JAMES STEWART plays an FBI agent who began working with the agency before it was called the FBI and the story involves dealing with the Ku Klux Klan, the Prohibition Era gangsters, World War II German and Japanese spies, etc. A continuously interesting picture covering 40 years of history; far superior to any films being made these days.

Of special interest to older viewers familiar with Washington, DC. In a scene about 20 minutes into the movie --- where James Stewart finds out from Vera Miles that she's expecting their first child --- the scene was filmed in Herzog's Seafood Restaurant on the former Washington waterfront, the only movie in which this historic location appears. Shortly after taking office, President Kennedy decided that Southwest Washington, a 99% Black neighborhood, was an eyesore and ought to be torn down. By decree befitting his position of undisputed royalty, the entire area, including the popular waterfront restaurant district, but excluding 3 historic churches; was reduced to rubble. Black residents evicted from their homes relocated as best they could, and without Federal assistance; likewise businesses were simply put out of business, few re-locating. Restaurant Row was converted into a sidewalk, and Washington had no waterfront (restaurants, seafood stands, boats, etc) for about 10 years. As a lifetime resident, the Herzog Restaurant scene was our #1 reason to see this fine movie again.


Very dull show. Whats worse, its very racist. The white guys are dumb idiots and the only romance is between a black guy and a white woman. There is nothing interesting about this romance, it is not exciting, it is not fun, they don't even seem to care for each other at all, its more like the writers and directors wanted an interracial thing going on. Why this is so popular in media today? It is social programming and will lead to no good, there is always tension when too many people want the same thing. This show is not worth the 20 bucks for the season, its a waste of time and harmful to society. At least when they use TV shows to sell products they are more discreet, selling whatever agenda here is quite obvious, and without clear thinking some may feel wrong to oppose it, but some of us know better.


I usually enjoy Loretta Young's early movies: her acting back then was light and breezy, and she sure knew how to wear clothes. But this one is just a loser from the word go except for a funny supporting turn by Glenda Farrell. Young is a hatcheck girl who talks her writer-husband (Paul Lukas) into becoming a championship bridge player. It's not the most cinematic of games, and the long, talky middle part in which their marriage falls apart just about kills the film.

There's one interesting bit though. As Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk start their climactic game, a series of quick shots show airplanes, trains, football games, even a diver in mid-air, freezing in anticipation of the event. It's the earliest use of a freeze frame I've seen in an American film. Wish the rest of it were that inventive-and funny.


OK, so obviously ppl thought this was a good movie in 1955.

I pity the fools who still think so... Its absolute rubbish.

The story is just ... ridiculous. The characters are absurd caricatures - but this film is not meant to satirise, im sure its meant to be a serious drama isn't it?

Dean and others, are too old for their parts. People say Dean is great in this film, and well, maybe he did play his part as well as he possibly could've. His character is meant to be 16 or 17 or so. But Dean was a 24 year old man when he made this film. Seeing him agonise and throw little tantrums like a 4 year old boy... its pathetic.

Natalie Wood is gorgeous, but the early scenes at the police station where she is crying and whining are very unconvincing. It sets a bad precedent for the film... and for the rest of it, you feel like cringing every time one of these badly acted emotional scenes comes along.

It may've been good for its time, but, really, its drivel.

It must've just been hype about Dean's death that has over-inflated the reputation of this film.


The interaction between Portman and Sarandon was quite interesting, and I was really sold on the mother-daughter relationship. It is a family story that isn't dulled down by frills and special effects; a story of how it really is. I couldn't help but give of a sigh at the end of this movie for alas it is a well told bittersweet tale of growing up and relating with family and friends. The acting was quite exquisite and I hope we'll be seeing both Portman and Sarandon in familiar roles down the road...


Telemundo should definitely consider making a DVD collection of the novela Xica! I know tons of people including myself who would like to be able to purchase the novela Xica! It is a very entertaining novela which is set in Brazil. The costumes worn by the actors are beautiful and the town in which the novela takes place is beautiful. Xica contains a lot of history of that time period. I wish Telemundo would televise it again even if it was a 2 in the morning. I would highly recommend watching Xica if it is ever shown again on Telemundo. I've e-mailed Telemundo a million times already to show the novela again but my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. The only cautionary statement about Xica is that it occasionally contains some harsh scenes therefore I would recommend that children under 14 do not watch Xica. Overall Xica merits a 10 out of 10!


A surprising misfire from the usually reliable Larry Cohen (God Told Me Too, Q, etc.), Full Moon High tries so hard to be funny and fails miserably, even with decent turns by Ed McMahon(!) and Kenneth Mars. Alan Arkin looks embarrassed throughout his performance and son Adam simply looks numb. This makes Teen Wolf look like a comedy classic.


If I hadn't been forced to watch this for work reasons I never would have made it past the first 10 minutes. And even then I admit I fast forwarded through parts. The '63 film version was vastly superior in all regards. Yes, I've read this one is more faithful to the original play, but what a wise thing it was for the writer to change the script in '63! It's overlong, it drags, the songs that are in this version and not in the film version are boring and unimaginative. The version of 'Kids' in the '63 version was very funny and a true classic of sarcastic parent humor. In this version the Kim is way too old, the Conrad is *absolutely horrible* to behold (when someone ripped his shirt off him I shuttered in disgust...the director of this version has no idea what sexy is.). This Conrad can't dance, can't sing (he can't even stay in tune) and is simply repulsive. If Elvis Presley had really been like that his career would have been over before it began. As for the other actors, well I kept waiting for Alexander's toupee to fall off as he danced and Daly was totally over acting as Momma. See Stapleton's performance in the film version to see the same role properly executed by someone who understands comic timing. This TV version is nothing but a total waste of anyone's time.


There's only one thing I'm going to say about cat in the hat...as a KIDS movie and a good comedy movie it sucks...I lost track of how many terrible jokes in the movie that not only sucked but weren't exactly kid appropriate. Oh and by the way the way the cat in the hat talked was annoying...as for the plot I completely forgot. Who cares it sucked anyway. i'm not sure why Mike Myers joined but I think the writers were trying to make it sound like him in Austin powers without the swinger talk and it overly succeeded- but so what it was annoying. don't see it-it belongs in the bottom 100.............................. the jokes are so unkiddy it's funny


Eva (Hedy Lamarr) has just got married with an older man and in the honeymoon, she realizes that her husband does not desire her. Her disappointment with the marriage and the privation of love, makes Eva returning to her father's home in a farm, leaving her husband. One afternoon, while bathing in a lake, her horse escapes with her clothes and an young worker retrieves and gives them back to Eva. They fall in love for each other and become lovers. Later, her husband misses her and tries to have Eva back home. Eva refuses, and fortune leads the trio to the same place, ending the affair in a tragic way. I have just watched 'Extase' for the first time, and the first remark I have is relative to the horrible quality of the VHS released in Brazil by the Brazilian distributor Video Network: the movie has only 75 minutes running time, and it seems that it was used different reels of film. There are some parts totally damaged, and other parts very damaged. Therefore, the beauty of the images in not achieved by the Brazilian viewer, if he has a chance to find this rare VHS in a rental or for sale. The film is practically a silent movie, the story is very dated and has only a few lines. Consequently, the characters are badly developed. However, this movie is also very daring, with the exposure of Hedy Lamarr beautiful breasts and naked fat body for the present standards of beauty. Another fantastic point is the poetic and metaphoric used of flowers, symbolizing the intercourse between Eva and her lover. The way the director conducts the scenes to show the needs and privation of Eva is very clear. The non-conclusive end is also very unusual for a 1933 movie. I liked this movie, but I hope one day have a chance to see a 87 minutes restored version. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Êxtase' ('Ecstasy')


Warning Spoiler. . . I have to agree with you, it was almost there. This was such a bad movie, about such and interesting true story. It had such promise, but the acting was ridiculous at best. Some sets were beautiful and realistic. Others are something out of a theme park. I found myself laughing as I watched, what was suppose to be, serious scenes. I really wanted to like this movie, but I couldn't. The best part was the fight between friends that ended with the 'King' dying. I liked the Queens' punishment. And, the final shot made a beautiful picture, though. There are so many better movies to watch. I don't recommend this.


Protégé runs in a linear fashion; expect no fast-paced action, and neither will you find yourself with baited breath because there are simply no seating-on-the-edge moments.

There is not much of a crux, so don't expect one either. I would not fault the acting - the show would have been much worst if not for Wu's acting which was the film's only saving grace. And, oh that cute little girl too.

The humour is at best, weak, and the show must as well pass off as an anti-drug campaign which employs the usual shock-tactic (esp in the scenes with Zhang) to tell us stuff that we already know - i.e. drugs break up families, heroin drives you crazy, it is not so easy to wean off, you will fall into a vicious cycle.

I know it may seem all a little harsh, but I feel that the show is far from seamless and somewhat patchy (*SPOILER ALERT*: Take for example when Andy Lau got brought to the police station: what? we were just told 'oh we have all the tapes and evidence against you since 1997', and THAT is how he got caught. Nope, no chasing-car action, just a jump-of-scene, which kind of undermined Wu's role as an undercover in the first place.) I suspect the lack of creativity is attributed to the fact that it is after all, a production of Mediacorp Raintree - a Singaporean production film company.


This existential thriller, in Portuguese with English subtitles, is a modern version of the American filmes noires of the 40s, complete with a surprise twist at the end. It is riveting from beginning to end. My only criticism is its poor production values. The film looks cheaply made, and it probably was, so the black and white cinematography is vastly inferior to that of Godard in Vivre Sa Vie, to cite another film noir of more than 30 years earlier. Most maddening of all, the subtitles are often hard to read. When will filmmakers learn and provide yellow subtitles so that they can be read against a white background. I'd give this an 8 overall, although with better production values it could have been higher.


THE IMMORTALIZER was, uh, interesting. It certainly didn't kill me during its hour and a half duration, but it didn't impress me much either. A group of kids are abducted in an alley by musclehead mutants (in a scene featuring cinema's least convincing head crushing sound effect) and taken to a fancy house in the suburbs. Here Dr. Divine and his team are performing brain transplants for his rich old patients so they can have young bodies again. Hey, this was quietly remade with a big budget a few years later as FREEJACK! Who knew that when you transplant an old person's brain into a different body that their new voice will sound exactly like their old voice? With all this talk of pineal glands and the use of a glowing green serum, you can almost see visions of FROM BEYOND and RE-ANIMATOR dancing in the producers' heads. But the production literally doesn't have the guts to pull it off. I've never understood why, when someone is making a low budget horror film, that they don't pack it to the edge of the frame with gore. The acting is uniformly terrible, with the only good performance coming from Clarke Lindsley as the assistant Dr. Price. He has a nice evil laugh. The only other thing of note about THE IMMORTALIZER is that it features lots of old people doing their own stunts. Seriously, most of the cast takes some serious bumps for old folks.


This film was slow but tedious and the acting often drifted into the land of ham. Redgrave's character was unappealing as the 60 something woman trying to compete with Thurman's 20 something for the love of Fox's character (why is beyond me). The title of the movie should have been 'Shallow people on the lake'. The actors played like they were in a rehearsal. A dreadfully predictable ending to boot. I can't believe this is on this website as a comedy!


I actually didn't mind the Geico commercials the first 50 of so times I saw them and even found them to be a bit wry and amusing, BUT SERIOUSLY! This is the BEST thing that these people could come up with?!? This show sucks! It is bland and feels like watching an episode of 'The Office' with the characters disguised as cavemen (I know a lot of you will hate me for saying that but 'The Office' just does not do it for me). Okay, I get it: we have the poor slob just trying to keep his nose clean and he has a crappy boss who hates him; the pseudo-intellectual who really just has a barely-functioning intellect; and the dopey one who just wants to be accepted, but SO WHAT!!! I have worked with these people and found them just as annoying in real life as I do on TV...why would I want to waste another 1/336th of my week watching more of those type nominates?!? Please call your parents and ask them if they dropped you on your head if after thinking about it, you still delude yourself into believing that this is entertainment.


I went in to this movie thinking it was going to be the next Clerks, but left feeling let down. The humor was weak and the characters fairly flat. That isn't to say it was all bad, the idea of the dating service in the grocery store seemed like pretty fertile material, but the director switched focus to the cliche'd 'save the Mom-and-Pop store from the evil corporation guy'. I felt like if he would have just stuck with the dating service plot, he would have come out with a much more memorable movie. Now, to do the film justice, I am from the Rochester area and loved the way he portrayed Webster. In fact, the best Kevin Smith (of Clerks) homage here was giving props to his hometown. Webster, NY is to Checkout what Red Bank, NJ is to Clerks. The director wisely threw in a date at Nick Tahou's. Trust me, as far as things to do in Rochester, a garbage plate is at the top of the list. I was lucky enough to see this film at the Little in Rochester so everybody knew when the odes to the town came up and appreciated them.


I would have liked to write about the story, but there wasn't any. I would have liked to quote a couple of hard hitting dialogs from the movie but 'hinglish' is only funny for like 5 minutes, after that its overkill. I would have liked to swoon over the 'keep-u-guessing suspense' but it was as predictable as... um mm, a Yash raj movie (?). I would have liked to talk of the edge-of-the-seat action, but I don't like cartoons much.

*sigh*

All in all, this movie is perfect for: 1. people attempting suicide - I promise it'll push you over the edge 2. Sado-masochists- this movie is way more effective than the barbed wire that Silas guy in the Da-Vinci code wore. 3. People researching alternative ways to spread terrorism - I swear the audience leaving the hall seemed to be in a mood to kill someone 4. Movie Piraters: More power to them. If any movies deserves to not have the audience spending money to watch - this is it. 5.Barnacles, most types of plankton & green algae - Because almost all other living things would require an IQ factor somewhat greater than what the movie offers. Afterthought: The director of the movie, obviously, is a species of his own. ( And i hope to god that he is the only one of his kind..one is enough)

Things that could have made this a better movie: 1. A story 2. A choreographer 3. A Screenplay writer 4. A stunt coordinator 5. A story (Did I already say that?) 6. A director - preferably one who is not mentally challenged (although even one who was challenged could have done a better job) 7. Anil Kapoor=Bubonic plague - Avoid at all costs 8. A statutory warning - 'Watching Yash Raj movies is Injurious to your mental health' ?

Things I liked about the movie: 1. Kareena Kapoor - For obvious reasons 2. The English sub-titles - 'Mera Dil Kho Gaya' becomes - 'My heart is in a void' , 'Chaliya Chaliya Chaliya' turns into 'Im a flirt, Im a lover, Im a vagabond' ..priceless.

In short, Tashan to me, is like the opposite of a Rubrics cube - The cube is supposed to increase the IQ of the player, Tashan promises to lower your IQ, and that.. in a mere 2.5 hours! Woot!

*sigh*..But thats just me. I could be wrong You've been warned anyways.


Well the main reason I tuned in to watch this film is because it was done by Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park fame. However as soon as the film started the laughs started erupting from my belly. From the subtle gestures towards a joke, to the blatant toilet humour throughout, along with a constant reliance on some very witty innuendo. This film could ruin event he sternest mans poker face, let alone his poker underwear. Some of the funniest blink and you'll miss it jokes ever portrayed in Hollywood, along with constant critique of themselves thrown into the bargain.

I just goes to show that not only is Trey Parker adept at writing he's not too shabby at the old acting game either. I was surprised with the amount that I was absorbed in this film. However I'm quite worried that it is not available to buy over the internet, here in the UK. Sort it out boys!

I am, and will continue to show it to all my friends annoyingly pointing out the funny bits, and occasionally snorting into my lager. All in all an excellent film if you are a fan of unnecessary comedy. However if you have no sense of humour about silly or rude things steer well clear! However I'm sure the inclusion of Jenny McCarthy and Jasmine Bleeth could have you gurgling past those prejudices.


First of all let me say the first 20 minutes are great, the monster looks superb and the CGI is reasonably done. It's a shame then that the rest of the movie is such a disappointment,

******** SPOILERS BELOW ********

From the opening scene we can see this movie is anti-American, normally this sort of stereotyping wouldn't bother me (we Brits get enough from Hollywood) but here it's not subtle about making the Americans brain-dead morons. It goes past the point of realism and your left wondering if a Yank has raped the directors mother.

The grieving scene was really poor and the part of the movie where it starts going downhill.

Here we are introduced to the Olympic medallist Auntie and drunk Uncle who walk into the memorial and start blaming the father for his daughters death, then hitting him before they all start rolling around on the floor crying. Hardly realistic bonding at a time of crisis!

The whole virus sideline is ridiculous. If the Americans know there isn't a virus, why are they wasting time, money and resources investigating? The US government agent orders the brain drilling of an innocent Korean for nothing, making the Americans look evil (or stupid), it wasn't helped by the fact this guy was cross-eyed for comical effect.

The movie is about hunting the monster. US and Korean special forces are assigned to finding the creature although through-out the movie they are invisible. The only people hunting the monster, in the whole of Korea, is the main family and some random tramp who appears at the end to save the day! Naturally a few US/Korean agents try to stop them along the way.

The sister was only included in the movie so she could make the vital shot at the end. It was clichéd, you knew it was going to happen but to make it worse she does bugger all until that part! and my final annoyance, how the hell did that kid survive at the end? the monster had been swimming with it's head underwater for about 5 minutes! why didn't the monster eat the kids in the first place?


There are numerous films relating to WW2, but Mother Night is quite distinctive among them: In this film, we are introduced to Howard Campbell (Nolte), an American living in Berlin and married to a German, Helga Noth (Lee), who decides to accept the role of a spy: More specifically, a CIA agent Major Wirtanen (Goodman) recruits Campbell who becomes a Nazi propagandist in order to enter the highest echelons of the Hitler regime. However, the deal is that the US Government will never acknowledge Campbell's role in the war for national security reasons, and so Campbell becomes a hated figure across the US. After the war, he tries to conceal his identity, but the past comes back and haunts him. His only 'friend' is Wirtanen, but even he cannot do much for the avalanche of events that fall upon poor Campbell...

The story is deeply touching, as we watch the tragedy of Campbell who although a great patriot, is treated by disdain by everybody who surrounds him. Not only that, but he also gradually realizes that even the persons who are most close to him, have many secrets of their own. Vonnegut provides us with a moving atmosphere, with Campbell's despair building up and almost choking the viewer.

Nolte plays the role of his life, in my opinion; he is even better than in 'Affliction', although in both roles he plays tragic figures who are destined to self-destruction. Sheryl Lee is also excellent, and the same can be said for the whole cast in general.

I haven't read the book, so I cannot appraise how the film compares to it. In any case, this is something of no importance here: My critique is upon the film per se, and the film wholeheartedly deserves a 9/10.


Saw this as previous viewer by accident, I have watched it twice now. I thoroughly enjoyed it, no silly thought provoking messages just plain good fun entertainment, good songs, good characters and a just a feel good film Highly recommended to those of us that just like to enjoy films and not dissect them Great Fun for all the family here. I didn't realise Rosie Alvarez is played by Vanessa Williams, she is excellent and very sultry. The songs like One Boy and One last Kiss are really enjoyable to listen to and to tap your feet to Jason Alexander is the complete contrast to his character in Pretty Woman ans is very good. Tyne Daley still sticks in my mind from Cagney and Lacey and her voice and accent still had that remembrance in it. Overall I just loved it and will be looking to purchase it if it is available


Since most review's of this film are of screening's seen decade's ago I'd like to add a more recent one, the film open's with stock footage of B-17's bombing Germany, the film cut's to Oskar Werner's Hauptmann (captain) Wust character and his aide running for cover while making their way to Hitler's Fuehrer Bunker, once inside, they are debriefed by bunker staff personnel, the film then cut's to one of many conference scene's with Albin Skoda giving a decent impression of Adolf Hitler rallying his officer's to 'Ultimate Victory' while Werner's character is shown as slowly coming to realize the bunker denizen's are caught up in a fantasy world-some non-bunker event's are depicted, most notable being the flooding of the subway system to prevent a Russian advance through them and a minor subplot involving a young member of the Flak unit's and his family's difficulty in surviving-this film suffer's from a number of detail inaccuracies that a German film made only 10 year's after WW2 should not have included; the actor portraying Goebbels (Willy Krause) wear's the same uniform as Hitler, including arm eagle- Goebbels wore a brown Nazi Party uniform with swastika armband-the 'SS' soldier's wear German army camouflage, the well documented scene of Hitler awarding the iron cross to boy's of the Hitler Youth is shown as having taken place INSIDE the bunker (it was done outside in the courtyard) and lastly, Hitler's suicide weapon is clearly shown as a Belgian browning model 1922-most account's agree it was a Walther PPK-some bit's of acting also seem wholly inaccurate with the drunken dance scene near the end of the film being notable, this bit is shown as a cabaret skit, with a intoxicated wounded soldier (his arm in a splint) maniacally goose-stepping to music while a nurse does a combination striptease/belly dance, all by candlelight... this is actually embarrassing to watch-the most incredible bit is when Werner's Captain Wust gain's an audience alone with Skoda's Hitler, Hitler is shown as slumped on a wall bench, drugged and delirious, when Werner's character begin's to question him, Hitler start's screaming which bring's in a SS guard who mortally wound's Werner's character in the back with a gunshot-this fabricated scene is not based on any true historic account-Werner's character is then hauled off to die in a anteroom while Hitler prepare's his own ending, Hitler's farewell to his staff is shown but the suicide is off-screen, the final second's of the movie show Hitler's funeral pyre smoke slowly forming into a ghostly image of the face of the dead Oskar Werner/Hauptmann Wust-this film is more allegorical than historical and anyone interested in this period would do better to check out more recent film's such as the 1973 remake 'Hitler: the last 10 day's' or the German film 'Downfall' (Der Untergang) if they wish a more true accounting of this dramatic story, these last two film's are based on first person eyewitness account's, with 'Hitler: the last 10 day's' being compiled from Gerhard Boldt's autobiography as a staff officer in the Fuehrer Bunker and 'Downfall' being done from Hitler's secretary's recollection's, the screen play for 'Der Letzte Akte' is taken from American Nuremberg war crime's trial judge Michael Musmanno's book 'Ten day's to die', which is more a compilation of event's (many obviously fanciful) than eyewitness history-it is surprising that Hugh Trevor Roper's account,'The last day's of Hitler' was never made into a film.


In the Muslim country of Khalid (fictional), its benevolent leader/dictator,Reed Hadley as Amir, is dying of cancer. Amir dies and a desperate plot unfolds. His body is wrapped in aluminum foil and taken in a clandestine operation (the population does not know of his death) consisting of his doctor (Nigserian) and Mohammed, out of the country to perform a risky brain transplant. The surgery is being performed by the disgraced Dr. Kent Taylor, who believes there is no chance of failure and has two assistants. One of them is about 3 feet high (Master Blaster did indeed run Barter Town) and the other is a mutilated & traumatized 7 foot giant named Gor. What could possibly go wrong??

Did I forget to mention Amir's deathbed American, blonde-Barbie wife, Tracy or that Dr. Kent has a dungeon with female slave test subjects & delusions of grandeur? How about a brain transplant that didn't take? There is a lot of double-dealing throughout this and people are killed, but I'm not going to lie to you anymore : MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The ends justify the means. If you can accept that then you will not have to waste 80 minutes. I hope that is warning enough. Don't say I didn't warn you. If you must watch, then don't watch alone and have plenty of medicine standing by.

-Celluloid Rehab


Recap: Simon leads a little team of special agents that has specialized in finding and returning missing people, against all possible odds. Their latest mission is about the granddaughter of a friend of them. She seems to have been caught in the web of a particularly brutal criminal and everyone that has gone looking for her has gone missing. But now The Librarians are on the case.

Comments: This is pure B-action, through and through. The key phrase for this is unlimited supply. There is unlimited supply of ammunition, they don't have to reload once. There is an unlimited supply of bad guys, so the heroes have something to shoot at. There is an unlimited supply of breasts, many of them bare, in an vain (and as always failed) attempt to distract from the plot holes. And there is an unlimited supply of bad acting (it is almost like Erika Eleniak's performance shines in this, what about that?), and actors that don't seem to care more than the paycheck (and why should they when no one else seem to?).

And as in most B-action movies there are an unlimited supply of bad gunfights. But these almost seem to be of a ridiculously bad kind. I think I saw more realistic gunfights when I played cowboy as a kid.

But then again I didn't really expect much either, how could I from a action movie named The Librarians? And it actually delivers about what could be expected. 90 minutes of more or less bad action with some scenes to connect the dots between. But I am unsure if I can call it entertaining, it didn't keep my interest very long.

3/10


Being one of the founding fathers of my regions monkey movie club(this also includes apes/chimps and orangutans) I am reviewing this film from a monkey movie standpoint. Afterall it is a whole summer of monkeys, 100+ days for monkeys to do what they do best, cause mischief, shenanigans, hyjinx, solve human problems and teach us about ourselves.

The story is simple enough. In short poor boy needs money for stuff he wants. Luckily there's a few monkeys(chimpanzees) that have a bounty on their head that would get Boba Fett or Dog's(Duane Chapman) blood flowing. As the boy tries to catch the monkeys he learns about himself, his family, his grandpa, the local weirdo, flirts with a girl twice his age and learns the beast way to deal with bullies is to have someone point a shotgun at them.

There within lies the problem. So much focus is put on the boy that the chimps just don't get the screen time they deserve. The chimps are not as talented as the chimp(s) that play Jack from the M_P trilogy or the legendary orangutans that play Dunstin or Clyde(1 or 2). So don't watch this movie expecting to find the next big thing in the Chimp genre. The chimps hit some sweet flips which is what the film needed more of. There is an epic scene of the chimps breaking into the poor families house and destroys all the things they worked so hard for. Serious monkey movie enthusiasts will want to rent the film for this scene alone.

So in closing this movie is not for the serious monkey movie enthusiast. I wouldn't recommend this movie to families as it encourages a childs rebellion against their parents. I can only recommend this film as a rental for hardcore monkey loving adults and well supervised children.


I have to say, I loved Vanishing Point. I've seen the original, and this is a pretty good remake of it. Even though it didn't follow the original storyline (that's why I gave it 8 out of 10), it was still pretty good and this is probably a better storyline.

As for the car, well the DJ's comment at the end about the Challenger going 185 mph into the bulldozers is pretty improbable (And if you look, the speedometer needle was wobbling at 145-150), but even though I didn't see one on the engine in one of the beginning scenes where they show the engine, the original storyline had a supercharged Hemi, so it's possible. For those of you who say aerodynamics wouldn't allow it, the normally aspirated Chrysler 300C of today can go 168 mph, and if you look at that thing, going on a highway with it it's like pushing a brick wall through the wind at 70 mph. Plus, in a wind tunnel test if you put an air dam on the Challenger it would probably be more aerodynamic.


I too remember seeing this film as a youngster at a local small theater that presented foreign films each week. It was the daring adventure of it all that stayed in my memory ever since.

Especially impressionable was the scene with Noel Purcell as the old seaman, Paddy, who drank too much, saw or heard apparitions and died of fright in a cave. I always kept track of Noel's career even decades later due to my seeing him then. There's also a youngish Cyril Cusack as the leering boatman, James, with designs on the lovely Jean Simmons, shown as Emmeline grown up.

Would very much like to own a video of this haunting film and refresh my memory of it. Where do I send my request?


The Royal Rumble has traditionally been one of my favourite events, and i've been a wrestling fan for a good few years now. The other shows may have better matches, but i've always found the actual rumble match to be full of excitement.

I'm not going to reveal the winners of any match as i don't see it as fair to ruin the results on a review. I will comment on the quality of them though.

We have the standard 4 matches, and then the big rumble event. Two from Smackdown and two from Raw.

Shawn Michaels and Edge open up for Raw. This proves to be a good match from two talented guys. This is a match i'd recommend watching. It's hard to sum up without giving away the winner.

Next we have the usual Undertaker against some big nasty monster, be whoever it is. Giant Gonzales, Yokozuna, Kamala... well this time it's Heidenreich. Its also a casket match. Typical Undertaker fare. Watch if you're a fan. I have to admit i am, purely for the entertainment factor. It can hardly be regarded as a classic wrestling match.

The next two matches are the title matches. For once Smackdown manages to upstage Raw. Their title match is pretty thrilling and enjoyable, but with a anti-climax and let down to end it. Raw's match is a pretty dull and boring affair, which is a pity as i'm a fan of both guys involved.

Now to the main reason i love the event, the rumble. It's a pretty good one this year. Coming up to the event we all had a pretty good idea of who might win, and it may not prove a big surprise, but hey, its very enjoyable. There are the usual diverse ways of people being eliminated. There is the token guy who doesn't make it to the ring, the entrant who is ridiculous and we all want to see vanquished, and someone gets eliminated by a previously eliminated combatant. It has its usual highs and lows, and i loved the ending, in particular the Vince McMahon entrance.

I'd recommend this show. Not the WWE on top form, but its still good. Add it to your collection.


A beautiful film, cleverly shot with an eye to war-era detail, and (considering it is set during WWII) minimal violence.

A small cast weaves an emotive journey through the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the separation from loved ones as the pilots depart for England (the separation from the spaniel will touch hearts), spitfire scenes, love, friendship and betrayal. The theme of betrayal runs deep through the movie, from betrayal of love, to betrayal of friendship, and finally the betrayal shown by the communist regime to former RAF pilots post-war.

A desperately sad film, all the more so because it is so factually accurate. I would recommend it to everyone.


Let me start out by saying that I am a huge fan of Abbie Hoffman and have read Steal this Book and Steal this Urine Test. Also am a even bigger Jerry Rubin fan. But his movie was a discusting pile of rubbish that made a very PG version of Abbie Hoffman. The director took no chances into making Abbie Hoffman interesting in this movie. They despicted Stew Albert as a F***ing cartoon chjaractor devoid of intellegence, the man was a proffesor at Berkley for christsakes. Ok they did a horrid casting job for Anita Hoffman, did a Horrible job casting for the Jerry Rubin character. I just guess the movie doesnt fit the news flashes that I have seen of Abbie or the books that he wrote. The movie just didnt fit and upset me. Oh yeah and theat is the absolute worst voice over I have ever heard of Richard Nixon. This is one of the few movies that I have ever rented that I could not sit all the way through because, I have a passion for Abbie Hoffman and his discruntled band of Yippies and this movie was just plain badly done. And it hurt me that now when people see a movie about the yippies they will see a terrible adaptation, and not get a true sense of reality. Instead they get a hollywoodized palanthra of crap.


Snuggle down in your favourite chair and switch on the play-station, as you toss this into the waste disposal unit. Spend a useful 90 min. living your favourite game. Disjointed - poorly filmed - non directed junk. It takes a bits from several other 'science fiction' movies and badly attempts to join the parts into a pathetically weak story. There's nothing new here, the filmmakers do not seem to realise that providing simple entertainment would achieve a monetary game, but a touch of skill ingenuity and flair is required to turn it into a good film. Any money spent watching this is a waste, and personally i would like my 90 min of life back.


There are very few movies that are so funny as this one. I was lucky enough to watch this movie at a theater 'reserved' for movie buffs like me, so it was not so embarrassing sitting there laughing till my jaw was completely sore and my shirt sleeves were all wet from drying my eyes...

At times the story was a bit 'slow', but that is perhaps for the best - a bit of rest in-between the rolling amongst the aisles (I nearly fell out of the seat...) was most welcome.


**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**

The titular topless heroine rescues another beautiful babe and her father (an eccentric professor whose stock pith helmet is broken in one shot and whole in the next) from a moth-eaten, dime-store mummy and nasty Nazis out to--what else?--build a Fourth Reich. Misty's costume, like those of some other wimmen, gets skimpier as the movie rolls on. The last portion of the movie is devoted to protracted lesbian action; this footage actually gets real boring, real fast, which says more about the critters behind the camera than the curvaceous creatures in front of it. MISTY gets its nominal plot out of the way first and fast, then gives undivided attention to nudity and soft-core sex. This makes MUMMY RAIDER a throwback to movies made in the 1960s by guys like Stan Borden, David F. Friedman and Harry Novak. Just think: if this wonder-work had been cranked out four decades ago, it would have played for years on 42nd Street along with WHAM BAM THANK YOU SPACEMAN and KISS ME QUICK. As it is, MISTY MUNDAE MUMMY RAIDER went straight to home video. Grab yours, quick, before it goes out of print.


Commissaire Mattei(André Bourvil) is a single with a little gun who loves cats and his boss at the Paris police department is a philosopher who knows that even the police becomes sooner or later guilty. That is what the film is all about. And a jewel robbery at the place Vendome.

Corey (Delon) brings the plan from prison, Vogel(Volonté)joins him and helps him against two tough guys, who are after him, because he took mafioso Ricos(Andre Eycan) money, while Rico already took Coreys girl friend and left him very much alone for five years in jail. Corey and Vogel find a third man, Jansen(Montand), a former police officer and sniper who opens a security lock by shooting special hand made ammunition into a hole. A perfect plan and cooperation, but they have to sell the booty and there is Mattei in the role of a buyer in disguise. The circle closes. Running to help each other they are shot by the cat loving Mattei and his little pistol.

It took Melville 20 years he says to make a robbery film after he failed to get a contract for RIFFIFI. Melville wrote the screenplay and filmed in the south of France and in Paris of yesteryear. The great Henri Decae is as usual the lighting cameraman. It is the one before last picture of Melvilles who died after another film with Delon in 1972.

Melville actually wanted Belmondo instead of Volonté, he didn't like that Italian at all, but Volonté-Vogel is an excellent fugitive and gives next to Bourvil the most convincing performance. But mind you: Melville notes, that Volonté is an instinctive actor, a strange character, very wearying and absolutely impossible on a French set. Melville didn't like him at all and didn't want to work with him ever again.

Melville is wrong. Volonté give the most lively character in the nowhere of not so many interesting characters. You can see what he is feeling being chased by Mattei and his little dangerous gun and all the dogs of France in winter 70. A wild actor.

Also André Bourvil, who passed away close to the time of the filming. He also was not first choice, but definitely a great substitute. He carries the instinct of a lonely hunter through the whole film and gets in the end his chance to become guilty once more.

Jansen has entered at night the jewelry shop with a rifle and a tripod but risks eventually freehandedly a successful shot. When he meets Delon the first time we already know that the elegant Jansen has a severe drinking problem. After the robbery Montand renounces to take his part of the booty and mentions to Delon, who looks up to him, that he only got into the red circle, because he wanted to take revenge on the inhabitants of his wardrobe. Delon doesn't catch what he means. The audience recalls having seen Montand in a great scene in his haunted house fighting helplessly nightmare creatures that come out of the wardrobe and attack him. At that time a very rare scene, one recalls a long time after. I bet it was ever so difficult to arrange and direct that stuff at a time no one imagined the coming days of digital movie making. Great artwork when art was made by hand.

We sure will remember a crew like the actors, still it seems even after 33 years this one stays the less popular of the six thrillers of Melville. What is wrong with it? I am afraid one doesn't take much interest in those three actors (showing three criminals) and their police hunter. We learn too little about Corey and his fatal 5 years away from his beautiful girl(Anna Douking). Montand is still a great sniper, but what made him become a drinking man with funny creatures in his wardrobe. Delon acts as if he is in an earlier adventure of the samourai, Volonté is the man in the trunk of Delons American car and superbly moving and Mattei is swell to look at, a great actor at the edge of his life. But how could he ever possibly doubt that all are guilty ?

In an interview Melville states, that there is no woman in the film. Not in the very red circle, but I remember well that jolly good looking female Anna Douking (with no future career). We are in the 70s. There in fact rises a woman from the bed of an old mafioso wearing nothing and walks slowly to the door to listen to the voice of her old lover Delon. Bardot did something like that 10 years earlier. This time Melville was directing. Well done.

The RED CERCLE has certainly added a few but not many glittering gems to film history. The robbery at Place Vendome and Montands wonder bullet the inhabitants of the wardrobe and Volonté escaping Bouvil in white underwear and carrying his trousers carefully across a stream. That is too little for a great gangster and robbery movie. But the 110 minutes never bore you and it is a game on a high level. And there are probably some secrets you learn when you see the film over and over again. None of the secrets is that we are all guilty and the late Francois Perier is also featured.

Michael Zabel


In 1990 Brad Pitt and Juiliette Lewis did a TV Too Young To Die where both played the almost the same kind of parts that they do in Kalifornia. I have no doubt that is what led to their casting in this big screen film.

Kalifornia finds aspiring writer David Duchovny and his girl friend, art photographer Michelle Forbes on a rocky relationship of sorts due to Duchovny's obsession with writing a book and getting in the minds and souls of serial killers. In fact he's got a most unusual odyssey planned, he wants to go cross country and visit the sites of several famous serial killers. But he and Forbes are flat broke.

Fate intervenes in more ways than financial with the arrival of Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis a pair of strange southern types who agree to split the cost of gas on this cross country trip. It turns out Pitt is a serial killer himself and he decides to do a little research on his own, delving into the mind of someone who is fascinated with amorality.

Kalifornia is not the type of film I usually go for, but in fact the acting ability and charisma of Brad Pitt make it work to a large degree. Pitt is the walking definition of an inbred Gothic refugee from Deliverance. But better than he is is Juliette Lewis who once again is playing these low self esteem types which she seems to do well. Watch her scene with Forbes as she does her hair and Lewis describes her sad and pathetic life. Lewis's dialog and Forbes's reactions ought to be shown in acting classes around the country.

For those who like their slasher flicks, they don't come better than Kalifornia.


Ever since I can remember and I'm only 18 my mother and I have been and continue to watch older movies because well I find them much more rewarding in the long run (but hey don't get me wrong I do love the movies we have today just not as much as I love movies of the 40s and 50s) Anyways, now I have to say the moment I started watching the movie my eyes were glued to the TV. Of course my favorite character was the Grandmother played by Lucile Watson. But I loved the way Betty Davis and her family was portrayed. The children...did not act like children in the slightest. But there is good reason for that, having had to hid and run most of your life, seeing the awful things children saw those days destroyed their innocence. So people saying 'oooo i hated how the kids acted...blah blah blah' read between the lines and know they saw things children should not see.

Paul Lukas...dear Paul did an amazing job!!! Now I know many people are mad that he go the Oscar and Bogie didn't but hey they both did amazing jobs so I think it could have gone either way. But Lukas' performance was so amazing that by the end of the movie I was reduced to tears. I loved this movie so much and recommend it to anyone!! :-D


Casting aside many of the favorable comments that have obviously come from friends and/or relatives that pepper this and many other low budget independents listed on IMDb, one is lost when it comes to using these reviews as an accurate gauge. So eventually you have to go out and rent the flick just to see for yourself. One of the first things you must understand are the catch phrases that camouflage the reality of the movie. In this case the term 'dark psychological thriller.' Read: 'hack writer/director who thinks he's an auteur, who replaces plot, story, and action, with what he believes is a deep insight into the human soul. His great insight? Festering and repressed childhood traumas emerge to wreck havoc when we become adults. Wow, I bet Freud would be really impressed! Too many would be film makers like Kallio, who were raised on low budget horror flicks of the last few decades, fail to dig their own fresh grave. Instead, they fall into the pre-dug graves of the many other directors that came before them. They are content with rehashing old and tired horror clichés that they borrowed from a dozen or more films. The result is an unoriginal, uninspired, unbelievable waste of film stock.


A very weird, psychedelic, esoteric, (and did I say weird? :) experience.

But on at least on one level - it did exactly what it was supposed to do. It bridged the gap between the silly, manufactured, Hollywood look at teen pop idols that was the Monkees TV program and the adult, musically growing and evolving, and yet still a little silly Monkees of the '70s and beyond.

The most important line in the film is Mike Nesmith's, 'If they think we are plastic now, wait till they see how we do it.' That the Monkees were tired of all of the negative comments about their image and their work is a matter of record. They said it over and over in interviews. They needed to re-make themselves, and what better way that to de-bunk and hilariously lampoon the very machine that created them. And at the same time, they commented on our whole society (news, movies, art, everything) and said, 'Hey, why pick on us - isn't all of this stuff manufactured on one point or another.' These are the Orwellian 'proles' (the Monkees represented the persecuted 'everyman' even at their silliest in the TV series)pulling down 'Big Brother's' pants and kicking him in his very deserving butt.

Loved the ideas, loved the music, loved the effects, loved the movie! But then, as Peter Tork says in the movie, 'But then, why should I speak, since I know nothing?' :)


This movie was one of the greatest movies ever made,,,, it had everything to make a movie great. Incredible acting, awesome special effects...... oh wait I must be thinking of a good movie. Well this wasn't one of them, it just plain sucked.

What I want to know is, what kind of bone head would think that this movie was a 10. When I casted my vote there were 206 out there, god knows what goes on in their head. Now as for any other vote, a 8 or 9 was even too high, but a 10??? Come on, what made this movie sooooo good to give it a 10? I know these are the same 206 that thought that Jean Claude Van Damme is a great dramatic actor.


I haven't read a single IMDb comment for this movie that mentions how the Jewish character in this movie jumped up and down like a little baby as a gun is pointed in his face by a racist skinhead while the movie's lead black character looked in sternness down the barrel of a gun.

I don't know how anyone could perceive this as a balanced account of university life. I agree universities are not bastions of tolerance like they are supposed to be and the title would be fitting if Singleton didn't make his characters such broad caricatures.

On the surface he tries to portray Ice Cube's character as a bad guy, provoking Remy to become a racist skinhead. But who graduates at the end in the movie's redeeming epilogue? It seems Singleton points at white as either unable to empathize (I didn't say sympathize!) with his fellow black student OR only able to take the path of a racist skinhead. Many people who have been bullied by people of another race do not turn to extreme bigotry.

Nor do women who have been raped immediately turn to lesbianism, which is portrayed more as a cult than a lifestyle. Quite honestly what was the point?


ONCE UPON A TIME, there were different types of movies. These different movies coexisted even though each one had something different to offer....

This seems obvious at first, but I thought I'd point it out during this review because it seems a few people may have forgotten. This is just a fun movie for Pavarotti fans. That's all it is. It doesn't claim to be anything else or anything grander. People who deride it as something that fell short of a promise aren't seeing the whole picture- literally. After all, Hollywood makes movies all the time that are shameless vehicles for people (Bodyguard or The Preacher's Wife w/Whitney Houston are 2 examples that spring to mind.)

First I'd like to address the movie as a vehicle for Pavarotti. There are worse things in this world-- and worse movies. The singing is fabulous and the selection of arias is fun. The movie starts with Schubert's Ave Maria and then Leoncavallo's Matinatta. Pav sings arias from La Gioconda, Manon Lescaut, and Turandot but also sings popular music such as 'I left my heart in San Francisco' and the song that was nominated for an Oscar & Golden Globe, 'If we were in Love' w/music by John Williams & lyrics by Alan & Marilyn Bergman- all 3 previous Oscar winners.

The story isn't that bad. It was built for Pavarotti so of course it's not going to be something that's profound or universally applicable to the average movie viewer. It's a story of a famous opera singer who was traumatized by a bad night at the opera years ago. When asked to sing again at the same place, the 'MET' in NYC, he loses his voice from fear. Doctor Pamela (or Pah-MAY-lah in Italian:)) played by Kathryn Harrold- gives him a shot to cure his psychosomatic reaction. He offers her the chance to have a fling with him and she reluctantly accepts.

They embark on an affair, she knowing he's married & promising not to fall in love with him and him thinking she will be just another woman. Despite all that, they fall in love (thus the song, 'IF we were in love') and with her help, he overcomes his fear & goes back to the MET where he triumphs. I won't tell how it ends, but it's fairly predictable. Which isn't always a bad thing.

The performances in this aren't that bad. Pavarotti (who plays Giorgio Fini) isn't an actor, so if you're expecting a Spencer Tracy or Tom Hanks performance, YOU are deluded, not Pavarotti. He knows he's not a thespian. What he is is cute, charming & charismatic. He is having fun himself, and if you can just let yourself have fun too, it's not so bad. One funny line is when he tells Pamela (Harrold) that she's a 'thirsty plant, Fini can water you!' and of course, she says, 'I don't want to be watered on by Fini!' Kathryn Harrold is very sweet and does a nice job as a semi-uptight woman who learns from this extravagant man to live a little. One of my favorite lines in the movie is: 'Life never has to be life size.' And there's Eddie Albert who does his usual good job as Fini's manager. There are several 'themselves' cameos by real conductors, singers, etc. and it is filmed on location at the Metropolitan Opera at Lincoln Center.

If you like opera, if you like Pavarotti, or if you can just let yourself go & enjoy a 'little fling' just like he proposes in the movie- then you can enjoy this movie for what it is. I know I do- EVERY time. :)


*minor spoilers*

You know, it's getting to the point where Walt Disney Television Animation might just as well be called Walt Disney Sequel Animation. These sequels range from excellent ('Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas' and the fantastic 'Lion King II: Simba's Pride') to horrible ('The Return of Jafar'). (This is, of course, my personal opinion.) Now Disney brings us their latest sequel. 'Scamp's adventure,' and while it is flawed, it is still entertaining.

The quality of animation is not up to par with Disney Feature Animation; still, the animators do a good job of bringing the characters to life. Lady and Tramp have not aged a day since 1955. Trusty still talks about his sense of smell and 'Ol' Reliable,' and Jock still gives him grief about it. There's a nice fight between Tramp and a huge dog in the dog pound, and once again we are treated to a spaghetti dinner with the two romantic leads (though it is highly doubtful that this will become a classic scene like its predecessor.)

I really don't care for most of the songs (though Roger Bart and Susan Egan--the singing voices of Scamp and Angel--sing their parts very nicely). Both Melissa Manchester and Norman Gimbel have done much better work in the past. Danny Troob's score is okay, but nothing memorable. And some of the junkyard gang seem like excess baggage; that is, they really don't do much.

The voice work, on the other hand, is quite good. While I don't like Jeff Bennett as the dogcatcher, he is very good as Tramp. Chazz Palminteri does a nice job as Buster, leader of the junkyard gang, and Alyssa Milano gives what may be her best performance as Angel. Then there is Scamp (who is the spitting image of his dad). He is voiced to PERFECTION by Scott Wolf. Wolf does a superb job of showing Scamp's wild streak and his soft side.

All in all, while 'Scamp's Adventure' is flawed, it still makes for rather entertaining viewing. It is my hope, however, that Walt Disney Television Animation will turn their attention to more original material for their future releases.


Native Chief's son is wrongfully accused for the death of his father. The evil Witch Doctor orders to execute him. He then comes back as a murdering tree(!), Tabanga. Well, what can you say about such a 'film'? If it was intended to be a horror film, there obviously was some sort of bad judgment involved. And for a comedy, it still isn't funny enough. I don't know why people make films like this. I guess you have to be in a really silly mood to watch it. Or you might want to see the incredible 'monstrous' tree, which gives a new dimension to 'a slow death'. Or maybe you want to check out the great acting skills by all involved. (Ms. Kilgore!) Or the dialogue and screenplay, which were strangely ignored at the Academy Awards that year.

'Shouldn't we try psycho-analysis on that tree? Maybe its mother was afraid of oaks.' 2/10


This could be a strong candidate for 'The Worst Flick Ever'. Perhaps without the presence of John Hurt, it could be tolerated as a kid-film. However, the TRAGEDY of this entire endeavor, is that John Hurt, one of the screen's greatest actors, diminishes himself in this....I gave it two points just because Mr. Hurt SHOWED UP...I take AWAY 8 points, because he didn't run from it fast enough. As far as the rest of the cast, they are, simply, terrible. Janine Turner, as pretty as she might be, cannot act to save her soul. And the lead actor is, for all intents and purposes, AWFUL. If you can spare yourself this embarrassment, please do so. It's so bad, it almost HURTS.


Without doubt the best of the novels of John Le Carre, exquisitely transformed into a classic film. Performances by Peter Egan (Magnus Pym, The Perfect Spy), Rudiger Weigang (Axel, real name Alexander Hampel, Magnus' Czech Intelligence controller), Ray McAnally (Magnus' con-man father) and Alan Howard (Jack Brotherhood, Magnus' mentor, believer and British controller), together with the rest of the characters, are so perfect and natural, the person responsible for casting them should have been given an award. Even the small parts, such as Major Membury, are performed to perfection. It says a lot for the power of the performances, and the strength of the characters in the novel that, despite the duplicity of Magnus, one cannot help but feel closer to Magnus and Axel than to Jack Brotherhood and the slimy Grant Lederer of U.S. Intelligence. I have read the book at least a dozen times, and watched the movie almost as many times, and continue to be mesmerized by both. If I had one book to take on a desert island, A Perfect Spy would be the choice above all others.


The infamous Ed Wood 'classic' Plan 9 From Outer Space features an indignant alien calling the human race, '...stupid! Stupid, stupid stupid!' I'd have to say exhibit A in that trial would probably this movie, a ridiculously silly sci-fi film.

Falling action star Jean Claude Van Damme returns to a hit role for him from the original movie, Luke, a former Universal Soldier who now works making really good universal soldiers. While Van Damme was too big to reprise the role in the first two sequels, he was too small to do much of anything else by the time the fourth film in the Universal Soldier series came around. So, probably cursing under his breath the whole way, he kicks and grunts and scowls through ninety minutes of explosions and karate kicks. You'll find plenty of mindless violence, but I'd advise you get a coat check for your brain at the door when you start watching this thing. Otherwise, you are liable to forget where you left it by the time it's over.

Luke is called into action against more Universal Soldiers after a really really REALLY evil computer named Seth (makes HAL look like Ghandi) turns all the other universal soldiers into evil, remorseless killers. Of course this is what these things are programmed to do, but in this case they are killing their creators, not 'the enemy' so that's a problem.

I love the dumb logic of this movie. Logic that believes that a supercomputer would create a body for itself that looks as ashamed as Michael Jai White does to be in this movie. Logic that dictates that the creator of Seth be a blue-haired cyber-stereotype geek who spouts cliches more regularly than Old Faithful does steam. Logic that has a climactic karate fight feature two characters kicking each other though ten separate panes of shattering glass in the span of three minutes of screen time.

The film also features a daughter in peril character, wrestler Bill Goldberg as a wrestler disguised as a Universal Soldier, and a romance so tacked on, I have to think the writers thought tacked on romances were actually a GOOD thing. And when this movie ends, it ends. Not a minute after a gigantic towering finale-style explosion are the credits running. No epilogue, no where are they now, no final kiss, just explosion, hug, over. Even the creators want to get out of this thing as soon as possible.

While it's no Plan 9, US:TR is a silly little trifle of an action movie that would be fun at parties full of rowdy Van Damme fans who enjoy seeing their hero really reaching new depths. Not to be seen on a serious stomach.


Emotionally insecure Tom Russo (Asbestos Felt) reads the secret diary of his sexy wife Leeza (Courtney Lercara) and is dismayed to discover that the love of his life has apparently been sleeping with every bloke she meets; this shocking revelation sends poor Tom off his rocker, and he proceeds to wreak bloody revenge on the men who he believes have been rogering his old lady.

In my experience, really, really bad films can often be as much fun as really good ones, and no film featuring a decapitation by machete-enhanced ceiling fan should ever be considered completely worthless; but even though Killing Spree very occasionally manages to entertain with its inventiveness and cheap and cheerful gore, I found that the terrible direction, awful production values, ugly cinematography, muffled sound, dreadful lighting, mind numbingly tedious and daft narrative (which includes a really dumb plot twist that is telegraphed from the beginning, plus a pointless zombie finale), nasty synthesizer score, inane dialogue, and thoroughly amateurish acting all served to make this effort from writer/director Tom Ritter a virtually joyless experience.


I am a huge fan of Simon Pegg and have watched plenty of his movies until now and none of them have ceased to make me laugh. Neither did How to lose friends and Alienate People.

This movie is essentially about a man good as pissing people off. However, he has an innate set of ethics that prevents him from doing things that might just make him famous. But in the end he ends up doing them, the culture of life.

The movie is well toned with humor, romance, good acting and also a bit of a lap dance. Its one of those movies where you could just be happy when it ends.


One of the best parts of Sundance is seeing movies that you would otherwise almost certainly miss. Unless you're a real art-house devotee, you probably don't catch many documentaries. Only a handful get any recognizable distribution. Fortunately, Sundance has increased its commitment to documentaries in recent years.

Shakespeare Behind Bars is a powerful documentary about a dramatic production group at the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky. Every year a group of inmates present a Shakespearean play. Director Hank Rogerson and his crew follow the troupe as roles are self-selected, interpreted, rehearsed and ultimately performed.

The movie is filled with fascinating revelations for those of us that have not been exposed to prison environments. Despite the labels we know them by (convict, felon, murderer, etc.) we soon began to appreciate and respect these men as thinking feeling human beings. Serendipitously, the play chosen for the year of filming was The Tempest, with its penetrating focus on forgiveness and redemption. The actors all grapple with the relevance of the play to their lives, finding patterns and parallels with their characters and the meaning of the drama.

For a documentary film, like a book, the best that can be hoped for is that we experience something that changes our lives. Shakespeare Behind Bars was a personal revelation for me. 'O brave new world, that has such creatures in it.'


This is so bad I don't know where to begin.

The lead role is a good starting point. It is a supreme Mary Sue character that has few things in common with the original one from the book, who was (a bit) more credible. No, this one is invincible, infallible, indomitable, and insipid even beyond the overinflated standards that this 'chicks with swords' era that our medias are spinning out of late. She is a twenty-something top-model, thin as a match yet rich, already a leader in her academic field, a kung-fu master, a natural sniper and seems to have enough authority to naturally trump anyone official like puny FBI agents. She is God.

To balance it out, she is supposed to be socially awkward (due to her typically harsh upbringing that transformed her into a 'Spock') which gives us some delighted moments where she wonders what is 'Star Wars', or 'American Idol', but yet when it's really important she can conveniently reveal herself as a top negotiator and diplomat, because she is so superior, ya know. To top it out, she is played by a wooden actress.

The more talented Boreanaz serves as a faire-valoir token for this construct, acting as a bumbling comic-relief and house 'Watson'. In fact, everything in there is a pop-parody of better works like Sherlock Holmes, CSI and X-Files, from which it tries to emulate the sexual tension between main protagonists. It is however cheaper, as this is delivered with all the subtlety of an elbow poke in the ribs, but a million million poor factory girls will doubtlessly buy into it, hence the crazy rating this turkey gets.

In fact, the lowest common denominator goes a long way in this sad puppy, resulting in titillating sex details from the legion of sidekicks that aim to pass it out as daring and trendy, while the overall tone of the show carries an obvious neo-conservative view on things.

Story-wise, there's not much here to feast upon, as crimes (that always start out with some gruesome remains) are resolved using non-existent technology while the 'squints', lovable but so wrong (the women less than the guys) goes on varied theories, all of them futile as the main character has it all from the start, and once it is established she goes out and then punch the guy, typically a real tough hombre, with a spin kick here and a slapper there. The end.


I rented this film in DVD form without knowing anything at all about it, part of a winter marathon of watching a film every night. After several awful American action adventure films (Ballistic, Daredevil, Cradle of Life) Zhu Warriors struck me as brilliantly original filmmaking. The story is complete nonsense, but I found the film's sincerity, good- heartedness and complete lack of irony refreshing, and the film looks spectacular. Sure, the special effects are not technically as flawless as those produced by Hollywood, but the filmmakers wisely are more interested in color, composition and movement than realism and so many of the shots are breathtaking. In one shot, two of the superhuman characters stand on craggy spires of rock, a huge moon rising before them, the image perfectly balanced by the three elements. In another, a princess-warrior spires through the heavens behind her glowing sword like a heat-seeking missile. And the colors explode from shot to shot, used to express emotion rather than to represent reality.

The characters have the same simplicity and directness of comic book characters, offering no great depth in themselves but referring to archtypes that resonate more deeply. Physically, several of the actors are astonishingly beautiful. They play their roles straight up, without irony or guile, and so are believable.

Most strange of all, despite the clumsiness of plot and thin characterizations, I found myself very near tears at the end, moved by the beautiful simplicity of the actors and the wildly original, good-hearted vision of the director.


There are some movies you just know they are going to be bad from frame one. Even if you were totally oblivious of Ed Wood's work, one look at that commentator from 'Plan 9 from outer space' and you just KNOW you are not gonna see the next cinematic masterpiece. Just like that, when I saw the first shot of Uwe Bolls masterpiece 'House of Dead', with that guy sitting at the front of the house starting his introduction while trying desperately to sound like he just arrived from Sin City, I knew I'm in for a helluva ride.

So, the movie starts like this - first the lead character says that everybody else is going to die. You know, to keep you wandering. Then he starts introducing the rest of the characters with lines like 'Karma..thinks she's Foxy Brown' or 'Alicia..my ex.. we broke up recently.. I had to study and she had to fence'. No, I'm not kidding.

Anyway, this bunch of 20-somethings who couldn't act their way out of a wet paper-bag are going to the 'Rave of the century', rave in question being a few tents, a port-a-potty and a shoddy stage located on small island in the middle of the Pacific. Our gang missed the ferry, but thankfully will find a way to get there, the way being a fisher-boat ran by Kirk (Cpt Kirk? Get it? Man, whoever wrote this script is a genius) and his sidekick who is a bastard child of Simpsons' Cpt McAllister and that hook killer who knows what you did last summer.

To make the long story short, the gang gets to the island, finds nobody there except some bloody T-shirts and then decide to run the hell away from there. No wait, they do not, they actually get all happy and like cos there's free booze.

With that scene the movie hits rock bottom and then against all odds proceeds to go further downhill. Some guys in rubber suits start running around, there is some screaming and shooting, our gang goes to some house to meet some other gang, they go out of the house, meet Cpt Kirk and some police woman (who between them have about 500 pounds of weapons) and then decide to go back to the house. Somewhere along the line they transform into a S.W.A.T. team, enter the Matrix, the rubber-suit guys start multiplying like bacteria and I start to cry because I actually paid to see this. To add insult to the injury, every few minutes there are shots from the video game this crap is based on and there is a cute game-over cut-scene for a few characters when they die.

I seriously hate this movie. It doesn't even fit in that famed 'So bad it's good' category. It's just plain bad. The script is bad, the zombies are awful, there is no tension, lines are bad, actors are bad.. the list just goes on.

You will probably want to see this movie just because of its reputation of being awful. Don't. There are bad movies that deserve to be watched. This is not one of them.


...at least during its first half. If it had started out with the three buddies in the navy and concentrated on the naval action scenes, it would have been a much better and tighter film. The second half of the film is worth it, especially for the action sequences and close up shots of early 20th century ships, but it's like a dull toothache getting there. Also, don't watch this film just because Ginger Rogers is in it. She has an important role, but it's a small one.

The film starts out showing three New York City buddies working the tourist trade and also in good-natured competition for the hand of Sally (Ginger Rogers), a singing candy salesgirl along the avenue. World War I breaks out, the three buddies seem completely indifferent to the struggle, yet enlist in the navy anyways. The one of the three with the least industry as a civilian (Bill Boyd as Baltimore) winds up the commanding officer to the other two (Robert Armstrong as Dutch and James Gleason as Skeets). To make matters more complex, Sally has fallen in love with one of the three, but doesn't have the chance to tell him before the three sail off to war.

The film is a little more interesting on board ship, mainly because of the close shots we have of the ship itself, and also because the chemistry among the three buddies is believable. However, James Gleason at age 49 looks a bit long in the tooth to be a swabby, especially when the sign at the enlistment office said you had to be between 17 and 35 to be eligible.

One real obvious flaw in the film that made me believe that everything outside the naval scenes was slapped together with minimum care is the costume design, or, I should say, the lack of it. In the scenes in New York just prior to WWI we have everyone dressed in the fashions of 1931 and everyone driving the cars of 1931 - no effort was taken to bring this film into period.

In conclusion, if you watch the few scenes with Ginger Rogers in them and the last 45 minutes involving the naval suicide mission, you've seen everything here worth seeing. The rest is padding.


This movie was so ridiculous i never even finished watching it i actually thought someone had made their own version and dubbed it onto the DVD from the movie store. This movie made me sick not because it was gory, but because i wasted 2 50 on it!!!! It looks like my brother and i went into a house and made the movie ourselves and edited slaughterhouse footage into it! I am so ticked off, even The BTK Killer deserves more credit than that it was not even accurate i mean come on the cow head was obviously made out of play dough or BUBBLE GUM OMG I cant even get all the words out to explain it DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!


The recent death of Stephen Bach, one of the producers of HEAVEN'S GATE, has raised the specter of at least a partial resurrection of the reputation of the cursed film. Moreover the original release, the 'long version' was recently shown on TCM exposing the film, in ail probability, to its largest audience ever.

I saw the film when it first came out at a packed screening in a 3rd Avenue cinema across the street from Bloomingdales. I think it was released on a Friday and withdrawn on the following Wednesday. Maybe that wasn't a fair release but it was and is a terrible film. Seeing the full-length version recently confirmed that judgment and with some thirty years more experience watching and writing about films I am better able to articulate why.

First there is the dreaded phrase 'mise-en-scene' whose definition is at the same time so simple yet so amorphous that it puzzles even after being defined. Basically it's everything that happens in front of a camera. For example, a crowd extra will be given a piece of action, say just walking by on the sidewalk and a spot to start from. When the assistant director yells action the extra will go through their action. If there's another take the extra will return to the start spot and go again on 'action'. All of the extras do this. Then say a cab drives up to the sidewalk and the star gets out and embraces another principal while all the while the crowd extras are doing their thing. This is mise-en-scene. In the theatre they call it blocking but cinema is far more multi-dimensional.

The importance of defining mise-en-scene is because when the French critics developed their theory of the auteur the opposite of an auteur was a métier-en-scene, even more derogatorily referred to as a 'traffic cop'. An auteur was intimately involved in the meaning of a film and through the director's body of work a theme or themes discerned. The metier-en-scene was basically a company man rendering in film what had been handed to him on paper. It is the difference between say John Ford and Sam Wood.

The second point is how the director, Michael Cimino, got into the position of directing films. Cimino first gained prominence directing the first million-dollar TV commercial. This depicted a Chevrolet floating down the Grand Canal in Venice. This commercial never appears on any lists of greatest TV commercials of all time and is notable solely because of how expensive it was and how utterly exaggerated it was. The effect is like that of a three year old girl brought out to entertain company who gets her biggest response when she flings her dress over her head. Cute for a three year old, embarrassing for a thirty year old. So Cimino was praised early on for spending a huge amount of money for some over-the-top image and so he learned.

His first film, THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT (1974) has a scene where Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges are passengers in a lunatic's car that drives back and forth, back and forth, until it drives off the road and the driver opens the trunk full of rabbits which he proceeds to shoot one by one. I had the feeling that if the producer, Eastwood, hadn't stepped in, that the scene would have lasted until every rabbit had been killed.

Which brings us to HEAVEN'S GATE. I guess if one watches the film on a DVD in snatches like a mini-series it can be impressive. This is because scenes are directed with such a dense mise-en-scene that each scene is like an encyclopedia it's just plain exhausting to sit through nearly four hours of this. Its like sex, at some point it just becomes a whipping. There is the opening 40 minutes, which takes place at Harvard. Brilliantly photographed at Oxford, it is something of a non-sequitur. I personally favor the artistic way of unfolding a story as opposed to the more commercial _'Now I'm gonna tell you what I'm gonna tell you' of most films. However the whole preface adds up to only one line- Kris Kristofferson and John Hurt went to Harvard together. Now twenty years later All of that time, money and effort, not to mention all of the audiences' attention and energy just to deliver this almost useless piece of information.

Then there's the scene in the street between Kristofferson and Masur which just goes on and on with a populated city of background extras and horse drawn vehicles in the background in continuous motion to deliver a tiny bit of expositional information. It's just so exhausting. There is just one scene after another like this. It's like trying to eat a thirty- pound pizza. Then there are these long conversations of inconsequential details and unintelligible, witless dialogue, which go on and on and are exhausting and boring.

Of course any single scene excerpted looks brilliant. Overall it's a rich piece to spin praiseworthy articles about. Seen in snatches with the possibility of fast-forwarding through the boring bits or turning it off if feeling mise-en-scene whipped, it's basically painless. But don't let anybody tell you it's a good film. When I saw it in 1980 there was a guy sitting in front of me who commented on the scene where Kris Kristofferson is on his horse and he turns one way and then the other and does this about six times. 'That's symbolic,' he said, 'of he doesn't know which way to go.' That is basically, at its kernel, the basis of every pro- Heaven's Gate critique.

Watch it, if you must, but be forewarned, this is not a film whose time has come, this is a stinker which will smell for all time.

HEAVEN'S GATE is historically inaccurate in the extreme. I recommend the book BANDITTI OF THE PLAINS by Asa Mercer on the Johnson County War.


It has been so many years since I saw this but I do feel compelled to defend this gem against those who lambast it.

It is interesting and unusual to observe the diversity of opinion here. That is what humour does I suppose. It is subjective. It either charges through your funny bone at 60,000 volts or it leaves you cold and wondering why you gave it the time.

This show has some of Britain's best comic actors put together in a story that is silly and irreverent and the outcome is hilarious. The dialogue and visual comedy is beautifully delivered and the two leads (Cleese and Lowe) are superb together. This was made for them.

I can't really say anymore other than to implore you to find this and watch it. You won't be disappointed and in a world devoid of genteel humour, this is a classic inane and harmless piece of comedic brilliance.


Miraculously, this is actually quite watchable. I mean, it's bad. It's really bad. But whereas the original was so-bad-it's-ruining-my-life bad, this is so-bad-it's-mildly-entertaining bad. Right, that's enough faint praise. Production values are rotten across the board, the acting is excruciating and the Romero-wannabe satire can't make its mind up which side of the ecology fence it's mocking. Internal logic takes a back seat to heads propelling themselves out of fridges, virus incubation times fluctuating as the 'plot' requires, bullets working against the zombies or not, zombies having the power of speech or not. Gore is the draw, obviously, but the framework is so slapdash it's annoying. The dialogue sounds like it's been translated by the same computers that mangle instruction manuals, and the scale of the zombie infestation is implied with none of the ingenuity of Romero's films. It's all topped off with a horrendous synth score. Absolute rubbish.


This movie is poorly written, hard-to-follow, and features bad performances and dialog from leads Jason Patric and Jennifer Jason Leigh. The premise, believable but weak (undercover narcotics agent succumbs to the drug underworld) deserved better than this Lili Fini Zanuck flop. The competent supporting cast (Sam Elliott, William Sadler, others) was not enough to save this film.

In addition, this movie also contains the absolute worst 'love' scene in cinema.

Moreover, the soundtrack is vastly overrated; specifically the revolting, sappy-without-substance 'Tears in Heaven' by the otherwise legendary Eric Clapton.

'Rush' is wholly unenjoyable from beginning to end.

2 of 10


this is the most overrated show on television. i believe people continue to watch it because they feel they should, because it has become somewhat of a 'cool' show to watch and talk to your friends about the next day at work or school. rarely does it actually elicit anything more than a chuckle and never provokes any sense of irony or thought from the audience. every joke is interchangeable with 'punchlines' that seem to be drawn out of a hat. the complete lack of originality combined with the even somehow lamer spin off it has spawned (see: American Dad) makes me question the intelliegence of an audience that continues to keep this horrid show on TV. i award family guy no points and may god have mercy on its soul...


Contrary to most other comments about 'Syriana' on the IMDb web-site, I and my family found watching this film on DVD at home a complete waste of time and space.

In short, this was a film based on a script whose writer was being too clever by far. Rather than trying to tell a complex story in an intelligent and clear manner, it was assumed that constantly throwing mostly vague and hard to connect with each other 30-second vignettes of different story-lines from a dozen or so 'story-lines' at the audience made for great and clear viewing. No, sir, it does not. What does make for great viewing is total clarity, precision, plots and story-lines - and characterisations - which have a beginning, a middle, and an end.

This kind of cinematic presentation - akin to the Dim Sum experience in a Chinese restaurant - is pretentious and unintelligent in the extreme.

Thank goodness, then, for the TV and DVD presentations of the Hollywood and British film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s whose writers, director, and actors knew the value of clear story telling, diction, and acting that meant something.

This is one DVD that this family will not be sitting through again.


It was high time a movie about the situation in a largely ignored Asian country like Myanmar had to be made and Beyond Rangoon is Hollywood's answer. Initially I thought Hollywood would dramatize the events of the 8888 uprising and add in the traditionally Hollywood spice of Titanic-type love between the lead heroine and the Burmese male lead who happens to be an old man. Thankfully, nothing of that sort was in place - which may also explain why the film was not financially successful.

Anyway, the film was honest-to-God and I was glad at the accuracy of events portrayed. Apart from the fact that filming was done outside of Myanmar in Malaysia & Thailand and that I missed the exotic Burmese locales, I could not find much fault in the film.

You cannot blame the film for the desperation of the people and the resulting overwhelming actions. It is after all, real events of a civil war. The music by Hans Zimmer is definitely the USP of an otherwise adventurous tragedy for people who have no connection to it.

I was only a year old in Rangoon (now Yangon) during this tumultuous time. When I heard a movie was made on my real-life experience which I was too young to absorb, I had to get the DVD and needless to say, I could hardly have any complaints about it as it is an eye-opening wonder for me.


I'm glad I didn't pay to see 'The Wog Boy'.

I sat there hopefully waiting for something original and/or funny to happen.

It reminded me very much of those predictable English comedies of the 1970s.

I won't bother with a synopsis of the plot, I suggest you do something else for 90 minutes


George Scott gave the performance of a lifetime in Paddy Chayefsky's THE HOSPITAL, a very dark drama about an aging big city hospital and a middle-aged physician on the verge of suicide. Along comes Diana Rigg as a free spirit determined to save him from himself. Their dialog crackles, and it is clear they are made for each other from the outset. But will she save him? Their one sex scene is both graphic and memorable for its passion and fury. Meanwhile, the hospital is under siege by a group of agitators who don't want it to turn a condemned building into a cancer center. And a serial killer is loose in the hospital, specializing in doctors and nurses. A good part of the movie, though, is squarely focused on Scott. As it should be. What a difference a few years made back when this movie was made. 1962 had given us THE INTERNS, a hokey, old-fashioned reworking of DR. KILDARE with terrible acting and a cardboard script. Along came 1971 and THE HOSPITAL. Less than 10 years later. Hollywood did something right for a change. Watching THE HOSPITAL today is a reminder of how much medical shows like ST. ELSEWHERE and SCRUBS owe to this enduring classic. And if THE HOSPITAL reminds you of NETWORK, it should. Same scripter.


Meek and mild Edward G. Robinson (as Wilbert Winkle) decides to quit his bank job and do what he wants, open a 'fix-it' repair shop behind his house. Mr. Robinson is married, but childless; he has befriended local orphanage resident Ted Donaldson (as Barry). Young Donaldson is an eager workshop assistant, and sees Robinson as a father figure. Robinson's nagging wife Ruth Warwick (as Amy) is unhappy with Robinson's job choice, and conspires to return matters to her idea of normalcy. Their lives are further disrupted when Robinson is drafted.

The war also disrupts what might have been an interesting story, as Robinson's character struggles against a domineering, unsympathetic wife. Possibly, filmmakers are showing how war can save marriages and positively redirect lives. Robinson and Donaldson are a likable team. Robert Mitchum has an inauspicious bit part. The ending 'trick' played by Ms. Warwick and Donaldson is predictably staged.


This is the second addition to Frank Baum's personally produced trilogy of Oz films. It's essentially the same childishness as in the other two pictures, although I consider it preferable to the others because it's shorter. As in the other films, there are performers in animal costumes, an adult woman pretends to be a boy, and the characters and plot jump all over the place while the camera-work is static. This time, at the centre is a magic cloak that grants wishes, and the boy played by a woman is made a king.

Most of the special effects are witnessed at the beginning. Fairies are represented by multiple-exposure photography. And, there's a man in the moon that looks just like those made by Georges Méliès years before, most famously in 'Le Voyage dans la lune' (1902). Méliès' imaginative fantasies and creative trick effects made him the leading pioneer of early cinema, and the films he made around the turn of the century were far better and even technically more advanced than this trifling Oz series.


But certainly a serious contender for one of the worst 10 of all time.

I got this DVD cheap, with Sandra Bullock as headliner on the case. This is false advertising - she's on-screen for almost 10 minutes of the movie.

On the other hand, there was no other selling point for this movie - the dialog was horrible, the editing was apparently done by someone who was strung out on Quaaludes, the directing was ... well, let's just say that my 14-yo daughter could do better, but I hope she never sees such faint praise from me. It's possible that the family cat could have done better.

Sandra does a creditable job for a first film, in the short time she's on-screen - and that's the only redeeming quality of this film. Stupid story, poorly written, and transferred to film as only a 7th-grade Media class should be able to do.

In short, this is dreck.


This movie kind of reminds me of A Mary-Kate and Ashley movie-only worse. Just the rich sisters kind of thing I think even though Alysons more the actress, in this movie Amanda michalka was okay sometimes but Alysons acting stunk. i think that after high-school musical they needed to come up with somethihng better and this definitely wasn't it. The story line wasn't that great and I think they should have gotten two other people to play Taylor and Courtney. I'm not a big Alyson Michalka fan and this movie didn't make me like her any better. i think they should definitely sick to singing and only watch this movie if you have nothing better to do (which sadly I didn't)


Ten minutes worth of story stretched out into the better part of two hours. When nothing of any significance had happened at the halfway point I should have left. But, ever hopeful, I stayed. And left with a feeling of guilt for having wasted the time. Acting was OK, but the story line is so transparent and weak. The script is about as lame as it could get, but again, stretching out the ten minute plot doesn't leave a whole lot of room for good dialogue.


Randall 'Memphis' Raines is a retired master car thief who is forced back into the 'game' when his younger brother faces death for not filling an order for British crime boss Raymond Calitri. The job involves 'lifting' 50 cars in 24 hours or Calitri will enact his punishment. So Raines quickly assembles a crew he can trust and sets about the task to hand. But the police are on to him and some of the cars on the list are not easy takes. It would seem a near impossible job to complete.

It's got quite a cast has Gone In 60 Seconds, Nicolas Cage, Angelina Jolie, Robert Duvall, Will Patton, Delroy Lindo, Vinnie Jones, Giovanni Ribisi, Christopher Ecclestone, Scott Caan & Timothy Olyphant. All of whom deserve better. Enough acting horsepower there to propel a Porsche 998 Turbo. Trouble is, is that this is very much a case of too many cars overstocking the car park, mucho characters, not enough zest. From the off we are in no doubt that this is a Bruckheimer/Simpson production, bonkers script laced with loud noises and lashings of cheese, scattergun editing, and directed with sledgehammer subtly by Dominic Sena. It's essentially a big budget remake of H.B. Halicki's 1974 indie movie of the same name, with the premise offering up the potential for an adrenalin fuelled car based movie. Potential that sadly is never realised. There's one or two high impact moments, daft for sure, but enjoyable none the less. But if you pardon the pun, the film never gets out of first gear, it's more content to labour with its ream of characters who mope about trying to make the boorish screenplay {Scott Rosenberg} work.

Car fans will get something from it {the cars are ace on the eye}, as will fans of unintentional comedy movies {check out Ecclestone's carpenter grief moment}. But no, it's really rather poor all told. 4/10


Get Smart should be titled Get Stupid. There is not one funny line or gag in the entire film. This film is so bad it makes the Austin Powers films look Shakespearean. A few more films like this and Steve Carell can kiss his career goodbye. As for Anne Hathaway, what is she doing in this film? She's a good actress but is just plain terrible.

The writing is pathetically lame. There is not one funny, clever, or witty line. There is not one good sight gag.

The directing is terrible. Comedy relies on timing. Someone should tell the director that. Every line that is supposed to be funny (and isn't) is delivered with absolutely the worst sense of comic timing I've ever seen.

0 stars


For unknown reasons this beautiful masterpiece didn't get well-deserved recognition and has been vastly under-appreciated by many American movie critics. So it's easy to understand that I've met lots of troubles trying to find this movie. Finally I watched it and it was so beautiful, sincere and poignant that for the first time in my life I watched one movie five times in one week after getting the tape. The story is focused on the friendship between two young boys Erik and Dexter, eleven and twelve years old, who are very different from each other but they are becoming the best (and only) friends. The beauty and sincerity of their friendship have been shown in the Cure so sincere and naturally as it has never been before. There are so many beautiful, heartfelt and poignant scenes (particularly on the river), which strike the heart and can't leave any human indifferent to them. The movie also is full of incredibly powerful and emotional symbolism, (particularly strong with Erik's shoe) which also greatly increases visual impression from such beautiful work. The story, written by Robert Kuhn, is well written and on the contrary to overwhelming majority of modern Hollywood's products practically every scene, every phrase and every sentence in the movie is meaningful and bring something important about characters and relations between them. Peter Horton, who as I know had no major experience in movie directing before, showed his great abilities and talents in this sphere. The cinematography is also superb with perfectly selected locations for the movie, but the most important is perfect acting, which with all above mentioned makes The Cure one of the best movies ever. Both Brad Renfro as Erik and Joseph Mazello as Dexter created wonderful atmosphere of sincere friendship and magnificent chemistry between two main characters. Only one this movie (I haven't seen most of their other works) is enough to name them as one of the best actors of their generation. Annabelle Sciorra also give a terrific performance as Dexter's mother. It's terribly sad that such talented actors didn't get wide recognition, while numerous overrated stars enjoy enormous publicity and huge salaries. Finally it would be unfair not to mention amazing soundtrack written by David Grusin, and terrific Mark Cohn's song (one of the best songs that I've ever heard in the movies) My Great Escape. So all that I can say about The Cure is one simple word  great. At any point of view this movie is a beautiful, heartfelt and inspiring work of all people involved in making of this masterpiece. I have to credit all those people who put their hearts and souls into the movie and Universal Pictures, which among numerous formulaic commercial projects has found a way to make such a beautiful movie. But such movie so rarely come to movie theaters that very often studios themselves don't realize what gem they have made that they're unable to provide respective marketing campaign. The only one minor drawback about The Cure for me is its short length (only 97 minutes).

I don't want to write more about the movie because it's simply impossible to put its beauty and sincerity into words, so if you have any opportunity for watching The Cure, rent it or buy it and you wouldn't be disappointed.

10 out of 10. Sorry for my bad English.