Don't you just hate it when you order steak but the restaurant gives you chicken?

Such is how I felt watching this so-called 'Battlestar Galactica'. Arguments can be made over its quality but the fact remains, it's NOT what the fans ordered.

Imagine if you were sitting down at that proverbial restaurant I mentioned. You have waited years for them to bring back their famous New York Strip steak which you loved. When your meal arrives, you find they've applied the name 'New York Strip' to a chicken dish. You complain but the waiter merely states 'but ze cheeken, ees really GOOD zir'! Do you really care if the chicken is good? You wanted New York Strip - a STEAK! The waiter then explains, 'you zee zir, ze chef wanted to to do, as you zay, zomezing NEW. We felt ze cheeken would be more popular zo we gave it the name of our previous delicious deesh'. You ask if you will ever find the original New York Strip on the menu in the future but are informed that because the restaurant HAS a dish called 'New York Strip' now on the menu, you'll never see the original New York Strip - ever again.

Such is the case with creating something NEW and slapping the 'Battlestar Galactica' namesake on it.

* This mini series is an affront to all fans of the original show! *

It's a shame the production team put in charge of this new version obviously held contempt for the original. The team put in charge of resurrecting BG should have LOVED the original series - seeking to improve what the fans loved, not try to shamelessly sell this new series by exploiting the Battlestar Galactica name.

If SciFi Channel wanted to give us a NEW show, then DO so! Give it a new name! Don't use the name we fondly remember in an attempt to lure in viewers. That effectively robs us of the chance to see any semblance of the original in the future.

We have been waiting for 25 years to see what we knew as BG because we LIKED something about the original! We didn't simply want the NAME and remnants of the basic concept. There are things we LOVED about the original series!

Sadly, probably the BEST elements of the original were those which were omitted. Sure, the original BG was imperfect and could have used some updating. This mini series, however, was not an improvement in any regards but the special effects (which were good but not anything unusual by today's standards).

Many viewers will debate back and forth about the quality of this NEW show but we will not forgive SciFi and Ron Moore for destroying our dream.

That being said... I shall offer some comments about the merits of this new mini by itself (not in comparison to the original):

The battle sequences were the best part. Effort was obviously put into making the effects more 'real' in appearance and less 'wow - look at that effect'. I would not say these sequences were exceptional by today's standards yet they were in keeping with made-for-cable original movies. What was the deal with this 'pseudo-live-cam'? Some views tried to fake the effect of a 'real' camera with lagging tracking and jerky zooms. However, it was over-used considering there was no apparent SOURCE of these cameras. The infinitely more intelligent series, Babylon 5, is the only instance I've seen such 'live cams' used effectively, when we were supposedly witnessing action from Security Cams.

The script, you ask? The script felt like it was written by a teenager, FOR other teenagers. The characters felt cardboard and stereotypical. Indeed, the whole story felt pieced together from other well-known stereotypes. The only good features of the entire story were those few elements which were preserved from the original series. It was obviously 'dumbed down' for digestion of your average TV audience.

The human interaction was pitiful. Rather than drama based on subtle looks, expressions and fine timing, every moment of human tension was exaggerated to the point of being so obvious they lost all ability to move any refined viewer. Such was obvious in any interaction between Adama and son. The director must have been trying to make sure the most dense and unfeeling viewer wouldn't miss it even if not paying attention. Sorry, but real humans don't behave like the continually.

I wouldn't have considered this a BAD show had it stood on its own. Nothing great; it will never be revered by true SciFi fans or artisans, but it would be watchable by the masses. I personally could have lived without it, though. I only watched it to see how it really DID capture the spirit of the original.

How this mini series will always be remembered is as a symbol of how quality in storytelling has been cast aside to appeal to greater numbers. How even SciFi Channel has 'dumbed down' its productions to cater to the masses as opposed to its true niche market, the Science Fiction fans. It will be the time we asked for steak and they insisted on giving us chicken, despite our complaints.

I leave you with only one thought -

NO 'MOORE'.


This film has its detractors, and Courtney's fey dresser may offend some folks (who, frankly, need a good smack upside the head) -- but the film is top notch in every way: engaging, poignant, relevant. Finney, naturally, is larger than life. Courtney makes an ideal foil. I thought the performances to be terribly strong in both leads, and Courtney's character provides plenty of dark humor. The period is well captured, the supporting cast well chosen. This is to be seen and savored like a fine cordial. I only wish it were out on DVD already...(*sigh*)...


Don't waste your time or money on going to see or even renting it. It is by far the worst move I have ever seen. Its two hours (WAY too long) of your life you're never getting back. If you're looking to be scared, go see something else. We went with someone who still has nightmares about the Gremlins and she wasn't scared in the least.

There are so many things that make this movie an incredibly poor attempt at making money. Now before I begin, let me say that I loved the first Grudge! However the second one is something of a different story. The plot is very in-depth and intricate. However in the end you are wondering 'what the heck was this or that all about.' The acting would be considered poor in a B list pornography film. I could site several examples but I don't want to spoil it for those that are glutens for punishment, but I can sum up two horrible hours in two simple words.... it's spreading.


Some changes for the better (the special effects are more elaborate), some for the worse (Scott Grimes, a likable kid in the original, has turned into an awkward teenager), but generally this sequel is about on a par with the original - which doesn't say much. The PG-13 rating is questionable; although the film is not scary at all, there is some brief but quite explicit gore, and some out-of-place nudity. (*1/2)


Well, this is new...Famous Italian horror director Lucio Fulci shoots a film about a famous Italian horror director called...Lucio Fulci. After years and years of witnessing gruesome horror sequences, it becomes hard for Lucio to separate reality from fiction and he often hallucinates about committing violent murders. He quickly descends further into a seemly endless spiral of madness and unverifiable venom. Even the dedicated psychiatrist can't seem to keep Fulci on the right track... Now, when it comes to pure fun and entertainment value, Cat in the Brain certainly is one of Fulci's most pleasant films. The gore is overpowering and copious, to say the least. The amount of filthy massacres is impossible to describe, especially when you manage to get your hands on the fully uncut version (referred to with the aka:'Nightmare Concert'). Decapitations all around, victims ' intestines are spread on all sides of the screen and the chainsaws are working overtime! The film also becomes unintentionally funny quite soon (since it's so exaggerated) and a perfect experience to watch with a group of friends when there's beer in the fridge. Of course, from a more professional viewpoint, this production can't exactly be called a masterpiece! There's not the least bit of tension or atmosphere to detect and the characters are completely empty-headed. In order to make more room for the gore, characters are just being introduced for 5 seconds and subsequently die a horrible death. Especially compared with Fulci's highlights - like 'The Beyond' or 'Don't Torture a Duckling' - this film looks like a quickly warmed up snack. The best way to interpret 'Cat in the Brain' is like a personal statement made by Fulci and a direct attack towards censorship. Perhaps after seeing so many of his films  especially the latter ones  being cut by censorship committees and bashed by pseudo-artistic critics, he wanted to avenge himself by delivering a gory mess that simply can't be cut! If you take out all the explicit violence and the truly sick make-up effects, you only got about 10 minutes of footage left! Especially because the insane killings re-occur later in the film as Fulci hallucinates about them again. You can almost hear our director think stuff like: 'Let's see how you're going to censor this now!' Even the entire development of the murder investigation happens in the background. Are the victims missed by any of their friends or relatives? Are there any police officers looking for clues that'll lead them to the killer? You don't know and Lucio doesn't bother to inform you about that, because that would lead to sequences that don't require cutting. Oh, and it's pretty damn pretentious as well! The name 'Mr. Fulci' or even 'Lucio' is mentioned every 3 minutes (34 times throughout the entire movie, to be exact) and our director clearly enjoys being in the spotlights for a change. Hey, I certainly don't blame him...After over 30 years of delivering amusing movies; he deserved to have a little extra fun. You're a God, Mr. Fulci!


Gypo Nolan (Victor McLaglen) is as poor as anyone on Earth. Living in 1920s Ireland, Gypo and his fellow Irishmen are part of an underground rebellion against the oppressive Brits. One particular rebel, wanted for murder by the English, arrives back into town secretly. He thinks he can trust his friend Gypo, but the £20 reward proves too tempting. Gypo gets his friend killed and sinks into a pit of despair and drunkenness. Meanwhile, the other Irish rebels are searching for the informer. Right away, Gypo, with money burning a hole in his pocket, is their main suspect, but they, who are his friends, don't want to believe it. The story of The Informer is simple in its plot, but complex in its moral and emotional issues. It's easily one of John Ford's most emotionally involving films. What Gypo did was wrong, but we can certainly understand his motives. We also understand his sorry character, and there's a lot of sympathy that arises for him. The script is very suspenseful, as well. It's the kind of suspense where we are pretty sure we know how everything will end up, so we have to grit our teeth and bear along with it. The acting is remarkable. Victor McLaglen, who acted in many of Ford's films, probably gave his best performance here (and won an Oscar for it). Every other performer in the film deserves his or her kudos. In addition to an amazing script and acting, The Informer is one of John Ford's most expressionistic films. I love the darker side of Ford. In its mood, as well as in its themes, The Informer reminds me of two of my other favorite Ford films, The Long Voyage Home (1940) and The Fugitive (1948); it's also a bit similar to The Grapes of Wrath (1940) in these respects. 10/10.


In the ravaged wasteland of the future, mankind is terrorized by Cyborgsrobots with human featuresthat have discovered a new source of fuel: human blood. Commanded by their vicious leader Jōb (Lance Henriksen), the Cyborgs prepare to overtake Taos, a densely populated human outpost.

Only one force can stop Jōb's death marchthe Cyborg Gabriel (Kris Kristofferson), who is programmed to destroy Jōb and his army.

In the ruins of a ransacked village, Gabriel finds Nea (Kathy Long), a beautiful young woman whose parents were killed by Cyborgs ten years earlier. Now she wants revenge. They strike a pact: Gabriel will train Nea how to fight the Cyborgs and Nea will lead Gabriel to Taos.

Five-time kick-boxing champion Kathy Long has all the right moves in this high-speed adventure that delivers plenty of action. Also stars Gary Daniels (as David) and Scott Paulin (as Simon).


This is a semi fictional memoir of an 'international man' who have witnessed various political upheavals in recent 30 years.

I was hoping that this film would offer unique insight into politics and war. I was also hoping that it would be touching and affecting. However, I was disappointed by this film. 'Chico' seemed fragmentary, with the main character, Ricardo, staying in one country for 10 to 20 minutes. As could be expected, no detailed storyline could be elaborated in such time frame. The excuses of him moving to another place were often perfunctorily explained. The result was a disappointing collection of fragmented clips shot in various countries.


Pilot Mitch MacAfee (Jeff Morrow) sees a UFO while test flying a plane--but nothing shows up on radar. Then planes and ships start disappearing and reports of a UFO increase. It turns out it's a giant monster bird that is attacking and killing. But what is it and why is it here?

This has all the right elements for a classic. It has an actually pretty entertaining script--I was never really bored. The acting is good (for a 1950s monster movie). Morrow doesn't overdo the macho hero act and Mara Corday is quite good as the requisite female love interest. She's also strong and takes care of herself--even though she IS off getting food and coffee for everyone all during the movie. The problem here is the monster. Dear God--it's TERRIBLE! It looks like a deranged turkey! It has a long neck, a hilariously stupid BEAK, some teeth, a few strands of hair on its head and claws. And--oh yes--it squawks! Not roaring--squawking! The actors had no idea what it looked like--it was added after production. Actors Morrow and Corday were horrified when they finally saw it in a theatre. Morrow said his audience burst out laughing and he left the theatre quickly before the movie ended! Producer Sam Katzman was responsible for this. He wanted to save money and gave the world the stupidest monster ever. And you can SEE the wires moving it too! This gets 4 stars only because Morrow and Corday are so good and the script is well done. It gets no stars for the pathetic monster--wait till you see it attack what is obviously a toy train! Worth a look if you're a horror fan to see what has to be the stupidest monster ever.


Sporting a title seemingly more suitable for a Looney Tunes featurette than a grisly giallo, 'Don't Torture a Duckling' (1972) is nonetheless a Grade A thriller from horror maestro Lucio Fulci. In this one, someone has been strangling the preteen boys in a rural, southern Italian village and, typical for these gialli, there are many suspects. There's Barbara Bouchet (Patrizia), looking more scrumptiolicious than you've ever seen her, a rich girl hiding out after a drug scandal; Florinda Bolkan (Martiara), the local epileptic voodoo woman; her witchcraft-practicing beau; Giuseppe, the local idiot; the sweet-faced priest; his dour mother; and on and on. The film features some unusually violent set pieces, including a chain whipping of one of the main characters in a graveyard (one of the most realistically bloody sequences that I've ever seen) and a nifty dukeout when the killer is ultimately revealed. The film's bursts of violence compensate for the fact that there are no real scares or suspense to speak of. Still, this giallo fascinates, with its unusual rural backdrop, unsettling child murders, oddball characters, and freaky score by Riz Ortolani. The film has been beautifully photographed in what I presume to be Monte Sant'Angelo, near the Adriatic in southern Italy (at least, that town's police force is thanked in the closing credits). And while subtitling would've made this fine-looking DVD work even better (the American slang doesn't convince in this rural Italian setting), Anchor Bay is to be thanked for another job well done. Oh...that title DOES eventually make perfect sense, too!


I must admit I burst out laughing when I saw one reviewer compare this to LOTR. Well yes, if you exclude the dwarfs, the cast of thousands, the great special effects, the big battles, the strong characterization, the decent plot, the good acting, the classy direction and everything else. Which leaves you with the walking. And boy, does this film do walking! If Mr Piano had his way, this would probably be an uninterrupted three hours of hardcore walking through the Wisconsin countryside, but every 40 minutes or so these pesky Martians pop up for a few seconds to interrupt him before he goes for another bit of a ramble. You've never seen so much walking in a movie. If this really had a $20m budget, most of it must have gone on Mr Piano's shoes, because he had to get through plenty of pairs with all the walking he does. Which explains why there's no money left for decent effects, a decent video camera or proper actors. Honestly, it's like watching some bizarre fetish video for people with a thing about going for long walks in period costumes. Even on fast-forward, this is a looonnnggg walk.

As for the sci-fi stuff, I think it was a mistake to put Martians in the film: they only get in the way of the walking, which is clearly much more interesting to the director than the story.

I wonder how much Mr Piano charges to walk dogs?


This film reminded me of The Sopranos, and not in a good way.

David Chase's seminal mob opera only ever put its foot wrong twice, the most jarring and inexplicable instance of which took place in its fourth season, when Junior Soprano went on trial for his life. Rather than pursue this riveting (and pivotal) plot line, the writers instead chose to completely ignore it, focusing instead on Bobby Baccalieri's constant whimpering over his recently deceased wife's frozen pasta dish.

When something of genuine interest happens in Notorious - for example that first, mysterious assassination attempt on Tupac Shakur that ignited the whole East Coast/West Coast feud in the first place, and ended up leading to the deaths of both Tupac and Christopher Wallace - the film treats it as just another bit of plot to plod through. Why exactly was Tupac so convinced that he was sold out by his own people? Did he alone nurture his subsequent affiliation with Suge Knight? And was Lil' Kim's transformation from prim office drone into sex-obsessed, vampish diva really as banal as it appears here?

None of these questions are even fleetingly addressed by the film's screenwriters, who are far more interested in depicting Wallace's turbulent love life to zero compelling dramatic avail. These sequences (including a brain-frazzlingly clichéd groupie indescretion in a hotel room) are so toothless and bruisingly manipulative that the only real comparison to be made is with a network TV movie.

The storytelling, in both structure and content, is simplistic and trite. But more fundamentally, as a biopic; as something designed to celebrate its subject and educate the uninitiated on the intricacies of their life and work; the film is almost entirely worthless. The reliance on meat-and-potatoes genre plotting, coupled with the lifeless musical performances (an area in which a film like this should soar, surely) result in a film that appears to have been designed only to satisfy the whims and demands of those involved, leaving Wallace's questionable status as a giant in his field as the preserve of the easily persuaded and previously converted only.

And the final twenty minutes, in which Wallace's posthumous cultural identity is broadly painted as being akin to that of a latter day saint, quite frankly made me feel like throwing up.

On that score, much as with any other, Notorious is crass, calculating and compromised.


i really love this movie , i saw it for the first time when i was working a video store. when i went to buy it they told me it was out of print and i couldn't order it so i just today thought i would look. and then i found it they put it out in Spain on DVD under the name 'Algo Mas Que Amigos' and you can buy there it is in English and Spanish on the DVD....hope this helps ..... i know how hard it is to find movies that we love that they haven't Released to The U.S Market. best of luck..oh For more info here is one place to look.... HTTP://www.zonadvd.com i think it going for 10 dollars usd on eBay as well.


While 'The Kiss of the Spider Woman' cast Raul Julia as a political prisoner in an unidentified Latin American country, this time he works for a dictator in a fictional Latin American country. Specifically, the dictator suddenly drops dead, so Julia replaces el presidente with a Broadway actor (Richard Dreyfuss) shooting a movie in the country. From there, Dreyfuss has to figure out how to be a dictator, all the while balancing it with his own life.

Is it appropriate to turn the tense situation in Latin America into comedy? Well, 'Moon Over Parador' does a good job with it. No matter what they do in this movie, they pull it off. It just goes to show why Richard Dreyfuss is one of the greatest actors of our era, and what we lost when Raul Julia died. Definitely worth seeing. Also starring Sonia Braga (who co-starred with Raul Julia in 'TKOTSW'), Jonathan Winters and Sammy Davis Jr.

I agree: the first lady is hot.


Apart from the usual stereotypes of the thirties, Eugene Pallette as the gruff police detective, Jack La Rue as the 'swarthy' Italian and of course, James Lee as 'The Chinese Cook', this film is THE great mystery of a murder in a locked room. For an early 1930's film, this step by step 'peeling of the veneer of the mystery' is similar to the COLUMBO series, except in this film, you don't have the advantage of knowing who the killer was in advance.


being a high school student,i have to take a health class. this year, the topic is drugs. we learn about the harm they can cause a person. from what we talk about, i still believe and know that drugs can really mess a person up. anyway, my teacher wanted us to watch this. naturally, we groan and start to sleep, but like the rest of my class, i actually did enjoy this movie. it was totally real, and not sugar coated at all. the characters were amazing and believable. even the plot was outstandingly realistic and believable. what i liked about this movie mainly was how it got the point of the effect's drugs can take on an abuser, and the consequences the person has to deal with. everyone reassures themselves that nothing bad will happen to them. well lets get serious. anything can happen in a small town, even to your best friend, like Sam and Chris. this movie shows it. a person can really learn a lot from watching this. it was pretty effective.


...Ever. This is the bottom. I am not joking. The theater should've had a warning of some kind. 'Abandon all hope ye who enter here' would've been fitting.

I don't have the words to describe accurately the hell that this movie is. Its debilitating stupidity even fails to amuse. This movie is definitely aimed at some of the slower turtles in the sandbox. The story was blatantly stolen from a 10 minute Bugs Bunny cartoon and then stretched like Mr. Fantastic to 90 excruciatingly painful minutes.

I remember when the Wayans's were funny. I guess the pressures of Hollywood for them to produce produce produce are to blame for the poop that churns out at a consistent rate. I'm sad and offended that they think we are stupid enough to enjoy 90 minutes of kick-in-the-balls jokes with a thin plot based on a cartoon.

I disliked nearly everything about this movie. I won't spoil anything but the baby is actually a midget with Marlon Wayans's face poorly superimposed over the midget's body. What I DID like was the ending. Not the movie's resolution, but the actual end where we all stood up and walked out.

I gave this movie one star, but it clearly deserves less. I don't feel that the six minutes they spent writing the script is worth a star. This does deserve a Razzie and I pray to God it gets it.

When are people going to learn; if you stop paying to see this idiocy they will stop pooping it out. Seppuku is a reasonable alternative to this film. Avoid it at all costs. You have been warned.


Woody Allen, when at his best, has one of the sharpest pens around. He can make an acute observation and wrap it around a punch line like nobody else. However, when he's at his worst his movies can stench of pretentiousness. Unfortunately, 'Melinda and Melinda' has this stench from opening to closing. The set up is one of his more intriguing ideas in a while. Four friends sit in a restaurant discussing whether the essence of life is comedy or drama. To help settle the argument, one man relates the beginning of a story and asks the two other men arguing (one a comic playwright, the other a dramatic playwright) whether the story is a comedy or a tragedy. The two men then continue the story and the movie plays out the stories that they weave. Now, when I first heard about this film, my understanding was that they tell the exact same story, the genre (comedy or drama) only changes by how you look at it. Now that would have been interesting. However, the stories only share one main element and a few side elements. They are entirely different stories with major plot differences. The drama is so stiffly scripted and pretentious that it can only really work as self-parody. If this was the point, then it failed because these elements prevent the audience from feeling any emotional investment in any of the characters. The comedy is the story that has moments of success, but they are still short and fleeting. Will Farrell is obviously meant to be the stand-in for Woody, but he could have played this character so much more believably without adding Woody's stutters and hand-ticks. Woody is the best at being Woody. When someone else tries, they're not playing a character, they are modeling a recognizable actor. This type of thing only pulls the audience out of the story.

My favorite Woody Allen movies make me leave the theater a little bit lighter in spirit than I walked in. This one made me wish I could get my money back.


When teenagers go on a trip in a camper van there are many clichés that you can guarantee will follow.

1)The teenagers will be warned not to go where they are going by a crazy local. Dan Van Husen handles that with ridiculous exposition about deadly Sirens. What, who, how and why are handled in one almost unintelligible burst. 2)The van will break down. 3)Whilst looking for help the group will be split up and be picked off one by one by whatever monster they have been warned about.4)They will find a house inhabited by a madman, he will capture them. 5) The house will have a phone but it will not work, it will be disturbingly decorated, there will be flickering neon light, spiders and maggots. 6)The madman will catch them as they try to escape in a vehicle that won't start (here the high speed getaway was to be made on a tractor). 7)The madman will be seemingly killed only to come back from the dead for a cheap, weak scare and will then be killed properly. 8)Only a girl will be left alive from the group. 9)There will be an unnecessary twist at the end.

Add to these elements naked Sirens (who the characters seem to react to in startling different ways despite the fact that everyone that sees them is supposed to fall into lust with them immediately) that seduce and kill the teens, throats being ripped out and bodies being pulled in half and you have something resembling a twelve year old boys dream movie.

I think it is only fair to say that my opinion of the director and his previous work is as low as it is possible to be but I am happy to point out that there are a few elements that boarder on pleasurable and are a great improvement on his previous film, Darkhunters, which is one of the worst films I have ever seen. At times the cinematography is very good, the music and editing are a cut above his previous films and some other low budget horror movies. I was impressed to hear that it was achieved with a third of the money spent on the previous monstrosity. However, the worst things about this movie are not to be found in the body of the film, it is ultimately a mildly diverting if pointless movie that has been done time and time again, but amongst the DVD extras.

If you do rent this film I implore you to listen to the director's commentary it is beyond belief. There is more to say about this than the film itself. One staggering part of the commentary is the director's claim that the film is cliché leaden because it was a preconceived idea. He says it is a deliberate attempt to use all of the clichés and openly he wonders if 'people will get it'.

I'm afraid to say that if this is supposed to be a clever nod and a wink to films of the past and the genre clichés within them then it is not wittily scripted enough, acted in an appropriate tone nor directed with enough style to work. If this film was made to order it leads me to ask one question; 'What was the point?' This is s afilm that just slips right into the canon of bad horror movies, any attempt to do something clever or different haven't worked.

The next nugget of brilliance is a conversation about the snobbery towards digital film formats. They rightly point out that digital is often synonymous with cheapness and ease of use. However, the best moment of the conversation comes when they bemoan the fact that when Michael Mann makes a film in the format he is branded as a visionary. There is a simple distinction to be made here; Mann is a talented director who will use the format to fit his story and style, Roberts is a horror hack who uses it to produce bottom shelf genre pictures . I think the differences are obvious and the comparison is not only arrogant but redundant.

The best moment is reserved for Robert's comments about people who have taken the time to review his previous film. Those who didn't like it are generalised as 'geeks' and he even goes as far as to single out specific people for having the nerve to voice their opinion in forums that encourage them to do just that. I must admit I was slightly disappointed that my review of his last film wasn't singled out for ridicule. The tirade goes further as the group joke about Norwegian reviewers, complete with 'hilarious' accents to imply that people from Norway wouldn't know a good film simply because of where they are born. As always these sorts of comments say more about those saying them than those they are targeting, they simply make the director and his friends look ignorant.

The package in rounded out with a tasteful featurette about how the Sirens were cast. Robert's swears blind in voice over, 'I didn't want to make a film that was like Baywatch' as we see audition tapes of topless and naked girls writhing around on the ground. There is also a simpering, self-indulgent documentary about the making of Darkhunters during which Robert's says that a reviewer has claimed that Forest is 'The best British film in years'. I don't know who he is trying to convince. At one point in the commentary track Robert's says jokingly 'I can see people sitting at home saying 'this isn't amazing, its sh$t' he isn't wrong.


This movie could have been great(cause its got a somewhat fascinating premise) but it never rises above sheer caricature. The acting is severely flawed and there were moments where i cringed so severely that i thought i was going to fall of my seat in the theater. Never and I mean never Watch this godawfull piece of .... Danish cinema has been getting a lot of good pr the recent years but if this piece of .... crosses the border I'm afraid nobody sane will ever want to rent a danish movie. This movie is the reason why i chose to register here. I really felt i needed to steer people away from this piece of .... my sympathies go out to the people who already went to the cinema to watch this


Gorgeous bodies, gorgeous colors and camera work, pretentious dialog, banal plot. The name of the prima donna, Camilla, and the eponymous flowers that appear frequently, are enough to remind us of the plot similarities from Dumas' novel La Dame aux Camelias, the movie Camille starring Garbo and (I think) Robert Taylor, and last but not least Verdi's opera La Traviata. Beautiful, not-too-virtuous young ladies, social outcasts for one reason or another, loved, split up, reunited just in time to die of tuberculosis in the last scene... One forgives banal plots and stupid unrealistic dialog in opera, but why waste Hayak, Don Sutherland, a beautiful rendition of LA in the 30s, a deus ex machina earthquake that conveniently kills the other woman, and all that beauty on this mediocre turkey where there isn't even any beautiful singing?


. . . and that is only if you like the sight of beautiful woman with nice, bouncy jugs running around the so called African jungle. So no problems there for most males out there.

I watched it as one of those bundled together package. Forget about the plot which is essentially just a flimsy storyline to get our heroine flashing her jugs on screen at every opportunity possible. Just to give you a sense, our heroine swings from vine to vine and climb on top animals at every chance possible for no good reason at all just to let you see her jugs at all angles. Again, no complaints.

The 'fight scenes' are laughable and borderline on the pornographic. Our heroine got caught by the baddies at least five times in the movie. On occasions when she has to fight, the 'fighting' involves rolling around in the dirt, grunting unconvincingly and basically fighting like kittens. I am surprised no hair pulling is involved. It get so bad that the chief baddie had to remind the 'combatants' that 'I said, the one that draw first blood wins!' in order to avoid watching anymore stupid fighting.

The witch doctor Kuku was a bloody blast. From being a big, cuddly bear in the beginning, he became manic depressive when captured and then, outright psycho. He spent the whole movie muttering lines with no irrelevance.

Beside Liana (our heroine)bouncing around topless, you also get to see plenty of other Amazonians as well as one woman who decided to jump naked into the lake to take a swim for no good reasons. Yeah, it is that kind of movie.

Watch the beautiful Liane in her bouncy glory. Despite the movie being more than 20 years old, the allure of watching blond women flashing their nice jugs on screen never gets old.


This particular Joe McDoakes short subject was obviously inspired by the all star Warner Brothers spectacular Thank Your Lucky Stars, one of those all star wartime morale boosters of the period. In that one Eddie Cantor played both himself and a would be comedian who'd like to break into films except for his resemblance to Cantor.

George O'Hanlon who starred in the McDoakes shorts is both himself and McDoakes who's just trying to get a break in film. Like Thank Your Lucky Stars a few Warner Brothers contract players with a free moment strolled through this film.

O'Hanlon's been sent by central casting for a small one line role in a World War I film, but lookalike McDoakes gets the message. The poor guy is so nervous about his big moment, he starts thinking of ways to deliver his one line. Maybe sounding like a real movie star would help.

86 takes later to the exasperation of director Ralph Sanford and the patient Clyde Cook who plays a British cockney soldier they do find a niche in the film business for poor McDoakes. It's worth seeing this very funny short subject which was nominated for an Oscar to find out what happens to O'Hanlon/McDoakes.

Both of them.


When I first read the plot of this drama i assumed it was going to be like Sex and the City, however this drama is nothing like it. The stories the characters seem more real and you empathise with the situations more. The concept of the drama is similar, four 30 something women guide us through there friendships and relationships with problems and strife along the way. Katie the GP is a dark and brooding character who you find difficult to relate too and is best friends with Trudi a widow. Trudi's character is heart warming as you can relate to difficulties she is having along with the fact she is the only mother of the four. Jessica is the party girl very single minded and knows what she wants and how to get it. She is a likable character and is closest to Siobhan the newly wed who whilst loving her husband completely can't help her eyes wandering to her work colleague. Over all the drama is surprisingly addictive and if the BBC continue to produce the series it could do well. It is unlike other female cast dramas such as Sex and the city, or Desperate Housewives. This if played right could be the next Cold feet. Plus the male cast are not bad on the eyes too.


The film, a Universal release of a Protelco-MLC production, is a boring retelling of the theory of breaking down the molecular structure of an object, capturing it in a cell as 'pure energy,' and then sending it back complete to a 'target area.' There is no explanation WHY this is necessary, but Professor Paul Steiner (played by pock-mocked actor Bryant Haliday, 'Devil Doll') thinks it's something to dedicate his, and his assistants', Pat Hill (Mary Peach) and Chris Mitchell (Ronald Allen), lives to.

During an experiment before noted Dutch scientist 'Lembach' (Gordon Heinz), his machine fails due to sabotage, so he has himself 'projected' by his secretary, Sheila (Tracey Crisp) to seek revenge. Of course, she screws up and he comes out looking like a 'pork roast' with the power to electrocute people.

With this new-found power, he manages to zap some Cockney idiots, a security guy named Latham (Derrick de Marney) and his lab boss, Dr. Blanchard (Norman Woodland). He also is able to break into a pharmacy and steal a pair of rubber gloves and a black coat, as well.

In the end, though, despite Hill and Mitchell's attempt to help him, the clown destroys his equipment and himself. On the whole, a completely pointless movie with no message at all.

Also one of the most depressing color films you will ever see.


John Rivers' life as an architect and family man has taken a turn for the worst when his wife has disappeared and has been concluded dead after a freakish accident that involved changing a tyre on her car. During the days she has been missing, he confronts a man that's been following and he tells him that his been in contact with his dead wife from the other-side through E.V.P - Electronic Voice Phenomenon. Naturally he doesn't believe it but then hear gets weird phone calls from her phone and so he contacts the man to find out more about E.V.P. Soon enough John is hooked onto it, but something supernatural doesn't like him interfering with the dead, as now other then contacting his wife, the white noise is foretelling events before they happen.

Since this DVD has been sitting on my shelf for a while now, I thought I better get around to watching it since it wasn't my copy. But then again I don't think the owners were in a hurry to get it back, as they haven't question me about it. Oh well. So I decided to give it a play, as I was in an undemanding mood. After hearing and reading all the bad press on it, I wasn't expecting anything remotely good, but I was kept entertained for 90 minutes. Well, more so the 60 minutes, as the last half-an-hour was pretty much a blur of confusion. The film is nowhere as good as it could have been, but the time breezed by quick enough even though it's a rather tepid supernatural thriller. I thought it wasn't all a waste. The first hour I found some effective sequences rather interesting and there's a spooky awe generated with a slow progression of subtle stillness and tragedy that haunts you, but sadly that comes to a crashing halt later on in the film. That's when the predictably forced jump scares come into their own and somehow it just doesn't fit in with the context. It becomes rather hectic, loud and very muddled with its MTV style editing and kinetic camera-work that gets to close into the action. I couldn't understand what was going on within choppy and abrupt climax. The whole explanation how everything fits into the bigger picture is pure hokey. It's a very unsatisfying conclusion because it goes for something big, but hits rock bottom. I thought they did fine job up until that point with the lighting and showy camera-work. Other then the distinctively stark lighting, the score kept this flick atmospherically gloomy. All of it is very slickly done with its glossed up and fancy hardware, which makes it come across as very sterile and empty.

You can easily see that the film's heart is in the technical components and not in expanding the characters and story. There's just no connection and lasting sentiment within this flimsy material. After a while, it just tries too hard to convince you that it falls into manipulative thrills and popping in many blood-curdling stuff from beyond the grave. It just got rather repetitious watching someone watch a fuzzy TV screen after while. The E.V.P machine was the star on the show. Well, it did have more impact than the limp performances. Michael Keaton is more than capable actor, but lately his disappeared off the map and here he provides a modest performance as the dangerously obsessed John Rivers. He really deserves much better, though. Everyone else is pretty brittle and forgettable. Not because of the performances, but of the lack of depth in their characters. This clunker wasn't bad to begin with, but it does go pear shape by falling away drastically.

I wouldn't care to see it again and I wouldn't recommend to anyone, unless you got a interest for the subject matter and enjoy the recent crop of Hollywood produced horror/thrillers. It's just a damn shame that this over-produced flick couldn't put it together successfully, as it had promise in its idea and a more than decent cast on hand. I didn't hate it, but what a disappointment.


There are a few spoilers in this comment!!

Contrary to the comments I just read by nativetex4u and a few others, I really liked the movie and would love to see it as a weekly series.

I am a Judson Mills fan but also a huge Chuck Norris fan and while I'll admit that a few of the action scenes may have stretched the line a little, the storyline fit right in with other weekly series that are currently being aired.

The opening fifteen minutes with Deke running from the bad guys after blowing up their missiles was very action packed. I do fail to see how that many 'professionals' weren't able to hit a moving target, but the action was definitely there and Deke, being the hero, had to survive.

As for the comment about needing to 'get the movie in the can to fill the time slot after the playoffs.' This movie was not originally scheduled by CBS for a January airing and filming was completed in May of 2001, a good 4 months before the terrorist attacks against the U.S.

If the writer of the comment had been paying attention to the movie instead of trying to avoid it, maybe they would have realized the plot of the story: Rashid, a Bin Laden like character, planned to set off a nuclear device in the United States. The President's Man was called in to locate and eliminate the problem.

Perhaps the writer should actually WATCH the movie before attempting to comment on it.


The acting is some of the worst I've ever seen, the characters are totally unconvincing. This could be overlooked to some extent if the plot was interesting, which the plot to 'The Prodigy' was not. It's sort of a bad mix between 'Fresh' and 'Animal House', except that both of those movies were good.


Went to see this movie with my brother and his girlfriend. The place was pretty packed and we all laughed so hard it was easy to miss lines. I knew it looked like it would be good but it was much funnier than I thought it would be. I liked both Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci, they seemed really weird just like normal people, if that makes sense. I get sick of movies that show teenagers as being like cookie cutter people, like 'jock' or 'geek' or 'cheerleader'...etc. Both characters were unique but still very human and normal enough to relate to. I will be recommending this movie to all my friends and waiting very eagerly for it to be out on DVD, Go see this movie with your friends who can laugh at the funniest parts of life! I plan to see it again in the theater and I don't go see things more than once very often.


While this movie isn't a classic by any stretch, it is very entertaining as I remember it. I saw it about 15 years ago on HBO and loved the movie. It was written by the same guy that wrote and directed 'Arthur' and though it isn't as funny as that movie, it does show the potential that Steve Gordon reached with 'Arthur'.


GINGKO BED is a strange movie. It's very convoluted, as if it had a lot of ideas but lacked the ability to bring them all into one coherent story. Instead, we get various plotlines that diverges into their own separate little movies. Oh sure, they eventually meet up in the end, but it all seems rather...superfluous. Of note is the girlfriend and her troubles at the hospital. Was this...interesting? Then there were the 'we are spirits, thus we have no physicality' elements, which leads to the same problem that people had with GHOST, namely: If the characters have no physicality (i.e. no corporeal form) and they can phase through walls and what not, how exactly do they keep from falling through the floor, or float up the ceiling for that matter?

GINGKO BED was highly touted as a new breed of South Korean film. There's plenty of special effects, but the movie itself is hollow and its faux melodrama will only 'touch' those who are easy to, well, touch to begin with.

4 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie and reviews of other foreign films)


This an extremely horrible movie. And if your thinking you've seen another horrible movie, exactly like this one before, you probably have. You probably saw Scarecrow 2 made in 2003. Yes thats what I said, Brian (the director) stole the movie idea. And not only did he steal it, he actually might have been able to make it worse. I bet the even the actors were scared to tell people they were actually in the movie. Also I have to mention that the director was trying to make up for the cheesiness by showing as much tits as possible. Also the kissing scenes were put together like a porn movie. In fact that is probably all that the director has ever seen, and tried to put together a decent movie, which will never work.


As someone who used to spend hours driving around the backstreets of North London in an attempt to avoid the horrific congestion, this film immediately appealed. Throw in my interest in what London was like back in the late 70s and you have the basic premise for my version of TV heaven! On paper the film ticked all the right boxes, and having just watched 'The Knowledge' the actual movie itself certainly lived up to, if not exceeded, my high expectations.

Visually, I was surprised how different London looked back then (I lived in Islington in the 90s, long after gentrification had transformed the area). It truly came across as grimy, tatty and down-at-heel. London may still have bad housing estates, but the general feel of the place is much cleaner, brighter and pleasant nowadays (based on what this movie shows rather than my own memories).

As for the story and the acting, well top marks obviously go to Nigel Hawthorne as The Vampire. Absolutely brilliant! He acts deliberately unpredictably, alternating between total straight-faced severity and surreal mindgames in order to unnerve the Knowledge Boys as he puts them through test after test.

All in all this was an excellent, thoroughly enjoyable trip back into a very specific time and place that I find endlessly fascinating. But even if you're not especially interested in London circa 1979, you'll still enjoy following the witty dialogue and likable characters of 'The Knowledge'.


I simply cannot believe the number of people comparing this favourably with the first film. It moved me to leave this comment! This is just an obvious attempt to cash-in on the success of the first film. The dialogue is appalling and nothing like as authentic or compelling as the original film.

The storyline is ridiculous, the portrayal of the French police laughable and the characterisation of Doyle a mile away from the first film.

How many drug bosses do you think go down to the docks in person to see a shipment come in? The ease at which Doyle finds his guy is just pathetic. Like all the French Police were just drinking coffee until Doyle turns up from America and does some REAL police work. What a joke. Try going to a foreign city and unearthing the biggest crims in the place with a travel map and some tourist pamphlets. Pathetic.

A truly awful sequel, anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.


This movie is like porn with all of the good parts removed. It's like all of the porn stars that didn't want to fulfill their obligations banded together around this awful, trite, useless piece of gargoyle abstinence.

This is a helpful movie if you're in the mood to torture a loved (or no longer loved) one. It's important that, if you choose to use this movie as a method of torture, that you put in earplugs and put on a blindfold to keep yourself from going insane.

If I had a choice between this movie and The 700 Club...I'd choose Girls Gone Wild.

Overall, better if you've been drinking. But only because it becomes a drinking game of epic proportions.


As a true Canadian, I always avoid Canadian movies. However now and then I get trapped into watching one. This one is better than most, which is to say mediocre. It has many of the usual flaws of Canadian films...self-conscious acting...an excess of cinematic gimmicks and, above all, the self-effacing Canadian habit of using Canadian cities as stand-ins for American ones. I mean using the historic metropolis of Montreal as a stand in for Harrisburg Pennsylvania is just short of obscene. I was in a generous mood. I gave it a 4.


After seeing the TV commercials for this film I marched to my local cinema expecting a lot of laughs. In the end it was one of the longest 90mins I have ever spent. The Wog Boy really did fail to provide a story line with enough substance to hold my interest and predictable and sometimes tasteless jokes didn't fill this void.

A scene where the two 'Wog Boys' dominate the dancefloor of their local nightclub was the only one that impressed me at all. The only character that was worth watching was 'Nathan', played by The Castle's Stephen Curry, his struggle with the opposite sex providing most of the few laughs.

A word for this flic is boring. Save yourself the time and just watch the TV commercial as the only laughs are shown on it.


After three outstanding BBC television series' and a Christmas special, the bizarre and grotesque (yet perversely lovable) characters of bleak fictional town Royston Vasey make the jump to celluloid, along with their creators - The League of Gentlemen.

Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith are the more familiar three-quarters of the foursome, with the central roles shared between the trio. In an added twist, the final member of the team - Jeremy Dyson - is portrayed by actor Michael Sheen.

Where to start? Dyson (Sheen) is in conversation with his writing cohorts, when - horror of horrors - he is paid a visit by two of his grisliest characters. Both Tubbs (Pemberton) and Edward Tattsyrup (Shearsmith) are unhappy at The League's decision to kill off the Vasey inhabitants. 'You're not real!' screams Dyson in vain, as the local shopkeepers from hell exact their revenge. Mayhem ensues, as reality and Vasey converge with the vast array of characters entering our world to save theirs.

Confused? You will be, as the camp, innuendo-ridden Teutonic, Herr Lipp (Pemberton) is forced to take on the daily guise of Pemberton (Pemberton), while Pemberton (Pemberton) is kidnapped by cannibalistic butcher Hillary Briss (Gatiss) and Geoff Tipps (Shearsmith).

With shades of an even more demented Misery, Briss attempts to force Pemberton to rewrite the film - thus continuing his life - but leaving Geoff in charge is never a good idea. The erstwhile comedian becomes embroiled in The League's latest, post-Vasey adventure - The King's Evil - entering a typically twisted 17th century England, complete with cameos from Victoria Wood, Peter Kay and David Warner. Known as George of Asda (due to his select line of clothing), Geoff saves the day and is treated as a hero, but for the denouement of the film, he joins characters old and new at the Church of Royston Vasey to meet with their makers.

For fans of the series, the film is a must-see. And yes, it does feature Papa Lazarou (albeit a little too fleetingly). Pen-loving Pauline, Mickey, Barbara and cursed vet Matthew Chinnery are some of the other favourites on show, and The League's portrayal of themselves (plus Sheen's as Dyson) is also a fascinating insight.

The League of Gentlemen are the Radiohead of British comedy - they are ambitious, groundbreaking (witness the excellent Series Three) and not happy to rest on their laurels. They also divide opinion accordingly.

Certainly, their macabre sense of humour is not for every palate, and while not written exclusively for 'fans', a grasp of the storyline would benefit those who have previously viewed the series. Nevertheless, Apocalypse is a film in its own right and The League will no doubt manage to attract a new breed of fan, as well as appeasing and pleasing existing ones.


The recent documentary 'The Adventures of Errol Flynn' is an in-depth look at the Ultimate Hollywood Hero. Bogart,Cagney, Wayne and the like were basically blue collar types in their screen images but Flynn was an aristocrat in his style and manner, the younger son out to carve out his own fiefdom for a sword,thunder and romance analogy that ironically he found himself trapped in. If he hadn't been under contract to Warner Bros. he would've of been perfect in the Cary Grant role in Suspicion: the good looking charmer whose 1000 watt smile blinds one to the fact that he's a predator. And he could've starred with his best leading ladies sister Joan Fontaine. That was Flynn's trouble he was the Ultimate Screen Hero until his own habits and bad timing caught up with him. Grant and Flynn in a way are similar but Flynn was the more macho of the two;it is possible to see Grant as Captain Blood but Flynn in The Philadelphia Story Mr. Blanding Builds his Dream House,or Monkey Business,or Operation Petticoat would've turned those roles on their collective ears because he's too damn sure on his feet and the sexual tension he would've brought naturally would've made the story lines wobbly. But this wobbly biography is just a plasticized view of Flynn and his era. There are times when I half expected a laugh track or an audience to go 'Ahhh' at some point. It doesn't go deeply into Flynn's life just the screen magazine view. It also doesn't delve into his struggle to be considered more than a derring-doer. Like the cleaned up biographies of Lon Chaney( the father,not the Wolfman,or Lenny'Of Mice and Men) and Buster Keaton done in the '50's this is just a time killing piece of fluff


I found about the movie 'Holes' by hearing from people that it wasn't typical Disney, that both kids and adults both got into the story. Folks, let me tell you I wasn't disappointed. 'Holes' is based on the novel by Louis Sachar and follows the adventure of Stanley Yelnats, a boy who gets sent to a strange juvenile detention camp out in the desert. He befriends a boy nicknamed Zero and together they set out on adventure that changes their lives. It was a very interesting, unique, different and funny story. I didn't know quite what to expect when I watched it. It was interesting to see the story come together like pieces of a puzzle. The boys who played the juvenile delinquents were all very funny and Jon Voight was just hilarious as Mr. Sir. Now that I've seen the movie, I have to read the book. Most recommended!


This is one of the shallowest episodes in that the plot really seemed like an excuse to just have fun. BUT, I appreciated this light-hearted approach and this is truly one of the best episodes to see on a purely fun level. Think about it--the crew members have encounters with the white rabbit and Alice from Wonderland, a Bengal tiger, a samurai warrior, a knight on horseback who kills McCoy, and a host of other seemingly bizarre events that just don't make any sense at all until the very end. Despite all the danger, you just can't take everything very seriously--it's just too fun and the whole episode seems very surreal. So, on a purely non-aesthetic level, it's great stuff.


Most people miss Hollywood's point of concept. If a hero can stimulate heroic deeds to the mind of a child, within the confines of the law then I, approve of the lessons being taught by Doc Savage.

In all times of conflict or war, the public and government look for heroes to decorate. The motion picture industry brings heroes to the screen for people to identify with - such as Doc Savage, James Bond, Superman, Batman, Spiderman and others. Doc Savage is remembered by more than one generation as being the 'best of the best' before James Bond, Superman or any of the others. All others that follow Doc Savage are only a part of the character, not the 'Man of Bronze'.


My Wife and I saw this movie once in 1989 and enjoyed it so much We wanted to see it again. It was so moving that I was calling it a tear jerker. The mystery that Billings was sent to report on is really no mystery at all. Angles!! It seems that ever time He turned around something happened to him, all good, and I believe it scared George a bit, considering that he did not realize what He had gotten into. It just goes to show that even the cold hearted can change with the right attitude around. If only We all could treat each other the same, the world would be a better place.To date we have been searching the net for a copy of it, now I finally have a connection to it, as soon as I can find a copy to buy I am going to grab it.


This documentary is absolutely fantastic. I was really astonished that you can make with so less money such amazing fx. Especially the scenes of the birth of the Diplodocus babies or the sad story of the big flying dinosaur were wonderful and breathtaking. Well the only flaw was: It was to short!!


This was very good, except for two things which I'll mention at the end. The animation is great, highlighted by Nick Park and company's trademark of exaggerated teeth and mouths of the characters, which make you laugh almost every time you see someone. The color was magnificent, too.

The best part of the film, however, is the clever comedy woven throughout. This is another of these animated films in which there is so much to see and hear each frame that it would require many viewings to catch all the gags. It's just a funny exaggerated look at the oddball 'Wallace' and his silent-and-smart dog 'Gromit.' Along the way, it pokes fun people who get carried away with their vegetable gardens, something akin to how the obsessive dog lovers were pictured in 'Best Of Show.'

My only complaints were two typical traits of today's films, animated or not: 1 - let's make the cleric in the film look like a total idiot; 2 - let's overdo the final action scene with the predictable result but way overdone. Those aside, this is still a very amusing film that should provide a lot of laughs to many people and a movie to enjoy multiple times.


Liv Tyler. Liv Tyler. Liv Tyler. Yeah it's hard to keep your mind off this fetching beauty (giving an radiantly picture-perfect performance), as she simply has tongues wagging. 'One Night at McCool's' is a dementedly quirky and raunchy black comedy with old-fashion shades tied in to its familiar, but smartly crafted and chaotic narrative which has three men lusting after the one women and she's milking it to her advantage. When you see Tyler, no wonder why they are infatuated and would do anything that's anything to see 'her' happy and living 'her' dreams. Just like Tyler, there's something rather intoxicating about this feature in that we see the likes of Matt Dillon, John Goodman, Paul Reiser (who's great) and especially Michael Douglas (who plays the hired assassin with cool-ease, but a questionable hairdo) really having a good time with their roles. The consuming plot opens up with the main three characters (Dillon, Goodman and Reiser) telling their story of how they came to encounter this divine presence and the eventual affects that she's having on them to lead to an insane climax. There's an unpredictable chain of events (ranging from fruity to sensual), where everything would virtually tie in together with a certain ironic (snowball) twist of fate for the characters (that see them leaving their reserved comfort zone to fulfill this girl). Howard Zwart's direction is colorfully zippy balancing the script's quick-fire gags and frenetically fun, if complicated situations. One of the best under-the-radar comedies in the last decade, which will have you under Tyler's thumb.


Michael Caine usually appears in either very good ('Blame It On Rio', 'Sleuth', 'Without A Clue', 'Gambit', 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels') or truly bad comedies ('Noises Off', 'Death Becomes Her', 'Harry & Walter Go To NY'). This falls into the latter category.

TA is a comedy that succeeds in only two things: managing to waste a cast that includes Caine, Gambon and Richardson, all of which have comedic abilities, and succeeding in its mission not to make the viewer laugh. There isn't a single truly funny moment here. The main reason is the lousy script; there was so much futile effort put into writing a pointlessly convoluted story which is simply too bothersome to follow (considering it's only a comedy) that the writer(s) forgot to make the damn thing funny, which, as far as I can recall, is what the whole point of a comedy is supposed to be.

I've never seen this Moron before. Some people even say 'if you're a Moron fan you'll love this' bla bla bla. A Moron fan? Does this non-descript person really have fans? A comedy as badly written as this requires a mega-talent to eke out a laugh or two out of it, someone like Steve Coogan and not your average Moron.

If you're going to make a comedy about actors then at least make them out to be the utter morons that they usually are. The characters of Caine and Moron are insufficiently dumb.

The single most annoying thing about this unfunny collection of scenes is the little girl. Only a truly horrible writer would think that to spice up a lousy script it's wise to include a super-intelligent wise-ass kid. Smart-a** kids aren't even funny to Bill Cosby fans any more. In 'Little Miss Sunshine' we had a totally normal kid and she was very funny. This stupid ol' the-kid-is-smarter-than-the-adults shtick belongs to a century-old Marx brothers film.


I enjoyed the film very much, especially the performance of the exceptionally beautiful Gong Li as the concubine.

It was a little distracting, however, to have Chinese dialogue PLUS English subtitles PLUS American-accented voice-over, even though the voice over was very well synchronised.

Qin shi huiang di's (The First Emperor of Qin's)family name was Zheng, and his given name Yiong so in the English he should have been referred to as 'King Zheng' or 'Emperor Zheng', and NOT as 'King Ying Zheng' as in those days the two family/given names were not used together.

The State of Qin is pronounced 'Chin' not 'shin' - a pity the researchers didn't get this right.

I forgave this but was dismayed at the end when the commentary announced that he was buried at 'Zai-an' together with his terra cotta warriors. The town Xi'an is pronounced 'See-an' , never 'Zai-an'- surely the American voice-over speakers could have got that right !


Darr is a great movie! Shahrukh plays an obsessed lover who will do almost anything to win over his lady which in this case is Juhi Chawla. Little does Juhi know in the film that Shahrukh has a MAJOR crush on her and is constantly stalking her. I have to admit, some of the things he did in this movie were pretty creepy... like the threatening phone calls. Never in my life will I forget the line, 'I love you K..k..k..Kiran!'

It's just too bad that Shahrukh and Juhi weren't exactly 'together' in the film. But Juhi and Sunny do make a fairly good couple in the movie. Though Shahrukh's role was pretty psychotic, I still think he did a great job of playing it and can't possibly imagine anyone else doing that role. No wonder he got an award for Darr in 94'!

Juhi... what can I say??? She looks especially amazing in this film! It's not that she doesn't always look amazing in her other films, but Darr did give the public a wonderful image of her!

As for the music... it was excellent! Especially 'Jaadu Teri Nazar,' one of my all time favorite songs. I also thought 'Tu Mere Samne' was quite nice also.

A must see for everyone! Overall Darr deserves a 9/10!


Okay, so I'm Singaporean and I would like to say that it's time to stop stereotyping Singaporeans and making such films. Some of the actors/actresses actually have talent, but sadly it wasn't shown much in this film. I was fidgeting in my seat when I watched this, being quite young at that time, my parents dragged me along to see it. Honestly I could say that I was going to fall asleep. And there was this arrogant westernized boy whom just got on my nerves. Overall a boring film, and a general waste of the actors' talent. I have seen better Singaporean movies than this. Chicken Rice War was good. However, I cannot believe that this one would be considered a better Singaporean film. Sorry, I wouldn't recommend it.


I recently started watching this show, and I have to say that it really made me laugh. You have to appreciate the unrealistic aspects of it, along with everything else. Some other people said this show should have more realistic reactions of the dead, among other things. If you are going accept that Ned can bring the dead back to life, you have to accept that the other completely crazy bits of the show. I couldn't help smiling after every episode I watched. I really think it's great there is a show out there that can take a very strange subject and really make it great to watch. I absolutely love the narration, I think it adds that extra bit of wonder to the whole show. You can't always compare old shows by a writer to his new ones, you have to take everything as it's own entity. Definitely give it a chance, and just enjoy the ridiculous parts as they are.


Surprisingly well made little movie. Short in length at about 90 minutes. For a low budget movie, very well made. Plot is slow to unravel. Cast is excellent especially Elizabeth Van Meter as the girlfriend with Tourette's Syndrome.


I personally found this movie to be terrible, first it was hardly objective, and provided one side of the debate. The only people who were presented as the side saying he did exist being a bunch of people coming from a Billy Grahm Revival. Secondly it deviated heavily from its supposed topic did Jesus (Yeshua) exist, to talking about how violent Christianity is, and showing scenes from Mel Gibsons 'The Passion'. In the end it has the director con his former Principal of a Conservative Private School into being interviewed, and attempts to trap him about teaching the kids there faith. Oh and also the Techno Music just made the film harder to watch.


If I have to give this movie a score on a linear scale, then I have to give it a low score 3/10.

But it was entertaining, and there are several good things to say about the movie.

The psychiatrist candidate James Bishop is assigned to St. Andrews Hospital for his resident, and is exited and eager to 'change the world'.

From the beginning of the movie you know that the hospital is hiding an evil truth, but James thinks he can make a difference and doesn't recognise this evil.

The story builds fairly well, you know all the time that there is a truth in what the patients are telling about some resident evil, and wonder when and how James will discover this. Also when the break comes, James is in a way hunted by the evil, and you feel some suspense until 'the fight' is over.

Add an innocent beautiful girlfriend that arrives at the worst possible time and other standard horror elements, and you get the picture.

The character buildup is actually fairly good, you are introduced to most of the people that gets killed, some of them you 'get to know'.

The film sets an unpleasant scene, this is also done fairly well. There are mysteries that are unveiled - in an acceptable way.

The main character, James is very believable - the story about an eager student starting to work is good in this setting.

What kills this movie is: * Stupid special effects - a modern version of 'Plan 9 from outer space'-type bad (the evil monster looks like a red scarecrow) * Some bad acting (or probably very few takes when filming) - The main characters sometimes acts badly, and somtimes good. * The sound is at times very cheap.

I kept thinking 'I could make a movie like this with my home video camera' throughout the film.


My sincere advice to all: don't watch the movie.

Don't even go near to the theater where this movie is being played!! even a glimpse of it is bad for health. serious. no jokes. it's 3.30 am in the morning. and i returned from this crappiest movie on this universe. FOUR HOURS DAMN!!! I am proud that i survived after all of it! If this is called survival.

i am highly frustrated. annoyed. disappointed. it was sheer waste of time! money went in drain! no plot. Hope i wake up tomorrow sane and with no memories of this night!! RUBBISH MOVIE.

Happy Republic day to one and all :)


I don't see how anyone who even likes Van Damne could like this movie.

The movie actually starts out with some promise. I would say the action scenes at the beginning of the movie is excellent. The actions scenes with the family ward trying to save the twins is a great start and is good lead in to the main story. However, the film is all down hill from there.

It would have been nice if the director could have stayed with the original premise. That is the brothers are born in different parts of the world and thus learn different skills. One brother is supposed to be skilled in Martial Arts, but the other brother is supposed to be skilled in firearms. How convenient when the time arises that the brother who has never picked up a gun before all of the sudden is a great marksman, and the brother who has not been taught any martial arts is all of the sudden doing the splits and high kicks.

The plot, action, etc. are just plain ridiculous. My favorite scenes? How about when Van Damne is confronting an armed soldier with an AK-47. The soldier is about 100 yards away. Instead of aiming and shooting at Van Damne he is doing a war cry like he is wielding a battle axe and running at him. Van Damne proceeds to pick up a pistol from a fallen soldier and shoots him,...while he is still about 75 to 80 yards away.

This movie has one of the most disappointing endings. Bolo Yeung is a skilled martial artist. However, instead of choreographing a decent fight. Bolo is throwing barrels at Van Damne like Donkey Kong. Absolutely aggravating movie that had so much promise. If your a Van Damne fan, save your time and see Hard Target or one of his earlier films.


This is one of the few movies - maybe the only - that truly haunted me for years. It was the first I had ever seen people tortured, so much that blood was flowing of their mouths from gritting their teeth and screaming, etc. It was brutal; the worst thing I had ever seen on film.

Dr. Clement Molloch, played by Joseph Mayer, is still one of the most evil characters I've ever seen on film, and I've viewed thousands. He was so sadistic that I would never watch this movie again, nor would I recommend it. He makes Hannibal Lecter look like Mr. Rogers. If seeing people tortured is not your idea of fun, then stay away from this film.

I know there are a lot of sick people out there, many of them professional film critics, who probably enjoyed this sordid, sick story. It's a 'B' movie, anyway, with stupid dialog and some wooden acting by Charles Bronson. This is not one of his better efforts. Even if it was, there so many horrendous scenes in here you wouldn't want to watch. Trust me on this one.


Alexander Nevsky is a series of superb sequences of cinematic opera that pass from pastoral to lamentation and end in a triumphal cantata. The story takes place in 1242. Prince Alexander Nevsky (Nikolai Cherkasov) defeats the Teutonic Knights in a battle on the ice of Lake Peipus.

The film is a splendid historical pageant which shows director Sergei Eisenstein at his most inventively pictorial, and climaxes in a superb battle sequence using music instead of natural sounds. Several films have scenes strongly influenced by the Battle of Lake Peipus, including Doctor Zhivago (1965), Mulan (1998), and King Arthur (2004). Alexander Nevsky was kept out of circulation due to changing political winds, and then enshrined as perhaps the most influential Soviet-made historical film.


Who won the best actress Oscar for 1933? It should have been Laura Hope Crewes for her magnificent portrayal of the most monstrous mother ever. She truly is one of the great character actresses of all time. She played the frivolous Prudence Duvernoy in 'Camille' (1936) and her best remembered role is Aunt Pittypat in 'Gone With the Wind'.

Irene Dunne was the 'official' star of the film but her scenes with Laura Hope Crewes were dynamite.

David (Joel McCrea) is in Heidelberg when he is offered a job in New York. His wife, Christine (Irene Dunne) can continue her studies at the Rockafellar Centre. Their first stop in America is a visit to David's mother, Mrs. Phelps. To say that Laura Hope Crewes dominates every scene is an under-statement. From her first entrance - in a frantic burst of effort to greet her 'big boy' - all attention is on her. Even sitting around the tea table, when she forgets Hester's existence, even forgetting how she takes her tea, you know something is not quite right.(Hester has been living there for a while.)

Frances Dee is completely sweet and so right in her role as the adorable Hester. Her performance in this film, especially the scene where she has hysterics and the aftermath proves how under-rated as an actress she was.

All the young cast are excellent. Eric Linden is superb as Robert, the younger son who comes to the realization that his mother is horrible but can do nothing about escaping from his mother's spell. Joel McCrea, at one point says 'painting roses on bathtubs - that's more your style'. There is a very subtle suggestion in the film of Robert's sexuality.

Irene Dunne is excellent in whatever film or genre she tried.


I own this movie. And it is terribly hard to find. It is a unique low budget little gore flick about a doctor seeking the perfect companion. It has the really humourous low budget feel to it, and the gore is suprisingly good for what appears to be a $500 budget. The director is claimed to be the master of gore. I wouldn't go that far, but maybe in his time he was. Overall 6/10 on the gore chart.


It's Die Hard meets Cliffhanger when a ski resort is besieged by terrorists and it's up to one cop, Jack (Crackerjack) to stop this.

A B-action movie that borrows from other films and is quite good with pretty good action, a ridiculous plot (as always in these movies) and three fine stars. Thomas Ian Griffith as the cop and Nastasja Kinski and Christopher Plummer as terrorists. If you don't like stupid B-action movies this is not for you.


I wouldn't be so sure to accept the DNA tests as irrefutable evidence against Anna Anderson. First, read Peter Kurth's book on which this film is based. Anna Anderson knew things that only the real Grand Duchess Anastasia could possibly have known (forensic evidence in Anna's favor aside). Second, compare the pictures of Anastasia and Anna Anderson. Anyone can see that they are one-and-the-same person. Third, visit Peter Kurth's website (url below) where you can read detailed information about the DNA tests, as well as why Franziska Schanzkowska and Anna Anderson are not the same person (scroll down to the link, 'ANNA-ANASTASIA NOTES ON FRANZISKA SCHANZKOWSKA'). Even Schanzkowska's relatives believed that their sister and Anna Anderson were not the same person.

I for one will always believe that HIH Anastasia Nicolevna Romanova and Anna Anderson were indeed the same person; I will never be swayed to the contrary .

www.peterkurth.com


This film reinvents the term 'Spring Breakumentary.' Hans, the fat one of the group, displays his talents as this generations Chris Farley. Johnny Kansas, 'the King of the $1 bet,' shows he's not in Kansas anymore by consistently upping the stakes. Kyle's laugh is truly infecting, and offers a little eye-candy for the ladies as well (as does Matt). The dwarfs, while having their moments, did not do justice to the Mexican hat dance like it deserves. And last, we have our protagonist, Ed. He gives hope to all of us bumbling, stumbling, gangly, pale folk who are still searching for that special someone. And that hope, is a little place called Cabo San Lucas. While this blockbuster just missed the theaters, this is a must rent, as we can all relate to one of these Spring Breakumentarions.


Inspired by True events, Radio is one of the best acted, heart felt dramas I seen widely released in sometime. It definitely is one of the year's best films of 2003.

Radio stars Ed Harris, who is Oscar worthy nonetheless in this film, as football coach Harold Jones. Coach Jones has been teaching football all his life and loves the game. However Coach Jones does not spend much time with his wife and daughter played by Debra Winger and Sarah Drew. One day Radio, played by Cuba Gooding Jr., in his best performance since Men of Honor, comes by the football field while the coach's team is practicing for the game. Some members of the team, then tie up radio and throw him into a building. They then bang on the building and finally Coach Jones suspects something is wrong. He comes over and helps Radio, who is frightened, and from that point on Coach Jones and Radio shares a very special bond. Radio becomes the highlight of every football game and really enjoys participating in the football games and at school events. He also becomes Coach Jones's main interest in life over football which at first was his main priority before both his family and Radio.

The movie deals with all sorts of real life problems including what your priorities are life, accepting people for who they are even if they are different, death, and family relationships. The movie touches upon all those issues and more and is extremely well done and director Michael Tollin should be very proud of this film. The thing I liked most about Radio was how real it felt. The performances were like watching something in real life occur right before your eyes. Radio had a great mix of comedy and drama. Some parts were quite funny yet other parts were very serious and sad.

In conclusion, I feel that Radio was very overlooked by Critics only getting average reviews. They must have there heads up there butts because its amazing how this film can only get 2 star reviews and something like school of rock can get 3 or 4 stars it doesn't make any sense to me. Also the performances as I mentioned before are top-notch and Oscar worthy. In my opinion, both Ed Harris, who I think is underrated as an actor, and Cuba Gooding Jr. should both get some kind on nomination for this movie. Radio is one my favorite movies of the year and gives me reason to still see some of the big Hollywood movies. My final rating for Radio is a 9/10.


In it's time, this movie had controversy written all over it (like most of Verhoeven's projects).

Containing very graphic depictions death-scenes; A parachute that doesn't open *smack* guys body on the floor. A guy being eaten by a Lion *chomp* teeth in the throat. And a guy being run over by a speedboat *zoom* bloody corpse going down.

But besides gore, this flick also contains some brilliant (and stunningly beautiful) scenes, filmed in the gray fisher's town that is Vlissingen;

Thousands of rosebuds flying over the screen, in a somewhat irrelevant part of the movie, a beautiful (holy) woman putting flowers in a milk-can, surrounded by slabs of blood-dripping meat and a steamy love scene between two male characters, in a graveyard.

The story is concluded in a frantic, but fulfilling 10 minutes, that don't disappoint, and will leave you sighing a breath of relief.

Of course with the pros come the cons, Some special-effects are too over-the-top, and are obviously done to see how far Verhoeven could push the gore-factor (e.g. the several eyeballs hanging out of their sockets). Also, while the two lead actors, (Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk), do an excellent job of breathing life into their characters, the character of Herman (portrayed by the rather un-charming Thom Hoffman) just feels enormously underdeveloped, making him hard to care for, even after his tragic death.

I've done my best to give you a slight idea of what to expect of this amazing movie, and as you can see, it's not easily summed up in words. So do yourself a favor, if you happen to find this movie somewhere, watch it ! And enjoy the unique style and substance of this masterpiece.


I am a huge fan of warrior movies. Some of my favorites are Braveheart, Troy, The last samurai and Gladiator. And after watching Mongol, which is absolutely awesome, and which i strongly recommend, i had high expectations from a Sergei Bodrov movie. But it was terrible, awful, even pathetic is not a strong word in this case. The whole movie i was waiting for something exciting to happen, but it didn't, then i was at least expecting a big epic battle at the end, but even that was a huge disappointment, just some random running around, waving with the swords... There are so many good warrior movies, this one is not one of them.


This was a fairly creepy movie; I found the music to be effective for this. The photographs Mario took of the village were also unnerving. However, I had three problems with this film. One is that the lighting was very dark so some of the time it was hard to tell what was going on, but this may have just been my copy. The second is that the very beginning is not explained very well and I'm still not sure what was going on there. The third problem is that I didn't understand the ending, but apparently some people do. Of course there are also the usual problems of people doing stupid things, and the male lead is very 70s. All in all, watchable but not even close to being a favorite.


The 'House of Dracula' really has nothing new to offer in the way of chills or thrills or new twists on an already tired storyline. This film was made as a hasty sequel to the fairly better made 'House of Frankenstein' from a year earlier. In 'House of Dracula' you can see the factory like production values of 1945 taking their toll on an otherwise potentially scary movie. Stock footage from previous films in the series and then the ending from 'Ghost of Frankenstein' used as the ending here just makes for an 'el cheepo' flick. Therein lies the shame of the studio and the producer considering that they had top notch talent and merely wasted everybody's time and effort on a quick money return scheme. But that seems to have been the trend all throughout Hollywood at the end of WWII. This is what brought on some of those mindless SciFi pics of the 1950's with all their closeups of harmless lizards in order to make them appear as dinosaurs. The days of James Whale and Val Lewton, to mention two, were over as far as creating real mood and atmosphere in this genre. Keep in mind also that the makeup genius, Jack Pierce, who actually did medical research in order to create all of our favorites, was summarily fired right after this particular film was released. A lesser capable makeup man by the name of Bud Westmore was then hired as the head of this department at Universal, soon to be Universal-International. Not to denigrate Mr. Westmore's ability but horror films were just not his forte. OK, to watch or not to watch. Watch this film but only as part of the chronological order of the Frankenstein series and you'll see how this all ended up as comic fodder for Abbott & Costello.


I despise horror movies, that is no secret. No plot, bad acting and gallons of blood are staples of these mistakes of cinema, and this 'movie' is no exception. I cannot believe some cable stations actually run this garbage. (This particular garbage was released straight-to-video, as I recall.) As mentioning any other movie would be a great insult to that other movie, I say this: All of the Phantasm movies, all of the Jason movies, Freddy movies, Chucky movies, and most of the Michael Myers movies can be summed up in one word: TERRIBLE!!!

Rating (Phantasm III): 0.5/10


Viva Variety was a unique hybrid program that was both a parody of and a tribute to the programs it represented.

It was most directly a mock up of the classic 1970s favorite, 'The Sonny & Cher Show,' With Thomas Lennon and Kerri Kenney playing a divorced show biz couple who were somehow forced to host this program together, the female of the pair towering over the male, and the constant barrage of 'insult humor' the couple tossed at each other, plus sketch comedy bits and performances from what are most kindly described as 'specialty' acts!

The 'hybrid' was the mix of fact and fantasy. Of course, there was no 'Mr. and Former Mrs. Laupin,' and the program's announcer, Johnny Bluejeans, was likewise equally fictional. But all the acts that performed were certainly real, and some were even entertaining! But there were also some acts that would have clearly been better suited for the old Chuck Barris 'Gong Show.'

The show itself was really more like an extended sketch from 'SCTV' (it was borne from the MTV series, 'The State,' after all), and some would suggest that it would have been better as a five minute bit in the mix of a program like that one, rather than a stand alone series. But 'Viva Variety' certainly should get high marks for original concepts, and even though it was often more odd than funny, it was certainly worthwhile, especially when they road tripped to Las Vegas and brought in even glitzier acts to perform. It's unlikely we'll ever see anything like this on television again.


This movie is cold, bare truth. Often we think 'oh no, that won't happen to me.' But it can. Drug smuggling is big money and often people are unknowingly (or tricked) into doing things for smugglers. The story of these two girls is the story of many young people who like them, only wanted a exotic holiday - which turned into a nightmare. People need to know that these sort of events aren't improbable or exaggerated - this IS a major problem in today's society.

I would recommend this movie to mature viewers because of the understanding needed to truly appreciate this movie. It is very emotional and raw. Well worth watching and certainly stays in your memory.


Corridors of time. The movie you can watch if you're looking for a sophisticated way of suicide. Some use guns, ropes, or gas, but you want to ruin your brains ? Do not wait any longer ! Corridors of time is probably one of the biggest possible mistakes : thinking Christian Clavier is able to act and to bring you fun. I do not miss the 45 francs this poor thing cost me : sometimes, one has to reset its evaluation system looking at the absolute zero. This film deserves a 2/10, but that's only because I like Jean Reno. Too bad for him, he also stars in Ronin. I think I'm gonna dislike him...


When i first went to watch The Shining I was expecting a decent film from what I had heard about it and I liked a lot of Stanley Kubrick's other work but when I started to watch it it was so much better than I thought it would be.At times I seriously felt ridiculously uneasy and I couldn't take my eyes of the screen still there's something very disturbing about everything in the film. Now some people don't like Kubrick's version of The Shining since it doesn't entirely follow Stephen King's book but in my opinion both Kubrick's version,the mini-series and the book are all great.Jack Nicholson gives an awesome performance.If you are looking for a good original movie that will keep you thinking even after the movies over then watch The Shining.


Taking a break from his escapist run in the early '80s, Steven Spielberg directed Whoopi Goldberg in an adaptation of Alice Walker's 'The Color Purple', about about the desperate existence of an African-American woman in the 1930s. Watching Goldberg play Celie, it's incredible that this is the same woman who starred in movies like 'Sister Act'. This is the sort of movie that could easily be - no, make that SHOULD BE - part of the curriculum in Black Studies and Women's Studies. There's one scene that may be the most magnificent editing job that's ever been on screen (you'll know it when you see it). I can't believe that this didn't win a single Oscar; it may be Spielberg's second best movie behind 'Schindler's List' (maybe even tied with it). Also starring Danny Glover, Adolph Caesar, Margaret Avery, Oprah Winfrey, Willard E. Pugh, Akosua Busia, and Laurence Fishburne.


This is what I wrote to some friends earlier:

HOLY CRAP, The Grudge is, honest to God, one of the scariest films I've ever seen! I am either getting very soft in my old age, or Sam Raimi and Ghost Pictures did a KICK A** job! (Can't wait for Boogeyman!)

I was very scared sitting in the dark theater and wished I had someone, anyone, sitting next to me (except the protagonist in Grudge. I saw the movie by myself.) I swear, there were many many jump scenes that were NOT expected! I felt foolish but my nerves did not care! I was on edge the entire movie, from the opening credits, and the music was fantastically scary. I keep thinking of that sound, though, and I DO NOT LIKE IT!

I actually gasped aloud a few times, and cried, 'oh' at one scene!! Oh, yeah, I even half-covered my eyes a few times! Word to the wise, though: I thought some of the scenes were a little psychotic. My DH hated Event Horizon and thought whoever wrote it was sick and psycho, but I don't remember the movie so can't compare.

I can't say I 'enjoyed' this movie b/c I was terrified, but it was very very good and scary. The ending scene, too...whoa! For being a 32-year-old-mommy, I think I may have nightmares from this movie, especially because of that sound. Please get out of my head ;)

In summary, this is not a slasher flick like I grew up with (Jason, Freddy). This is a most-of-the-time spooky movie. Perfect for Halloween.

Two great trailers for this movie were Boogeyman and The Ring 2!!


Pity the poor reviewer who disliked / didn't understand this wonderful film. What a sad life he must lead!

This movie has more to say about life and relationships than most I've ever seen, yet it's not dark or preachy like the 'ordinary people' type of film. It is mostly humorous, though not technically a comedy.

The whole thing feels a little like a fantasy, perhaps Shakespear's 'Midsummer Nights' Dream.' Beautiful, intelligent women abound, with wonderful cinematography and a non-insulting screenplay that doesn't miss a beat.

I look forward to seeing it every time this film is re-run on cable. It's like re-reading a favorite, treasured book.


Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed!!!) gets a sex change from a doctor (John Carradine--dead drunk) and comes out as Myra (Raquel Welch). She then decides to destroy male masculinity (or something like that) and proceeds to teach film history at an acting college run by lecherous John Huston (don't ask) and break up a young happy couple (young, handsome, hunky Roger Herren and Farrah Fawcett--yes THE Farrah Fawcett).

They took a great novel by Gore Vidal that was unfilmable and, naturally, tried to film it. They also hired an English guy with a decidedly Anti-American attitude and hired a bunch of actors with questionable 'talent' (Welch, Reed) and embarassed old professionals (Huston, Carradine, Andy Devine, Jim Backus, Mae West), threw it all together and....SURPRISE!!! An absolute disaster.

The film got an X rating at its release (it's been lowered to an R), mostly because of a truly tasteless scene in which Welch sodomizes Rusty (Roger Herren) and a scene in which Welch attempts to have sex with Fawcett.

The movie is very scattershot...scenes jump all over the place and people say and do things that make no sense. It's not good at all but I was never bored.

Acting varies wildly...Reed is horrible...really sad. Huston chews the scenery again and again and AGAIN to a nauseating extreme. Welch is actually not bad as Myra but her lines make no sense so you never know what to make of her. West is hardly in the movie (a blessing) and it's really kind of sick to hear a woman almost 80 years old cracking sex jokes. Roger Herren (whatever happened to...) was very young, handsome and not bad as Rusty. Fawcett is OK.

It's hard to find things to say about this...you just watch it in disbelief. A must see movie--to believe!!!!


This extremely weak Australian excuse for a motion picture is sort of like the Pavlov Dog Experiment amongst horror movies. You remember this famous 'Conditioned Reflex' experiment from your school books, right? The Russian scientist Pavlov proved that dogs tended to salivate before the food actually came into their mouths and this through repetitive routines stimulating the animal's reflexes. Pavlov rung a bell a couple of instants before the food was delivered to the dog and, after a while, he became anxious and excited and already started salivating from hearing the sound of the bell. What the hell has this whole boring explanation in common with a sleazy and low-budgeted Aussie slasher flick, I hear you think? Well, the modus operandi of the maniacal killer in 'Nightmares' is an exact variant on Pavlov's experiment. Each and every single murder sequence is preceded by the raw sound and image of the killer breaking a window, because he/she insists on using a sharp piece of glass to slice up the victims. So this means that, after a short while, inattentive and bored viewers can afford to doze off and simply look up again when they hear the sound of shattering glass. That way they still don't miss anything special!

Regarding the quality of 'Nightmares' as a film I can be very brief. This is a cheap, uninspired and largely imbecilic Aussie cash-in on the contemporary popular trend of American slasher movies. In the early 60's, a four-year-old witnesses the cruel death of her mother as her throat gets slit open in a nasty car accident. Twenty years later the same girl  Helen Selleck  is a successful stage actress, but she still has severe mental issues and regularly suffers from horrible flashbacks and traumatic nightmares. She auditions for a role in a black comedy play revolving on death and gets the part. Shortly after the big premiere, everyone who's even remotely involved with the production gets slaughtered. It is truly retarded how this movie attempts to uphold the mystery regarding the killer's identity and motivations even though even the most infantile viewer can figure it out after the first murder already. I don't think I've ever seen a more obvious whodunit than 'Nightmares' and the creators should have just showed his/her face straight away and save themselves from embarrassment. The murders are explicit and very bloody and there's also an unhealthy large amount of gratuitous nudity to 'enjoy'. However, the production values are poor and thus the movie is never at one point shocking or provocative. The few clips we get to see of the actual play make it appear that it quite possible could be the worst thing ever performed on stage. The only positive elements in the film are the characters of the director and the gay newspaper critic, whom are both delightfully sarcastic and insult the rest of the cast members as much as we do. 'Nightmares' is a dreadful piece of exploitative horror cinema, but hey, at least I gave you a golden tip to make it more digestible.


Investigative reporter Darren McGavin (as Carl Kolchak) is back; this time, he's after 'The Night Strangler'. Once again, police officials and fellow journalists either disbelieve, or want to cover-up, the supernatural angle. Producer-director Dan Curtis presents the same basic story as his preceding 'Night', with understandably less success.

Mr. Curtis assembles a fun supporting cast, included are 'Dark Shadows' alumni George DiCenzo and Ivor Francis. Jo Ann Pflug (as Louise Harper) heads up a sexy collection of belly-dancers. And, although I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, that must be Roger Davis as Mr. McGavin's dining companion in an early scene, feigning disbelief in the existence of vampires!

**** The Night Strangler (1/16/73) Dan Curtis ~ Darren McGavin, Jo Ann Pflug, Simon Oakland, Wally Cox


I always enjoy seeing movies that make you think, and don't just drip-feed the answers to their audience. 'Revolver' is one of these films, and although many reviewers have stated that it is difficult to follow, with a bit of concentration and an open mind I got it. First time. True, it doesn't compare to other mind-mucks like 'The Usual Suspects' or 'Memento', but in its own right its an intelligent and thought-provoking film.

Another thing I really liked about this film is how damn beautiful it is. Every scene, every camera angle seems to have been thought about for ages. If you see it you'll know what I mean.

So, to conclude... watch it with an open mind and you may enjoy it. If not, well, no-one ever said 'Revolver' is for everyone. And that's my 2 cents.