The only reason I am giving a second star is for the first half of the movie. This was a good rendition of the story. I enjoy seeing a few fictional characters added to add some color to a well known story. But the second half was horrible!!! Yes there were violent aspects of this story. But the writers of this movie chose to only include the violence and forget about the good things God did for the Israelites. Towards the end of the movie Scott looked as though he were getting messages from the big giant head instead of talking and hearing from God. This rendition had some HUGE problems with deviation from scripture. And big surprise, there are no favorable deviations! Their portrayal of Moses as this screaming naked lunatic who did all of this against his will is totally false. It showed a Moses who had to scream in order to get God to talk to him. WRONG The scripture says God spoke to Moses all the time and not just after a temper tantrum. They got the people's complaining right, but failed to show that God spoke to Moses at Sinai in an audible voice that the followers could hear and believe.(Chapter 19). They also forgot the pillar of fire and cloud which guided them in the day and night.

What was the whole Joshua thing? The righteous peace loving Jew who would not fight until Moses threatens him? WRONG (He was known as a great warrior) What about the great speech that Moses gave the army telling them God had helped them enough and now they were on their own?? WRONG (They only won through God's help as shown in their own scenes with Moses lifting his staff)And what was that sorry looking Ark of the Covenant? Instead of overlaying it with gold this movie was on a tight budget and attached little gold chips to it! Oh yeah, it was a 'molten calf' not a straw one with little chips tacked on. Someone forgot that they came out of Egypt with a huge amount of gold tribute from the Egyptians. You wouldn't know it from this sorry looking bunch.

By the way, the part about them slaying the Israelites after the golden calf incident says 'men' and does not mention women and children which the movie delighted in showing the viewers. Oh yeah - Manna wasn't the only thing sent from heaven - don't forget the birds for meat. Also, the Bible mentions Jethro bringing Moses his wife and children and then says Jethro went back to his own land. It does not say that Moses gave up his family.

Oh well, if you know nothing about the real story, read Exodus for yourself. If you know the real story, you will hate this version.


This film is worse than Cat People, which I saw during the same week. It has all the 80's style. MTV punk rockers, the real ones who are anti social, not todays PC commercial type, frat boys, and a bad guy called Splater. I really like Splater, and the film does that blue lighting 80's feel, but the rest of it looks like low budget Canadian schlop. I have seen so much of this while living in this great country, and realize these type of movies were made because of Tax breaks. Avoid at all costs.


It's amazing that from a good, though not wonderful, film made back in the early Nineties, a whole franchise can grow. 'Stargate; SG1' is, without a doubt, a worthy addition to the science fiction genre and has the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with 'Star Trek' as the kings of sci-fi.

Following on from the 1994 feature film 'Stargate', this series sees Stargate command (a military/science organisation) figuring out that the stargate system can be used to travel to various planets across the galaxy and beyond and the military sets up a number of teams to explore. SG1 is one such team, headed by military veteran Colonel Jack O'Neill, and includes archaeologist Doctor Daniel Jackson, military scientist Captain Samantha Carter and alien Teal'c, who has betrayed his overlord leaders in the hopes of one day freeing his people. Earth quickly makes an enemy of the Goa'uld, a parasitic race who use humans as hosts and think themselves equal to gods.

The top-notch cast have much to be congratulated for in bringing this show to life. Richard Dean Anderson is perfect as the cynical and sarcastic O'Neill, who can shift from boyish to deadly in the blink of an eye. Michael Shanks, as Daniel, brings heart and an will of steel to the character, who has grown from wide-eyed innocence to darker and more hard-bitten as the show has progressed. Amanda Tapping, as Carter, has perfected the balance between depicting her character's femininity without comprising the fact she is a strong, intelligent military scientist. Christopher Judge is excellent as the aloof Teal'c, who is able to depict the character's emotions with subtlety. And Don S Davis is perfect as the esteemed General Hammond who leads with a good balance of fairness and firmness.

Almost all the episodes are are involving and portrayed with intelligence, reflecting on moral dilemmas as well as the friction between military interests and civilian beliefs (often shown through arguments between O'Neill and Jackson). Guest characters are solidly depicted and story arcs are handled in a manner that doesn't bore viewers. SG1 also excels in humour, from O'Neill's wisecracks to episodes that are just wacky and odd! SG1 has everything from action to drama to romance to suspense to the heartbreaking scenes of death. It isn't just an excellent sci-fi show but is an excellent show, overall.


Okay, first I should say that I assume this was just made by a group of friends with a limited budget. With that in mind, it really shouldn't be compared to blockbuster features and my rating would be higher. But still...

After giving it a chance, it still violated some basic film-making rules to such an extent that both the viewer and the amateur director in me cringed. A LOT.

Think: Blair Witch in a car but REALLY boring.

Think: You left your camcorder on the dashboard and recorded yourself getting lost in the park at night for an hour, then making your friends watch it.

The scariest part (POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT... IF SPOILING HERE IS POSSIBLE) was at one point the picture rewinds and you might think you will have to watch it all over again. SCARY.

Silliness aside, this is a pretty good idea for a low-budget lets-go-make-a-movie-tonight film. But the concept walks a fine line between being really good and really bad, and let's just say it wasn't really good. There were just too many parts where nothing happened. At first I thought that was the director's plan -- you were supposed to be lulled into a sense of security and then really scary things would start happening. But...no.

I kept trying to find good things to say about it (and I had plenty of time to think), and I'll say the music was kinda cool. And I have to give the female lead credit for standing around by herself looking scared for a really, really long time. But that's it. The actors playing 'infected' people looked as if they were making fun of zombie movies. Or they got their motivation from the Bug wearing his Edgar suit from 'MIB.' Chances are, if for some strange reason you're going to watch this movie, it's on DVD or Tivo, so you can fast forward it whenever waiting for something to happen gets too difficult.

I hate to be so critical of something, but at the same time I've watched a lot of similar movies and nothing has ever been this painful. If they just chopped a half an hour out of it and added some scary stuff, it might be decent. Maybe that'll be the director's cut...


This is my kind of film. I am fascinated by strange psychotic nightmares and this movie is just that. But it is also a dark comedy. While I see it mostly as a horror/thriller, there will be others who might see it as a black dramatic comedy.

But either way, it is a fascinating descent into madness. The ending caught me off guard, but what an ending! It leaves the viewer a lot to think about.

Powerful performances, a complex and detailed plot, a great script filled with dread and dashes of humor, and an eerie atmosphere make this a film worth watching.

Personally, I think that I will need to watch this several more times to pick up and understand all the subtleties that are within. But it is such a film that it will be a pleasure and not a chore so to do.


Charleton Heston wore one, James Franciscus wore one but Mark Wahlberg opts not to don the traditional loin cloth. I hope no one casts him as Tarzan. Linda Harrison wore a bikini in the first 2 Planet movies but Estrella Warren barely shows cleavage - her hair is always in the way. Tim Burton could have sexed up this simian saga & given the adults in the audience something to look at. Even the chaste Helena Bonham Carter never gets out of her costume which looks like a large curtain. She's cute but all the the love stuff is restricted to anxious looks & a little bitty kiss at the end. As in Artificial Intelligence which discusses inter species sex between robots & humans but never delivers - Planet of the Apes hints at inter species romance between the humans & the apes but only hints. Lisa Marie is the only ape that dares to be sexy. This movie has three great actors Tim Roth, Ms. Carter & Paul Giamatti chewing up the scenery as a trio of apes & they are fun to watch. Superlative make up (a certain Oscar) costumes, sets, music make this the hit summer movie of 2001.


Uzumaki (that's Japanese for 'spiral' or 'vortex') is one of the most absurd films I've ever watched. A town becomes obsessed and then all-consumed by the vortex pattern in some very grotesque ways. Fingertips are cut off, people commit suicide in washing machines... just wild and crazy Japanese horror. Possibly as psychologically damaging as 'The Ring'. Generally not as scary as 'The Eye', but the imagery in this is more sickening than most of the things in 'The Eye'. And not as gory as 'The Untold Story'... but that isn't to say there isn't a fair amount of blood and dismemberment. Seriously, if you enjoy horror films and especially Asian horror - you must add this film to your list. A few parts are a little odd with the sound effects (the story is adapted from a manga comic and it shows), but it really fits. Unlike some films that try too hard to capture the original source ('House of the Dead') this one does it perfectly. The most original film you will see... not just this year, but probably ever. Recommended!


Happy Go Lovely is a waste of everybody's time and talent including the audience. The lightness of the old-hat mistaken identity and faux scandal plot lines is eminently forgivable. Very few people watched these movies for their plots. But, they usually had some interesting minor characters involved in subplots -- not here. They usually had interesting choreography and breathtaking dancing and catchy songs. Not Happy Go Lovely. And Vera-Ellen as the female lead played the whole movie as a second banana looking desperately for a star to play off it -- and instead she was called upon to carry the movie, and couldn't do it. The Scottish locale was wasted. Usually automatically ubiquitous droll Scottish whimsy is absent. The photography was pedestrian. The musical numbers were pedestrian. Cesar Romero gives his usual professional performance, chewing up the scenery since no one else was doing his part, in the type of producer role essayed frequently by Walter Abel and Adolph Menjou. David Niven is just fine, and no one could do David Niven like David Niven. At the end of the day, if you adore Niven as I do, it's reason enough to waste 90 minutes on Happy Go Lovely. If not, skip it.


Anatomie was a German made Movie and subtitled.It was also overlong and boring.If it was supposed to be a horror movie,it failed miserably for me.The actors went through their paces looking more like they wanted to be some where else.The film work was ok but more attention should have been applied to the awful banal script.I paid nothing to see the video and I still feel cheated.Go read a book and save your money.


Seeing as the world snooker championship final finished in a premature and disappointing manner with Ronnie O`Sullivan defeating Greame Dott by 18 frames to 8 BBC 2 found a gap in their schedule and so decided to broadcast A WALK ON THE MOON a movie I had absolutely no knowledge off

I missed a few seconds of the title credits so had no idea Viggo Mortensen starred in it and thought possibly it might be a cheap TVM , certainly the opening with the mawkish Pearl and Marty taking their kids to a Summer camp has that sort of made for TV feel though the brightly lit ( Too brightly lit ) cinematography seemed to suggest this was a cinematic film and it wasn`t until the appearence of Viggo Mortensen as hippy guy Walker that I realised this was a cinema release , after all someone of Mortensen`s stature wouldn`t star in a TVM , I mean that`s like a legend like Robert DeNiro appearing in a straight to video film . Wait a minute , didn`t Bob .... ?

Some people on this site have mentioned that Pearl and Marty are an unconvincing on-screen couple and I agree . I can understand why Pearl would be attracted to exciting hippy guy but have no idea why Walker would be attracted to plain house wife Pearl . The sixties was before my time but surely if you`ve got the choice between hippy chicks and bored house wives it`s not really a choice at all . Mind you a lot of people took LSD in those days so I guess that explains it

I feel the major problem of A WALK ON THE MOON comes down to the fact it`s a romantic drama at heart ( Just like you`d expect in a TVM ) with several cloying coming of age scenes so why include a fairly explicit sex scene ? It jars with the rest of the movie and is possibly off putting to the menopuasal women who were 20 something in 1969 . I say possibly because the movie also seems to aim at a teeenage market with the coming of age scenes and those teenagers will probably be bored with the historical and social context of man walking on the moon and Woodstock . In other words A WALK ON THE MOON tries to attract many types of audience but will probably appeal to none of them


By no means is this movie as bad as 'Perfect Stranger', but it just wasn't funny. It couldn't stick to one type of comedy - it jumped from SNL, to Adam Sandler-esquire, to romantic, to little guy scores big, to slapstick, to 'Loser' (the movie) types of comedies. Although there were some pretty funny slapstick moments (the fall down the hill), no one was very particularly funny or outstanding in any way. 'Schindler's List' was funnier (and felt shorter). you never knew if Andy Samberg was supposed to be in high school, a college dropout, or just a loser living at home with his mother - Sissy Spacek, in her worst choice of roles. And poor Ian McShane, THE serious actor if I only had to name one, is given crap to read into the camera. The story drags and is completely predictable up to and including the end (no spoilers here in case Adam Samberg's mom wants to see it). Don't spend ANY money going to see this movie, and maybe Lorne Michaels will get the hint and start producing quality (Yes, Wayne's World and Tommy Boy are quality) movies.


4 out of 10

A somewhat unbelievable storyline with some haunted-house type 'shocks' that really don't fit in.

Gary Oldham's performance is very erratic...not so much the quality of the performance but the consistency. His character does not behave in a consistent manner. Sometimes calm/relaxed/methodical/thoughtful, sometimes violent/loud/almost crazed. It's just not believable.

Have many 80s movies dated badly? Will they be more enjoyable 20 years from now?


I just watched this for the first time in a long time - I had forgotten both how imaginative the images were, and how witty the movie is. I had not forgotten however the opening scenes which are (with the scene at the Candlelight Club in Waterloo Bridge) among the most romantic ever filmed.

Anyone interested in politics or history will love the movie's offhand references - anyone interested in romance will be moved by Hunter-Niven, and anyone who loves visual imagery will enjoy the depiction of the afterworld.

My favorite movie remains 'Odd Man Out' made near the same time - but this one is superb.


Even 15 years after the end of the Vietnam war 'Jacknife' came not too late or was even superfluous. It's one of the few that try to deal with the second sad side of the war: The time after. Different from movies like 'Taxi driver' or 'Rambo' which use to present their main characters as broken heroes in a bad after war environment this movie allows the audience to face a different view on the Vietnam vets. Their development is shown very precisely before and especially after the war. The problems are obvious but in all this tragic there is always the feeling of some hope on the basis of love and friendship. 'Jacknife' might be the quietest Vietnam movie ever but after almost 15 years this is really plausible and therefor justified. Moreover, it can make us believe that the war has not finished, yet; at least for some of us.

The three main characters are amazing. De Niro has done one of his best jobs but Ed Harris is the star of this movie. Possibly,this was his best performance ever.


The setup for 'Nature of the Beast' is ingeniously simple, and fraught with limitless potential for suspense: harried salesman Jack (a very domesticated Lance Henriksen) picks up trouble in the form of hitchhiker Adrian (Eric Roberts), who seems to be in possession of incriminating information against Jack. Oh, and over a million dollars has been stolen from a casino and someone dubbed 'Hatchet Man' is dismembering people in the desert. Sounds great, right? Sort of like 'The Hitcher' meets 'Psycho.' One or both of these men has a secret, and nothing is as it seems! Well, unfortunately, writer-director Victor Salva (of 'Jeepers Creepers' and 'Powder' fame) doesn't have enough ideas to keep the movie going, the scenario arouses no tension or suspense (poison for what is supposedly a 'thriller'), and the inclusion of an underlying homo-erotic tone seems out-of-place. Henriksen evokes an unusual, not-quite-earthbound Everyman (even sporting an ample gut), but Roberts is about as threatening and scary as an extra in 'Death Wish 3'; we're never sucked in to the point where we actually CARE about what's happening, and the conclusion slides into improbable territory (I kept thinking it was going to be 'Fight Club' all over again, but I was mistaken). Too bad. 'Nature of the Beast' could have been something else...instead of nothing else.


Overall I found this movie quite amusing and fun to watch, with plenty of laugh out loud moments.

But, this movie is not for everyone. That is why I created this quick question-ere, if you answer yes to any of the following questions than I recommend watching this flick

(1)Do you enjoy crude sexual humor? (2)Do you enjoy alcohol related humor? (2)Do you enjoy amazingly hot girls? (3)Do you enjoy viewing boobs? (4)Do you enjoy viewing multiple boobs? (5)Did I mention all the nice boobies in this film?

If you noticed the spoiler alert, that is referring the mass amount of nudity you can expect in the movie, I myself have no idea what the plot was about. Not that it matters.


Ewww! A Disney sequel that is rubbish! Who would have thought it? Actually, quite a lot judging by the comments here, and they aren't wrong. I actually looked forward to seeing this awful film based on my liking of the original. And therein lies Disney's whole 'cash-in' mentality. Shovel out any old junk on the back of a success and people will go for it. Don't think they are that cynical? Ask yourself this, then....How many Disney films have sequels? And then....How many of those sequels spawn a follow-up? A significantly lower number.

Kronk's New Groove is just another example of this. The plot is laughably simplistic and drawn out. Even more annoying was the increased number of 'out of place' items and scenes - an old folks home for example and, God forbid an Aztec version of the Boy Scouts! Worse yet, Kronk's opposing Chippamunk leader has a completely bewildering over-the-top English accent for no reason whatsoever. An accent that was, after a very short while, intensely grating on the nerves.

There are a couple of good things. The animation is very nice and the voice talent do well with the sub-standard dialogue they are given - especially Warburton in the lead role. But other than this there really is nothing to recommend it. Sure, little kids may like it, but there is little to amuse mum and dad whilst they sit through this tortuous maiming of the original concept.

Avoid this monstrosity with the same zeal you'd use in avoiding a pack of ravening man-eating lions.


In 1987, John Hughes wrote and directed 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles', which was a hilarious and poignant comedy  the best thing he's ever done. Ten years on he's reduced to again recycling the plot of 'Home Alone' in this second sequel, which is not connected to the other films but is equally uninspired and sadistic. The four crooks  that's right, four! And one of them is a girl! Congratulations, Hughes, for introducing this revolutionary change to the series!  are electrocuted with metal chairs, brained with barbells and blinded with paint, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa ha, while the new kid is even less charming than Culkin. You'd think that the departure of almost all the key players from the first two films would stop Hughes from fossilising the same old routines, but the only surprise is that not even he turned up for 'Home Alone 4'.


Marvin(Rob Schneider)does not have the ingredients to be a cop which is his lifelong dream. But his luck changes when he has a car crush(a very bad one)and is found by a doctor. The doctor has to use animal organs to rebuild him. After this moment, he starts to have wild behaviours unconsciously and becomes a best cop one could ever be. By the time, he realises the changes and his animal instincts starts to take over his human side. In the mean time, he finds a lovely girl and try to be a perfect gentleman that means he has to control himself and behave civilised. I am not a big fun of Rob Schneider. In fact, this is the his first film I have seen. However, I can easily say that he is the best person to play the loser.(See his part in Ally Mcbeal, quite funny actually).There are some good parts in the movie such as his flirting with the goat. In such movies, the biggest problem is that the script is seems to make the viewer feel less intelligent. I am sure this movie is okay to watch as long as it is not taken too seriously. But very sad to see such films doing very good in the box office. The Animal is not the worst film I have seen to date but fails to get more than *.


A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.

Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into 'that sort of thing,' I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.

In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only 'unifying' element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the 'authorities' in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.

As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the 'story' part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word 'Pollack' offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as 'Pollack.' And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.

The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap.


This movie i've loved since i was young! Its excellent. Although, it may be a bit much for the average movie watcher if one can't interpret certain subtleties in the film (for example, our hero's name is Achilles, and in the final battle between him and Alexander he's shot in the heel with a rocket, just as Achilles in mythology was shot in his heel). That's a just a little fact that is kind of amusing! Anyway, great movie, good story, it'd be neat to see it redone with today's special effects! Oddly enough, Gary Graham had average success, starring in the T.V. show Alien Nation. This movie is a fun watch and should be more appreciated!


I cannot BELIEVE anyone is giving this film a good rating. In addition to the terrible acting, thin (nonexistent?) plot line and slooooooooow pace, this would be the movie to watch if you were really TRYING to fall asleep. The writer's and director's brains must have been fried eggs to ever have concocted something as abominable as this. Based on the plot summary on the DVD case, the premise really sounded promising. But within the first ten minutes I knew it was a lost cause. If you want to see a REALLY creep take on the Area 51 idea, check out the remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes'. Dreamland will soon fade away as all pathetic films of its ilk do. NEXT!!!


As soon as I heard about this film I knew I had to check it out. Well, I heard about it, then I found the trailer. After that, that's when I knew I had to see it. And I am so glad I did. You want to see classic television mixed with zombies? No? Then get lost.

FIDO is a movie unlike anything I've ever seen. Well, actually, it kind of is. It's kind of like a Lassie episode and a Zombie film. Though when combined, it feels completely new and original. FIDO is about a little boy named Timmy and his new pet Fido. Well this new pet ain't no squawking parakeet or some potty-trained puppy. It's a re-animated dead guy...a zombie. A large radiation cloud engulfed Earth which led to all of the dead rising, which ensued the Zombie Wars. Though through the genius of Reinhold Giger, lead scientist of ZomCon, he discovered that if you destroy the brain, the zombie will perish, thus giving us the edge and the win in the Zombie War. Though due to lingering radiation, whoever dies becomes a zombie. Which can be a problem especially with the elderly. Though Zomcom steps up again with more breakthroughs, especially with the Domestication Collar. The collar stops the zombie's need for human flesh and thus making it harmless as a household pet. But not all is perfect in this Zombie Utopia, collars break, old people die and....well I'll just let you watch this incredibly unique flick.

FIDO is a fantastic idea brought to fruition. With an all-star cast, and great writing FIDO rises above most in the comedy/horror genre. There are plenty of funny and original situations that really had me entertained. Though after seeing the film, I personally think the movie would have been better in black and white. At less than 90 minutes, the movie doesn't go on for too long and moves from scene to scene at a good rate. It'll probably end up being a cult-classic of sorts, since it's not really a laugh out loud comedy or even a horror movie. It's a comedy/family/zombie film immersed in the 1950 vibe. If you thought anything I said here was interesting by all means check this film out. But if you're still on the fence, swing your leg back over and stay there. 8.5 outta 10


The New Batman Adventures (also called Gotham Knights) takes place 5 years after the final episodes of Batman: the Animated Series (B:TAS) and only aired for 24 episodes. This isn't a horrible show, but it just isn't as good as the original Batman Animated Series. I'll start with all the things that I found not to be very good.

First thing's first, the animation itself: long and sweet, Gotham isn't dark anymore, the sky is always bright red and orange, B:TAS did this also, but it was drawn on a dark palate, do the colour of the sky was more ominous, in this show, the colour of the sky is too bright. It all just looks like any other kids show and doesn't seem unique like Batman: TAS did with it's dark, cool art style on Gotham. The art style is OK, but doesn't remind me of Batman anymore. Every character is comprised of straight lines, squares, and triangles making characters look less human-like. In the original series (B:TAS), characters look more like drawn versions of real people. The animation may be more consistent here than in B:TAS, but it definitely isn't as good.

Next: some of the episodes seem too dumbed down and childish, but some of the subject matter is even stronger than in B:TAS.(Two-Face attempting to kill Tim Drake/Robin 2, and some villains get some pretty harsh treatment). This leads me to my next point.

Because this is supposed to take place in the future as well as the final episodes of the Batman Animated Universe, many villains do meet their demise or leave forever. Poison Ivy apparently drowns when a cruise ship explodes; Two-Face nearly kills Penguin, Killer Croc, and himself, so he's moved to Arkham forever; Joker falls into the exhaust tower of an industrial plant (though he will return later on the Justice League Animated Series); Catwoman moves away to France leaving Batman, etc... Just because the series is ending does not mean that they have to get rid of some great characters! The villains' motives are pretty bad, too. There are none! In B:TAS, we learn that these villains are mentally tormented and their lives are ruined, that's why they act the way they do, in this show, the villains are just committing crimes to progress the story. It's like Batman just doesn't even care about saving whatever sanity there is left in the people that he fights, he just beats them senseless. This Batman is a colder and meaner version of the character, but since he's been doing this job for years, I can see why he is so harsh.

Next, the redesigned character models: they're awful. Gordon slimmed down about 100 pounds... is he sick? Many villains look STUPID (Joker, Riddler, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, Mad Hatter, and Killer Croc are among the WORST). Although, I do think that some characters look better (Bane, Scarecrow, Batgirl). Harley is about the same, and Ivy (who is even hotter now) has pale green skin.

With the series having many faults, some episodes are great- Over the Edge, Mad Love, Beware the Creeper, Girls Night Out, Old Wounds, Legends of the Dark Knight, and Never Fear are my favourite ones here, in my opinion. All of the crossovers featuring Batman in the Superman Animated Series were great, also.

The absolute WORST part about this show is how the creators say they love the animation of this series more than the original. On the DVD features of the original Batman Animated Series, they talk about how proud they were with the art style, and how difficult some characters were to animate, but they did eventually succeed with (the difficult animation necessary to animate Clayface, for example). On the DVD features of the New Batman Adventures, the creators basically say 'To Hell with B:TAS, this is a fresh, new re-vamp, it looks better and we love how we NEARLY RUINED THE SERIES!' (Alright, that is an exaggeration). When the creators cast away the amazing art style of B:TAS, that really annoyed me!

It's not a bad show, but I still don't like it as much as the original animated series. At least the show doesn't talk down to its audience, so for that reason, I still commend it. Though some of the episodes in this new series are fantastic and worth watching.

Superman: the Animated Series, and Justice League: the Animated Series are great follow-up shows to Batman: the Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures, so give them a watch as well.


Pretty decent for his early work and no Kokaku Kidotai without it, and gets an 2 points extra for the easter eggs. For Shirow definitely a rung in the ladder. I am biased as a Shirow fan but this was a big step from Dirty Pair which was what I knew of him. Violent fun with a porno soundtrack! You cannot help but notice that. I know people appreciate him for Ghost in the Shell..but all of the deep spiritual overtones were dealt with in Appleseed. ESWAT killing terrorists, the struggle for humans to stay viable as bioroids phase them out, and Deunan staying thin despite her intake of junk food. Definitely like the characters even the traitor..and I do not know why.


When this showed at the Seattle Int'l Film Fest I was the only person standing and clapping and cheering. The rest of the crowd booed or was silent. It is a well played small film that reaches deep into the reality of a young gay man's humanity. It is about a real man; and does not play to the insipid hyper-buffed muscular 'gay paositive' that passes for the genre of non-porn Gay cinema (and that is why so much of contemporary Gay genre movies are so dull). This movie is Intense Passsion and Great Tragedy. The acting and directing and cinematography is fantastic; it all keeps the film clastrophobic and tense and passionate. Don't miss this if you can find it.


Stephen King movies are a funny thing with me. I either really love them or I loathe them. Some of the fancier productions (such as Desperation and Storm of the Century) I didn't enjoy. Some of the smaller ones, I really loved. Sleepwalkers is one that I really do enjoy and watch it regularly.

The story revolves around Charles Brady and his mother Mary. They are Sleepwalkers, shape shifting creatures who although human like in appearance shift into a feline like creature. They are immune to the scratch of cats and whenever they move to a new town, lay out traps to catch and kill the animals. When they move to their latest town, they need to seek out a virgin and when Charles finds one, he actually falls for her,but his mother needs to feed from her to keep up her strength. The story revolves around what will happen with the girl. Will Charles spare her or use her to save his mother.

Although this story has overtones of incest which some may find unappealing it does actually play a part in the story and is therefore not just plonked in the movie for scandal's sake. Like most Stephen King stories it's based in a small town with lots of interesting characters. The acting isn't the best, nor are the special effects, however, somehow, the whole thing tends to 'gel' and is very watchable and enjoyable adaption.

For UK readers: This production has most recently been shown on BBC1, Sci-Fi and Sky Thriller/Horror channels.


I lived in Tokyo for 7 months. Knowing the reality of long train commutes, bike rides from the train station, soup stands, and other typical scenes depicted so well, certainly added to my own appreciation for this film which I really, really liked. There are aspects of Japanese life in this film painted with vivid colors but you don't have to speak Japanese to enjoy this movie. Director Suo's tricks were subtle for the most part; I found his highlighting the character called Tamako Tamura with a soft filter, making her sublime, a tiny bit contrived but most of the directors tricks were so gentle that I was fully pulled in and just danced with his characters. Or cried. Or laughed aloud. Wonderful. A+.


The four signs on the road say 'If You're Looking For Fun.....You Don't Need A Reason....All You Need Is A Gun....It's Rabbit Season!'

In the woods, we see hundreds of 'Rabbit Season' signs posted on every tree. We see more and more signs pointing exactly to Bugs Bunny's hole. Who's putting up all these signs? Daffy Duck!

Daffy puts the last sign up, tiptoes away and says to us, the audience, 'Awfully unsporting of me, I know. But, what the hey - I gotta have some fun! Besides, it's really duck season.'

From that point, we now see Elmer Fudd, shotgun in hand.....and a war of semantics between Bugs and Daffy with Bugs winning every time. Only in cartoons, thankfully, can we see someone getting shotgun-blasted in the head five times and keep going!


I don't really know why but I watched this with quite a sense of anticipation. Unfortunatly it was misplaced. Firstly this is not horror, it doesn't scare and (unless it was even worse than I gave it credit for - which is possible) doesn't try to. It's a trashy comedy and the fact I smiled once means I gave it a 2 not a 1. This film ripps of Gremlins in a truly special way, I can't claim to have ever seen a film which devotes its self more. Very, Very bad - avoid.


As has been noted, this formula has been filmed several times, most recently as 'You've Got Mail', with Tom Hanks and Meg'Trout Pout' Ryan. Of the several versions, this is my least favorite. The problem i think is that the studio coasted on the Stars charisma, which doesn't quite cut it here.

The chemistry betwixt the two leads never comes to a boil in this movie. There are no real sparks. Van Johnson and Judy Garland remind me of day old donuts, pleasant but bland. And when the leads are boring the rest of the movie can only follow. Judy in particular is disappointing. She looks like she has no neck! I don't know if she was having trouble with pain or something but she looks like a turtle trying to pull it's head into it's shell, all hunched up and everything. I couldn't figure out what Van Johnson was getting so hot about. I would have made a bee line for that cute violin player. And Van wasn't great either. I've always thought of him as a rather generic Hollywood leading man and he doesn't do anything to dispel that image here.

If you're a fan of the stars or the early 1900's then you might like this movie. But there are a lot more entertaining romantic comedies out there, and they offer you much more than a mouthful of stale confection.


This isn't a dreadful film, merely insipid. The plot is deeply flawed and implausible. It tries to be a number of genres and fails at each. It fails as a comedy, as a suspense thriller and as a horror movie. It almost succeeds as science fiction. The direction is uninspired and Katie Holmes, cute cherub face that she is, should be modeling teen clothing, not acting. The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 1 out of 10 is Helen Mirren. Her performance is fabulously nefarious and is (almost) worth suffering through the rest of it. Her ability to transmute from imperious to faux sympathetic to deviously manipulate and control her prey shows masterful range. Other than Marissa Coughlin's delightful Exorcist rendition, Mirren is the only reason to see this movie. A solid 3.0.


Are you kidding that was AWFUL!!!

But that notwithstanding I got given this film and 3 others and they were all on DVD. The film starts of pretty much an OK movie but goes downhill from about the middle onwards.

And the ending well let's just say it was one of the most anti climatic endings in recent film history. Lots of gore in the end sequence and if you like a dose of schlock horror then this is the film for you....

3/10


Well, it was funny in spots. This film is a 4 or maybe a 3. Its a film that sits on the video shelf and gathers dust. Rent this one after you seen everything else. Beats boredom, but not by that much. My wife like like this film better then I do, maybe its not that bad.


God, that sucked. You can't end a horror movie with a happily-ever-after family setting. Yeash. I was kind of ambivalent going in to the final act. But, my god. He didn't have to kill the girl, she didn't die, the ghost father appears with a cure (which makes no sense, because his spirit would have been liberated after the yank kid killed all the bad werewolves). What a hunk of junk. This is the worst horror movie I've seen in a long time, and I've watched a lot of horror movies. This is a slap in the face for Landis and everyone else involved in American Werewolf in London. Blegh. I hope that this ruined the career of every one in it bar Julie Delphy. And CGI: Kind of new and chic back in 1997, but today it just looks drab compared to the artful prosthetic/makeup work of London. Anyway, I'm done, I hope I've scared a few people of. Get the original instead, or failing that The Howling. Or failing that watch American Idol reruns. Just don't watch this mess.


How can you go wrong with a film that mixes the sophistication of Peter Cushing, the determination of Donald Pleasence and the bust of Luan Peters? Easy, you give them a terrible script to work with.

Peter Cushing, in an evil role, leads a Satanic cult that has captured a couple friends of Donald Pleasence. Donald plays a determined but aloof priest that desires to locate his friends but needs the help of Fred from Scooby-Doo to locate them. He summons the help of a New York bloodhound, who dresses just like the hero of the cartoon, in his task. Meanwhile, the girlfriend of one of the missing people, Luan Peters, joins the search. If all this sounds interesting, then you, like myself, were mislead.

It doesn't take long for the trio to sniff out the baddies but their methods of bringing the bad guys to justice are foolish. Also, women will find this a crapfest. Every time they get on the bad guys trail, our two male heroes tell Luan to stay at the hotel even though she can handle herself better than the squeamish priest played by Pleasence.

STORY: $ (The script really lets us down. No tension is built. No worthwhile dialogue is given the stars and you'll need both hands to count the number of times Luan Peters is told to stay behind and let men do men work. If you're interested in seeing a minotaur on film don't bother. We get a statue of a minotaur that spits flames).

VIOLENCE: $$ (There are some attacks and a few sacrifices, but those of you who drool for gore will be letdown).

ACTING: $$ (Even though there are three of my favorite actors in this film, there is nothing redeemable here. Peter Cushing doesn't have much screen time, Donald Pleasence is clearly aware that he is on the set of a stinker and Luan Peters is ill-used. This should have been much better given the talent involved, but then again, the Yankees lose a game here and there too).

NUDITY: $ (Luan Peters takes a bath but you see next to nothing. She isn't as obliging here as she was in The Flesh and Blood Show).


If you are studying Welles and want to see just how far he fell after Citizen Kane, this film will prove it. The cheap excuse of making the protagonist a self-admitted dummy to explain how he might fall into such a half-baked scheme fails to explain the absurd courtroom theatrics and ridiculous plot twists that eventually ensue. Don't be taken in by the high rating of this film in the db as I was; all I can guess is that there are a lot of die hard old Welles and Hayworth fans out there.


We laughed our heads off. This script is so incredible you either zap to CNN or go to sleep.

My dad was a sea captain for 30 years, he could not believe his eyes when he saw the movie.

During his experience as an officer he once claimed command over the ship, the captain drunk 3 bottles of whiskey/daily and (sorry) s**t on his desk. Of course this was not on a nuclear mission.

For instance, the fire in the kitchen, fire is the most important thing on any ship, nuclear or not. To give a drill at that time is just Hollywood script. When a captain is put under arrest, he IS under arrest, you take all his keys and open the safe where the guns are kept. This is stored within minutes in a well guarded room. He CANNOT escape, it's just like in prison.

Funny thing is, my dad also had a dog on board, however, we see how Hackman let him pee in the control room. This is not done, ever. My dad cleaned all the mess the dog made wherever he was.

Hackman and Washington make the three stars this movie is credited for, all the rest is bulls**t.

When we do know that 23 people were still alive on the Koersk, this film gets an extra dimension.

If you want to see a real thriller about a submarine rent: Thas Boat.


If you want an excellent survey of Byzantine history done in colorful fashion, this is for you. This documentary would also be excellent for educators, who are teaching about Roman, or medieval history. This documentary is divided into three portions, first dealing with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity and the beginning of the Byzantine Empire. The second video deals with Byzantine diplomacy and the iconoclastic controversy. The third and final video explains the decline and fall of Byzantium. The series is shot in several countries, and beautifully integrates Byzantine history into the realities of the modern world, showing the place of this civilization as part of human civilization in general. Do, take the time to watch.


I was in this movie as an extra in the Dallas filming in July 1975. Some of the things you see today,and take for granted in movie making, were implemented in this movie. The movie premise, the costumes, the special effects, the acting. It all was ahead of its time. It opened the door for movies such as 'Star Wars,' the 'Terminator,' the 'Matrix,' and 'X-Men' movies. Now people look at it and they say, 'Well this does not add up to this new special effects story...' It did not have any computer graphics and such as the new movies do these days. It did have a story, and a wonderful cast, and a hell of a director! The places it was filmed like the Dallas' World Trade Center, and the Zale Building,and the Ft. Worth Water Gardens were at that time the most modern and futuristic backdrops in which to film. The director Michael Anderson was very creative and he tried to show a perfect future that was flawed by human desires and frailty's. It was my first film experience, the first of six films I have been in. Just because it was filmed in Texas does not make it any less a wonderful piece of filmmaker's art. Watch it again and appreciate it more. This movie was the foundation that set the standard for many great films that we now enjoy. Well, my hand is blinking... I got to run. Santuary awaits...


First of all, this film was not released to theatres (TESTED POORLY THEY SAY),I say they figured the story of crooked cops, politicians & dedicated newspaper people had been done to death,just send it DVD & cable TV> & take the money & run.

That being said I usually like this type of movie, especially with this named cast. Morgan Freeman, Justin Timberlake, Kevin Spacey,

L.L.Cool J, Cary Elways, John Heard & on the distaff side, Piper Perabo & Roslyn Sanchez.

The plot & story have been done to death, BUT the above cast brings life to this violent movie & it is actually watchable.

Justin Timberlake Is good as the dedicated young reporter for a throw-away newspaper edited by Morgan Freeman, The others are either crooked Cops,& Politicians or somewhat decent guys, The 2 ladies are the girl friends of LL COOL J & JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE & do whats required, It is quite violent, many killings etc, not for children. By no means is the a great film, BUT for what it is & the cast It is definitely good,

Ratings *** (out of 4) 86 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)


When I first watched Robotboy, I found it fresh and interesting, but then I noticed, that with each episode this show is trying to teach you how to behave yourself, what is good/bad. Episodes became predictable. And main characters are not interesting. Again we see a hyper-smart boy, beaten by his older brother, parents who don't understand their kid, and his friends: girl and fat boy. Also this show has no logic. A super-modern robot who works on two AA-size batteries, and can use a lot of weapons. But the biggest problem is the difference between activated and super-activated modes. We see two different robots, and it declines main idea of the show: 'Robot must learn how to behave himself in human society'


This movie was really funny even though it wasn't meant to be! The acting was stupid and so were the voices. Pretty much all it was was some guy walking around a corn maze for an hour and a half. They threw in this stupid super natural thing that made it even dumber. It wasn't even like a normal movie, this weird creepy music was playing almost the whole way through the movie. What is it with corn maze horror films? Children of the corn was really scary I thought and I thought this would be something like it, but really it was just stupid. The main character guy just walked around aimlessly yelling for these two little girls. And then at the end he like kills someone or something. It's worth seeing if you're with your friends because it's really funny how bad it is, but if you're looking for a horror movie then don't waste your time


This film brought a whole new meaning to that well-worn phrase 'like watching paint dry' because this was 'like watching paint dry in the middle of a monsoon'.

I was attracted to the film by its location on the west coast of Portugal which I have visited. It is a ruggedly beautiful place and the black-and-white introduced a whole new dimension to the beauty. That was the only good thing. The story was appallingly banal and frankly you have to have some story.

A film crew runs out of film and the entire crew then have to wait. Well, a wait is a wait. I can wait for a number 15 bus on Princes Street in Edinburgh, I can spend hours on a remote railway station in the middle of nowhere on cold winter's Sunday afternoon. However a wait is boring and yes, this wait was boring too.

So the leader goes off to America to remonstrate with the film supplier who castigates him for not making the whole thing in colour. After a number of arguments two blessed bullets ring out from wherever and the eagerly-awaited end finally arrives, and not before time.

Yes, I would see this film again if someone arms me with a couple of cans of colour film so that I can hurl them at the screen.


Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?

Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?


'The Second Coming Of Suzanne' is yet another one of those surrealistic films that tries to come across as extremely sophisticated, yet all it does is put the viewer to sleep. Like other movies of this type, there is limited dialogue. Everyone is much more interested in the visual aesthetic of the shot. However, the cinematography stinks so there is nothing at all to keep your attention.

The video box states that this film is 'one of the most exciting visual adventures ever seen on film.' Yeah...sure. It's right up there with watching such stimulating events as a bucket of ice melting or a turtle walking for a mile. 1/10


Blood Legacy starts with the arrival of lawyer Tom Drake (Norman Bartold) to the Dean estate formerly owned by the now deceased Christopher Dean (John Carradine), upon his arrival he is greeted by Mr. Dean's four children, Gregory (Jeff Morrow) & his wife Laura (Merry Anders), Victoria (Faith Domergue), Johnny (Richard Davalos) plus Leslie (Brooke Mills) & her fella Carl Isenberg (John Smith). Drake plays a tape recording of they're late Father's wishes after his death, the estate worth 136 million dollars is to be split equally between his four children, if any should die then the money would be split equally between the rest & if all were to die the freaky servants Elga (Ivy Bethune), Igor (Buck Kartalian) & the more mundanely named Frank (John Russell) would pocket the lot. Well, not satisfied with a quarter share of $136 million (which is still almost $35 million back in 1971 which doesn't sound too bad to me) someone decides they want it all for themselves & it's not long before decapitated heads are turning up in the fridge...

Co-written, produced & directed by Roy Monson Blood Legacy disappointed me on two accounts. For starters this film's alternate & much more common title is Legacy of Blood which is also the title of an obscure horror film directed by Andy Milliagn back in '78 which I've always wanted to see, both films are regularly mixed up as both have similar stories & when I checked my on screen cable TV guide for Legacy of Blood I was excited because it said it was the Milligan film & even listed him as director so when I actually sat down to watch it & I heard John Carradine's voice & I then knew it wasn't the Milligan film that I had wanted to see, my heart sank. Then, of course, there's the simple yet undeniably straight forward fact that Blood Legacy is a total utter piece of crap that is literally painful to watch at times. The script by Monson & Eric Norden is slow, boring & extremely predictable. The character's are absolutely bizarre in an annoying way, the freak of a servant who ask's his sister (?) to cane him, the strange set of Brother's & Sisters who are just downright unlikeable & so far removed from reality that any tension or mystery that the simplistic whodunit story could have achieved is sorely missing & then there's the awful twist ending that you can guess within the first 10 minutes. It's boring to watch, it's poorly paced & it's just a chore to even think about it. Please, someone save me as this is really bad stuff. I could go on all day about how bad Blood Legacy is, I really could.

Director Monson was either working with a none existent budget or judging by this he shouldn't have even been directing traffic. The entire film looks ugly, it's poorly photographed & there is no atmosphere or scares. The blood & gore is tame, there's an axe in a head, a decapitated head, a scene when someone is stung to death by wasp's & the best murder when someone's face is eaten by piranha. However there are question marks over this scene, so there's the victim, right. There's the tank of piranha, right. Victims head is placed in piranha tank, right. Pirahna eat victims face, right. Water remains crystal clear despite said victim having his face eaten, erm where's the blood?

Technically Blood Legacy is terrible, it looks awful, the sound was obviously shot live & it's muffled & hard to hear which considering the terrible dialogue is maybe a blessing in disguise. The acting was not going to win anyone any awards that's for sure, the least said about it the better.

Blood Legacy is an awful film, there really isn't a single positive aspect to it or if there is I can't think of it. Do yourself a favour & don't bother with this one, there are much better films out there.


This movie is really wack. There is really nothing nice I can say about it, besides the moral truth expressed in the film's climax concerning people in the neighborhood participating in the fight against crime. Besides all that, the film had nothing: no good shots, no good acting, and no good script. I give this film a F and a 2 out 10.


This is a phenomenal movie. Truly one of the best movies I have ever watched. I am a serious critic and it takes much to stir me, but this movie had all the right combinations for 'stirring'. The passion of the actors,without the overacting, the aching for all the characters involved, the serious and subtle truths about marriage and divorce, all make this a must see movie, despite the fact that it is 1970s. This is definitely not an 'old movie', but a classic/vintage movie. I hope you engage with it as I did when you consider how volatile relationships of all kinds can be, when you also consider how deep pain associated with love can be and how the hardest decisions to make will always be the most painful, but once they are made the pain will subside, but only gradually. This movie certainly demonstrates that the most volatile relationships are not necessarily weak relationships and that leaving certainly is not synonymous with lost/lack of love. The 'crafting' of this movie certainly emanates from a place deep within someone's heart and mind.


Now this is more like it! The first movie had some iffy dialogue and some weaker acting, but it seems like the team behind this got their stuff together for the sequel and put out a solid, thoroughly enjoyable, hilarious and creative comedy that will keep everyone on the edge of their seats the whole way through.

Seriously, this is just full of great stuff, brimming with creativity, and it's less of a spoof on 80s movies at the same time. The scenes in Hell are great, and so are the ones in Heaven. There's really no shortage to the mad-cap adventurous romp that this one promises, and you will never see another movie like this. Even the hammy final act of the movie isn't as bad as the first one, being generally heartwarming and enjoyable in its extremely cliché repertoire of family fun movie bliss. And even Keanu Reeves, despite looking about 30, isn't that bad here.

Sounds like a good deal to me.


I want to say the acting is bad, but I think it was the directing that made it so. I never thought much of Highlander (same director) but that one could be blamed on the 80s.

This one however, has no excuses. People get shot while exiting trenches with a man in front of him!? Those kind of mistakes, along with an unclear time line, weird battle tactics, sub-par cutting and poor visual effects, makes this one a sub-par film over all.

Then like so many other have commented, all this American bullshit. The German general being practically scared of his captured American private. Be prepared to swallow a lot of it, although in small doses.

To sum it up, a not horrible but still definitely sub-par war movie in all aspects.


was this tim meadows first acting role in a movie? the character, leon, is funny enough but shortly after that the sexual jokes and humor are too dumb to listen to anymore. some movies can get away with the sexual jokes, and base their audiences to know that right when the advertising comes on. some movies that do this are american pie and scary movie. scary movie was stupid, and american pie wouldnt have done well without the sexual jokes. the only role, besides leon, that had some humor that followed was will ferrell. the character really was dumb and that was all, the dumb humor was all that had me watching. the movie was ok, and nothing else. i dont really understand why the snl people that are dying to leave the show always get a movie based on a character they played on the show. the skits last about 5 minutes, and if they can make a movie off a 5 minute skit, then what is the world coming to? molly shannon had superstar, cheri o'terri had scary movie, but she wasnt a leading role, and will had elf. but that was good, but he did some dumb movie, but i cant remember, and mike myers with wayne's world. how come the mad tv crew dont ever get movie deals? seen only one guy break through, but only in like 2 movies and a tv show with andy dick. but that guy relies on comedy for his life to continue, funny or not. this movie is not good, but had some positive humor. what a waste of film and people's money. (D D-)


I simply love this movie. It is a perfect example of the well-rounded surprising stories that come out of Asian cinema. There was a recent Hollywood remake of this movie, with Richard Gere and the simply awful Jennifer Lopez. Please do not confuse the two movies. The original Japanese film is touching, subtle and wonderfully acted. The Hollywood version is the exact opposite. I was aghast when I first saw the trailer for the remade US Version and who was starring in it. It's typical Hollywood unoriginal crass commercialism at it's worst. The remake cements the argument that some foreign films can never be improved upon. The ONLY reason the original film did not become more widely viewed is the US audience's aversion to subtitles.

One of the main reasons this movie would never work in an American telling is that the reserved, ultra socially conservative character of the public Japanese persona is at issue in this movie. Certainly the main character awakens to a more full understanding of living a vivacious life through dance, but half of the movie's tension comes from the stereotypes and ridicule ballroom dancers face in Japan.

Please try to see this movie in it's original form, not the terrible full screen. And please DO skip the US remake....it's a shallow travesty in comparison to the original Japanese movie.

Yes, I know the 'original' movie is much older, and this is simply a Japanese take on the story, but the only two people are likely to see any time soon are this one and the new US remake.

Speaking of foreign films, I'll make a few quick recommendations: 1.Monsoon Wedding-I list this first for a reason, outstanding film! 2.Johnny Stechino-Very funny Italian mistaken identity flic! 3.Shiri-A Korean action pic that mixes both Asian flare & US style plot 4.Run Lola Run-A German film that integrates it's techno score ingeniously.

Well, just a quick list anyway :-)


I go to a lot of movies, often I bring my 5 year old son, I am so glad I did not bring him to this one. There are many references to sex and a skinny dipping scene, however, that is not the primary reason I would not take him to it. The trailers lead you to believe it is a light-hearted comedy; nevertheless, virtually all of the funny moments are in the previews. I kept waiting for it to get interesting, funny, or anything but serious; however, I nearly fell asleep as the plot-less story dragged on. I understand that dogs can be great company, that being said, the entire story focused on a poorly behaving dog that the owners were not savvy enough to train. If a human caused this much damage and mayhem that person would be banned. The worst movie I've ever seen with Jenifer Aniston or Owen Wilson, a waste of their talent. The best way to sum up this movie is, couple gets unruly dog, couple falls in love with dog, dog dies, couple sad. The End.


Who wrote this flick? An uninspired 15 year-old?

Could have been written by one of the kids who did the Columbine shooting.

Totally nonsensical, not funny all, boooooooriiing...

Plus this: the French do not put their flag everywhere. You do not walk into a French bank and see the tricolore flag displayed like that. Even on Bastille day.

I have nothing against the blood bath thing. It's just that none of this is either credible or funny. Or parodic, or anything like that.

Ok, those who liked this flick will tell you I must be some type of fascist, so forget about my comment.


Famous movies are subject to Freudian analysis: Possessed, The Matrix, The Birds, Psycho, Vertigo, Duck Soup, Monkey Business, The Exorcist, The Testament of Dr Mabuse, Alien, Alien Resurrection, The Great Dictator, City Lights, The Tramp, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, Dr Strangelove, The Red Shoes, Fight Club, Dead of Night, The Conversation, Blue Velvet, Solaris, Stalker, Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, Persona, In The Cut, Eyes Wide Shut, The Piano Teacher, Three Colours: Blue, Dogville, Frankenstein, The Ten Commandments, Saboteur, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, North by Northwest, Star Wars, Dune, Kubanskie Kazaki, Ivan The Terrible, Pluto's Judgment Day (Walt Disney), Wild at Heart.

You may wonder how the Marx Brothers come into play. According To Slavoj Zizek, the host and analyst of this intellectually tickling tour de force, Groucho is the superego, Chico the ego, and Harpo the id.

Scenes from the above listed films are used to illustrate concepts: the role of fantasy in shaping reality and vice-versa, the father figure, male and female libido, death drive, etc. Here are some of Slavoj utterances (most as paraphrases): 'desire is a wound on reality', 'fantasy realized is a nightmare', 'music is the opium of the people' (borrowing from K. Marx), 'of all human emotions, anxiety is the only one that is not deceiving'. The whole is bracketed by an intro that declares 'you don't look for your desires in movies, instead cinema tells you what you should desire' and concludes with the cineaste view that 'cinema is needed today so that we can understand our current reality' -- I say, as long as censorship doesn't derail it.

The three part subdivision is merely mechanical, possibly with TV screening in mind. For the theater goer it is irrelevant.


I have a thing for old black and white movies of this kind, movies by Will Hay and Abbot & Costello especially as those are my favourites. I picked this movie up on DVD as it was using the same idea as Will Hay's 'Oh Mr Porter' which is one of the finest comedies ever made. I just finished watching this movie less than ten minutes ago (the movie finished at 12:45am). I find that movies of this kind, to do with Ghost Trains, etc, are best viewed at night time with the lights out. That way you get into the storyline more and night time viewing works well with this movie.

The one-liners in the movie may seem a little dated to some viewers, I guess this depends on the viewer. They are not dated to me though. I am 28 and even though I am not old enough to have been around when this movie was first released (my dad was though). I still have a lot of appreciation for some of the old movies of this kind. Sitting in the room in front of the TV with some snacks and drinks and kicking back and relaxing at night while watching these movies, not many things can beat the feeling you get while doing this. It is an escape from reality for a while.

I noticed that one of the men in the movie (he has a black mustache) he appears about three quarters of the way through the movie after his car crashes and he is looking for a woman he was followed to the station. This man was in the Will Hay classic 'The Ghost of St Michaels' as well. Just thought I'd point that out in case no one noticed :).

The set pieces in the movie are very atmospheric. Outside the abandoned station looks good and as if there is not a soul for miles in any direction, and the inside of the station is very cosy looking away from the rain storm that is outside. I felt like I would have loved to have been there in the movie with the cast. The atmosphere in this movie is something that is missing from a lot of movies now. It keeps you hooked from the moment the movie starts till it finishes.

We need more of this type of movie in todays market. But sadly it could be over looked in favour of movies with nudity and swearing and crude humour. This sort of movie making era (The Ghost Train, Oh Mr Porter, etc) to me is the golden age of cinema!.


'Kolchak: the Night Stalker' is a hugely entertaining TV series in which a pushy, sarcastic, forty-something reporter is repeatedly drawn into mortal combat with supernatural (and occasionally extraterrestrial) forces. Based on a very popular pair of TV movies featuring the Kolchak character, this series died a quick death in the mid-1970s due to low ratings, but it nevertheless maintains a strong cult following today. But will the average modern-day viewer be able to dig Kolchak and his weekly clashes with the undead?

That's actually a tough question to answer fairly. Detractors of this series tend to argue that it's formulaic and hopelessly dated. On the other hand, fans argue that it's cleverly written, well-acted, and sometimes genuinely spooky. And me? I've got a foot in both camps. I thoroughly enjoyed watching all 20 episodes of Kolchak on DVD recently, though I can plainly see that the series has major flaws.

I'll address the question of Kolchak being 'formula' fiction first. Now, I think we can all agree that most TV shows have formulas - just about every episode of Columbo unfolds according to the same pattern, for example. Repetition is not necessarily a bad thing in itself; in fact, critics have long recognized that audiences often enjoy, and actively seek out, repetitive entertainment. However, the problem with Kolchak is that its formula is simply TOO rigid - it's too repetitive even by the most generous standards.

In almost every episode, Kolchak investigates a murder, and figures out that it was committed by some form of monster. He tries to publish a story about said monster, but his editor Vincenzo blocks him, always on the grounds that Kolchak doesn't have sufficient evidence to support his claims that supernatural forces are at work. And, alas, Kolchak is also obstructed by the police. So, in the end, Kolchak does some independent research on the monster, figures out how to kill it... and then kills it. Without ceremony, or reward, or writing a big story about it.

You can see where this ever-so-strict formula might get tiresome, right? I'm particularly mystified by Vincenzo - if Kolchak's always raving about monsters, and Vincenzo never believes it... well, then, why doesn't Vincenzo fire Kolchak, or have him committed? That's what any normal boss would do. But the series eschews such realism and prefers to keep Vincenzo and Kolchak as comical antagonists. As a result, many of their scenes together are profoundly unbelievable - though they are also quite funny.

The very best episodes of Kolchak manage to vault over the limitations of this formula, however, usually because they contain some kind of unexpected twist. These select episodes are good enough that I think they're largely immune to typical criticisms of the series. Some of my favorites include:

Horror in the Heights - an episode that's noteworthy for being grimy, inventive and socially aware. Kolchak's dialog has an unusually sharp and cynical edge. Though it adheres closely to the Kolchak formula, the script (written by Hammer Studios veteran Jimmy Sangster) is remarkably literate, and it delves deeply into the monster's backstory.

The Devil's Platform - a possible inspiration for the 'Omen' films, this episode stands out to me because the villain - a very young Tom Skerritt - tempts Kolchak with a satanic contract full of goodies (and, in so doing, reveals a lot about the reporter's character.)

Firefall - this episode appears to have a bad reputation among fans, but I enjoyed it because it's got a great red herring and a really creepy, almost unstoppable-seeming monster.

Though I've singled out these three episodes for praise, I'd say that most of the stories are entertaining at the very least. For my money, there are only two complete turkeys in the 20-episode run: Primal Scream, which is about monkey-men running rampant in Chicago, and the Sentry, which features the dumbest-looking creature makeup in the history of filmed entertainment (and this assessment is coming from a lifelong Doctor Who and Godzilla fan!)

On balance, then, this is a good series. A little repetitive, a little cheesy perhaps, but it has elements of greatness. Even during the weaker episodes, Darren McGavin's wonderful performance as the caustic, world-weary, endlessly funny Kolchak truly shines. He carries the series effortlessly, in a way that, for example, Sarah Michelle Gellar never managed on 'Buffy.' McGavin was one great character actor, and this series is worth watching for him alone.


This movie starts out a little slow but kicks into comedic gear quickly. Each of the three 'teenage girls' offer their own believable, distinct, assertive and entertaining personalities. I particularly enjoyed the dialog and interaction between Keith and Lisa. If one looked beyond the superficial 'action' that was taking place, Keith's character treated Lisa's 'deflowering' with tenderness and consideration. The comic development that followed was also pulled in expertly in my opinion. David Boreanaz gives a wonderful performance as the adult male who clearly gets himself into more trouble than he can handle. Dialogue was sharp, quick and flowed nicely. The director and writer of this film clearly showed how none of the main characters got to claim the moral high ground after all the shenanigans they pulled. Although the movie appears light on the surface, it reflects all the gray areas of becoming an adult, human emotions and desire.


OK. I admit. I'm one of those nerds who have spent all to many hours with my beloved DVD player and my wonderful television set watching science fiction series. Star Trek (Next Generation) was my first space date, and since then I've switched partners regularly. I've seen'em all, it seems, and my favorites are «Lexx», «Farscape» and the new «Battlestar Galactica», in other words: the newest, state of the art space operas. But, I also have a general crush on the old fashioned ones, the cheap ones, like the magnificent four seasoned BBC show «Blakes7». Here, the budgets are smaller than hobbits, the special effects seem to be made on a Commodore 64, but who cares when the scripts are sharp and intelligently written with dark humor, the acting dead serious and at times even high class?

But why do they always speak English in the space future? Because this is NOT the future, it's fantasy for kids. Still, it can be irritating at times. Me, being a Norwegian, have often damned this appalling fact that one never makes genre series, like science fiction, for Scandinavian viewers. I never ever thought of the fact that this might have happened. But it did, actually, once, and even in my own homeland, Norway. I was two years old when the so called Fjernsynsteatret (TV theater section) of our national public service channel Nrk produced this three episode version of Blindpassasjer (The Stowaway).

When I first heard of it, I was not surprised of the fact that until this day, the show has only been screened once in Norway, making it impossible for me to actually see it. It went on Swedish, danish and Finnish television also, in it's time, but that was a long time ago. There have been no video or DVD release of it, not a surprise either, and when it was screened on an art house cinema, this happened in Bergen, a city far far away from Oslo (where I live). And then there's another fact about «Blindpassasjer» that didn't surprise me, that it was written by the two Norwegian authors Tor Åge Bringsværd and Jon Bing (Bing&Bringsværd). This duo basically introduced the SciFi genre to Norwegians in the seventies; they published anthologies and wrote what they called fable prose. In my opinion, Bringsværd is the most interesting of the two writers, and has written several great and entertaining novels, masterpieces even, some of them hilarious, such as «Bazar» and «Syvsoverskens Dystre Frokost». No other than this guy, also an acclaimed dramatist, could construct the script of «Blindpassasjer».

When I finally got to watch it, it was because a strange swede who recorded the three episodes on VCR in the 80's, eventually managed to transform it to DVD and give it to me. He was a nice bloke. So I sat down and watched it, with Swedish subtitles, bad sound and some scrapes and errors; but the thing came through and I was surprised that I eventually came to love it.

The exterior scenes with the spaceships and planets are better than the ones in Blakes7, and the credit goes to Caprino studios (who made the famous Flåklypa Grand Prix), and the interior of the Marco Polo (the space ship) works better than I'd expected. The acting is typically theatrical, but it works better than when they play Ibsen, to put it mildly, and Bjørn Floberg carries his role solidly, as does Trini Lund. The legendary actress Henny moan delivers her lines in a serious and laid back tone which fits the genre, but this is an ensemble play, and I'm happy to say that Ola B. Johannesen carries his mustache with nobility, and Marit Østbye is a really hot space chic of my standards.

But is it really that good? Well, one have to swallow the rather abrupt ending, the pretentious criticism of «modern society», but yes, it's, well, not really really really fantastic, but charming, cool, nostalgic and pleasant. One and a half hour of classic Norwegian SciFi.


I picked up this movie and was horrified to find out that the movie is based on a rape of a little girl that the parents knowingly take their daughter to. My first thoughts were that I have never been more ashamed to be an Indian as well as a Hindu. I found this movie to be down right appalling. Please don't waste your time. As for the music, there are at most 2 horrible songs and the film used is cheap. The beautiful scenes are not what India is known for. I just hope that I have shed some light on how disgusting this movie really is. Yes it may highlight how evil people in power especially when it comes to religion may be, but to sit down and watch almost 2 hours of this movie can make almost anyone gag. If your up for a good Indian movie watch something by director Mira Nair.


This film is underrated. I loved it. It was truly sweet and heartfelt. A family who struggles but isn't made into a dysfunctional family which is so typical of films today. The film didn't make it an issue that they have little money or are Dominican Republican the way Hollywood have.

Instead the issue is Victor is immature and needs to grow up. He does, slowly, by the film's end. He has a ways to go, but it was a heartfelt attempt to move forward. His grandmother is very cute and the scene where the little boy throws up had me laughing for the longest time. A truly heartfelt indie


From the late Sydney Pollack comes a grown up love story about human nature,pain,passion and betrayal. Police Sergeant Dutch Van Den Broeck(Harrison Ford)is devastated when he learns his beloved wife has been killed in a plane crash,he's even more upset to learn of her affair with the husband of a famous congresswoman Kay Chandler(Kristen Scott Thomas).He arranges to meet her and see if she knew or like he had no idea.They start to befriend each other then out of their mutual pain and distress begin an intense affair(which could be seen as healing for them both).However will the memories of the dead and pressures from their respective jobs drive them apart and cause more harm than good or can they escape the past?well you'll have to watch Random Hearts and find out.A moving and well acted film with a great cast.


From the start this film drags and drags. Clumsy overdubs explaining the history, monochrome acting, boring sets, total lack of any humanity, verve or style. The actors look as if they are drugged. Potentially an interesting story completely wasted. Surely somebody realised how bad it was at some point in producing it?


A Compelling Thriller!!, 10 December 2005 Author:littlehammer16787 from United States

Just Cause

Starring:Sean Connery,Laurence Fishburne, and Blair Underwood.

A liberal,though good-hearted Harvard law professor Paul Armstrong is convoked to the Flordia Everglades by unjustly convicted black guy Bobby Earl.Confessing that sadistic,cold-hearted cops vilifyied and beat him to a pulp to get the confession of a gruesome murder of an eleven year old girl. As he digs further and further into the mysterious case he realizes that Bobby Earl is a victim of discrimination.That the black police detective Lt.Tanny Brown of the small community is corrupt and villainously mean. When the infamous,psychotic serial killer Blair Sullivan is introduced.He discovers that he knows the location of the murder weapon that butchered the little girl.When Armstrong finds that there are lucid coincidences of Sullivan's road trip through the small town and the letter he personally wrote. Bobby Earl gets a re-trial.Is unfettered from prison and eludes his horrific punishment. All seems swimmingly well until an unexpected phone call from serial killer Sullivan comes into focus.Armstrong discovers a lurid double killing which happens to be Sullivan's parents.Whom he immensely detests.Sullivan divulges to Armstrong the truth of Joanie Shriver's heinous murder and why he was brought here.It turns out that Bobby Earl is a psychopathic murderer and he really did rape and kill Joanie Shriver.He just merely struck a bargain with fiendish psycho Sullivan. To get loose so he could kill again for revenge.Upon Armstrong's beautiful wife and daughter.Now Sullivan is executed to his death. Armstrong and tough good guy Brown chase the malevolent villain to the Everglades in order to thwart him.When they arrive Armstrong learns that the psychotic sicko Bobby Earl plans to kill his wife and daughter for a former rape trial that inevitably made him endure agonizing pain and castration.But good,virtuous cop Brown emerges and thwarts the brutal baddie.Is stabbed and eaten by ruthless,man-eating alligators.Paul Armstrong,Tanny Brown,his wife,and daughter survive and live happily ever after. A good thriller that works.Delivers both mystery and subterfuge.How reluctant blacks are hazed by racist lawmen.Sentenced to unfair penalties.Even though sometimes the wrongfully convicted innocent, friendly black man may in truth be the vicious baddie. Sean Connery is great as the oblivious,holier than thou hero.Laurence Fishburne is watchably amazing as the mean,arrogant,but good guy cop. Underwood and Harris are over the top and invigorating as the malevolent psychos.Capeshaw is okay.Ruby Dee is great as the tenacious grandmother.The rest of the cast is wonderful as well.


This was another obscure Christmas-related title, a low-budget Mexican production from exploitation film-maker Cardona (NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES [1969], TINTORERA! [1977]), which  like many a genre effort from this country  was acquired for release in the U.S. by K. Gordon Murray. Judging by those two efforts already mentioned, Cardona was no visionary  and, this one having already received its share of flak over here, is certainly no better! The film, in fact, is quite redolent of the weirdness which characterized Mexican horror outings from the era, but given an added dimension by virtue of the garish color (which, in view of the prominence of reds  apart from St. Nick himself, the Devil plays a major role in the proceedings  throughout, was essential). Anyway, in a nutshell, the plot involves Satan's efforts to stall Santa Claus' Christmas Eve rendezvous with the Earth's children; there is, however, plenty more wackiness along the way: to begin with, our portly, white-bearded and chronically merry man-in-red lives in a celestial palace who, apart from accompanying toy-maker kids from all over the world on his piano as they sing (laboriously for the whole first reel!) in their native tongue, visits Merlin  the famed magician at King Arthur's court, here bafflingly but amusingly prone to child-like hopping and mumbling gibberish!  once every year to acquire potions which would bring somnolence to the young and render himself invisible (by the way, the Wizard's anachronistic presence here is no less unlikely than his being a cohort of Dr. Frankenstein in SON OF Dracula [1974]!!); incidentally, by this time, he always seems to have gained some excess weightso Santa has to work out in order to be able to fit into each proverbial chimney! The Devil's antics (enthusiastically rubbing his hands together at every turn and generally hamming it up) to hold up St. Nick's delivery program, then, is perfectly puerile: indeed, their tit-for-tat shenanigans resemble an old Laurel & Hardy routine more than anything! To pad out the running-time, we focus on three sets of children: one, the lonely son of a rich couple who wants nothing more for Christmas than their company (projected as a wish-fulfillment fantasy where the boy finds his parents wrapped in extra-large packages!), a girl from a poor family who yearns to own a doll of her own (the horned one first tempts her to steal one, then invades the little one's dreams  to no avail) and a trio of brats who, egged on once again by Satan, think of nothing but causing mischief and eventually fall out amongst themselves. There is definitely imagination at work here, but it is applied with little rhyme or reason, while the overall juvenile approach keeps entertainment (unless one counts the film as a guilty pleasure) well at bay!


This is a wonderful movie. I've only seen it twice, and I've been looking for it again for ever. I'd buy it if I could find it. While it's sad, it shows three things -- how much a man can love a woman, how hard some people want something and how hard people work to overcome their limitations.


Ignore the bad reviews on here, this film is awesome! 'Just Before Dawn' is a great example of what can be done in a film with a minimal budget if you have a dedicated crew, decent script, and a cool idea for a film. It's a hell of a lot of fun.

I enjoyed it a lot more than most other 80's slashers because the killer is so unique. 'Wrong Turn' ripped this movie off something fierce! There's plenty of blood and scares. My girlfriend was freaked out and she watches almost everything with me and doesn't flinch. It's got that creepiness to it.

I'd say that 'Just Before Dawn' is the best early 80's slasher out there. I really enjoyed it.

8 out of 10, kids.


Poorly acted, poorly written and poorly directed. Special effects are cheap. Best performance is by Yvette Napir, but that's not saying much. Story is a confusing mess about corporate greed leading to sabotage of a space station and an attempt to rescue those stranded aboard.

 There is little suspense and even less action. There's one car chase that's not bad, but the rest of the movie is simply a waste of everyone's time.


If it wasn't for Colin Firth, the movie would be ready for the dust bin! So foreseable, so silly and so badly acted!! Only Colin Firth, as always, shines through this mess as single light on the end of the tunnel!!

The worst was Jennifer Rubin's acting, for sure! Maybe it was because of this script (did they actually have really written one or was it just made up 'on the way'???).

To cut a tooo long story short:

It is a MUST SEE only for Colin Firth Fanatics (like me) since he is incredibly sexy and good acting (struggling hard against this 'mentally challenged' script). These minutes of Colin-Screen-Time make up a lot of this movie.

Don't spend too much money on it, though. Try to see or get it as cheap as possible (an auction or something like that) and then do stick to the Colin Firth scenes.

The rest of the movie might be dangerous for anyones mental health.


I saw this movie over 20 years ago and had rather fond memories of it. Catching again on Cinemax this month, I realized how little discernment I had about films back then. This is an utterly ordinary spaghetti western, with absolutely nothing noteworthy about it. Script, direction, acting, photography are all a big blah. Stick with the Sergio Leone westerns!


While listening to an audio book, Cambpell Scott is the reader. I was so excited to hear his voice and that brought back my disappointment that 'Six Degrees' was canceled. They never seem to keep the good shows on air long enough to capture an audience that can connect with the shows story. What a shame, and shame on th network for not giving this show a full seasons chance. This was an excellent show to watch with a great cast. The network gave 'Men in Trees' a second chance witch is also a great show , but they took 'Invasion' off and that also was something totally different to watch, not the same old-same old themes. Why can't the networks get it right.


It's nice to see a film with real people with honest feelings. Sissy Spacek is so absolutely convincing as a simple, yet nice, daughter to Robert Farnsworth,

who finally, in his last role, gets to show what a fine actor he was. It is hard to believe that this is a David Lynch film. It is slow and even, sweet and moving. One of the best unless you like car chases, sex scenes, and violence.


Terry West had a good idea w\ this movie. He just didn't flesh it thru. There are endless shots of the creepy looking school's exteriors that go on forever and probably to pad the film's running time. Also at this school there are only 2 students. Misty Mundae is good as usual but this film will always belong to Ruby LaRocca (which is the only reason to watch the film in the beginning). If the script centered on her interesting character we'd have a movie to watch. She is so GORGEOUS!! Good news for DVD buyers, Terry West's earlier (and better) film 'Blood For The Muse' is a special feature. One thing I'd like to say is that this movie feels like someone who's not good at delivering the punch line at the end of a long joke for the ending feels that very same way. Then again, just watch this for Ruby LaRocca.


The first film ever made. Workers streaming from a factory, some cycling, most walking, moving right or left. Along with Melies, the Lumieres are both the starting point and the point of departure for cinema - with Melies begins narrative fiction, cinema, fantasy, artifice, spectacle; with the Lumieres pure, unadorned, observation. The truth. There are many intellectuals who regret the ossification of cinema from the latter into the tired formulae of the former.

But consider this short again. There is nothing 'objective' about it. The film is full of action - a static, inhuman scene burst into life, activity, and the quiet harmony of the frame is ruptured, decentred from the back to right or left (but never, of course, the front, where the camera is). And yet the camera stands stock still, contains the energy, the possible subversion, subordinates it to its will. The cinematograph may be a revolutionary invention, but it will be used for conservative purposes - to map out the world, edit it, restrict it, limit it.

worse is the historical reality of the film. These factory workers are Lumiere employees. The bosses are spying on their workers, the unseen eye regarding his faceless minions. The film therefore describes two types of imprisonment. Behind the gates, the workers are confined in their workplace. The opening of the gate seems to be an image of freedom, escape, but they face another wall, the fourth wall, further confining them. The first film is also the first example of CCTV surveillance, an image of unseen, all-seeing authority entrapping its servants. A frightening, all too prophetic movie.


It's a bit easy. That's about it.

The graphics are clean and realistic, except for the fact that some of the fences are 2d, but that's forgiveable. The rest of the graphics are cleaner than GoldenEye and many other N64 games. The sounds are magnificant. Everything from the speaking to the SFX are pleasant and realistic.

The camera angle is a bit frustrating at times, but it's the same for every platform game, like Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64.

I got this game as a Christmas present in 1997, and since then, I have dutifully gotten 120 stars over 10 times.


First, let me state that I have no idea who Nora Roberts is. So the book may have been great, but the movie isn't.

I have spent my entire life living in the Peidmont region of NC. I have never heard southern accents as ridiculous as the ones in this movie. I have lived in two small NC towns and Charlotte and Raleigh. On occasion, you will meet people with a strong southern accent, but I have never encountered a town where everyone talks like a bad imitation of Gone with the Wind.

In response to Gore_Won from the atheist community. Your comments reveal more about your warped psyche than it does about the movie. If we were to stretch our imaginations and pretend that there is anything realistic in this movie - which there isn't - then the truth is that bad people such as Tory's father will always find some justification for their actions. The author chose religion as a counter to Tory's supernatural abilities. Your supposition that 'the true character of the Gospels' directs a man to beat his daughter is about the most perverse and misinformed interpretation I have ever heard. Before you start spouting off about the Gospels, maybe you should read them first.

Back to the movie. The dialog is flat, unnatural, and unbelievable most of the time. In particular, many of the things that Kade said to Tory are inappropriate and do not match the mood, context, or way they are said.

The 'exciting twist' at the end of the movie is lame, predictable, and lacks any credibility. Some have also claimed that Jacqueline Bisset does a wonderful job in this movie, but the truth is that the bitter mother character is also a stale, predictable, one-dimensional character. Is that Bisset's fault? I don't know.

If you have a choice between watching this movie and a twenty year old rerun of the Muppet Show, I recommend the Muppet Show.


In the voice over which begins the film, Hughie(Billy Connolly), a roadie for the great 70's band Strange Fruit, said the reason lightning struck at a rock festival to stop Strange Fruit's set was that God was sick of 70's excess. Indeed, it's been popular to put down that era of music, and see punk as a welcome antidote to it. While I agree the excess was tiresome(as well as the misogynistic urges which came out of it), and like punk, I still am a fan of what is considered classic rock or glam rock, and this film about Strange Fruit's long, strange reunion is an affectionate tribute to those days.

One of the reasons the film works is the care of the people behind the scenes. Brian Gibson directed WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT, about Tina Turner(while I had problems with the dramatic parts of the film, the music was handled very well), writers Dick Clement and Ian Le Frenais co-wrote THE COMMITMENTS and were behind the music-oriented British TV show OVER THE RAINBOW, and the songs Strange Fruit played were co-written by Foreigner's Mick Jones(not to be confused with The Clash's Mick Jones), so it was a meeting of people who knew what they were talking about. Also, two cast members are musicians in their own right(Bill Nye I don't know about, though the film credits him with his own singing, and he certainly looks like a lead singer of that era, while Jimmy Nail was in another British TV show which was music-oriented, though I forget the name, and he was in EVITA), and the others are convincing at it. And while, as I said, a lot of 70's bands like Strange Fruit behaved badly towards women, the movie doesn't make the same mistake(except for the woman who follows Timothy Spall around); as the manager of the reunion, Juliet Aubrey is quite good and plays a fully rounded character.

The other actors are all good as well, with special praise to Stephen Rea, who handles the more dramatic role well without sentimentality. There are a couple of plot points which don't work, but overall this is quite enjoyable. Oh yeah, and the music is good too.


Perhaps the biggest waste of production time, money and the space on the video store shelf. If someone suggests you see this movie, run screaming in the other direction. Unless, of course, you're into self-abuse.


One of the better teen comedies to be filmed during the 80's, Valley Girl has a young Nicolas Cage in a starring role. Deborah Foreman is fun as the object of Cage's desire (and whatever happened to her?). Look for veteran actors Colleen Camp and Frederic Forrest as Julie's hippie parents - they're quite funny!


This is far worse than those awful Laurel and Hardy cartoons of the 60s. They were terrible, but at least they were simple ripoffs of a then Stan and Ollie resurgence. New audiences had rediscovered the pair's comedic genius and the cartoons were mind-numbing garbage geared to cash in on children's interest. It was to be expected. But, how does one even attempt to rationalize this work of... I can't even think of a word. I'm sure the makers hoped it would somehow inspire another Laurel and Hardy revival, but you can't inspire interest in the past with a shallow and unfunny caricature of what made the original so appealing. The impressionists (I hesitate to call them actors) do a Vegas act and that's where it belongs. The plot is even flimsier than those used in the old days, trying to stretch out two-reel ideas for a feature. If this film was someone's first exposure to the REAL Laurel and Hardy, I'm sure that viewer would dismiss the original duo's reputation as senility gone amok. The only movie I hate worse than this is I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. And, you know, these filmmmakers basically did the same thing to Stan and Ollie.