Rating: *1/2 out of ****

'The Net' is one of those films that won't remain in your mind till the next one hour. Well... Just if you keep thinking how bad it is. It's a mediocre, miserable, hollow, laughable and predictable piece of garbage. One of those adjectives I've just used above is the reason which made me add 1/2 a star to the one I would have given. So is it a case of 'so bad it is good'? No. It's a case of 'so bad it is laughable'.

Bullock in a (surprise!) very bad performance plays Angela Bennett, a computer expert who is at home all the time. She works at home, doesn't have any friends and her neighbors don't know her. Suddenly, she sees herself involved in dangerous situations, after her colleague dies and the same thing almost happens to her. Her identity, bank accounts, etc, etc, etc, are all deleted, and she is now Ruth Marx. The conspiracy involves even the government and... Wait! Haven't we seen this before? Yes, thousands of times. 'The Net' tries to be modern, to be the portrait of the '90s, showing the computer as a villain. Big deal! It is a film about nothing, just a pretext to show ridiculous action scenes. Take the scene of the boat accident. I just laughed when the camera started to get slow...

What makes everything even worse here is Sandra Bullock. How awful she is! Has she already made a decent film? 'A Time to Kill', okay. But she is still a bad actress, repeating her robotic face moves in each of her pictures.

The vantages and disadvantages of the computer were already shown in '2001: A Space Odyssey', the best, most intelligent and most complex film ever made. It's not needed to compare 'The Net' with it, is it...?

The only reason to see 'The Net' is to laugh, as I've said, and to see what it tried to be. The results, well, are a shame.

DELETE this film from your mind!


Yes it was a little low budget, but this movie shows love! The only bad things about it was that you can tell the budget on this film would not compare to 'Waterworld' and though the plot was good, the film never really tapped into it's full potential! Strong performances from everyone and the suspense makes it worthwhile to watch on a rainy night.


The SF premise isn't unique (although it pretty much was back then), but the focus is a completely different one than in other artificial reality films. Especially during the first part it is an elaborate crime picture, that uses the SF premise to tell an unusual crime story in which the forced detective tries to solve a mystery with the obstacle of vanishing characters and unhelpful witnesses who don't have to lie to be unhelpful. Instead of an unreliable narrator we have an unreliable world.

In part two we follow the main character's struggle for sanity and it turns more into a psychological examination of a character in an extreme situation. He knows his very existence is nothing more than electrical impulses, how does he deal with this knowledge? He knows that there is a world that is more real than his, but he is trapped in an artificial world, a world where nobody can understand him. The problem of thinking of knowing something essential about the world that nobody else knows or wants to believe is a very real one that many of us can identify with. For me the film transports this hopelessness very well, with its dreary, artificial atmosphere which also supports the factual artificiality of the film's world.

Other than 'The Matrix' or 'The Thirteenth Floor' it's little concerned with evoking a sense of awe for its artificial reality plot, instead it very much focuses on the psychological aspects. Philosophy is only in so far interesting in that certain philosophical concepts are essential in how they shape and alter the character's perception of the world.

Arguably it is longer than it has to be (which isn't a problem if you are as captivated by it as I was) and part 2 runs pretty low on steam.


Rarely does one find a movie so bad that it achieves the often-sought paradigm of having so little redeeming value that that alone makes it worth watching. 'Cyclone,' I am happy to report, is such a film.

I knew I was in for something good as soon as I found the videotape. I am at least its fourth owner: It has a 'Used Movie Sale! $9.95' sticker on the front, and a yard-sale sticker for one dollar. I picked it up at a thrift store for fifty cents.

The Used Movie Sale! sticker covers much of the front cover artwork, meaning that what I see is a truly odd blended still of the front of the Cyclone super bike, a car flipping over on fire, and Heather Thomas, wearing Flouncy Eighties Hair with her mouth open in an expression that says, 'I 'ave a 'ooth ache.' I saw that and thought, 'All RIGHT.' The case, honestly, was enough ('with nowhere to turn and no one to trust, Teri is plunged headlong into a maze of danger and deceit'), but I surprised myself by actually getting around to watching it. I always make time for the really bad films. That 'Fight Club' tape can wait.

Meet Teri. Teri is a stunningly well-crafted character, as we can tell from her introduction, in which she and her friend do exercises that highlight her breasts and, later, her legwarmers. Then Teri goes off to hook up with her boyfriend for the evening that goes horribly wrong. Before she knows it, Teri is driven 'straight into a web of deadly double-crosses in CYCLONE.' The VHS box tells it like it is.

Left out of the box summary - perhaps out of some faint hope that actual copies of this film would be sold - is how awful the acting is. It might have been just me, but I kept thinking I could read the characters' thoughts through their eyes. 'This is dumb,' thinks Heather Thomas. 'I know,' thinks Bad Guy with Too-Wide Mouth.

A driving force (no pun intended) for the second half of this epic picture are the car chases. Those were actually pretty good, although I'm inclined that gasoline doesn't need coaching on how to explode. What really impressed me is that, in all the chases, the streets were pretty much empty. It's like there are only twenty people in this huge city.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, 'Gee Wilikers! I have to see this movie!' The sad thing, though, is that you can't find it. Oh no. 'Cyclone' is a film that finds YOU. Just wait. Some day - perhaps during lunch, perhaps late in the evening, perhaps 'when military scientist Jeffery Combs ('Re-Animator')is murdered by hired assassins' - you will hear the rustle of legwarmers, and know that it is time.


This is one of those 'family' movies that I can't imagine having much appeal to anyone over about 9. A group of siblings discovers a 'sand fairy' (yes, really) conveniently located at the end of a not-so-secret passage at the country home of their eccentric uncle, to which they've been evacuated from the London blitz. ...And there you have it, all in one sentence. The story is about the role of magic in childhood and the danger of getting wishes fulfilled, but neither of these issues is examined in a way that would be interesting to adults or instructive to children (or vice versa!). The only reason I can think of for watching this is to see how starkly Freddie Highmore's outstanding talent stands out from the rest of the mediocre performances.


I wish Hollywood would make more movies like The China Syndrome. Because this one scores on every level.

It has an intelligent, believable script. It shows you that it's not only nuclear power itself, but the money involved in it, that causes danger. And the movie also gives you a great behind-the-scenes look of how television is made.

It scores as a thriller: the first time I saw it, it kept me right on the edge of my seat. And it scores as a character-movie: I really cared for the main characters. Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, Wilford Brimley and, most of all, Jack Lemmon are great.


Miriam Hopkins is 'The Lady with Red Hair' in this 1940 biopic of Mrs. Leslie Carter which also stars Claude Rains as David Belasco, Richard Ainley as Lou Payne, and a fine cast of supporting players, including Laura Hope Crews and Victor Jory.

Miriam Hopkins and Claude Rains give wonderful performances. Hopkins was a beautiful actress who really makes us feel for Mrs. Carter. Rains is great as the flamboyant, egotistical producer/writer/actor/impresario David Belasco, one of the great names in theater.

Though Mrs. Carter's second husband, Lou Payne, served as adviser on this film, it's a poor representation of the real events of Mrs. Carter's life. True, there was a much publicized and bitter divorce, and she was undoubtedly viewed as a scandalous character for that and for becoming an actress. However, she had custody of her son Dudley, so there was no custody battle. Once she broke with Belasco, she did not go back to him and, in fact, started working in vaudeville and actually made some films toward the end of her life. She did indeed marry Lou, and he became her leading man in many productions.

The driving force for Mrs. Carter in the beginning of this film is regaining custody of her son, but she finally realizes that in her time away from him, he is thoroughly bonded with his father. In the film also (and I'm not sure if it was true in real life) she traveled with her mother and lived in a theatrical boarding house, which gives the film some added interesting atmosphere.

Not a bad movie, probably not a depiction of the greatness of either Carter or Belasco. One of Mrs. Carter's most famous moments was in The Heart of Maryland, where she wore a wig with six-foot tresses. Off-stage, fans blew her hair as she hung 35 feet above the stage clutching the center of a bell to keep it from ringing. Quite a visual.


You know you're watching softcore with the wrong attitude when the poor dubbing bothers you. I'm okay with the crappy lip syncing but the sound mix is really of too. Every time someone says anything it sounds like there's a narrator. Either way, this is pretty much the purgatory between boring French professionalism and the heavenly campy Joe D'Amato flicks involving cannibalism and whatnot. Don't get me wrong, there's a fair dose of exploitation in this one, but there's always room for more. Laura Gemser stars, and that's good because she's hot. It's a bit freaky how at times you can see her bone structure, but she still rules over her white counterpart. You can also make a cool drinking game of how often she takes her kit of. Often. Every reason is good. Every person is good. Every location is good. One scene even involves an entire hockey team, whatever they are doing in Africa. Sometimes the plot gets in the way, and the supporting cast consists of some really vile looking people, but there's enough Laura Gemser for all.


This is the worst film I have ever seen, bar none. From the flimsy-looking, poorly lit sets, to the laughable acting, to the infantile plot and shoddy, drawn-out action sequences, this film is so bad, its hilarious. For about ten minutes. After which you will be reaching for the remote or the power socket to end this film non-experience. Although it was obviously made with the entire production and acting staff's collective tongue rammed in cheek (please God), I found Jack Frost 2 so dreadful as to be unwatchable for more than a quarter of an hour. If you have not had enough of it after this time, you must be indulging in drug abuse.


I can't believe we watched this total piece of crap but we did and I feel obligated to warn others to avoid it at all costs. When one of the main characters announces that he's gay twice in the first five minutes, don't ignore it as typical PC nonsense and figure it has to get better because it won't. If his faggoty boyfriend hanging all over him doesn't make you sick, then be thankful the freak who wrote and/or directed this grossout is somehow attempting a little restraint. I mean, get real. It's one thing for there to be a gay character appearing in a movie in such screwed up times as these but quite another to have it continually slapped on the screen and examined up close and personal when the the liner notes clearly state the flick's supposed to be about a mother seeking some sort of 'closure' over the sudden death of her daughter. What does one thing have to do with the other, one might be tempted to ask? Apparently, the two issues are inextricably interwoven. And if that weren't bad enough, there's the bearded lady at the ice cream parlor. I mean, seriously, hasn't that poor woman ever heard of electrolysis? Why must she go around like that? At the very least, how about shaving the ugly thing off, and while you're at it, have those horrible moles removed, too. Would YOU slurp up some ice cream she just served you? I think not. It must be a New Jersey thing.

You'd think Diane Keaton might save this piece of drek, but think again. Was she actually trying to put lipstick on a corpse? I don't even wanna think about it. So what if the body was supposed to be that of her own dead daughter. This grotesque excuse for cinema is slop from the word go and that's all there is to it. One wishes that each of these characters would simply walk out into the waves and just keep going. None of these flaky people even remotely gain our sympathy for an instant. Trust me -- pass this piece of crap up. It's not about death, a mother who inadvertently suffocated her daughter, or even the other much more unsavory issues it keeps bringing up no matter how little you want to hear it. It's a load of perverted trash from a misguided and talentless director.


I read the book Celestine Prophecy and was looking forward to seeing the movie. Be advised that the movie is loosely based on the book. Many of the book's most interesting points do not even come out in the movie. It is a 'B' movie at best. Many events, characters, how the character interact and meet in the book are simply changed or do not occur. The flow of events that in the book are very smooth, are choppy and fed to the view as though you a child. The character development is very poor. Personnallities of the characters differ from those in the book. The direction is similar to a 'B' horror flick. I understand that it would take six hours in film to present all that is in the book, but they screen play base missed many points. The casting was very good.


First of all..I've seen better acting and more realistic makeup in porno flicks. How bad was 'Chris Moltisante' as Stewie Ungar? On The Sopranos, Chris is not taken too seriously and can be considered comic relief. And then throw in 'Bobby Baccala' as one of his Vegas cronies. It's just too much to take in a dramatic movie. Neither actor can handle a serious role and is better suited as a second banana for Tony,Paulie, or Uncle Junior. And I want to know who did the makeup for this disaster? I want that person to be MY make-up person over the next 25 years so I'll never age a day either. So that's all I'll write on this movie since it's not worth wasting too much more of my time.

Yes I DO know that Michael Imperioli and Steve Schirippa are their REAL names.


Not that I tinkle myself with glee at the sight of realistic blood shed, but when I put a DVD in expecting a bloodbath, and what I get is one bloody scene (the eyeball) at the tail end of asinine fake slapping, and spinning in a desk chair, I end up thinking 'well that's 43 minutes of my life gone forever.' I wouldn't considers this or Flower of Flesh and Blood 'movies' so much as an exercise of will; to see if you can sit through them. Flower of Flesh and Blood had a few tough spots to watch. The Devil's Experiment did not. It was at best, stupid, and at worst...well...really stupid. Perhaps my expectation were too high. I put the DVD thinking 'oh man, this is gonna be sick.' After watching them fake slap the girl about a thousand times, I was watching it in fast forward.

Two kinds of people would be interested in this film. 1) People who seek out F'd up films just to see how F'd up it really is, or 2) horror completest. I sought this and the other Guinea Pig films for the latter reason, but even if I fell into the category of the former, this film wouldn't float my boat. As a matter of fact, I could imagine this film increasing one's blood lust...as in 'WOULD YOU JUST KILL THE B*TCH ALREADY!!' So in conclusion, the only reason to own this film is for collection purposes. If you want carnage that traditional horror doesn't provide, get Traces of Death. Sure, that sucks too, but at least you'll get the blood and guts you expect.

The only reason I can see for anyone praising this crap is because they feel they're supposed to. No artistic merit that I can comprehend, no reason for it's notoriety, no nothing. Just a lame attempt to be shocking.


I got this as a turkey movie and was I not disappointed.

Acting - overall even though many have been in other movies it is clear that they had to work hard to act this bad so constantly over this entire movie with out accidentally letting slip some degree of acting.

Plot - being generous I could say that the scriptwriter did originally start with a plot but but did his best to ignore it. the plot broke down faster then a Chinese knock off computer

Scrip - now that was an abomination of nature. it failed to flow with any rhyme or reason. the majority of the lines by the characters were at best pathetic to imbecilic. the script worked hard to make sure that no character managed to get to be considered memorable. I have watched other movies where the extras were more interesting and memorable.

Special effects - ROTFLMAO!!!!! They were short bus special

Directing - until you can come up with your own directing ability copy the style of your favorite directer otherwise you will only make failures like this.

It is good to know that your friends/family have been giving you 10 stars for this movie


This films makes no pretentious efforts to hide its true genre -- a campy B movie. It will flat out tell you in the beginning the definition of campy. It should have also given the adjective meaning of cheese. But the two come together in this film in ways that make you go, 'Hmmmmm... that's so stupid!' and then have you laughing. For example, there is a scene back in '16th Century Japan', which shows a couple of samurai walking in the foreground of a temple. In the background of the temple, there are several tourists looking off in the distance in slippers and shorts. Hmmmm... hahahah! I could not stop laughing. And the acting goes from decent, to bearable, to oh my Lord, but that's what makes it funny. You'll see some decent actors and then find others really terrible. I have to digress somewhat though because I have seen Stephanie Sanchez in several plays and she is awesome. Her air time in the film was pretty short though. I have also seen Bryan Yamasaki in several plays in the islands during my visits and he's also better in theatre than in this movie. Anyhow, it's an entertaining film, if you've got nothing to do on a weekday evening.


One of the worst movies I've seen shoddy camera work, crappy filter usage, film was grainy, script was terrible, i mean come on, how predictable was the big battle at the end.....

some of the fight scenes were okay i guess....

some scenes were so bad it was comical ...like Sorbo getting the horse and riding at the end...LOL i mean really ..a horse? Oh cant forget how the bad assassins roll around in the same vehicle throughout the entire movie..one would think that after killling key witness and federal agents, they woulda been tracked down..ETC, ETC really don't bother watching it...


With its companion piece MASTERS OF HORROR, NIGHTMARES AND DREAMSCAPES can only be seen as the absolute nadir of the genre that began so auspiciously with THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE OUTER LIMITS.

Of course, part of the problem is that it does nothing to be of any interest to a comparatively adult audience, instead aiming at TEN-YEAR-OLDS, who are only able to count body-bags, and scarcely that. And so grossness is king, and King is grossness.

Stephen King is simply illiterate  in general he has the aptitude for storytelling of Bart Simpson. Since he cannot read his sole inspiration is the movies.

True, the cinema is not such a bad place to start, since it has generally escaped the onslaught of 'Realism'. But these films are only the rumor, not the thing, and if you want to WRITE, you have to dig deeper.

Of course, only PICKMAN had monsters as close acquaintances. But even so, it should be clear to any undergraduate that vampires are not Dracula and Lugosi.

At least AUTOPSY ROOM FOUR is a clear indication of what is wrong. One can almost imagine this pathetic dolt sitting as his desk trying to come up with something SCARY.

Not, mind you, trying to describe accurately the horror of the system of which he is an integral part, making the stupid stupider, but trying to come up with a scary story for his little nephew. Suppose, you were paralyzed, and people thought you were dead and started to cut you open like they do at those autopsy things! Wouldn't that be gross? And that, boys and girls, is the story.

What about characterization? Oh yes, he's one of these suits, who never really appreciated life, you know, and now it's too late, right? And he's shouting  well, they can't actually hear him, you know  he's saying that he's going to sue the hospital, but he's not such a big shot anymore, you see, lying there (or is it laying, I can never remember) and all. And he's thinking: Oh no please, please don't cut me and this is terrible, lying (or laying) like that  now, wouldn't that be a great story? You know I read somewhere that a snake bite can do that, I think it was that great medical authority Agatha Christie. What was the name of that snake again, oh yeah, a BOOMSLANG  has quite a ring to it, doesn't it.

Let's make it a PERUVIAN BOOMSLANG! Sure, Steve, that's great  except that BOOMSLANG is Afrikaans, you moron! But how can you really tell that the target audience is children, and not simply mental defects? It's easy: There's no sex.

Well, there is, but it's the kind glimpsed through a crack in the door to our parent's bedroom. Modern filmmakers are really big on the erotic aspects of the genre, the monster, the female victim, the chase.

But unlike UNIVERSAL and LEWTON they have no idea what's going on. All that's really left is the giggling outside the SM club and the Fascist credo that people with sexual preferences are intrinsically evil.

In spite of a certain discrepancy in size, King Kong knew exactly what to do with Fay Wray. Freddy Krueger can only kill her.

And since there's no real titillation in that, he has to torture her first  not in any way that might excite her, you understand, since that would upset our puritan sentiments. And so, horror and romanticism become simply unpleasantness and the grooming of psychopaths.

Our hero, you see, is a rubber fetishist, and can only get a boner if someone touches him you know down there with you know  rubber gloves (giggle). And that's what they use in autopsies, and that's how they discover that he is, in fact, you know.

Obviously, this is the author at the height of his inspirational powers. Too bad, they cut it out, since it might have upset the FIVE-YEAR-OLDS watching the show!


The 12th animated Disney classic is a reasonable movie told through a simple story. Even though a little dated, it deserves a place in the list of Disney classics.

It's not among Disney's top works, but is satisfying. One of Disney's most 'simple' works, yes, but keeps a certain magic and enchantment (which old Disney is well known for). This was an important movie because it saved Disney from a delicate situation. If this was a failure, there wouldn't be any more Disney animated classics.

'Cinderella' is somehow like a return to Disney's 1st animated classic ('Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs') because it brings back the fairy tale genre. It's not clear where the story takes place, but I suppose it's somewhere in France because this is based in a tale by Charles Perrault.

There are plenty of likable characters, such as Cinderella, the Prince, Bruno (the dog), Jaques and Gus (the two main mice), the Fairy Godmother (for a fairy she sure is funny), the birds, the King and the Grand Duke.

Jaques is very smart and amusing. I love his voice. Really has that mouse-like quality. Gus might not be that smart, but he's humorous.

The King is hilarious, but I think that what makes him so funny is his short temper. The Grand Duke is a very cool chap and funny too. They're two of my favorite characters in this film and responsible for many of the most amusing moments.

The Prince is certainly one of the most charming in Disney. No doubt that Prince Philip from 'Sleeping Beauty' was inspired on this prince, because they are very similar-looking.

On the other hand, Lady Tremaine (the stepmother) isn't supposed to be likable because she's cold, jealous, bitter and cruel. Her daughters (Anastacia and Drizella) aren't much better than her. However, the stepmother isn't as annoying as her ugly and selfish daughters. Cinderella, the main character, has nothing to do with them. Cinderella is gentle, kind, pretty and lovable. By the way, I think her beautiful pink dress is much nicer than the one given by the Fairy Godmother.

Lucifer (the cat) is hilariously malicious. The way he walks, sticking up his nose in the air and those arrogant and snobbish facial expressions make him funny. Ironically he's very much like the stepmother when it comes to personality. He always agrees with the stepmother's attitudes towards Cinderella. Lucifer has the right name for him because he's such a devilish and mean cat. Yet, there's nothing annoying about him.

The soundtrack is simple but pleasant, although not among Disney's best. The best song in this movie is 'Bibiddi Bobiddi Boo'.

There are plenty of well known talented voice actors in this, such as James MacDonald, Marion Darlington, Eleanor Audley, Verna Felton and Luis Van Rooten.

Despite being simple-looking, the movie has good artwork, as well as its nice details, although never something 'out-of-this-world'. However, the King's palace is a spectacular masterpiece, being truly majestic and colossal.


Pathetic. This is what happens when director comes to work just because someone is paying him to.

The intentions were good, great locations and settings for a film of epic proportions. But the performance, damn! I swear, in some shots you can see extras on the background staring in the camera, or looking at the actors because no one told them what they should do when they hear 'Action!'. The battle scenes are so bad you wonder - are these people for real? They could've done more damage just by hugging each other. In the slow-mo scenes you can see people on battle field walking around or just standing, waving their hands.

Only action in the foreground is somehow emphasized. But for what? The story is so illogical and discontinuous, it seems like random situations in chronological order, sometimes not even that. The dialogs are dumb, the love plot is more embarrassing and ridiculous than in Hong Kong action movies.

With a budget of 40 million, and you can see every dollar invested on the screen, in best case scenario, the final result of all this enormous effort is a shiny round laser disk in the thin cover placed on the shelf in video store.


Wow...This movie really really sucks...'Nuff said.

The Story: A psychopathic internet predator stalks and lures young men and women into torturous traps...It goes like this, kidnaps people, they find him, he becomes a changed man and is released on the world yet again, reverts back to his old ways and starts the torture again....The story is stupid, it's implausible. The characters are stupid, they're implausible...Or at the very least way over the top. It's got some very violent imagery, and if you have a week stomach you might just want to stay away...But than again, even if you don't have a week stomach, you might want to stay away...It's that stupid.

The Cast: Dee Snider, Kevin Gage...If you're a die hard fan of Twisted Sister and Dee Snider, you might find this one interesting, since he's the writer and star of this film. His acting is laughably bad, and you can tell that he's the one that wrote the God-awful script. Kevin Gage...Well they say he's been in numerous other movies that I've seen, but I don't remember him from any of them...And you won't remember him from this...These two sadly, make the film...They don't make it good mind you...They just make it...

One to Five Scale: 1 It's bad...It's very very very bad...In fact it's so bad, that this movie should come with a clip loading pistol to play Russian Rullet with...


Trying to conceive of something as insipid as THE SENTINEL would be pretty difficult. The problems are many. The result is terrible and loaded with plot holes.

Michael Douglas stars as Pete Garrison, a Secret Service agent who 'took one' for Reagan during the attempt on his life. Years later we find Pete assigned to the Whitehouse Family, mainly as a guard for the First Lady (Kim Basinger, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL). Troubles arise as we see Pete's close involvement with the First Lady, and a sudden threat against the President himself (David Rasche, UNITED 93). When Pete fails a polygraph test, he's singled out as a disgruntled agent by investigator David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland, 24 TV series).

As the presidential assassination plot unfolds, Pete finds himself on the run from his own people. His only confidant is the First Lady, and she's reluctant to tell anyone about their affections for one another (which is why Pete failed the polygraph in the first place). But is Pete really innocent? Or is he simply trying to buy time until he can kill the President? If he is innocent, how can he help prevent the assassination attempt while running from the Secret Service?

The one, big, overwhelming problem with this film is that there's no justification for the reason behind the presidential threat. Isn't that what the movie's supposed to be about? One would think so! But the audience is never let in on why the assassin(s) want to kill the Prez. Hmm. Someone forget to put that in the script somewhere?

And what's with David Breckinridge's (Kiefer's) new partner, Jill Marin (Eva Longoria, CARLITA'S WAY)? Seems that she was put in the film strictly as a piece of a$$-candy. What was her purpose again? Did she do anything other than look nice in tight pants and a low-cut blouse?

There are so many problems with the basic premise of The Sentinel as to be laughable. The action is too easily stymied by the 'What the...?' responses sure to be uttered by those unfortunate enough to watch the movie.


This film is bad. Not so bad it is good. Just bad. It is however hilariously bad. I watched it out of some morbid curiosity and never intend to watch it nor any other Chuck Norris film ever again. If you have to choose between this film and death, you should happily choose this film, however, as it is is a masterclass in terrible film making (hence the hilarity).

It is a constant depression to me, as I grind away at my desk job, that some people get to be involved in movie-making and decided to produce things such as this.

1 out of 10. Still better than 'Starship Troopers' however.


Here's a decent mid-70's horror flick about a gate of Hell in NYC that just happens to be an old brownstone. Seems like there's lots of gates of Hell around, but of course this unwitting model happens to decide she needs some space from her boyfriend/fiancée and so she just happens to pick one, which is disguised as a nice and reasonably priced apartment. She meets several strange neighbors, and even attends a birthday party for a cat. Upon meeting with the Realtor because she hears strange noises at night from upstairs, she finds out that she and an old priest are SUPPOSED to be the only tenants. Whoa! Then who are all these weirdos? Her boyfriend (a slimy lawyer, played by Chris Sarandon) starts poking around and finds that things are not what they seem, not by a long shot. This has some decent creepy scenes and the idea of the creaky old folks that are her 'sometimes' neighbors being other than what they appear is fairly intriguing. A bit of decent gore and even a parade of less-than-normal folks towards the end make this a decent watch, and while I've seen this many times on TV the uncut DVD version is much better, of course. Not a bad little horror flick, maybe a good companion piece to 'Burnt Offerings'. 8 out of 10.


I took my family to see Barnyard this past weekend. We had so looked forward to it but had my kids not been there, my husband and I would have left. Coming from a farming community we found the fact that all of the male bovine in the film having udders drawn on them was a little disturbing. We felt like we were watching cross dressing cows or something. It was just odd to hear a male voice come from a female body. After checking some of the production notes on a different website, I felt like the animators might have slipped up on this fact. I know this is just an animated, humorous show but by putting female body parts on a male, I had to suspend my disbelief so much that I just couldn't enjoy the movie like I might have. I know udders can be found funny but they were definitely over used. None of the other animals in the movie seemed to have gender specific body parts drawn on them and I would have preferred the bulls in this show to at least have the correct ones if they had to be drawn on at all. The kids however still enjoyed the movie though we took the time afterward to make sure they knew the difference between bulls and cows.


Made after QUARTET was, TRIO continued the quality of the earlier film versions of the short stories by Maugham. Here the three stories are THE VERGER, MR. KNOW-IT-ALL, and SANITORIUM. The first two are comic (THE VERGER is like a prolonged joke, but one with a good pay-off), and the last more serious (as health issues are involved). Again the author introduces the film and the stories.

James Hayter, soon to have his signature role as Samuel Pickwick, is the hero in THE VERGER. He holds this small custodial-type job in a church, but the new Vicar (Michael Hordern) is an intellectual snob. When he hears Hayter has no schooling he fires him. Hayter has saved some money, so he tells his wife (Kathleen Harrison) he fancies buying a small news and tobacco shop. He has a good eye, and his store thrives. Soon he has a whole chain of stores. When his grandchild is christened by Hordern, the latter is amazed to see how prosperous his ex-Verger. The payoff is when bank manager Felix Aylmer meets with Hayter about diversifying his investments. I'll leave it to you to hear the unintentional but ironic coda of the meeting.

According to Maugham he met a man like Max Kelada (Nigel Patrick) on a cruise. In MR. KNOW-IT-ALL Kelada is a splashy, friendly, and slightly overbearing type from the Middle East who is on a business trip (regarding jewelry) by steamship. His state-room mate is Mr. Grey (the ever quiet and proper Wilfred Hyde-White) who is somewhat, silently disapproving of Max. Max likes to enliven things, and soon is heavily involved in the ship's entertainment. At this point the story actually resembles part of the plot of the non-Maugham story and film CHINA SEAS (1935), as Max makes a bet that he can tell a real piece of jewelry from a fake (after insisting that a piece of jewelry he spotted is real). I won't describe the way Max rises to the occasion.

SANITORIUM is the longest segment. Roland Culver plays 'Ashenden' (the fictional alter-ego of Maugham - a writer and one time spy as in Hitchcock's THE SECRET AGENT). Here he has to use a sanitorium for a couple of months for his health. He finds a remarkable crew of people, including Jean Simmons as a frail but beautiful young woman, Finlay Currie as an irascible Scotsman, John Laurie as a second irascible Scotsman who is 'at war' with Currie, Raymond Huntley as a quiet patient who only shows his internal anger at his situation when his wife shows up, and Michael Rennie as a young man who has a serious life threatening illness. Culver watches as three stories among these characters play out to their conclusions. The last, dealing with Simmons and Rennie, is ironic but deeply moving.

It was a dandy follow-up to the earlier QUARTET, and well worth watching.


The stuff dreams are made of. A complete retelling of the play as a dream of vengeance: will baffle purists, but will delight the open-minded. A superb effort: great cinematography, acting, and script. 11-stars...***********


I had never heard of this film and only got it because I am a Martin Sheen fan. Now I am stunned as to why it did not receive the praise and recognition that it truly deserves. The four characters all make you feel for them, the father trying to assert his authority, the mother still clinging to traditional family values and both trying to keep up appearances despite the total fragmentation of their family, the daughter wanting her own life and the son haunted by his experiences in Vietnam. One felt that this was a scenario that must have been played out in thousands of 'ordinary' families after Vietnam. Emilio Estevez as Jeremy was superb - totally unhinged by his war experience which none of his family could relate to. The screen chemistry between him and his real-life father Martin Sheen was amazing. And there were times when Emilio's anguished face was so like Martin's in 'Apocalypse Now'. I feel sure that just as Martin has counted Apocalype as one of his best films, Emilio will count this one as one of his best too. The scene with the gun was totally mind-blowing, as all the emotions were there on the family's faces. Brilliant acting by Estevez, Sheen and Kathy Bates. I watched the film for the first time last night - and today the lead story in the news was about a Gulf War veteran who had shot several members of his family. How many more young men are going to have their lives destroyed by war?


Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!

To think that films such as this were made, and probably enjoyed by thousands at drive-ins really boggles the mind. How innocent we were in those days.

To put it bluntly, this film is crap. The hero is so wet you can hear his squishy damp footsteps in every scene. My Lord, but he's just one of a whole slew of awful, awful actors that appear in this turkey. No wonder MST3K picked it. The story, such as it is, centres around a stock car driver (who is so incompetent, you really believe it is the actor driving the car) that he gives up and 'gets in with the wrong crowd' Oooooh! Scary stuff. However, the wrong crowd turn out to be the biker equivalent of The Three Stooges and their 'hand-me round' slut of a biker chick. As an example of how lame this whole thing is, the writers obviously wracked their brains to come up with a frightening name for the biker gang - if four people can be called a gang, that is. The result? The gang is called Satan's Angels! I kid you not.

Such dire acting and dialogue, along with ridiculous scenes, make for a wonderful beer and chips movie. But otherwise its just the worst kind of rubbish.

As I said. Once, this may have been considered good. But today it just makes you laugh (and cringe) with every minute that goes by. Avoid it except for a good laugh. And make sure you're more than half-drunk too!


83 minutes? Nope, this thing is 72 minutes, tops.

If you cannot guess the killer in this movie, you had better throw your TV out the window, because you ain't learned nothing in 20+ years of cinematic slasher history.

And how come the plain star who never gets naked is always the one you want to get naked?


This is a nicely-done story with pretty music, lots of dancing, lots of big sister/little sister interaction (almost all of it positive), and lots of wishes granted. There are funny moments that older children and adults will enjoy, such as when King Randolph exclaims, 'They're just SHOES! Aren't they?' And tender moments such as when Princess Genevieve comforts her youngest sister, Lacey, after a blunder.

The animation is perhaps not as good as Disney, but it still is very good. The facial expressions are nuanced, particularly for Genevieve, King Randolph, Duchess Rowena and her servant, Derek the cobbler, and little Princess Lacey. My only quibble on the animation is in the dance sequences where the dancing princesses become absolute carbon copies of each other without the slightest deviation -- even the three youngest copy the dance steps perfectly. I would have liked to see a little more individualism in the dancing, considering that these girls are not professional ballerinas or chorus dancers.

The resolution of the story is handled cleverly to get rid of a villainess without actually hurting her. There is some violence done to guards in the story, and the villainess's monkey is mean to other animals in the story.

My 4-year-old daughter loves this movie and has watched it repeatedly, and I have found it to be quite acceptable for her to watch.


Another enjoyable Warner flick. I really liked John Garfield in this, though I'm wondering why Cagney wasn't in the role. Perhaps it was too similar to ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES? I mean, it's another Dead End Kids story of sorts too, but I really appreciated them here and this film had a lot of nice comical touches along with some good serious drama. The boys work great with Garfield. A nice sequence was the whole 'swimming' scene which starts out with no cares but winds up coming too close to disaster.

One negative comment: Claude Rains was grossly miscast. As the detective, the fine actor seemed as out of place here as a nun in a whorehouse.


i really like this series. its funny and unique style of off the wall, sometimes controversial comedy, is a fresh take on the genre. whilst it is a sitcom, it stands out due to the what could be awkward subjects.

every aspect has a comedy turn, and the show really is very good. my favourite part of the program is the rather odd comments of the father, dave. his rants break the program up, and allow a really good flow. not perfect, because sometimes the comedy isn't laugh out loud funny, and the actors sometimes seem to be waiting for an audience response, but otherwise this program is good.

i strongly recommend this program, and am very sad that it has been cancelled. please make another series, and finish it properly


If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to 'Ned Kelly' as an 'Australian Western.' For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.

Perhaps because we've encountered this 'gentleman bandit' scenario so many times in the past, 'Ned Kelly' feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret. He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that? It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo. Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle. And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.

Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film.

'Ned Kelly' might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents.


Really, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.

OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.

The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.

My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.

For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.

The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.

I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.

Here Kitty, Kitty...

Tom Willett


If you are a traveller, if there is a fire burning into your heart, if you'd call 'home' every place on earth, but none of them can give you enough, if you are always looking for the next thing and if you believe the other part of your soul is somewhere out there, see this movie and you'll find out a little, but wonderful, piece of life sitting next to you.


André Roussin was a specialist of what the French call 'Theatre de Boulevard' : plays where you find the eternal triangle:man/wife/(male or female)lover .Many of his plays gave Elvire Popesco some of her best parts on stage....and the great actress was the main reason to watch them,for Roussin is not Sacha Guitry ,by a long shot.The French audience remembers 'Au Theatre Ce Soir' .

Still with me? Roussin's plays were not made to be filmed.And this one is pretty mediocre material ,even if the screenwriters call Lewis Carroll to their rescue .I like Stewart Granger and David Niven ,and Ava Gardner is eye candy .But this might be their worst film ,being crude, predictable -even the native's (Bola -Bola )intervention is ludicrous- a knockabout farce around a Menage à Trois on a desert island where Granger would be some kind of Robinson,Niven ,his Friday and Gardner his girl Friday.


Randolph Scott is leaving the USA for the greener pastures of Canada's British Columbia. He wants to start a cattle ranch there with partner Bill Williams and cook Lee Tung Foo. They stampede their small herd over a toll bridge erected by Victor Jory. Later Jory rustles their cattle and Williams loses his left arm during the fracas.

From 1945 until 1962 when he retired, Randolph Scott made a series of good adult themed westerns, some of them considered real classics. Unfortunately the Cariboo Trail will never be listed among his best westerns.

It's more like the material that Roy Rogers or Gene Autry might use. The story is downright silly at times. Williams who was along for the ride with Scott, he wanted to go prospect for gold as there was a big strike at the time. He doesn't blame the rustlers, he blames Scott for convincing him to make the trip for the loss of his arm.

Also there's a scene in the film when Scott, Lee Tung Foo, and Gabby Hayes are captured by Indians. They escape because Gabby's mule has been taught to kick on command and he kicks away at the Indians allowing our heroes to escape. I'm not sure that would have played in a Rogers film.

Furthermore the story actually wants you to believe that tyro prospector Randolph Scott accidentally stumbles on a gold strike after just a few lessons from prospector Gabby Hayes on how to find gold.

This was Gabby Hayes's farewell feature film part. It would have been better had he gone out in a good western and in fact he had done a couple of better ones with Randolph Scott before this.

I will say this, though no Caribou made any appearance in the film, this is one of the few Canadian locale films from the past that did NOT have any Mounties.

But if I were you unless you are a big fan of Randolph Scott or Gabby Hayes, take the next detour off The Cariboo Trail.


Definitely a very good idea,screenplay was just OK.Could have been better,The positives are that it doesn't bore you if you're an adventure lover,A new idea about the lost world of Atlantis.Negatives are that I personally feel that this idea had so much more potential than this.They should've ended up with a better adventure than this.It wasn't bad at all but it would have been much better with some more runtime.Enjoyed it a lot though,Cant say that it was boring or wasn't good..A good one for the people who like adventure animations like Sindbad,like The road to el Dorado.This movie is also recommended for people looking for a nice little adventure with a very nice happy ending.


This movie rates as one of my all time favourite top 10 movies. Many people seeing it for the first time and knowing little about many of the themes in the movie probably won't understand why I find it so enthralling so I will try to explain...

The movie is very rich in historical detail and cultural insights, and while it has a few minor anachronisms, they are completely forgivable. The story is a retelling of the famous duel between the Monk Benkei and the young Prince Yoshitsune on Gojo bridge. During the fight according to legend Yoshitsune bests Benkei and the monk becomes the prince's loyal retainer. This movie is a revision of that story however and involves war, dark prophecy, and political maneuvering.

One of the main themes in the movie is 'Mappo', which is the prophecy by the Buddha that after 1000 years his teachings would fail and the world would fall into chaos. It was believed in Heian Japan, after the eruption of Mt Fuji and the civil war between the Taira (Heike) and the Minamoto (Genji) that the world would fall into anarchy and everything would collapse. It is a time of demons.

Next you have the way in which the movie resolves the issue of Yoshitsune's sword training by the Tenku (Raven Goblins) of Karuma. Defeated clans often escaped into the mountains and disguised themselves as demons to scare the locals off. This is said to be where ninja clans began historically. Yoshitsune's depiction in Gojo nicely accommodates all of this.

Then there is Benkei, and the various strains of Buddhism depicted, including a lot of Esoteric Buddhism of the Shingon sect. These are all depicted quite accurately, and just to add a little extra, the movie manages to convey the power of meditation and Ki energy in a way that makes it integral to the story, i.e. it uses magic realism to add an extra dimension to the film but does it in such a way as to make it tactical and menacing.

All-in-all it is filled with fascinating tidbits and rings surprisingly true-to-life for the period. The scenery and the costuming are also completely unmissable and very authentic. The soundtrack is great, very brooding and ominous. I also thought that the actual acting performances were surprisingly good. Benkei is a great brooding anti-hero, Shanao (Yoshitsune)is depicted as a young man testing his limits and growing increasingly drunk on his own power, and Tetsukichi the scavenging sword-smith makes for and interesting depiction of the 'common man' and his less than flattering opinion of the killers who fancy themselves his social betters.

As to the plot, to see why it is so good, I really suggest you dig up an old book on Japanese history and see how this retelling turns an almost lighthearted Robin Hood vs Little John story into a gory tale of intrigue, violence and infernal karma.


I think it's a great movie!! It's fun, maybe a little unrealistic, but fun and dramatic!! I would like to see it again, if they were showing it in TV!! Just 1 question: Are we still talking about the same movie???


I can't say I was surprised at this atrocity when I watched it a couple months or weeks ago (can't remember). I saw it as a two part episode of Zoey 101, because that's how they showed it here in Canada.

I was incredibly annoyed at the Makeover a Nerd thing, it's just an example of how unaccepting, unappreciating, superficial, negative, biased, and stereotypical the people in the entertainment business is and frankly I'm extremely peeved. It wasn't at all funny. A nerd is a stereotype and it makes people very offended.

Secondly, the people in Zoey 101 don't have real problems. Logan has a big house, he has a famous dad, he has everything and Zoey is rich too. They never have to deal with the things that today's tweens and teens have to do deal with such as peer pressure, and stereotype problems. Also, the actors are horrific. Jamie Lynn Spears doesn't deserve to be in a television show as successful as Zoey 101 (what is wrong with the world?), she doesn't have any talent as an actor. In fact, she's worse than Britney! The Chase and Zoey thing was incredibly predictable, I mean how could the show go on with Zoey and Chase dating? What other problems could they possibly have? Except for the fact that Chase doesn't get the girl he wants, everything is perfect! The absolute worse 48 minutes of my television watching life. Ever. 0/10 (and that's being generous)


A surprisingly good documentary. My surprise was mainly due to the fact that I was confused by the title. I assumed this was about the influence of the drug culture on film making but no it is a much more far reaching and intelligent film than could have been expected. Demme has done a great job in encapsulating the period from the late 60s to the late 70s. From, 'Easy Rider' and the collapse of studio influence, through all those introspective 'real life' movies, where brilliant young directors tried to express themselves politically, sexually and artistically, through to the beginnings of the blockbuster and the return of the reigns to the money men and their studios. As someone who saw the 'real life' movies of Britain and the rest of Europe through the sixties and then the revolutionary US films of the 70s and is sad that the sequel to the sequel is so much the order of the day, this was a most fascinating film. The interview clips are measured (thanks to DVD the full interviews are available as extras!) and the film clips well considered. Also, as someone who has only just caught up with, 'Joe', I am impressed that this important little film gets its well deserved entry here.


This movie is so bad it's funny. It stars Scott Backula as some coach, but that's not important, what is important is the large black fellow who plays 1st base. First off he has to be at least 75 years old, yet still plays minor league baseball, second he starts out the movie in the outfield despite not being able to walk, let alone run. Coach Backula brilliantly moves him to first citing the fact that when he attempts to run he stays in the same place for too long a period of time. Backula shows more brilliant coaching strategy in the end of the film, (SPOILER), he tells his star player 'downtown' to hit a home run, clearly 'downtown' viewed this as a good move. He hit the home run and won the game for his team, a minor league squad playing the Twins who were the class of the majors in the movie. Now if only Tony Muser, manager of the Royals, would be as smart a coach as Backula and tell his players to simply hit a home run in every at bat, the Royals would never end an inning let alone lose a game.


In Pasadena, Mrs. Davis (Joanna Cassidy) sends her daughter Aubrey Davis (Amber Tamblyn) to Tokyo to bring her sister Karen Davis (Sarah Michelle Gellar), who is interned in a hospital after surviving a fire, back to the USA. After their meeting, Karen dies and Aubrey decides to investigate what happened to her and gets herself cursed in the same situation, being chased by the ghost of the house. Meanwhile in Tokyo, the three high school mates Allison (Arielle Kebbel), Vanessa (Teresa Palmer) and Miyuki (Misako Uno) visit the famous haunted house and are also cursed and chased by the ghost. In Chicago, Trish (Jennifer Beals) moves to the apartment of her boyfriend Bill (Christopher Cousins), who lives with his children, the teenager Lacey (Sarah Roehmer) and boy Jake (Matthew Knight). On the next door, weird things happen with their neighbor.

'The Grudge 2' has scary sound and visual effects, with the creepy woman and boy, and I have startled a couple of times while watching this movie. However, the complex screenplay with three subplots is totally confused, making the entwined story a complete mess. There are too much characters and situations, and in a certain moment I was completely lost with the disconnected and fragmented narrative. In the end, I was completely disappointed with this confused, but also spooky film. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): 'O Grito 2' ('The Scream 2')


'Dressed To Kill', is one of the best thrillers ever made. Its dealings with sex and violence make this a film for adults. Brian De Palma, once again, proves why no other director can match his use of the camera to tell a story. He directs many scenes without dialog, and he tells much of his story, strictly through the use of his visuals, and Pino Donnagio's brilliant score. Filmed in Panavision, the film MUST be seen in widescreen, as De Palma uses the entire width of the film to tell his story. Cropped, on video, 'Dressed To Kill', is barely the same movie. Solid performances from its cast, superb direction, and, perhaps, the finest film score ever written, make 'Dressed To Kill' a must see.


This movie was horrible, simply put. It was so bad I registered with IMDb to warn you of its dangers.

I am a campy horror film expert, per se. I have watched 'Redneck Zombies', 'House of the Psychotic Women', 'Slumber Party Massacre II' and many others. I know my schlock. And I know this movie sucks.

Three fourths of the film is comprised of scared individuals running from one side of the screen to the other. When they are not running, they are spouting non-sequitur lines, devoid of emotion or motivation. When the actors begin to be acceptable, the direction falls to pieces. There were so many jarring low-angle shots; I figured Leif Jonker had a 3 foot tall tripod. He used what I call the 'Leif Maneuver' several millions times: that is, zooming out from an object of interest like an amateur. Apparently the film crew couldn't get up early enough to film a sunrise, so they filmed a sunset... and played it in reverse. With direction this lazy, you are actually impressed with the final gory scene. The only thing you can figure is that the last five minutes was filmed before the first eighty-five minutes.

If you want a good (bad) gory movie, rent 'Riki-Oh' or the foundational 'Dead Alive.' If you are a schlock buff, and are looking for a challenge, give 'Darkness' a go.

Quote o' the movie-

Vampire: It's die time!


I won't waste a whole lot of time of this one because as far as I'm concerned it isn't really a movie to start with, just a careless mish-mash of borrowed footage and embarrassingly amateurish new footage made solely for the purpose of pasting the whole mess together and call it a 'Boogeyman' sequel. Literally 80% of this film is stolen from its far superior predecessor 'The Boogeyman', a film that the writers of this garbage apparently didn't even bother to watch because they couldn't even get actress Suzanna Love's original character's name (Lacy) right. And to add insult to injury the killer is invisible in the original footage and visible in the new footage, apparently they think their audience is as stupid as they are. 0 out of 10 and I wish IMDb's rating system went that low, the most callous and blatant attempt to rip off people's money I've even seen, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!


This movie has some good performances, as others have pointed out, but suffers (as others have pointed out, except for the people who apparently are either friends of the filmmaker or the cast to otherwise explain why they would deem this a '10') from some self-conscious and self-absorbed film school padding and excess plots. This is the type of plot that Sex In The City could handle in a half hour episode, so there was no reason for it to be even an 88 minute movie. A perfect example of wasted footage is the fast forwarding montage in the first third of the movie. Some of the back story is merited, but too much time, for example, was spent on Daria character with the anal sex boyfriend and on the back story for Paulie, who was not a realistic character, although the actor did a decent job with the lines he was given.

The worst aspect of the movie was the level of amateurish parts: from typos in the typed material, to bad jumps and edits, poor camera positions, angles, lighting problems throughout and, most glaringly, a poorly written script with a badly developed concept. If the writer (also the director and lead) had collaborated with someone, he might not have ended up with a 100% rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes, which further belays the ability of anyone to truly believe the people who gave it a 10 on the rating system here.


Hmph. Soul Plane supposed to be a 'black comedy' spoof of a much well known movie, Airplane. This movie, is black comedy done at it's worst. Stereotypes can be funny, and a lot of times they are. But in this picture, it's disgusting. Okay, you have clubs, sex, drugs, everything crude that people associate with 'urban' culture today.

Tom Arnold's appearance in this movie, is this movie's saving grace if it ever had any. DL Hughley should have never accepted the script. Kevin Hart makes a poor leading figure here... his appearance in this movie will probably grow annoying to many. Method Man and Snoop's appearance were by far, their worst.

I am just happy that I didn't pay to see this movie...


I do NOT understand why anyone would waste their time or money on utter trash like this... Don't get me wrong -- I LOVE a good Western -- Notice I said 'GOOD' -- this is just trash

The acting is horrible -- Val Kilmer must know someone or owed a favor or something for them just to use his face and name in this ridiculous piece of crap...

To those of you who enjoyed this movie, I am making a list of you're names to ensure I do NOT watch anything you suggest -- our tastes are definitely different, yet it is your right to voice your opinion, no matter how far off base it is.

I gave this movie a 2 just in case they do throw out all of the one's and not count them.... Just bad in all area's...


Lots of scenes and dialogue are flat-out goofy, but when you add it all up, i.e. Machine's daily cycle from depressing walkup to depressing bar to depressing burlesque hall to depressing smoke-filled poker games and back home again, you get a weird sense that somebody, somewhere is trying to give a faithful depiction of the junkie's life circa-1955. Whether it's Sinatra, who obviously would have bumped up against this type of character growing up in Hoboken and working in numerous bands, or Preminger, who uses the soundtrack and the Frankie-Zosch subtext to slip the addict's interior worldview past the Hays Code cage, you get a good companion piece to On the Waterfront, which was filmed almost exactly the same time. Sort of a faux-realist work that leaves you realistically wondering how deep the drug culture is embedded in American life.


This is the first and as far as I can tell, the only completed production of 'Heart of Darkness' ever released. Prior to starting on 'Citizen Kane,' Orson Welles shot some test footage for a version of 'Heart of Darkness' that was to be filmed entirely in what would now be called 'POV', where we would see everything from the point of view of the main character Charlie Marlow; he would be seen only fleetingly in mirrors, windows, water, etc. The film was never made. The 'POV' technique was used, not too successfully, in 1947 in 'The Lady in the Lake,' with Robert Montgomery starring as Philip Marlowe. Presumably, the coincidence of the two 'Marlow(e)' characters is just that. Of course, Francis Coppola's 'Apocalypse Now' was based on 'Heart of Darkness.'

The short novel 'Heart of Darkness' by the Polish-born British writer Joseph Conrad, first serialized in a British literary magazine in 1899, features one of his favorite alter egos, ship captain Charlie Marlow, who also narrates the short story 'Youth' and indirectly tells the story of 'Lord Jim.' Marlow, temporarily out of work, decides to take a job captaining a river boat for a Belgian company involved in the brutal exploitation of the resources of King Leopold II's personal fiefdom, the cruelly misnamed Congo Free State. Marlow travels from London to Brussels, signs on with the company, and is told that his mission is to take a boat up the Congo River to a far inland station headed by one of the company's most productive agents in the colony, a German named Kurtz. Shipments of ivory, latex (for the production of rubber) and other products from Kurtz's station have ceased, and no word has come downriver from Kurtz for some time. There are rumors that he has 'gone native.' Marlow is to investigate, take any necessary action, and make a report on his return. He takes passage down the West African coast to the mouth of the Congo, is delayed for weeks while he is forced to repair his boat at the company station on the coast, and finally sets out upriver to find Kurtz's station. The river, the heat, the vegetation, the wildlife, the insects, the people, all take their toll on his endurance, his imagination, and his mental resources. He finds Kurtz ill, half-mad, and close to death. The final encounter and the death of Kurtz are almost an anticlimax, especially since Conrad is so obscure about what actually happens that we are left to puzzle it out for ourselves. This is a novel where you close the book vaguely dissatisfied with the ending but nevertheless treasuring the story for its amazing atmospherics.

This 'Heart of Darkness' was filmed with Guyana in Central America standing in for West Africa. It is best where the novel is at its greatest disadvantage: Actually showing us First World urbanites what a boat trip up a tropical river would look like. But the rest of the film was forgettable. Tim Roth does his best as Marlow, but so much about the plot, characterizations, and character relationships has been altered beyond recognition that you wonder why they bothered. If the aim was to make Conrad's story for the screen, why didn't they leave it alone? It's unreasonable to expect that no compromises will be made when a book is made into a movie, but so many changes were made that to me had no cinematic justification that you wonder whether we are simply dealing with incompetent screenwriters and cinematographers. Most disappointing of all was John Malkovich as Kurtz. He was completely miscast and simply flubs the role. Everything about him is wrong: His looks, his acting style, his voice, his accent, everything. A vastly better choice would have been someone like Bruno Ganz (unlike Malkovich, an actual German, like the character).

This is a very disappointing production and I would recommend it only after you've read the book if you want to depend on more than your imagination to get a visual picture of a boat trip up the Congo River circa 1900.


To be honest, I didn't like that much this movie when I saw it for the first time. But I guess the trouble is that I haven't seen it in a theater. Big Mistake ! Because the #1 thing to see in Cliffhanger is the settings and #2 is the cinematography. Try to see this movie on the largest TV possible and a great sound system. The music is good and puts the movie to a higher level (and a commercial potential). The more I see it, the more I like it.

It's definitely one of Renny Harlin's best movie. THis guy knows about action. Die Hard 2, The long kiss good bye, etc. And it's particularly good in this movie. The special effect are great and spectacular. Stallone really needed that movie get back with success. Still good to see him !


Bedrooms and Hallways was one of the funniest films of the 1999 Melbourne Film Festival. From the UK, it is about a young crowd of flatmates and their various relationship dilemmas. Much of the humour is centred around a new-agey men's self-help group where they pass around various implements like the 'rock of truth'. They also go on a 'hunter gatherer' weekend with hilarious results. Trust me, you'll laugh your teeth out.


You don't have to be a fan of the cartoon show to enjoy this film. I watched it for the first time when I was nine, having been a fan of the T.V show, and my parents laughed just as hard as I did. It is done in the classic style of Bugs Bunny cartoons from yesterday, and considering todays vulgar cartoons, I would think anybody would appreciate a cartoon movie that relies more on 'wackiness' then on vulgarity, to get a few laughs.


It's taken years for cult icon Bruce Campbell to get this project off the ground - but he finally has, it's here - and what a great piece of schlock entertainment it is! Looking at the plot; it sounds like two things. A great base for a very silly B-movie, and a shameless excuse for Bruce Campbell to what he does best - Evil Dead II style slapstick humour, and this film delivers on both counts. The Man With the Screaming Brain is comic book nonsense all the way through - but there's some really great scenes, and it's almost impossible to be bored with this movie. Bruce Campbell wrote, directs, produces and stars in this film - and while it's not quite Citizen Kane, it has to be said that this is an achievement for the man most famous for battling off his own hand in a woodland cabin. The plot follows American businessman William Cole on a business trip to Bulgaria with his girlfriend. The trip goes awry, however, when he, his girlfriend and his taxi driver end up dead; thanks to the same woman. Mad scientist Stacy Keach is on hand to merge Cole and the taxi driver's brains into one; and we've got a cult flick on our hands.

The first half hour or so is entertaining and features a few laughs; but once the main plot point has been executed; the movie really picks up. Bruce makes best use of the scenario in all kinds of silly situations, from changing his clothes in a waste bin, to deciding (with the taxi driver in his brain) what to eat in a restaurant. The humour is mostly of the slapstick variety, and anyone who enjoyed Evil Dead II (which should be anyone who's seen it), will no doubt enjoy this too. It does feel like Campbell is playing to his strengths a little bit too much with this whole project, but if you tuned in and DIDN'T see Bruce doing what he does best, disappointment would ensue. Besides that, no disrespect to the man; but he's never been the actor with the greatest range. Despite being lots of fun; the movie isn't great, as it gets a little bit too silly at times; and there's a whole sub-plot with a robot that I didn't like; but overall, The Man With the Screaming Brain is a film that we, sadly, don't see too much of nowadays. The film is an all-out, no holds barred, B-movie; and it deserves respect for that if nothing else.


The acting was very sub-par, You had Costas Mandalar acting like Triple H's dumber forest ranger brother, a Scott McMahon look-alike as his depute who I guess your supposed to care about but there is no emotional involvement anywhere. You have the Stupid lesbian, Not that I have any thing against lesbians, i don't just stupid ones who keep running around in a punisher like shirt and a grunge like hat who keeps asking if anyone saw her dead lover.

The Villain could be scary and there is a morality tale somewhere about trying to fight age and death but it is lost in this movie. Costas Hurst Helmsley points out to the soon to be victims the way back into town, while obviously there are city lights behind him.

Also A mispronunciation of Ed Gein but pronounced it Gine. As a citizen of Wisconsin. We have had our share of Monsters Gein,Dahmer, and McCarthy, but if your going to use it pronounce it right.

God Why do i watch all these terrible films. Oh yes I am a glutton for punishment and I watch these so you don't have to.


What a disappointment! I've enjoyed the Jon Cleary books about Scobie Malone, but there's little resemblance between him and the cinematic Malone. In the books he's a city detective, who is devoted to his wife and doesn't get involved in fisticuffs. For the film the character has been spiced up, into an outback copper who uses his fists and isn't averse to jumping into bed with a gorgeous girl, though quite what she and the film's other sex interest see in him I don't know; Taylor was 39 at the time and his face was getting puffy.

But his character's stamina is remarkable; he flies in from Australia, apparently goes straight to the Commissioner's house (rather unwisely seeking to arrest him during a black-tie reception), saves him from assassination (getting into a fight in the process), goes to a casino with one girl, leaves with another and takes her to bed. So much for jet lag! On the way back to the Commissioner's house (showing a good knowledge of London back streets), he gets beaten up by the baddies, but is still first down to breakfast! It's also remarkable that the commissioner's limo has its windscreen and headlights miraculously repaired within minutes of the assassination attempt and that one character has a touching faith in the precise timekeeping of a clock-activated bomb.

The best thing is Joseph the Butler's disdain for the uncouth Malone. And at least the film avoids being a London travelogue, though some scenes take place during the Wimbledon tennis week.


It's rare for a film to sweep you away within its world and leave you wanting more once the credits roll. Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo is such a film.

The film is the story of a young goldfish named Ponyo who wishes to become human. She swims to shore and is found by a young boy named Sasuke who promises to take care of her. Course Ponyo's father, an ecologically obsessed sorcerer named Fujimoto, tries to keep Ponyo from becoming human in order to maintain the balance of nature, which is eventually upturned when Ponyo finally transforms into a little girl, causing a massive typhoon.

Ponyo is a very rich film. It is full of wondrous fantasy, lovable characters, and genuine heart. What director Hayao Miyazaki has done here is tell a simple little story, and while so doing creating authentic movie magic.

Ponyo is an enchanting experience. The love between Sasuke and Ponyo is very pure and true. As well the environmentalist within Miyazaki is still as evident within this film as in all his previous works. Miyazaki shows the filth and grime that fall into the ocean in an almost startling light, not to mention Ponyo's father is on an obsessive mission to clean the world's oceans. While the story is simple, Miyazaki manages to add this extra layer to provoke thought with expert proficiency.

The film is a beautiful work of art, each hand drawn cell looks like a wondrous pastel painting. The film looks very different than many other Studio Ghibli productions, but the artistry is still just as spectacular as ever before. The scenes underwater are simply beautiful to watch, Fujimoto's fortress under the sea is highly inventive, and the sequence where Ponyo runs across the jumping fish within the typhoon to reach Sosuke is iconic.

Course it is thanks to its wonderfully executed characters that makes this film such a memorable experience. Sosuke is a young boy who acts older than he actually is, and the energetic Ponyo is a laugh a minute. Every character is just so enjoyable and highly memorable.

Overall Ponyo is a wondrous experience, enchanting in every single way. While the film may be sold as a children's fairy tale, I believe many adults will be swept away within its fantastic world along with their children. While the film may lack the density of some of Miyazaki's previous works, here he keeps it pure and simple, being true to himself, delivering a film that is funny, heartwarming, and entertaining all in one. This is a magnificent film.

I give Ponyo a perfect 10 out of 10!


'It's like hard to like describe just how like exciting it is like to make a relationship like drama like with all the like pornographic scenes thrown like in for like good measure like, and to stir up like contro- like -versy and make us more like money and like stuff.' - Ellen, the lost quote.

'Kissing, Like, On the, Like, Mouth And Stuff' is like the best like artistic endeavor like ever made. Watching like Ellen's hairy arms and like Chris masturbating was like the height of my years-long movie-viewing experience and stuff. But before I like begin like breaking new U.S.-20-something-airhead records with the my 'likes', let me like just briefly list like the high- like -lights of this visual like feast:

1. Chris doing the deed with his genitals. And not just that: the way the camera (guided so elegantly by Ellen and Patrick) rewards the viewer with a full-screen shot of Chris's fat white-trash stomach after he finishes the un-Catholic deed - that was truly thrilling. I can in all honesty say that I've never seen such grace. Chris, you should do more such scenes in your next movies, because that is exactly what we needed as a continuation of what that brilliant, brilliant man, Lars von Trier and his 'Idiots 95', started. A quick w*** and then a hairy, fat, white belly: what more can any movie-goer ask for?! Needless to say, I can sit all day and watch Chris ejaculate (in spite of the fact that I'm straight)... Such poetry in motion. Such elegance, such style. No less than total, divine inspiration went into filming that sequence - plus a solid amount of Zen philosophy. Even Barbra Streisand could not get any more spiritual than this.

2. Ellen's hairy, thick arms. The wobbly-camera close-ups, so skillfully photographed by our two directors of photography (I can't emphasize this enough), Ellen and Patrick, often caused confusion regarding the proper identification of the sex in question. There were several scenes when we would see a part of a body (a leg, arm or foot), yet it was often a guessing game: does that body-part belong to a man or a woman? Naturally, Chris and his fellow artists, Ellen, Patrick and whatsername, cast themselves on purpose, because their bodies were ideal for creating this gender-based confusion. It was at times hard to guess whether one is seeing a female or male leg. Patrick is so very thin and effeminate in his movements, so hairless and pristine, whereas Ellen and the other girl are so very butch, what with their thick legs and arms. Brilliant.

3. Brilliant - especially the way that neatly ties in with the theme of role reversal between the sexes: so utterly original and mind-blowing. Ellen behaves like a man, wants sex all the time, while her ex Patrick wants to talk - like a girl. Spiffing.

4. Ellen's search for a Leftist mate. 'He must love 'The Simpsons', which is quite Leftist.' I am glad that the makers of this movie decided to break the long tradition of offering us intelligent Leftists. Ellen is such a refreshing - and realistic - change. The number of 'likes' that she and her liberal friends manage to utter in less than 80 minutes is truly phenomenal (3,849, to be exact). They have managed to realistically transfer their real-life ineptness onto the big screen with a minimum of effort, and I applaud them for that.

5. The close-ups of toes. Plenty of stuff here for foot-fetishists, which I think is a very liberal, highly commendable way of reaching out to sexual minorities. After all, shoe- and foot- fetishists are offered so little in modern cinema, so it's nice to see that someone out there CARES.

KOTM, or rather, KLOTLMAS, offers more than meets the eye. It is not just a modest little film about shallow people engaging in hollow relationships while indulging in meaningless conversations. No, it's much more than that. It's about the light that guides all silly creatures; the guiding light that dominates the futile lives of various pseudo-artistic wannabes who just dropped out of film school, and plan to assault our senses with dim-witted drivel that will hopefully play well at pretentious festivals like Sundance and Cannes, enabling them to gain the necessary exposure hence some real cash for a change, with which they will later hire the likes of Sean Penn and George Clooney in promoting the saving of this planet and the resolving of ALL political problems this world faces. What better way to do that than by making porn at the very start?

If Chris and Ellen did the camera here, as is clearly stated in the end-credits, then who held the camera while the two of them were in front of it? They probably hired some passers-by and shoved the camera into their hands...

Go to http://rateyourmusic.com/~Fedor8, and check out my 'TV & Cinema: 150 Worst Cases Of Nepotism' list.


This movie is so God-awful that it was literally a chore to watch. I wanted to eject it from my vcr and throw it across the room, but kept thinking (foolishly) that it would eventually get funny and then everything would be all right. 'You lose, we win, yay!' This movie should be required viewing for anyone who even once entertained the thought that Jackie Mason was funny. After that, beat them ove the head with this movie until the tape cracks. And if you're even considering renting this turd (or worse yet, have!) I have one thing to ask of you: didn't you even look at the cover? I mean, with crap like this you can tell with just a glance how bad it is! 'Oy vey!' This movie sucked.


Prominent attorney Walter Pidgeon takes a murder case pro bono, wins an acquittal and discovers that his client (Keefe Braselle) was not only guilty but part of an extortion ring reaching to the highest eschelons of the city. Panged by his own complicity, he undertakes an investigation, stumbles onto the identity of the 'unknown man' who heads the syndicate, and murders him.

The ironies engage when Braselle is charged with this second murder and Pidgeon must defend him by pointing to the existence of another 'unknown man' -- himself. Though somewhat short of urban grit and long on rhetoric, the Unknown Man belongs to the noir cycle less by style or structure than by its acknowledgement of the pervasive corruption of American municipal politics that came to light in the postwar years.


This movie has some fatal flaws in it, how someone could walk through an open back door of a highly secure medical facility is unbelievable. Then this same person just walks around the facility and enters the Dr.'s office, is just bad writing or bad editing.

Very very very predictable movie.

I am not sure how this film got made, except it is was filmed in Canada, and probably received a government grant.

I must say the person playing Aaron, Cory Monteith, did a good job.

Unless you are really bored and there is nothing else to watch on television then I would say it will kill some time, but otherwise, it is a movie no actor would want on their resume.


Challen Cates does a wonderful job depicting a conflicted bride, torn between the challenges that await her professionally, the memories of the freedom she thought she would have when in college (inspired by a famous author) and the safety of her pending marriage to a man she really doesn't love. This movie is definitely worth seeing--- as predictable as it may be, the acting is inspiring and real chemistry exists between Challen Cates and Malcolm Jamaal Warner.


They constructed this one as a kind of fantasy Man From Snowy River meets Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, and just for a romantic touch Ned and Joe get to play away with high class talent, the bored young wives of wealthy older men. OK, there are lots of myths about Ned Kelly, but there are also a lot of well documented facts, still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. I mean, this is not the Robin Hood story, not the Arthurian legends, not Beowulf, not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. It's only a couple of lifetimes ago. My own grandparents were already of school age when Ned was hanged.

So it's silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the Kelly story. Having recently read Peter Carey's excellent novel 'The True History of the Kelly Gang' I had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.

Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD! I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous.


I've never really considered myself much of 'student' when it comes to watching films, I watch them, form an opinion and that's it. But Unhinged changed all this. This film is without a doubt the most inept attempt at film making I've ever seen. Every kid who rocks up at university thinking they're gonna be the next Spielberg or Tarantino needs to be handed this film with a handbook titled 'How Not to Make A Film'. Not only is there no story to be had, the film makers weren't even competent enough to make a film worth watching. It's been a while since I saw it, but all I can say is watch the overhead tracking shots in the opening scenes. They are never ending! It's almost like having your teeth pulled, only not as much fun.


this movie probably had a $750 budget, and still managed to surpass Titanic. i rented this the day i crashed my mom's car, and it was the only thing that cheered me up beyond belief! it has to be tied with 'The Assult of the Killer Bimbos'. Things to look for are: 1. The drive in blow job chinese girl scene 2. The bleach blonde in the sassoon shirt who never changes 3. The Flinstone-like screech out driving 4. The clashing ensemble worn by the redhead right before she gets killed (don't worry, i'm not ruining any surprises, for it's soooo predictable) 5. The guy who finds it necessary to howl. 6. The mental patient who plays a convincing job of being insane by poking out the eyes of a maniquen. 7. The hour long chase at the end involving the teacher and the priest. 8. the womman writing grafitti on the bathroom wall. 9. last, but not least, the wonderful special effects--especially the stab in the boob that made a... heaven help me... popping noise.

enjoy!


I couldn't help but feel that this could have been a bigger movie than it was. The screenplay is highly intelligent and it just seemed that it could have been opened up in a way more reminiscent of Seven. Not by changing the story - I think mainly through the cinematography. The cinematography was the only thing that I found to be holding back the film. On the other hand, the pacing was absolutely on point. Whoever worked on the editing really did their job well. And I thought Bill Paxton did a great job of directing. Now away from the technical stuff...

This movie threw me for a loop. SPOILER AHEAD!!!! All along, I really felt that Bill Paxton was crazy and then when Adam finally took the FBI agent to the Rose Garden to show him where the bodies were buried and revealed who he was, I got thrown for a loop. I had suspected the first part of the twist but what really threw me was when he touches the agent and sees the agent murder his mother and the fact that the agent too (without any words spoken, simply by touch) sees it again with Adam and asks him how he knew. My dilemma was not that it was yet another twist thrown in but the almost ungraspable idea that this man and his father were not crazy but actually picked out 'bad guys' so to speak, knowing their sins and crimes already. I don't endorse an eye for an eye so I didn't leave the film being able to believe that they were doing God's work. Instead I chose to believe that they were both clairvoyant and that the father had gone off the deep end one day from it and through the things that he subjected his sons to, disturbed them permanently also. That was my interpretation but the vexing thing about the film was it's like a house of cards and a never-ending circle and what is the correct interpretation of the disturbing events you've sat through. It's definitely one of those movies where I'd love to be able to meet the writer so I could just ask him what the real meaning was to it all. Were they crazy and psychotic? Were they simply telepathic and took license because of it? Or did they have some sort of appearance from God? And if so, was it God or the Devil disguising himself as God. My friends and I found ourselves talking about it all night trying to figure out what was what and what the filmmakers had thought was the answer when they made this movie.

A definitely perplexing and thought invoking film with some very disturbing but certainly not sensationalistic elements to it. It's not a perfect film, but it definitely is it's own thing. Great directorial work and acting by Bill Paxton and the child that played Fenton was extremely good. I hope he doesn't end up relegated to the child actor syndrome as he seems to have a lot of promise. I gave this movie a good vote for the majority of the components that make a film, but I would have voted higher if wasn't for the feeling that something (although I can't pinpoint what) was off and if it hadn't have been, the movie would have gone to an even higher level. Still, a definite recommend, especially for those that are inquisitive.


This is my favourite Indian movie of all time. It is comic genius. Salman Khan is hilarious. But Amir Khan steals the show with his witty dialogue. Karisma Kapoor's outfits tell a story of their own - makes you wonder if the stylist deliberately made her wear some of the clothes just to make the movie funnier (at one point she looks like she's wearing a nappy). Andaz Apna Apna is the only comedy genre movie to make me laugh from the beginning till the very end. There is not one dull moment, every scene is hilarious, even the songs and dance moves will have you in stitches of laughter. I especially loved the scene in which Amar (Amir Khan) 'regains his memory'. I've seen this movie so many times I've lost count. And I'm so glad to say that this time Bollywood can take all the credit for this fantastic movie as far as I know A.A.A it is not a replicate of a Hollywood movie (THANK GOD). Overall I recommend this movie to anyone who understands Hindi/ Urdu and loves good comedy.

Watch it you'll love it!!!!!


Admittedly, I know nothing about baseball, I'm not even a fan of the sport, but that didn't stop me enjoying the Farrelly brothers' latest film, Fever Pitch, a charmingly irreverent romantic comedy. The film is not really about baseball; rather, it's really about relationships, and the emotional disconnectedness that can often take place.

Jimmy Fallen  giving his best performance to date  stars as Ben, a dorky, lightly nerdy schoolteacher. Ben is a kind of man-boy, who unfortunately has never really grown up, and he fosters an almost fanatical addiction to the Red Sox baseball team. Ben has devoted his life to the Sox, and does everything from making the pilgrimage to Florida for spring training to decorating every square inch of his apartment in team paraphernalia.

One day, while taking his honors geometry class to on a field trip to her office, Ben meets the go-getting Lindsey (a wonderful Drew Barrymore). Lindsey is a corporate, career orientated kind of girl, but she has a kind of cuteness that Ben finds totally endearing. He's initially hesitant to ask her out, thinking that she's way out of his 'class,' and, Lindsey doesn't immediately see a potential partner in Ben.

Their first date gets off to a disastrous start when Lindsey is stricken with a severe case of food poisoning  and her resonant retching provides the first clue that we are, in fact, watching a Farrelly brothers movie. Rather than accept Lindsey's - rather urgent - request to reschedule, Ben sticks around to play nurse, orderly, and janitor. So Ben scrubs the toilet and the dog's teeth, while his love interest is passed out with a bucket next to her bed.

When Lindsey wakes up in the morning and finds him asleep on her couch, she begins the long, fitful process of dismantling the web of status anxiety and ambition she has come to think of as her standards. Soon they are falling in love, with Lindsey blithely accepting Ben's fanatical devotion to his sport.

Having inherited choice season tickets from his beloved uncle, Ben has organized his life around the season  he's never missed a game. But their relationship, which has progressed without a hitch throughout the winter, hits a snag at the start of the season.

Lindsey wants Ben to do other things, like holiday with her parents and party with her friends, but Ben begins to have trouble modulating his interest to meet Lindsey halfway. Can Lindsey consent to his irrational devotion to the boys of summer in order to make their relationship work? Can she really accommodate Ben's infatuation with sports? Can a die-hard and nerdy Red Sox fan find true love after all? Of course, Lindsey and Ben come with a colorful assortment of opinion-wielding friends. Lindsey's strictest buddy, the skinny, rich and blond Robin (KaDee Strickland), insists that there must be something wrong with the guy if he's still single at 30. However, plump, curly-haired Sarah (Marissa Jaret Winokur) and Molly (Ione Skye) supply a more optimistic and positive view of Ben.

Ben's eccentricity could be applied to virtually any obsessive sports fan, while Lindsay's frustrations could be representative of any upwardly mobile career driven woman. Fallon is terrific as Ben, exhibiting real big screen potential, overcoming the not-insignificant challenge of keeping Ben from being unsympathetic. Barrymore, meanwhile, is equally charming as the workaholic Lindsey, particularly as she struggles to accept Ben for who he is without losing sight of her own needs.

Fever Pitch really works, and even though there are lots of inspired comedic moments, the movie is also addressing the serious problem of sports addiction and how difficult it can be for couples to negotiate this fragile territory.

Much of the movie was filmed at Boston's Fenway Park, which adds a fine sense of authenticity to the proceedings, as well as the ambiance of the games, though fully appreciating what transpired with the team will probably be limited to baseball aficionados. Even so, Fever Pitch is blessed with such a finely wrought and intelligently funny script that even novice baseball fans will find much with which to connect. Mike Leonard September 05.


**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten

***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see

*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece

**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws

** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)

*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments

BOMB = Not of a viewable quality

- Kalifornia = ***

- Unrated (for strong violent material, considerable sexuality, and language)

I rented this film expecting an in-your-face summer-Blockbuster-quality celebration of Brad Pitt's face, but was happily surprised and disappointed. This really is more of a drama, and very grim at that... I remember some emotionally intense Duchovny voice-overs.

Pitt plays out his possibly un-sexiest film ever with startling talent. Who started out as a hopeless yet harmless 'white trash' husband became realized as a violent, disturbing alcoholic with a messed mind. During some of the latter stages in the film, I found it hard to keep watching him - he was unpredictable and scary. This proves very good writing and acting.

The whole movie is filled with bizarre, sensational scenes that made me hold my breath not fewer than once, and I don't mean action scenes. I mean dialogue scenes so brilliantly crafted I actually winced and gasped at what I was seeing. It was like watching a rhino and a lion put in a cage and watching as they gnawed each other to death. Again, I am very impressed with the screenwriter(s); whoever they are did the impossible: mixed oil and water.

I also very much enjoyed Juliette Lewis's performance. It is so rare for this talented young actress to make an appearance these days that when she does it is such a joy. Some of her moments in this film brought me to tears. I mean that. The emotions this girl can arouse in your head are incredible, and I clearly remember getting blurry-eyed on a few occasions.

I almost feel like I'm cheating the quality craftsmanship the film makers have displayed by only giving 'KALIFORNIA' a *** rating. But the dark feelings that it stirs are too potent and depressing to raise it. I do believe that everyone should see this movie though. I truly do.