also worth seeing although the story of cleaning women fighting for their jobs is not quite as universally appealing as the destinies in Joki.


To say I was disappointed is an understatement. An amateur film made by professionals. I was about to leave the theater in two or three occasions (something I've never done)I was stopped by Cloris Leachman really. She rings true, the only one I should say. This new women are less modern than the George Cukor women of the 30's. This ones are 'acting' for us trying to be with it but their 'conflict' is exactly the same as it has always been, in movies anyway. The fun of the original was based on a crisp, vitriolic and very funny script. A masterful direction and an unrepeatable cast. All the elements that are missing here. TV actresses mingling with models and Oscar nominees/winners. There wasn't anything organic about it. The whole thing felt like a put on, improvised in the moment without a clear objective. 2/10


`The United States of Kiss My Ass'

House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.

The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.

In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a `class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by `honest' crime.

The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.

An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10


A powerful adaptation of the best-selling book and the smash Broadway play about the lives of Bessie and Sadie Delany, two 'colored' sisters who lived past the age of 100. Wonderfully played in their old age by Ruby Dee and Diahann Carroll, respectively, they tell their story in flashbacks to Amy Hill Hearth (played by Amy Madigan), a white New York Times reporter. The flashback and present-day scenes don't have as much inspirational value in them as in the book, but really are powerful. However, certain aspects of the sisters' lives, such as the inter-racial background of their mother and the reasons behind their father's stern personality are not presented clearly. You need to read the book to fully understand these things. Which is just as well, because the book's just as great! Aside from those flaws, it's wonderfully done and performed, especially by Dee and Carroll, and a very powerful and educational movie.


Lovingly crafted and terribly interesting to watch Garfield's gritty, breakthrough performance (introducing a new kind of rebellious acting style that would carry over to the Brandos and Clifts and so on after the war) but all that sisterly affection is a bit suffocating. Priscilla Lane is a bright, engaging performer but the other sisters don't really register (though they're all allowed to be tart and witty) and I just had a hard time buying any of the other male characters besides Garfield. Jeffrey Lynn is a pleasant enough actor, but he lacks the movie star weight to match up with Garfield's hard luck Mickey Borden and that throws the film a bit out of whack. (Imagine a Jimmy Stewart or someone in the part.) Also, I was not convinced that Garfield would make the pivotal (to say the least) final decision that he made. The film needed another half hour of running time to better explain that action; it feels awfully rushed and under-motivated.

Still, it's not hard to understand how anybody who grew up with this picture would remember it fondly. It falls short of being a classic, but it does contain a few classic moments. The two gate swinging scenes are pure movie magic.


The greatest tragedy man faces is that, capable so often of the divine he settles for the banal.From this fact does so much great tragedy emerge. Death in Venice is one of very few films with the patience and bravery to tackle this fact head-on.It confronts the human eye with beauty and inspiration in their two most inevitable human forms-self denial and decay. Undoubtedly this is the greatest film to have no discernable influence on mainstream cinema. Its austerely refined look, echoey sound, mixture of unsubtitled languages, and highly challenging themes being impossible to copy: as much an accident of its peculiar production as of the vision of its director. The central performance, at once rigid, aroused, and vulnerable in the face of expression and decadence highlights Bogarde as if not the best British actor of his generation then certainly the most adventurous. Able to hold on to sympathy as his desires take him over and interesting despite the endless close-ups and Mahler score playing above him Not one for a Friday night with your girlfriend but certainly OK if you want to explore the limits of human spiritual limitation.


I couldn't believe that this movie dates from 2007, it had all the looks of a below-average seventies horror-flick. Didn't they have any knowledge of modern special effects or CGI?!? Didn't they know that in the post-millennium the violence in a supposed horror- and/or scifi-movie should at least be a little bit graphic? Or did I get the purpose wrong, was it supposed to be a deep and meaningful story of man and animal, bound together in the big cycle of life, or a warning to mankind not to mess with Nature, or something like that?? It doesn't really matter, either way it turned out wrong and to me this movie failed on all accounts.

First of all: the premise is very improbable. If at a given time you're capable of replacing a total eye, no responsible medical scientist would start his very first human attempt with both eyes at the same time, that's totally unprofessional. And to do all this apparently without informed consent of the patient?! And why on earth choose for eyes that have a totally unusual color for humans, and make the victim look like a freak?! By the way, I noticed that all the real wolves in the movie had puppy-like normal dark eyes, couldn't they have waited for such a specimen? The story is lame, it's about this poor guy Aaron who gets these weird eye-transplants, which suddenly makes him feel like the donor-wolf (or at least, that's what I make of it) and then he's being chased by some military men. Especially this last bit is ridiculous. I mean, I can understand that the army is interested in the results of the experiment (imagine soldiers with night-vision eye-sight!) but as the operation fails on account of the apparent nervous breakdown of the patient, it's beyond me why they're out to kill him. Why not leave him alone and look for another usable recipient? (a volunteering soldier maybe??). And why try to kill everyone else that's involved with poor Aaron, isn't that a bit steep?! Who the hell are these militaries anyway, I hope not the US army or the government, they behave like psychopaths, walking around the hospital waving automatic weapons, raiding private apartments like they're after some public enemy # 1, and displaying during the ultimate show-down in the woods a total lack of discipline, like a bunch of frightened schoolchildren, panicking and shooting randomly around.

Aaron, for some unfathomable medical reason, feels like a wolf after the transplantation of the eyes. Why would that be??? He suddenly sees visions of wandering wolves. What is this? Are we supposed to believe that the memories of the donor-wolf are situated in it's eye-balls?!? And that the recipient of these eye-balls also adopts the wolf's craving for red (life-) meat and can jump off of a 30 feet high balcony and land unharmed on his all-fours like a cat (can a wolf even DO that??!).

The acting (or the lack thereof) didn't help the credibility of all this either: everyone stumbles through their lines like wooden dolls, especially this Indian girl, she may be pretty but she can only come up with one expression (vexed) and some disinterested mumblings about the force of Nature, and it beats me why Aaron all of a sudden is all over her (but hey, there probably had to be at least one love-scene!). I really sympathized with actor Cory Monteith, who seems like a nice guy with a handsome enough face, but they didn't give him much to go with. He has to run around bare-chested for more than half of the movie, which could have been fun to watch, but then they had better chosen someone with a more impressive physique, Monteith really should leave his shirt on. His (few) killings and attacks are hardly shown, we just hear some growling and cries of fear and then there's another victim lying down and Aaron with some more blood on his face and chest. Not much for a modern sci-fi horror! The only good acting came from Justine Bateman, and I really like to see how she has matured into a beautiful and classy forty-something lady. She did what she could with her silly lines and she even convinced me of being this doctor with good intentions, but they made her character a kind of a wimp, who gets totally bossed around by the leader of these militaries. What a pity that the script didn't make her stand up a bit more!

In the end this sums up as being a silly and rather boring movie, hardly scary or thrilling, with unbelievable goings-on, a lot of overlong National Geographic-like visuals of wolves running around woods and slopes (who cares?!?), some pretentious Indian ramblings about Man and Nature and an uneven musical score with poppy songs at the most inappropriate moments. I guess the word 'superfluous' covers it all.


Wow, I haven't seen a movie this bad since 'Fire Down Below'. Wait, that's a Seagal movie too. Like 'On Deadly Ground' and 'Fire Down Below', Seagal centers the movie around his environmental awareness message and how the military, FBI, and CIA are incompetent idiots. Problem is that both reality and a sensible plot are secondary to whatever gobbleygook social commentary Seagal is trying to get across.


This is one of them movies that has a awesome video box but has wired camra work and unknown actors that speak with bad dialogue.Its so dark when the killings happen you can hardly see it plus the movie is hard to understand.The only star in this is WCW`s Vanessa Sanchez (Tygres in WCW before it folded) and she is a good actress. I like low budget film especialy ones that has errors because they are fun to watch but Severed unfourtunatly isn`t one of them.This movie is ok to see if you like voodoo and severed heads but this is no blockbuster but if you need something new to watch then rent Severed.


An archaeologist (Casper Van Dien) stumbles accidentally upon an ancient, 40 foot mummy, well preserved underground in the Nevada desert. They are determined to keep this a secret and call in a Jewish translator to assist in figuring out the history of it. The mummy, as explained at the beginning, is the son of a fallen angel and is one of several giants that apparently existed in 'those days'. In order to save his son from a devastating flood which was predicted to kill everything, he mummifies his son, burying him with several servants for centuries - planning to awaken him years from then. In our present, the fallen angels still walk the earth and the mummy is resurrected and a ritual is expected to take place. Most of the movie is slow, having to do with a lot of biblical crap and a couple lousy, air-punching fights. The mummy is decent looking but isn't shown nearly enough. It should have had more to do with that but it dragged on a great deal so... eh. Don't bother.


A stolen shipment of Vigoroso, the mexican Viagra; a beautiful girl who is trying to rebuild her life and to leave her husband, a boss of the italian Mafia; a young sheriff who falls in love with his old sweetheart. This is the plot of 'The Shipment', a country comedy located in small town of Paradise, Arizona. Despite its simply and classic story, the movie (directed by Alex Wright) has its fun moments: when Elizabeth Berkley (as Candy Porter), looking at a Vigoroso green pill, says: 'What's this? A mint candy?'. Or when the girl enters the sheriff's house and finds him completely naked. Or when the Vigoroso shipment ends up in THAT lake, at the final sequence... The cast offers some nice performances: by Matthew Modine as the sheriff of Paradise Valley, who still loves his old girlfriend; and by Elizabeth Berkley, who's character still loves her old boyfriend... The supporting cast, including Nicholas Turturro, Paul Rodriguez (as the mexican Josè) and G Michael Gray (what kind of teeth...), makes a pleasant work, too. Not an Oscar material, but not so bad. A fun comedy without pretence.


This is easily one of the worst films I've seen in many years. I started viewing the film not expecting much and that is exactly what it delivered....not much! In fact, it ended up delivering even less than I expected. My first reaction when I saw the opening portions of the film was that I would probably end up rating it a '4'. I thought that it seemed to have reasonably good photography and a haunting atmosphere.

As the film progressed however, the rating kept going down and down in my mind mainly due to pedestrian acting and a plot that went from being just plain silly and tasteless at the beginning to being both silly and repugnant near the end. By the time the movie was over, I was willing to rate it no more than a '1'.

Don't waste your time or money on this one.


I am a huge, huge fan of John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, and Tony Shalhoub. I'm slightly less fond of Stephen King, but I like some of his work.

This said, I should have LOVED 1408.

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS AFTER THIS POINT****

I walked in eager. I walked out disappointed.

This is not the fault of the actors. Shalhoub and Jackson both have very small roles because the premise of the movie puts Cusack in the 'guy in a locked room' scenario.

This wasn't a BAD movie, but I can't call it a good one either. It was a muddied mess that had moments of 'ouch, that's just WRONG,' combined with moments of 'ouch, that's just painful,' and moments of 'oh, now THAT'S just unfortunate' with very little continuity-connectivity between them. Eislin's father shows up once, and there's no seeming connection to the rest of Mike's personal life that we see displayed while he tries to survive the room.

A previous commenter described the Olin/Enslin argument as worth watching, and I very much agree. But other than that, aside from some clever musical cues (the room almost playfully torments Enslin a little bit, and gives him one chance to get out before upping the ante...at which point it gives him the one-hour countdown clock and the titular line from the Carpenters 'We've Only Just Begun.') it's mostly 'stuff jumps out at you when you least expect it!' type horror that was fun when I was fourteen, and surrounded by friends my age, clutching each other in the summer while Jason stalked Camp Crystal Lake.

The rest of the movie was 'let's make him relive some of his most painful experiences' mindgaming, with 'let's animate the paintings in creepy ways' cliché cheesiness.

******END SPOILERS*****

I expected better from this movie with Stephen King's name attached to it, as well as the actors I mentioned above.

We never find out the origin of the evil. We never get to see the evil defeated, though we can presume maybe it was defeated.

And the ending was just a jarring 'What?!' moment.

Wait for it to come on cable. I wouldn't have minded paying for it as a matinée, but I'm feeling a bit shortchanged for having paid opening night prices for it.


To soccer fans every where -- stay away from this movie. It was so baaaaddd! Lame acting, lame script, lame soccer and no directing! I rented this movie during my stint in Asia and was appalled that this was considered one of the better Singaporean films. It was just nonsensical and thoroughly boring. There are thousands of rich, exciting stories in Asia. Why write a bad story about over the top and stereotypical Singaporeans?