Given the title, this first follow-up to QUARTET (1948) obviously reduces the number of W. Somerset Maugham stories which comprise the film. The author still turns up to introduce the episodes, but there’s no epilogue this time around; by the way, while the script of the original compendium gave sole credit to R.C. Sheriff, here Maugham himself also lent a hand in the adaptation, as well as Noel Langley (though it’s unclear whether they contributed one segment each or else worked in unison). As can be expected, much of the crew of QUARTET has been retained for the second installment – though this also extends to at least three cast members, namely Naunton Wayne, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Felix Aylmer (the last two had bit parts in the episode from QUARTET entitled “The Colonel’s Lady”). While TRIO ultimately emerges to be a lesser achievement than its predecessor (slightly unbalanced by the third story which takes up more than half the running-time), it’s still done with the utmost care, acted with verve by a stellar cast and is solidly enjoyable into the bargain.

“The Verger” tells of a church sexton (James Hayter) – for which the story’s title is another word – who’s dismissed after 17 years of service by the new parish priest (Michael Hordern) simply because he’s illiterate. Rather than rest on his laurels, despite his age, he not only takes a wife (his landlady, played by Kathleen Harrison) but opens a tobacconist shop strategically placed in a lengthy stretch of road where no such service is offered – and, with business flourishing, this is developed into a whole chain. The last scene, then, sees him pay a visit to bank manager Felix Aylmer who, not only is surprised to learn of Hayter’s lack of education, but is prompted to ask him what his other interests were – to which the wealthy (and respected) tobacconist replies, with some measure of irony, that he had the calling to be a verger!

The second episode, “Mr. Know-All”, is the shortest but also perhaps the most engaging: a voyage at sea is utterly beleaguered by the insufferable presence of a pompous young man (Nigel Patrick), British despite his foreign-sounding name of Kelada, who professes to be an authority on virtually every subject under the sun. Naunton Wayne and Wilfrid Hyde-White are the two passengers who have to put up with him the most – the latter because he shares a cabin with the man and the former in view of Patrick’s attentions to his pretty wife (Anne Crawford). During a fancy-dress party, however, the passengers decide to enact their ‘revenge’ on Kelada by having one of them impersonate him (a jest which he naturally doesn’t appreciate)!; still, it’s here that he contrives to show a decent side to his character – told by Crawford that the necklace she’s wearing is an imitation, Wayne challenges Patrick to name its price…but the latter realizes immediately that it’s the genuine article and that this would compromise Crawford’s position if he were to tell, so Kelada allows himself to be publicly ridiculed rather than expose the fact that the woman probably has a secret admirer!

As can also be deduced from the title, “Sanatorium” deals with the myriad patients at such a place – run by Andre' Morell; the protagonist is a new intern, Roland Culver, who wistfully observes the various goings-on. The narrative, in fact, highlights in particular three separate strands of plot – one humorous (the ‘feud’ between two aged Scots long resident at the sanatorium, played by Finlay Currie and John Laurie), one melodramatic (the erratic relationship between disgruntled patient Raymond Huntley and long-suffering but devoted wife Betty Ann Davies) and one bittersweet (the romance between naïve but charming Jean Simmons and dashing cad Michael Rennie which, in spite of having pretty much everything against it including the fact that Morell has diagnosed Simmons as a ‘lifer’ while Rennie only has a few years left to him, leads the couple to the altar).


This movie is breath-taking and mind-blowing. But I think maybe it can only be appreciated by die-hard RPG funs. It is like a game. One problem is the plot is too game-like and just has too many twists. The twists are excessive. Jude Law gives a very good performance. I really like him in this movie, just as Jerome in Gattaca and Gigglo Joe in A.I.


Weak tale of an evil warlock who is searching for a centuries old satanic Bible so that he can do Lucifer's bidding by undoing creation. Hot in pursuit all the way is a 17th Centruy bounty hunter named Redfern and his reluctant sidekick Kassandra. Sound like a load of bunkum? It is.

This drivel from writer D.T. Twohy gets the superficial treatment it deserves from director Steve Miner (who helmed that romantic nonsense 'Forever Young'). Twohy obviously knows nothing about true evil.

Julian Sands just flies around and cackles, trying to look evil, while Richard E. Grant succeeds only in wasting his rich talent. Lori Singer's career also took a nosedive with this one.

Special effects crew has some fun, and Jerry Goldsmith provides a score superior to its subject matter.


Bobcat Goldthwait should be commended for attempting to do something different with this surprisingly heartfelt film, a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of being honest about everything. Melinda Hamilton stars as Amy, a girl who has had oral sex with a canine in the past on a lark. She struggles with telling her fiancé, John. Of course the truth does rear it's shaggy ugly head. The film deals with the fallout of said escapade. The movie is well-acted by all, save for perhaps Jack Plotnick as Dougie, who never really felt like he mashed well with the picture. And the film while solid enough seems to miss it's mark a few times. Every single person in the film struggles with massive hypocrisy and all our a tad hard to relate to. Bobcat should be commended for doing something different, as I said before, but different does not always equal good and this pales ever so slightly not to Goldthwaits own directorial debut, the criminally misunderstood 'Shakes the Clown'

My Grade: C-


I found this family film to be pleasant and enjoyable even though I am not a child. It is based on the concept of a high school girl, Susan (Elisha Cuthbert) discovering that the elevator in her upper class apartment building becomes a time machine when a key on a key chain she got from a blind scientist is turned in the elevator lock. She learns how to control the machine (with some uncertainty about time of day).

The film is not a work of serious science fiction. You have to ignore the usual instability paradox associated with altering the past through time travel, i.e, the past is changed to prevent the 1881 Walker family from becoming poor, but the change means the family never got into financial trouble, so Victoria wouldn't have told Susan about the financial problems her mother had, which means that Susan shouldn't have had a reason to change the past in the first place! But other than that, there are some nice touches in the story, such as the old elevator panel, found in the apartment of the woman who secretly invented and installed the time machine, not having a space for the lock that activates the time machine feature. As in many stories for children, we need to also suppose that a child will not share startling information about a time travel device with a parent or other adult but instead hide the time traveler.

It also requires disregarding some poorly staged scenes and uninspired performances by some of the adult actors. (The child actors (Elisha Cuthbert, Gabrielle Boni, and Matthew Harbour) all were very convincing in their parts.) In one scene in the 1300s native Americans notice Susan observing and photographing them. But they don't register surprise in the sudden appearance of this blond, white skinned girl in peculiar dress. Their response is to simply stop what they are doing and to walk calmly towards Susan. In the same scene an Indian mother is carrying what is supposed to be a baby but is so obviously a doll (its white skinned and its head flops around).

Timothy Busfield, the award winning actor who originally came to fame in TV's old 'Thirty Something,' gives a somewhat uninteresting, sometimes listless, performance. In the other extreme Michel Perron hams it up as the Italian building superintendent (janitor), as does Richard Jutras in his role as a nosy neighbor. (The neighbor's name is Edward Ormondroyd, which is the name of the author of the novel the film is based on.) I suspect that these problems may be the fault either of the director or possible of a low budget.

Despite these flaws, I recommend the movie for kids. In addition to the interesting story, it also has some educational value, in that it points out how much both technology and social norms have changed in little more that 100 years.


... and in *no way* as clean, logical, and understandable as in pictured in that pathetic sum of tired Hollywood cliches.

I'm 27, and I've spent 16 years of my life struggling through delusional phobia and paranoid hallucinations. Like the main character in the film, I was successful mainly because of logic : because I kept thinking over and over to keep delusion away from reality, and to know what was really going on and what wasn't. In the end, I was really successful because of medication, by the way, but I certainly escaped madness because I knew before I took medication the difference between what was real and what wasn't.

So, I feel entitled to tell you that this movie is a total fraud. Not only does it cheat with the main character's story (who wasn't faithful to his wife, who was bisexual - something really important here), but mostly, it shows a comforting, tamed view of schizophrenia - which is entirely missing the point.

Schizophrenia is a mind structure, not a disease. A schizophrenic *isn't* a 'normal man with a disease', it's someone who from early on views and feels things differently from most people : for him, things like time, space, and people's personalities aren't solid things. He feels it can be bent, it can change, it can mutate, and maybe even disappear. To cope with this, a schizophrenic has a rich, very imaginative inner world which 'normal' people don't expect - but he's trapped in it because he can't relate with most people, and his world gets poorer and poorer until he finishes in a blank, delusive dead end.

This is very different to what's depicted in this ridiculous 'cure', tear-jerking movie. It should be violently frightening. People other than the main character should appear strange, weird and absurd, like in Lynch's 'Eraserhead', for example. There should be *really* impressive, weird, gross hallucinations, because that's what schizophrenia is all about. It's not about *details*.

I mean, watch 'Naked Lunch', 'Lost Highway', read P.K. Dick's 'Martian Time-Split' or 'Ubik', DO watch 'The Cell', 'Perfect Blue', 'Dark City', or play 'American McGee's Alice' on PC, and you may have a vague idea of what it's like. Don't watch the 'feel good' movie of the month, with banal situations, cleaned characters and visuals, and stupid plot tricks. 'The Cell' is the most accurate movie about a schizophrenic's mind, his visions and his inner consistency - it's violent, weird, confusing, and very, very scary.

Once again, Schizophrenia isn't about details, it's not a neat, tame trick played to you. It jumps in your face and won't let you go : walls fall apart, people turn into strange hostile creatures, you feel like you go backward in time, you're not sure you're who you think you are, everything feels... strange, unnatural. Believe me, this is much much more than what's depicted in this soap-like melodrama


Swedish action movies have over the past few years evolved into something that imitate American hardened action movies like 'Heat' but with a low budget. This movie follows the same prescription as 'Noll Tolerans' and 'Livvakterna'. However, it is obvious that they are trying too hard to make a cool and tough movie.

The story has been seen before, the dialogue feels artificial and the acting is very poor, especially from the main actress. The movie tries to paint a picture of hard-boiled military-like robbers with no remorse at all and a female investigator who has completely lost it with problems of the past but at the same time acts completely rational. It does not succeed very well.

The bluish-cast photo style does not seem fresh anymore, and it is not even done well in this picture. Only a very few scenes actually look good. Also, the sound is quite weird and it sounds like a lot of the actual dialogue is recorded afterward.

The main quality of this movie is Stefan Sauk, though not making a convincing portrait of a SWAT-team leader, has some really funny lines. Also, the music is quite well.


If this movie were more about Piper Perabo's character and less about the bar, this might have been halfway decent. Piper's Violet Stanford and Karen Friendly (Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle) both have a virgin kindegarden teacher quality to them that's endearing. Here's hoping she'll find a better movie to be in.


Just like last years event WWE New Years Revolution 2006 was headlined by an Elimination Chamber match. The difference between last years and this years match however was the entertainment value. In reality only three people stood a chance of walking out of the Pepsi Arena in Albany, New York with the WWE Championship. Those men were current champion John Cena, Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels. There was no way Vinnie Mac would put the belt on any of the rookies; Carlito or Chris Masters. And Kane? Kane last held the WWE Championship in June 1998, and that was only for one night. It was obvious he wasn't going to be the one either. Last years match was a thrilling affair with six of the best WWE had to offer. 2006 was a predictable and disappointing affair but still the match of the night by far.

The only surprise of the evening came after the bell had run on the main event. Out strolled Vince McMahon himself and demanded they lift the chamber. It was then announced that Edge was cashing in his money in the bank championship match right then and there. With no time to prepare and just off the back of winning the Elimination Chamber match John Cena did not stand a chance and dropped the title after a spear to one of the most entertaining heels in WWE. This was the only entertaining piece of action that happened all night.

The undercard, like last year, was truly atrocious. Triple H and The Big Show put on a snore fest that had me struggling to stay away. HHH picked up the win but that was never in any real doubt was it? Any pay-per-view that has both Jerry Lawler and Viscera wrestling on the same card will never have any chance of becoming a success really does it. The King pinned Helms (who books this stuff?) and Big Vis tasted defeat against the wasted Shelton Benjamin with a little help from his Mama.

The women of the WWE also had a busy night. There was the usual Diva nonsense with a Bra and Panties Gauntlet match which was won by Ashley and the Woman's Championship was also on the line. In a match, I thought would have been left to brew till WrestleMania 22 Mickie James challenged Trish Stratus in a good match. Trish won the contest but it was evident that this is going to continue for the foreseeable future.

The opening contest of the night pitted soon to be WWE Champion Edge against Intercontinental Champion, Ric Flair. This could have been better but it was a battered and bloody Flair that retained after a disqualification finish. Edge obviously had bigger fish to fry.

So New Years Revolution kicked off the 2006 pay-per-view calendar in disastrous fashion. The only good thing from that is knowing that for the WWE the only way is up. They don't get much worse than this.


What I liked best in this film is that like the films of Hitchcock, it is a thriller that does not take itself too seriously.

Hitchcock understood that people go the the movies to have a good time. Something that Hollywood seems to have forgotten in recent years. This is a thriller, but it has plenty of laughs and always has one eye winking at the camera.

Rachel McAdams is wonderful as always. Cillian Murphy is creepier than he was in Batman Begins. In the old days, there were guys who always played the bad guy. We don't see much of that these days because I suspect the Hollywood agents consider it a bad career move, but Cillian Murphy is really good at being bad.

The directing is surprising stylish. The story is good but the dialog could have used some sprucing up.

'Red Eye' is a really fun film and people were applauding when the closing credits started rolling. If you are in the mood for an enjoyable escapist thriller, 'Red Eye' might be your ticket.


KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1963; which I recall having rated BOMB) had been my introduction to cult director Honda's work; this one isn't necessarily better  it's just that I've learned to be more tolerant towards such intrinsically lowbrow fare!

Here, we actually get two Kongs for the price of one: an ugly and dopey-looking giant ape and a robot variation of it which looks even worse! The simian creature lives on the island of Mondo(!)  where it's shown fighting a couple of other monsters, and befriends a trio of humans. Naturally, it falls for the blonde (and bland) heroine; in fact, more intriguing is a femme fatale in cahoots with the film's villainous mad genius  called Dr. Who and sporting the anemic look and cape usually associated with a vampire!!

He kidnaps King Kong and hypnotizes it in order to retrieve the Element X, which is embedded in the icy wastes of the North Pole; apparently, the giant ape is more impervious to radiation than its mechanical counterpart (and, to ensure its full co-operation, Who even captures its three 'companions')! The female agent then has a change of heart, helps the heroes (one of whom, typically, is a nondescript American) and is killed by Who. Kong eventually escapes and makes it to Tokyo, where it has a final showdown with the robot. The doctor flees the ensuing mayhem in his sub  which, on a request by Kong's dreamgirl, is summarily trashed by the giant ape.


This was a great movie and the sequel should know our socks off!!! The action will be nonstop and I just bought the special edition DVD with the animated background story similar to the Animatrix. This will put Vin Diesel back in the spotlight and hopefully get him the coveted role in Spider Man 3 as Venom. He would be the most logical choice for the role. Back to PB this movie even though it is a indie thriller, it has a great story and characters with backgrounds that scream for you to want to learn more. If they were to do books or comics it would be a great read. There was one thing that I felt was a little under done. The ending it needed a little work but not every movie will have the best ending.


This movie really, i mean REALLY, sucks. Its got plot holes so big, and 30 foot dragon can fit through them. Not to mention the dragon itself, which is inevitably the worst computer generated image ever to be put on the film real. I mean, when you see something like this, you gotta be thinking 'Wow, someone actually made this movie. Then released it. That takes guts'. Whoever they are, i'm sure they don't work in the film business anymore.

When i hired this movie, it wasn't in on DVD, so i (reluctantly) took it out on video. The first thing to appear, was a Lord of the Rings trailer, for the Two Towers. This was a very clever move, putting this trailer on the video. It justifies me (reluctantly) giving the film 1 star, otherwise i would have given it zero stars. Maybe the producers though the star attraction of Dean Cain (I think thats how you spell it) would draw in the crowds (uh, to the video store that is).

Next they employed split screen technique (like in Hulk) to (i assume) compensate for what an atrocity this piece of crap film is. On the box cover, we see a picture of our hero, and the dragon. Does the dragon look exactly like the one in Dragonheart, or is it just me? Either way, the dragon in the film looks like a reject from Gremlins 2, and has the CGI of a Nintendo video game villain from the early 90's (perhaps worse). Also, not the Dragons movement as it pursues its victims- its the same F##cking monotonous movement- right leg, left leg, right leg left leg- dom, dom, dom, dom DOM, DOM F#$king DOOOOOM! This just pisses me off. Maybe the filmmakers thought this was thrilling and would have the same effect of Jaws. Why not then have a Dragon POV shot. Either way, that was just funny, much like watching a Weebl toon.

Dean Cain gives many puzzled looks during the film (maybe his coming to terms with the fact that this film could end his career). Don't expect Superman here. The first time i saw the trailer for this film, i thought it was an add for a PS2 game.

As for the story, its so so bad, my 5 year old brother can come up with better ones when he's unconvincingly trying to lie about why he was messing around in my room while i wasn't there. Oh, and did i mention that I F@#KING HATE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THIS INCREDIBLY STUPID STUPID CRAP ATROCIOUS FILM?!!!


To all the haters out there: condemning a TV series with one episode is like judging an entire book after reading the first few pages. That being said, I was a huge fan of BSG, thought it was some of the best TV drama (not just sci-fi) on the air. But it was time for it to end and the story to move on. I liked the BSG epilogue 'The Plan', but it raised as many new questions as it answered, so I eagerly anticipated 'Caprica' and I was not disappointed.

I was hoping it would not try to be another BSG, and I was pleased that 'Caprica' is something different, and I personally found the story exciting, in a different way than blazing space battles, explosions and sci-fi special effects (don't get me wrong, I like that stuff too). Eric Stolz and Esai Morales give solid performances, and Alessandra was just wonderful. I can't wait until next week.


I went into this movie determined to like it. I usually enjoy dramas like Wall Street, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Boiler Room, etc...I went into this movie thinking I would be on the edge of my seat. Plus, I am a big Pacino fan.

What a piece of garbage. Quite possibly the worst movie I have seen in five years. This makes Pacino's debacle in Any Given Sunday actually look good. First, half the movie is watching Matthew McConaughey lift weights. OK, we get it. You are in shape Matt. We don't need to see every other scene with you pumping iron, shirtless.

Secondly, how many plot holes are in this movie? Why introduce the phone call from Brandon's long lost Dad and never address it again? What was the point of his Mom hanging up on him - why even have her call to say he is sending her too much money - what was the point of that? The guy from Puerto Rico who lost 30 million? Also, since sports betting is illegal in NY, and its acknowledged its illegal, how can they possibly guarantee everyone's bet at the end?

This was simply a very poorly written script. It had potential, but it was devoid of a coherent plot. I thought Pacino learned his lesson about script selection after Any Given Sunday, but apparently not. My Gosh, this is the same actor that starred in the Godfather!

Don't waste your money.


Movies seem to fall into two categories: films that reinforce existing societal values and beliefs, and those that challenge them. This film is a 180-degree shift from the idealistic rhetoric portrayed in offerings like 'The Longest Day' and 'The Green Berets' which seem more like Disney fantasies by comparison. The 'Apocalypse Now!' project, the production and resulting film, is 'Heart of Darkness' updated into a psychological horror story of the late 20th century post-modernist variety. The cast and crew who worked on it probably could relate to the terrifying places the human mind can achieve. This is the plight of Joseph Conrad's original character Kurtz who came into literary being in 1901 and subsequently referenced in TS Eliot's 'The Hollow Men' (Mistah Kurtz, he dead) of 1925. Although neither a straight telling of Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness' (1901) nor a first-hand account of the Vietnam experience, 'Apocalypse Now!' stands as a masterpiece which pushed on the envelope of cinematic potential. 'Apocalypse' is not just about the 'horrors' of war per se, like 'Platoon' and 'The Deer Hunter', but the darker sensibilities of human nature as revealed through the raw and demeaning confrontations of violent conflict on a mass scale. Apocalypse Now! is not so much seen as experienced.

The bulk of the movie is the journey of a trained secret assassin, Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen in a tour-de-force performance), aboard a US military boat traversing an unnamed river into the heart of Vietnam and Cambodia where few westerners would ever tread. His mission is to terminate Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a career army Special Forces Division officer who was the darling of the US Military until he went AWOL and renegade in the deep uncharted jungles between Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The official classified report is that the colonel has gone insane but as events play out, something else has happened to him that is far more terrifying than simply insanity. Sheen's mission is to terminate the colonel with the American public none the wiser.

The movie is rather episodic. The journey along the river is made up of several vignettes as Sheen and his crew meet different self-contained 'aspects' of the war at the ground level. American audiences of the 1970's had probably never seen this kind of film-making before, with the possible exception of 'The Deer Hunter' which was released in the previous year. The first, and one of the most notable, is an helicopter battalion led by Col Kilgore (Robert Duvall in an Oscar-nominated performance) who is a cross between General Robert E Lee and Richard Wagner. He loves to play 'Ride of the Valkyries' from Wagner's 'The Ring' when he bombards helpless villages. His line 'I love the smell of Napalm in the morning' is one of those oft-quoted lines from the annals of cinema. Other encounters include an amphitheater where enlisted privates will be entertained by the likes of Hugh Heffner and Playboy bunnies.

Despite all the production catastrophes that impeded getting this footage into the can, the remarkable aspect of this film is its pacing. The original release (not the later Redux version) does a fine of job of building until the viewer is emotionally prepared to deal with the climactic confrontation between Willard and Kurtz. The strange discourse between Willard and Kurtz is worth the price of admission alone. And some of the shots of both Sheen and Brando in certain places are some of the starkest and terrifying images ever produced on film. Not even the likes of Clive Barker, Wes Craven or David Cronenberg have anything on Coppola in terms of horrific imagery. Brando's Kurtz in one scene in particular is so utterly terrifying it makes most other horror movies seem tame by comparison, which comes from the recognition that the horror is not from without but from within.

Without giving too much away, Coppola's solution to the climactic moment stands as one of the most innovative of cinematic revelations. According to the documentary 'Hearts of Darkness', Coppola feared that the inevitable final scene would lapse into melodrama, and the atmosphere of the movie's darker hues would be compromised. He wasn't sure how he could make it work until his wife encouraged the director to witness the ceremonial sacrifice of an ox as practiced by the native people with whom Coppola was using as extras in the scenes with Kurtz at 'his' village. After the viewing, Coppola had his ending, and it is one of the most simultaneously disturbing and beautiful sequences in the history of American film-making. Love it or hate it, no western viewer will be the same after seeing this scene.

This film is not for all tastes just as Conrad's original novel is not the kind of book that will be read on airplanes. It's not just the violence and the pointlessness of violence that are difficult for most American viewers to absorb. It's the naked unveiling of aspects of the human condition that seem so removed from suburban American life that make this film difficult for the average movie-goer to handle, which is as it should be. Coppola did not make a family picture. However, if the viewer can understand its larger point, there is a lot to be gotten out of Apocalypse Now!. If you're looking for a film experience to reaffirm pre-existing attitudes about American sensibility and heroism, better stick with John Wayne. But if you're willing to be taken into places you've never been, even beyond 'the evils of war' rhetoric, 'Apocalypse Now' will take you into a world you thought you'd never visited before, and the disturbing part of it is that you may recognize it.


then you will be a big fan of this movie. Its almost the same basic concept, a nice mixture of music, soul, and drama. I'll admit, i was a little aprehensive about seeing this movie, I had only seen previews of a white trash girl chained to a radiator, but I am a big fan of Samuel L. Jackson and I enjoyed Hustle & Flow so i thought I would give it a chance.

I'm very glad that I did. It turned out to be more than just the surface story of a nymphomaniac southern girl being imprisoned by a 60 year old black man. The story had heart, and was very influential.

The music in this movie also added a nice touch. Craig Brewer mixed his style from Hustle & Flow into this movie, except took a new spin and used the Blues. His musical scenes are still at the top of the charts as far as performance scenes go by. He also has very interesting flashback scenes and just gives you an overall crazy feel during some of the more controversial scenes.

No doubt, if you liked Hustle & Flow, you will love this movie, and if you are a fan of the blues you should definitely go an see this. I give it a 9 out of 10, very interesting film, and it is extremely under rated. shame.

Go out and rent this movie.


A great ensemble cast! A fond remembrance of younger carefree days. This movie takes me back to when I went to summer camp. Indian Summer, while full of practical jokes and pranks, is about growing up and coming to terms with life with middle-age life. My family & I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.


This is a film that was very well done. I had heard mixed reviews while it was in production and have been waiting for its release! Cheers to the director and all the actors. The supporting cast gave Eva Mendez what she needed to take this to the top. As everyone else here states, the latter portion of the film is riveting. Katie Cassidy did an amazing job with her character, being she had not done a lot of work when this film was made. She has quite the career ahead of her. I was amazed at her performance. I completely enjoyed the film, questioned my values in life and priorities, and am a better person for it! A great message lies within the film. Release it so all can enjoy!


According to IMDb, as well as to every other website that holds a review; this 'thing' doesn't have a director. Well, that would surely explain a lot! Just a bunch of people that gathered together to shoot some perverted porn sequences and throw in an ultra-thin storyline about devil-worshiping and women sacrifices inside the walls of a secluded sanitarium. 'Hardgore' is a prime example of totally demented 70's smut, as it's really made with a minimum of production values and scripting inspiration. Horror movies about satanic cults were hugely popular during the early 70's and pornography as well, so why not combine the two? Here we have a simplistic story about a young nymphomaniac girl who's committed to a mental asylum, and from the first night already, she's drawn into a network of drugs, psychedelic orgies, rape, torture and dildo-action. Really, a LOT of dildo-action. The friendly lesbian nurse tries to warn her, but she has her throat slit even the same night. The horror aspects are truly poorly elaborated, going from laughably un-scary Satan masks to virulent severed penises attacks. The photography and acting performances are almost intolerably amateurish, but what do you expect from a film that features footage of sperm-firing dildos and talking amputated male reproduction organs? Leading lady Justina Lynn is a rather good looking girl with a ravishing body, but most of her co-stars (male & female) are hideous and excessively haired sleaze balls.


This film has scenes that come back to me at the strangest times -- that intense scene with Mr. Muckerji telling Mrs Melandez that someone he spoke with witnesses the girl being pushed out the window by a woman who fits HER description ---is one that rolls around -- the way she keeps referring to him by name --- in a Greek accent 'Mr Muckerji' -- and then when Boyer discovers her having just taken poison and gives her one last smack up the side of the head before she dies --- its a delight! 'Fools -- Fools -- all my life'...etc etc -- you get the point..I have to buy this one. I love Dan Seymour's acting -- he usually plays some plump foreign sultan or police chief and appeared in Casablanca and many great pictures.


This is a really obnoxious show. It is in fact an example of how low television has fallen since 'reality' got in style. Tanya is pretty but she is also extremely rude and has awful taste. Is a house show the place for sex appeal? Apparently some males like the show because they find Tanya attractive. The other boss is not pretty but he's fully as rude and also has awful taste. It is unfortunate that so many houses have to be shown while someone is still living in them. Most of the people who are allegedly viewing these houses before changes are made should be moving into brand new houses or completely empty ones so they will not be insulting anyone. Most of them ..like the 'crew'..need to be taught manners. I can imagine how awful the British show is since the British reality shows tend to be even worse when it comes to manners and taste.

What happened to the Arts and Entertainment channel? When it started out (and for some years afterward) it was filled with treats. Now it's one big trash machine.


This movie was a low point for both Jason Robards and Sam Peckinpah. Major plot points are taken directly from Sergio Leone's masterpiece 'Once Upon a Time in the West' (released two years earlier and also featuring Robards): A man finds a watering hole is found in the desert, being the only water for many miles in every direction, he plans to build a 'station' around the hole and to ensure there's a love interest, he falls in love with a prostitute. To this add an intemperate preacher, bad music, silly fast action shots, even sillier T&A shots - and there you go. There is little question why it failed at the box office. The real question is 'how did it make it that far?'.


I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.


This film was nothing more than exploitative gay cheesecake. It was not an 'art' movie; just an excuse to show several gratuitous, exploitative, over-the-top scenes with extensive male genital nudity. There was a locker room scene involving over a dozen naked men. The camera zooms in on the men's asses and penises as they are portrayed for several minutes with their dicks in full screen view. There are several scenes in this film showing penis after penis. It gets redundant REAL fast and makes it impossible to take this film seriously. I was wondering if I was watching a Playgirl video by mistake. If these same scenes were filmed using women (ex: totally naked and showing their vaginas repeatedly) it would be quickly dismissed as just softcore porn and an excuse to show a lot of eye candy...which is all that this film is. Any artistic merit got flushed down the drain of the gay ghetto mentality. The themes of class distinction, homosexuality, longing-desire, etc. were simple and superficial; no more developed than what one would expect from a first year philosophy student. Just cut to the chase and rent a gay porn instead.


The success of SCREAM gave birth to a whole new horror flicks wave. I'm happy with that, as a big fan of horror, and I liked most of those new horror films. BOC is a one big pack of horror. Colorful, fast paced and original. I see this movie more like the opening of a new trilogy (much like Episode 1 and Aliens: Resurrection) since it comes up with a new twist. Instead of focusing on the little boy-killer doll relationship we have here a twisted movie about couples. We have the sweet young lovers in contrast with the killer crazy doll-sized lovers. Very inventive!


I've just returned from a showing of 'My Left Foot' at our public library. What an emotional experience -- I feel drained and uplifted.

It's the story of Christy Brown, Irish writer and painter, and based on the author's autobiographical 'My Left Foot.' Christy was born with a form of cerebral palsy such that the only limb he had good control of was his left foot. Doctors advised his parents he was hopelessly mentally retarded but his mother didn't give up on him and, somewhat as Annie Sullivan had done with Helen Keller, helped him achieve a breakthrough in which he learned the alphabet and then to read, write, and paint.

This film won Academy Awards for Daniel Day-Lewis (best actor) as well as best supporting actress for the actress playing his mother; it also received Oscar nominations for best picture, best director, and best adapted screenplay.

As a retired clinical psychologist and family therapist, while many films may entertain me, many also often leave me having to overlook gross fictions or improbabilities in realistic psychological reactions.

Not this film--it was absolutely 'spot on' in portraying typical Irish parental roles & behaviors (see, e.g., see typical Irish families in McGoldrick's 'Ethnicity & Family Therapy') as well Christy Brown's uneven emotional maturation--some immature personality reactions that were even further amplified by his picking up traits of his father.

The film presents the greater truth while changing certain sequences in his development (painting & writing) and condensing several important people into one person, for the sake of telling a coherent, believable story, not burdened by small, distracting, less important actualities. (See Christy Brown in Wikipedia for more accuracy.) The DVD version we were shown had some English subtitles that were a great help in understanding Christy's speech (& some of the Irish speech); the initial release of the film may have lacked this. (If you see this on DVD, enable that option.)

The performance by Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the greatest, believable acting jobs I've ever seen. Truly magnificent, outstanding, superlative.

'My Left Foot' bears more than some similarity to a more recent film, 'The Diving Bell & the Butterfly,' in that each portrays the life of a real person successfully surmounting the imprisonment and isolation of an extremely severe physical handicap.

And in doing so, it resonates with William Ernest Henley's 'Invictus' which begins: 'Out of the night that covers me,//Black as the Pit from pole to pole,//I thank whatever gods may be//For my unconquerable soul.'


... It even beats the nasty 'raw'. Almost twenty years old is this show and still I laughed VERY MUCH when I was watching it last night. It shows Eddie Murphy dressed in tight red clothes(Old School)and he jokes with everything from celebertis to his family. He was only 22-years old then and this is a must-see!

8/10


As the one-line summary says, two movies have left such a remark on me when I walked out of the theater. The one was 'Stir of Echoes' with Kevin Bacon, and the second was 'Vanilla Sky'.

Its one of those movies that you sit deep in the theater seat and stop thinking about anyone around you, stop wondering what the end of the movie will be and just leave the movie swift you where it wants... Walking out of the cinema was a bit weird, like that feeling you get when you are sick and cant think of anything. One of those movies that you become one with the guy, and feel that nothing else moves around you than the things in the movie.

One thing is certain. The actors are awesome, the sound track is excellent, and everything in the movie is 9+.

Surely one of the best movies I ever saw, and the movie that made the best and most shocking awaking about my life and my purpose in this world.


Before I had seen this film, I had heard some negative comments about it. However, when watching it I found myself thinking 'ok, it's a little slow-paced but this is quite interesting'. As it built toward the end, it created a complex moral dilemma, leading to a shocking yet, within the context of the film, entirely believable decision with extremely powerful dramatic consequences. If this had been followed through, it would have been a tremendously powerful ending and would have given me a very favourable impression of the film.

However, due to an ending which not only cops out emotionally, tacking on an unnecessary happy-ish ending without real emotional credibility but also within the context of the film makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for you clearly see one of the character take an action which should end her life but inexplicably doesn't. Incidentally, please tell me if I did miss something here and there is a reason why she survives as I just couldn't how logically she could have and this wrecked the whole film for me.

This said, all three leads put in powerful performances although Kevin McKidd's characters' transformation by the end goes a little further than is fully convincing and it does create a very powerful ethical triangle.

This film is recommended if you ready yourself to walk out when the mother and the sister are lying on the bed. But do not watch further than this unless you have only a pinch, but several mountains, of salt.


First of all, this movie is 34 minutes long, which means you could watch it three times in a row and still have spent less time than you would have watching most other movies. Second of all--you need to do this. This sensational short film explores the potential of animation through a world of playful or horrifying but always powerful images. Cats riding in and drinking out of a water elephant, a circus featuring a bird that has consumed the sky, and pigs eating their own fried flesh--that's only the beginning. The scenes and images, extraordinary on their own, flow together without obvious causal links in a way that demands re-watching. Furthermore, the DVD includes an amazing director's commentary, which, given the extremely spare dialog, only enhances the viewing. The commentary gives a few interpretations of scenes, but also provides priceless quotes on the crafting of Cat Soup, along the lines of: 'well, the artists were asking what we should do in this scene, but I didn't know myself, so its hard to say why it turned out as it did' (that's a bad paraphrase by the way). Also, the sound throughout the film is very high quality, very precise, and very moody. In all, the absolute minimum viewing experience should go as follows:

First viewing: Watch the DVD without the commentary. Second viewing: Watch the DVD WITH the commentary. Third viewing: Rewatch without the commentary.

Once you've watched it three times, however, you're not going to stop there...


I'm writing this because I somehow felt being led to believe Dark Remains was a good movie. Whilst it's not the worst I've seen, it certainly isn't good.

A Weak script, weak actors, and weak directing. Even if they can't afford big name cast, would it be too much to ask for a more attractive lead actress? It was painful to watch a plain actress through out the film with her dull performance. The story was a cliché and poorly scripted. The special effects were minimal. The 'suspense' tricks employed repetitively here were hard to swallow.

To be fair, Dark Remains is no worse than quite some of the Masters of Horrors' episodes. But not quite on par with quality movies yet. Dark Remains is only recommended for the hardcore horror fans who don't want to miss any movie in the genre, even if it's a poorly made one. As for anyone else, time should be spent on something more valuable - which should be extremely easy.


I can't understand why so many peoples praised this show. Twin peaks is one of the most boring titles I have ever seen in my life.

Now I have seen all season 1 episodes, and seeing season 2 episode 1. Simply I can't take this show anymore.

1) Where is the proper induction in criminal investigation?

In season 1, there was a scene that agent Cooper throws stones to a bottle. Can you guess why he did that? He just want to identify murderer by doing this 'joke' while mentioning supernatural ability given by Tibet dream. Wow!!!

2) There are too many unnecessary scenes in this show.

For example, season 2 started with a 'funny' scene that a dumb old man serves agent Cooper with a cup of milk while Cooper are laying down on the floor.( He got the gun shoots in his belly already. ) This old man is doing nothing but saying some dumb comments. That's all.

This scene is really boring and even long ( 3 min 30 sec.... It's like Hell. )

I would read some comic books rather than see this show anymore.


If you want to learn the basics of quantum mechanics, spend your $9 on a used textbook, not this movie. I'm a little worried that the money I spent is being used to buy Kool-Aid for shipment to Guyana.

I don't think the directors really got any point across, but it looks like maybe they were trying to make several: 1) Science can explain everything we do, meaning that our lives are deterministic; 2) Science can't be used to explain everything we do, meaning that we have free will; 3) Science is, like, really cool, brother; 4) We are God; 5) The world exists only in our minds; 6) Sarah Norman is a tough role to follow and 7) here, put this tiny paper square in your mouth and you'll see some really groovy stuff.


I suppose I should be fair and point out that I don't believe in ghosts. That said, I'm very interested in the subject and I enjoy a scary story as much as the next guy. I am a fan of Ghost Hunters because they at least try to give their investigations a scientific angle. Even early episodes of Most Haunted had a camp entertainment factor to them. Paranormal State has neither of these qualities. The cases themselves have the potential to be interesting, but as with so much 'reality TV' these days, it suffers from overproduction, poor acting and silly scripts. The makers of the show freely admit that writers 'guide' the stories. I hear they are even going to shoehorn in a romance subplot to appeal to the young female demographic. The show has many other flaws too. As others have stated, the narration quickly becomes like nails down a chalkboard. Over the top visual and audio effects quickly become just as irritating. I'm willing to suspend some disbelief for the sake of entertainment, but this whole 'demon with a vendetta' story arc is just ridiculous. Given that the producers of this show are also responsible for brain dead fodder like MTV's Laguna Beach and Newport Harbor I suppose this is really no surprise. If you are a die hard fan of Ed & Lorraine Warren or a big 'reality' show junkie I guess you'll find much to like in Paranormal State. For the rest of us....I recommend you avoid.


The Tender Hook, or, Who Killed The Australian Film Industry? Case No. 278. This sorry excuse for a period drama takes a cast and idea with potential  Rose Byrne, Pia Miranda, Hugo Weaving, in a Jazz-era gangster drama  and turns it into a sloppily paced and executed soporific. McHeath (Weaving) is a boxing promoter and gangster and functioning illiterate; for no apparent reason he's given to singing Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen songs before bouts. How post-modern. How stupid. Anyway. There's a boxer, Art (Matthew Le Nevez), who becomes McHeath's latest protégé, over his unfortunately Aboriginal stablemate Alby (Luke Carroll).

McHeath's flapper moll Iris (Byrne) makes the goo-goo eyes at him. Sexual tension squelches under the surface. Miranda plays Daisy, a friend of Iris's (these flower girls stick together) who keeps turning up in scenes unannounced. They practice dancing together and talk about 'hooking up' with guys. In the 1920s. I stopped counting anachronisms after that. There's a subplot involving Japanese beer and a backstory of Broome pearl fishermen. I don't know what it was all about. For some reason that is not exactly (at all) explained, Byrne puts cocaine in Art's lemonade. McHeath thinks he's a drunk and sacks him. Byrne plots and schemes to help him out again. She's a big one for the plotting and scheming. Most of which causes trouble. McHeath's two gunsels, portly Ronnie (John Batchelor) and Russian Donnie (Tyler Coppin), debate bumping off McHeath when he realises their part in one of Iris's schemes, but Ronnie wimps out when he sees McHeath crying. A lot of practically incoherent scenes get in the road of the film finally ending.

Director Jonathan Ogilvie spends a lot of time working with cinematographer Geoffrey Simpson creating some pretty images, but utterly fails to generate a sense of style, which might have compensated for and decorated the wispy, pathetically underpowered script; unfortunately Ogilvie's sense of film grammar, the lack of structuring of the scenes and exposition, is stunningly incompetent. In an early scene, Daisy suddenly appears in the car with the protagonists. How she got there, and indeed who she is, seems to have slipped Ogilvie's mind. There are many more examples of this sloppiness. Where he chases poetic sparseness, he achieves only wan irritation. He gains awkward performances from actors who are normally reliable, badly miscasting Weaving and leaning on Byrne's ability to project a kind of haunted doll-like humanity whilst saddling her with an incomprehensible character.

It might not matter so much if the story had more substantial characters and stronger plotting preferably not stolen from a dozen old noir films and festooned with witlessly sprinkled pop-culture quotes. But it doesn't. It's boring.


This is standard fare from a director who as long been amongst my favourites.

Even though its very flat in comparison to a lot of his other work but its Argento and this may be biased but I'm gonna be giving it a good review anyway.

It does contain a lot of good ideas. The subtle voyeuristic element. The needles under the eyes. The gory and disturbing deaths. And the Argento cliché flashback.

Downsides include the heavy metal soundtrack, acting and the ending.

All the film is made worth it for the birds in the theatre sequence near the end.

A fairly good film from Argento but he as done better. A lot better!


Footprints certainly isn't your average run of the mill Giallo, and that's no bad thing. Unlike his previous effort, The Fifth Cord (which was your 'classic' Giallo) Luigi Bazzoni's film forsakes almost all of the Giallo trademarks and instead of murder; the focus is very on psychological mystery. It's obvious from the outset that this is going to be an entirely bizarre film as the film opens up with a scene set on the moon. Things don't get any clearer after that as the lunar sequence turns out to be the dream of Alice, a troubled woman. Alice is tormented by dreams of an astronaut stranded on the moon, which have apparently come from a viewing of a film called 'Footprints on the Moon'. After several things go wrong for her, Alice decides to go to a mostly deserted former tourist spot named Garma. Upon her arrival, she is surprised as the people she meets seem to already know her. Alice also meets a young red headed girl who also seems to already know her; the girl tells Alice she looks exactly like Nicole, except nicer and with shorter hair...

The fact that Footprints doesn't feature much in the way of sex, murder and other Giallo trademarks puts it somewhat on the back foot with it's primary audience from the beginning as most people going into this film aren't going to get what they were expecting (or, probably, wanted). But on the other hand, Footprints commands respect for the fact that it doesn't just follow on from what went before it. By 1975, the Giallo had started to lose it's popularity and many of the films coming out around this period (with a few very notable exceptions) were merely retreads of what came before, so Luigi Bazzoni would have been taking a big chance on this film. Florinda Bolkan gives a strong performance in the lead role; and the fact that she's not the prettiest Giallo heroine isn't really important. The mystery builds nicely throughout, and while it can become a little turgid at times; Footprints is, generally speaking, intriguing for the duration. It probably won't come as a surprise to many once they get there that the ending doesn't make much sense, and doesn't really clear anything up; but it nicely adds to the bizarre cult value of the film, and all in all; I give Footprints a thumbs up!


I enjoy the National Anthem. I enjoy the National Anthem if for nothing else then, just before the Midnight News, I imagine I'm playing the cymbals in the band. Not as easy as you may think! One, two, three, four; One, two three, four; but then what? So I have sympathy with the practising bass drum player in Roy Andersson's wonderful film, patiently waiting for his cue listening to a very 70s cassette player.

The 70s motif seems to continue throughout, with some classic, soulless furniture. Moreover, every scene has an eerie jade wash which emphasises the minute nuances of the subtlest of acting.

Which brings me to Jessika Lundberg's outstanding purple boots. Boots which otherwise would have inspired a Silk Cult advertising campaign.

But then the difficult bit. Someone asked me what it was about. Well there is a scene where the opening line as 'I don't have that length in green' Brilliant. Straight out of a Gary Larson carton.

I can't say what it's about. Go see yourself.

Ron Plasma

Hmm. Larson! Sounds Swedish

(Viewed 15Apr08)


First of all, let me just say that after watching this movie I felt like I'd been sold a bill of goods. Mind you it's not the movie's fault that IMDb has it listen as a comedy first and a horror second (although I don't know how that's entered...maybe some moron from the film's crew put it in). Being a fan of the horror/comedy genre, I checked it out based on that and I'm so, so sorry I did. Where to start? First of all, to touch back on my beginning, there's no comedy in this movie. It tries once or twice, but never gets more than a chuckle at best. My reaction was primarily rolling my eyes and wondering why someone thought such tired material would be funny. Also, there's no horror here. Not a second of tension can be found. You think I'm exaggerating...I am not. No tension, very little blood, and not much violence on screen (sorry, but in a horror flick cutting away just as the good stuff starts is a major foul). Hell...there's even zero nudity. Call me a purist or juvenile...I prefer some in a horror flick if it can't come up with an original plot/premise. And that tired as all hell 'reality TV show gone wrong thing'? It's been done before and a lot better. Like Wrong Turn 2 or...ummm....whatever that movie was called with Edward Furlong. That's how bad this movie is. I don't even remember the name of that movie, but it was better than this. I also enjoyed the one comment claiming the timing for this was good because 'reality TV is taking over'. Did someone from the past post that with a time machine? Are you freaking kidding me? This thing is trash...and not in a fun way.


Many people are making fun out of Steven Seagals acting abilities. And I really see why if I remember Fire Down Below. Well...ok his other films are acceptable (regarding to his acting!).

After reading reviews about The Patriot I didn't expect anything from this film. I barely came through Fire Down Below and I read a lot that The Patriot was even worse. So I was really surprised about this one. In my opinion it is one of his very best movies. If it had have more action sequences and a couple more fighting scenes it would be THE best. I liked the story the directing and the actors. Cammilla Belle was just incredible. She will have a great movie-career in the future. The few action scenes were very well made. And Steven Seagal was very believable in his unusual role.


This is a great example of very none Hollywood film making which is very thought provoking, moving and not without a sense of humor, Kevin McKidd and Paula Sage are superb.

I actually watched it on late night TV and I can see why I missed it in the cinema, its not the sort of film that the multi-screen 'mega' cinemas show nowadays, mores the pity.

I am going to look for the DVD. Not for those who prefer, the current trend towards special effects and no story. If you liked the best selling book 'The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time', you'll enjoy this film.

This film ranks beside the best of Scottish films, such as 'Small Faces' and 'trainspotting'. All films which Kevin McKidd also star in.

Highly Recommended.


I've seen Mystery Men cop a bit of stick in the press and with the general public ( take the imdb vote for instance), but my overall feeling is that Mystery Men is more fun than most films, definitely wittier than most so-called comedy films and very nearly 'clever'.

The cast is superb; Greg Kinnear is excellent, as are Geoffrey Rush and Tom Waits. Kinnear's limo scene with Ricky Jay is perfect 'spoiled movie star' and he imbues his character with the right balance of comic book quality and realism to make him work.

I will admit the pacing is a little off in places, and visuals are certainly very flash bang, possibly to the detriment of further characterisation, but at the end of the day, this is high concept film making - it's about the little moments 'What's Up Tiger Lily?' - and there are so many great ones in this film to make it worth repeated viewing.


Taped this late night movie when I was in grade 11, watched it on fast forward. I sugest you do the same. I though it would be and action film, but went to a cort tv type movie. In the end it fits in with the early 70's social activest type films. Glad I missed that era. 2/10


'Stories of the Century' was a half hour series and appeared in first run syndication during the '54-'55 television season. It was also the first western TV series to win an Emmy award. Starring veteran western actor Jim Davis as railroad detective Matt Clark, the series set Clark and his fellow railroad detective partners (Mary Castle as Frankie Adams for the first half of the season and Kristine Miller as 'Jonesy' during the second half)against historic western outlaws of various periods ranging from the mid-1860's to the early 1900's. The series was very satisfying, easy to watch, and fairly realistic due mainly to the easygoing charm of Jim Davis in the lead role. He seemed like an actual western character. One other note. When Matt Clark would arrive in town after a long ride he actually looked like he had been on a long horse ride as he would be covered in dust.

A very good early adult western.


I don't understand why people would praise this garbage. Its wrong , stupid , unrealistic , awful , and just about everything else. The film is a view on life , racial issues , prejudice , and everything else that strangely goes on in College. This is where it fails. It has no grasps on reality. From many questionable non-sense scenes in the movie such as for example

A black man chasing down a white man with a gun, the black man and stopped by the security guards handcuffed and carried out while the gunman runs right past them.

The same white man snipering down people from a roof topic which is stopped and beaten down by the same black man is then stopped and given a Rodney King style beating while the gun man runs free while a moment later being chased back down by only one of the four guards.

As one previous reviewer pointed out Several white 230lbs men being beaten down by several black men weighing around 160lbs including the 105lbs Bust A Rhymes

Another critical flaw in the film are the shallow uninteresting main characters. From the scared and confused white people and the mean , angry , and yet rightful (?) black people. Its almost as its an insult to both black and white people. I am a white male and I know many black and hispanic people who agree that this movie is wrong to portray characters and giving them those characteristics exclusively due to their race.

The storyline which I will explain now revolves around three characters. One a black athlete , the other a confused scared white girl who questions her sexuality , and the third is a white man who is also confused and scared , then blames his problems on black people in which he becomes a nazi later in the film. They all have their share of problems and adventures including sex , rape , fights , love , hate , prejudice , racial war , and oh yeah don't forget education. Which all comes down at the end for the fatal shoot out. In which after they go back to their boring lives and think 'being white is bad'. Does this sound alot like your college years? Didn't think so. I don't think the director attended college especially if he were to make this awful mess.

Overall this is a really bad , bad , ugly movie. If you want to see a more accurate view or racial issues go see American History X. If you want to see a more accurate view of college rent Porkys. Just avoid this mess.


This was the first Mickey Mouse cartoon released and the first cartoon with sound. In the cartoon, Mickey does not yet wear gloves. He does not yet speak either. All he does is whistle and play music. The song that he plays is 'Turkey in the Straw' using several farm animals as musical instruments. For example, he plays the teeth of a cow like a xylophone and pulls nursing piglets like an accordion keyboard. I taped this cartoon off of the Disney Channel and I think it is wonderful. It was based on a silent film starring Buster Keaton entitled 'Steamboat Bill, Jr.'


It was almost worth sitting through this entire god-awful 'film' just to know that I can never experience anything as bad as this again. Acting - 0, script - 0, fight scenes - 0, male lead - 0 (cheddar bob from eight mile as a suave war hero who gets the girl), Nadia Bjorlin - 10 (She is gorgeous and not a terrible actress). This is the criteria I used to average it out to a two. I lost count but I believe ever movie cliché, ever, is in this movie. When the driver that supposedly killed her father miraculously shows up at the end to race against her, from out of nowhere it cemented the previous statement. Plus he just shows up for no reason. He was never even mentioned before. I don't know what else to say here. Just watch it when it comes out on TV in a couple years. At least that way some of it will be edited out for commercials.


After watching 'Waco: The Rules of Engagement' I was just sitting in disbelief of what I was witness to. A big cover up by the FBI, a massacre by gung-ho/trigger happy government agents? I clearly remember the Waco standoff, I was 17 years old at the time and watched it all on CNN. I remembered reflecting about all the children as I watched the Mount Camel compound burn in April 1993. I remember feeling sorry for the children, but clearly felt that it was the fault of their evil leader David Koresh and the other Davidians. Gazecki's film shows clearly and beyond doubt, even though it is biased, that the FBI lied over and over again. I think that this film was a big contributor to the reopening of a new investigation of the incident in 1999. The outcome of this new investigation was in some sense predictable, the judgement relied on fact that was just as grey as the facts that the Davidians presented. I was very disappointed about the verdict, because as far as I know it didn't take into account all the lying, misinformation and evidence cover-up by the FBI and other officials. Why have no one be prosecuted for hampering the work of the Texas Rangers investigators? Why were they allowed to contaminate the crime scene and bulldoze the compound shortly after the incident? These are questions that I haven't been given answers to by the government. Most importantly, what about the children? In this new investigation I haven't been informed about who was responsible for spraying the CS flammable tear-gas into a compound with many hazards for igniting this gas and I haven't found any answer to whether the children's muscles contracted due to the effects of the gas, while they were alive. If they did, I would surely think that the Janet Reno or who ever was in charge of the raid should be indicted for mass-homicide or manslaughter. The question that was raised by Gazecki, but not mentioned is; Was is a direct plan for the people in charge and their tanks to cut holes and burn the building down with intent? (a plan that would have been accomplished with 112% efficacy) or were the officials in charge so incompetent, that their were unaware of the consequence of their actions? Both are equally frightening. Even if the Davidians set fire to the compound, the officials in charge surely provided them with the opportunity to do the job. If the officials in charge knew, as they claimed, that the Davidians would set fire to the compound, why the f did the tanks cut all the holes in the building making it into a furnace and why didn't they have plans to deal with the fire that they knew would occur? Dark questions that still won't go away The final and most relevant issue of this film, is the way that the Davidians are demonized by the government through the media, who just feeds it in to the public. I clearly remember the resentment I felt for the evil Davidians that I saw on CNN in 1993. Now that I'm older I can see a clear line of communication coming out of the government every time they are gearing up for a massacre of civilians along with the intended targets. Demonizing people with words like; 'they have different unlawful values then us' 'they don't enjoy freedom' and 'they are a threat to our freedoms and way of life' makes them so much easier to kill


Why the crap is this movie rated so low?! I've seen this movie over 25 times, I know EVERY line to this movie. It's obvious that I love this movie. Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of South Park and the new puppet masterpiece Team America) star as the main characters Joe Cooper, or Coop 'Airman' Cooper, and Doug Remer, or 'Sir Swish.' Mainly they're just referred to as Coop and Remer throughout the movie. Right as the movie starts it reminds us of the money hungry corrupt world of overpaid sports starts, they even go as far as to make one up called 'Townsell.' I must quote this portion of the movie since it is true with some sports starts: 'And after playing for New England, San Diego, Huston, Saint Louis, a year for the Toronto Arganauts, plus one season as a greater at the Desert Inn I'm happy to finally play here in the fine city of Miami.' His agent leans over: 'Minnesota.' Let us not forget this important piece of the movie. So it starts that Coop and Remer are at a high school reunion party and realize they are still nothing as they talk to their old classmates. Outside they create the sport BASEketball after being challenged by what probably was high school basketball heroes. After shaming them the sport goes pro in about a year. During this time they manage to recruit their third team mate Squeak, which is actually a day after they invent the game. As the movie follows we find out that Coop, Remer, and Squeak are the only virtuous sports heroes left. The story follows with zany blackmail, the Milwaukee Beers cheerleaders, and humor so absurd it'll leave you crying for more. Watch it dude, it's hilarious.


This is, in my opinion, a very good film, especially for Michael Jackson lovers. It contains a message on drugs, stunning special effects, and an awesome music video.

The main film is centered around the song and music video 'Smooth Criminal.' Unlike the four-minute music video, it is normal speed and, in my opinion, much easier to watch.

The plot is rather weird, however. Michael Jackson plays a magical 'gangster' that, when he sees a shooting star, he transforms into a piece of machinery. Throughout the film, he transforms into a race car, a giant robot, and a space ship.

The robot scene in particular is a bit drawn out and strange. I found it a little out-of-whack compared to the rest of the film.

A child is kidnapped, Michael tries to save her, is tortured and beaten, and suddenly turns into a giant robot that blows up all the bad guys. A little weird? Yeah.

But besides the bizarre robot scene, it's a very good movie, and any Michael Jackson fan will enjoy both the Smooth Criminal music video and the movie.


American Graffiti is one of the best movies ever made. I've seen it at least 30 times and am emotionally affected by it each time I see it. (I graduated from high school in 1962.)

However, More American Graffiti is one of the worst movies ever made.

It is hard to believe than anyone associated with the great original movie was involved with this terrible sequel. The part of the movie set in Vietnam was extremely inaccurate. (I served 18 months in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division.)

The whole movie had nothing worthwhile in any part of it.

If anyone ever wants to make a case against making sequels to great movies, More American Graffiti would be the prime example of what can go wrong.


OK firstly, if your not a fan of the whole low budget horror genre then don't bother with this. You really need to be a fan to get the gag.

The move is basically about snakes ..on a train. Lots of them.

There is an ancient curse involved and a crazy ending which I wont spoil. The gore effect are full on and real icky... but the movie is mainly one big gory gag about snakes scaring the hell out of a bunch of people trapped on a train.

The suspense is built up well and there are some memorable and well composed scenes.. some of the acting is a bit hammy (watch for the surf dudes) but thats not really the point... Give this movie a go. Know what to expect and you wont regret it!


The viewer leaves wondering why he bothered to watch this one, or why, for that matter, anyone bothered to make it. There is no plot - just random scenes of ridiculous action. Mia Sara's shower scene appeals to the male libido, but that's not much reason to make a movie.


Once in a while i like a good horror movie, so i thought this would be a splatter and gore movie. but it was a boring boring movie, maybe because i have seen a cut version, because there where only two things that where a little splatter, one time where some ones cuts someone arm of and where some one shots an arm of, but that where the only things. Wismaster for example had more cool senes then evil ed, its more a boring ed than a evil ed. and some actors where lousy to.o


I'm surprised at the comments from posters stating that Jane Powell made the same type of films Deanna Durbin did. Although they were both young sopranos whose film images were crafted by Joe Pasternak, if this film is any indication, they were almost polar opposites.

While, in THREE SMART GIRLS, Durbin plays an impulsive 'Little Miss Fixit,' who, after some setbacks, manages to reunite her divorced parents, in its' semi-remake, THREE DARING DAUGHTERS, Jane Powell almost destroys the marriage between her screen Mom Jeanette MacDonald and new stepfather Jose Iturbi when she refuses to accept him and strong arms her younger siblings into rejecting him, too. From the Durbin and Powell films I've seen, I'd say these disparate qualities permeate the early films of both of these talented young performers.

As for Durbin's performance in THREE SMART GIRLS, I find it completely winning, and most impressive. Although it's clear from her occasionally shrill and over-emphatic line readings in some of the more energetic scenes that this is an early film for Deanna, watching the self-confident, knowing and naturally effervescent manner in which she delivers her lines and performs overall, and the subdued and tender manner she projects the more serious scenes, you'd never guess that this was the FIRST film role of a 14 year-old girl whose prior professional experience consisted almost exclusively of two years of vocal instruction.

Given that this film, and Durbin herself, were much publicized at the time as 'Universal's last chance,' the production must have been an impossibly stressful situation for a film novice of any age, but you'd never know it from the ease and assurance Durbin displays on screen. Although she's clearly still developing her acting style and demeanor before the camera (this was equally true of the early performances of much more experienced contemporaries like Garland, Rooney, O'Connor and Jane Powell), Durbin projects an extraordinary presence and warmth on camera that is absolutely unique to her, and, even here, in her first film, she manages to remain immensely likable despite the often quick-tempered impulsiveness of her character, and though she's occasionally shrill, she never for a second projects the coy and arch qualities that afflicted many child stars, including Jane Powell and some of the other young sopranos who followed in the wake of her success.

In short, like all great singing stars, Durbin was much more than just a 'beautiful voice.' On the other hand, while Durbin's pure lyric soprano is a truly remarkable and glorious instrument, the most remarkable thing about it, to me, was the way she is able to project her songs, without the slightest bit of affectation or 'grandnes' that afflict the singing of adult opera singers like Lily Pons, Grace Moore and Jeanette MacDonald in films of the period

The film is also delightful, heavily influenced by screwball comedy, it backs Durbin up with a creme-de-la-creme of first-class screwball pros such as Charles Winninger, Binnie Barnes, Alice Brady, Ray Milland and Mischa Auer. The story is light and entertaining. True, it's hardly 'realistic,' but why would anyone expect it to be? If you want :'realistic' rent THE GRAPES OF WRATH or TRIUMPH OF THE WILL. On the other hand, if you're looking for a genuine, sweet, funny and entertaining family comedy with a wonderfully, charismatic and gifted adolescent 'lead,' and terrific supporting players, this film won't let you down.


I only wish that I had the good sense to turn this movie off in the beginning when I knew it was terrible.

Instead I gave it the benefit of the doubt and waited for it to get better.

Don't make the same mistake I did.

The title has nothing to do with the movie. The movie has nothing to do with the real world. The plot has nothing to do with a plot. The acting consists of a guy who wants to be John Cusack, but can't pull it off. The lead is a girl who tries to be Claire Daines. Sadly, she can't pull that off either. They are in love, although god only knows why. And by the end I was hoping that they would all kill each other off just so I could believe none of these kids would ever taint the world again.


The first season was great - good mix of the job and the brother and friends at home. it was actually a pretty funny show.

Now it shows up again and the brother and the two hot chicks are gone -- and the whole thing revolves around the airline company. Even the old man who runs the company has gone downhill - way too over the top, where before it was perfect.

That and no more Sarah Mason - one of the best looking girls in Hollywood.

This is what happens when you let some execs get their hands on a show. You can almost see the meeting 'the old man is funny, lets focus on him, make him way over the top and make it all about the airline.. it'll be a nutty version of the office!' Anyhow, no hot chicks, no watch.


At 20 years old, Francis Ouimet (Shia Lebouf) as his whole life ahead of him - in a way. The son of an immigrant family living in the late-19th to early-20th Century-era United States, class was a very limiting fact of life. If one is born poor, one stays poor; if one is born into the bourgeoisie, one has a tiny bit of opportunity; if one is born into the wealthy class, they essentially have it made in the shade. British gold champion Harry Vardon and Francis' golf idol (played by the criminally underrated Stephen Dillane) is the exception that proves the rule. Born and raised in a poor British family, his accomplished skill at golf allowed him to rise from the dirty mess of the poorest slums to the lush greens of the English country clubs. He has not forgotten this life lesson. Francis wishes to follow in Vardon's footsteps and similarly uses his great skill at golf to get into the 1913 US Open at age 20. But a tough course and formidable opponents (including Francis' idol Harry Vardon) are not all that Francis must deal with as a less-than-understanding father and cruel societal framework stand in his way of living his own dream.

I know what you are thinking - I thought it too - a Walt Disney produced film about the 1913 US Open starring the irritable Shia LaBeouf holds the possibility of being entertaining but it cannot possibly be a great film. Well, I am here to encourage you to think again. Despite what it may look to some on paper, The Greatest Game Ever Played is one of the best sport films in creation.

As with every great sport film, The Greatest Game Ever Played includes many exciting sport scenes but it is not a film *about* golf - it is a character centered film about using one's talents, following one's dreams, and breaking out of class barriers. Where The Greatest Game Ever Played works excellently as a themed sport film it also works just as well as a period film - the film's featured costumes and sets being the next best thing to actual time travel. The film also simply *looks* great and virtually unknown music composer Brian Tyler set the film to a wonderful piece of music. The cast is great as well with a subtle but powerful Stephen Dillane as British golfing champion Harry Vardon, a hilarious Stephen Marcus as man's man golfer Ted Ray, a hammy Josh Flitter as Francis' pre-teenaged caddy Eddie, and a surprisingly good Shia LaBeouf in the lead role as Francis. Actor Bill Paxton (Apollo 13, Titanic) turns director here for the second time (directing a full-length feature) in The Greatest Game Ever Played. He produces a fine product - incorporating plenty of heart, ingenuity, and an attention to detail in the making of the film.


Normally when I write a review for a movie online, it is for one of three reasons. Either, I have found something exceptionally lacking in a film that otherwise would have been excellent, I feel that the public's perception of a film before viewing it is inaccurate for a number of reasons, or I believe that the purpose or message of a film needs to be clarified or explained with the help of other reviewers. While all of these reasons may appear to be somewhat negative, I find that writing a review that lavishes nothing but praise and statements such as, 'This is one of the best films of all time!', does nothing to enlighten a potential viewer on its merits and downsides, nor does it often give reasoning as to why a movie is so good, which should be the point of the review in the first place. With that being said, War of the Worlds is nothing more than a hurried, incompetent attempt at a money grab; piggy-backing its loathsome carcass on the multi-million dollar advertising campaign of the film of the same name directed by Steven Spielberg. Many people will buy this DVD in anticipation of the summer blockbuster and many more poor souls will buy it looking for more material on the same subject. This movie is not even 'so bad' that it becomes funny or endearing, rather the audience will be so unbelievably disappointed as to reach the point of anger. Now with most of the insults out of the way, allow me to give some arguments as a warning to those more fortunate than I.

Judging from the cover and the lack of any publicity for this film (I found it as SAM's Club for 8 bucks), I assumed that the cast would be no-names and that the special effects would be nothing too spectacular. Check. This is not a big deal for me, as I find a large budget and an over-reliance on big name stars and SE can diminish an otherwise decent movie. I also did not expect to be blown away by great dialog or a moving score. Check again. What I did hope for was an actual serious attempt at a classic theme and a few alien/battle scenes.

Now, as per IMDb's policy any spoilers must be announced in advance, no matter how small, so here is fair warning. The movie opens with a lot of inane small-talk, followed by a trip to an observatory to look at a red dot. Seriously, it is a pictures of a red dot in a tube. It is very hard to describe every little issue in depth, but by the end of the first ten minutes, the combination of shaky camera-work, spliced scenes, and a LOT of walking begin to frustrate the viewer. However, the costuming is surprisingly not bad and the hope that the pods will reveal something mysterious keeps you going. The next 30 minutes basically go as follows: one of the main characters walks to one of the pods, he looks at the pods and talks to another main character about looking at the pod and it may be hot. They both walk back to town. These walks aren't two seconds or added so that dialog may be exchanged. They are twenty seconds or more and are there simply to add filler to an already bloated three hour movie. In a particularly grueling scene, the main character is shown looking at a pod, then he is shown pacing and panting, then he looks at the pod, then he takes a one minute walk through a field to town, then comes in to town and walks into a building, then he has a cup of coffee and says 'Thank you Mary' to a random maid that serves him coffee, then he puts down the coffee and walks out the building, then he walks a minutes through the field and back to the pod. I apologize for the extreme run-on sentence, but it is perhaps the best way to summarize this entire film. Characters speak way too long about mundane things, they walk a lot, they send other people to walk, the camera fluctuates between high speed and slow speed, but for no dramatic effect, simply the camera man is a sophomore at Tech somewhere. The editing is mind-bogglingly bad. People actions make little sense. For instance, when the professor goes to a farmer's house and says that he needs the farmer to give him a ride to town, the farmer stutters and paces around. When the professor says that there is a pod and that men might be trapped inside, the farmer locks him in a shed only to see the professor grab a pitchfork and open the weak shed a second later. Nothing of any consequence of course comes from this entire scene, as the professor runs into the main character a moment later so they can begin their afternoon walk. The entire film feels as if someone at one point had a good idea about making a film, but absolutely no idea how to put that in motion. I have seen better high school video productions. Finally, the special effects are laughable and do nothing to advance the story. I get the feeling that the director really wanted this film to become somewhat of a cult classic of campy garbage. However, it is so awful in technical aspects, and in sheer common sense that it only makes people mad. Avoid this film at all costs.


As a comic book reader, who still sees myself as a total kid at heart, I admit I might have been a bit biased towards this movie. I mean, there hasn't been a good superhero movie out for quite some time (NOTE: Batman Forever was NOT a good superhero movie). I really wanted this film to be good, and unlike most of my recent trips to the cinema (read Blair Witch Project) I wasn't disappointed.

Mystery Men was definitely not a high-effects, tension-filled action flick, it was a comedy. And on that basis, it was a success. It had everyone in the small theater laughing, and got applause and laughs right through the final scene. Stiller and Garofolo are hilarious together, as always, and Azaria adds just the right touch of craziness. William H. Macy plays a great straight man, while Kel Mitchell and the fart-powered Paul Rubens are added just to keep the kiddies happy.

Though the sets are bizarre (and at times seem like ripoffs from both Batman and Blade Runner), and some of the jokes are obvious, it is still just plain funny. There are some lines that will catch even the most jaded viewer off-guard, and bring tears from the belly-laughers among us.

I definitely recommend this movie. Although not an all-time classic, it is twice as funny as the latest Austin Powers retread. The writing is good, and the cast is GREAT. If you're worried, plan on the matinee and pay less, but either way you'll be pleasantly surprised. I mean, who among us doesn't root for the losers once in a while?


I never watched the 'Next Action Hero' show, and until reading the other comments here, did not know that this movie was the 'prize' from that competition. I was just flipping channels and came across this, and found myself watching, dare eagerly, all the way to the end.

Yes, the plot's been done (The Most Dangerous Game, etc.) but I was hoping for, and almost received, the 'gotcha' - how the protagonist was going to beat the hunter in the end. I think the high-tech was overdone (GPS's) and gave me cold-sweat flashbacks of Night Rider, but it nevertheless was not too overdone.

The basic problem I had with this movie was the degree of SOD (Suspension of Disbelief) that was required of the viewer. Do we really think that someone flying in a helicopter could lob countless incendiary grenades at a public bridge and NO COPS show up to investigate? Could a limousine do countless donuts in a Las Vegas intersection and NO COPS show up? Pleeease. Way too much of that type of thing - fun to watch, but keep it at least plausible, thank you very much.

The final solution was good, but the ending was disappointing, with the after taste of a bad Star Trek episode. At least now I understand why the acting was so cheesy - except for Zane, who doesn't get near as much work as he deserves IMHO - they were winners from a reality show.

Knock me out.


This film was so bad it became enjoyable. If you want to see a soap opera cast decide to do an action film, this is for you! Overacting, irrelevant incidents, implausible dialogue - it has it all. The main character has a split personality and can not make up his mind whether he is thief, a loving father or a hero who will risk his life for others. He is plausible in none of these roles. This sets the standard for many of the other characters. The boss of the company whose building is set ablaze displays the same unpredictability, and so does his wife. And the punch line - who has taken the 'chip' - beggars belief. I found myself laughing heartily and for that reason, I recommend you watch it.


I love musicals, all of them, from joyous Oklahoma, to Poignant Porgy and Bess, to the touching romantic 'Damn Yankees.' And I know most of the songs, sometimes singing them spontaneously, with a crowd or humming them alone.

In a 'real' musical, as differentiated from this vaudeville show, every song is painstakingly crafted to fit the exact moment. It is an expression of sadness, regret, love, joy or exaltation--a natural extension where mere words fail. So, in Guys and Dolls, 'My Time of Day' describes the adventurous life of Sky Masterson as it is about to be compromised by the most unlikely woman. Every song in this brilliant exemplar of the genre sets a mood, or develops a character, creating a phantasmagoria of place, turned absolutely believable by the self disclosing evocations of song.

For this lover of the Broadway Musical, and their adaptations to the screen during the last half of the 20th century, Mama Mia is somewhere between satire and a cruel fun house distortion of the genre. There, the songs of these musicals advanced the often elaborate, often delightful, plot lines. While here, the songs, simply picked up from a collection, only interfered with the shaky premise of the film.

Perhaps most of those viewers who are making this film into a monumental success simply have no exposure to the art form of 20th century Musicals. They have no idea of the magic performed by writer and lyricist that can turn a dance hall floozy into someone whom we know and love, as achieved in 'Sweet Charity.'

Let me offer an apology for the arrogance of this review. Perhaps, another day, another mood, I could have gotten into it, and not have been so critical in this review.

But I can't help but imagining what Richard Roger, Oscar Hammerstein, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin and so many others could have done even with with this silly premise. I think about it, while the memories of seeing this film is fresh, and I can not help but to mourn the great loss.


I have been a huge fan of the original crew of the Enterprise since I was eight years old. I watched all the movies and appreciated each one for what they retained from the old series and for further developing the characters (and the Star Trek universe, in general). Even in 'The Undiscovered Country' I thought the aging of the characters was well handled and the story worthy of a theatrical release. However, having said that, 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier' is easily the worst of the series featuring the original crew. I agree with many that the camaraderie of Kirk, Spock and McCoy is well handled, but the overall script, the direction -- by William Shatner -- and the special effects are not worthy of anything more than a television episode. This is a 'buddy movie' and, at times, almost unrecognizable as a Star Trek movie. The action sequences are not sustained and therefore, build little or no tension. The dialogue is weak though it does provide for a few laughs, both intended and not-intended. The Klingon's seem thrown in as an afterthought. The whole 'Sha-Ka-Ree' concept is just silly and Laurence Luckinbill, a fine actor in everything else I've ever seen him in, boarders on the absurd in this movie. The scene where Sybok conjures up images of Spock's pain and McCoy's pain shatters the image of the characters as we've known them. Spock would never be party to such stupidity and McCoy, trying to save his father is full of insipid, redundant dialogue and totally wastes DeForest Kelley's acting abilities. The whole scene is wasted and really shows us nothing new and nothing we want to see from these characters. I understand that Shatner didn't have the luxury of working with ILM for the special effects and that the budget for this movie was tight, but that doesn't allow for such a bad story. In some respects, I think this story does fit in with the old series, but the movies, including 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' are all much better quality than this. It's a shame that most of the other characters have so few lines and so little to do with most of this movie. The focus on Kirk, McCoy and Spock is nice, but way over used. The old crew really seems to be out of character. I liked the old Klingon General and the sultry Romulan in the bar. I liked some of the humor and the idea that Spock has a half-brother, but that's about it. If this was a TV episode, I'd be able to accept a lot of the faults. As a movie, this is just bad, uninspired film making. It's a shame too, because I want this movie to be good. Even if it was the level of 'Star Trek III' I would be happy, but this movie makes all the other movies in this series seem like works of Shakespeare.


This show has a great storyline! It's very believable! A mans wife dies and he cant take care of his children alone so he calls on his brother in law his best friend and many others come later on in the show. Such as Rebeecca Donaldson, ,the lovable yet strong dog Comet , Nikki and Alex who you can find out for yourself (I don't want to spoil it for you) and of coerce Kimmy Gibler! (The sidekick of DJ) but the kids are wonderful too. This is Mary Kate and Ashley first took off! And also you may know Candace Cameron Bure from shows like St.Elsewere Punky Brewster and that's so raven! Jodie Sweetin plays Steph the love able middle child who feels left out. Really this is a very good show!


'Once in the life' is a very good movie. However it's not good for everybody, due to the extensive use of vulgar language and the violence of some of the situations. The movie manages to represent in an anecdotic, believable way the 'life' in NYC neighborhoods where drug problems are important. This depiction is in turn used as the decor for a most thoughtful and suspenseful drama backed up by powerful dialogs (however I had a hard time understanding some of them because english is not my mother tongue. On video it's OK). There is a little overplay sometimes, but I think it fits quite well to the general orientation Fishburne gave to the movie, which gives matter for reflexion more than just being a good style exercise, notably in the time/action management. The characters, even though not simple, are easy to relate to and actors do a fine job at impersonating them. By the way I much enjoyed the soundtrack (B. Marsalis). If you're not too prude, you should enjoy seeing that movie once, twice, three times. I rated the movie 9/10.


This movie was great don't understand the disrespect it get's. I first scene this in like 87-88 and it was actually scary, If you are an 80's horror fan you should have no problem with this film it has everything that makes 80's horror great. I got to meet a few of the actor's and they were cool. What is not great about a creepy old house,demons,crazy party & horny good looking young people. The dialog and the special fx made this movie a classic. This film also took care of one of those classic rumors about horror the black guy does not alway's have to die in the end.Even though this movie was great there is one thing that remains undiscovered to me what really happened to the old couple at the end was it on purpose or not that little side story thing alway's had me puzzled.


Dave is going through a divorce and his mind wanders back to his first love. 'Wanders' is probably not the word. I should say he fixates on the past girlfriend. He recalls to the day when the relationship ended. The dream sequences only lack the hazy transitions. He fondly recalls their favorite songs and places they went. I'm not a counselor, but maybe this had something to do with the failed marriage???? Dave goes to a support group and meets up with a lady half his age (also divorced) who, instead of being 'turned off' by his creepiness, starts to become interested in him. Did I mention how creepy Dave is? He sometimes refers to himself in the third person. He doesn't move his arms when he walks, either. It's just weird. Too make a long story short, Dave plots to hunt down Mary (the old gal friend) and kill her...err...I mean confront her. He does so. Which was really creepy. He believes her to be married, yet he STILL flies half-way across the country to meet her. He stakes out her house to make sure she is alone, before he 'drops in' on her. He has an awkward conversation with her that ends with his sharing the gospel of Christ in about 10 words or less, and flies back to the new young girlfriend. We enjoyed the movie mostly for unintentional comedic value. I am still entertaining the wife with my Dave impressions....'I heard another Dave & Mary song!'


This is unfortunately Carlin's last recorded HBO concert, from a series that lasted over 30 years. Though this may not be his 'best' work, it is excellent, funny, and thought provoking. This recording is also a bit different from most of his other concerts that it is a bit lengthier than most of his other concerts.

Throughout his long, prolific, and influential career, Carlin has moved from the more observational humor and fart jokes, towards a more 'humanitarian' viewpoint of society and culture. His focus on the English Language and euphemisms increased throughout the years, and culminates in this performance. Though, I would argue that his audio book 'When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?' best displays his vast wit with regards to language, euphemisms, and the breakdown of our values. It's Bad For Ya is quite indicative of his long transformation from a comedian to a writer.

If you are offended by foul language or the disparagement of the church, you will probably not like any of Carlin's stand up material. However, if you enjoy being mentally stimulated and can tolerate the language and blasphemy, you would probably greatly enjoy this concert.


This movie is so bad, it's comical. In fact, Mystery Science Theatre 3000, the television show in which three characters watch and parody bad movies, used this very film to mock. I suggest watching it (maybe on YouTube) instead of actually seeing this movie.

Please, do not see Hobgoblins if you're not prepared to stop within the first scene. Actually, do not see this movie, period. Please. At least not seriously. Its jokes are not funny (to say the least), and you'll have much more fun parodying or watching a parody of it then viewing the movie.

You may feel yourself becoming sick upon watching, so spare yourself. Read a book. Do the laundry. Anything is more fun than watching Hobgoblins.


wow is all i could say i really loved the movie and one thing i could say to Aaron carter is that i really think that you should be in a lot more movies cause you rock.i love Aaron carter so much hes hot and so i say thank you a lot for making this movie great.i really do so wish he would be able to make a lot more movies because he his a great dancer, actor, and singer. i so wish i could sing as good as he could. and I've been a fan of his for like ever and i will never ever stop loving him. i rented the movie and I've had it for two days and iv'e literally watched it over like 10 times. laugh out loud you could call me crazy but that just proves that i liked it a lot. if u wanna talk you can hit me up at dvlbab300@aol.com so e-mail me if you wanna. I LOVE YOU AARON CARTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!