This is the best French movie of the year ! I saw it twice and I found it great both times. I didn't think it boring at all even though it is very long (3 hours). I'm seventeen so I obviously didn't get to live the events of may 1968 that marked an extremely important turn in French history, but it doesn't really matter since I still really enjoyed the film. It's actually quite universal : people of my parents' age can identify to the characters and so can people my age. Garrel seems to perfectly understand young people, the way they think and the complications of love as well as the loss of illusions concerning the possibility of changing the world. Maybe that's because the character played by Louis Garrel (his son)is actually meant to represent Philippe Garrel himself. Well anyway, great movie, no action (have to be honest on that point) but so strong feelings that you can't possibly stay indifferent to it. If you're looking for a relaxing Sunday-evening movie, don't waste your time on this, you'll be disappointed. But if you like cinema, you'll like Les Amants Réguliers which is a bewitching movie close to those made in the 50's and 60's by the Nouvelle Vague artists.


Honestly, I was disappointed in 'Expiration Date.' Super clever title and interesting premise, but I don't think it delivered. What was it about? The main character's desire to reconnect with his Native roots? Or, more likely, it was his need to overcome his fear of death. But, he wasn't set up as someone who has lived his life in fear -- it seems as if his life was going fine, but since doomsday is approaching he should now start worrying. I didn't buy it. Meanwhile, the supporting characters in the film didn't seem to have needs that blended into an overarching story. They were all just doing their thing, running parallel to the main character. Also, what was treated as a 'curse' looked more like a coincidence. Who cursed the family? Why? When? Finally, why didn't he just plan on staying in his apartment all day on his birthday? Those are my criticisms, but I did love the shots of Seattle, cinematography was beautiful, acting was good in the times it wasn't outstanding.


Oh dear . Yet another example of ' Oireland ' and religion . No doubt we'll be seeing some depressing nonsense featuring some ' hunky and macho freedom fighters ' from the IRA . Well that was my initial reaction when the credits started but just over an hour and a half later I was in a state of shock . What a superb movie

The story starts on the day of the wedding between Sean Cloney and Sheila Kelly in the 1950s . There is a slight problem since they're getting married in the catholic church and that is Sheila is a protestant but in order for the wedding to happen Sheila takes a pledge that her children will be brought up catholic and attend the catholic school when they're old enough . The story - Which is set in the 1950s - then jumps forward a few years when the Cloney daughters are about to start school but Sheila has decided they'll be attending the local protestant school much to the disgust of local priest Father Stafford . From there things escalate

Let me put my cards on the table and state that despite having both Irish catholic and Scottish protestant heritage I was brought up as agnostic and have considered myself as an atheist throughout my adult life . In fact when it comes to religion I consider myself a Marxist and religion is a cynical weapon used to manipulate people . A LOVE DIVIDED shows what happens when self appointed moral guardians take it upon themselves to tell other people what to think and believe . May I have the temerity to state that if Karl Marx saw this movie he'd love it and call it a masterpiece ? Perhaps I shouldn't since the drama of this story shows what happens when other people do your thinking for you

In reply to the couple of reviewers who have claimed this movie is propaganda of the worst sort I don't claim to know the exact details of what happened in County Wexford and there's no denying that Father Stafford and his flock of catholic sheep are portrayed as being the bad guys but Sheila isn't blameless herself . Think about a woman living in a rural village in 1950s Ireland who takes a pledge to bring her children up as catholics then changes her mind and believes there will be no consequences of this ? This is a warning against taking pledges and not keeping to them . Not only that but she disappears to let other people pick up the pieces of their shattered lives . There's also something that no one else has picked up upon and that is that the only character with any type of moral sense is former IRA man Andy Bailey who is shown as being gallant not because he was a former IRA member ( That makes a change . We're not talking about THE DEVIL'S OWN here ) but simply because he is an atheist who has decided to think for himself

A LOVE DIVIDED is a superb movie that has a lot to say for itself , all of which I agree with . If there's any sort of criticism it's that it feels too much like a TVM rather than a cinematic movie but believe me I can live with that and is essential viewing to anyone who thinks religion is the opium of the masses


This is one of those films that you watch with a group of people. You will have the best time. It's really, really bad, like Showgirls bad but without the quality of Showgirls.

You've got the best mix of bad actors, bad director and bad script here. Everything that can possible be wrong that can make for an entertaining evening, you have here. The first being the tag line is 'a bunch of teenagers...' These people are as much 'teenagers' as my grandmother.

The director has zero sense of suspense or tension. The 30 year old 'teenagers' are standing around and the 'monster' comes out and attacks and this pretty much happens throughout the movie when the monsters are revealed. There is no suspense building up to this or surprise or anything. It's more like when you were kids pretending to be chased by monsters and just kind of made up stuff as you went. And when I use the word 'monsters' I exaggerate. More like a couple guys in Halloween masks bought at the .99 cent store.

There is no doubt this script was spun off in a couple days, no rewrites and I can only imagine how bad and poorly formatted it looked on the page because it was clearly written by an amateur with no clue. It's another example of one of the bad things about this day and age: anyone can make a movie.

But of course the best bad thing about this film is the acting. It's as bad as you can get. There isn't one person in this who has the slightest skill at acting and the lead is the absolute worst. He delivers every line in this monotone manner without any expression and you have to wonder how someone this bad could possible get a part in any movie, no matter who he knows. When he had to 'cry' when his girlfriend was killed, it was one of the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie. Watching these people reciting some of the awful dialog is very very funny. But when the black guy said 'tell her...tell her...I love her...' before his death scene, there was a huge laugh among our group. Funny, funny stuff.

My only hope is this movie gets bad enough ratings to take its place where it belongs: in the IMDb lowest rating 100 movies. We can do it, folks!

PS. Is it any surprise that the one 'great' comment this movie got in here was from someone in Virginia (who has one comment, only on this movie and nothing else). And guess where the movie was made? Virginia. I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who work on the movie should NOT be allowed to comment on it.


A different look at horror. The styling differences between American and Russian films is interesting. However from my American perspective this movie just wasn't that good. The protagonist, Marie played by Anastasia Hille wasn't a pleasant character and I had a hard time identifying with her. She was disagreeable most of the time and confused for much of what little time was left. Also too much time was spent in bringing her to the main location of the film. Then a long time passed before any real suspense built up. Once that happened it seemed volume was used as the main effect which was more annoying than anything else. The concept was more original than most Direct-to-video movies and they didn't use sex to make up for a thin plot. All in all I'd recommend it for renting, but not for theater goers.


Its very tough to portray a Tagore novel along cinematographic lines.And if you forget an obscure production of 1967 then its the first time that chokher bali has been done on a grand scale. Overall the sets looked fantastic with the right touches for making a successful period drama.Prasenjit,so used to doing crass commercial stuff made a good effort.I saw the Bengali version and found that Aishwariya's voice was dubbed,which made her dialog delivery a bit poor. While the director did a good job portraying each of the characters with finesse,yet there was very little in the way of meaningful plot,probably a lack of the story itself.However the development of the characters including those with minor roles seem to be the strongest point.Its tough to make some Tagore stories into films,as only the visual parts seem to get realized.


Well, what to say...

Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...

VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... 'Those that should know, know'

Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it...


Loopy, but shrewd and formidable mob boss Vic (an excellent performance by Richard Dreyfuss) gets released from a mental hospital. Several of Vic's fellow criminal cohorts who include volatile henchman 'Brass Balls' Ben London (a gloriously manic and over-the-top hammy portrayal by Gabriel Byrne), the smarmy Jake Parker (a perfectly smug Kyle MacLachlan), and vicious rival 'Wacky' Jacky Jackson (a neat turn by Burt Reynolds) all try to bump Vic off. Meanwhile, laid-back and self-assured hit-man Mickey Holliday (nicely played with low-key confidence by Jeff Goldblum) finds himself caught in the middle of all this deadly lunacy. Writer/director Larry Bishop brings a supremely hip, quirky, and original idiosyncratic sensibility to this deliciously dark and deadpan pitch-black comedy about betrayal, loyalty, and ruthless ambition run dangerously amok. The bang-up cast have a field day with the colorfully grotesque rogues' gallery of blithely amoral and treacherous hoodlums: Ellen Barkin as tough, sultry moll Rita Everly, Henry Silva as Vic's reliable right-hand man Sleepy Joe Carisle, Gregory Hines as philosophical smoothie Jules Flamingo, Diane Lane as Vic's sweet, perky mistress Grace, Billy Drago as the slimy Wells, and Christopher Jones as brutish rub-out artist Nicholas Falco. Bishop makes the most of his juicy secondary role as lethal and laconic ace assassin Nick. Popping up in nifty bits are Billy Idol as a blustery thug, Michael J. Pollard as the ill-fated Red, Joey Bishop as mortician Mr. Gottlieb, Rob Reiner as a jolly chauffeur, and Richard Pryor as Jimmy the Gravedigger. Byrne's delightfully insane duet with singer Paul Anka on 'My Way' rates as a definite sidesplitting highlight. A tense and amusing climactic Mexican stand-off likewise tickles the funny bone something hysterical. Frank Byers' slick cinematography, the outrageously nutty dialogue, Earl Rose's jazzy cocktail lounge score, and a choice soundtrack of vintage swinging golden oldies all further enhance the engagingly peculiar charm of this immensely entertaining one-of-a-kind curio.


Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters.


Tess of the Storm Country was a Mary Pickford vehicle I had intended to get for some time. I finally found a VHS copy for a reasonable price and got to enjoy it.

Mary gives her typical spunky, innocently sexy portrayal of a wrong-side-of-tracks girl who wins the heart of a rich heir. Only this time the stakes are higher: a false murder charge, an illegitimate child (and ensuing case of mistaken motherhood) and contemplated suicide.

One can see why Pickford wanted to redo this one. The story is a real morality tale, the kind that she loved to star in. The controversial topics aren't always spelled out plainly; a viewer has to pay attention and pick up on hints to catch everything that is being implied on first viewing  although everything is more or less explained in the end.

About the only negative remark I can make would be concerning Jean Hersholt and the dog. Hersholt, whose character, Ben Letts, looks to be about 6-2, 200 pounds (bigger next to Mary, of course!), is sent fleeing in panic when a 60-pound chocolate lab charges toward him! Then, to top it off (or maybe to justify his perplexing fear of the dog), it manages to pin him to the ground and somehow injures him so badly that he is still struggling to get up much later, as a bad storm hits! This is the same lovable lab that sleeps with Frederick (Lloyd Hughes) and cuddles with Mary! Yet Mary later throws boiling water in Ben's face, which barely slows him! OK, I've vented about Ben and the chocolate lab! Other than that, the movie was quite touching and certainly held my attention. Pickford's supporting cast was strong and believable. This is certainly among her better films.


Why Jessie Matthews, one of Britains top musical stars, was in this movie in between her sparkling 'The Good Companions' and the classic 'Evergreen' is a good question? When I first saw it I was really disappointed. I wanted to see her sing and dance - she was billed as 'Millie - the non - stop variety girl' but there was more stop than variety.

Now I see it as a good little drama.

It is about a bus crash and the stories, leading up to it, of the people on the bus.

Apart from Jessie Matthews, who is great as Millie - Sir Ralph Richardson plays her fiancée ( yes, that's right).

Edmund Gwenn - who went to Hollywood to co-star in Lassie movies and also with Natalie Wood in 'Miracle on 34th Street', plays a grumpy businessman. Gordon Harker is his very annoying partner.

Emlyn Williams - who wrote 'Night Must Fall' was the black - mailing villain and Frank Lawton, who went to Hollywood and appeared in 'David Copperfield' and 'The Devil Doll' is the young man in trouble. Sonnie Hale who was married to Jessie Matthews at the time played the bus conductor.


This is a very good movie. Do you want to know the real reasons why so many here are knocking this movie? I will tell you. In this movie, you have a black criminal who outwits a white professor. A black cop who tells the white professor he is wrong for defending the black criminal and the black cop turns out to be right, thus. making the white professor look stupid. It always comes down to race. This is an excellent movie. Pay no attention to the racist. If you can get over that there are characters who are played by blacks in this movie who outsmart the white characters, then you shouldn't have any problems enjoying this movie. I recommended everyone to go see this movie.


First off let me say, If you haven't enjoyed a Van Damme movie since bloodsport, you probably will not like this movie. Most of these movies may not have the best plots or best actors but I enjoy these kinds of movies for what they are. This movie is much better than any of the movies the other action guys (Segal and Dolph) have thought about putting out the past few years. Van Damme is good in the movie, the movie is only worth watching to Van Damme fans. It is not as good as Wake of Death (which i highly recommend to anyone of likes Van Damme) or In hell but, in my opinion it's worth watching. It has the same type of feel to it as Nowhere to Run. Good fun stuff!


Fred 'The Hammer' Williamson delivers another cheaply made movie. He might have set a new standard for himself. Look for the painfully obvious special effects mortar cannon that is visible in the street during a chase scene. You don't see it just once, you see it several times. Look for the out of focus shot in one scene and the camera operator try to fix it as the scene rolls on. Watch this with a group of people and make your own Mystery Science Theater!


The 1998 Michael Keaton kiddie comedy of the same title was roundly condemned for it's, um, shoddy special effects, but compared to what Screaming Mad George cooked up for this horror comedy they're positively mind-boggling. The killer snowman seems to be made out of styrofoam and his arms look like oversized oven mitts. Which they probably were. The cast lays it on thick in this parody of dozens of other (much worse) movies and Paul Keith as the town doctor is particularly memorable in a small but hilarious role.


I liked most of this film. As other reviews mentioned it has a good cast, the plot is interesting enough. All in all it is fun to watch.

But the ending, I feel, is completely botched, it left me bewildered. Yes, you expect people crossing and double-crossing each other in this sort of movie, but quadruple-crossing? Well, if it's justified by the plot then why not?

But that's the bad part, there's completely no need for it. After a certain point it's all scheming with completely no meaning. (here comes the SPOILER). After the airport scene Enrico and his accomplices already HAVE the money. I couldn't understand the need for the rest of the scam. Is it all necessary just to rub Federico's nose in the fact that he's been fooled? I don't buy it.

So 6 out of 10 for 3/4 of the film and 2 out of 10 for the ending.


I saw this jolly little film at age 10/11 in 1979 when it was broadcast on CBS. I didn't know it had been in a theater at all. To rate it from a kids point of view I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars,because being a young boy at the time,it seemed a little 'girlish'.

The climactic scene where Gazooks tickles the daylights out of everyone was a bit disturbing at the time but you outgrow that sort of thing.

When I re-discovered it a Blockbuster Video in 1995,I had to revisit it! I still liked it despite the fact that it looked a bit 'old'. I don't know where the other reviewer on here got the idea that it wasn't on VHS.

It's out there. Might even be on DVD by now,at least I hope it is. I want to share it with my kids someday! 10 stars on here,it's still a great kids film. (end)

09/08/2009 : Finally found a VHS copy!! Woo-hoo!


Batman Returns It is my opinion that the first Batman of the Batman series was only half the movie that Batman Returns is. In the first Batman by Tim Burton we had only Batman and The Joker both played wonderfully by Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson.

In Batman Returns we have what I feel is the most perfectly cast Batman movie (yes even better then Dark Knight). Keaton returns as Batman and is perfect in the role never going to far over top with the character of Batman, which is perfect in this film when it comes to the two villains that he's up against. First you have Danny DeVito who is delightfully insane as the Penguin. Then you have Michelle Pfeiffer as Cat-Woman, who I dare to say is one of the most interesting and complex villains in the Batman movies. I feel this way about Pfeiffer because of the way she becomes the Cat-Woman she starts off as the rather pathetic mousy Selena Kyle and then truly dives into the dark side of her mind and what you get is a brilliant performance of a woman who goes from trying to be a hero to a villain and then I suppose back to a hero in the end. Also in this amazing cast you have the evil businessman Max Schreck played by the amazing and legendary Christopher Walken. While in a supporting role there's something about this role that I love and maybe it's the look of Schreck in the film that makes his performance all the better then it already is.

Story wise I have to say that Batman Returns has so much more going on this time around as opposed to the first Batman. Part of the reason I loved this story so much is the fact that Burton dared to go in a much more darker and twisted direction as opposed to Nicholson's over the top antics. You have the story on the Penguin and how he tries to deceive the people of Gotham into making him the new hero and mayor of the city. Then you have Cat-Woman and her struggle to decide just who she really is and what she should do with her new persona. When it comes to Batman I feel that in this one he's more the ring leader that holds the two stories together but of course kicking ass at the same time.

Cinematography was the film is dark and atmospheric just like the story that's taking place within it. Gotham City never looked as good as it does on Blu-Ray and HD so if you have the chance to see it this way then by all means do because it truly adds to the overall experience of Batman Returns.

So all in I truly feel that of all the Batman movies Batman Returns believe it or not tops the Dark Knight for me because while I enjoyed that movie for Heath Ledger's amazing performance as the Joker I felt that the movie was lacking something. Batman Returns lacks nothing, so if you want to see an amazing film with what I feel is a perfect cast then this is the Batman to light the Bat signal for.


Such a film of beauty that it's hard to describe. Maybe it's the absence of superfluous dialogue, or maybe it's the absolutely stellar soundtrack, or maybe it's just Meena Mumari's feet, but it's a joy to watch this movie again and again. I've never seen another Indian movie that comes close to it, and few from any country rival its perfection.


I don't know how this movie received so many positive reviews on this site! I'm a big vonnegut fan and am very familiar with the story this Showtime original film bastardized beyond belief, but even if I wasn't, the poor acting, VERY poor casting (Sean Astin as the brilliant, athletic, and all around individual, Harrison?? The guy's completely generic!) and sub-standard writing rendered this tripe barely watchable. Someone pointed out how cute that Maculay Culkin line was. If you read that and thought that was pure comic brilliance (sadly, it probably was the most INTENTIONALLY funny part of the movie), maybe you'll like this movie. But if you're a Vonnegut fan or not completely insane, don't see it. Please.


All right, let's be realistic about this. Nobody goes into a movie produced by WWE Films (whose owner has challenged God to a wrestling match), directed by a former porn director (the man gave the world the Between the Cheeks trilogy), starring a wrestler named Kane, and expects a little slice of art on a golden platter. If you do then you probably need to find something other than watching movies to occupy your time.

So what exactly are we to expect from a movie like this? Well, here's what I was looking forward to:

1) Bad acting. 2) A fairly non-existent, clichéd storyline. 3) Kane walking around with a scrunched, sour face that indicates his nostrils just found the potato salad he misplaced a month ago. 4) Tons and tons of gore.

Well, if you're hungry for some 'so bad it's funny' entertainment then this might satisfy your appetite because it delivers on all counts.

Obviously, movies like this are best seen for free, but if you do choose to sacrifice box office bucks then have some fun and make a game out of it. The filmmakers are nice enough to introduce us to each of the annoying delinquents by flashing their names and legal offenses on the screen. This makes it easier for you to write down which ones you want to see killed and in what order. You and your friends can see whose predictions are most accurate.

I also suggest that you and your pals write down every single moment of stupidity and inanity that you can find. Tally them up at the end and see who comes up with the most. I think my grand total was 107; can you beat that? I personally want to know how after 35 years and a fire does this abandoned hotel still have electricity, running water, and a working elevator?

I know, I know, the filmmakers are assuming that if you pay to see this then you obviously don't put much thought into what you spend your money on and therefore likely won't put much thought into how silly the movie is, but that doesn't mean we can't point it out and laugh at it.

I also like how the city wants to turn this huge hotel (which would be condemned and recommended for demolition by any sensible inspector) into a homeless shelter and they think the best way to get it cleaned up is to give eight punks a few mops and brooms. Uh-huh.

I think you pretty much know what to expect, but I feel the need to provide you with a couple of warnings. First, if you hate crowd interaction no matter the movie then you might want to stay away. The people in the audience acted like they were at an actual wrestling show. Shouts of 'Kill him, Kane!' and 'I hope you die first!' and 'Chokeslam!' echoed through the theater, showcasing what I hope is NOT the best of what America has to offer. I usually don't appreciate such audience interaction, but for a cheesefest like this I thought the commentary added to the entertainment value. However, I can see how others could be annoyed by it.

Second, and this shouldn't even warrant explanation, the film doesn't shy away from the gore. If watching a big ugly dude rip eyeballs right out of their sockets doesn't scream 'fun night at the movies!' for ya then you know good and well to save your dough.

I must say that I was a little surprised by the extreme lack of dialogue on Kane's part. I wasn't expecting him to put on an acting clinic, but I was hoping he'd have some cute little catchphrase like 'Say goodnight' (his character's last name is 'Goodnight') right before he killed a victim. Instead he uttered four words in the entire film - 'Nooooooo!' and 'I see it.' But hey, he delivered them flawlessly!

If I were a bad guy in a movie then my catchphrase would be something like 'Place your BETTS!' or 'All BETTS are off!'

It'd rule and you know it. We need a new genre term for bad horror films like See No Evil that induce so much unintentional laughter that you almost have to label them comedic. Feel free to send me your suggestions. For now we'll just call 'em HOR-larious!


Actually, I am not narrating the main plot in this comment but with just 2-3 sentences I can make it a spoiler. OK here are these-

Speed is just a 85% conversion of Hollywood flick Cellular into Bollywood by using the software Vikram Bhatt. Title has no match with the story, only it goes in the thriller direction. Just that!! It doesn't deserve even a single star for its imitation, imperfect casting, poor standard and predictable story. Undoubtedly now I can say that Viram Bhatt is slowly vanishing away from his director status as no any matured audience will appreciate his recent works including this. Beside him, Aftab Shivdasani too making his outlook as cartoon-comic type. Who knows how long will he last in the film industry more? Sometimes the standard in the performances and cinematography look like lower than a C-grade movie. But most supportive role was played by Zayed Khan which was somewhat identical with Chris Evan's role as Ryan in Cellular. With innocent face Sanjay Suri has no contribution in the movie as he has nothing to impress. That's why those who have already watched Cellular I advise you never to waste your time again with this imitation sack.


We have given this film one star for awful, however, it really depends on how you look at it. We are currently watching this on Channel 5 at 3.30am, and we haven't stopped laughing, so perhaps we could give it a 10, just for the entertainment value. Right from the outset, with the 'manic' thoughts of the stalker being relayed in comic fashion, we were laughing. Is it me or does that chick from Knott's Landing look like one of the characters from the Dark Crystal.

I'm not going to spoil it for you, however, you would have to be pretty stupid not to see it coming, i don't think its clever enough for double bluffs.

This has to be the worst/best film we have ever seen, if we'd been playing the 'spot the cliché' drinking game, then we be wasted by now.


I have seen bad movies before, but this one takes the 'Worst Movie of a Lifetime' award by far !! Anthony Hopkins has to be completely mentally ill to have his name attached to this one - anywhere ! I will never see another movie with him in it, directing it, etc., etc. ! I can't believe the other actors & actresses that I liked, (in this picture), that stooped so low to be a part of this disaster ! There must be some great drugs out there ! For anyone to not be embarrassed to be a part of such a film, is beyond me ! Save your money on this one ! HUGE FLOP from beginning to end ! Shame on you Mr. Hopkins ! Also, shame on Christian Slater ! I can't believe you put your reputations on the line for this one !


This is a stereotype plot. A young fighter tries to enter a competition when he is not ready and is not selected to represent his fighting school. This leads to separation from the fighting school and naturally he finds a strange new master to teach him to fight.

The fights are not of high standards. They are way too 'simple' in a way that 1+1 is simple to every adult. The fighter has trained and enters the ring, but does not do what he trained and gets an ass kicking. The coach yells do this and do that with no success. And after some more of this ridiculous beating he suddenly does what he is told and hits his opponent once. This results in a turning point in the fight, although our hero has been taking a beating of his life up until that point. Think about the Rocky movies and you'll have a good point of reference of how much beating he really takes. The fights are also shot poorly.

There final thing that screws this film up is the stupid romance. Cheesy music and awkward moments are not what I call entertainment.

These guys really could have made some quality entertainment, but the director wasn't up to the task. Or the other crew in my opinion. Maybe they had a small budget, I don't know, but what matters in the end is that this movie is bad and deserves the rating of 3 out of 10.


This movie worked for me because I see this movie as an exact opposite of 'Gone With The Wind.' Farm owners instead of plantation owners. Scarlett fights and connives for what she wants; Ada gets depressed and turns inside herself until Ruby, (Renee Zellweger,) shows up to save the day. Sort of, in a round about way. Deserters instead of officers trying to get back to their families, the lists goes on and on. Even the love story was opposite. If this is what the producer and writers were trying to get across it succeeded with me.

There are only two things I didn't like about the movie, the rest I thought was well done and I liked it enough to recommend it to friends. First, I couldn't see the attraction between Inman, (Jude Law), and Ada, (Nicole Kidman,) as being strong enough for Inman to desert to get back to her. Inman said he only had written to her a few times where Ada wrote to him almost constantly. Second, something or someone getting killed or dying in almost every scene was a little much. I must say it was full of action because of that, but after about the second scene I knew something or someone was going to die in the next scene. I like to be surprised by the next scene, not know what is going to happen before it does.

I thought all the acting was very well done, with Zellweger the best. She deserved the credit she got for it. I thought she played the part of the hillbilly girl very well. She must have done her homework on the part. Zellweger even said in the movie that she was smarter than people thought she was. I think that was true. Law did well with his part with all he had to go through to get back to Kidman. It must have been a lot stronger love to go through all that than I thought it was. Now he showed a lot of emotion in his face during his trials. Kidman's part may have had something to do with the fact I chose her performance after the other two. Except when she was depressed she didn't show much emotion, I don't know if that is how the part was written or if that is how she perceived the part. She still did a good job, I just thought the other two were better.

I liked the scene with the Zellweger, Kidman and the rooster, even though it was one of those scenes I mentioned above. I thought the 'Home Guard' was exactly as they probably were back then. Even though we don't hear much about them they were a part of that time. I thought the scenery was beautiful. The movie had everything needed to be a good historical romance.


This is an 'odysessy through time' via computer animation, supposedly th work of over 300 artists. Made in the late '80s and released in 1990, this was cutting edge stuff for the day. I thought it was good and quite interesting in spots.

Most of the short scenes made no sense, just forms evolving into other forms, but that was fun to watch. This is all about visuals, not really about any kind of a story. There were some strange sequences in which odd-looking men- creatures would dance around with birds overheard. All of it is computer animated which was new back then. Even the term 'computer animated' was not well-known.

It's simply a chance to show off this new technology in short bits of cartoon-like happenings with beautiful colors and imaginative scenes. No words, just pictures with electronic music. Stoners must have really loved this.

It's a nice, intriguing 40 minutes of 'eye candy' and 'head candy.' By today's CG effects this may have lost impact, but I think you'd still be entertained by this.


Strangeland (1998) D: John Pieplow. Kevin Gage, Elizabeth Pena, Brett Harrelson, Robert Englund, Tucker Smallwood, Amy Smart, Dee Snider (Twisted Sister), Amal Rhoe. Disturbing scenes of torture `highlight' this dark, disgusting movie about a sadistic psychopath who lures teens into his torture chamber via the Internet. Snider (from ex-80s rock band Twisted Sister) plays the putrid psychopath, who is a grimy `twist' (no pun intended) on Hannibal Lecter. Pena is wasted as one of the victims' mothers. Harrelson (brother of Woody) delivers one of the worst cop performances I have ever seen in a movie, and Rhoe proves why this is her only screen credit with an equally pathetic performance. The heavy metal soundtrack is ultimately numbing, the torture scenes very graphic and gross, and the ending just sucks. RATING: 3 out of 10. Rated R for graphic violence and torture, strong language, and sexual situations.


Sorry to go against the flow but I thought this film was unrealistic, boring and way too long. I got tired of watching Gena Rowlands long arduous battle with herself and the crisis she was experiencing. Maybe the film has some cinematic value or represented an important step for the director but for pure entertainment value I wish I would have skipped it.


After seeing the trailer it was an easy decision not to see this film. I mean, I don't care for stupid 'stoner comedies.' I'm sure it was also an easy choice for a lot of people to get together, smoke a bowl and go check out this flick with the guy from The Simpsons and some guy named 'Billy Bob.' Should have been a good time, but the film's just not that funny--too bad somebody had to go and bum their high.

Unfortunately, I found out that the trailer was misleading after it had already left the theaters, so I had to wait for the video. I really enjoyed it. Nice locations, quality production and excellent performances from the entire cast. Looking back at it, the plot twists weren't totally unexpected, but I didn't find it cumbersome because the premise was so engaging.

So why was this absorbing drama marketed as a comedy? Did something happen to the producer, leaving the associate producers to do the marketing by themselves?


That this film flopped at the box office, and still struggles for the recognition it deserves today, is a great pity - yet somehow rather appropriate. The commercial suicide the Monkees committed by making this film is mirrored by the metaphorical suicide they commit on-screen. To destroy so brutally their carefully constructed image as a wholesome American alternative to the Beatles is courageous to the point of rashness, as is the admission of being no more than pawns in the entertainment industry, trapped (in the movie, literally) in their own artificiality. The Monkees' television series was not that conventional, but HEAD is utterly plotless...although in the end there is actually some kind of circular logic to it all. Unrestrained by a genuine storyline, the surreal sequence of events is by turns hilarious and rather disturbing. The greatest irony is that the Monkees effectively signed their death warrant as a commercial force at a time when they were reaching their artistic peak. Their exploration into psychedelia reached its zenith with the soundtrack to HEAD (all the songs are memorably woven into the film), which is one of the landmarks albums of the 'sixties. The Monkees began to disintegrate after the box office failure of this movie, but HEAD serves as a noble legacy.


I suppose I can see why critics give this film two out five stars, it isn't fantastic, but I think it is worth a look, from director Shawn Levy (Cheaper by the Dozen, Night at the Museum). Basically 14-year-old Jason Shepherd (Malcolm in the Middle's Frankie Muniz) is often lying to his parents and teachers, and his teacher warns him that if he doesn't do his creative writing, he will fail his whole semester and have to repeat the grade during summer. So he completes his work, but getting a lift from Hollywood producer Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti), who hit him on the way to school, he manages to leave his paper with the story 'Big Fat Liar' in the car. He finds out from a movie trailer that Marty stole his paper and is turning it into a major movie, so he and his best friend Kaylee (She's the Man's Amanda Bynes) are on a mission to prove Jason is for once telling the truth. Marty of course is too nasty and smug to give Jason's father Harry (Michael Bryan French) a phone call, and he evens burns the 'Big Fat Liar' paper. So now Jason and Kaylee are determined to make Marty's life as hellish as possible, until he agrees to call Jason's Dad. They put blue dye in his swimming pool, and orange hair dye in his shampoo, and much more naughty pranks creating chaos for Marty's career. There is the obvious point when Jason looks like he wants to give up, but don't worry, all characters that despise Marty help out in the final operation, and with Jason's parents coming, he wants to finally prove his truthfulness, and boy does he deliver, big style. Also starring Amanda Detmer as Monty Kirkham, Lee Majors as Vince, Donald Adeosun Faison as Frank Jackson, Sandra Oh as Mrs. Phyllis Caldwell, Russell Hornsby as Marcus Duncan, Christine Tucci as Carol Shepherd and American Pie's John Cho as Dustin 'Dusty' Wong. Muniz is likable, Byrnes proves a very surprisingly talented support, and even though he is wasting his time and talent a little, Giamatti is great at being nasty. It is a kids film, so if it seems corny, cheesy or predictable, just keep that in mind, and try to enjoy the performances and slapstick. Okay!


I was entranced by this touching and hilarious film, not to mention surprised. I was also surprised to find that the voice of Paulie was performed by Jay Mohr. The performance was so finely nuanced, neither wavering into schmaltz nor becoming too hard under the New Jersey swagger, that I thought that this must be some unsung old pro, not the baby-faced Mr. Mohr. A very impressive performance, indeed, and it's gratifying to see his talents being taken seriously in a string of quirky, indie films.


Relentlessly stupid, no-budget 'war picture' made mainly to show off the attributes of the spectacular Eve Meyer--not a bad idea in itself--but that should be an embarrassment to everyone connected with it. Laughable 'script', performances that wouldn't pass muster in an elementary-school Christmas pageant, inept 'action' scenes, confused direction by the normally competent documentary director Louis Clyde Stoumen--who is apparently not quite sure if he's making a comedy, a philosophical treatise on the futility of war or a leering T&A (by early 1960s standards, anyway) travelogue of Eve Meyer's magnificent body--and a general air of shoddiness and incompetence. Worth seeing in order to watch Eve Meyer strut her stuff, but that's pretty much it.


This is a Frank Loesser masterpiece of amusing lyrics, competent themes and solid construction by those who adapted Damon Runyon material to the musical's 'book'. What is surprising about the film is how seamlessly the musical numbers flow from the storyline. Abe Burrows did the book with contributions from Loesser; Michael Kidd was the choreographer, and the outstanding art direction was contributed by Joseph Wright. The storyline can be told in two sentences. Nathan Detroit, played by Frank Sinatra, needs cash to finance his permanent floating crap game to amuse Big Julie, a Chicago Mob Boss. He bets odds-player Sky Masterson, well-presented by Marlon Brando, that he cannot get a Salvation Army girl to go to Havana with him; Masterson wins the bet, saves the Mission, falls in love with the girl, gets the gamblers and riffraff at the crap game to attend a service, and tells everybody the lady was impervious to his charms--a complete lie. Of course he ends up with the lady; and Detroit marries hi long-suffering fiancée, Vivian Blaine. Others in the cast include Stubby Kaye, Johnny Silver, Robert Keith, B.S. Pulley as Big Julie the Mobster, Sheldon Leonard, Regis Toomey, Mary Alan Kokanson, Kathryn Givney as the Salvation Army leader, Veda Ann Borg and Jean Simmons as the tepid Salvation Army girl, Sarah Brown. The famous musical numbers in this award-winning Broadway smash include 'Fugue For Tinhorns', 'Guys and Dolls', 'Luck Be a Lady', 'I'll Know', 'A Person Could Develop a Cold', and 'The Oldest Established Permnanet Floating Crap Game in New York!'. Joseph L. Mankiewicz of 'Cleopatra' and 'Letter to Three Wives' Fame directed the proceedings; and the flow of the work is very interestingly and successfully kept moving. He is equally adept at getting fine dialogue acting and directing such huge numbers as 'Luck Be Lady', the varied and challenging brawl section, the Havana 'A Woman in Love' section created for the film that precedes it, the presenting of the title song 'Guys and Dolls' and 'Pet Me, Poppa' set in the club where Blaine works. The acting is very uneven. Simmons seems wrong for the part at times, Brando gets by with the singing and is very good much of the time on instinct, charm and underplaying, even in the comedy. scenes. Sinatra tries hard but is wrong for the role for several reasons as Nathan Detroit; Blaine is a bit too-theatrical in selling her numbers, which she of course sings professionally. Leonard, Toomey, Kaye, Keith and Pulley do what is asked and more at all points. The stylized opening and closing are made to work well; all in all, this film is a triumph for Loesser's amiable and subtle lyrics, for director Mankiewicz as ringmaster, and for the genre of musicals itself, so ably justified in this instance. Delightful and very different.


This is the first time I feel the need to comment on IMDb, to write some sort of a review and, as it so often happens, it's not because of a really excellent film, but a truly appalling one.

Take the narrating style the youngest might relate to the Max Payne video game series, a cast of virtually unkonwns (which is not a bad thing in itself), poor dialogs, some dark scenes but not many enough, and make a film out of it. Don't worry about the bad acting, the length (way too long), the lack of immersion (the lead character has to be one of the lest interesting I've seen in a long time - couldn't care less if he died) or the often ridiculous solutions they find to certain problems the lead character finds himself in.

I wouldn't have written anything if it hadn't been for another review here, giving it 10 stars. I gave it four, but maybe three is closer to what I feel about it. Not only do I not wish to see it again, but the mere thought of it takes me dangerously close to wanting to kill myself. Oh, and a so called noir film is nothing without a good soundtrack - not the case here. The ending song sounds like it was more suitable to a western movie.

It's not romance, it's not action, it's not noir, it's not good. That would be my review if it weren't for the minimum of 10 lines.


Starts really well, nice intro and build up for the main characters but after about 5 minutes, the charm is lost.

The character is in the same mould as the main protagonist from American Pie and Loser without the supporting cast or innovative storyline that made the Pie movies more of a commercial success.

Let's be honest - Heder's acting was pretty poor. Keaton, Daniels and Faris did their best but had no substantial plot or script to get their teeth into The movie just plods on without any pace or clear logical storyline justifying its length.

The ending is about as predictable as they come - so predictable I've ticked the spoilers box for this one line.

My advice: avoid at all costs unless you really really have nothing else to do/listen to or watch and even then you'll feel the producers just cheated you out of an hour and a half of your life.


She has been catapulted from 13 to 30, with magic dust involved, courtesy the 13-year-old Matt, but nothing is made of that except as an unexplained device. New York City, especially Central Park, but also every other slice of the place incorporated into the movie, seems hope-filled and easily livable, and save for Lucy there's no villain in Jenna's adult life, and even Lucy is not cast as monstrous, only as a nasty 13-year-old grown 17 years more devious. Chris, the one-time boy object of Jenna's yearning, is now a porky cab driver, and you have seen enough films to know that Matt will play a major role in Jenna's future. You don't know quite what might impede this before it is finally achieved, though I'm here to whisper in your ear, so to speak, that the device is not unique. In fact, not only is this a variation on the theme of Tom Hanks' 'Big,' though nowhere near as fine, it is also a strictly by-the-book version of this subset of the Cinderella story.


The proverb 'Never judge a book by it's cover', was coined as a warning to those who fail to look beneath the surface.

As I viewed the artwork to,'King of the Ants' I instantly thought HORROR! The arcane imagery proudly displayed on the cover & back spoke of a dark vision, the synopsis promised a story of murder, betrayal, & retribution. Instead what I discovered beneath that surface, was less interesting than what you can find under your average rock.

'King of the Ants' features Chris L. McKenna as Sean Crawley, an average guy ready to make a name for himself in this world, even if it means murder. Except Sean Crawley is someone you don't care about, never once did I feel any compassion or sympathy for this character. In fact he's downright unlikable, but not as much as Daniel Baldwin (Ray Mathews)who turns in an uninspired performance as a made all the worst by the utterly laughable dialogue he is forced to recite. Throw in Kari Wuhrer as a grieving widow who apparently has unconditional trust (esp. in the homeless), and little to no common sense, and George Wendt as Duke, which is basically a sober Norm from Cheers but MEAN!

Now there are a couple of interesting 'hallucination' sequences in this film (the source of the cover images) but this film never delves further into that world. It prefers to bombard you with unmotivated characters, bad dialogue, and unlikely event after unlikely event. Oh the Horror!


I had to lower my rating of this movie to a 4 due to the terrible sound track. I'm pretty sure it was not a problem with me or the tape, because some actors and the sound track sounded great. But most of the actors voices were distorted or garbled beyond recognition, especially for non-brits.

There are plenty of cute little twists that would make this an enjoyable movie - ending up in Bosnia by mistake is great - but much of the humor was lost in the sound.


I am a sucker for films like this. Films that take you back and let you relive your childhood. I'm a grown up now and have many grown up responsibilities like a mortgage, kids, dogs, a wife and a slew of others. I enjoy my life but it is not as innocent and carefree like it was when I was twelve. Mike Binder's Indian Summer knows this and explores this like he was twelve years old. It brings you back to a time when life was simpler and much more fun. It brings you back to a time when worrying about your first kiss and wondering if you could finish the camp marathon were important issues. Indian Summer is a fantastic film and it is one that should be watched at least once a year just so you can sit back and laugh...and reminisce.

The film stars Kevin Pollak, Bill Paxton, Diane Lane and Matt Craven (to name a few) as childhood friends that are being summoned back to Camp Tamakwa by their former Head Camp Counsellor, Uncle Lou. Uncle Lou is played perfectly by Alan Arkin. He is kind of guy who is the patriarch of the group. He is also all knowing and encompasses the true spirit of a father figure and someone who understands the simple things in life. He has a hard time relating to today's kids that need a walkman blaring in their ears when they are at a place of immense beauty like Tamakwa. This is a camp that has moose wandering through the camp, leaves turning colours that God gave them and water for as far as the eye can see. Uncle Lou yearns for the days of old and asks his former campers back to the camp to see one of them will take over the camp. While they are all together again, we get to see their trials and tribulations and perhaps a new love could spring between them.

As the adults return to the camp, it isn't long before they act like kids again as the typical camp pranks get played all over again. They take toilet paper out of the stalls, the put toothpaste on sleeping bags and so on. All of this is done hilariously and with actors like Pollak and Paxton, it is all very funny stuff.

But beyond the hilarity, we get to explore some very real adult emotion that anyone can relate to. In one of my favourite scenes, Kevin Pollak and Elizabeth Perkins are overlooking a bay where they used to go canoing as kids. Pollak can't get over how small it all looks and Perkins finally tells him that the bay didn't get smaller, they just got bigger. It doesn't hammer the point home, but it does it subtly. We all grow up, we all move on and we all unfortunately can't live like we did 20 years ago. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Indian Summer is a character driven film and it is written beautifully by Mike Binder who actually did attend Camp Camp Tamakwa, (as did Sam Raimi, who played Stick in the film) and it is his fond and vivid memories of his experiences that fuel the film. There are many touching scenes and there are many hilarious ones also. Both are perfect.

I love this film. I love everything about it and it is a true hidden gem.

10/10


I happened to catch this movie on cable one afternoon. I have to admit that I've never been a big baseball fan, but I can sometimes get into a good sports-related movie. What I found more interesting was the depiction of the foster family system. As a therapist who has seen both the good and the bad of the community mental health and foster system, I though it was rather refreshing to see a movie that showed both the ups and downs of this system: people jumping from family to family, biological parents not always taking an active involvement, and transitions that can be but heart-wrenching and heart-melting. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Danny Glover are the anchor of this film, and both bring very believable performances. Maybe it was just my emotional state, but I did find myself shedding a tear at the end of the film.


Well, I guess I'm emotionally attached to this movie since it's the first one I went to see more than 10 times in the cinema ... helping me through my master's thesis, or rather keeping me from working on it!

But on watching it again several years (and many many movies) later - what a well-crafted little gem this is! I've never seen Gwyneth Paltrow in a more convincing performance, and Jeremy Northam is the perfect Mr Knightley - where does one meet such a man??? <<<sigh>>> Sophie Thompson's turn as Ms Bates is virtuoso acting of the finest (oh, napkins, sorry!) and the rest of the cast is no disappointment either - Toni Colette brings a lot of Muriel to her Harriet, and Ewan McGregor is convincingly charming - and Alan Cumming and Juliet Stevenson are the perfect 'impossible' couple!

Of course the sets and costumes, and the beautiful soundtrack contribute a lot to the feelgood, almost Hobbiton-like atmosphere of the movie - although as far as cinematography and art decoration go, it's almost a case of visual overload. Very very pretty, but a little more austerity might have conveyed a better sense of period. But the good thing is, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and there is plenty of fun - and some pretty cool editing - that keep it from sinking into saccharine Merry Old England mode.

My particular favorite is the ball scene - some beautiful acting and directing here, and the concluding dance summarizes the relationship between Emma and Mr Knightley just beautifully. Pity that the final proposal scene goes on for just a little too long - cut two shots (I can think of exactly which ones!) and it would have been much more in keeping with the rest of the movie.

Gosh, I just realize (by reading the imdb listings) that I've seen Jeremy Northam in at least three movies without even being aware that it was him - seems he's got a lot more going for him, as an actor, than just being a gentlemanlike English heartthrob! Hmm, guess I need to pay my video store a visit...

Lovely movie. My favorite Jane Austen adaptation so far - though perhaps Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility is, strictly speaking, the better movie, this one is closest to my heart - and I've certainly seen it many more times! Watch it if you can - and don't be too hard on its little imperfections.


This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common.


The Violent Men is a good western. Perhaps the story is not an original one -big ranch owner dedicated to run out small competitors out of a valley he needs for his increasing cattle- but the film has many ingredients that raises its level and makes it worth seeing.

The cast is a highlight. There's the reliable Glenn Ford (John Parrish) as a former army officer and now one of the small ranchers, who tries to stay out of troubles until he is pushed to hard. Edward Robinson (Lew Wilkinson) is as good as always as the crippled big man and Barbara Stanwyck (Martha) plays his treacherous wife in one of her usual mean woman roles she deals with easily (others were in 'Double Indemnity' and 'Blowing Wild). Brian Keith (Cole) does it perfectly as Robinson's gunman brother, an ambitious man trying to take over his brother's big ranch no matter what. Regular 50's westerns villain Richard Jaeckel (Wade Mattlock) is there too and ends as usual (no surprise there). Dianne Foster (Judith Wilkinson) plays Robinson's daughter who does not approve his father, mother and uncle's way of handling things with their neighbors.

Rudolph Mate brings a standard but acceptable direction, perhaps helped by beautiful and wide open scenery and a fine and appropriate music score helps too.

The inevitable final showdown between Ford and Keith is one of the best in western movies. Each man in his own dueling style (notice Ford's shooting with his straight arm and aiming at its target in the military way) settle their differences then and once and for all.

This is for sure one of Glenn Ford's best western appearances, second only to the classic '3:10 to Yuma' he made two years later. It's probably the cast that puts the film as an 'A' rate and, as for me, it enters the top 10 list of the genre.


Be warned: Neither Zeta-Jones nor McGregor plays the main part as the poster would have you believe. Their roles are in fact minor.

The film stumbles badly between exaggerated comedy and realistic drama, with neither being really engaging. Especially I find it impossible to muster much sympathy for the main protagonist, not to mention his screwball friends and sex obsessed fiancé. The plot drags terribly, and I turned this one off after about 2/3 - unusual for me, as I like to finish what I start. The good acting and beautiful setting takes it from 1 to 2 stars.

2/10


I actually caught an ad for JAPAN SINKS in a Japanese magazine last year, and wondered what the heck it was until I saw the trailer for the film. It was then I remembered that I had seen the English translation of Sakyo Komatsu's novel some years back. I got it, and it was quite good, as well as chillingly realistic. It's enough to make the reader dread hearing any news about earthquakes in Japan.

Now, I've read the book, and seen this 2006 movie version (the first movie came out in 1973). And you know what? I thought the movie was quite good, even if there are major changes from novel to film (but that's understandable). The story is simple--a major tectonic shift will cause Japan to sink within a year. Massive earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis rock the country as frantic efforts are made to evacuate as many people as possible. One scientist has a plan that could stop the sinking of the country and save what's left of the landmass, but can it be implemented in time? I saw JAPAN SINKS at Otakon 2007, and while there were a couple of problems I had with it--it does run a bit too long, and a couple of the character moments were a little too sappy--I was nonetheless blown away. The sheer concept of an entire nation sinking into the sea was made terrifyingly real, and the effects were some of the best I've ever seen, rivaling anything that Hollywood has done. The film also plays no favorites with the main characters, with some not making it to the closing credits.

Frankly, I've been surprised by some of the negative comments made about this film. Difference of opinions, I guess. Personally, I enjoyed it. And I've read the original book.


I rented 'The China Syndrome' recently mainly because I read that it was this film that inspired ABC to make 'The Day After'. 'Syndrome', however, is more of a thriller than a drama. The film is quite political, but I agree strongly with its message - nuclear power, though extremely efficient, is far too dangerous for common use. The risks are simply too high. Hopefully, the persons in charge of real nuclear plants are far more responsible and ethical than those depicted in the film. However, given that the real-life near-disaster at Three Mile Island happened mere months after this film was released puts that in question. (In fairness, that case was probably more one of incompetence than of corruption.)

'Syndrome' is not just critical of nuclear power, but also of modern news media, similar in vein to 'Network', only much more serious. Being a print journalist myself, I am quite familiar with how people perceive the media; but it was a little frightening to see that even in the '70's TV news was already selling out. When Jane Fonda's character tries to convince her boss to let her do real news instead of fluff, she is advised not to try the change, as 'research' finds that people prefer a pretty girl to do fluff, not hard news.

What truly makes the film memorable, however, is the incredible suspense generated in its final third. During this period, the viewer is constantly fearing for the lives of the protagonists, whether the danger is coming from hired thugs or the potential meltdown of the nuclear plant. And that very last scene - I won't give it away, of course - but it will keep you guessing.

On a final note, I did get a distinct feel watching the film that it seemed at times more like a TV movie than a true theatrical film. This could be, however, due more to the fact that the rental tape I was watching was quite old, and not formatted to fit TV screens the way videos and DVDs are today.


Ken Loach showed the world the down-and-out flip side of Swinging London with 'Poor Cow', about London woman Joy (Carol White) hooking up with a thief and having a son with him, only to see the man end up in the slammer. While his friend (Terence Stamp) manages to help her out some, he proves to be little better in what a loser he is. It soon becomes clear to Joy that she's going to have to make a serious decision about where she's going in her life.

One thing that I determined - I don't know whether or not this is accurate - was a use of irony in the movie. Her name is Joy, but she experiences no joy in her life. Even if that wasn't intended, it's still a movie that I recommend to everyone. Featuring songs by Donovan (one of which - 'Colors' - appeared in another Terence Stamp movie: 'The Limey' (which, incidentally, came out in 1999, when I was as old as my parents were when 'Poor Cow' came out)).


What a complete waste of time. The movie starts as a clone of the Saw series, but with even worse acting. Melissa Joan Hart is absolutely horrible. The ending is ridiculous and the story contains no twists, not plot surprises and just a plain bad ending. I liked some of the characters and I was hoping for everything to be tied together at the end. It just doesn't happen. It's a total 'Wrestler' ending with none of the good acting. I can't believe I spent the time watching this. It's not 'fun' as some people put it. A guy in a mask kidnaps people who are connected and forces them to figure it out. The connection is a stretch and he should have shot the main actress first.


Easily the best known of all the Shakespeare plays, it has been seriously let down here. Shoddy direction, stagnant studio work and erratic performances spoil a fine tragedy.

In the town of Verona, the Capulets and the Montagues have been feuding for centuries but tragedy is imminent when Romeo (Patrick Rycart), a Montague, falls in love with Juliet (Rebecca Saire), a Capulet. Bloodshed soon erupts...

The studio work, especially in daytime scenes, seriously stagnates the energy of the play. It's a story that, with it's energy, deserves to be shot outdoors. Coupled with this the costumes are hideous, with too many tights and ludicrous codpieces. The stage fighting looks horrendous, with far too much stretching and running around to be engaging.

Patrick Ryecart is too lightweight to be a truly effective Romeo. He manages the character's intensity when the plot gets going but his stately accent and bland, often inexpressive eyes limit his range. It is very hard for the audience to relate to this Romeo. Rebecca Saire is too youthful to be a good Juliet - she captures the character's naiveté but a little more sassiness would have been welcome.

The supporting roles don't fare much better. Joseph O'Connor's Friar Laurence is fine but too many of his best lines have been cut. Anthony Andrews' Mercutio belongs on stage and not on camera. He gurns and gesticulates excessively and looks rather ridiculous as a result. Alan Rickman, underplaying his role, has virtually no presence as Tybalt. He did develop an edge and intensity to deliver some fine screen performances in later years, but that isn't in evidence here. The Prince can be a fine role with his brief appearances but actor Lawrence Naismith fails to give the part any authority on camera. Only Micheal Hordern, in probably his best role in this series, comes out of this with any dignity. His Capulet is well-played and a joy to watch.

See one of the other versions of this story instead.


First I have to say that I have read everything about this subject and I know it inside out, and I was excited about finally seeing it, too. But you have to read only the book this mini-series is based on to realize that it's not the true story of what really happened almost 90 years ago. It's loosely based on the facts, the rest is taken from the scriptwriter's imagination. And unfortunately these changes are anything but successful and mostly totally unnecessary.

Where do I begin? Vita and Violet didn't use the names Mitya and Lushka until their affair started, and during it Violet also called Vita Dmitri and Julian. It was Violet who chased Vita with a dagger when they were teenagers. The 'seduction' scene when their affair started Violet was much more passive than represented here and certainly didn't kiss Vita first. I could go on and on, these examples were all included when the series was only just started. Besides all these alterations from the facts, the characterizations are also all wrong. At times Vita behaves like a mad woman. Especially the scene where she saw from the newspaper Violet's engagement announcement is just ridiculous. Vita kept her surges of emotion inside. It was Violet who was temperamental and let her feelings (good or bad) show. All Vita did when she read it was that she nearly fainted, that's all. Being a gentle nature, Harold avoided confrontations in real life, but here he is sometimes pretty stern and accusing. Harold and Vita always discussed their intimate things in letters, not verbally. And Violet... I know that this series purposely concentrated on Vita and Harold, but that doesn't mean that all the other characters have to be mere puppets on the sidelines. Here she is totally one-dimensional character, and the lines gave to her are mostly embarrassingly shallow. Actually she was intelligent, gifted, quite an extraordinary woman who has rarely given the credit she deserves. I have always thought her much more interesting person than Vita. In this series her unhappiness, loneliness and her problems with her mother are totally ignored. Viewer has also little clue of her background and family, what kind of relation (and marriage) with Denys Trefusis she had or how hard she battled over Vita. Vita was the only love of her life, her raison d'etre, and if Harold suffered during affair, so did Violet. After it her life was in ruins, and it took time that she could pull herself back together again. Statue could have acted the role of Denys, that much depth his character has. Lady Sackville-West is just a badly drawn caricature; an annoying chatterbox with exaggerating french accent.

The series ends to the totally badly written scene in Amiens, and that was the end of this affair, according to scriptwriter. No, it continued a whole year after that, and it's ending was much more lingering and sad than what was presented here. But what one cares about the stupid ending if the whole series has been stupid from the start. I have to give some credit to actors, they tried to make best of those roles given to them though Janet McTeer as Vita is the only one who really shines through. One can't complain the settings either. All complaints go to director and most of all, scriptwriter. Instead of insightful character studies, there are too many sex scenes and bland conversation. Many of the scenes are too long, some are pointless and don't bring anything to the story line. On the other hand many details are shortened or omitted altogether. Especially there should have been more information about Vita's and Violet's youth, and how their friendship developed. This is one fascinating story which would have deserved a much better adaptation. Maybe someday someone will do it. At the moment one can make much more of this story by reading the actual book or Violet's letters to Vita, which are brilliant stuff.


This movie is funny in more ways than one. It's got action. It's got humour. It's got attitude. It's got Dolemite's all girl army of kung-fu hos! And that's just what the movie offers as a film. It's also badly acted by some, the mic makes more than one cameo appearance, and some 'punches' miss by feet. But when you make a movie this cool, who's got time to pay attention to those 'details'? This movie rocks. Rent it tonight, if you can find it... I had to buy it to see it, but I don't regret it!


Oh boy. Films like this really bother me. If this movie is supposed to close to truth, then I assume that Rommel knew Hitler for a time before WWII started. In the movie, Rommel mentions how Hitler had changed from before. Well I can't imagine that Rommel wouldn't have known something about Hitler's government policies so Rommel must share some guilt for the German atrocities. With that in mind, I have a problem with a movie that makes Rommel's life at the end a tragic one. He made his choices and we have to feel bad for him? I can't do it. I also can't buy the theory that if the more competent generals were allowed to fight the war, the allies would have had more trouble winning it. If more competent people were in charge, WWII may never have started in the first place. From a movie watching aspect, the film jumps from place to place and most of the time seems like a history special with big name actors playing the historical roles. Leo G. Carroll has a couple of good scenes with James Mason and I liked the fact that everyone spoke English without the ridiculous accents. But other than that not very essential.


It's depressing to see where Jackie Chan has ended up. He used to be an unstoppable hurricane of punches, kicks and incredible stunts. To be fair, he's now in his fifties and one would expect some slowdown. But with 'Rush Hour 3', where he takes a back seat to Chris Tucker (of all people!), and then there's 'Kung Fu Panda' where not only is he in a purely vocal role but his character barely has any dialogue... to say that Jackie Chan has seen better days is a colossal understatement.

It's times like this when the only solution is to whip out a dusty old VHS tape and watch Jackie kick some arses in his younger, fitter, Chris Tucker-free days.

Enter 'Police Story'. Jackie Chan plays Kar-kui, a policeman whose task it is to protect a witness before a major trial. He faces resistance from both the unco-operative witness and the numerous hit men sent by the mob to silence them both.

But on the other hand, who cares? We don't watch Jackie Chan films for the story. We watch them to see Jackie Chan perform eye-popping stunts and generally punch and kick a whole lot of people who are less awesome than he is.

And on that level, 'Police Story' doesn't disappoint at all. There is an awesome showdown in a shopping mall at the end that culminates in Jackie sliding down a giant, high-voltage chandelier. Seriously, if this sort of thing happened more often, no male would ever need coaxing to go shopping for clothes.

There is also comedy, much of which involves Kar-kui inadvertently upsetting May (Maggie Cheung), his eternally suffering and apparently ever forgiving girlfriend. The humour on the whole is pretty unsubtle, but it works so I'm not complaining.

The acting isn't too subtle, either. Indeed, I'm not sure there was anything subtle about 'Police Story' at all. Director Jackie Chan (yeah, he does that too) clearly has a deep understanding of why we watch his films, and knows that while we're waiting for the next fight to start, the last thing we want is to be looking for nuance and depth and inner meaning.

So 'Police Story' is a blast. As is the case with most of his films, the fact that Jackie actually does the stuff you see on the screen puts it head and shoulders above the competition. I mean, when Jackie Chan really is hanging from a speeding bus by an umbrella, a whole new 'Wow!' factor is added to the action.


If I had realized John Wayne was in this movie, I would not have watched it. It's demeaning to the Japanese, unfortunate for Hollywood and embarrassing to any thinking person. But then, most John Wayne movies are like that. Hollywood in the fifties still believed that everybody in the world loved Americans when the truth was (and still is) somewhat different. The movie deals with the nineteenth century isolationism of Japan. Maybe it's Hollywood that should be isolated.To put it as succinctly as possible, this film is appalling jingoistic claptrap.(Sort of a Madama Butterfly with bad music.)


Another rape of History

This movie is a catastrophe; it just uses a historic story and makes a sweet love story, with bad acting and low budget production.

The movie should be 1/3 the time, they just dragged the time to make a mini series.

The battle scenes are so stupid and illogical, the solders log stupid, the costumes a catastrophe. The Romans were good in fighting in opened areas, one of their armies was completely destroyed by the Germans when they tried to fight in a forest, in this movie the Romans choose to fight in side the city, I mean get real.

And by the way Cleopatra was from a Macedonian origin, which means a light skinned person.


Having been forced by my children to watch this at least 10 times for each of the last 2 Christmases, I feel adequately qualified to pass judgment on this version of Dr. Seuss' classic tale, and well... it's not very good. First off, following a classic act like Chuck Jones' animated TV special is going to be difficult for anyone, but this interpretation is so heavy-handed and padded as to be positively numbing. I will concede that there are a handful of inspired gags, but overall the film comes off as a calculated cash grab, at the same time as it is supposedly decrying the commercialisation of Christmas. Jim Carrey is typically over the top here, but that is completely at odds with the character of the Grinch. As characterised by Boris Karloff, he was a slow burn; methodical and sly. There is no method to Carrey's madness, and that is only the most obvious error made. Talented actors like Jeffrey Tambor and Christine Baranski are utterly wasted here. Why, Universal, why? I mean , I understand that Tony Hopkins will take just about any role offered (much like his countryman Michael Caine), but this one needs to be filed under 'Films that should never have been made.' This does not bode well for the Cat in the Hat, an even thinner tome that Universal is prepping for this Christmas. I get the feeling that I will be making the same recommendation for that one as I am with this one: skip it, and either read the book or watch the TV special. This is 2 hours you can never, ever get back.


I am not going to lie, this is a great movie. I saw it about 4 months ago at my local theatre. I saw it a second time, and I was somewhat bored in the slow scenes. Sid (the sloth) is not all that flattering, but Diego (a mountain lion, I think) is really good in the movie. The animation is outstanding, and the story has a touching ending. It is worth taking kids 10 and under to, but teens would probably find it a tad bit boring. Also, the uniqueness in the characters is so interesting. Like I said, it is a pretty good movie, but I would rate 'Toy Story 2' or 'Shrek' higher. 8/10


Surely one of the best British films ever made, if not one of the best films ever made anywhere. Script, cinematography, direction and acting in a class on their own. This film works on so many levels. So why is it completely unavailable on tape, DVD. Never shown on TV? Why is it hidden away when it is regularly shown at the National Film Theatre in London to packed houses?


Please be aware that this film has nothing to do with the Radio City Music Hall! As an archivist re: the Music Hall..I know what is and what is not associated with the New York venue. The film's Theodore is just the 'Music Hall.' No Rockettes are in the film. Only wonderful ice skaters plus superb actors and fun. Just thought you would like to know. Truly a wonderful film. You will never guess who the 'murderer' is while watching this film....till the very end. What a superb plot and beautiful ice skating. One never sees that kind of performances any more. The Roxy Theater and the Center Theatres, in New York city, had ice skating performances on stage!


The thing viewers will remember most is the bad headache the movie has given them due to the overly flashy, shaky, camera-work and the fast, confusing cutting. I am not against those kind of stylistic devices if they are done right like Oliver Stone and Steven Soderbergh proof with most of their movies, but in this case there was WAY too much. It seems like the jump-cuts and light flashes that accompanied every flight over Mexico city and every important scene were there to distract you from realizing that the story is quite thin and the whole thing was very predictable. The biggest disappointment lies in the fact that you can easily figure out how the whole thing is going to end. For a movie that pretends to be violent, ruthless and morally corrupt it is inexcusable that it's story has been told so many times and with a lot more depth and character development. That is another disappointing aspect of the movie. If I want to watch an over the top action flick I do not need any justification, but this movie tried to justify the killing spree of Denzel Washington's character and poorly failed in delivering any believable performances. The first half hour or so nothing much happens except that dumb archetypes and clichés are portrayed and when the action machine starts rolling it is so quickly cut that you do not know what really happens. So the movie does not work either on the level of a believable drama/thriller , nor as a pure action movie. Of course the movie is not as bad as some oft the totally messed up blockbusters of the last years, but I absolutely cannot understand why so many people claim this movie to be something fresh and so cool. For a video clip it is way too long and for a movie it has too little substance.


Roy Andersson has managed to craft something that defies nearly all conventions of what a film should be, a piece of art that is both beautiful, funny and evocative at the same time. The end result is a moving, if somewhat fractured tale about humanity in its simplest and most honest forms.

This is unlikely to appeal to everyone, in fact the humour is so finely tuned that many are unlikely to get on its wavelength. The almost absurdly long takes, awkward silences and consistent medium shots will most definitely put off even the most willing of audiences. But it is within these disjointed tales and unconventional thinking that Andersson shapes a world where every character seems to take centre stage in their own absurd way. Each scene is absorbed by the desolate environments, with the characters seemingly left alone in their own oddity Its a difficult piece to watch at times, not least because like many of its scenes, it requires patience. But whilst some may hail it upon an artistic throne, others will simply look on in confusion. Its a film that blends understated humour with own brand of heart


A tragically wonderful movie... brings us to a Japan that does not exist anymore. Despite Hollywood's technical expertise, I have yet to see a (hollywood) movie that can match the authenticity of the atmosphere in this small town by the river near the sea... Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai looked liked the last installment of the Lord of The Rings in trying to capture rural Old Japan.

If you like serene but intense story lines, this is a must see film. It will be a respite from hollow flashy films much like the last 1000 blockbusters you saw. I think this is one of Kurosawa's better stories.

Even if it's a movie about geishas and brothels and the complicated rules that govern life in such settings, it did not turn into a skin flick. The characters are full of depth and act with much intensity.


What a waste. John Travolta and Scarlett Johansen deserved better than this. To start at the beginning, JT was horribly miscast in the lead here. The role called for someone who could convince as a broken-down anti-hero, someone who could look haunted and defeated. Billy Bob Thornton would have fit the bill, or even Al Pacino, but JT is just too alive, and looks to be having too much fun. Also, surely someone who has been through the mill to the extent JT's character had would have suffered some physical effects? The character presented to the audience looked as if he could start as tight end for the Oakland Raiders. Scarlett faired little better role-wise. Where was the pain and conflict of what should surely have been troubling development? And as for the 'plot' ... well, none of it makes sense. The characters leap from one frame of mind to another seemingly without cause - and certainly without explanation. The pace of the film also leaves something to be desired, namely, pace. This is a very slow film, not that I have anything against slow films, as long as they are heading somewhere. The pace only picks up towards the very end, when it shifts from a slow dirge to a frantic race to pack in as many tired clichés as possible. In this it succeeds - the only thing missing being something involving a small dog. 3 out of 10 for this one purely for Gabriel Macht's performance - he was the only member of the cast who was a) well cast and b) able to convince in his role. All in all, a terrible disappointment and a real waste of a couple of hours.


i really liked this film.it features John Wayne in his first starring performance.even then,you can tell Wayne has a real presence,although he wouldn't really mature into the icon he is known for until Stagecoach,9 years later in 1939.it's about settlers from all over the country heading to the new west to colonize it.Wayne's character Breck Coleman joins up,but for his own personal reasons.most of the main actors were stage actors and had never done a film before,which makes the movie even more amazing.they managed to create believable,distinctive characters and there is quite an oddball mix here.Cimarron would come out a year later,and had a very similar story,though i didn't like it as much as this movie.for me,The Big Trail is a strong 8/10.


I love the munna bhai MBBS but 'Lagge raho...' SUX really SUX. I have never seen such a boring movie in my whole life. And these high ratings really astonished me that wat happened to the taste of Indian cinema viewers ??

**MAY BE SPOILER**

An educated girl needs an advice from a Bhai, people discussing their personal prob. on phones come on man from which part of the world u r ??? I agree that films should be fictitious but these things are really indigestible.

2 out of 10. (2 stars is for 15 mins good starting)


Highlighting the acting of Sidney Poitier and the brooding on-screen presence of John Cassevetes, The Edge of the City is a highly-watchable film from the fifties, directed by Martin Ritt. There is great acting and stunning on-location photography in black and white.

Poitier is a delight at this point in his career and Tommy Tyler, the character he plays is happy and outgoing. He befriends Axel Noordman, played by Cassevetes, who is a young man suffering from poor self-esteem and a past that he wants kept under wraps. Tyler, a black man, brings his friend out of his shell and introduces him to his family and a new girlfriend.

Tyler and Noordman are employed on the New York docks at a time when the workers were expected to tow the line, if they knew what was good for them. The boss Charles Malik, played by Jack Warden, in one of his many hard-bitten roles becomes the focus of discontent, which leads to a climactic showdown with Noordman.

At the end of the movie, we are left with mixed emotions. However, the two main characters have left the audience with a story of friendship between two different men in a hostile world.


I loved this film because in my mind it seemed to so perfectly capture what I imagined life in French colonial Africa must have been like in the 50's ('my' generation anyway). But I was truly enraptured by its quiet pacing and by the glorious ending. Within the last 5 minutes of this film, you must focus intently on what's happening. Never have I been more impressed with the 'wrap-up' of a film. I remember yelling 'wow!' when I realized it was over. On the other hand, my two daughters fell asleep on the couch!!


Rickman is sexy and good, but the 'stranger' is less convincing - Reedus is sort of sexy, but he is not a consistent actor - this could be the director's fault in this case - we are supposed to find him alluring in the extreme just because he is 'pretty' - but that's not enough. The thwarted wife is almost convincing - 7 years marriage and she and Rickman's character should be more settled with each other, whether their roles are to be incompatible or not - they must have patterns by now. i get that, although i think the wife is a bit stiff in her role - and not convincingly attracted to the 'stranger' - so that's a failing - the unspoken bonding between the Rickman character and the 'stranger' is better done, even if we are not sure what it is. i miss Rickman's sexy English accent (luckily he slips into it and out of the American pattern). disappointing but with some great acting.


I am ashamed to say it, but I have to admit, the first time I saw this film was only about a year ago. After seeing it, I immediately rushed out and bought the DVD collectors' edition and have watched it many times since.

The film is terrific on many levels. It works as your straight monster or action type film, as a horror/sci-fi and also as a very intriguing look into the human psyche. The incredible sense of paranoia, mistrust and fear, lent not only by Carpenter's direction (which is stunning) but also by the incredible acting of the cast in general. Kurt Russell (obviously) is spectacularly understated in the lead role of MacReady, and, as a direct result he 'feels' like a real person, rather than a hollywood 'all american hero'. The other cast members all carry off their roles with style, and the net result is an intensely believable atmosphere, and a truly fantastic film.


I couldn't keep from commenting after reading the very short 'Not bad' commentary. This movie is much better than just not bad. The acting is stellar, even from the children in the cast, who don't play cute or anything else but act just like my son's friends. The movie is smart and expects it's audience to be as well. The double back flash story lines are imaginative and contribute to the story rather than act as time filler. I watched this movie with my kids and then I watched it again by myself a few days later. If you have kids and are sick to death of movies that inspire a diabetic coma with their syrupy sweetness, then check out 'Holes.' My 6-year-old enjoyed it as much as my 11-year-old, and my husband and I enjoyed it as much as the two of them. How many movies can you say that about?


This film has some pretty gorey parts like a boob getting bit off and a other big bites. Castle Freak himself is a good monster. I would be scared to pieces if he was coming after me. However, the movie had some dumb parts about it.

A husband goes drunk driving and kills his 3 year old son and blinds his teenage daughter. I suppose death is a greater damage than blindness, but you'd never know that the parents actually feel bad about their daughter being blind. All they care about is that 'J.J.'s dead!' While their teenage daughter walks around running into things and talking about how she'll never be able to drive a car. The parents are like - 'honey, stop walking around without a guide, you know better than that,' and then they cry and don't ever stop being depressed because JJ's dead. Sounds like favortism to me.

 The lines of dialogue are not very realistic or well done. For example, when a giant crash is heard in the castle, everybody runs down into the basement to see what it was. It was a huge mirror that crashed to the ground and shattered. The husband runs to the broken mirror in horror and plainly says, 'The mirror broke.' I don't know, I would say a little more than that if a giant mirror mysteriously crashed to the ground in my castle.

 The husband and wife have some major relationship problems and it's funny to watch how dumb they are with each other. No one ever believes the blind girl. Advice: If a blind girl says she hears things, believe her and don't tell her to shut up. I think this is the moral of the story. Listen to people when they tell you things or else you might end up killing yourself to prove your point.

 Lastly, I thought the best character was the main police officer. He was the best actor and character. Everyone else (besides Castle Freak) was pretty run of the mill. 3/10


It comes as no surprise that Larisa Shepitko was married to Elem Klimov, who would later direct the most harrowing war film ever made, 'Come and See (1985).' 'The Ascent (1977)'  Shepikto's final completed film before a premature death  is built in very much the same mould. Set during WWII, the film follows a pair of Soviet partisans who try to secure food for their starving army while evading the occupying German forces. The first forty minutes are agonisingly tense, as the two men drag themselves though the harsh, snow-covered landscape, the world around them completely sapped of life, warmth and colour (indeed, so monotonously drab is the scenery that it literally took me this long to realise that the film was shot in black-and-white).

Following the partisans' capture by German soldiers, the film becomes a cold meditation on loyalty and morality. Whereas Sotnikov (Boris Plotnikov) refuses to betray his army, even under extreme duress, the less resolute Ryback (Vladimir Gostyukhin) attempts to save himself. Is he wrong to do so? Ryback's betrayal is disheartening, but the film doesn't immediately condemn his actions are treacherous; instead, the viewer is forced to consider what their own response might be in such a situation. Shepitko pities Ryback as the Bible pities Judas. Both men betrayed their allies to the enemy, and were forced to watch them executed. However, whereas Judas committed suicide by hanging (at least according to Gospel of Matthew), Ryback finds even that option closed to him  in an excruciatingly taut climax, the belt around his neck becomes unfastened.

'The Ascent' draws its emotional power from Shepitko's astonishing pursuit of realism. I have no doubt that the two principal actors spent days on end clambering across the snow-covered earth on their hands and knees, and, indeed, so convincing is their misery that I actually developed a cold while watching the film (seriously, I did). Interestingly, the film interjects on this reality on several occasions, as Ryback imagines himself making a bid for freedom, and then being gunned down by his German captors. This device, though unusual, works well with its Biblical allegory; Ryback is facing a trial of his worthiness, and, faced with a new dilemma at every turn, he consistently chooses the selfish alternative, his own life the only deciding criteria. At film's end, he is still alive, but the nightmare of war and guilt persists.


Anton Newcombe and Courtney Taylor are friends, they both are the leads in their own respective bands; Anton with The Brian Jonestown Massacre and Courtney with The Dandy Warhols. What's interesting about their friendship is that they are rivals; its a love hate relationship. At times you both hear them praising one another, but the next second they are complaining at how stupid and self absorbed they are. While the Dandy Warhols went on the reach commercial success, BJM still was stuck in the underground scene; and for good reason why.

The focus of Dig! is more towards Anton and the BJM, as they have a lot more substance. They are the most dysfunctional band. During gigs they will fight and bash each other. Anton will hit other members if he feels they aren't performing correctly. With the amount of drugs an alcohol they consume, fight was always waiting to happen. You know how people go to car races just to see if a huge car crash happens; that's why people would go to their gigs, for the fights.

Anton is very unstable. Always thinking himself as a music messiah, he wants to change music and create a revolution, but he could never get out of the underground. He is a very talented musician, its amazing how many instruments he can play and with such skill. But his draw back is he cant escape the world he created; a prolific musician stuck in a black hole drugs, alcohol and depression. On the other side, the Dandy Warhols were having their own troubles. They didn't find much success with their first album and were constantly fighting with their record label. But they found huge success in Europe. But Courtney keeps being sucked back into the world of Anton. Its interesting that both Anton and Courtney both had what the other needed. Courtney always wanted to be musically talented as Anton, though Anton wouldn't say it, he needed the commercial success that the Dandy's had, to make his revolution.

Over the seven year course the film crew followed these two bands, there is a lot of footage. There is never a dull moment in Dig!. It is constantly moving along as it doesn't have time to slow down as it has to much to say, seven years of story telling in the 1h 45mins is a hard job. Ondi Timoner has done a great job of piecing together one of the best music documentaries that makes you always wanting more. Even if you don't like the bands it still deserves viewing; it transcends the music to reveal a great story of a successful failure.

You wont be disappointed.


This movie gives you more of an idiea how Australians act. Even though The Castle is a great Australian movie, it's a bit out there. This movie is by far the best Aussie flick I have seen (haven't seen Dirty Deeds yet) and probably would be my favourite movie. The point is, if you haven't seen it, go see it. If a crime/action/comedy is your thing.


When I saw this movie for the first time I was both surprised and a little shocked by the blatant vibrance of the story. It is a very artistic drama with incredible special effects, spectacular acting, not to mention a very excellent job in the makeup department. Jennifer Lopez has pulled herself out of past roles that dug into her career with this movie, portraying a very sensitive child psychologist who works with a team of engineers to enter the minds of comatose patients to treat them. Vincent D'onofrio played amazingly well. His portrayal of a sadist serial killer was perfect to a T. The sheer emotion conveyed by his performance is astounding. Vince Vaughn isn't my favorite, but still performed exceptionally well. The symbolism and artistry was intriguing and titillating, sometimes surprising, and other times shocking. Overall, I say this is a wonderful movie, with excellent acting and beautiful artwork.


utterly useless... having been there, done that with the subject matter i have to say this captures the clubbing atmosphere in absolutely no respect. It may have done so had the characters not just been mouthpieces for incredibly dire, unrealistic drivel. So many cringe-worthy scenes that would put The Office to shame (not a compliment to this film). It also may have helped to have some semblance of a story, a point, a message, a commentary, anything. Seriously, Kevin & Perry Go Large had more to say on the subject than this film (term used very loosely in this case). There should be minus numbers reserved for films like this. -10 (extra turd)


I love Westerns. I could watch them all day. 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' is my all time favorite. I watched 'Silverado' for probably the 8th time just the other day because it was being featured on CMT. However, this movie, Shiloh Falls is without a doubt the worst Western I have ever watched. The acting was terrible all around. They explain nothing at the end of the mysterious compass looking thing. The only good part I can think of is the good-looking cantina girl. The very noticeable long pauses between the dialog seemed intentional just to make up time to make the movie of acceptable length. This movie wasn't even worth the new rental fee I paid at our local movie rental store. I felt like I was robbed and deserving of a rental refund if there was such a thing. Only reason I finished it was because I hate to not see a movie through to the end. I turned it off half way through because it was so bad. To the director, please do a better job if you decide to make another. This is the kind of movie that has the potential to turn people off to Westerns.