I've always liked Barbara Stanwyck who was, perhaps, the hardest working lead actress of the 30's and 40's although few of her movie roles are memorable. Today she is remembered most for the TV show 'The Big Valley'. Stanwyck worked so much because she was durable; it seems that she would accept most any role and make the most of it to make the movie a success and so directors loved her and many an ordinary picture gained credibility by her presence.

And so it was for 'Christmas in Connecticut' a very ordinary effort whose plot strains credulity and isn't even really about Christmas. It does, however, have Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan as well as some supreme character actors including Sydney Greenstreet and S.K. Sakall so there are plot twists and funny moments which undoubtedly seemed more real in 1945 than they do today. To begin, the plot concerns a magazine writer (Stanwyck) who the magazine's readers believe is a domestic goddess, married with a child and living on a farm in Connecticut but who is really single, lives in New York City and knows nothing about cooking or homemaking. Could anyone get away with such a fraud even then? Apparently, and even the owner of the magazine (Greenstreet) is deceived although one would think that he would have long since seen though the deception but the story moves on and Stanwyck, Greenstreet, a sailor recently survived from his sunken ship (Morgan) and Stanwyck's restaurateur friend (S.Z.Sakall) find themselves spending Christmas in Connecticut at a farm belonging to Stanwyck's boorish boyfriend (Reginald Gardiner). You can imagine all the possibilities there are for this as the fraud unwinds as it must. Gardiner wants Stanwyck to marry him to perpetuate the rouse but one wonders how she can stand him at all. Morgan and Stanwyck fall for each other but he is supposed to be engaged and she is supposed to be married. Regardless, they begin what seems to be a make believe affair dancing cheek to cheek and stealing off in a horse drawn sleigh. Meanwhile, the incredibly naive Greenstreet character who has seen Stanwyck and Morgan go off together but still doesn't get it sees one of the neighbors take back a child that has been borrowed as part of the deception and calls the cops to report a kidnapping. Stanwyck and Morgan are arrested for stealing the sleigh and the hoax begins to unwind.

At this point the movie is funny as in ridiculous or absurd, not funny ha,ha and it routinely ends like screwball comedies always did. The good guy gets the girl and presumably they live happily ever after.

I watch this movie every year at Christmas to enjoy these character actors at their best in a story that reflects way it was in 1945 and because of a long held fascination with Barbara Stanwyck. Thank goodness it was set at Christmas or like 95 percent of Stanwyck's movies it would have been long ago forgotten and we would not get to see it each year anew.


I must say this movie is a Mork and Mindy knock off, when watching it i got the chills, I even wet myself a little. When that Korean guy with the spiders in his neck started kicking people i was like oh my lord Asian people smell and suck cause they eat dogs all the time. Any way back on track Chuck had a somewhat terrible performance and lacked the intelligence of a regular non robotic human being. Some people would compare it to his earlier days when he was a car wash analyzer and believed in the holy ghost and the ghost of Christmas past. This movie is so bad I put my new born child in a box and left it in Mr. Norris mailbox. He can raise my kid I'm not letting him into a world where he thinks chuck Norris is a karate expert Ill let him see what that hack is like in real life for the rest of his life.


I thought this move was very good. There were a few things that were less than perfect, but overall, I was quite surprised. The courtroom scene in the end seemed a little unrealistic, but was real enough to be entertaining. I found that the movie communicated the hardships of going though military training and the sacrifices that go along with it. Being a military pilot I could relate to many of these parts.


Some time in the late 19th century, somewhere in the American West, several cowboys in need of money go on a buffalo hunt. The group's leader believes that buffaloes are too numerous for the hunting to have any impact, but the more experienced hunter has seen how quickly the population can collapse, and he isn't so sure. Featuring buffalo herds living in South Dakota and showing film of actual hunting (the movie's introduction explains it as necessary thinning of the herd), the movie does an excellent job of presenting us with the plight of the buffalo and its effect on Native Americans without ever getting preachy about it.

The real story, however, is about the dysfunctional family which is created by the small group formed to do the hunting. The father figure is Charlie, a violent man with a short fuse. Sandy, his 'brother', is the experienced hunter who is tired of killing but needs the job after losing his cattle. A half-Indian boy, who hates the fact that he looks entirely Caucasian, takes the role of adopted son. The grandfather (and moral compass) is an alcoholic buffalo skinner; Charlie's 'wife' is an Indian woman whose companions he killed after they stole his horses.

Charlie is clearly the most interesting figure. He is mean and insulting towards everyone around him, yet at the same time he knows that they are the only family and friends that he has. He expects the abducted Indian women to hate him, then accept him, but he doesn't know how to react when she refuses to do either. He's the one who put the family together in the first place, but he's also the one who is fated to ultimately destroy it.

This is all very similar to the classic 'Red River', which also features a family of sorts being torn apart by the increasingly violent and alienated father figure. As one might expect, this movie suffers by comparison. The plot is not as focused on developing the characters and family dynamics, and the direction fails to keep all of the scenes working towards this common goal. Charlie is so thoroughly unlikable from the very beginning that we never have any reason to care about what happens to him or his family. On the positive side, however, the message surrounding the buffalo slaughter adds an extra dimension to the film and its conclusion is far superior to the Hollywood ending which was tacked on to the end of 'Red River'. As a result, 'The Last Hunt' is an interesting and entertaining film, very well made, but falling short of what would be needed to consider it a classic.


Michael Radford has done an excellent job bringing this difficult play to the screen. He has taken a play with a reputation for anti-semitism, and shown us that Shakespeare knew quite well the humanity of the Jews. Radford said after the screening, and I agree, that Shylock is his first tragic hero, the first of his characters to be undone by a driving, compulsive need for revenge. He also points out, quite rightly, that a man who was anti-semitic could not have written Shylock's speech of 'If you prick me, do i not bleed?' Radford is himself of Jewish descent and he has picked out the good and bad of all characters with delicacy and honesty. no character is free from flaws; no character is evil. Radford has placed the play in the 16th century, which gives a lush background of Venetian politics and decadence on which to project Shakespeare's words.

If you get a chance to hear Radford speak about the film, I highly recommend you take it, since he gives details about life in 16th century Venice that illuminate a lot of the choices he made and give considerable extra depth to the viewing. I'm hoping that the DVD will come out with extensive commentary.

Jeremy Irons does a gorgeous portrayal of Antonio, a man who resigns himself to bearing the burden of his past misdeeds. Lynn Collins, a relative unknown, gives us an absolutely flawless, stunning, and detailed job as Portia. Not only is Ms. Collins beautiful - she also gives Portia layers of intelligence and humor prior to the trial scene i've rarely seen in any production of this play. the rest of the cast also does a terrific job, with a notable performance by Kris Marshall as Gratiano, and a beautifully subtle work by Allan Corduner as Tubal, playing the foil to Shylock. Finally, while Al Pacino pulls out his usual strong (and loud) performance, his best moments are when the camera focuses on him and he says no words, but you can see all the emotions and madnesses flowing into and out of him as he perceives his fortunes changing.

If you like period movies, I cannot recommend this movie enough.


When I refer to Malice as a film noir I am not likening it to such masterpieces as Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity or The Maltese Falcon, nor am I comparing director Becker to Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Stanley Kramer or Luis Bunuel. I am merely registering a protest against the darkness that pervades this movie from start to finish, to the extent that most of the time you simply cannot make out what is going on. I can understand darkness in night scenes but this movie was dark even in broad daylight, for what reason I am at loss to understand. As it is, however, it wouldn't have made much difference if director Becker had filmed it in total darkness.


Oz, was the first original television show that HBO put onto its channel (in the 1 hour forma) and it remains to this day the very best... The story is simple... Oz is a surreal look into the lives of high maximum security prisoners at Oswald, primarily focusing on 'Em City.' Now there are many things to compliment this show on from the writing (which in my opinion was the best on television when this show aired), directing (top notch), acting (best of the best), and the characters... This show just literally blew my socks off... This show was a critically acclaimed gem until The Sopranos bowed, after that critics were salivating over that epic tale of trust and family to notice this compelling drama... Oz to me is a better show than Sopranos overall and it's a shame that i never won any major Emmy's... =/

kudos to all who were involved in this magnificent, gut - wrenching, show...

KUDOS


I think my summary sums it up. I found it inane and stupid. I also saw the ending a mile a way. Everyone is copying that ending anymore when doing a TV/Theater crossover anymore. Sometimes, it's better to let the movie stand alone.

Others, its better to forget the movie altogether. This is one of the others....


I don't know who wrote the script for this movie, but from the first moment on, I was irritated. Of all possible decisions they could make up in the mountains, why do they make the decision, which is the most dangerous of all? Why do the criminals act dumb, although they managed to get a huge amount of money out of a bank and get away with it? Why doesn't the main criminal land the helicopter, shoot Stallone, grab the money and fly away with the chick as a hostage? And there are more cases of illogical behavior. I'd give this movie 5 points for nice action and great landscape scenery, but due to the illogical behavior of the characters, I just can give this movie 1 point...


OK, the show was a little uneven, but I still loved it. I found the main two bunnies annoying, but Hamton & Plucky were always amusing.

I really want the Baby Plucky episodes on DVD (or even VHS). Please release those!

Specifically the 'Potty years' episode aired on 11/22/91; the 'Going up' episode aired on 9/17/92 and the 'Minister golf' episode in 11/92.

They are the funniest bits of the whole series and even over a decade later we still reference these bits!

(I have nothing more to say, please reduce the minimum to something like 5 lines and rewards us for brevity!)


As part of our late 1950s vocabulary, we well knew the Ponderosa, Little Joe, Hoss, Ben Cartwright,etc. on that great show 'Bonanza.'

It came Saturday night and everyone was glued to the television set. This was a real show depicting family values. There may have been a weekly crisis, but it was the strong family atmosphere that pulled everyone together.

Lorne Greene was dominant as the patriarch of the family. His words depicted wisdom. We often were left to wonder that Ben Cartwright, a widower, must have been the best of husbands to that poor wife of his who had died. He reared wonderful sons.

Naturally, we all wondered why Pernell Roberts left the show. The show was a gold mine and Roberts surrendered loads of money when he departed. His career never took off as he was associated as a Cartwright son. He should have tried to get back into the series. He certainly lost a bonanza by dropping out.


This film is about a young man's painful journey to discovering his sexuality.

The film is raw and unpretentious. It does not rely on steamy sex scenes to attract the viewers. Though the plot may seem incoherent and disconnected at times, and some events are not properly explained. I can understand it though, because this film is a collection of memories that are highly personal to the director. The subplot of about his sister and mother probably does not need to exist in the film, but I can certainly imagine that these are very important events in his life.

The low budget of the film is clearly discernible. It is a pity that the sound effects are poorly done. The narration and some dialogs (particularly the scene in the classroom with the French teacher) have so much echo, which makes it hard to make out what is said. The ambient noise, notable traffic noise, is also captured throughout the film. When a scene cuts into another, the level of traffic noise changes.

This film is probably not entertaining, but it certainly serves as an insightful diary of a young man's journey to embracing his sexuality.


'D.O.A.' is a non-thrilling thriller from directors Rocky Morton and Annabel

Jankel. The acting is okay and the screenplay is pretty bad. This movie also has some moments which will make you laugh at how stupid the scenes of violence

are. For example, someone is shot near a window. We then see from outside

the building what looks like that person jumped. I laughed my head off when this happened. This movie tries hard, but ultimately fails. Only watch this movie

when you have no other choice.

My Critique: **

Rating: [R]

Rating Reasons: Violence and language.*

*There was no rating reason available due to its age.


I caught this film at the Edinburgh Film Festival. I hadn't heard much about it; only that it was a tightly-paced thriller, shot digitally on a very low budget. I was hoping to catch the next big Brit-Flick. But I have to say, I was severely disappointed. 'This Is Not A Love Song' follows two criminals, who, after accidentally shooting and killing a farmer's young daughter, become embroiled in a deadly game of cat and mouse when the locals decide to take matters into their own hands and hunt them down.

The real problem is that this is yet another example of style over substance in a British film. The camera angles and editing are completely at odds with the story, as are the over the top performances, and the appalling use of slow motion, which only serves to make the whole thing look like an expensive home video. There are repeated attempts to make the film look edgy and gritty, which instead come over as hilarious and over the top(Cue a pathetic, obligatory drug scene, and countless, pointless camera zooms). No amount of cliche's such as this can disguise the fact that this is a pretty bad story.

We've seen this kind of thing many times before, and made a hundred times better, particularly in John Boorman's masterful 'Deliverance.' But while in the latter film, we actually cared about the characters, in this film, I found myself just wanting them to be hunted down and killed as quickly as possible. Even this wouldn't have been so bad if their adversaries had been frightening or worthwhile, but instead, are merely a collection of stereotypical, inbred-looking countryfolk. Again, another offensive, overused cliche' coming to the fore. Surely there are some nice people in the country, filmmakers?

In its defense, 'This Is Not A Love Song' does contain a couple of good, suspenseful moments, but it's hard to see this film doing anything other than going straight to video, or, at a push, getting a very limited cinema release. It's not a patch on last year's Low-Budget hunted in the hills movie, 'Dog soldiers'. Maybe British Cinema could actually get kick-started again if the right money stopped going to the wrong people.


I thought this was movie was great, Richard Greico and Yasmine Bleeth have great chemistry in this movie. Yasmine Bleeth's character plays a women who has fallen head over heals in love with Richard Greico's character. They end up getting married and everything seems perfect except Yasmine Bleeth wants a baby more than anything, however she has a hard time trying to conceive. Richard Greico will do anything to make her happy, and will go to extreme measures to make her happy. I thought the acting was great in this movie, and it keeps you guessing. It shows how naive one can be when they have fallen in love. Yasmine Bleeth is a good actress in this, and I wonder why she never made it further in her career. Richard Greico is very impressive as the deceiving husband, and plays the evil part very well. I wonder why certain actors make it and certain ones don't. All and all a great movie that I would recommend.


A dull stroll through the banalities of Mormon prosthelatizing. Utterly un-funny. A testament to the widely held theory, that in order for bathroom humor to be funny, it must necessarily be vulgar; it also bolsters the claim that a close relationship with Jesus makes you not funny. More propaganda than film, don't worry about any touchy social issues coming up at the dinner table after this one. The saving grace of this movie is its accurate portrayal of young Mormon females as particularly attractive. Oh well, its your $7.50.


I'm a big time horror fan, and I bought this movie from all the hype it was getting on the message boards. Well, let me tell you I don't know whom was giving it all the hype, but let me speak on a few things.

First of all this film is 'not' a LOT of things. It is NOT scary, NOT suspenseful, NOT overly gory, NOT overly sick (except for one season MAYBE) NOT beautifully scored.... AT ALL.

The premise of the movie is that a couple flee to a small island in Greece because they have done a little naughtiness in London. We don't even know what they did, but it is presumed that they killed someone.

**spoiler alert**

The male lead kills a few people out of his perversion of 'cleansing the island of perverts' oddly enough. The killings are cheap, the characters are cheaper and the effects suck.

There is one part when he rapes a goat because his wife wont give him any in the morning, but even that is done without any care for how it is shot.

end of spoilers

The end of the movie is about the only thing that isn't totally predictable. I especially enjoyed when the 'herder' farts on the husband. Anyway, if you can rent this and have 2 hours to waste go ahead. It's nothing better than a processed cheese sandwich on moldy bread.

3/10


'The Hills Eyes II', one of the most pointless and blatantly stupid sequels to come around in some time, is 90 minutes of incompetent film making at its finest. Or worst, however you choose to look at it. While 2006's 'Hills' remake was one of the year's best, and truly frightening, horror films, this sequel takes every spark out of what made that such an accomplishment. Part 2 never gets off the ground, and neither does its mind numbing dialogue. Worst of all, it's not that scary.

2006's remake followed a family who find themselves in the middle of the New Mexico desert, deserted, and one by one being picked off by deranged and sadistic hill people. People who, as a result of the military testing the atomic bomb on their land years ago, have become who they are. Surviving off travelers who wander into the region. The sequel puts audiences in the same desert, now occupied by the military as they covertly investigate the hills and what might have happened to that poor family. When a group of military trainees are brought to the campsite, they find it deserted with no signs of life. A grim reality soon befalls them, as they come to the realization that they're not alone. And the bloody fate that was handed to many before them will soon become their destiny.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that 'Hills' has no legitimate reason to exist. But because last year's remake was received well both at the box office and by critics, it came to no surprise that a sequel would be rushed into production while there's still money to be earned. There's no rhyme or reason to it this time around, just an unbelievable and ridiculous set-up to pave the way for thoughtless characters, unoriginal killings, a non-existent story, and slipping interest. Originally, director Alexander Aja made Craven's cult classic into a remake that was a unique and thoroughly disturbing experience. One that gruesomely crossed the line on more than one occasions. Its frank display of violence, sadistic torture, well-rounded characterization, and white-knuckled suspense were all effectively used to shock and repulse audiences. The second time around, it's rehashed hand-me-downs. There's no style, no grit. It tries to build up tension by dismembering bodies, when all it really does is make for a been there, done that kind film, where even the gore seems tame compared to more recent bloodbaths.

It's a sad state of affairs when deformed mutants who capture women for breeding purposes fails to keep your attention. It's a bore, nothing more. 'Hills' has no bite. Despite a jump or two here and there, there's nothing very scary about this by-the-numbers horror flick. It feels like something you'd see on the Sci-Fi channel, only with some F-bombs, a blood splatter here and there, a rape, and a graphic birth scene that's more gross than shocking. It's cheap. And with 'Hills', you reap what you sew. With no effort given, you can't expect anything in return.

Replacing Aja with Martin Weisz as director was the film's first big mistake, all he does is drain the film of any sort of emotional resonance. But even more shocking is the uncharacteristically bad script penned by Wes Craven and his son, Jonathan Craven. You ask, how bad could it possibly be? This is the kind of dialogue that makes any comparison look like Shakespeare. Craven has had his fair share of clunkers in the past, but I'd never expect something like this from him. It's so unintentionally funny, you have to wonder, is Craven playing a joke on this? Or did he dump this one on his son after the studio payed him off? The film's characters are one-dimensional talking heads with no emotions or common sense. The acting is just as bad. The only character who may win you over is 'Napoleon' Napoli, the scrawny kid who doesn't fit in with the others. Even the deranged and instinct-driven villains, who we might have found some favor with in the deepest of our thoughts a year ago, are met with indifferent. You don't hate them, you don't like them. You honestly couldn't care less. Just like this movie.

Even if you were giddy with fear during 'The Hills Have Eyes', as I was, you'll have a tough time finding anything to enjoy in this piece of garbage. It's as generic as generic gets, and there's absolutely nothing here we haven't seen done many times already. I can't express this enough, avoid 'The Hills Have Eyes II' like the plague. It's frightless, unoriginal, frantic, and a bore. Stick to the remake or Craven's original vision. Because if you don't walk out after the first thirty minutes, don't say I didn't warn you.


I ended up watching The Tenants with my close friends who rented the movie solely based on Snoop Dogg's appearance (a passionate fetish of theirs) on the cover. Understandably, I did not expect much. I thought the movie would include the typical array of Snoop Dogg related behavior and imagery often seen in cliché rap videos. However, my generalization was for the most part wrong. Unfortunately, this didn't make the movie any better.

Most would describe the movie as a dark serious drama, whereas I would describe it as a dark seriously drawn out boring drama flick. The film tells a story of two struggling writers (Dylan McDermott and Snoop Dogg) who are trying to create their own separate masterpieces. Their polar opposite lifestyles end up forming an unlikely but highly complex and neurotic friendship. This friendship moves throughout the entire movie like a wild roller-coaster - most of which is contributed by Snoop's character - reminiscent of someone with a severe case of split personality disorder. And although the movie is a drama, the acting - which has a morbid and serious tone - from Snoop and company was more comical than anything else.

I wouldn't recommend this movie for those who are attention impaired because this one has a lot of dialogue and a lot more dialogue after that. There are some mediocre conflicts, but even they are mostly bogged down with more dialogue. The end, however, jumped at me with a sudden surprise. It was a little bit twisted, somewhat unexpected and a perfect way to wrap up a movie that needed to end. While watching the ending credits I couldn't help but picture the director thinking, 'Oh God, how the hell do I end this snoozer.' By the way, the director laid out carefully planted hints and subtleties leading to the climax - all of which are more visible than Waldo in a crowded street of midgets wearing nothing but black sweaters.


Strictly a routine, by-the-numbers western (directed by genre-mainstay Andrew V. McLaglen, so is that any wonder?). Army colonel Brian Keith spars with smarmy bandit Dean Martin, who has just kidnapped the colonel's wife (Honor Blackman, who never found her niche after playing Pussy Galore in 'Goldfinger'). Fist-fights, shoot-outs, stagecoach robberies and Denver Pyle in a supporting role...in other words, absolutely nothing new or original. Talking in a low monotone throughout, Keith gets to dally with a prostitute (something of a shock after his run on TV's 'Family Affair'), but otherwise this low-rent material wastes Keith's amiable talents. It's also bad news for Dino, who doesn't seem to notice or care. Hack direction, poor writing and several unfunny attempts at lowball humor. * from ****


Northanger Abbey is not my favorite Jane Austen novel, but it has its charms. This movie doesn't. It has some of the same character names as the book, but the story is drastically altered, and the sweetest man in the whole Austen canon (unless Emma's Mr. Knightley gets pride of place) is made out to be a heartless and mercenary creep. One or two totally extraneous characters are introduced, and a palpable air of corseted perversion hangs over it all. I was so disappointed when I first saw it on its release in 1986; even today it ranks high on the list of films that disgrace the books on which they're based. Even Robert Hardy fans should give this one a wide berth. It has nothing, and I mean N-O-T-H-I-N-G, to recommend it.


This film was amazing. It is an inspiring piece of cinema. The characters are fully developed through the truth in which Director, Lucy Walker brings to the film. I highly recommend this to any one looking for that special film that shows the humanity in the human condition. Lucy Wlaker showcases the landscape beauty. This film id a true example of man vs. nature and sometimes man vs. man. The inner turmoil and triumph is tremendous in its subject matter. The subject of how the Tiebtans view blindness as a sign of demons is interesting. This film sheds light on a particular culture that has never been showcased. Lucy Walker has given Erik Weihenmayer a voice when he would have not normally been heard. Thank you Lucy for being true to your vison as a filmmaker.


I rented this movie and watched it 20 times before I took it back to the store. Bill Paxton hired some first rate talent to make a good thriller with some interesting twists. The story is original and well written. Powers Booth and Paxton both deliver good performances. The story is told in an interesting manner with both flashbacks 20 years back, then spots in the present, alternating back and forth. This style of storytelling makes for a good thriller that can't get dull. Bill Paxton, please make more horror movies, you have the talent for it!


For anyone who has seen and fallen in love with the stage musical A CHORUS LINE, the movie is a shoddy substitute. Not only are songs cut, but unnecessary plot twists added, new dance sequences choreographed, and, let's face it, Richard Attenborough just doesn't know how to film dancers.

Onstage, Michael Bennett's A CHORUS LINE was just that: Michael Bennett. His idea, his choreography, his direction, his gift to Broadway and the rest of the world. It was two hours of hard-hitting, in-your-face realism that really made you feel for these 'boys' and 'girls.' The movie, however, lacks empathy and depth: the actors look like they are auditioning for A CHORUS LINE rather than actually auditioning. Every move, every line of dialogue seems so weighted and planned; Michael Douglas, especially, as Zach is too in control for us to believe that he is this extraordinarily bitchy choreographer. Even when he throws his temper tantrums, you never quite believe him because every gesture, every accented word, every nuance is so obviously rehearsed. And as for him not dancing: Kevin Kline auditioned for the role of Zach on Broadway. Michael Bennett loved his reading, but Kline couldn't dance and ultimately lost the part. How I wish they had done the same for Douglas! A CHORUS LINE is supposed to be a show about nobodies, and aside from a few recognizable faces (Vicki Frederick, who played Cassie on Broadway, as Sheila and Khandi Alexander, of TV's NewsRadio, as one of the many auditioning dancers) you're not supposed to KNOW any of these people. Because you DO know these people. Having a star in any of the roles is a terrible decision: when you focus on Michael Douglas and his ranting instead of on the girls and boys on the line and their stories, you lose something.

It is truly unfortunate that the best sequence in the show (Montage: Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love) is cut drastically to make way for a terrible new song entitled 'Surprise, Surprise' that surprisingly received a nomination at the Oscars. Cassie's 'mirror dance' has a new song and tragically boring choreography -- one wonders why they bothered to shoot a movie version at all if they were going to mess with a working formula this much.

For fans of musical theatre and those who enjoyed the stage version, this movie is a sad mockery of everything they cherished and loved. For those who never got to see the original production, either on Broadway or on tour, this movie is the only reference they will have to go by. And they'll have to wonder just how it got to be the longest-running musical in Broadway history -- until a little show called CATS overtook it in the late 1990's. But THAT is a different story, and don't even get me started there.


Imagine if you will: four teen students have an assignment to spend the night in a haunted house in St. Francisville, Louisiana to check for the existence of the paranormal. If you watch this in the dark and late at night; you possibly will have the hair on the back of your neck rise a couple of times. Otherwise this mock documentary is a very lazy rip off of BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. What is to be dialogue is very lame and the actors are pleasant looking enough, but seem to lack genuine personality. It seems to take forever before something real spooky even happens. This movie is excellent for 'sleep overs', when you have both eyes barely open and everyone is yakin' and snackin'.


The quote above just about says it all for 'Slipstream'. I should have bailed out of this film after the first half hour, but decided I ought to be fair and give it a chance. I won't watch it again, so if anyone with the temerity to do so can get back to me with the number of clichéd lines in the movie, I'm sure it will set a record.

Some otherwise fine and talented actors got mixed up with this clunker; Mark Hamill portrays a futuristic bounty hunter and Bill Paxton is his quarry. Paxton's character has hijacked Hamill's prisoner, an android taking his name from the poet Byron (Bob Peck). Tasker (Hamill) shoots Owens (Paxton) with a dart containing a tracking device so he and his companion Belitski (Kitty Aldridge) can keep tabs on the pair. The real question though is why didn't he just fire the device at Byron thereby cutting out the middleman.

If you enjoy scene after disjointed scene with tedious characterization and artsy fartsy pretense, then I suppose you'll find something of interest here. But you can't convince me that the film makes sense on any level. Scenes of a futuristic Stone Age make way for high society snobbery, but the pinnacle of poor taste is reached when Paxton's character is displayed following a night of revelry with hickeys all over his torso. If anyone thinks there's some hidden meaning here, you're really stretching.

Patiently waiting for the frame proclaiming 'The End' to come into view, alas, even that was denied. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then so is understanding; this movie had neither. Yet there was a single redeeming feature as the closing credits began their run - an awesome view of a half dozen hot air balloons. Apparently the film was keeping them afloat.


Everything Is Illuminated A young Jewish American searches for the woman that helped his grandfather escape Nazi persecution while embarking on a cross-European tour with some unlikely associates.

Liev Schreiber makes his directorial debut with a playful angst usually associated with his acting ethos. When successful actors decide to sit in the director's chair, we usually get a biographical glimpse at the souls beneath the acting mask- Check. We usually get a mishmash of genres- Check. But what we normally do not get is an insightful original film which is credible, intelligent and moving.

Elijah Wood plays Jonathan, an inquisitive young boy who collects pieces of life as he goes. He is on a mission to find a woman in a photograph. The sepia picture bears his grandfather (an uncanny resemblance to him) and the woman. To aid his journey he enlists the help of travel guides that comprise of a Hip-Hop loving break-dancer, Alex (Eugene Hutz), his apathetic and perma-vexed grandfather (Boris Leskin) and his dog- Sammy Davis Junior Jr! What ensues is essentially a comedy. There is an un-patronisingly simple introduction with voice-overs. Alex's is especially funny as he educates his younger brother on the year 1969, proving how popular he is with the chicks and break-dancing thus setting him up as Jonathan's antithesis.

Schreiber begins to break down the characters as they progress and the comedy acts as an intentional veil to what is a story about three people linked to the holocaust who do not really know themselves. All three hold the film with tenderness and authenticity something Schreiber was unlikely to get wrong and as enchanting and fantastical as the film is, the horrors that are allowed to crack through, i.e. the past are presented in an almost palatable tone (incidental music, cinematography) which make them all the more unsettling.

As the unlikely group finally find the town they seek they learn of the true atrocities that occurred and find out a lot about who they really are.

Elijah wood is as authentic as usual, bringing his usual innocence and strength to the screen. Formally a resident good in Lord of the Rings and a resident evil in Sin City he plays Jonathan with aplomb as he is bombarded with culture shocks and a quest for truth. Boris Leskin as the grandfather also delivers his angst and frustration at the youths with great humour and conviction as his own past is unravelled. However, it is Eugene Hutz as Alex that makes the show. The director using that old trade of translation misunderstandings to create and maintain a humour that is actually funny and not gimmicky.

Schreiber has delivered an enchanting debut that has both heart and soul. The continuous score and beautiful photography creates a fairy tale haze around a story about identity, truth and family. If there was a complaint, it would be the speed at which the film changes direction; though this could have been intentional it may not sit well with all. Nevertheless this is a sterling effort that delivers great comedy and bonding between an unlikely group while dissecting another aspect of the horrors of World War 2 in a completely fresh fashion.

-Chi&Ojo


Rodney Dangerfield isn't the main character of this movie. He's barely in it. Most of the screen time is dominated by unfunny jokes. One running gag is that a character is named Jerk Off. There are also lots of erection jokes, where the punch line is someone has an erection. This movie is as funny as Kirstie Ally's British accent is convincing.

This movie started off like a weak action movie: five minutes of back story and then bam! Unfunny jokes. But, aside from the terrible writing, the movie is also poorly directed and the acting is terrible. Also, this movie does the old bad comedy cliché of having lots of well-known B-movie actors. Harland Williams, Gilbert Godfried, Randy Quaid, and Phil La Mar. These are just some of the people that spend more time on the screen than Rodney, even though he's billed as the main character. Don't be surprised to find this movie at a drug store selling for five bucks. Even that is too much.


Scary Movie 3 (2003) was a bad idea to begin with. The last film was a mediocre effort. Put it next to this load, it's a comedy classic. Whilst part two was filled with a lot of dated humor and cheap shots, at least it was funny. There's nothing funny about forced humor. Jokes, pratfalls and sight gags are supposed to be naturally funny. Hitting the viewer over the head with tired jokes is not cool. The humor in this film was caters to juvenile imbeciles who'll laugh at anything. When they catered to the junior high school crowd, any sense of self respect was tossed out the window. Ring parodies are not funny. I have watched them in comedies since 1998. They're so dated. Michael Jackson jokes are not cool either. What's even worse is making fun of two broken down has been 'performers' whose best days were NEVER.

The death of American cinema has been a slow one. Films like this are the nails that are being pounded into it's coffin. Whatever happened to real humor? I haven't laughed out loud in a movie theater in a long time. Too many bad movies rot the brain. You want proof? Go to your local mega chain video rental store and see what's on the shelves. This movie is bad. Don't believe the hype. I would rather watch Scary Movie 2 in a continuous loop than to suffer through this poor excuse of a comedy ever again!

Definitely not recommended (unless you have a handful of brain cells).


this movie is awesome. sort of. it dosent really say much, or do much, but it is an awesome movie to watch because of how stupid it is. the high school is taken over by evil ms.togar that hates the one thing that all the students love, rock& roll. riff randle get everyone tickets for the ramones show, and this movie peaks with a take over of the school led my riff randle & the ramones. this movie has everything, a bad script, questionable directing, bad actors(ie clint howard & p.j. soles), an awesome soundtrack,extreme campyness, these elements & much more come together to make this what it is,a classic.

note - during the live ramones set, notice that darby crash of the germs is in the front of the crowd. neat-o.


Seriously engaging, intelligent and thought provoking drama at its very best. Mean, gripping, moody and captivating. Every home should have a copy! Don't take my word for it see it yourself. One Life Stand makes you consider your own lifestyle and how you treat your family and friends. Beautiful photography and impressive acting makes for one of the best cinema-graphic experiences of the year. John Kielty's debut is a delight and adds a real touch of truth and realism to this deep and gritty film. This is a film that cares and has an honesty that is unequalled in recent years. No car chases, but a film packed with hum our and emotion. I first saw this film screened at the Edinburgh film festival in 2000 and am now delighted to be able to own a copy on DVD.


This complicated western was a milestone in the career of JAMES STEWART after his return from war service, wanting to change his image by doing a western, which is largely regarded as the reason for the influx of westerns in the '50s since it's very impressive. Too bad it wasn't photographed in Technicolor.

Stewart wins first prize for 'the gun that won the West', but then has to spend the rest of the film trying to recover it when it's stolen. SHELLEY WINTERS is a shady gal with an unsavory reputation and STEPHEN McNALLY is the local bad boy gunman in Dodge City. WILL GEER is Wyatt Earp and DAN DURYEA is Shelley's bad boyfriend. And wouldn't you know that, it being a Universal-International film, TONY CURTIS and ROCK HUDSON (both quite unknown at the time) have bit roles.

An interesting sequence features the first Indian attack, whereby CHARLES DRAKE reveals himself to be a coward who rides off, leaving Shelley alone in the horse-drawn wagon. He later redeems himself, but it's just one of the twists and turns that has the gun passing from one unsavory hand to another--but finally ending up with the rightful owner.

STEPHEN McNALLY and JAMES STEWART have quite a final shootout that is almost as melodramatic (but not quite) as DUEL IN THE SUN's blazing guns finale. McNally makes the perfect villain and DAN DURYEA is equally treacherous in the kind of villainous role he played throughout the '40s as a low-life gunslinger.

Tightly constructed story is extremely well directed by Anthony Mann, and it's fun to see ROCK HUDSON (credited as Young Bull) wearing Indian war paint and TONY CURTIS as a young soldier who casts longing glances at the then slim and attractive Shelley Winters.

Well worth viewing and definitely an above average story.


This is my first Almodavar film. I'll confess we chose it mainly because we knew this had the enticing prospect of Antonio Banderas in gay sex scenes.

Unfortunately, that is about all that this film has to recommend it. I consider myself a fairly sophisticated viewer, I like European films, 'art' films, and I am generally able to recognize a quality film even if it is not to my particular taste.

But this film was a complete blank to me. The plot was ridiculous, the characters lifeless, the box called it a 'hilarious comedy' but I didn't laugh once. Loosly and awkwardly constructed, with a lot of pointless dialogue. I don't get this at all-- it seems like an amateurish effort. Can someone enlighten me?


Another fun, witty, frothy RKO musical with Astaire and Rogers, FOLLOW THE FLEET is a charming film. While it lacks the stand-out great tunes of SWNG TIME (although the final number 'Face the music and dance' is one of the team's best and rightfully so), it is hugely enjoyable, as these two could virtually do no wrong together in the 1930's. Once again, the plot is lightweight and forgettable, but watching Fred and Ginger dance together is sheer heaven. These two conveyed more romance and magic in dance than many couples in films do in a huge love scene. While there are better Fred and Ginger musicals, this is certainly a must-see.


Michael Caton-Jones's Scottish period piece bears little connection to the Sir Walter Scott novel of the same name...

The film opens in the Scottish highlands, with Robert Roy McGregor and his men hunting down a bunch of cow thieves who have stolen several heads of His Lordship James Graham's cattle... The scene then switches to a sword-fighting contest attended by noblemen with longhair wigs, adorned shirts, soft colored coats, paleface make-up and conventional gestures...

MacGregor lives under the protection of a local lord named Marquis of Montrose... When he enters an ill-advised trade agreement with Montrose, he innocently leaves himself exposed to the malicious plots of Montrose's evil-doers... The unfolding of their perfidy is the most creative and pleasant part of the movie, though it takes a repugnant turn with a violent rape... When Rob Roy is finally compelled to rebel against the English soldiers, the action becomes well understood, ending with the predictable duel between him and an expert with the blade...

Liam Neeson injects heroism and passion to his character... He is intelligent, fair and virile... He carries his height with grace as the Scottish chieftain of a small community... He is a loving father, a passionate lover, and a noble husband, driven to desperate acts by dastardly villains... He'd rather die than tell a lie or betray a trust...

Oscar winner Jessica Lange gives the film class as the strong robust devoted wife, a proud peasant woman, brutally raped by an icy psychotic aristocrat... Lange's lines are filled with dignity and integrity: 'I will think on you dead, until my husband makes you so. And then I will think on you no more.'

John Hurt brings his usual clever touch with character roles to make Montrose something more than a greedy Marquis, ruthless with money and tempered by the English court's fashion for foppery... He is a pompous arrogant man with two villainous servants at his service... Honor, in his view, seems a quaint notion... He has two objectives: ruin the reputation of his rival, the Duke of Argyle, and to hunt down the fugitive MacGregor... He sends his soldiers to burn the Highlanders' homes, to kill their people and their livestock...

Tim Roththe perfect antithesis to the hero, is fearsome and strangely an effeminate enforcer... He is a penniless British aristocrat, a nasty 'hired sword' wonderfully evil, ravishing and murdering his way through the Scottish mist... His name is Archibald Cunningham... He turns out to be a liar, a thief and a murderer... He dismisses himself as 'but a bastard abroad, seeking his fortune and the favors of great men,' and therefore can't care about anyone else: 'Love is a dung hill and I am but a cock that climbs upon it to crow.' He even jokes that he once raped a young boy whom he mistook for a girl...

Cunningham seems pathetic... He smiles foolishly, and utters words with affected refinement, but not terribly harmful-until a muscular swordsman insults him, and we discover that he's a cool head and an expert with a sword... He really does steal the film with a performance that earned him a Best Supporting Actor nomination...

And while Brian Cox is suitably odious as Killearn, Andrew Keir is Montrose's rival, the powerful local aristocrat, the Duke of Argyll, one of the few trustworthy men McGregor meets outside his own family...

Set in 18th-century Scotland, and with an atmospheric musical score, 'Rob Roy' is really a love story between a man and his wife, a recognizably human story, unjustly dwarfed by Mel Gibson's 'Braveheart,' that does tell essentially the same story of provincial resentment of overbearing English landlords...


Walter Matthau and George Burns just work so well together. The acidity of Willy with the perplexed amnesic Al is a mixture made in heaven. The scene when they meet again in Willy's flat is a gem and the final scene rounds up the film to perfection. Walter Matthau gives a superb performance as the irascible semi-retired comedian as only he can, the intonation in the voice and the exaggerated dramatics coupled with his general misunderstanding of what is going on form a great characterization. George Burns timing is legendary and nowhere was it better than in this film, his calm aplomb with desert dry replies are memorable. Watch for the scene near the end when Al and his daughter ask something of the Spanish caretaker, and Al's reaction - priceless.


Once upon a time some evil people made a movie about a guy that got shot into space, supposedly to go to Saturn, but really only to some stock footage of solar flares, and then he gets a nose bleed, and before you know it, he's laying in a hospital bandaged head to foot, and then an overweight nurse with an ill-fitting uniform comes in and gets eaten by the guy, whose supposed to be melting all over the place but never seems to lose any mass, and then NASA, or at least one guy at NASA, gets upset about it and calls one other guy in to hunt him down, but the guy they sent to hunt the melting guy has to go home and have soup first, and his oddly-shaped wife forgot the crackers, so he can't have crackers, and then he has to go out and look for the melting guy with a geiger counter, and that doesn't really work, so he really only follows the trail of half-eaten corpses, and then there's something about a sheriff, and two ugly old people in a lemon grove, and a women with a meat cleaver, and some kind of industrial plant with trigger-happy security guards, and since I can't tell you how the movies ends, all I can say is Jonathan Demme is in it somewhere with some guy with the stupid name of Burr DeBenning, and if there's any justice in the world everyone connected with this movie died a hideous, violent death and was unable to make more movies, and the world lived HAPPILY EVER AFTER - THE END!


First of all the story is not so simple as many earlier reviewers tend to emphasize, it is actually a very complex story, unlike Bergman's other movies that are more bend towards character study. In Skammen we have two main characters but as we are thrown from the start in the middle of a war we have no idea who is fighting and why, everything is open for any resolution. This creates a huge tension and makes every event meaningful. As the story unfolds we are introduced to numerous characters, that are turned into symbols of humanity, both its dark and luminous sides. We have the example of the innocent bystanders who try to get by during an absurd war, the cynical doctor who makes fun of his patients and provides the only bitter humor of the whole movie, the perverse opportunists who try to make the best of an atrocious event (Bjornstrand's character), the innocent dead children, the nameless figures almost turned into animals from the boat etc. All of them are somehow seen through the eyes of Jan (von Sydow) and Eva (Ulmann), their characters are more restrained then in other Begrman films (En Passion) and this is exactly because what is important here is the story, the way exterior events have the capacity to radically change human nature.

Bergman made this film two years after Persona where the main conclusion expressed by the only word uttered by Liv Ulmann's character is INGENTING, nothing. That's it: the meaning of art and the meaning of life, the latter being nothing more than a play that includes all plays. But what about war? And especially the annihilating ones of the XX'th century. In Persona, the only real emotion suffered by Ulmann's character is when she sees a victim of the Vietnam war turned into a human torch. In Skammen that idea is extended to a complex analysis of the dehumanizing nature of war. In a nameless region of a nameless country (we only assume it's Sweeden) two factions speaking the same language fight an absurd war. Jan and Eva are two dreamers caught in the middle but their dreams are woven in a sort of counterpoint. Jan is at first an idealist, unable to react properly to the world and a subject to his wife's will. Towards the end he turns into a radically different personality, capable of unmotivated murder, strong-willed, pitiless (watch carefully the suicidal on the boat..the simplicity of the act is harrowing). On the other hand Eva progressively looses touch with reality and at the end she is completely suffused in her own unfulfilled dream.

From a technical point of view the whole movie delivers its message in a very effective way. Bergman places the viewer alongside the character, putting the camera in the car with the actors, or in an extreme close-up behind the actor. Nykvist manages an extraordinary control of the camera, there are some masterful 'hand-held' effects, very good in making everything seem 'real'. The shots when the characters are captured by the army look remarkably documentary-like. The screenplay is minimalist but the story is quite complex for that matter. Actually the whole movie is paradoxical, it has an intensity in the subject that is in a sharp contrast to the coldness and lack of emotional involvement with which it is directed and filmed. Nothing is melodramatic here, there is no compassion, no hope and no apparent redemption. But, as in Liv Ulmann's dream at the end it is all so beautiful one cannot help but being amazed at it...It was not so awful since it was so beautiful!


I've barely just made it through one episode ('Crouch End'). The dialog was stilted and down-right cringe worthy. The acting was tragic. Eion Bailey, despite his best attempts to be dramatic, remains mostly expressionless. His eyebrows hint at a recent botox treatment. Claire Forlani could have just as easily been playing the damsel in distress in a silent movie. The characters were cartoons, each playing their stereotypical cog in the plot mostly random, meandering plot. Cheesy special effects can be excused given the TV miniseries budget. But attempts to create suspense and surprise through distracting cinematography added to the unwatchability. I get the feeling that the ending was supposed to be witty and surprising, but it was lame and had little to do with the rest of the story. If I had to compare it's overall quality to something else, I'd put this episode of 'Nightmares and Dreamscapes' on par with the NBC's Hercules.


Tom Fontana's unforgettable 'Oz' is hands down one of the greatest television series ever created. Brilliantly written, acted, and directed it is as close to perfection in any art form (film, television, literature, music) as it gets. Haunting in it's extreme brutality it creates a prison world filled with diverse characters that range from compassionate to flat out terrifying. It is a show that no matter how brutal it is get through, one cannot take its eyes off of. The combination of professional trained theater actors with film and television actors allows for a range of diverse and all original performances.

And while the show is universally praised and has/had a loyal fan base, one cannot feel that it was under-appreciated during it's television run because of other HBO dramas such as 'The Sopranos', 'Sex and The City', and 'Six Feet Under'. And while all those shows are fine and borderline masterpieces in their right, many people forget that it was 'Oz' that was HBO's first entry into one-hour television drama series. It was a brave, risky first entry and with it HBO hit a grand slam with it. This is as good as it gets.


This movie sucked ! They took something from my childhood ,and raped it in an outhouse! This movie was so bad I wanted to go home and hold my 'Dukes' dvds and cry in a corner. The cast was terrible ! It wasn't 'The Dukes', it was Stiffler and Jackass driving a car. When was Boss Hogg evil? When was Rosco a tough guy? They never were ! Boss Hogg was greedy and Rosco was an idiot. When did Jesse smoke pot? He never did ! Now don't get me wrong,I'm very liberal and there's nothing wrong with a little chiba, but it had no place in this movie! The only thing good about this movie was the trailers before the movie and the end credits. It was a waste of money time and air. Avoid at all costs!!!!!!!!


Don't be taken in because the premise of this film is a good one. It is, but that, does not a good film, make.

Comedies require a well-honed script and masterful direction. Sadly, this poorly executed film has neither. Leconte, a good director in other genres, does not deliver in his comedic farces (Les Bronzes series being another example).

The comedic timing is terrible. Some jokes are telegraphed. Some are re-hashed from other movies. Others just sit there as if they were giving you time to laugh. The plot has messy subplots (the allergic daughter, the lesbian co-owner) and just does not develop or envelope the viewer. It isn't funny and it isn't believable for a second.

Compare this to any comedy by Billy Wilder (Some Like it Hot, A Foreign Afair, etc.) or by Leconte's compatriot, Francis Veber, a true GENIUS at French comedy (Le Diner de Cons, Le Placard, Les Comperes, La Chevre, La Grande Blonde, etc.) and you'll see the difference in their tight scripts, great comedic acting and timing, with each joke leading to the next one.

Watching Mon Meilleur Ami twice would be cruel and unusual punishment, not a good sign for a comedy.


In a bizarre experiment, an astronaut is abandoned on the moon as Alice (Florinda Bolkan), a troubled translator living in Italy, wakes from a nightmare about a lunar mission mixed with an old movie that frightened her as a child. She also has no recollection of the last three days except for a torn photo of the Garma hotel she finds in her apartment. Fired from her job, Alice heads to that resort island to try and piece together the mystery...

Often touted as a giallo due to it's director (THE FIFTH CORD's Luigi Bazzoni) and the presence of Evelyn Stewart, Nicoletta Elmi, and Klaus Kinski, FOOTPRINTS is actually a deliberately paced psycho-thriller with sci-fi overtones. Blurring the distinction between dream, reality, memory and movies, the disturbing story is beautifully photographed by Oscar-winner Vittorio Storaro with a pensive score by Nicola Piovani. It also combines elements of such diverse films as Armando Crispino's MACCHE SOLARI and Lucino Visconti's DEATH IN VENICE in it's depiction of alienation, isolation, hallucination, and maybe madness. Brazilian actress Florinda Bolkan, on screen all the time, does a redux of her Carol Hammond in Lucio Fulci's A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN as Alice, a young woman thrust into a mystery that makes her question her sanity. The locations mirror Alice's unstable state of mind; the island of Garma, off-season, with it's Arabic influence and ancient ruins, is a lonely, almost mystical place unwilling to give up its secrets. Evelyn Stewart has a bit in the beginning as a concerned friend, Nicoletta Elmi and Oscar-winner Lila Kedrova are hotel guests, Peter McEnery plays a handsome biologist trying to help Bolkan, and the ever-intense Klaus Kinski is 'Blackmann' in the film-within-a-film, 'Footprints On The Moon'.

FOOTPRINTS is a classy case of 'Guaranteed 100% Euro-weird' but not for everyone. There's only one murder toward the end but you won't see it coming as the film starts to come together.


Musical bios are all cut of the same cloth. Hopeful struggles, succeeds and finally wins the girl, but this one - a life of Irish tenor, Chauncey Olcott/Jack Chancellor - has more going for it than the usual trappings. It has great charm and great sincerity and is played beautifully by all concerned. Dennis Morgan is fine in the lead as is Arlene Dahl as his love interest. Andrea King's supporting performance as Lillian Russell is far better than Alice Faye's leading bio performance in the film dedicated to her career. William Frawley is touching as the aging tenor champion, William Scanlon, and Sara Allgood is lovely as Olcott's mother. George Tobias, Ben Blue and Alan Hale lend good support. There are over 25 songs (a true treasure chest): Come Down My Evening Star; My Nellie's Blue Eyes; You Tell Me Your Dream; Wait Till The Sun Shines, Nellie; Will You Love Me In December?; By The Light Of The Silvery Moon; Minstrel Days; Polly Wolly Doodle; The Natchez and the Robert E. Lee; Miss Lindy Lou; If I'm Dreaming; Wee Rose of Killarney; Shake Hands; One Little Girl; A Little Bit of Heaven; Mary; Sweet Innescarren; Tiddely Um; When Irish Eyes Are Smiling; Mother Machree; The Kerey Fair; Room In My Heart; My Wild Irish Rose.

Although the film only earned one Oscar nom -for Scoring - and deservedly, it also deserved nods for Art Direction and Costume Design - sumptuous and lovely in Technicolor.

Reasons why this is not on video may be due to the large chunk of time spent within the Minstrel Show atmosphere -at least a quarter of the film - with a great deal of material quite politically INCORRECT for today's audiences. It's historically accurate, however.

This is a true gem and very worth seeking out. It leaves one with a warm glow.


I loved Complete Savages! Why did they cancel it anyway? They should have made a second season and so on... God! They always cancel the good shows... and leave all the boring stuff. Nothing interesting at TV since Complete Savages is gone. This show was a great idea. A single firefighter father with five crazy sons and a lazy dog... Each and every one of them has his own madness in that house. TJ is always the kid...always the smaller one... Kyle rocks! He breaks everything he touches! He's always on detention, he's always doing the wrong stuff... But still, he's so funny by all the things that he does. Sam is the smart one. He's always shy and stupid when it comes to girls... Finally he ends up by dating Angela. Chris is the sports guy who doesn't have much to do with school, studying, and stuff like that. He's always funny. And finally... Jack! The rock of the show. The oldest of all, the macho guy, 'the rock star'... But still, as crazy as everybody else. Nick is...helpless with these guys. Oh! And I almost forgot! Uncle Jimmy... He's the man! He's like a 30 year old kid. He's like doing the same stupid things that the boys are doing. I always wondered how did he end up by being a firefighter... And the dog is the image of all the Savage family. The thing is... this show had everything to become something really big. It had everything, man! But, of course...they canceled it...


Very unnecessary movie with characters that are acting so unsympathetically that I really didn't care who would fare the best (or was that the purpose of the film, to portray some smooth talking cold-hearted New York city folks?) No romance here, no comedy either. Acting is very flat and a very predictable plot. What annoyed me the most was this constant joking with quotes from classic movies. Man, can't you see that the more you quote, the less significant your own movie becomes? Try to be original yourself! A small budget is no excuse at all, first-time director neither. Crappy, crappy, crappy. No wonder it only cost me one buck...


The Stooges are back and funnier than ever. 'Brideless Groom' in my opinion was probably the best Shemp flick.

Shemp has the opportunity to inherit $500,000(which was probably more than a million dollars compared to today) from his dead uncle. BUT! There is a catch. He has to marry someone that day by 6 o'clock. Shemp is a bachelor with not too many admirers, except for one high pitched aggressive annoying singing student of his. But he doesn't want her, he wants someone a little more on the Victoria's Secret model type of women. But obviously he has no choice since he's no Collin Ferrel himself. But when it is printed in the papers that he is to inherit all that money if married, his ex girlfriends are on the 'I want my man back' attack!

What a great stooge flick! This is up there with thewinners of all stooge flicks!

9/10


STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

Based on another of Stephen King's lengthy novellas, this takes place in the sleepy little New England town of Castle Rock (also the name of the film's production company!), where a new antiques store, the titular Needful Things, has opened. The owner and proprietor, Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) hides, you might say, a devilish secret. There's an item in his store that everyone in the little town wants-a small cash price upfront is first required, before a far more sinister price is asked for. As suspicion, hate and madness tear the town apart, it falls to police chief Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) to restore order and save the town from a terrifying end...

I read the novel of Needful Things earlier this year, and was eager to watch the movie adaptation again to compare them (like that was going to be any contest!) But it had been deleted on video and DVD and I couldn't find anywhere to rent it from. So I was happy when I finally found it in a flea market whilst on a shopping trip...

It's one of the cruelest ironies that King novels are generally the best to read but when they get adapted to screen nine times out of ten they are complete junk, as is the case here. The material that makes his books great simply doesn't translate into a movie script very well, for some reason. And I suppose there's always the question: why bother watching this when I could be reading the book again instead?

I appreciate that some are simply too lengthy (i.e. It, The Stand) to be made into a complete screen work with all the situations and characters included, but there's no reason this one couldn't have included all the material from the book. As a result, a lot of key characters from the book (i.e. Ace Merrill) are not included at all and we have some terrible character development that means we don't care about the characters that are involved since they are so stripped of depth and motivation- for example we have one character from the book, Danforth Keaton, who murders his wife toward the end yet we were shown no build-up to hint at any reason that he didn't get along with or hated her and so it has no impact when it happens, unlike in the book where there was a lot of depth invested and it really involved you to find out what happened to the characters involved. All the material in the script to fill in the cracks, if you like, is really stupid and corny and the typically goofy stuff that gets included in King adaptations like this.

Most of the film's problems are that it deviates so far away from the book but there's also some terrible acting from a cast that obviously can't feel for the daft material they're being asked to perform. In the 90s, a lot of King's work started skipping the cinema and just being made into made-for-TV/video territory. Rubbish like this must surely hint at why. **


I was hoping that this film was going to be at least watchable. The plot was weak to say the least. I was expecting a lot more considering the cast line up (I wonder if any of them will include this on their CVs?). At least I didn't pay to rent it. The best part of the film is definitely Dani Behr, but the rest of the film is complete and utter PANTS.


I tried to be patient and open-minded but found myself in a coma-like state. I wish I would have brought my duck and goose feather pillow...I apologize to all of the great actors in this movie. Maybe it takes a degree from MIT to understand the importance of this movie.


The biggest problem that the TV program Key West faced was that it was advertised wrong. If you saw the ads you would think it was a jiggle how, and be sorely disappointed. It was a vastly more complex show than that.

I happened to be in Key West just before Hurricane Andrew hit, and I think I actually found myself having a drink or two with some of the cast in Rum Runners. Of course, that was before the show hit. I did see the sailboat that was in the opening go by a few times, and chatted with the guy who you see hacking up coconuts in the opening too. HE was a real local. Yes, I'd love to see this on DVD.


Years ago I saw The Godfather and it made a lasting impression on me, the atmosphere of the movie was first class, the acting memorable and the storyline a classic. Recently I bought the Trilogy and after watching Part 1 again I looked eagerly to viewing Part 2...... I was so pleased to realize early on into Part 2 that here was a fitting follow on to the great Godfather movie, again everything was just about perfect and I could not wait to see Godfather III ........ WRONG!, I wish I'd stopped at II. The storyline was not good, it seemed to me like a story made up just to have a story, the characters were weak especially the daughter. Pacino's protege was a weak character that would have been eaten alive in Godfather 1 or 2. Then scenes such as, Corleone being invested with all the trappings of the Catholic Church with full choir, the assassin on horseback riding away into the sunset, the unseen helicopter machine gunning of the meeting (where the 'goodies' get away and everyone else is shot),daughter and 1st cousin rolling bits of pasta across a board, the pathetic shooting on the steps ..... Corleone stuffing sweets down him with orange juice for diabetes (a man of his intelligence and guile isn't ready for an emergency?)... NO it was not good and with the best will in the world I wont be able to watch it again. But I'll watch 1 & 2 many times down the years.


An egotistic major league baseball player is forced to continue his career in Japan, he contends with a culture that is alien to him, an apparently humorless manager, an attractive Japanese woman and his own professional and social insecurities. There is a certain subtle charm that flows through Tom Selleck's performances. There is humor, sometimes softly understated, as in this film, sometimes slapstick as in 'Folks!', but always there seems to be some higher purpose involved. Throw in an individual full of self doubts who struggles to solve his personal difficulties while holding fast to 'doing the right thing,' and you end up with a film both funny as well as thought-provoking. The cast fits together like a championship team, and even if neither cast nor film win awards for their efforts, they will leave the viewers feeling good (and maybe that's the best results after all). You'll want to watch this film more than once, and each time, Mr. Baseball hits a home run.


I wish Depardieu had been able to finish his book and see it become a dazzling success. At least he'd have wound up with something.

The film struck me as pointless, rambling, and very stylish, like some other recent French films. Not to knock it. Most recent American films are pointless and rambling and have no style whatever. We should be grateful, I suppose, for photography that evokes a European city in the midst of a wind-blown Continental winter, and for elliptical conversations that challenge our ability to understand what's up.

But there can be too much of a good thing. Golubeva is found stumbling around near the sea in the middle of the freezing night, carrying on in a bad accent about dreams and such. (There are a few sequences of dreams that include things like swimming in a river of blood. You'll love it if you're Vlad the Impaler.) Lots of people die. Catherine Deneuve dies in a suicide by motorcycle. I don't know why. Golubeva's young girl dies too, and I don't know why she dies either. She gets slapped in the face, falls to the pavement, and dies.

There is supposedly an explicit sex scene too. I'll have to take their word for it because, although it is stylishly photographed, it is stylishly photographed in almost complete darkness. Don't worry about the kiddies being shocked. They'll probably be asleep by this time anyway.

Depardieu isn't a bad actor. As we see him deteriorate from a carefully groomed handsome young man -- well, handsome except that his nose can't seem to get out of his way -- to a limping, murderous, hairy physical wreck, we feel sorry for the guy. Golubeva has a wan pretty face, with enormous half-lidded eyes and wide cheeks, like a doll. Her next movie should be a remake of Lewton's 'I Walked With a Zombie.' Then there is this mysterious guy who leads a band. I guess it's a band. As far as I could make out, the band is made up of about a dozen drummers and a dozen musicians playing electric guitars. Every viewer will find the resultant sound interesting but uncultivated listeners fond of 'easy listening' might not enjoy it. If you don't like the music, there's a payoff involved because the sinister composer and leader gets whacked over the head with Depardieu's walking stick.

I must say, I found it barely worth sitting through. (And it's a longie, too.) At times it was like waiting in your car at a railroad crossing while a long long freight train rumbles slowly by, sometimes stopping entirely. I wish it had had a few jokes.


DANIEL DAY-LEWIS does a remarkable job of playing Christy Brown, the artist who grew up with cerebral palsy but managed to have a productive life, dealing successfully with his handicap and becoming a respected artist and writer.

The film, however, is a very difficult one to review--or even watch. Fortunately, I had the caption feature on to catch every spoken word which would have been impossible if I saw the film in a theater. While I respect it as a brave piece of work dealing with difficult subject matter, I can't say it's the sort of film I'd want to view more than once.

Nevertheless, my attention was held by the story-telling device, a flashback framed by the present, in which we see Christy being honored for his achievements before we see the flashback to his youth and his struggles to communicate with those around him, who certainly gave him loving care.

DANIEL DAY-LEWIS certainly is remarkable as the troubled man who falls in love with a therapist (FIONA SHAW), much to his mother's fear that when the love is not reciprocated his heart will be broken. There's a painfully long scene in a restaurant where he confesses his love to her before others and then goes into a frenzied rage after drinking too much.

BRENDA FRICKER does a brilliant job as the mother taking care of him, his father and a brood of siblings while struggling to keep a roof over their heads until Day-Lewis begins to have success with his work. She complements Day-Lewis' performance as the warm-hearted mother and shares many poignant moments with him.

Richly detailed story of a family that stayed together under the most unusual of circumstances with attention to period detail in every frame of the film. Both Fricker and Day-Lewis won Oscars, but HUGH O'CONOR and RAY McANALLY are also excellent. O'Conor is Christy as a boy and McAnally is the father who spends too much time at the local pub but loves the boy.

Summing up: Elmer Bernstein's music is an added plus factor. Well worthwhile, but definitely not a film for everyone.


I'm sure that the folks who made this movie think they're doing something wonderfully politically correct, because they manage to criticize U.S. wars in Afghanistan and particularly Iraq by suggesting that the U.S. does war well, but doesn't clean up afterward, thus sowing the seeds for future trouble. Furthermore, they do this without making Islamists the enemy AND without making Republicans the enemy, since it's the Republicans that are in office and are doing this supposedly great thing, bringing down the USSR by covertly supplying a war in Afghanistan.

But seriously now . . . do we really want a movie that repeatedly says 'let's go kill some Russians!' like that's the greatest thing a red-blooded American can do? And are we supposed to find this congressman adorable because he surrounds himself with women with big hair and revealing clothes? Even his supposedly smart assistant, who is always dressed professionally, keeps looking at Charlie like he's just the most wonderful, handsomest, greatest guy around. As if she's Nancy Reagan to his Ronnie. Julia Roberts does a bang-up job in her role, but basically women are really demeaned in this movie, and it was really annoying.


...there was 'Broadcast News,' and what a good thing it was. This one just plain stands up and sounds its barbaric yawp in a manner that resonates two decades later.

There are moments -- especially with respect to the cutesy score -- when this film becomes a bit too eighties, or a bit too 'Sleepless in Seattle.' Fortunately, they're few and far between.

One-third social satire, one-third romantic comedy, one-third drama, with three flawed but endearing people at its core, it's smart and moving and almost impossibly funny. Holly Hunter in particular may never have been more fun to watch in a comedic role. (And yes, I'm including 'Raising Arizona,' her other star turn from that era, in this assessment.)

A legitimate classic.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Wow, what a predicament Joanna has found herself in. After accidentally running over a young child, she goes to call for help, only to return to the crime scene amidst a group of very angry onlookers. Understanda- bly, this is too much for her to handle, and she flees the scene. Luckily the child didn't die, but is seriously injured and in a coma. So starts the biggest struggle in Joanna's life: should she keep quiet or speak up? At first she doesn't, but eventually she realises that it's torture living with such a horrible secret.

At one point she even joins a search party to help find the culprit. And gradually a detective starts to question this woman's behavior. She wants to tell the truth, and she never meant to run away from the crime scene, but is it worth telling and having the whole town hate you for it?

The thing about this movie is that you don't choose sides. Joanna is very much a good role model, even though she's made some wrong choices. You feel for her, even though you know what she did was wrong. Her journey is a good representation of what any human being would go through if something like this were to happen to them.

Margaret Colin is an absolutely brilliant actress. She was amazing in the TV series Now and Again and great in films like Independence Day and The Devil's Own. Her performance here is so realistic and unforced that she carries us singlehandedly through the entire film. In the end, I wanted to see more of her. Lisa Vidal also provided some good supporting work as the gentle, resourceful detective.

To wrap it up, if you wanna see a movie that will make you think long afterwards, one that will say 'This is reality', then you won't want to miss this one.

My rating: 9/10


The Good

Carrey is good actor and he proved it in 'Man on the Moon' and in 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'. But hey, what can an actor do without good story and proper directing. He can do 'Number 23'.

The Bad

Joel Schumacher is poor, overrated director and he proved it in almost every movie he made. What he did with Batman is just disaster, but probably Batman movies supposed to look good. Well, they didn't. Instead of Gothic and macabre we got Disneyland. Sure 'Falling Down' was great but can You ruin the film with Robert Duvall and Michael Douglas AND with excellent script? No You can't.

And so good actor and poor director finally met and made 'Number 23'...

The Ugly (23)

I know that it's stupid to begin with but... Fingerling's subplot (almost half of this movie) looks exactly like intro to another chapter of Max Payne2. VoiceOvers, quality of detective story itself, quality of the characters, even colors, mood and music, editing, and sound mix too! Perhaps it works for the game, but surely it doesn't in the cinema.

Mise en scene is so bad that it becomes funny. It's not even annoying. Carrey reads walking down the stairs in park? Why? Is it natural? No, but it looks good. Why Suicide Blond covered walls in her apartment with white paper? If she just wanted to kill herself? There is no logic in that, but still it looks good. Guess what it, it doesn't look good at all. It looks unnatural instead.

All female characters are Flat. Why is that so? Who cares, let's go on with the story.

Who is this Fingerling? Private eye on the suicide? Hardly believable.

Scenes when Walter Sparrow is arguing with his wife about weather book is really about him could be the best part of this movie. Instead we get Moulder/Scully routine. Disappointment.

Interiors has no sign of people living in them, except the significant objects (shoes, photos etc.) Hard luck.

Dialogs ain't that bad. But what about V.O.? Well that's another story. 'There's no such thing as destiny. There are only different choices'. Captain obvious to the rescue! 'Number was coming after Fingerling. And now it was coming after me'. Cliché. And so on.

It's obvious that average housewife would break into public building in the middle of the night. Successfully and undisturbed.

The subplot of the dog dragging main character to the graveyard. This is so old trick and so comfortable for writer, and that it should have been banned. I mean it!

Flashbacks and editing similar to 'what happened in last episode of X-files' isn't the best way to present the most interesting part of the movie. Is it?

I wish I could say that this story deserves a better fate, but it doesn't. It makes no sense. Told in chronological order is weak and unbelievable. All the time we have undeveloped characters trapped is chain of situations which are nothing but badly written fiction. This could be fun, but - since whole movie is dead serious - it isn't. To many coincidences is just bad for every story. And the 'mystery'? It's predictable and easy to guess.

Losing touch with reality is great theme for good movie, but I never saw any of that in Hollywood's productions. If You're interested in the subject just watch 'Repulsion' by Polanski or something by David Cronenberg, 'Spider' or 'A History Of Violence' both of that movies deals with similar problems that 'Number 23' wanted to show. Wanted, but failed.


I thought 'Intensive Care' was quite bad and very unintentionally funny. But at least not as bad as I thought it might be. Sometimes it's somewhat suspenseful, but never a good shocker.

SPOILER AHEAD

The fun lies in ridiculous moments. But the all-time classic moment is this: Peter (Koen Wauters) is stabbed and beaten by the killer. He lies moaning in the corner of the hallway. Amy (Nada van Nie) kneels beside him and asks 'Poor Peter, shall I get you a band-aid?'.

This movie was shot in Dutch and English. To spare costs, all license plates are USA, and the background in the news studio is a skyline of Manhattan. Very funny if you're Dutch and watching the original version in Dutch.


I'm a big fan of horror flicks, and zombie films are a particular favorite of mine. That said, Zombi 3 is one of the absolute worst films I have ever seen. So needless to say I really enjoyed it, it's the best bad movie I've seen in a long while. The story has some similarities with Dan O'Bannon's 'Return of the Living Dead', but whereas that film was intentionally funny, this one is the opposite. It has some of the most laughable acting I've ever witnessed, especially from the main scientist character. His scenes with the General were just hysterical. Also, the effects are subpar and in many cases sloppy, and the death scenes are often just downright stupid. This, of course, makes it all the more fun. POSSIBLE SPOILER - The worst is the scene where the guy opens the refrigerator door and sees the severed zombie head, which then opens its eyes and somehow FLIES OUT OF THE FRIDGE (obviously pulled out ineptly with a bit of string), latching onto the guys neck, killing him. Zombie heads have the ability to float in the air now? It defies every law of physics known to man, and it's one of the most absurd things ever filmed. That's just one of many really goofy moments in the idiotic mess. I can't believe it's gotten so high a rating here. If you are a fan of bad movies, do yourself a favor and rent this sucker.


Why? Why did they make this movie? If Timothy Olyphant wasn't shirtless in it several times, there would be ABSOLUTELY no reason to watch this movie, ever. Um...Plot? Nope. Well-defined characters? nope. The only time I laughed was when my boyfriend made fun of the whole she-bang. P.S. Andy Dick? Nope.


This is absolutely awful. It's everywhere & nowhere & doesn't have any sort of point. I have never understood what is good about Jeff Garlin or Sarah Silverman. Bonnie Hunt is so above this drivel she must have been personal friends w/people involved because there is no way she would have read any part of this so-called 'script' & thought, 'Yeah I wanna do that!' Most movies I can find at least one or two things that are redeemable or funny. There is ZERO of that in this. It's extremely dumb. There really isn't any other word to describe this. This is quite possibly the biggest waste of money on making of film that I have seen in a long time. Skip this at all cost, you'll be glad you did.


This film is an insult to the play upon which it is based. The character of Claude has been warped beyond recognition leaving a painful performance that does not even vaguely resemble the original plot. Shame, shame, shame. They have also cut a fair number of the original score of change the context in which the songs are sung. This warps the air of the film and causes the viewer who is aware of how this should be to wince as the writer of this screen play gives Hud a wife,turns Sheila into a spoiled rich girl, characterizes Claude as a cowboy, and kills Burger by sending him to Vietnam instead. If one is not familiar with the original plot I assure you this is not a bad film for you to see, but if you ever wish to see the original or are, as I am, a die-hard fan of the classic play, you would do best to avoid the film altogether. One really must stick to one or the other.


Outlandish premise that rates low on plausibility and unfortunately also struggles feebly to raise laughs or interest. Only Hawn's well-known charm allows it to skate by on very thin ice. Goldie's gotta be a contender for an actress who's done so much in her career with very little quality material at her disposal...


Caught this film in about 1990 on video by chance and without knowing what i was in for. Many horror fans may have missed this thinking it was a typical prison film and the ones who did get it didn't like it as it was not what they wanted to see. The above mentioned factors are probably the reasons it is low rated but just ignore that and give it a whirl if you're a fan of the genre.

It has strong suits in all departments from script and atmosphere to acting and the prison itself.

An absolute diamond, a film i still have on video to this day. Check it out.


I don't expect a lot from ghost stories, but I do expect a story to make a bit of sense! Is that asking too much from the screenwriters and filmmakers? When the bad guy, all of the sudden, becomes a homicidal maniac solely because a bunch of crows start pecking him, then I have a problem spending $9.00 for a ticket! Alfred Hitchcock would be spinning in his grave. Didn't anyone learn anything in their college Film 101 class? A good movie has at its roots an INTERESTING story!

Here are some of the ridiculous messages in this movie: If you have desperate financial problems move from Chicago to the middle of no-where in North Dakota to grow Sunflowers (I kid you not!). If your toddler has serious neurological problems from a car accident move away from some of the best hospitals and speech therapists in the country to an isolated small town, which, at best, has a community hospital. Hire a drifter to live & work with you, out of the blue, without checking any references, when you have a teenage vixen daughter, a wife and toddler. ( I'm glad they're not my parents!)

A town where everyone knows everything would have no problem missing a triple homicide, just outside of town. And, of course, blame the man's lunacy on a bad crop of Sunflowers! (Doesn't anything else grow in North Dakota?) A couple of days after you buy your rundown house - with huge vines growing everywhere - that it reminds you of Jack and the Beanstalk, a guy from the X-Files, ala Smoking Man, (I'm glad to see the cigarettes didn't get him, I guess he doesn't inhale!) will just suddenly sneak up on you while you're working to offer you the sale price of your home, plus 15% more, for absolutely no reason!

I think you get the picture. I have seen so many godforsaken awful movies in the past month, it just blows my mind! Is it that difficult to make a movie that doesn't treat the audience like an idiot? I'm glad at least the crows in this sorry film turned out to have the some brains! I wish I could say the same for whomever thinks they are going to make money off this celluloid piece of trash!


Users who have rated this movie so highly simply can't have seen enough good films to compare it with. Have they all been brainwashed?? I have rarely felt so disappointed by a film and some of that must be attributable to the ridiculous hype surrounding this movie.

From the first, BU is just a chase film. We pick it up at the end of one chase and go straight into another. And another. And another. And another. Do you see a pattern emerging? There is virtually no time 'wasted' on plot, character development, or boring old reality.

If you haven't see the other two Bourne films, you're pretty lost. If you have - you only WISH you were lost - somewhere a long way from a cinema.

Paul Greengrass's dispassionate style worked exceptionally well on United 93 which was a sentiment overload desperate to happen, but on Bourne and his interminable woes it just has the effect of removing the audience from involvement with the character. He runs. He jumps. He punches. He gets blown up. He clears tall buildings. Yada yada yada. Above all - he SURVIVES. He survives like a plastic Action Man survives, which only makes the ridiculous stunts he pulls all the more slack and lacking in any kind of tension. So he drives off a building? So what? He'll survive. Yawn.

There's a girl thrown into the mix because Bourne's love interest died in a previous incarnation, but she's just decor. I've seen more character depth and snappy dialogue in episodes of Captain Scarlet.

Bourne's own journey of literal self-discovery is dull and formless and tells us nothing we didn't know from the first movie. He was turned into a killing machine. Big deal. He finds out his true identity. So what? It doesn't have any emotional resonance when it comes.

The 'twist' ending is telegraphed and weak. Oh, dear, the more I think about this film the more I hate it! I've already reduced my score to 4 during the writing of this comment! I'd better end now before the slide continues.

I love a good action flick and I love a good thriller. The Bourne Ultimatum is neither. It's a loud, tedious series of flashy edits, ridiculous sound effects and cartoon violence.

The idea that it 'shows the way' to the Bond franchise is utter crap. Casino Royale blows it out of the water.


I love most movies and I'm a big fan of Sean Bean so I thought that I would at least LIKE this movie. Also, I'm Canadian and this is a mostly-Canadian movie so I was prepared to cut it some serious slack. Nothing could have prepared me for the garbage that is 'Airborne'. Steve Guttenberg as an action hero? Give me a break. The acting throughout the movie was so bad I am going to have trouble sleeping tonight. I now have only two wishes in my life.

1. I hope that you never have to sit through this movie. 2. I wish I could get those 6 hours back. Oh wait, the movie's under 2 hours - it only seemed like 6 hours...

Don't watch this. Seriously.


If Hollywood had the wellbeing of the audience at heart we would see 20 films a year with the kind of wholesome fortitude that is behind this film. There are several experiences of personal growth in this movie and while the characters ARE still very human even the lessons learned are not that greed will profit you, or do-unto-others-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-you-are-okay-with-it, no, this is what our sad, desensitized lives need, more sense... more love... more do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-done-unto-you... more HOPE. (thanks Ursula!) This movie has an intelligent wit, not 'yo' mama' cracks that run rampant in the so-called comedies. People need to feel good. This movie will make you feel good and possibly inspire you to better your life, and the lives of others. sidenote Every person counts in ticket sales. This is a truly independent film. If you want more quality films you have to support them.


Okay now this movie is a piece of work. It's full of stupid jesus refrences and dialougue that would render most human biengs to question whether or not they should be wattching movies at all. Big names like Roddy Piper, and David Carradine draw you in but, take it from me, this movie sucks. The story is incomprehensible, and lacking completley in intellegence. The sets, veihicles, and costumes come of as a cross beetween bablon five, and a bondage flick. I'm sure theres porn with better dialougue.


There is one great moment in *Surviving Christmas* that almost makes it worth the pain: James Gandolfini cracks a shovel over Ben Affleck's stupid head.

This movie serves as yet another unfortunate example of James Gandolfini proving what a great actor he is whilst simultaneously besmirching his career by acting in this film.

Young and wealthy ad exec, Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) has been inculcated into believing that one must never be alone on Christmas. (And there, from the outset, is the underlying problem with our suspension of disbelief in this idiotic movie: how many people of Drew's social standing, in 2004, truly care one way or another whether Christmas is spent alone or with half the family or with a fifty-dollar prostitute?) Storyline finds Drew buying off a family to spend Christmas with, on the condition that they pretend to be his own, insensately ignoring all the indications to the contrary that his money has not bought the emotions he was seeking.

For $250,000, a surly suburban truck driver, Tom Valco (James Gandolfini), and his disheveled wife, Christine (Catherine O'Hara), agree to be Drew's ad hoc family, against protests from their son, Brian (a very one-dimensional Josh Zuckerman) and daughter, Alicia (a very soft-focused Christina Applegate). Drew then spends the rest of the movie supposedly recapturing his youth or - something. The messages in this movie are as twisted and illogical as its dry-mouthed storyline. Fraught with overt psychoses, Drew plasters a fake smile on his face and blindly remains in denial against every denigration that he was supposedly buying the Valco family to avoid.

Which begs the question: If Drew is paying these people to recapture some semblance of joyous familial emotion, how psychotic must he be to pretend happiness amongst their barbs and mental anguish over his presence? It is not a case of the Valco family hiding their true feelings and pretending to be happy while around Drew - three of the four members make it patently clear they despise him. Is he so incognizant that he cannot see that his money is not buying him the 'family' atmosphere he was inculcated into believing was a truth in the first place? As with all movies this opprobrious, one wonders how *four* screenwriters could possibly get so tangled in their own narcissistic dreams of appearing in a credits sequence that they will overlook any semblance of plausibility, or intelligence.

Director Mike Mitchell, who was responsible for *Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo* - stop right there. 'Nuff said.

Gandolfini and O'Hara somehow manage to shine, proving their mettle amongst this mess. Christina Applegate is willowy and cutesy and blond and fiery in all the right places, scathingly cutting Drew into little strips of carcass for most of the movie, then doing an about-face and falling in love with him because the script tells her to.

And I wouldn't go so far as to say that Affleck is a bad actor, but John Schneider better look over his shoulder. There's a whole new level of Desperately Seeking Talent in town.