I may be a sentimentalist. But i found this movie truly moving. It was the first movie that reduced me to tears. And it did it more than once!! I recommend it to anyone both gay and str8. Religious or not! Supporting co-star Jackie Bisset stole the show, especially with her one liners. The nude scenes were superbly crafted as well, and all in were good taste. Most shocking was the portrayal of the orientation reversal deprogramming instituted by the Mormon church to the lead character. It shocked me that this still goes on in the world. Nevertheless I enjoyed this movie tremendously. This is definitely the best gay film since Torch Song Trilogy. And much better than the other gay movie offering that year - The Fluffer.


This is by far one of the most boring and horribly acted accounts of the early days of Adolf Hitler that I have ever watched. Robert Carlyle is a wonderful actor, but to cast him as Hitler is just plain wrong. To cast Liev Schrieber as Hitler's longtime friend and aid, Haefengstal must have emitted cries of despair and anguish from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. A J-W playing a Nazi supporter, bad bad bad casting. This was not an enjoyable family film with a good historical background. This was Hollywood rubbish at its finest, cashing in on the strength of a strong (but sorely under utilized) supporting cast of actors whom seemed to have all but disappeared from the acting radar in the past 5 years.

The fake German accents (vee vill vin zis var) is insulting to German people everywhere. My mother is German and she sat fuming at the sound of the voices which kept switching from American/English/German all in the same sentence. The supporting cast make better cardboard cutouts at the local video store than they do on screen. Jenna Malone as the fated Geli Raubal, was splendid though, she captured the innocence and confusion of this tragic young woman who ultimately ended her own life to escape what her future would have been like in Hitler's shadow.

If you would like a tremendously fantastic and historically accurate account of Hitler's early years leading up to and including the war/holocaust, rent 'Inside the Third Reich' 1983 starring Rutger Hauer as Albert Speer and Derek Jacobi as Hitler. It was good and made more sense then this baloney.

As a historical researcher of the Third Reich I can honestly tell you, this had me reaching for my books to confirm its myriad of inaccuracies.


Words fail me whenever I want to describe my feelings about this movie (and the sequels)... Does it have flaws? Sure it does... Starting with the 'Subspecies' themselves,which were not executed well enough for a special effect.So why do I glorify these movies??? For the herd of movie mass-consumers out there,who care more about quantity than quality,about cheap fun more than about depth, crap like 'blade' (it doesn't even deserve a capital letter),'underworld','Dracula 2000','dracula 3000' and so on are good movies to munch popcorn to and drink a couple of cokes... What makes Subspecies a superior effort for anyone claiming to be a Vampire fanatic,on the other hand,is obvious: The Vampire Himself is Romanian,the story is set in Transylvania (the scenes filmed on location are more than convincing),and the atmosphere is not based on any 'action-packed' chases or expensive orchestral music.Radu Himself is the source of the atmosphere... This is what a Vampire should look like and this is how He should behave! Add a breathtakingly gloomy castle with dark passageways situated in Romania,include some typical Vampiric elements ( such as the movement of the shadows on the walls when the Vampires take to flight) and you have a work of art! In short,if ,like me,you 're fascinated with Vampires and feel that their appearance as well as the setting should be sinister and dark,there's no better place to look in than in a Subspecies movie... Or in Vampire Journals,the brilliant spin off of the former...


After their star cross-country runner dies after a race, the members of a track team are stalked and killed by a mysterious masked murderer seeking vengeance for the girl's death.

From the beginning of this film, it was quite obvious it was not going to be very good (at least as far as true quality goes). The 'dramatic' track race at the end of the introduction scene was one of the least believable sporting events I've ever seen in a film. It would seem that the winner of the race had never actually run before in her entire life. Not just run track. . . but, run at all. Ever. From there, we get a horribly unrealistic female Navy member who was breaking numerous appearance rules with her jewelry and make-up, not to mention the fact that her hair was hanging loose onto her collar while in uniform. Ridiculously awkward camera angles, pathetically done gore effects, and acting that ranged from frighteningly over-the-top to boringly under done (all in one actor, mind you) all help to make this film one of the most unintentionally hilarious horror films ever made. On the other hand, the writing wasn't all that terrible and the story was actually okay. But, the direction was horrible, made worse by offensively bad cinematography. The acting ranged from acceptable to just plain abysmal. Regardless of all the embarrassingly bad elements, however, there's something here, whether it be cheese or something else that I can't figure out, that makes the film extremely enjoyable and very worthy of a watch. Maybe it was just Vanna White.

Obligatory Slasher Elements:

- Violence/Gore: Death scenes were fun enough, but the gore was just awful: blood squirts from impossible angles, no actual gashes or wounds from knives, etc. But, this film has the first 'death by football' scene I've ever seen.

- Sex/Nudity: There was a bit of nudity (I mean, Linnea Quigley is in it, after all), and some overly horny high schoolers, but nothing to excess.

- Cool Killer(s): If you think leather gloves, stop watches, track suits, and fencing masks are cool, this one is for you.

- Scares/Suspense: Not really any at all. There is one moment that takes place in the girls' locker room that I was preparing myself to be scared at. . . but, it just led to some typical stupidity and was ruined for me.

- Mystery: A little, but if you can't figure out the killer's identity about 20 minutes into the film, then I'm not too sure about your powers of deduction.

- Awkward Dance Scene: There's a great impromptu jam session ('Graduation Day Blues') with a guitar & harmonica that leads to some awesome 80s bopping. This is followed shortly by some kind of weird blend of 70s disco and 80s break dancing that was probably the scariest part of the film.

Final verdict: 4/10. Don't take it too seriously and you might enjoy it (just like most everything else Troma touches).

-AP3-


I recall so many things about seeing this movie back during it's original theatrical release - the post Woodstock afterglow of peace and love, along with the pre-Watergate tension of fear and paranoia. It's hard to believe that it's thirty seven years later, and I can still remember the thoughts going through my head while watching the film with my best friend. Like marveling at Peter Boyle's characterization of the ultimate redneck, sure to typecast him the rest of his career (Oh, how wrong!), and how the counter culture jarred the sensibilities of most of the country. To this day, my buddy and I still use Joe Curran's line from my summary above when faced with a dilemma; curious how a simple line like that can stay with you for decades.

It's curious to read comments about the film from others on this board, particularly the ones stating that the film has a dated quality and how over the top the characters were. Still, if you were around during that time, the picture gives a pretty accurate portrayal of the polar opposites that existed back then, pretty much side by side as the events in the story reveal. If you really want dated, when was the last time you heard the words Macy's and Gimbel's in the same sentence, or a line like Joe's - 'Come on, get with the Pepsi generation'. For historical perspective, you have that great Nixon poster lingering in one of the background scenes - 'Would you buy a used car from this man?' With minor intricacies like those, director John Avildsen captures many of the subtle but ever present hints of how life was four decades ago.

Today's viewing was only the second time I've seen the movie, and I have to admit I don't remember Susan Sarandon in one of the lead roles, but then again, this was her very first picture. The scenes of nudity and free love were something actually quite new and bold at the time, shocking in fact, as film makers began to experiment with their ability to push the envelope of propriety and convention. 'Joe' took a major leap in that regard, particularly since it was a 'mainstream' picture.

With the passage of time, the thing that impresses me the most about Peter Boyle was how he overcame the stereotype of Joe Curran to appear in or star in some of my very favorite pieces of work. I mean, how do you go from 'Joe' to that hilarious rendition of 'Puttin' on the Ritz' in 'Young Frankenstein'? And my absolute favorite episode of 'X-Files' has Boyle as Clyde Bruckman, in both a tender and tragic, funny and serious portrayal that turns the tables on Scully and Mulder more than once. And as a career capper, Frank Barone has to be one of the funniest characters in the history of television. Even repeat episodes in syndication are funny as he-- whenever the elder Barone lets loose with one of his observations. He is one actor that this viewer sorely misses already.


Try not to see this one. I thought it was going to be good because I'm a fan of cheesy 80's films and I've enjoyed quite a bit of Linnea Quigley's work. I was wrong. I should have said 'no' and watched Gigli instead, which is probably a far better film. I guess my biggest problem with this film was its attempt at humor. Nothing about it was funny or even close to funny. The acting is bad, even for the queen of cheesy 80's films. There is no story, just random clips. I guess I shouldn't hate it so much because it was just made as a fun and silly piece but I didn't have any fun and I wasn't entertained once. I even had to fast forward to the ending to get through all of the crap. I'm sorry, but I don't find zombies doing aerobics funny.


Soul Calibur is more solid than it ever was... with the new character creation, and the bad-ass chronicle of the sword mode on the home version.

The arcade version is more complete, even though the character roster is smaller than the home version, this version is definitely the more pretty of the two, eliminating all of the 'goofy/unrealistic' fighting styles found in the home version. If you were in any way disappointed with the home version, or perhaps thought it was 'too much,' you might find a much more likable and straight forward game of Soul Calibur in the arcade. Think you have what it takes to become a Legend?


I had VERY low expectations for this alleged 're-imagining' of the original -- and they weren't even met! What were they thinking? (Answer: They weren't.) Please don't waste your time on this Hollywood trash fest. Clip your nails, balance your checkbook, do anything besides watch this. Remember: If you rent stuff like this, it will only ensure they make more.


Josh Hartnett's dead eyes, the thick writing of it, and Harrison Ford being in a buddy-cop comedy ! Here's 3 reasons to hate it, avoid it, and to utilize 116 minutes of your life better.

The buddy-cop movies are fun. However their real golden age was back in the 1980s and the 1990s. Making one that tries to mix action and comedy through the police of Hollywood itself is sure a good idea but the final result of that turned out to be not at least a spoof of the subgenre but a reason to ask God to have mercy upon all the past movies of the same kind whereas the worst of them was by all means greater than (Hollywood Homicide).

What really did happen to this entertaining formula ?! Since a whole decade the things hadn't been the same. You'd have a buddy-action stubborn flop after another. I'll delight you with some titles to catch on the disaster well : (I Spy - 2002), (National Security - 2003), (Taxi - 2004), (Starsky & Hutch - 2004), and the worst of them all yet (Miami Vice - 2006) !

I believe one of the reasons is the natural case of saturation after many similar cinematic flicks and TV shows during 2 decades already. Add to that, particularly here, the negligent dealing and the dull humor. Actually the matter this time is totally unbearable. Yes, we've got the characters of 2 loyal cops who have second jobs, and the background of sinful city, but what else was new ?! It's not about cliché; it's about few renewals mixed with clichés where both have been badly made.

The acting, especially from (Hartnett)'s side, is terrible. This guy is anything but a comedian (or actor !). So his character was wanting to revenge for his father's death ! Revenge on yourself man, he probably died out of watching your acting !!. Even the small roles got people that have nothing to do with comedy (or that's what they seemed here anyhow !).

The directing fails in presenting something that comic or that harsh, some parts managed to be highly dull (arresting the black guy through the lack ??) ; it's a rare time to be boring in what supposed to be action/comedy ! They didn't utilize Hollywood itself whether as an ironic place where there is ugly face behind the superficial charm, or even as a place which's full of shining or fallen stars (cameos that could've given it few interesting moments).

It's a very easy movie that relayed on being watchable by only its stars' glamour, and as being a Buddy-cop movie to end up as one of the worst cases of 2 stars with non-chemistry on the screen (one of them has no chemistry with the screen itself ! Guess who ?!), and a Buddy-Cop destroyer more than movie ! God, don't make me, or my children, live enough to witness (Hollywood Homicide  Part 2) ! At last, look at Harrison Ford's performance, he wanted to have a good time, but at least we didn't.


Whatever rating I give BOOM is only because of the superb location photography of Sardinia and Rome. Otherwise, this is only for hardcore addicts of ELIZABETH TAYLOR (her downward phase), and RICHARD BURTON (his miscasting phase). Tennessee Williams wrote 'The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore' and is supposed to be very fond of this adaptation of his play--but apparently, he was the only one. Taylor reportedly hated it and Burton needed the money.

Whatever, it amounts to a hill of beans with Taylor posturing and fuming in her shrill manner, exploding at the servants and exchanging bad baby-talk with no less than NOEL COWARD who seems to be a visitor from another film when he finally appears.

It's so campy that among Taylor fans it's probably considered a 'must see' kind of thing. But if you can sit through this one without a drink in your hand, you're way ahead of me. Sadly, this is the film that signified the end of Taylor being taken seriously as a film actress, even after winning two Oscars. For Burton, it was equally disastrous and the critics called it a BOMB. Judge for yourself if you dare.


Because Mr. Bean almost never speaks, I heartily recommend using a DVD player with the teacher holding his finger over the pause/play button. At the end of any age group's lesson, simply devote 5 minutes to pausing and playing the DVD, encouraging students to shout out the answers to 'What's this?', 'What will happen?', 'What's happening?', 'What's wrong?', or any other question that elicits responses from that lesson's new vocabulary and grammar.

Because everyone's looking at the TV, normally shy students become vocal. Because the DVD can be started or stopped at any point, it's a perfect 'filler' for the awkward 'between' times while students are leaving and arriving.

I tried other DVDs, notably 'Tom & Jerry' cartoons and Red Skelton DVDs, but no others were as good as 'Mister Bean' at holding students' constant attention.


I agree with Vince, this movie paved the way for Goodfellas. The scene where Pesci was throwing peanuts at the piano player reminded me of his 'How am I funny?' routine in Goodfellas. This is a highly underrated film and deserves some attention. As with many other mob films, the theme of The Death Collector rings true: Always respect the Don.


Ok, after reading a couple of reviews on Atlantis: The Lost Empire, I just want to clear up some misunderstanding as to it being a direct rip off from Nadia: Secret of the Blue Water. The only part that was a ripoff from Nadia is that the pendant from Nadia and the pendant from Atlantis bear so much resemblence in terms of how it's used, origins and how it's created from the source of life that there's no doubt about it being copied. If you want to consider how Kida and Nadia is dressed alike then you could put that against Disney too(It was kind of wierd for Nadia and Kida to wear that bikini style clothing in an adventure sci-fi, not to mention they both move in a similar style too). As an anime fan I have to agree there's some degree of copying but it's only on the minor details and even though not many of the ideas are original (like the encryption design on the wall in Laputa, the ancient mask from Princess Mononoke, the resemblence of the vehicles to the Garfish submarine in Nadia, etc)...The plot itself I believe it's highly original and it's quite amazing that Disney can pull it off without the use of Captain Nemo(the main character in Jules Verne's 20k Leagues Under the Sea which is also the main character in Nadia). As for Mylo and Jean wearing similar style glasses...As shown in the novel 'Lord of the Flies', glasses is a symbol of wisdom and intelligence. I think Mylo, Jean, the main character from Stargate and a dozen of other 'INTELLIGENT' characters would look kind of unfit for the role if they went in without glasses. As for the submarines, and how the submarines fight(with those wide blast torpedos which really resembles what Nautilius does), I want to state that it's a required element for either one if Atlantis is involved in the plot(after all it's a sunken city beneath the waters). As for the crew having some charactistical resemblence with the crew from Nautilius in Nadia, it might be the artwork but I don't sense any copyright infringement there as the character's personalities were perfectly original to me. As an anime fan that rated Nadia as the #1 best anime I ever watched even now today. I do have my doubts about Atlantis when I first saw the preview. But now that I watched the movie, I once again regained my confidence with Disney and have high hopes for their future movies after Atlantis. Overall, the best Disney movie yet without me shivering at the sound of their songs at the middle of the movie and it's a plus that they revised their cheesy scripts to make it even better. Also, it's amazing that they actually portray the bad guys look normal with out making them overly evil in the beginning (I was wondering who the bad guys are and only the blonde girl kind of resemble the looks of a bad character in terms of how Disney draws it aka make the bad guys look really menacing)


Yes, the video cover of this movie made me want to watch this film as a child. It was called 'Screamers' on this particular cover with the tagline 'Men turned inside out!'. It even featured this warped looking skeleton on the cover as well that made all sorts of cool gory images run through my mind. Perhaps some sort of movie about some strange virus that caused a person's flesh to burn off, maybe a movie about undead zombies that are more bloody looking than what you usually get, a science experiment gone incredibly wrong and now strange men with the flesh dripping off their bones go on the rampage. Yes, all these thoughts ran through my mind, one that did not was fish guys on some island with virtually no gore and all bore. This movie is really more like the Island of Dr. Moreau than anything else and quite frankly that movie bored me too, it is way to much scientist and not enough killing for my tastes. These films are to much figure stuff out and not enough blood for my tastes. Yes I know, I have strange tastes, but I can not help it, I like my horror movies either really bloody or fast moving and exciting this movie is really neither.


I picked this one up because the music was done by Hans Zimmer, a customer of Metasonix modular synths (made by someone dear to me). The jacket art says 'the 2003 version'.

I give it one point for a strong female, one point for cheezy dialog and one last point for meg foster's light blue eyes, of which there are plenty of shots of.

It was fun seeing David MacCullum casually swimming (the pool has a plexiglass viewing window!), while his lady love was being chased by a psycho in Greece.

The sets were marginally impressive-that is, rich people's houses in L.A. and Mendanassos (sp?), where the castle was. I found myself wondering how they were able to keep up the cleaning with all the dust blowing around. The wind wasn't fierce enough to be believable to me. I kept thinking that the animal pelts on the furniture must be nasty...etc. and realized that the film must be pretty boring if i am wondering these things when the supposed plot was unfolding. I stumbled over things like why did she light a fire, blow out the match, then throw the match into the fire?! Dumb stuff like that. It was clunky at best. Oh well. Robert Morely got to have a bit of fun with his kooky geezer character and a nice vacation out of it.


The version of this film I saw was titled 'Horror Rises from the Tomb'. The horror in question is a wicked Medieval magician played by Spanish horror legend Paul Naschy looking like he's playing Abanazer in a church hall panto. He rises from his tomb when a stupid descendant (I think he's a descendant, as he's also played by Naschy)returns to his ancestral home and reunites the magician's head and body, which had been separated by by the witchfinders who executed him, in an attempt to stop him, er, rising from the tomb.

Obviously, once head and body are back together all hell breaks loose and lots of people die. Like all good magicians, Abanazer here has a lovely assistant. This one's played by another Spanish horror great, the beautiful Helga Line. Like practically every other woman in the film Line periodically gets her kit off. There's a LOT of nudity in this film, and not just female - we even get to see Naschy's paunchy body, which isn't a pretty sight, I can tell you. Most of the film's sex angle is laughably gratuitous. There's one particularly funny scene where Naschy and Line discuss their evil plans and then suddenly decide to both have a grope of the nubile young blonde they've possessed.

It's also pretty gory in places - notably a Herschell Gordon Lewis-esquire moment where Line plunges her hands into a man's chest to remove his heart.

The best part of the film is the pretty effective zombies who turn up towards the end. They're quickly scared off by a fire though, and don't bother coming back. Which is a shame. The scene where the zombies rise, however, is the film's most ludicrously inept moment. It all happens in long shot, and we haven't really got a clue what's happening until we see some figures shambling on from the distance. There are several rubbish moments like this, thanks largely to poor editing. When a labourer falls under the hypnotic spell of Naschy's head there's a big close up of his face that seems to last forever and serves no purpose whatsoever.

All in all, not a great horror film, but entertaining enough. Of course, the version I saw was a dubbed American version that had probably been chopped to pieces. For all I know, the original Spanish version could be a masterpiece...


I'm from Romania i'll try to speak in English. All i want to say about this movie is that it is and will be my all time number one. Seen it above 30 times at least and will see it for many years now. It has all the little things i like in a movie , it's very touching makes me cry . Shows a whole lot of twisted love things and questions about love and reality , and the true things that matter for different people. It so happens that for me this matters the most , the love , the soul of a man , he's inner being, and this i see in this movie. Perhaps for me it's much more than a motion picture , it's a proof in my mind that it could really exist and that you most make the best out of every moment you live with your soul mate. It's a long way from reality to sci-fi , but .. what if. What if all the capitalism disappeared and economy would go down , would fall? We would all be concerned about other issues and my thought is that , on your death bed , the bigger thing you remember , is not the wealth , not the adventure , not the countries you visited and the people that remember you. But the true friends and your true love and the hope that after you die , all will be god damn perfect and people would be good and care more. WATCH THIS MOVIE and probably it will guide you through your life like it did to me :) Hail from Romania


Back in the day if Marion Davies had had her druthers and didn't just listen to William Randolph Hearst, she'd have done more films like Show People and been a lot happier. In fact when you see her get her first big break in two reel comedy, she'd have loved to have done that in her career instead of such epics like When Knighthood Was In Flower and Janice Meredith.

What you're seeing by all accounts in Show People is the real Davies, a gifted comedienne, a superb mimic and a generous good hearted person. She could really identify with the character of Peggy Pepper aka Patricia Prepoire, she put up with her share of pretense in her Hollywood stardom.

If the plot of Show People was set in the legitimate stage you would call it a backstage story. I guess it being one of the first movies about the movies you could call it a behind the camera story. Marion is eager young hopeful who arrives in Hollywood like so many others, looking for that big break. She wants to drama, but her introduction to the movies is as the foil for the burlesque comics. She gets her share of pie and seltzer in the face, but learns her trade. And also wins the heart of young comic actor William Haines.

She does get her first big break, but it doesn't come for Haines as well and Marion does get to do legitimate drama with actor Paul Ralli, playing Andre Telfair, a pretend no account Count of Avignon. Somebody here was taking a shot at actor Lou Tellegen, lover and husband of Sarah Bernhardt and Geraldine Farrar and others and to hear tell of it, one of the most despised people in cinema.

Show People was one of the first films to have the unbilled cameo appearances of stars as themselves. You will get to see folks like Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, Mae Murray, John Gilbert, Eleanor Boardman etc., just being themselves in and around the film colony. That in itself makes Show People a film worth saving.

Show People also made good use of standard Tin Pan Alley songs like, Ain't We Got Fun, I'm Sitting On Top Of The World, You'd Be Surprised, California, Here I Come. As the film came out on the cusp of sound being introduced, a song called Crossroads was introduced in it. It's not a bad number, but no credit is given to the boy and girl singing it in the soundtrack. I guess since they're not seen, it was felt no billing was necessary. Still I'd like to know and I'm sure you would to if you are fortunate enough to see Show People.

It's easy to see why Marion Davies liked this film so much and considered it a personal favorite. She looks so at home in this film and her real life lack of pretense shines through in her performance which makes it a real treat for the audience.


Sarah Silverman is really the 'flavor of the month' comic right now. Is she really worth all the hype? Yes and no. She is funny at times, sometimes hilariously so (her standup routine is actually quite interesting, though not always funny). Other times, you're feeling cheated by the media for overhyping yet another performer. She is one of those really cute comedians that men especially flock to, saying that they dig her intelligence and wit. But if you corner them, most men will admit that they just want to sleep with her, and that's why they watch her. She reminds me of why many men flocked to Margaret Cho and Janeane Garofalo, even though neither of them are really 'hot' now in terms of popularity. Sarah doesn't drink or smoke (at least cigs), so she should be hot when she's 60, so her fans (especially the male ones) can rejoice.

As for this show, it's very much like her comedy. When it works, it's hilarious. When it doesn't, it's full blown tedium and very, very boring. The AIDS episode here is the best one. It's consistently funny, and has some really good satire in it. Brian Poeshn's character has an unhealthy obsession with Tab in one episode, and it's hilarious seeing him in a Tab T-shirt. But they never really go anywhere with it, and it eventually wears out its welcome. Sarah's character in the series is rather annoying, the gay couple (Brian Poeshn and some other guy) seems tacked on and never really does anything for the show as a whole, and the supporting players (including Sarah's real life sister, Laura, who doesn't look a thing like her) are OK. When the jokes hit, they're brilliant. When they don't, they're awful, and I mean really awful. There's also an obsession with coprophilia here (aka poop jokes), which seems to have replaced actual wit and intelligence in comedy today. So should you watch this show? If you have a crush on Sarah, go for it. You can gaze at her and pretend she's yours. As for her show, it's ranges from good to absolute zero.


The saddest part of this is the fact that these are 87 minutes I'll never get back. I knew this was terrible from the get-go, with the guy dressed as a lunatic Indian chief on top of the roof. (See if they could get away with that in 2008). My 10-year-old boy is really into baseball right now, so we decided to rent it on a rainy day. Even though he seemed to enjoy parts of it, I had to cringe when I heard all the needless foul language. Bad, bad movie. This was an awful ripoff of Bad News Bears. Completely shameless and completely predictable. I don't mind a predictable movie if it's done well, but this one absolutely was not.


It's just breathtaking in it's awfulness-- you really must see it!

Depending on your perspective, Dylan Walsh is either the savior or the problem here: since he's the only one on screen that can actually get his lines out with something akin to natural cadences and inflection, he either ruins the movie by pointing up everyone else's flaws, or he saves it by providing some context for their awfulness.

I'm inclined to the later view-- thanks to him, it works as high comedy. He's the 7 footer in a game of dwarf basketball, his skill set just doesn't apply in this context, and his discombobulation is delicious.

The real treat though is Ms. Eastwood, whose inability to speak in plain English is so pervasive I actually googled her, expecting to learn that she was a Russian beauty who pronounced her lines phonetically, with no understanding of their meaning. But no: she's just a talent free American who will leave you laughing with every line she drops. Whether she knew what the lines meant must remain an open question.


Another movie that relies upon the trite, worn-out cliché of the mad scientist gone madder. The movie centers around a surgeon whose life's ambition is to bring the dead...back to life. I know, I know...you've never heard that one before! Of course, as all of these movies go, the experiment goes very, very wrong and creates a maniacal, bloodthirsty creature. For this promising setup, you'd think that it'd be at least a bit suspenseful. Wrong. Like many movies of this era, the idea is nice, but the execution and the script is mediocre. Not the worst horror movie I've seen (no, Abominator: the Evilmaker 2 still takes the cake)...but not one of the gems, either.


Just caught it at the Toronto International Film Festival. This is a good story, told in a compelling way. The handheld camera approach to action scenes added to the intensity of those scenes (in a documentary style, not a Blair Witch style). Joel Schumacher shows he doesn't need a big budget to produce a gripping film.

The actors were strong, particularly the actor playing the focus of the events in the film, Boz.


Writer/Director Michael Hurst's Sci-Fi Channel sequel to Stan Winston's classic horror tale of revenge gone awry has its moments and some decent gore, but ultimately falls short in comparison to the original.

I'm pretty sure the filmmakers weren't trying to make a comedy, but I caught myself laughing throughout. A family feud started over a car accident is the basis for this entry into the franchise. The Hatfield and McCoy families live in a backwoods town with dirt roads, drive pickup trucks, drink moonshine, and kick each others asses every chance they get. Just when they thought it was safe to hate each other and live happily ever after, Jodie Hatfield (Amy Manson) and Ricky McCoy (Bradley Taylor) decided to fall in love causing the fit to hit the shan. One night the two lovebirds decide to head out into the woods for some quality time while Ricky's sister plays lookout, but it just so happens that on that very night some of the Hatfields accidentally kill Ricky's sister and catch him and Jodie together. You know what happens next. Ricky finds his sisters body and decides to pay a visit to Haggis so that he can exact his revenge through the mighty Pumpkinhead. Ye Haw! Also, Harley (Lance Henriksen) is back to warn potential damned souls against using Pumpkinhead to ease their pain. Which really put a kink in the story because Harley is supposed to have called on Pumpkinhead years before this story takes place, but the setting and characters look like dirty Pilgrims that somehow traveled through time in order to bring the pickup truck back to Plymouth. Then there's the Sheriff (Rob Freeman) who has his own ties to the demon and looks like he belongs in a 70's revenge movie instead of a made-for-cable horror flick.

Some of the gore and special effects were cool, but instead of sticking to the man-in-a-suit way of thinking Hurst used some terrible looking 3D shots for certain scenes. One particularly embarrassing shot shows Pumpkinhead jumping from tree branches like a badly rendered 3D monkey. The cinematography was exceptional and elevated the quality of the movie quite a bit. The acting was pretty decent also, with the exception of a few poorly executed accents.

Family feuds never end well, especially when the families involved in the feud have to deal with Pumpkinhead. I didn't enjoy every minute of this flick, but it was much better than most of the movies the Sci-Fi Channel spits out. Maybe it's a sign that the Channel is trying to bring the quality of its movies up to match the quality of its original series'. I wouldn't waste any coin on a rental, but if you get the chance to catch a rerun of it on the boob-tube I would say to check it out. It's a not-so-killer-film but it rises slightly above the level of trash that makes it onto DVD these days.


This is not a good movie. It's disjointed, all the acting is bad, and has a lame story you've seen a thousand times done much better else where. Not to mention you can see every plot point coming from a mile away. Worst of all, no one bothered to tell Lonette Mckee she can't sing. But who cares, she's sooooo damn good looking. But I digress, nothing new here. Bottom-line, hot girl group gets taken advantage of, some one gets hooked on drugs, someone gets hooked on a guy, some one gets the hell out, and then the horrible stuff happens. Surprise, surprise. Welcome to the music business. I can't believe so many people out there think this is a good movie. So many of you seem to want to use a sliding scale when it comes to grading Black Movies. I don't play that! If you want to support these films by going to see them - great! If you enjoyed it - super! To each his own. But don't try to tell me it was good. Pleeeease! I wish colored folks would not fawn over these kind of movies just because they feature black actors. Wanna see a good African-American movie? See Love Jones. Ray. Or The Color Purple. Those would be great movies no matter what the color of the actors skin. Why? Because they told compelling stories with great acting, that made you feel something long after you left the theater. Just because it's our experience does not automatically make it a good film. It's only good -- when it's good. Period.


Now I get it. The title refers to each audience member's immediate post-reaction after 68 minutes of mental torture. Trying too hard to be terrifying, lacking good dialogue even any fear for that matter really makes The Screaming Skull more like A Snoring Dull. Albeit, the mansion and property set in black and white does set a dark tone for the movie, but that's about it. The only scary thing about this flop is that people actually made money on this! Remember the coffin guarantee in the beginning? That may be the funniest thing I have ever witnessed on screen. Sad thing is that viewers probably hoped director Alex Nichol was forcibly placed in a coffin, nailed shut, and buried alive for his lame effort. Jenny placed in this unfortunate horrific situation never really draws any sympathy you would feel for a woman whose anxiety is blamed on a haunted, cranial receptacle. Also, her husband John comes off as a condescending wannabe smooth talker, but this doesn't work and he ends up proving how tough he is by slapping a helpless cripple around! Ah, Mickeythe days before you could get a restraining order against estate caretakers like him. This guy's approach is not very good or maybe too much airplane glue. Still, despite his strange persona, Mickey probably is the only good thing going for this movie providing a slight sense of entertainment and I can't get enough of a guy saying 'It was Mary!' and rummaging through pots in a greenhouse.


I saw this movie on a westbound American Airlines flight. It was so bad it actually made the flight seem longer. The plot had potential (who wouldn't love a movie about a woman who accidentally kills every Elvis impersonator she meets?) but it got screwed up a million different times by really poor writing. Towards the end is an embarrassingly bad scene where a gang of Elvis impersonators is on the roof of a casino reshipping the sky thinking he's going to return, then a group of stars moves together to form an 'Elvis' constellation, which promptly shoots a bolt of lightning at the impersonators, sending them crashing through the roof. Bad...REALLY bad. Which is the theme for the whole movie. I'd avoid this one at all costs.


Never realized that Charles Boyer, (Luis Denard) appeared with Lauren Bacall,(Rose Cullen) in a film together and enjoyed their great acting together. Even Peter Lorre, (Contreras) had a role in this film and had a bad misfortune in his bathroom that caused him to faint. This story deals with a Republican Courier, Luis Denard who visits England during the Spanish Civil War and tries to disrupt a coal mining contract that will cause great harm to other nations. Lauren Bacall, (Rose Cullen) comes to the aid of Luis Denard by picking him up and at the same time falling in love with him and then proceeds to help him escape from an angry crowd of English Mine Workers who threaten his life. The real bad guy in this film is Victor Francen, (Licata) 'Beast with Five Fingers' who gives an outstanding performance. Great Classic 1945 film without Humphrey Bogart.


Virgil Manoven is an old man who lives alone in his remote rural farmhouse.Chasing his beloved cat one morning into the woods around his property,Manoven glimpses what looks like the murder of a young child in the middle of the woods.He reports the crime to the police but there's no body to be found.Troubled by disturbing visions,he investigates further and eventually is guided to a spooky orphanage where events take a supernatural turn'Soft for Digging' is a fantastic experimental horror with lots of creepy atmosphere to spare.This minimalist film is almost completely devoid of dialogue.Some scenes are genuinely nightmarish and the acting is excellent.The location sets provide plenty of creepiness:the eerie Maryland woods rival those used in 'The Blair Witch Projcect'.Give this strange horror film a chance.9 out of 10.


I found this move beautiful, enjoyable, and uplifting. Initially the local sites in the film, which was filmed here in Buffalo, intrigued me. Later I found myself lost in the power of the film. How do you repay a gift from God? The ability of characters to rise above their base natures and respond to the touch from God warmed my heart. The entire audience applauded at the conclusion of the film. I left the theater with a lilt in my step, joy in my heart and hope for the human race. What more can any film do? Hollywood, I hope your paying attention. America does like positive, upbeat films.


I read about this film on-line and after seeing the generally positive reviews it has received, and viewing the trailer, I decided to check it out for myself. What a disappointment! It starts out well enough. the opening scene was actually pretty tense, but from there it's all downhill. I can see that the filmmakers were trying to do something different with this movie, but by doing so, they took all the enjoyment out of watching it. Those choices combined with the 'C.S.I' editing, use of music and montage, lack of suspense, scares, or humor really drag this film down. There's too much foreshadowing and to many 'subtle' clues, so when the first twist arrives early on, you already know how the movie is going to end. I gave the movie three stars because I think the cast did a good job, other than that I can't recommend this movie.


I was just looking at the 100 bottom movies according to IMDb users seeing if there was anything to review that I haven't yet and I found this little screen gem. One of those occasions when you see a movie ranked as one of the worst and you just have to be one of the few that actually likes it. Darn, well I guess I will get ridiculed and spat upon here, but for me this was a pretty good flick when I saw it. It has been awhile however, I remember it used to come on HBO late at night and I watched it two or three times and I haven't seen it really since and I would love to watch it again now knowing Jolie was in it. The story follows a cyborg and a guy trying to escape the clutches of this corporation and some bounty hunters after them. I think that is basically all there is to it, throw in a few scenes with Jack Palance and we have our movie. Some good action here and there, and some blood and violence as well. There is also a love story at play as well as the female cyborg and the guy who trained her to fight kind of fall in love with each other. The dialog sometimes becomes rather bad at times and it is by far not a top notch film, but for a b-movie it is really good. I don't know if it was a theatrical release though because it does not seem high quality enough for that, but it does make for one of the better direct to videos if it was one of those.


This film could of been a hell of a lot better if they didn't use Brian Conley as a gangster and if they didn't start the film with Christopher Biggins.

When I watched this film I had absolutely no idea what was going on. There were too many double crosses and plot twists to make the film believable. The film deserves a 0, but seeing as I there isn't a 0 I gave it a 1.

I wouldn't recommend this film to my worst enemy, I would rather poke out my eyeballs with some rusty scissors than watch this film again. I'm telling you, that was an hour and a half of my life I won't get back.

If you want to watch a gangster film, don't get this. Watch 'Going Off Big Time' or 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' instead.


The competition for the worst Warner Bros Kay Francis movie is stiff. I've only seen perhaps eight of them, but Comet over Broadway is the worst so far. The very best thing about it is that it's short. Oh, and the Orry-Kelly gowns (of course) are fine. James Wong Howe's cinematography is not. Kay Francis throughout looks fat-faced and far less attractive than she normally does. Minna Gombell whom I don't know otherwise is good as a semi-tough 'burlesque' dancer (it looked more like a fashion show than burlesque). The closing shot - Kay Francis and her child (when did the child learn that Kay Francis was her mother? Did I doze off?) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond ludicrous. The whole film is so cheap, so implausible and so careless that it feels infected by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who made it: Warner Bros tossing garbage to dolts who don't know, in Warner Bros' cynical estimation of them, that what they're getting is garbage.


This film easily rivals the emotional strength, the dramatic impact and the top-notch performances of '12 Angry Men'. I rented it on a whim and was amazed that I had not heard of it before.

I do not know if this was Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but the pacing, the interplay and development of the characters as well as some clever camera work surrounding the character Estevez plays all suggest a natural eye.

The interplay between Martin and Emilio contains the same wonderful chemistry we saw in Wall Street with Martin and Charlie. Kathy Bates is wonderful in her characters subtle desperation and escapism; a variation on her character in 'At Play In The Fields Of The Lord'. She is irritating and yet one can empathize with her at the same time.

There are some moments where I feel the plot slows a touch and the moments between Estevez and his ex-girlfriend almost seem written for another film, Estevez comes off as another character all together. But those are minor complaints.

This film must be based on a true story or must have been written by someone who lived these experiences. I rate it 8 out of a difficult 10.


I sat down to watch this movie with my friends with very low expectations. My expectations were no where near low enough. I honestly could not tell what genre this movie was from watching it, and if it was a comedy, the humor was completely missed. The plot was nonexistent and the acting was horrendous. My friends and I managed to watch approximately 30 to 40 minutes of this film before we turned it off and promptly begged the video store to take it back. I do NOT recommend this movie to anyone unless you are purposely trying to watch the worst movies of all time. I honestly don't know how this film lasted more than a day in theatres and moreover I can not understand why anyone would willing watch it, considering not only it's very uninteresting title but also the lack of any famous actors/actresses in it's cast. This review is not a joke and I honestly think this could possibly be the worst movie ever made. It's certainly the worst movie I've ever had to sit through.


'The Last Big Thing' is a wonderful satirical film that sardonically whips pop culture to the point of humorous self-desctruction. The characters are so interesting and fun to laugh at/sympathize with. Which brings me to an introduction to the characters I liked best...

Simon Geist is a man in his late 30s/early 40s who creates a pop-culture driven editorial magazine called 'The Next Big Thing'. Thing is, this magazine doesnt really exist, and it is only an excuse for Simon to get close to actors by interviewing them, only to bitch-slap them silly, insulting their way of buying into pop culture. His live-in female friend, Darla, is also writing a magazine (which is real), which mainly has to do with her and Simon, as well as her and her father. Darla is a genuinely loveable (or loathable) character, depending on how you view her muted neurotic behavior. Magda is a prostitute, the character i liked the best. Brent is a flat character with not much to him, as is Tedra, the music-video queen for a bunch of B-rated rock bands. Still, these characters weave a very interesting web together. And this movie questions all the motivations that people have for what they do and why they do it. Its a wonderful film and I suggest you see it if you're in the indie/art house crowd. Mark my words!


I watched this movie last week sometime and had the biggest laugh i've had in a long while. The plot of the film is pretty dumb and convoluted in a badly crafted way. The only plus to be found anywhere in the film are Corey Savier's impressive abs. Alexandra Paul (i think that's her name) is horrendous as the preacher's wife who has a history of depression. Ted McKenzie is gross and his character's a twit on top of it all. And as if the fact that you think she's having sex with her son isn't enough, they throw in needless sax solos at every opportunity! The end and climax of this film is absolutely abysmal and also laughable. I mean who the hell wants to carry the child of a con who tried to make you think he was your son and that you were having an incestuous relationship with him!


This is a weird movie about an archaeologist studying the culture of the ancient Hohokam Indians. She takes a (really fake looking) mummy out of a burial cave and brings it home to study it. Well, pretty soon she starts acting weird and talking to this mummy. And shortly thereafter her son becomes possessed by the spirit of the mummy. Even stranger events take place as the spirit then tries to destroy the woman's family. This is actually REALLY BORING, overall, and it will make you fall asleep the first couple of times you try to watch it. But if you keep at it, you may just make it to the end.

Ahah! What is the secret of the mummy? Is the mummy's spirit angry that it has been removed from the cave? You may not be able to ascertain what the spirit's motivation is, but if you like spooky shenanigans on a low-budget (and 70's hairstyles!) this will have a certain comforting appeal.

The way I have described the story is much clearer than the jumbled, boring way the film lays the story out. Can a boring movie really be fascinating? Well...somehow this one achieves that. Maybe this is a good movie at heart but executed in a rather awkward way. I don't know. What I do know is that I enjoyed it quite a bit, despite its dullness.

Fans of 'Spider Baby' will be interested to know that a couple of music cues from that film are used in this one (including an instrumental version of the theme song).

Featuring one frightening and fairly well-done sequence showing possessed boulders and rocks rolling around by themselves and eventually attacking some people in a camper. Other scenes in the movie are merely spooky or quirky; but this one scene is actually pretty scary.

See this! It's weird and it's worth your time. You might even want one on your shelf.


I enjoyed THE MUPPET MOVIE very much. It was the first of the Muppet movies and is by far the best because it's so creative and fresh. With later films, the ideas just didn't seem quite so original. But here, we get to see Kermit and Miss Piggy riding bikes (an incredibly difficult scene), an excellent ensemble cast and just a lot of fun. I loved every minute the Muppets were performing and I would have rated the film a lot higher except for one serious problem. In this and most subsequent Muppet films, some powers that be felt there was a need to include lots of non-Muppets--in particular, many, many cameos by stars. Some worked fine (such as Charles Durning's) but many just seemed irrelevant and slowed the picture to a grinding halt. Probably the worst of them was with Edgar Bergan. Yes, he was an amazing man who inspired Jim Henson and the rest of his crew, but the tiny scene he's in just wasn't needed nor were most of the cameos. Still, despite this big complaint, it's a great film for the entire family--from the kids to even the most demanding adults.


'Blade' would be an extremely above-average comic-book, vampire-hunter action/horror if it weren't for two minor flaws. #1 I loved seeing the all-but invincible Blade/Snipes do his slicing and dicing, but the whole 'Yes!' fist/punch was literally a letdown. #2 Bad, no make that horrible, CGI  even for 1998 standards. This is mainly in the last third, but some sprinkled throughout. Okay, despite those minor infractions, I really enjoyed this movie. All actors did a suburb job and the fact that this now looks like yet another 'Matrix' rip-off is hilarious considering this came out one year prior. So maybe 'The Matrix' copied 'Blade.' At any rate, it's a very movie for multiple genre-loving audiences: Comic Book geeks, action fanatics and horror/vampire lovers. So, we have Blade, half-man/half-vampire, or 'day-walker' and his accomplish, Whisler (a la 'Batman and Alfred') battling the undead who, apparently almost out number humans. Who knew? In a rare act of humanity (Blade's more of an antihero) our sword ninja/vamp rescues a newly infected (coincidentally) blood specialist/doctor. Meanwhile, trouble brews amongst the vampires as one wants (you guessed it) supreme power and needs Blade somehow to obtain it. It's not the most original concept, if you read what I just wrote, but still highly enjoyable. You will want to see Blade succeed, you will root for him despite his imperfections and mannerisms. And you will know what's coming as this is the typical act 1-2-3 of a comic book introduction movie. Still, watch this without trying to go too deep. Such as Vampire SPF-1000 'suntan lotion'? Really? What about the scalp? Wouldn't that still burn? Just like the money they burn for weapons? Uh, okay, I am going too deep. Once again, sit back and enjoy the techno-charged fun ride.


Another direct to video movie from Disney, that is essentially perfect for the kids. The problem with Kronk's New Groove I find is that everything that made the first movie a fun great ride is replaced with a more sad and sombre film. In this movie, Kronk learns a great deal of lessons at many others' expenses. It takes away much time that could be spent at creating a more enjoyable film.

Kronk's New Groove deals with two stories: Yzma returns for payback and one Ms. Birdwell hopes to defeat Kronk's camp counseling championship. This all leads up to Kronk confronting his father and his disapproval over his son's direction in life.

From Lord of the Rings to Michael Jackson's Thriller, Kronk's New Groove recycles every bit of time that it allows to entertain its viewers. If you loved the original, or are looking forward to the upcoming TV series about Kuzco, I recommend Kronk to his loyal fans.


I would have given this otherwise terrific series a full 10 vote if Claudia Black had not continued on in it! Her inclusion as the silly 'Vela' has brought the series down in my estimation. To bring her in as a regular at the same time as including Ben Browder to replace RDA was a mistake.

Unfortunately we were just reeling from the loss of 'Jack' and really didn't need this great series turned into new episodes of 'Farscape'.

I was a great fan of the film 'Stargate' and when the series was first announced I had reservations that it could live up to the film, but after watching the first episode I have to admit I was hooked. I have always looked forward to new episodes with great anticipation


Having grown up in New Jersey and having spent many a day and night on the gritty streets of New York in the 1970's, watching a film like 'The Seven-Ups', or its kindred spirit, 'The French Connection', always evokes fond memories of a time and place which, for some, might have been NYC's darkest hour, but which for me, in my early twenties, was always one fun-filled adventure after another. I truly miss those times. As one reviewer remarked, 'This film very aptly captures the stark, cold, matter-of-fact feel of the NYC winter season, while keenly exposing the underbelly of the region's infamous underworld of crime and policing. A great snapshot of a place and a time and a culture.'. A spot-on characterization of both the film and the city. The stellar attributes of this film -- the plot, the cast, the characters, and of course, the car chase -- are amply described in many of the reviews here, so I won't go into that except to say that one of my favorite moments occurs during the car chase, when the camera focuses on Richard Lynch riding shotgun to the maniacal Bill Hickman. The look of horror on Richard Lynch's face, along with the defensive gestures, are so out-of-character for an actor much better known as a source of terror rather than an object of it, that it is actually comical to watch. I get a chuckle out of it every time.


I have been a fervent Hal Hartley supporter since I saw his short 'Surviving Desire' in high school, and even then was still completely unmoored by his searingly brilliant 'Henry Fool.' But this 10-year-later sequel is not only unnecessary, it's disgraceful.

After a choppy and expeditious start, 'Fay Grim' devolves into pseudo-intellectualism, flat out boredom, and finally unwarranted - and unwanted - nihilism. And that's just the plot.

The majority of the new faces are as frivolous and poorly-developed as the movie: one particularly flat character ends up hogging half the time we spend with the infamous Henry Fool himself, and it's his only spoken scene in the film!

Jeff Goldblum's Agent Fulbright, it seems, is the only bright character (a pun surely intended by Hartley as well). How, then, is he left? **SPOILER** Dead via a car bombing, easily making this the gentle-natured Hartley's most violent film to date, and tonally all wrong in a film that's already all wrong from the word go.

As for the other new characters, Angus James, Ned Fool (or is it Grim?), not to mention Fay herself... well, I won't spoil their fates, as the movie does a good enough job of that all on its own (when it isn't busying itself with yet another godawful canted angle, which gives the disconcerting impression that Hartley is moving backwards from Auteur to crappy film student).

This piece is a complete disaster, a dreadful mess that isn't even good-humored enough to revel in its messiness. Instead it self-indulgently crams the typically fun hipster pretenses of its director into the 'real world', one uglier and meaner than it need be but not nearly ugly or mean enough to come close to having anything to say. In doing so, Hartley tracks sh*t all over my memories of these people and the marvelous world he originally created for them.

I have rarely been so depressed at the movies, and I'm counting 'Leaving Las Vegas,' which at least developed fresh new characters we grew to love before destroying them, instead of immediately disregarding characters already beloved.

Grim, indeed.


The show is at least partially Faked (So is not reality, just pretending to be reality), which makes me believe at least anyone without face blurred out is a Fake episode.

Proof in the episode where he pretends to be stabbed There is already camera crew on the boat, before he gets there, can been seen as his boat approaches.

The actors playing 'ambulance officers' didn't remove his shirt or expose the wound in anyway so they work on it, which would never happen in reality.

They also parked the ambulance in the car park and did not drive up to the Emergency entrance (Which does not make any sense, unless its fake and they would not be allowed to go there)


Micro-phonies is a classic Stooge short. The guys are inept repairmen working at a radio station, and during some horsing around in a broadcast booth, Curly's perfect mimic of a recording of 'Voices of Spring' is mistaken for the real thing, leading to a radio contract and a zany musical party. The trio's mock rendition of the quintet from 'Lucia de L'Amamore' is especially entertaining. No doubt this is essential viewing for Stooge fans.

Although the evidence of Curly's failing health is visible in his face and voice, his performance is amazing, and it is probably the last glimpse of the old Curly. Some fans think that 'A Bird in the Hand' is the last great Curly short, but his coarse voice and slow movement are just too difficult to watch.


This piece of filth is virtually impossible to follow. The sound is crap the picture quality goes from bad to worse to good to bad again! Things happen for no apparent reason characters appear and disappear. Was the director suffering from a massive brain injury during its production?

Poor film making aside, the story is vile just sick evil sh*t If you like rape, murder and self harm this is right up your alley. And if simulated scenes of murder are not enough you can enjoy clips of actual people being executed. I watched almost all of it but had to turn off after I seen someones brains blown out. Never before have I seen a film that left me feeling so ashamed and dirty.


Yikes.

I've seen quite a few bad movies in my days, a lot of them in the company of Mike, Tom, Crow and the others from MST3k. So was the case with this one as well and even though I found the movie in itself quite funny, it wouldn't have been nearly as fun without the MST3k commentary.

The movie is a prime example of really bad movies coming out of Europe during the eighties. Horrible music, horrible acting, horrible plot (what little there is), horrible dialogue and really, really, REALLY, horrible editing. Cripes.

This might be called a turkey if it weren't for the fact that it's not unique in any way whatsoever. It's pretty much the same kind of film that almost every italian hack of a director cranked out.

So, try and get the MST3k version. It's a pretty fun episode with Mike and gang in quite good form.


OK, so it's a silly movie, but I think they knew that when they made it. And there are some neat little twists on the otherwise tired, overdone 'Godzilla'-type genre. Borrowed a tape just because I knew someone in it, but I did loan it out to a couple pals, who also kinda liked it.


Ineffectual, molly-coddled, self-pitying, lousy provider Jimmy Stewart is having a bad marriage to Carole Lombard. After falling on hard times, he endures a demeaning job, a fault-finding, passive-aggressive, over-bearing live-in mother who is in dire need of an epic smackdown, and an endlessly-crying baby. The movie trowels on failure and squalor to no discernible end. Do you want to watch a couple bicker with his mom for ninety minutes? Many scenes feature a shrieking baby. The movie fails to elucidate why we would want to endure the mother from hell, or why Jimmy Stewart can't grow a pair. Who wanted to see this? Who wanted to see Stewart and Lombard without laughs or charm?

It's absolutely depressing and unendurable.


They do... Each sequel is worst. You, who think that Ghoulies 2 or 3 need a 1, please, watch this sequel... You'll be wondering with the first three parts. Then you'll give a 10 to the first, 8 to the second and 5 or 6 to the other. That's because Ghoulies 4 really gets the big 1 (from me it does).


Roeg has done some great movies, but this a turkey. It has a feel of a play written by an untalented high-school student for his class assignment. The set decoration is appealing in a somewhat surrealistic way, but the actual story is insufferable hokum.


Not wishing to give *anything* away here, I would just say this technically excellent, flawlessly acted and uplifting little flic will reward the viewer with an excellent hour and a half's entertainment: It will amuse, surprise, possibly embarrass occasionally and almost certainly tug at the heartstrings from time to time, as it approaches the inevitable, but not obvious, ending without becoming clichéd or predictable in any way. Most definitely recommended.

A previous User's Comment gives 8 out of 10 for the film and 10 out of 10 for both Branagh and Bonham-Carter's outstanding performances - I agree entirely....


...but the actress playing the daughter just doesn't come across as credible.

It doesn't work for me when I see an actress of about 25 years playing the role of a 12-year-old... Other commentators have suggested that this is one of the messages of this film, that children may sometimes seem more adult-like than adults, but with the casting as it is in this film, it just doesn't work for me.

you might want to check other comments to find out what this film is actually about, because i couldn't bear watching it to the end.

i agree that the premise for this film is beautiful though - I wish another director would try to pick up this story again.


I really liked this movie. One thing I have noticed is that Korean TV drama's are way better, as far as giving you the whole story. I watch movies when I do not have the time or feel like going through 16-30 episodes. Movies are seem to be rushed and if you do not watch carefully, you may miss something.

I do feel this one was rushed and I had to rewind a few parts to try and find what I missed, especially towards at the end. If you like nice love stories, I still think this is cute, and if yo have the extra time, I still think this is worth watching.

It is always nice to go back follow the actors in different movies as we do not get to follow them from when they begin, as we do the actors producers and directors in our own countries.


The plot: Four people are caught in an elevator. One is a business man, the annoying kind who is aggressive and complains about everything and everyone and is a walking-talking sample of distilled stress and hostility. Then there's his colleague, a woman who is much more pleasant in her character. A teenage rebel who just broke into a coke machine and by his mere presence drives the businessman mad, and an older guy who just stole 100,000DM make up the rest of the cast...

The movie is all about how they cope with their problem, as time goes on and on without any success in reaching the outside world, as the lights go out, and as the cables begin to snap one after the other....

And yet, it isn't too exciting. The characters are stereotypes. The story is stupid and unlikely (how could so many things go so wrong in just one elevator?). You don't like the characters very much, you just hate one of them. And all the twists and turns in the plot are not contributing to the excitement, they are just stupid excuses for filling yet another few minutes with dialogue as the screenwriters keep running out of inspiration and ink on a full-length movie set in an elevator.

Let's just hope 'Phone Booth' will be a better effort...


toplines this ok comedy about an aging father (C. Aubrey Smith) who decides to gather his grown children from around the world. Davies is working as a chorus girl in New York when she gets the news that 'daddy' wants her. Hmmmm, sounds familiar. Davies' considerable talents as a comedienne save this otherwise so-so comedy as she upsets the staid British countryside with her brazen American personality. Not as sharp as some other Davies comedies, but still worth a look. Ray Milland plays her long-lost 'brother.' Doris Lloyd, Elizabeth Murray, and Halliwell Hobbes are all fun, too.


Simply put this movies is without any substance whatsoever. Just take my word for it and save yourself the time it is a complete DUD!! I would say the characters are one dimensional but that would imply there was some sort of character development. I thought Eric Roberts was going to jump out any second it was so close to B-Movie status.

The girl from That 70's is beautiful...but unless you are a stalker type fan of hers this movie has nothing for anyone.

Avoid..Avoid...Avoid

This movie was straight to DVD for a reason...that being...it is a train wreck!!!


I was unfortunate enough to see this movie at a friends' house. What an utter waste of time. What an utter and complete piece of crap this movie is! Absolutely nothing is funny in it, from the shower scene to the insulting and degrading portrayal of Germans. There is no plot, the acting made me gag and at the end, I personally wanted to beat John Leguizamo with a stick. I thought John Woo movies were bad.....this movie is officially the worst movie that I have ever seen.


Bobby is a goofy kid who smiles far too much and wants sex. So he buys a van to aid in this quest. The acting is lame, the comedy is pathetic and the script is no more than a loosely strung chain of clichés and cheap thrills. The makers of the film obviously wanted to capture some of the out there craziness of other films of the time, but fell a long way short. They even resort to Bobby slipping on a banana skin, because this will supposedly add comedic value.

I'm struggling to find a redeeming feature of the film. If you like DeVito, this is another classic DeVito kind of role - but he's only a supporting actor and there for cliché value.


I will always think of Mr. Firth as Dorian Gray, if I live to be 100.

Perfectly acted and directed, bringing Oscar Wilde's insight, wit and humor alive with an absolute and utter perfection unusual in television.

More proof that the BBC more than makes up in talent what it doesn't always have in money.

A must have for all Wilde fans-and indeed for everyone else. Inspired and perfected, every one of the actors looked exactly right for the role and every shot was well done.

By the end I found that I loved every single character in a way that no other movie of the type had ever inspired. Watch it, then try to watch another version. It's just not the same, is it?


Spoilers I loved the later episodes from college and on, but I wish I could get the last season on DVD. Unfortunately, the latest I could get is the first college season. Still the teenage years were sweet; although they focused a lot on magic, they also made her into a character that teens could relate to, deeling with the stuggles of teens, and children in divorced families. This show was very innocent; they did not get into the morbid teenage problems such as sex and drugs, but they did deel with pressure to fit in. I loved watching her grow up and cope with her magic on her own and trying to convince her Aunts to let go as she left the nest. The older episodes were cute, but it was just so much better to see her as (well not really a teenage witch anymore) but an adult witch. I loved Roxy and Mortgan; they were so talented! In the earlier episodes the Aunts were great actresses, but they were so strict, kind and loving, but they treated her like a young child in some ways, but not in every way. I mean they grounded her for every little mistake she made with her magic, I mean let her learn from her own mistakes for once! That was what I liked about the college episodes; she was able to learn from her own mistakes without be grounded over everything; that was annoying. Not to put down Hilda and Zelda. Melissa Joan Hard is beautiful and was perfect for the Sabrina with her Perky personality. I liked the last episode where she ran off the marry Harvey, but as somebody else said, it would have been nice to see what happened after. I mean I believe it was obvious they were getting married; where else would they be running off to in her wedding dress? But I would have liked to have seen it. I supposed they wanted to leave it up to the viewer to choose the ending though rather than spoon feeding it to us as most comedies do. Somebody said they could have shown them marry and go to school in the house, but they already graduated college. Sabrina had great job for a magazine and I think Harvey had a good job, because he lived in a nice apartment that we only see at the end, but they never say what he does. As a child they always talk about how he does not want to be an exterminator like his Dad. When Sabrian moved into the house that season, they never really explain how it happened. Actually, there is a lot the show does not explain, but I supposed it is supposed to be to leave it up to us and give it some mystery. Prior to Sabrina and her friends moving into the house, they show Hilda getting married and this whole spell that ends up with Zelda turning into a child. Hilda comes back in the last episode (and Zelda is there in some other form, but Beth is not on the episode) but they do not show Zelda's husband or what happened, like did they have children? Maybe they didn't want too much going on in one episode. I also liked Hart's sister who played her spoiled cousin! She was pretty and a great actress and it was interesting to see her grown up! I cannon believe it has been six years since the show went off the air! I still love the reruns! Also, I don't know if anybody noticed this, but in the earlier episodes, the town was called Westbridbe (a made up town I believe, which was supposed to be close to Salem) but in the later episodes, they don't mention the name of the town being caled Westbridge and I think they call it Boston, unless that is just where she worked. Also, I wanted to add, I found the episode, 'Wild Wild Sabrina' where she is taught about the importance of rules, to be insulting. She was 18 and too old to be grounded; I would have been insulted if my parents grounded me at 18. And I think while an 18 year old might mess up how she did, they need to learn the consequences on their own. I think at 18 they know rules are important.


I, like many other Bachchan fans, having been eagerly awaiting the remake of Sholay. This movie was not it. Thank god they didn't let them use the name 'Sholay' in the movie title. Ram Gopal's remake is not worthy of the title. The camera work, the locations, the costumes, the totally out-of-place dancing, the dialogue all combined to make the worst movie I have ever seen. You wonder if the cast of actors agreed to make this movie because they needed money and Ram Gopal was paying a lot of money for the cast. The only non-paid actor, the ant, was the only resemblance to the first movie. Abishek's role was totally ridiculous, did he need money to pay for the wedding to Ash? Save your money, your mind and your time, don't bother with this movie or the DVD when that comes out.


Klaus Kinski popped up in a sizable number of spaghetti Westerns throughout the 60's and early 70's; he was usually cast in secondary parts as nasty villains. Kooky Klaus lands himself a juicy lead role as Crazy Johnny Laster, a foul, twitchy, and deranged sex maniac who comes up with a plan to abduct a lovely heiress in order to obtain her considerable inheritance. Johnny and his gang become wanted fugitives after the plan goes disastrously awry. Writer/director Mario Costa ably crafts a sordidly compelling portrait of a severely sick and twisted piece of sniveling low-life work: the plot unfolds at a steady pace, the tone is appropriately gritty and serious, and the exciting action scenes are staged with real skill and brio (the shoot-outs in rock quarries are especially gripping and thrilling). Ironically dressed in white, oozing oily charisma from every rotten pore, and jumping on beautiful women every chance he gets, Kinski's Johnny makes for a fascinatingly creepy and monstrous brute. Kinski is simply spectacular as this gloriously repellent character; he receives fine support from the luscious Gabriella Giorgelli as sweet, fiery saloon girl Juanita, Steven Tedd as the cheery Riccardo, Giovanni Pallavicino as ruthless band gang leader Machete, Giuliano Raffaella as smart lawyer Gary Pinkerton, and Paolo Casella as Johnny's sensible parter Glen. Kudos are also in order for Stelvio Cipriani's moody and spirited score. Well worth seeing for Kinski fans.


This is a movie that was probably made to entertain the middle school, early high school age kids. Maybe to them it's funny, they may possibly even see something scary in it. To me, the acting is poor, and plot is poor, there's just not much value at all for the adult viewer. I saw this film as weak and boring. At times there was the possibility that the movie could become interesting but it never really materialized. The creatures look pretty good but after seeing them for a few seconds, they don't seem to have any substance other than the look. At times I wasn't sure if the movie was trying to make another attempt at comedy or was it just another attempt at horror that failed again. This movie just wasn't good for me.


I love cinema so what I'm about to confess embarrasses me deeply. I had given a thumbs down to 'Che, Parts 1 and 2' without having seen the film. Terrible I know. But I felt into a trap perpetrated by...who? I don't really know but there has been a negative word of mouth that spread like wild fire and, no matter how smart I think I am, I fell into it. But, thankfully, I bumped into an Argeninean film director, Martin Donovan, a man I love and admire. When I told him I wasn't going to see it because I knew the film was a failure he looked at me as if he was ready to punch me right on the face and Donovan is a pacifist! He took me aside and told me how much he loved the film and why. I went to see both parts straight away and, 'Che, part 1 and 2' is the best film I've seen in 2008. It is, of such purity that it will remind you of the work of some of the great masters of the past. The regard for its audience is something that we're not used to anymore. I don't know if we ever were. Riveting, moving, without concessions and Benicio del Toro is just extraordinary. We can see his soul, we can actually perceive it. The humanity of the man is overwhelming. So, thank you Martin Donovan once again for educating me so honestly. Bravo Del Toro, Bravo Soderbergh and everyone involved in this landmark film. Don't commit the mistake I was about to commit. Go see it, now, on the big screen


Farrah Fawcett has spent the better part of her post-Angel's career confounding us, with an occasional noteworthy acting performance sandwiched in between her Playboy frolics and Letterman escapades. But when it comes down to it, there's no denying that this girl can act. Far from a story of epic proportions, this well-done TV-movie is gentle, quiet and occasionally moving. Fawcett plays the wayward black sheep daughter come home only to find that she missed the last days of her mom's life as well as the funeral, much to the chagrin of her more stable and presumably more sensible sister. Brad Johnson plays the love interest, and a story unfolds with all the typical elements of telefilm drama- but then there's always that confounding Farrah to watch, and she does, indeed, remain eminently watchable. (And, yes, I admit it, I did have that Farrah poster on my wall way back when). Silk Hope gets three and a half stars (out of five) on the Corkymeter. Bosley would be proud.


All in all a good film and better for the fact that had the film not been made the story might remain hidden to the masses. Brosnan does a good job as the native American with a hidden past and the photography is stunning. To some, this may be too whimsical, to others boring - for me it is a gentle, well-told tale and perfect for family viewing. Now that's not something you get a lot of recently.


Following the pleasingly atmospheric original and the amusingly silly second one, this incredibly dull, slow, and uneventful sequel comes across as a major letdown. Once again the nefarious criminal mastermind the Bat (hammy Luis Aceves Castaneda) is trying to steal valuable jewelry from the Aztec mummy Popoca. The Bat builds a hilariously clunky lumbering robot with a human brain in order to achieve this heinous goal. Flatly directed by Rafael Portillo, with a talky and tedious script by Alfredo Salazar and Guillermo Calderon, cruddy continuity (for example, the Bat was clearly killed at the end of the previous film, but is miraculously alive and well here!), an excruciatingly sluggish script, an excessive amount of stock footage from the first two flicks, a meandering narrative, a crippling lack of action and momentum, largely dreary going through the motions (non)acting from an understandably disinterested cast, and a poorly staged climactic battle between the mummy and the robot (the movie finally bursts to sidesplitting stupid life with said big bash, but alas it barely even lasts two lousy minutes and thus proves to be much too little far too late to alleviate the severity of the general overwhelming boredom), this numbingly dry, drippy, and draggy snorefest rates as a complete washout.


I found Code 46 very disappointing. I thought the concept was good and therefore had great potential as a movie but found that it didn't deliver. Code 46 lacked thought and structure and the storyline didn't flow well. I thought that Tim Robbins character wasn't well developed, for eg. I thought there should have been more info and thought put into his family life and not have it completely ignored as i felt it was. When they were first in violation of a code 46 it was suggested that they were not to know that they may have been genetically linked but all the technology was available to them, he took her fingerprint and therefore genetic details when he was investigating the fraud. I constantly found myself waiting for something to happen and the story line to develop and yet it never did. I felt that the film had great potential to be intellectually stimulating but turned out to be the opposite. Code 46 tried to be too clever and in the end just ended up lacking imagination.I would not recommend this film to anybody, the only good thing about the film was that it was relatively short.


Spike Lee has been in a decline since his early successes and this mess does nothing to help. I looked at my watch frequently hoping the movie would end or get to the point. Lee's first movie with an all-white cast is a major disappointment.

What's the point? That Italians swear and like funky sex, but not with their wives? If I wanted to see Scorsese, I'd go to a Scorsese movie. The incredibly lame Godfather character only adds to the stereotype.

I've admired several of Lee's films, especially 'Do the Right Thing'. This movie is a waste of time.


I still remember watching Satya for the first time. I was completely blown away. Here was a movie that was very different so from the other Gangster films that I had seen. So realistic, so Mumbaiyya and so believable. Despite 'Company' (which was a very good effort) and 'Vaastav' (more focused on the journey of the protagonist) which came close, no underworld movie could ever live up to Satya.

When I watched Ab Tak 56 for the first time, I said to myself 'Indian Cops have their own 'Satya' now'. The quote by Nietzsche in the beginning itself tells you that this is no ordinary film. What strikes you about the 'encounter' at the start of the film is the relaxed manner in which it is carried out. There is a cold and scary feel to it cos you realize that it is part of their routine.

Ab Tak 56 is not the story of an honest cop or a corrupt cop but of a cop who is ready to do what it takes to get rid of the criminals when all lawful means are exhausted. With simple shots and camera angles, director Shimit Amin manages to capture the essence of the characters and gives a realistic and rough feel to the movie. Editing seems non-existent and hence effective. The music is also impressive and haunting and stays with you long after you've left the movie hall.

But for me, what really takes the cake are the dialogues and the superlative acting from each and every character. Sandeep Srivastava has done a brilliant job as the dialogue writer. If I start listing my favourite dialogues, I'm afraid I'll end up re-writing the entire script of the movie.

The movie boasts of some stellar performances. Yashpal Sharma is detestable as Sub-Inspector Imtiaz Siddiqui and so is Jeeva as Joint Commissioner Suchak. Revathi, Hrishita Bhatt, Mohan Agashe and Kunal Vijaykar have small roles which they play to perfection. Nakul Vaid as the rookie Jatin Shukla was a revelation. The scene where he has to hesitantly shoot the wounded gangster  Oh My God! He learns under the tutelage of Sadhu Aghashe and firmly believes in him.

Prasad Purandhare as Zameer Zafar is impressive. His conversations with Sadhu are real jewels of dialogue writing. Never before in Indian cinema has any film brought out such a beautiful relation between a cop and a gangster.

Not that I have not been a fan of Nana Patekar before this film but this film pushed me from a fan to a devotee. Nana as Inspector Sadhu Agashe gives the performance of a lifetime and one of the best I've ever seen in Hindi cinema. From the way he talks to his expressions, from the way he taps his cigarette to the way sips his tea  it's almost as if Nana can do no wrong. He is at his best in each and every scene especially when he's teaching Jatin about how the police force functions. His cool and composed manner of doing things is scary at times. His dialogue delivery and body language had me convinced that he is one of the finest actors in the country. It's a shame that he did not win any popular awards for this one.

Last but in no way the least, Shimit Amin does a brilliant job of bringing all this talent together and exploiting them to the fullest to come up with a modern masterpiece of Indian cinema. In an industry that is sickeningly accustomed to lifting stories from here and there, Amin takes an original script and brings it to life with a beautiful treatment. I just hope that he continues the great work and doesn't give in to Bollywood-isation! If he can do that, I'm sure he'll be a force to reckon with in the coming years.


It is not uncommon for a celebrity to be faced with the proverbial 'wake-up call'. And, should they survive this event, they come to a deeper understanding and appreciation of their particular good fortune. However, in the case of comedian's, they are rarely as funny after their epiphany as they were prior to it. Such is the case with Martin Lawrence. Frankly, I pay little attention to celebrities as I have much better things to do with my life than to spend it monitoring others'. So, I was unaware of the majority of what Lawrence had gone through prior to this film. It was interesting but, unfortunately, all to common. I was left with the larger impression that this guy's stand-up act just wasn't very funny. Save the big life messages for a book, just be funny on stage. If you want to see a funny Martin Lawrence, go rent some of the old Def Jams for which he hosted. Don't rent Runteldat.


I was drawn to 'Friends' by the soundtrack scored by a very young and yet to be famous Elton John whom I had see in a club in nearby Houston. I had no idea of the emotions and impact the movie would make. Recently I was brought back to the movie by a song that Heart did called 'Seasons', then I found the Elton John song 'Friends' thinking it was the same song...it's been 35 years of so. Anyway, the flood of the emotions of 'Friends' came back like seeing an old photograph of your first real love. I have more recall of the way the movie hit me than I do of the actual details of the production, plot, etc. so forgive me for a rather poor review. I remember taking a couple of special friends on a date to see the movie and them being as moved and teary-eyed at the end as I was. I'm both anxious and nervous to find a copy and see it now. So many movies which seemed so important to me back then (i.e. 'The Graduate' 'Easy Rider') now just seem silly and I don't want this to fall into the same category. But, I will find it and if it turns out silly, then at least I'll be able to turn my wife onto a great...no..outstanding soundtrack. When we met, we went through this with 'Last Tango in Paris'. The youngsters I work with (I'm 56) respect my opinions but it's hard to explain the feelings of the sixties and the movies and songs that reflect such strong feelings but seem a little 'aged' now. I just can't figure out if the the aging process is the movies... or me. 'Friends' is a very special, sensitive and wonderful movie. It will bring back a lot of special feelings I'm sure. By all means, rent or buy a copy... Indies were not near the strong genre then that they are today.


The DEA agent's name, Anslinger, is a nice inside joke - this is the name of the former drug czar who almost single-handedly made marijuana illegal.

Despite this bit of book knowledge, the writers go on to have the farmers harvesting and selling fresh undried leaf, rather than cured buds.

Additionally, I always find it amusing that movie makers never seem to be able to find real marijuana plants for filming. You would think there would be a business that would make real looking fake ones for the movie business or maybe they could film a couple of scenes in Amsterdam or Switzerland. I suppose that's asking too much for the budget.

Probably the most interesting thing about the film is the attempt to cover the notion of exactly what is right and what is wrong in society and how the law treads that line and yet tries to do justice in spite of it.


I can't believe that they took this off the air. Especially, when they only had a few more episodes left. My daughter, sister and a few of my friends loved watching this show. We were so upset when they stopped showing this because of so called ratings. It is not fair to the people who were watching this show since the beginning. We had a right to see the end. I wish they would take an overall vote from all people with a 3 times a year voting system. They could send out papers in the mail and we as viewers could give an overall vote on all programs that we watch or have heard about. This could also help promote a new show. People would see it and wonder what it is. Not only could you see what the viewers are watching, you could also use this as a tool for free advertisement for TV and cable channels. We want to see the other episodes. Bring it back!!


This is an action Western. James Steart leads an all star cast in the scenic Northwest, which is filmed in great splendor. The scenery and costumes are great. There is action and adventure. Stewart plays a wealthy cattleman who runs afoul of a crooked government in the old Nothwest.

The main drawback is the stereotypical cynic that Hollywood has always made into a hero. Even when this movie was made, the cynic was the stereotypical hero, and the one Stewart portrays really has few saving graces. He is kind to his two partners, and that does give him an extra dimension of credibility and likability.

However, he is so piggish to everyone else, it is hard to really care for him, or to accept him. He is much like the one dimensional spaghetti Western characters (cut not that bad).

Still, the minor characters are quite enjoyable. Walter Brennan, Royal Dano, Harry Morgan, and others make this worth watching.


What happened? 'Doubt' had so much potential to be a brilliant film - but instead it faltered with a dragging simplistic plot line which made me want to stop watching. The only thing the film had going for it was the brilliance of Meryl Streep, who no DOUBT deserved the Oscar-nomination. Though it was not one of her best performances, she still gave a solid and truthful character to us which blossomed through the screen.

However, not even the brilliance of a screen legend could save this film from going down hill. From the boring start, which had no power or punch - to the less than convincing ending, the film was truly a disappointment - especially since it provided so much potential through its promotion and trailers. It was obvious the director had trouble with the simplicity of the plot and he ended up with a boring film, which dragged on for too long, with too much talk and not enough action.

Furthermore, the other Oscar-nominations were less than convincing. Though Philip Seymour Hoffman gave a decent performance, it was by no means Oscar-worthy. (Especially since they completely left out performances such as Will Smith, in Seven Pounds). Amy Adams did not deserve the nomination. Watching Amy Adams was like watching a cardboard box - as it was one sided and plain. It would have made more sense to nominate her for a Razzie, as I am sure she would have walked away victorious. Viola Davis gave a short but truthful performance, but the length of her performance made me question whether the academy really should have given her the nomination.

Overall, I consider Doubt to be one of the most disappointing films of 2008. It was a mess of a film with so much potential, and I do not recommend it. The only shining light in the film is Meryl Streep, who though gives a stunning, solid performance - doesn't even do enough to save this film. *** / 10.


beyond the fact crazy people exist and there are religious nuts out there.

The characters basically make no sense most of the time.

The film has no real beginning, middle or ending, nor is anything ever explained much.

The film opens with a young man, with the unlikely name of Hazel Motes, apparently returning from a stint in the army.

He hitches a ride to a two story house that is in extreme disrepair, windows boarded over. He goes in the house, walks around and finally writes a note that he leaves there. This scene comes to nothing, and we learn nothing further about the house or its history.

It is never explained exactly whose house this is, or where the people have gone, but we are given the impression Hazel has probably lived there at one time.

Hazel decides to go to a city. Why - we don't know. Once he arrives in this city he writes down a name & address that he sees on a bathroom wall, and goes to visit this woman, who is a surprisingly fat hooker. He sees her for awhile and then he apparently isn't seeing her anymore. Like everything else in this movie, it comes to nothing and serves no purpose.

A young man named Enoch, tries to befriend him, but Hazel really isn't interested, although they keep crossing paths.

Enoch is about as crazy as you can get. One of his habits is to go to the zoo and stand in front of the cage where the chimps are and talk at them insultingly.

We never really know why Enoch behaves as he does, or why Hazel behaves as he does, beyond the fact Hazel had an overdose of old time scary, fundamentalist religion via his grandfather.

Enoch later becomes enthralled with a man who dresses in a gorilla suit, and manages to get the gorilla suit from him and then runs around in it.

Hazel, who is wound rather tight and seems to be in a constant borderline rage does a bit of street preaching. I got the impression he was trying to free himself from the untruths of the religion that had been drilled into him.

He has several encounters with a preacher and his daughter, although their interactions never really make any particular point, and there is no plot line.

Eventually Hazel succumbs to complete religious fervor and begins self-harming.

It is a very odd film. Interesting in it's oddness but other than that it has absolutely nothing going for it.

The cast does an outstanding job,but this film completely fails to deliver either a point of view or a storyline.

The film also has the characters tossing around the N word from time to time with no connection to the rest of the dialog.

2 stars


this is the best movie i have ever seen and i love it very much is is so sad and loving i could watch this movie over and over again. when i first seen it on Disney channel i was like i would love to see this movie again. i would love to watch this movie everyday and i recommend it to anyone. this is really a good movie. to anyone who has not seen this movie and is thinking about it they better go and see it because it is really good. i love the part when the boy found out about the girl and from then on i was just all into this movie. if i could watch two movies everyday it would be this one and beloved those are my two favorite movies i really love them


'Valley Girl' launched Nicolas Cage's career and was an 80's version of 'Romeo and Juliet.' It is a definite example of an 80's teen classic. Nicolas Cage, Deborah Foreman and Elizabeth Daily all have brilliant portrayals in this movie, but it will never top 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High' as the ultimate 80's teen flick because if it weren't for 'Fast Times,' then the 80's generation of teen flicks would just be a big blow to the head. That's for sure.


I really must watch a good movie soon, because it seems every other entry or so is something that I despise. However my history speaks, I must not tell a lie. Bobby Deerfield and everything about it sucks big green banana peels. I never thought that I would see a film thud as thunderously as this one did. Al Pacino isn't acting in this film: he's posing. There are many, many scenes of his character, who is a race car driver, just staring at the camera. He's perfectly awful. Marthe Keller is just as bad. These two are supposed to be in a love affair, and there is simply no chemistry whatsoever. Sydney Pollack directed this film? There's no trace of the genius behind Tootsie here. Is this the same man I cheered for in Eyes Wide Shut? I can hardly believe it. Save yourself a horrible movie experience. Run, don't walk, away from Bobby Deerfield.


Like so many other reviewers on here, my memories of this show are universally warm. In fact, so fond are said cherished memories, that I recently purchased the DVD box set in order to revisit that happy and carefree period of childhood, whereby I used to sit utterly mesmerised, as I watched the ongoing quest of Monkey, Pigsy, Sandy, Tripitaka and later Yu Lung a horse/dragon/man (you'll really need to watch it to understand), when the much loved show initially aired on BBC 2 on Friday evenings, as I recall.

Well, I'm pleased to say that even after all these years and now viewing this with adult i.e. more cynical(!) eyes, the show has lost none of its inimitable charm.

Simply wonderful entertainment, from the magical characters and their comical interactions with one another to the perhaps not so special effects (which actually serve to heighten the fun) and of course, not forgetting the hugely memorable opening title sequence from the first season, the passing of time has not in any way, shape or form diminished any of Monkey's spellbinding charm.

As Monkey himself would probably say, 'Oi! You there! Go out and grab yourself some nostalgic fun.'