Inglorious Basterds is a dark and violent comic fantasy, gloriously so. Built on the framework of The Dirty Dozen, Inglorious Basterds ditches the elongated training sequences of The Dirty Dozen to plunge into the action right away. In the process, Tarantino fixes one of The Dirty Dozen's major flaws by giving the bad guys screen time to remind us just how bad the Nazis were. The Nazis with the most screen time end up becoming the most completely human characters in the film, which ironically makes them even worse monsters.

Bu ditching the training sequences, Tarantino is also able to give us a picture of the entire war, showing us not only British, American and German soldiers, but also giving us glimpses into the world of French and German civilians, both collaborators and Resistance.

It goes without saying that any Tarantino film is going to have fantastic dialogue, but when Tarantino made the decision to have the French characters speak French and the Germans speak German, beyond adding a level of authenticity, Tarantino also somehow ensured that his dialogue in French was as sharp and funny and clever as his English dialogue.

Case in point, during the opening sequence the Nazi 'Jew Hunter' SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christian Waltz) is interrogating French dairy farmer Perrier LaPadite (Denis Menochet). Landa suspects that LaPadite is hiding a family of Jews. While subtly pressuring LaPadite, Landa asks for a glass of milk. After greedily gulping it down, Landa compliments LaPadite on his daughters and his cows, 'à votre famille et à vos vaches, je dis bravo.' The thing of it is, in French 'vache' means cow, but it is also a vulgar name for the vagina. If reprimanded for this vulgar pun, Landa could quite convincingly claim not to understand French well enough to have meant it that way, but Landa does mean it that way and he means it as a threat. And LaPadite understands his meaning all too well.

That is a really subtle piece of acting and word-play that many audiences would never catch, or at least they might understand the subtext without knowing the exact nature of the threat. The film is rich with that kind of detail. All of the French and English dialogue is chosen with that same attention to detail and while I can't swear to the German, I would suspect that it shows a similar level of craft.

Inglorious Basterds opens with the phrase, 'Once Upon a Time... in Nazi-Occupied France.' Personally, this reminds me of the opening of every Asterix book and movie, another comic fantasy in a war-torn occupied France. Like Asterix, Inglorious Basterds is howlingly funny in places, although the film also turns darkly serious.

In its more serious moments, Inglorious Basterds reminds us that the first casualties of war are compassion and the ability to relax, as in almost every elongated sequence of the film, Tarantino finds a new way to build cruel tension to almost unbearable levels.

Tarantino also reminds us that film is dangerous, even inflammable and that its power deserves respect.

If you can see this film as I did in a packed theatre filled with knowledgeable fans who get every joke, that you will see this masterful film the way that it was meant to be seen. If you are not that lucky, all that you will see is a great, great film that delivers a darkly funny punch.


I didn't know what to expect from the film. Well, now I know. This was a truly awful film. The screenplay, directing and acting were equally bad. The story was silly and stupid. The director could have made a smart and thought provoking film, but he didn't. I squirmed in my seat for the last half of the movie because it was so bad. Where was the focus to the film? Where was anything in this film? Christians should boycott this film instead of promoting it. It was shabbily done and a waste of my money. Do not see this film.


Warning: contains a spoiler. Corny plot and in many cases terrible acting. Fontaine is great, but some others, particularly Richard Ney, Ivy's husband, are exceedingly wooden. Ney lies in bed, dying of arsenical poisoning, with every hair in place. Yet the movie is so juicy and so suspenseful. More faithful to the book than most movies of its era. Casting Joan Fontaine as a poisoner (and an adulteress, which was just as shocking then - I'm not kidding, kids) was a masterful stroke. She's just her usual Joan Fontainey self. As murderers were supposed to, she dies by falling 'feet foremost through the floor into an empty space.'


Is this the future that awaits us? An overpopulated, unforgiving wasteland with a hellish, unwanted existence? This film brings to mind a problem that still plagues us, doubly so since the film was released in back in 1973. Let's hope that the world isn't going to end up like this...

Soylent Green is a wild movie that I enjoyed very much. It had likable characters, a semi-apocalyptic setting, a compelling and thought-provoking storyline, and the macho-est macho man out there: Charleton Heston. Richard Fleischer gave the movie a very unpleasant, dirty feel. You're almost choked by the stench from the city and its filthy inhabitants.

The characters are wonderful. Charleton Heston, who has become one of my favorite actors, IS Thorn. The man created this role of badass, yet likable tough-guy. I could definitely put myself in Thorn's shoes. He sees that something isn't right, but everyone around him either doesn't listen (more like paid not to listen) or wants him dead. Edward G. Robinson (in his last film, R.I.P.) plays the lovable old Sol, who has had enough of this nasty place. Everyone else is great, especially Leigh Taylor-Young as Shirl, a piece of 'furniture' that comes with the apartment in which she resides.

The special effects are fantastic, even for 1973. The Soylent Green factory, the futuristic apartments, and especially the 'scoops' (bulldozers that get rid of people) were excellent. The polluted air outside looks disgusting and very nasty. The empty city streets filled with the vile and putrid people are very unsettling.

One final note is the ending, which even now still shocked me. It is gruesome, but if you think about it, it's a pretty good idea.

The Bottom Line:

An excellent 70's Science Fiction flick that makes you think and leaves you feeling very uneasy.


like in so many movies of the past, you would think Hollywood would learn this by now, makes for a very disappointing movie, not to mention, make sure the kidnapped victim is alive first before paying the ransom.

Maybe this film wants to remind of these basic facts in case it should ever happen to one of us. Why the long walk in the woods and can a city guy really go through the woods without getting lost? Just an opportunity for some sentimental dialog that was meaningless in the end.

I had to listen to part of the director's comments in the special features section, from the great moves that Redford has made in the past, (Sneakers for one) surprised he agreed to star in such a film. The director's comments and reasons were weak.

The best parts of this movie was the scenery, can't wait for spring to come.


This movie has been a favorite of mine and is entwined with the Christmas Holidays for me for two reasons: (1) growing up in the 1960s, everything was space-related from advertising to television programs and even Santa Claus found himself in spaceships during that era; and (2) I saw this movie during a Christmas shopping trip when I was ten years old and it brought back fond memories of my favorite TV shows when I was even younger ('Supercar', Fireball XL5', and 'Stingray',). Therefore, I am a tad biased when it comes to this movie for personal reasons.

That said, as a long-time student of film, this is mainly a movie for fans of Gerry Anderson (and Barry Gray; oh, that gorgeous score!) whereas the casual movie-watcher will be put off by the future-vision-from-the-past (dig those wild cars, commercial aircraft, clothes, etc.) and the so-called 'plot twist' which will cause some to groan. However, if you can look past the post-'2001: A Space Odyssey' desire to make a science fiction film with a 'far out' story line, and if you enjoy imaginative special effects, then you will enjoy this gem from an era when man had just walked on the Moon and people were still looking up at the stars in wonder and hope for the future rather than looking down at the banal trappings of the actual 21st Century.


Count me as being one who is happy to see no Hastings in this episode. The poor-man's Dr. Watson does nothing for me, as he simply drags down every scene he's in. Japp is often necessary to the story as the representative of officialdom, and a little Miss Lemon is fine for seasoning, but Hastings swings from painfully dim to over-mannered in different episodes. If I have to sit through one more vacuous 'Oh, I say there!' I'll take the gas-pipe.

As a general rule, the more Poirot you get in a Poirot story, the better. Every line for Hastings is one taken away from Poirot. And I've never read the books, so I really don't care about fidelity to Christie's characters. A lot of viewers/reviewers seem to have a problem with separating the movies from the books. If you want the book as written, then read it. I don't see the point of watching the television version if you know what will come next at every stage. Theatre is not prose - don't expect a transcription.


The show's echoed 'bubbling' sound effect used to put me to sleep. A very soothing show. I think I might have slept through the parts where there was danger or peril. I had also heard that some set up shots for a show on sponge divers was shot in Tarpon Springs, Florida. I would assume Lloyd Bridges never dove there. I only remember the show in reruns and although it was never edge-of-the-seat exciting we would make up our own underwater episodes in the lake at my grandmother's house... imagining the echoed bubbling sounds and narrating our adventures in our heads. I thought 'Flipper' had better undersea action. Of course, he had the advantage of being in his natural environment.


Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings. His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the fun.

Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is sure to please.

ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM


A lot of people unfairly sh!t on this series but several of the Guinea Pig videos are fairly entertaining. Devil's Experiment in particular has some really fantastic effects work--not just the infamous eyeball scene but also a very realistic skin slice on the foot and a hand breaking with a sledgehammer are very realistic--especially for the video's vintage and low-budget.

Let me start at the beginning now for those who don't know: This film is an 'extreme' torture/fake snuff film that surfaced in Japan in the mid-80s. It's plot as it stands is simple: A young girl is held by a few men and forced to undergo a series of brutal tortures to see where her breaking point is. This entails brutal violence--all effectively realistic effects including the ones mentioned in the last paragraph as well as a painful looking application of hot oil to the captive girl's arm and placing of maggots in the subsequent flaky wound.

The least effective sequences are at the very beginning of the video and consist of an unconvincing slap session where three men take turns slapping the hell out of the girl as her head falls about and a second sequence where the three men take turns kicking the girl and pushing her to the ground. These two scenes are obviously staged and detract from the realism of the rest of the proceedings.

The actress who plays the victim of the 'experiment' is pretty convincing at being in pain and takes a good amount of abuse and rough stuff on camera. Her reactions as she has headphones strapped to her head and loud noises are played for hours on end are chilling. Some of the other abuse she takes is being strung up in a net from a tree during the only times she is given a rest. Also there is a disturbing scene where the giggling captors through guts at her and one other disgustingly sleazy scene where she is spun in an office chair and forced to drink a bottle of Jack Daniels till she pukes.

If you haven't seen this series I hope I have helped you decide whether or not you want to give this episode a shot. 8.5/10 for Devil's Experiment.


How to lose friends and alienate people is decent comedy with a bit of romantic approach.

It's actually a story of Sidney Young(Simon Pegg) breaking through in journalist and magazine writing business which is interpreted in a funny way. Simon Pegg made an OK appearance, slightly worse than his usual. Movie is not hilarious or funny all the way or anything like that but it has its moments, and those moments are really hilarious.

I recommend this fun and worth watching American with English cream comedy to all people who just wanna sit, relax and enjoy movie for what it is. If you're about to watch this movie with critical approach then you should pass unless you want to be disappointed and start trashing it.


Not near as well made as the 'Guinea Pig' flicks it was inspired by ('Flowers of Flesh and Blood' or 'Devil's Experiment') and not conveying any real philosophy, this video feature, which is barely feature length, adds hardcore sex (with mosaic censoring) to its inspiration. The special make-up effects, which include stomach slitting and disembowelment, are pretty good, if overlit. The amateur feel of the production is a distraction. It all looks cheap and lazy. The lighting is harsh and the sound and editing are sloppy. The simple story involves a porno actress who ends up starring in a real snuff movie. Just when she gets tired of being abused, the real abuse begins. In the film's hero scene, an actor cuts the woman's stomach open in graphic close-up, stuffs his member inside it, and proceeds to do his thing. I didn't find 'Psycho - The Snuff Reels' shocking. On the contrary, I found it to be a desperate attempt by amateurs to one-up 'Guinea Pig' and its bloody ilk. Interestingly, this was distributed by Aroma, a leading fetish producer.


I've been writing hardboiled crime fiction for a number of years now. When a writer develops a story he always has a character/actor in mind to bring the story to life. Last weekend I found a new one in Paul Vario playing uncle Benny in Eddie Monroe. This was a slick film highlighted by Vario's presence both on and off the screen (as his voice-over narration is also heard). I also especially liked the actress playing Benny's niece and Eddie's ex-wife, although everyone did a fine job in this exciting movie about playing with bad guys and the double-crossing that goes with it. A nice job all around ... and Mr. Vario shined brightest. He's gotta be my Tony Gangi someday ...


A very bad attempt at a young spinal tap. At least the music in spinal tap was good.

This is really a very sad case of Hollywood nepotism at it's worst. A bunch of Hollywood execs, bad musicians and producers create some 'poopie' show so their kids can be in the spotlight. Oh please!!! The potty humor was even bad. I hate this stuff when there is really incredibly talented kids (musicians, actors and artists) out there busting their butts to have success and this crap comes along.

Help u all!!!! Why wasn't Gene Simmons in it??? Ameriac's taste in entertainment is going down the toilet.


It was obvious that this movie is designed to appeal to the Chick Flick audience, to which i have sat through quite a few and enjoyed most. However, this was a very irritating attempt by Heather Graham to become the next Meg Ryan ( who became annoying as hell in her own right ). Her acting was overdone and it appeared that she was overanxious compared to her colleagues who were relaxed in their roles. This film might have been more, as there was suitable budget for settings, actors and a decent story line. My wife and I both agreed that this was 'Muck' at the end, as the film ended on a painful embarrassing high! Better luck next time, hope Miss Graham sticks to the type of films that she belongs in like From Hell.


I'm rarely moved to make a comment online about a film. But I can't understand how this one got made. Who made it? How could they have possibly thought they were capable of making a feature film? Did they do a weekend course at some film school, get a nice big cheque from daddy and kidnap David Badiel's family one by one until he agreed to be in it? Or was he by any chance a longtime family friend/distant relation doing this out of sheer, misplaced kindness? I don't care, don't want to know. Even he looks utterly embarrassed to be in it, mumbling his lines and hiding his face from the camera. Meanwhile the DOP must have been the gaffer from Neighbours, there seemed to be absolutely no sound design, the script, the direction and editing were all abysmal, and quite frankly the apathy that overwhelms me right now means that I can't be bothered to spend any more of my life thinking about this film.


This is one of the finest films to come out of Hong Kong's 'New Wave' that began with Tsui Hark's 'ZU: Warriors of Magic Mountain'. Tsui set a tone for the New Wave's approach to the martial arts film that pretty much all the directors of the New Wave (Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, Wong Jing, Ching Siu Tung, etc.) accepted from then on as a given; namely, the approach to such films thenceforth would need more than a touch of irony, if not outright comedy. 'Burning Paradise' put a stop to all that, and with a vengeance.

It's not that there isn't humor here; but it is a purely human humor, as with the aged Buddhist priest at the beginning who somehow manages a quick feel of the nubile young prostitute while hiding in a bundle of straw. But this is just as humans are, not even Buddhist priests can be saints all the time.

When irony is at last introduced into the film, it is the nastiest possible, emanating from the 'abbot' of Red Lotus Temple, who is a study in pure nihilism such as has never been recorded on film before. He is the very incarnation of Milton's Satan from 'Paradise Lost': 'Better to rule in Hell than serve in heaven!' And if he can't get to Satan's hell soon enough, he'll turn the world around him into a living hell he can rule.

That's the motif underscoring the brutal violence of much of the imagery here: It's not that the Abbot just wants to kill people; he wants them to despair, to feel utterly hopeless, to accept his nihilism as all-encompassing reality. Thus there's a definite sense pervading the Red Temple scenes that there just might not be any other reality outside of the Temple itself - it has become all there is to the universe, and the Abbot, claiming mastery of infinite power, is in charge.

Of course, fortunately, the film doesn't end there. Though there are losses, the human will to be just ordinarily human at last prevails. (If you want to know how, see the film!) Yet there is no doubt that, in viewing this film, we visit hell. Hopefully, we do not witness our own afterlives; but we certainly feel chastened by the experience - and somehow better for it over all.


This movie was awful, plain and simple. It will probably be revered by those who only see 'films' and not 'movies' and will therefore feel sorry for me for having such a limited understanding of the theatrical brilliance of this film, but I am secure enough in my intellect to say that this boring, self-aggrandizing and painfully drawn-out movie was a waste of two hours and nine dollars.

I was suckered into seeing this by the inexplicable good reviews it had been receiving and came out of the theater thinking that those reviews had to have been written by over-excited film students and the aforementioned group of individuals who shun regular movies, perhaps for fear that they may actually enjoy one someday.

The storyline is quite a promising one - a man is imprisoned for 15 years, never knowing his captor nor his crime. He is then abruptly released and given just five days to discover the identity and reason of the man who imprisoned him. However, the great concept soon disintegrates into a pathetic joke as Oh Dae-Su runs around beating people up, trying to have sex with a young girl who is attempting to use the toilet and eating a live, writhing squid (presumably for dramatic effect, as there is absolutely no other reason for it). All the while he is trying to figure out this horrible thing he did to earn himself fifteen years in jail, and when he finally finds out it is both ridiculous and a major letdown. His nemesis, a man who supposedly went to school with him when he was a young man, looks like a Banana Republic model twenty years younger than him. Hey, I know prison has been hard on Oh Dae-Su, but is it too much to ask to find an actor that looks a bit closer to his age? Of all the things wrong with this movie, this one seems like the easiest one to fix.

And the big secret - the one that kept me in my seat for 90 minutes when I could have been out doing something productive - is some joke of a plot line involving incest and a rumor started in high school. Come on! Throw us a bone here - was that really the best they could do? I sat through stupid dialogue, over-acting, gloomy sets and gratuitous violence for this? (By the way - I'm not at all against violence in a film if it seems to fit the story, but in this case it seems I was forced to watch our hero knock out someone's front teeth and cut off his own tongue with a pair of scissors in order to distract me from figuring out I was wasting my afternoon watching a pretentious piece of garbage).

Take my advice - do something else with your time and money. Or take your nine dollars and go see a lowly 'movie' - one that you might actually enjoy.


as an inspiring director myself, this movie was exciting to watch with criticism in mind. Shot with low end digital camera probably with 35mm adapter for DOF. The editing is good acting decent, sound effects aren't too over the top. I would have give it a 7 for an indie film, but the story aren't that interesting. It's more on the drama side, character developments than a horror flick.

It's not for those who wants to get spooked startled frightened grossed out, or sit down with popcorn to just enjoy.

honestly this movie would be good if we were still in the 50's

This movie is about a family who has a dry field, and that is just that.


Everything you do in this world should make at least a little bit of sense. Unfortunately very little of 'Delusion' makes any sense. Jennifer Rubin is adequate in her role as the main squeeze of hit man Kyle Secor. Secor on the other hand overacts to the point of annoyance. Jim Metzler, the embezzling yuppie is very unbelievable as the novice, revenge seeking, adversary. When Jennifer Rubin gives back the money she has carefully been concealing, all credibility flies out the window, and the guns pointing final showdown between Secor and Metzler is beyond ridiculous. Avoid 'Delusion', unless you are delusional enough to believe the misguided positive reviews here. - MERK


I always liked listening to Buddy Holly and felt a real loss when he was killed at a young age in an airplane crash. He wasn't in the old rock 'n roll class of , let's say, Chuck Berry or Jerry Lee Lewis, but he wasn't far behind. Who knows how big his legacy would have been had he sang for decades. Almost every single he put out was a hit.

So, I was very pleasantly surprised how good a job Gary Busey did at playing him and at imitating his singing voice. He did Buddy proud, as were the actors (Don Stroud and Charles Martin Smith) who played Holly's backup group, 'The Crickets.'

Music-wise, there are some of Holly's better-known songs in the beginning of the film and its really good with a strong finish at the end as Holly and the boys are shown in Iowa in their last concert ever. Busey not only sings like Holly, he's a dead ringer for him in the looks department. Some thing was the actor''s best performance ever, and you get no argument from me.

I'm also glad they ended the film on an upbeat note with that Iowa concert, instead of dwelling on his tragic accident. The ending could have been a real downer, but they didn't let it be.


It's hard to say sometimes why exactly a film is so effective. From the moment I first came across 'The Stone Boy', something told me it would be a great film. In spite of that, it seemed very unlikely that I'd ever have the opportunity to actually see it for myself. Then, one day, while looking through the online catalogue of my local library, I saw that they had recently purchased the DVD release of this film. Which I'm extremely glad for, because the cinematography is of a stunning depth and quality that an old VHS copy could never replicate.

And speaking of the cinematography, I must single it out as far and above the most stunning aspect of this film. As a photographer who pursues very nearly the exact visual style portrayed in 'The Stone Boy', I'm a firm believer in the fact that a great cinematographer can almost single-handedly carry a film. Here, he has a lot of help from an extremely talented cast, and a director who understands perfectly what the story needs. But to have Juan Ruiz Anchía behind the camera makes virtually every scene something of beauty. And you can almost never say that. Most films would never even expect such a thing of you. Scene after scene captures some detail, some little bit of visual magic that takes your breath away.

The director, Christopher Cain, has had a long and interesting career. As far as I can gather, this film is not very representative of it. But, sometimes, to catch a director near the beginnings of his career, before all the big budgets and loss of focus, there's a real subtle magic to be found. Cain steps back in this film, lets things happen with a life of their own, and then ever further. Much like early John Sayles films, characters are given space to breathe, time to talk. Side stories happen because they do, and that's how life is. Cain displays a remarkable, raw, even outright painful understanding of human nature in this film.

The acting ties much of this story together. When people talk, when they exist in this film, they do so as actual people, not held back by the fact that they are playing characters. Gina Berriault's script allows immensely talented and respected actors like Wilford Brimley, Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Frederic Forrest to spend time simply existing. Whether the things they have to say are minor or of deep significance, it all comes down with the weight of pure reality.

When you look at the actors involved, or the great soundtrack by James Horner, it seems strange that such a film be very nearly forgotten. Maybe much of what makes 'The Stone Boy' what it is was the time period it was made in. There's this 1970s hangover feeling to this picture that reminds me deeply of my own childhood. People talk of the 80s in terms of modern styles and music, but that's not the 80s I lived in or remember. The look of the images, the understated and dark knowing quality of the acting, and the overall result should get under the skin of any person who grew up in or near this era of time in North America. I see myself in this. I see how I saw the world. And a film like 'The Stone Boy' sees the world for how it truly is.

For more of this feeling, please see:

The Black Stallion (1979), Never Cry Wolf (1983), Tender Mercies (1983), Testament (1983), Places in the Heart (1984), Matewan (1987), High Tide (1987), Driving Miss Daisy (1989), The Secret Garden (1993), The Secret of Roan Inish (1994), Wendy and Lucy (2008)


The first time I saw this film in the theatre at a foreign film festival, I thought it intriguing, fascinating, the sensitive bi-sexual artist. So very European, so very Dutch! I recently rented it for a second viewing and could hardly keep from laughing at that overworked theme of the mad writer with a religious-sexual orientation persecution complex. Get a grip! This guy is a freeloader, living off of society. I suspect that the real reason he is having these fantasy-nightmares about the 'spiderwoman' is that his guilt complex is kicking in after year's of ignoring mother's advice about getting into cars (and bed) with strangers! Not only is he making outrageous sums of (probably taxfree) loot for making up stories (lying guilt trip) but he is too cheap to pay for a hair cut, hence he hustles the beauty salon owner. Then he has the nerve to complain about the bill! But I also suspect the world has changed alot since this film was made. On a serious note it was entertaining to see some of Jan de Bont's camera work and one of Paul Verhoeven's earlier films. Hmmm, maybe the world hasn't changed so very much after all?


This film moved me at age 39 in the same way that all the footage and coverage of Dogtown affected me when I was 13. For all of those who criticized the self promotion of the Z boys interviewed, they have the last laugh on you. That was their whole deal, 'we're better than all of you and here's why....(insert footage of the smoothest pool carve imaginable)' This was a film to tell their story and that was their story whether you like it or not. It was THEIR opinion of their skating that mattered..... not yours or mine. I thought the film captured their attitude and influence exactly as I remembered it in the 70's. The reality is that they DID revolutionize skateboarding, they WERE the impetus behind extreme sports and they DID inject a cultural paradigm that reached into every corner of americana. This movie gave rebirth to images of Bertleman on a wave and Alva and Jay Adams ripping up the coping that WAS the California Dream to an entire culture of young american teenagers that just wanted to have fun and get rad! As I watched this film I realized that it was these images that I lived with every day until I was old enough to move out and back down to So Cal after my family had moved to Nor Cal when I was five. Until I could get back, my buddies and I built and thrashed ramp after ramp, searched for every empty pool possible and mimicked everything Stecyk covered about these guys. We are all educated and have family's and careers now but this film reminds me who I was at that age and why I still surf. This is an inspired film that anyone who has an interest in pop culture, extreme sports, the 70's or even just good documentary film making will enjoy completely. Whenever it comes on cable I can't change the channel. Kudos to Stacy Peralta for making a beautiful piece of art!


Paul was totally ripped off by someone at paramount who made Dave. It's the same story, not as funny though.

Paul related to me this morning about the scene were sammy davis sings the new national anthem of parador. he arrived in brazil after a long flight from vegas, three planes, car ride to the set, etc. he was beat. he could hardly stand, had to use a cane. he was staying in a trailer about the size of my bathroom.

he didn't know he could do it. then he saw the crowd of 6000 extras,paid 7 bucks. he came to life and they shot that scene for two hours. he was magnificent, then nearly collapsed.

paul is a great guy, though very liberal. a real talent.


Topical? Certainly. Entertainment? Probably - but only on removal of any shred of the viewer's common sense. Reality? Only in so much that it was made on this planet.

How thousands of people were supposed to have died as a result of a 5-metre wall of water in a city liberally littered with buildings in excess of 25 metres high is quite beyond me. Carlyle's line to the effect of 'How could anyone survive that?' when the shot shows forests of buildings with several floors above the water is completely laughable. Further, if someone commits themselves to an area (under water) where one cylinder of air is not enough (i.e. they are going to die), why not use the simple expedient of taking more than one cylinder? Clearly, the writer thinks that people in stressful situations cannot count beyond one (one cylinder, one floor).

Rather than watching this tripe, you would be more informed and entertained by throwing the DVD away and reading the pricing information on the cellophane outer wrapper.

Pitiful, truly pitiful, and a terrible waste of the on-screen talent.

As for the sexist propaganda suggesting that only women can see through the problems to illuminate the solutions to be effected by the expendable men: yet more PC 'tosh'. Small wonder that First Blood, Delta Force, Navy Seals and other such movies of little or no merit will always have a following while this blatantly politically-motivated bilge is peddled.


This show demonstrates the depths to which UK TV pre-watershed drama has sunk. With these dull scripts, mediocre acting, poor plots, awful dialog, one is forced to watch a DVD of any old ER episode to see excellent hospital drama.

None of the actors employed on this show seem to be able to actually act!

If you want low quality but easy to absorb soap opera style TV, this is the show for you. Personally I like something with more meat on the bone. Sadly as with all other UK licence payers, I'm funding this dross.


Loony Tunes have ventured (at least) twice into the future. The first time was with the brilliantly funny 'Duck Dodgers'. The latter time was with this  um  effort. 'Loonatics Unleashed' isn't without merit, and might be considered a good product were it not that it isn't up to Warner Brothers quality. WB cartoons are noted for their cheeky humor, appealing at least as much to adults as to children. These pedestrian superhero episodes, on the other hand, cannot fail to convince adults to pass them up.

The premise of the series is that 6 ordinary individuals (2 bunnies, a Tasmanian devil, a duck, a roadrunner, and a coyote) live on the 'city-planet' of Acmetropolis and acquire super powers when a meteor strikes the planet in 2772. What's confusing is that the titles section features these individuals with a count-up to 2772 from the 21st Century. Cute, but frelling stupid.

In each episode, the super sextet  amid mildly amusing but essentially banal banter  fight various super villains. For the most part, these are types that appear in every mediocre superhero adventure series and even some of the better ones. Like many mediocre superhero series, this one takes its villains far too seriously for the context. And of course these guys are the only characters that laugh  the usual evil laugh, of course. Why is it that villains in predictable superhero adventures always  ALWAYS  laugh evilly at every opportunity? Animated material of this sort seems to leave laughter exclusively in the province of villains and (occasionally) their henchpeople and/or henchthings.

In point of fact, the makers of this series missed their best bets right from the get-go. The superpowers of the characters are sometimes based on their previous normal abilities, but sometimes not. The problem here is that we don't see enough WB looniness. Lexi and Ace have fairly ordinary biologically generated energy weapons and have virtually no personality traits one could describe as 'Bugs-like'. What we have here is basically the silly and drekish 'Teen Titans', including its overly 'modern' animation 'look', but with animals. Feh.

The other misstep by the program's creators is (or are) the villains. As noted before, these are not terribly imaginative and do the evil-laugh bit excessively. Amazingly, the writers totally missed the obvious technique of making villains from stock WB characters as well as the protagonists. Adding to the fun could have been, say, Jupiter Sam  as well as The Fudd, still hunting wabbits  as well as Tech E. Coyote converted into a really neurotic villain  and so on. Ah, the sadness of missed opportunities.

Sadly, this whole production has gone into too much overtime (that is, a 2nd season). Nevertheless, we can rejoice that there's something new out there for the 14-going-on-9 crowd. The rest of us can hope for a 3rd season of Duck Dodgers.


Wicked Little Things has an excellent synopsis: empty house beside abandoned mine in woods with tragic past; family moves into house and strange things begin to happen; little creepy children begin to pop up here and there doing creepy-little-children-things. But that is where the cleverness and potential fun ends. This group of kids was sealed in the mine many decades earlier, and now appear roving the woods (poor make-up) with weapons looking for flesh to eat. Oh I get it, this is a ghost-zombie movie. Hmmm....while I can appreciate someone trying something new with this genre, this just didn't work. What was the children's motivation in seeking to devour flesh? Why did they need weapons? Did anyone else imagine the filmmakers all gathered around the daily footage giggling because they felt this was going to be a cool/scary movie? I found that after thirty minutes I felt the familiar resignation that I had just wasted my time on another modern crap-fest. While the acting was good, and the setting/cinematography of good quality as well, the script itself suffered from what seems to be a lack of knowledge about the supernatural horror genre altogether. A bunch of kids walking down the mall is scarier than this pack of poorly disguised rodents.

This movie is not scary, and while I can appreciate the story, perhaps have even enjoyed it if I had read it instead of watched it, I still have to say that Wicked Little Things is more accurately called Wicked Little Turd.


In April 1947, New York City faced an epidemic crisis. Eugene LaBar, a rug importer arriving from Mexico, had arrived in the city, bringing with him the deadly smallpox virus. He stumbled off a bus, complaining of fever and a headache, and soon died in a Midtown Hospital, but not before he had infected a dozen passers-by. The damage was already done; for the first time in decades, smallpox stalked the streets of New York. The city's health authorities acted quickly to isolate sufferers and contain the virus, enacting a free vaccination campaign that saw over six million New Yorkers immunised against smallpox. Thanks to their swift response, the virus was contained with minimal casualties. The outbreak, nevertheless, must have left an indelible mark, for several years later it was followed by two similarly-themed film noir thrillers in which doctors must track down a single contagious carrier in a city of millions: Elia Kazan's 'Panic in the Streets (1950)' and Earl McEvoy's lower-budget 'The Killer That Stalked New York (1950).'

McEvoy's film unfolds in an unglamorous docu-drama style. Reed Hadley's narration sounds as though it was plucked straight from a newsreel, reciting facts as if reading off the official police transcript. This technique does feel a little cheap at times, but fortunately the narration is largely restricted to the film's bookends, as well as providing some explanatory filler during breaks in the plot. The 'killer' stalking New York, in this story, is not a rug importer from Mexico, but beautiful diamond smuggler Sheila Bennet (Evelyn Keyes), who has just arrived from Cuba. Within days, Sheila has two parties independently pursuing her: a treasury agent (Barry Kelley) looking to arrest her for smuggling crimes, and a team of doctors (led by William Bishop) who have identified her as the source of the smallpox outbreak. As in 'Panic in the Streets,' an otherwise routine manhunt is given a heightened sense of urgency, particularly when those in pursuit initially have no idea as to the identity or appearance of their suspect.

'The Killer That Stalked New York,' for the most part, manages to sidestep its low production budget. Aside from a select few lines of dialogue ('we have to stop it!' exclaims Dr. Wood at one point, as though coming to a difficult decision), the filmmakers and cast members allow the story to unfold in a realistic, engrossing fashion. Indeed, in this regard, the low budget quite possibly aids the film's intentions, necessitating a documentary style that adds to the immediacy of the outbreak scenario. Evelyn Keyes is excellent in the leading role, showing obstinate resilience in the face of unimaginable torment; by the film's end, she appears so brutally incapacitated by her illness that it's almost painful to look at her face. Aside from the virus, Charles Korvin is the main villain of the piece, as Sheila's greedy and adulterous husband who, rest assured, gets everything that's coming to him. And if all nurses looked like Dorothy Malone, perhaps catching smallpox wouldn't seem like such a bad break, after all.


A film written and directed by Neil Young, 'Greendale' is little more than an 87-minute music video set to a doxen or so of the songwriter's works. In lieu of dialogue, the film relies exclusively on Young's lyrics, which are heavily laced with sociopolitical commentary, to tell the 'story' while actors act out the scenes.

Given the hammy performances and the shoddy graininess of the picture, the effect is the equivalent of Young blowing up some of his own home movies and releasing them for public consumption. Although there is allegedly a 'story' running through the film, we really have no idea what is going on thanks mainly to the unpolished look of the film, the lack of dialogue and the amateurish ineptitude of the acting. All we get for eighty-seven minutes is a bunch of aging hippies cavorting silently through an incoherent narrative while Young's songs play endlessly on the soundtrack. The whole thing turns into a tedious exercise in self-indulgence. 'Greendale' gives off-Hollywood, low budget movie-making a bad name.


I agree with many of the negative reviews posted here, for reasons I will go into later on. But this miniseries is powerful and convincing because the talented cast really captures the dark truth of Hitler's world.

Peter Stormare is perfect as Ernst Rohm, the brutal Brownshirt leader. Each scene he has with Hitler is explosive! Hitler is so evil he dominates everyone but the thuggish, primitive Rohm -- and he clearly digs Rohm for just that reason. The interplay between Stormare and Carlisle illuminates the way Hitler relished Rohm's brutality, but later sacrificed him for political reasons.

Jena Malone turns in a heartrending performance as Geli Raubal, Hitler's doomed niece and the victim of his unspeakable perversions. Without revealing any of the sexual filth directly, Jena Malone plays out all the horror of the slow extinction of a young girl's spirit. She uses her eyes and voice to suggest all the horror that will be visited on millions in the years to come. And she's brilliant! Zoe Telford very nearly matches Jena Malone with her portrayal of Eva Braun. Eva is clearly sick, cruel and heartless -- but at the same time almost pitiably dependent on her Adolph's twisted tenderness. The aborted lovemaking scene between them (hinting at the spine tingling truth of Hitler's enormous self-loathing) is both chilling and erotic.

Liev Schrieber gives a deliciously weasel-like performance as Putzi Hanfstaengel, the spineless man-about-town who is seduced by Hitler's promises of wealth and power. While a brute like Rohm simply loves the idea of crushing skulls under his boots, Schrieber's character is one of many Germans who abhors Nazi violence but can't resist the quick and easy route to money and power. His weak-willed fawning over Hitler soon loses him the respect of his wife, played with style and sensuality by the stunning and regal Julianna Margulies. They provide a true portrait of marriage and betrayal.

These performances carry the mini series along, easily overcoming occasional weaknesses in the script. There is one exception. Regrettably, Matthew Modine's acting chops just aren't up to snuff. His noble lunk-haid journalist ruins every scene he has -- the viewer can hardly wait for Rohm's brown-shirts to stomp that smug, righteous look off his ignorant, corn-pone low-rent Hollywood golden boy face. But the story still works.

Now in regard to the factual inaccuracies of the script -- Hitler's perversions and cruelty are rendered in a vibrant, compelling drama. But the battlefield record of Corporal Hitler is badly distorted. As if afraid the audience can't handle the idea of evil and courage in the same person, the writers make Hitler look like a whining coward who 'begged' for an Iron Cross. As if anyone in the Kaiser's Army could get a medal just by whining about it! The movie makes it look as if Hitler were a coward in the trenches, when he was a fearless soldier. They also suggest his comrades despised him, when in reality he was widely admired by officers and enlisted men alike. The depressing thing is that the mini-series succeeds so well in representing Hitler as a monster in honest ways -- but they just couldn't resist the cheap shot.

All in all, however, Hitler: RISE OF EVIL is a soaring success highlighted by powerful performances.


I must warn you, there are some spoilers in it. But to start it off, I got 'Spanish Judges' on February I think. It was mention it was the last copy, but as I see, it wasn't back-ordered. But either way, I have it. I thought it was good. I wanted to see this mainly because of the great actor, Matthew Lillard (I'm surprised no one on the reviews mention the scar) although it is kind of low budget, getting enough money to make this film would be worth spending. Man, what a good actor.

The story it about a con artist known as Jack (Matthew Lillard) who 'claims' to have merchandises called The Spanish Judges. If you don't know what Spanish Judges are or haven't seen the trailer for this and this is the first review you have read, I won't even say what they are. I figure it would be a big twist of no one knew what it was. He needs protection, so he hires a couple who are also crooks, Max and Jamie (Vincent D'Onofrio and Valeria Golino) as well as a crook that goes by the name of Piece (Mark Boone Junior). He has a girlfriend who won't even tell anyone her name because she's from Mars, as she said. So they (mainly Jack) call her 'Mars Girl'. Everything starts out fine, but then it turns to one big game. A game that involves some lust, lies and betrayal.

There was some over acting in it (Matt and Valeria, as well as Tamara, were not one of them). There were some scenes they could've done better and the score could've been a little better as well. Some of the score was actually good. The theme they used for the beginning and the end (before the credits) was a good song choice, that's my opinion. The fight scene in the end could've been a little longer and a little more violent, but what can you do? One more comment on Matt: Damn, he plays a smooth, slick con man.

I know this is a review, but I need to make a correction towards NeCRo, one of the reviewers: Valeria Golino is not a newcomer. According to this site, she has been acting since 1983. To me, and hopefully to others, she is well known as Charlie Sheen's Italian love interest in both the 'Hot Shots!' movies. But good review.

Although I think it's one of the rare films I've seen and it's really good (which is why I gave it 10 stars above), I will give the grade of what I thought when I first saw it.

8/10


Yes, I loved this movie when I was a kid. When I was growing up I saw this movie so many times that my dad had to buy another VHS copy because the old copy had worn out.

My family received a VHS copy of this movie when we purchased a new VHS system. At first, my mom wasn't sure that this was an appropriate movie for a 10 year old but because we had just bought a new VHS system she let me watch it.

Like I said, this movie is every little boys dream The movie contains a terrific setting, big muscled barbarians, beautiful topless women, big bad monsters and jokes you'll only get when you get older. So, a couple of days ago I inserted the video and watched the movie again after a long time. At first, I was bored, then started thinking about how much I loved this movie when I was kid, and continued watching. Yeah, the experience wasn't as great as I remembered The acting is pretty bad, the storyline is pretty bad, the jokes weren't funny anymore, but the women were still pretty. Yes, I've grown up. Even though the movie experience has changed for me, I still think it's worth 7 stars. For the good old times you know


I have never read the Bradbury novel that this movie is based on but from what I've gathered, it will be interesting (when I finally do read it and I will). My comments will be based purely on the film. As soon as I saw the trailer I knew I had to see it and was so excited but when I finally did, I was so disappointed it hurt. This is because the movie itself felt so amateurish. The actors were not well cast (though Robards and Pryce are both good actors - just not here). The kid actors, it seemed, were merely asked to show up, get in the characters' clothes, say the lines and make the faces. The set and props were cheap and unrealistic. The direction was surprisingly bad. I was so surprised at the awfulness of it that I had to go online and check who directed it, just to see the kind of work he had done. The editing was cut and paste and the plot (screenplay) was just that as well (even though the author had been involved himself, irony?). The building up of the tension, fear and suspense was so mild it was ineffective when the climax finally came.

I've read some of the comments on this movie and find it hard to believe people actually like it. What hurts the most is that the content is interesting and fun and intriguing. It had so much potential. Unfortunately, the film was so technically bad it takes away from the brilliance of the story.


JESSICA: A GHOST STORY is as the name implies a ghost story. The theme is meant to be horror but comes across closer to comedy!

A woman comes who was brutally murdered comes back from the dead. This constitutes what this movie attempts to pass off as a plot. There is really nothing more to it. The movie comprises of a series of loosely connected scenes involving a guy who had an affair with this woman prior to her death.

Immediately from the opening scenes, this movie has the appearance of a 'straight-to-DVD' effort. Unlike gems such as VACANCY 2, the movie has no sense of direction or creativity and certainly gives 'straight-to-DVD' movies a bad name! The direction is as poor as can be with a complete lack of suspense, scares or tension. Even the drama elements are hopelessly handled and represent something more boring than even the worst soap opera you may have had the misfortune of enduring.

The acting across the board is absolutely abysmal with no one actor involved managing to show even the slightest potential of a successful acting career.

Many of the individual scenes are incredibly long, with very long pauses between dialogue exchanges. I'm not exaggerating!

The only reason I give this movie a rating of 2 rather than 1 is because some of the poor acting combined with even worse dialogue made for a few unintentional laughs. I stress the word 'few' in that sentence. This is not overall one of the 'so-bad-it's-good' movies like CAMP BLOOD or THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE. If you want to laugh hysterically, watch those movies. If you want to see a proper horror movie about ghosts watch THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE EYE (original Korean version), THE GRUDGE, ONE MISSED CALL or PHONE.

I advise anyone who has had the good fortune of avoiding seeing JESSICA: A GHOST STORY to keep up the good work! Just forget this movie exists. Don't spare a thought for it!


Let me say first that this show was top tier when John Ritter was there. Upon his death, the show did drop off a bit, but the producers didn't give up on the show, adding James Garner and David Spade to the regular cast from 2003 to 2005.

The show centers around the Hennessy family, Paul (John Ritter, may he rest in peace), his wife Cate (Katey Sagal), their daughters Bridget (Kaley Cuoco), Kerry (Amy Davidson), and their son, Rory (Martin Spanjers). When Ritter was on the show, I would shriek in laughter (and proud to admit it, I am), but now that he's gone, I'll only laugh a little with the occasional hearty laugh. I'm very glad that I fell for this show's trance after Ritter's untimely death, because it made the eps with Ritter so much better.

Ritter's character is just so well acted and well rounded, that you can't help but love him. He is always bossing the girls around about dating, but he really wants them to be happy. It's the ultimate daddy hates boyfriend entertainment.

Katey Sagal is great as well, and she too is a likable character. After Ritter's death, her character provides such good influence and strength for not only her kids, but I believe Sagal has shaped the lives of Cuoco, Davidson, and Spanjers, because she and Ritter had been friends for a long time.

The funniest person on the show would have to be Bridget Hennessy, played by Kaley Cuoco. She is the ultimate blonde: gorgeous, slow, dim-witted, yet she is a smart person. She is off the wall hilarious with her innocent 'blonde' humor and how conceited she is.

Amy Davidson can get a tad annoying as Kerry, but that's the purpose of her character. The only fault of the show is that the show never really gives Kerry anything to be happy about. She's always after Bridget, and her character feels like it's just thrown in there.

Martin Spanjers as the lone Hennessy son is hysterical, and when Ritter is on the show, he's mostly comic material. Upon the death of Ritter, the show does provide some story lines for Rory.

David Spade and James Garner are all nothing but laughs, with the occasional side story for C.J., Spade's character. Garner plays Cate's father, as a bit of background information.

All in all, I give this show a great review because it is a great show that had a tragic event happen that crippled it. You'll enjoy it.

9/10 --spy


I viewed The Reader at Sugar, which is not an optimal venue for viewing anything, and the movie was by far the highlight of the evening. The technical elements were well meshed and it was obvious that Duncan Rogers had chosen his designers and crew well. But it was the story and it's delivery that truly made this short shine. Duncan Rogers' tight script was just what this evening of 'shorts' needed. It neither meandered, as several offerings did, or preached to us. The Reader was simple story telling in it's best form, well cast by Rogers and beautifully acted. Duncan Rogers is obviously a director with the ability to put all the pieces together, I'm looking forward to his next finished project. K.


I took my 14 year old to see this movie. We left after 15 or 20 minutes. It was absolutely awful! This movie should be rated R at the least. I am not that strict with movies but, this was just too much. It was a waste of money. I thought it would contain some comedy and I knew the comedy would probably be crude but, this was WAY beyond crude. I was sitting there watching and reading (a certain subtitle at the beginning of the movie was what really got me) and I could not believe how crudely sexual it was. I could not believe that it would be OK for a 13 year old to read and see this content. I don't understand how the rating system works.??


Many of the lead characters in Hideo Gosha's 1969 film 'Hitokiri' (manslayer; aka 'Tenchu' -- heaven's punishment) were actual historical figures (in 'western' name-order format): Ryoma Sakamoto, Hampeita Takechi, Shimbei Tanaka, Izo Okada, ____ Anenokoji. The name 'Hitokiri,' a historical term, refers to a group of four super-swordsmen who carried out numerous assassinations of key figures in the ruling Tokugawa Shogunate in the mid-1800s under the orders of Takechi, the leader of the 'Loyalist' (i.e. ultra-nationalist, pro-Emperor) faction of the Tosa clan. What was this struggle about? Sad to say, you won't find out in this film. 'Brilliant History Lesson' indeed!

No, Gosha is much more interested in showing you the usual bloody slicing and dicing and (at absurd length) the inner torment of the not-very-bright killer Izo Okada than in revealing actual history. Sakamoto, for example, was someone of historical significance, considered to be the father of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The closest Gosha comes to providing a history lesson is the scene in which Sakamoto, whom Takechi considers a traitor to the Loyalist cause, comes to Takechi's mansion to try to sway him ideologically. He begins by talking about the international political situation, with foreign warships in Japan's ports and a Japan that is too weak militarily to defend against them. Want to know more? Sorry. Gosha cuts off this potentially fascinating lecture in mid sentence(!). So much for informing his audience about a turning point in Japanese history.

The film left me in utter confusion about the aims of the two sides in this struggle. For the two and a half centuries that the Shogunate held central power in Japan, it was an institution dedicated to preventing social change, to preserving the feudal relations of society. It was fearful of outside contamination, both ideological and technological. In keeping with this spirit, it outlawed firearms, those instruments of 'leveling' in Europe and the Americas, with which a peasant could have stood up to a samurai. Throughout this period, the Emperor was nothing more than a spiritual figurehead.

But, in the towns, which stood in neutral zones between the feudal fiefdoms, a new class of merchants, landlords and craftsmen was developing -- the class known in Europe by its French name, the bourgeoisie. Inevitably, as this new class gained strength, it chafed against the many confines of feudal society. As in Europe, the king (Emperor) became the central figure in the bourgeoisie's struggle for power against the feudal aristocracy. But a political leadership does not always fully understand the interests of the class it serves. When the outside world arrived with a bang in 1853, in the form of U.S. Admiral Perry's 'Black Ships,' the ruling elite of Japan was thrown into a crisis. Their military was no match for these foreigners. Also, they had heard about the havoc the British and French imperialists were wreaking in China. What should Japan do to save itself from the fate of its weak neighbor? Surprisingly, some elements within the usually isolationist Shogunate were inclined to open trade with the foreigners in order to obtain some of their advanced technology. This is the point of view represented (just barely) in the film by Sakamoto. On the other hand, the Emperor-loyal ultra-nationalists, represented by Takechi, believed they could keep out the foreigners by force, if only they could prevent the other faction from 'selling out the country.' (Sound familiar?) Thus, the assassination of key Shogunate figures is in order -- and away we go.

Takechi's motivations were, for me, the film's biggest puzzle. Gosha suggests that he is fighting mainly for his personal advancement rather than for the Loyalist cause. Can we take this to represent the tenor of the Loyalists as a whole? (Do you care?)

Several reviewers have compared this film favorably with 'Goyokin,' which Gosha made in the same year. But, where 'Goyokin' is a crackling, suspenseful, adventure yarn, with a hero worthy of sympathy, 'Hitokiri' is plodding, nowhere near as compelling and lacks such a hero. Sakamoto could have been this film's hero but we are not allowed to know him -- nor what he stands for -- well enough for him to achieve that status.

In view of his wonderful scores for five previous Kurosawa films, Masaru Sato's score here was very disappointing, sounding like something rejected from a 'Bonanza' episode.

Barry Freed


I vaguely remember Ben from my Sci-Fi fandom days of the '60s, I was doing several interviews & bios of obscure actors/actresses, most notably Ben, actress Fay Spain, and Jody Fair, who played Angela in 1961's The Young Savages. Ben was one of the people at a low-key Sci-Fi con in Chicago, about 1970, when I had a nice chat with him and his 'career' and life. All these were published in some now-long-forgotten fanzine of the day. Wish I still had copies of those interviews, but time marches on, and any of those people surely wouldn't' remember me at all so many years later. Ben was a really nice fellow, ekeing out a living (The cons of those days didn't even pay their guest, unless, of course they were big-name stars, and even then the pay was a couple hundred dollars, at most! Good to know Ben's still alive & kicking! How 'bout a remake of Creature, but 50 years older! Ugly then, uglier now!


This thing works on all levels -- it's intense as a thriller, full of Lars von Trier homages, but also very much its own film -- and it does have a message: happiness comes from within, best personified in the wounded soldier who practically (and, believe it or not, humorously) disintegrates limb by limb throughout the film, all the while apologizing to others for imposing on them. You laugh at him, but you envy him as well. The central character is a well-meaning but clumsy writer who spends the whole film trying to help those he befriends on a train from Stockholm to Berlin just after World War II. He ties the parallel stories together, and really screws people up in the process. To say things go wrong is an understatement -- and structurally, the characters are all in perfect opposition to each other. It's like every one of them has an opposite -- just so tight, like watching anti-matter collide. You will not believe the sick stuff you end up laughing at. To say more would qualify as a spoiler -- all I can say is it is a shame this film has not been released in the US, not even on DVD. Some moron probably told them Americans wouldn't get it -- which is crap, because we not only 'get' but produce things like South Park... If this film gets marketed in the US, it should be sold as a mainstream black comedy, because that's what it is. Over-the-top, sick and twisted, but fuuuuunnnnnyyyyy!


'Night of the Living Homeless' was a fairly strong finish to the first half of Season 11. Obviously a parody of various zombie movies, most notably Dawn of the Dead, this episode parallels the homeless with the living dead, as creatures who feed and thrive off of spare change rather than brains.

Kyle is blamed for the sudden mass outbreak of homeless people when he, out of the goodness of his heart, gives a $20 to a homeless man in front of his house. More homeless people begin to infiltrate South Park, until the town is completely overrun with them. This is a very strong Randy Marsh episode, as he assumes the role of the shotgun-wielding leader of the adults who take refuge on the roof of the Park County Community Center. But before Randy makes it to the community center, he is accosted by hundreds of homeless people while hilariously screaming 'I don't have any change!!' Unfortunately, the refugees end up losing Gerald Broflofski to the homeless, when he tries to escape by catching a bus out of town, and unwittingly tosses away all his change for the bus to distract the homeless people. Then he becomes one of them, asking everyone for change.

The boys attempt to find out why there are so many homeless people in South Park, and find a man who is a director of homeless studies. They find out that the nearby city of Evergreen used to have a similar problem with the homeless, so they escape to Evergreen to find out what they did to solve the problem. Unfortunately, homeless people break into the man's house, and he attempts to take the easy way out by shooting himself. However, he fails several times, as he shoots himself in the jaw, in the eye, in the chest, in the neck, in the shoulder, screaming horribly until he finally dies. This scene may have been funnier had a similar scene not happened in 'Fantastic Easter Special' two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, a member of the refugees discovers that due to the homeless problem, the property values have nosedived, thus the bank has foreclosed on his house, making him homeless. Randy immediately turns on him, holding the gun to the man's head. When the man finally begs the others for a few bucks to help him out, Randy pulls the trigger.

In Evergreen, the boys find out that the citizens of the town sent the homeless to South Park, and that the passing of homeless from town to town happens all over the country. The boys modify a bus that leads the homeless out of South Park and takes them all the way to Santa Monica, California.

The zombie movie parallels and the great Randy Marsh lines make this one definitely re-watchable. 8/10


Hines and Goforth, the perpetrators of this crime, begin on the wrong foot first step, by assuming that Wells wrote Gothic horror and that all of his lines are meant to be taken seriously. That simply isn't true. Wells was very much an inheritor of the Enlightenment, and his main concern was that Victorian self-satisfaction might leave the British unprepared for the world the new technology could produce - both the good and the bad.

Two terrible consequences follow - the protagonist is portrayed as a wimpy screamer (I was reminded of Fay Wray in the original King Kong), rather than a man struggling to live out the ironies of an unbelievable catastrophe; and the dialog reeks of 'Victorianisms' uttered seriously that Welles clearly meant to be taken tongue in cheek.

All of this looks suspiciously like Ed Wood with an enormous budget to waste on CGI effects - which by the way are so poorly accomplished, the Warner Bros. cartoon factory of the 1940s could have done a better job. (Gobs of spattered blood looked like red balloons, I expected them to float away any minute.) Think The Yellow Submarine as done by the old EC Comics.

Worse yet is the loss of theme, which robs the film of any reason to exist. Although the makers of this film return the story to its Victorian era, they utterly miss the uncanny way Wells' story predicted many of the horrors of the First World War - a fact not unnoticed by Wells himself, who, after the war, reworked the theme in The Shape of Things to Come.

Without any theme, all we have here are a lot of people running around getting blasted into cartoon balloons, when they're not trying out for a high school production of a drunken student's rewrite of Macbeth.

Really, this is the worst, most senseless piece of drivel I have suffered through since a friend talked me into seeing the Eastern European cartoon 'Fantastic Planet' thirty years ago. That film was so pretentiously dull, my friend and I and two total strangers gave up ridiculing it about half-way through, and sat near the screen playing cards, using the movie as light by which to see the cards - its only usefulness, as far as any of us could tell.

But I already have electric lighting in my apartment, so I didn't need this put-down of Wells for anything.

Do not avoid this film - steal every copy you can (don't pay a cent) and burn each and every one of them. God in his wisdom created us just for this purpose.


Before 'Zavet' there was similarity between Tim Burton and Kusturica artistic vision. They find their own, poetic style, and then they cowardly become prisoners of it. Burton has (and still have) Depp, Kusturica has Miki Manojlovic, and somehow they got critical praise for repeating same formula over and over again. However, there are persons like me who find joke funny only when they heard it first time. That's main reason why Kusturica's worst movies are 'Black cat white cat' and 'Life is miracle'. 'Zavet' is something completely different. You may like it, you may hate it, but this is NOT just another Kusturica poetic  Balkanic dreamlike stuff. Of course, if you want to be praised, you have to play safe. It was very easy for Kusturica to make just another flying gypsies movie and get award. Fortunately, as a brave person he chooses to make movie that will be ironic look to his previous works. 'Zavet' can be described as a strong and very harsh parody on previous Kusturica movies directed by Kusturica himself. It is beautiful to see one big movie director to not take himself too seriously. This is quality that Kusturica have and even the biggest, like Bergman or Kubrick, didn't have. This movie is so meaningless that becomes absurd, so absurd that becomes deep, and so unfunny that becomes hilarious. Same stuff that make 'Plan 9 from outer space' cult would made this masterpiece to people who knows how to watch it. Average western viewer would not get few references. Most notable, tire shop owner is Srbljanovic , and this refers to Biljana Srbljanovic, famous Serbian dramatic writer. Politically, she is very active as left oriented liberal, and she despises Kusturica's political views and anarchism. Kusturica's 'everything but not subtle' take to her work was to castrate Miki Manojlovic in Srbljanovic shop. Second reference is made to Goran Bregovic  previous Kusturica's composer. He formed 'Funeral and wedding orchestra' and start performing around Europe. Although he is praised as big composer, Bregovic is just performer and most of his songs (if not all) are poor covers of traditional Serbian songs. Kusturica's take on Bregovic was to confront one wedding and one funeral, with funeral mocking the wedding. Also, music is covering western classics as 'London Bridge is falling down' or French lullabies. You find this unfunny? Now you see how we feel in Serbia when listening Bregovic's horrible covers. I really liked this movie because it is not pretending to be deep, it is so overfilled with symbols that it becomes parody, and it is beautifully directed, as all of his works are. If you like previous Kusturica's movies, there is a big chance that you will hate this. If you don't like couple of his last movies, you may find this as pleasant surprise, because this is like Fellini directing 'Pink Flamingos'. On purpose. I have massive respect for this guy after 'Zavet'. Next Tim Burton movie would surely have main character with pale faces. Next Kusturica movies can easily be about aliens invading Earth. That's the reason why he is most interesting director on Earth, whether you like it or not.


Coonskin might be my favorite Ralph Bakshi film. Like the best of his work, it's in-your-face and not ashamed of it for a second, but unlike some of his other work (even when he's at his finest, which was before and after Coonskin with Heavy Traffic and Wizards), it's not much uneven, despite appearances to the contrary. Bakshi's taking on stereotypes and perceptions of race, of course, but moreover he's making what appears to be a freewheeling exploitation film; blaxploitation almost, though Bakshi doesn't stop just there. If it were just a blaxploitation flick with inventive animation it could be enough for a substantial feature. But Bakshi's aims are higher: throwing up these grotesque and exaggerated images of not just black people but Italians/mafioso, homosexuals, Jews, overall New York-types in the urban quarters of Manhattan in the 70s, he isn't out to make anything realistic. The most normal looking creation in looking drawn 'real' is, in fact, a naked woman painted red, white and blue.

In mocking these stereotypes and conventions and horrible forms of racism (i.e. the 'tar-rabbit, baby' joke, yes joke, plus black-face), we're looking at abstraction to a grand degree. And best of all, Bakshi doesn't take himself too seriously, unlike Spike Lee with a film like Bamboozled, in delivering his message. This is why, for the most part, Coonskin is a hilarious piece of work, where some of the images and things done and sudden twists and, of course, scenes of awkward behavior (I loved the scene where the three animated characters are being talked at by the real-life white couple in tux and dress as looking 'colorful' and the like), are just too much not to laugh at. It's not just the imagery, which is in and of itself incredibly 'over'-stylized, but that the screenplay is sharp and, this is key for Bakshi this time considering, it's got a fairly cohesive narrative to string along the improvisations and madness.

Using at first live-action, then animation, and then an extremely clever matching of the two (ironically, what Bakshi later went for in commercial form with Cool World is done here to a T with less money and a rougher edge), Pappy and Randy are waiting outside a prison wall for a buddy to escape, and Pappy tells of the story of Brother Rabbit, who with Brother Bear and Preacher Fox go to Harlem and become big-time hoodlums, with Rabbit in direct opposition to a Jabba-the-Hut-esquire Godfather character. This is obviously a take off on Song of the South with its intentionally happy-go-lucky plot and animation, here taken apart and shown for how rotten and offensive it really is.

Yet Bakshi goes for broke in combining forms; animated characters stand behind and move along with live-action backgrounds; when violence and gunshots and fights occurs it's as bloody as it can get for 1975; when a dirty cop is at a bar and is drugged and put in black-face and a dress, he trips in a manner of which not even Disney could reach with Dumbo; a boxing match with Brother Bear and an opponent as the climax is filmed in wild slow-motion; archive footage comes on from time to time of old movies, some and some from the 20s that are just tasteless.

Like Mel Brooks or Kubrick or, more recently, South Park, Bakshi's Coonskin functions as entertainment first and then thought-provocation second. It's also audacious film-making on an independent scale; everything from the long takes to the montage and the endlessly warped designs for the characters (however all based on the theme of the piece) all serve the thought in the script, where its B-movie plot opens up much more for interpretation. To call it racist misses the point; it's like calling Dr. Strangelove pro-atomic desolation or Confederate States of America pro slavery. And, for me, it's one of the best satires ever made.


In Hong Kong, 1962, the editor Chow Mo-wan (Tony Leung Chiu Wai) and his wife, and the secretary Su Li-Zhen Chan (Maggie Cheung) and her husband simultaneously move to an old building. Each couple has just rented a room in apartments on the same floor. Their wife and husband stay most of the time away from home, and Chow and Li-Zhen have the same habits: they like kung-fu stories and noodles and soap from a restaurant nearby the building. Their close contact becomes friendship and a sort of platonic and repressed love. Later they realize that their mates are having an affair, Chow falls in love with Li-Zhen, but her shyness and probably repressed condition of married woman keeps her love in a platonic level. 'In the Mood for Love' is a very slow, beautiful, melancholic and romantic love story, with a wonderful photography and soundtrack and a very unusual edition. The film had not had a screenplay, and the actors were never sure about what they would be shooting. Later, the director edited his story based on the footages. When Chow moves to Singapore, there is a gap of many years in the story until 1966, when its conclusion is intentionally open and not well defined, leaving questions such as who is the boy with Li-Zhen. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Amor À Flor da Pele' ('Love on the Surface of the Skin')


Seriously, can you imagine such a spread of talent in one film without a huge budget: Daniel Day-Lewis, Ray McAnally, Brenda Fricker, Hugh O'Conor AND Fiona Shaw? There's no doubting that Fricker and Day-Lewis deserved their awards: but it would have been entirely justifiable to have seen O'Conor (as Young Christie) and McAnally awarded: the cliché is true here: they don't perform the roles, they inhabit them. Day-Lewis' performance is a tour de force - such a transformation that it is awe-inducing, but it was truly a mark of the Academy's intelligence that alongside this performance, they also honoured Brenda Fricker's beautifully restrained, still and heart-wrenching work as Christie's mother. By the way, if you haven't seen this magnificent actress in 'Swann', that's another film well worth checking out for her contribution (and the sublime Miranda Richardson).


I love love love this show. Whether you say it's because I'm insane in the brain or not. I think this show is very funny and entertaining although sometimes Bam's uncle Vito scares me.. so all in all I give this show a perfect review. And so I really think if you're into the 'omg.. what an idiot ' kind of humor, this show is for you. It's really funny to see the look on the prank peoples faces and there are many musical guests who come to Bam's house. Buy this cause it rocks! You should buy it. yes. And Bam's brother is in the band CKY and they are really good and sometimes come on the show.

Bottom line is.. please watch the show.


There is nothing unique in either the TV Series nor the Movie. Which is a prequel to the TV Show, that isn't found everywhere else in life and entertainment. Both before David Lynches disgusting style of story telling, and after.

From the Moment the body of a poor misguided girl washed up on the beach. And being introduced to some of the most mind numbing shady immoral character of the Twin Peaks.

To the Mind numbing almost pedophilia disgusting way the movie seems to romantically tell of the destruction of a Human Life through some random psychedelic phenomena in the Movie Twin Peak:Fire Come Walk with me.

I watched it all just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I didn't. It's is simply one mans obvious sexual fetish extended over long series fallowed by a ridiculous overly pornographic movie. Save your self the agony the suspense and watch anything else that at least has the ability to tell a story, rather then seduce you into some kind mental porn movie.

I have heard a lot of reviews, rants and raves about how great David Lynch. Because of his ability to define misery and and tragedy and making it into some kind of a wonderful thing. This is not life imitating art, as much as it is some sick twisted version of art doing its best to inspire complete mindless life.

Do yourself a favor and avoid this garbage.


Absolutely the most thoughtful, spiritually deep, intense Hamlet ever done -- no other version comes close. Jacobi has the best understanding of the role of all the actors that have played it. Patrick Stewart's Claudius is ferocious and still sympathetic -- I particularly like the two doofuses playing Rosencranz and Guildenstern. Very feckless and yet sinister. Some might gripe about the need for a strong Ophelia -- she's not a strong person, that's the point, and Lalla Ward hits the proper nuances. Amazing. Simply Amazing -- every one of the more than two dozen times I've watched it.


The credits at the end read 'ALL directed by Shigeru Izumiya'. That's a fitting way to phrase it because it seems like filmed material from several projects were thrown together somehow, barely even attempting to make it all form one consistent work. It more felt like one of those music clip things that are marketed as feature films to cash in on those video commercials, just that here we have the marketable music and the live performances missing, except for one scene, which may as well be marketed as a weird music video clip in Japan. Whatever.

It makes zero sense. Visually it isn't too special either, although it has its moments (for example the female creature with the 'death powder' who is strapped onto a bed base and some morphing sh!t throughout) and it certainly has an industrial-y feeling to it. Usually I'd call the effects dilettantish but what this film offers in this regard is baffling more than anything else. You remember those cheap video effects from 70's and 80's music videos that make them look so dated, like a picture within a picture flying through the screen? There is quite a lot of these kind of effects in this, and without any apparent reason. The most half-assed seeming effort comes in the form of a picture collage. The pictures sort of look like album covers. Whatever.

I don't know what's up with the subtitles of the version I saw. The Chinese ones (or whatever those hieroglyphics are) sometimes seem to show up when nothing is even said and the English ones often show up without the Chinese ones. The English subs talk much about life without death (is it possible?), and a mind without a body, which provides what comes closest to a comprehensible conflict between characters in this film. One guy (a scientist dude) says that life without flesh is death while another guy (a metamorphosing dude) who claims his mind is beyond his body now that he got the 'death powder' blown into his face and that he now knows the secrets of the flesh and whatnot; metamorphosing dude is visibly p!ssed off about the scientist dude's claim. Whatever.

Erm, The End - All Written By Perception de Ambiguity


An insult to both poker and cinema, this movie manages to make the most dynamic, brilliant, and fascinating figure in poker history into an utter bore. Still a fun film to make jokes about, from the lame gangster movie clichés of the first half to the incomprehensible nonsense of that second hour. Hilariously, Stu Ungar wins all three of his World Series titles without playing a single hand on screen. His infamous dealer abuse? 1 scene. His coke habit? 1 scene. His incredible memory? 0 scenes. They couldn't even get any real poker players. What did they cover? A lot of high angle shots from inside a house in the suburbs. Oh, and a montage of Stu waking up every day and shopping for meat which doesn't come anywhere close to making sense. Why do I care so much about this little Sopranos summer camp trying to cash in on the poker craze? Because I think there's still a great film to be made about Stu Ungar waiting for someone willing to do it right.


I had the misfortune to sit through the full 102 minutes of what, in my opinion, is this shockingly bad film. It fails on pretty much all levels; the cast is awful, the acting - ham at best and the plot lacks any depth, leaving me feeling violently apathetic as to the outcome of any of the convoluted story lines.

Plan B has none of the charm this genre has the scope to convey and I found myself physically cringing at the various points where the script makes its regular misjudged meanderings anywhere towards the region of comedy.

A bona fide saccharine coated turd of a movie.


I think this movie had really bad production value. The lack of acting makes me think they should mark it as an early docudrama. It may have had no money available for its making. I feel bad that it was a ruff ride into the Major League for Jackie Robinson.

I believe he was much better than many of the white players of his day. He had to be really great to break the color barrier of the time. No getting around that this was a really bad movie.

Wish there was more info about its makers. They may have been limited by the quality of actors that were willing to take on the project. Maybe no money to get good people.


*Sigh* Leave it to us Finns to take a stupid idea, blow it out of proportion and try to market it as cool. Lordi is a mediocre band at best, and a single gimmick will get you only so far.

To all you marketing idiots out there: this is the reason for the inherent minority complex that is often encountered when Finland tries to export something.

Lordi isn't scary. Lordi is lame. Lordi is OVER.

I want to apologize to the rest of the world for this plastic-faced idiocy. Sure, they won the Eurovision.

No, wait - they won the Eurovision. That's it. I rest my case.


Did Francis Ford Coppola have a brain aneurysm some time after directing 'Apocalypse Now' that made him absolutely incapable of making a good movie?

You have to wonder what the director of 'The Godfather' and 'The Conversation' was thinking when he made this flabby film. It gives Kathleen Turner a starring vehicle, playing a woman who travels back in time and gets to redo her adolescence knowing all of the things that life as an adult has taught her, and Turner, the trooper that she is, does what she can with it, but this movie couldn't be saved by anyone.

It doesn't even have any style to it, and, given its director, one would expect that even if it had nothing else, it would have that.

Grade: C-


The original 'les visiteurs' was original, hilarious, interesting, balanced and near perfect. LV2 must be a candidate for 'Worst first sequel to a really good film'. In LV2 everyone keeps shouting, when a gag doesn't work first it's repeated another 5 times with some vague hope that it will eventually become funny. LV2 is a horrible parody of LV1, except of course that a parody should be inventive. If you loved LV1 just don't see this film, just see LV1 again!!


Gillian Holroyd (Kim Novak) is a witch. Secretly, she's attracted to her quite normal neighbor Shep Henderson (James Stewart). She casts a spell on Shep that forces him to dump his fiancé and fall for her. Things are going along quite nicely until Gillian discovers she really cares for this mortal man. She decides to tell him her secret. But how will Shep react when he finds out that he was 'tricked' into falling in love with Gillian?

As far as light-hearted 1950s comedies go, Bell Book and Candle is good, but nothing spectacular. It's an enjoyable enough watch and should appeal to almost anyone who sits down with it. Just don't go into the movie expecting the greatest thing since sliced bread. The movie's cute, funny at times, and touching in the end. Kim Novak and James Stewart do their best and have some real chemistry. Novak (as others have pointed out) looks quite incredible in an understated sort of way. The supporting cast with Jack Lemmon, Hermione Gingold, and Elsa Lanchester is often laugh-out-loud funny and steals a lot of the spotlight from Novak and Stewart. The biggest problem I see is that Bell Book and Candle can't quite decide what kind of movie it wants to be. Is it a screwball comedy? Is it a romantic comedy? Is it a supernatural comedy? Had director Richard Quine stuck with just one approach, the movie might have been even better and more memorable.


This is one of the more adorable episodes of the Twilight Zone, with some fun dialog and amusing characters to break the tension of some creepy moments. There's the usual blond vamp 'dancer' (what is up with Serling's fondness for that kind of character, such that she keeps showing up in various episodes?) and other assorted characters, but it's Jack Elam's 'old man' who totally steals the show. I consider this the funny, light-hearted version of 'The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street' -- or, perhaps, a 20-minute Twilight Zone parody of 'The Thing.' On another note: I thought the young lover of the episode might be someone who eventually went on to other things -- he looked familiar -- but it seems that 'Ron Kipling' disappeared after just two TV credits to his name.


Well, now that all of the director/ productions company's friends and relations have posted their shill reviews after seeing this at various festivals, I guess it's time to show reviews written by people who actually paid 10 bucks to see it.

Like the director's 'Dear Jesse' (the only other one of his films I have seen), 'Loggerheads' suffers from a lack of focus and too many ideas crammed into an indie budget. I swear, this guy might have better luck doing miniseries. I kept waiting for the various plot threads to come together, but they only intercepted at points blatantly forshadowed in a way obvious to all but the most dense viewer. It was like watching a season of Lifetime made-for-TV movies crammed into one, long (did I say LOOONG) sketch on the old 'Carol Burnett' show. Maybe an enterprising male suitor could take his girlfriend to see this and then exclaim 'Hey...remember all of the chick flicks we went to last year...the one about the adoptive mother...the one about the gay guy...the one about the Christian housewife. We went to THREE Chick Flicks last year; so now we have to go see Terminator 4!' I guess one has to do anything to cast a familiar actor to get funding, but what oh what is Bonnie Hunt doing in this flick? She isn't exactly known as a dramatic actress, and this attempted 'performance' won't be sending Mr. Oscar to her door. I mean (speaking of Lifetime Original Movies), wasn't Valerie Bertinelli or Farah Fawcett available? Ms. Hunt has always come off to me as cold, maybe she should have played the other mom? I wish I would have chosen 'Capote' to fill my weekly Gay-themed Indie Allowance..oh well, maybe next week. I think there is a good reason why Capote is playing at tons of theatres all over the NYC area and this one is playing at only one; let the distributors faith in this flick assure to to run in the opposite direction if you don't trust this review!


'Hatred of a Minute' is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch.

 'Hatred' chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side.

 'Hatred' is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like 'Dark Tomorrow' and 'Biker Zombies.' Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget.

 However, 'Hatred' stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt.

 However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and 'Hatred' certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering 'Kill her! Kill em' all!' When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun.

 That's the place where 'Hatred' succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters.


I would watch this movie every time it was on cable and it never got old. Who can forget some of the best lines in film history? --- JOHNNY'S FAT BOY BURGERS!! JOHNNY'S FAT BOY BURGERS!! and LOOK BETWEEN THE GIANT MELONS! I used to wish I could run all over the city in a treasure hunt as fun as this. It's an all-time fave and I'm happy to hear that it's out on video! I'm positive that this is where MTV got its original premise for the Road Rules series.


First, let me say that I find films like Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile, and most of Spielberg to be absolutely horrid and stomach turning. Although, National Velvet on the surface would seem to be in the same genre and has what should be cringe-worthy moments, I thoroughly enjoyed it, laughing and bawling throughout the film.

The premise of the plot, a young girl with an unknown horse from a small village entering the Grand National is certainly as implausible as could be, but it is the only thing that you have to accept for it to work as a fairy tale or allegory. The characters have depth and grow throughout the story. Ann Revere gives an absolutely stunning performance as one of the wisest women ever depicted in an American film. Her interaction with the good-hearted Donald Crisp is funny and sweet. While Liz Taylor tries a bit too hard to be even cuter than Margaret O'Brien (she succeeds btw), her passion and love for her horse shines through her face. Mickey Rooney gives a beautifully nuanced performance of the trainer.

This is far from a perfect movie. Some of the situations and scenes are a bit corny and dated (the kids' antics, and Rooney's scenes at the track and in the pub for example) but it doesn't matter. The plot remains true to the characters and leaves quite a bit unsaid. We don't have unnatural overly dramatic and preachy moments - sometimes more is less. The final scene is a great example of this - the emotional dialog is left to the viewer to fill in.

Strong understated performances, rounded characters, pithy dialog, intelligent and internally consistent storyline. We believe in the characters and are moved by their story. Yup - they just don't make them like this any more...


Avoid this one! It is a terrible movie. So what if it is very exciting? All it is is just pointless murders. And the whole thing with Thorn and Michael's curse, that was the absolute worst thing they could possibly do to the series! Why couldn't they leave Michael's story a mystery? He's supposed to be the Boogeyman, not part of some stupid cult!! Ugh! Thank God for Halloween H20, which wiped out Halloween 3-6! They all sucked! But anyway, if you see this movie, please expect no more than pointless murders and gore.


Being an independent filmmaker and a huge fan of Edward D. Wood Jr. I purchased this documentary believing that this would finally set the record straight on how gifted and brilliant Ed Wood actually was.

What I got was a disappointing self-centered, conflictive, contradictory compilation of bitter self-aggrandizing has-beens.

Where people DO remember Ed Wood Jr., do people actually remember the second cousin of the guy with the duct tape who knew someone who was in Plan Nine From Outer Space?

It appears as though, the very minute there is a renewed interest in Ed Wood, these people come out of the 'Wood'work! Only to take mean spirited swipes at someone who actually gave them a chance when no-one else would! After 50 years I would suggest that many of these people should let go of the fact that they didn't get the $75 they were promised!

Ed Wood was a brilliant creative filmmaker who knew how to entertain. In-fact that was ALL he lived for. You may giggle when you see Ed's films, but somehow you are aware that you are laughing WITH him, and not AT him.

But, I digress... Back to the film at hand. If you are expecting a film ABOUT Edward D. Wood Jr., you won't get it here. If you want a film about cranky bitter old actors, this is the film for you!


This is an incredibly compelling story, told with great simplicity and grace. The story itself is the object of the film, although the scenery is beautiful. The acting is understated, even superbly so, for the characters themselves come through in all of their eccentric simplicity.

This piece of art will likely not be appreciated by those who view movies 'casually', without due attention. It takes work to be brought into the story, but once you become involved the captivation is complete!


I hate to throw out lines like this, but in this case I feel like I have to: the American remake of THE GRUDGE is by far the worst film I have seen in theaters in the last 5 years. There, I said it. And now that I have gotten that out of my system, please let me explain why.

'When someone dies in the grip of a powerful rage, a curse is born. The curse gathers in that place of death. Those who encounter it will be consumed by its fury.' That is the premise of THE GRUDGE and I will admit it sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers take it no further. Those who encounter the 'curse' are indeed consumed by its fury and that is all you get. You want more? Well too bad. Some critics and fans are pointing out that the sole purpose of THE GRUDGE is to scare you. The problem is that when there is no plot to speak of, creepy images and sounds can only go so far. Director Takashi Shimizu, pulling a George Sluizer and remaking his own original film(s), valiantly attempts to build atmosphere in the first hour  by repeating the same scene over and over and over and over. It pretty much unfolds like this:

-person walks into house

-something flashes by the camera and/or a strange sound is heard

-person goes to investigate

-sound starts to get loud

-person sees a ghost

-loud scream and/or cat screech

-cut to black

Before the audience is even given a hint of plot, this exact same scenario unfolds 5 times in the first hour. The first time was actually somewhat creepy. Each subsequent use became laughable as the film went on. By the time the end of the film rolled around, my friend and I were laughingly wondering if this scene would end 'with a loud scream and a cut to black.' We were never proved wrong.

The film has no liner storyline, instead unfolding in a series of vignettes that leave the audience jumbled. I have no problem with non-linear storytelling when it is done right. The film jumps from time period to time period with no rhyme or reason. I haven't seen a movie in such a state since the opening of the theatrical version of HIGHLANDER 2. And this storytelling technique mars any sort of mystery that film could have possibly had. If you already know the ghosts have scared two characters to death, how is it shocking when their bodies are found in the attic? And why should we care when a detective tries to investigate the mysterious disappearances when we already know what happened to everyone?

Obviously greenlit the second the American version of THE RING made $15 million its first weekend, THE GRUDGE is nothing but calculated imitation disguised as an actual movie. The scariest things about THE GRUDGE are that it made $40 million dollars its first weekend and some people consider it the 'scariest movie ever made.' I wonder what happens to those who get consumed by the fury of paying to see THE GRUDGE?