I think a round of applause is in order for whoever pieced together the trailer for Rogue Pictures' latest release, 'The Return'. I myself, along with everyone else have been duped into believing it is in fact a horror film. On the contrary though, its actually a supernatural thriller. Too bad it is not the least bit thrilling.

'The Return' stars Sarah Michelle Gellar as Joanna Mills, a young woman who has had personal problems since the age of eleven. It was at that age that she began having haunting visions depicting the murder of a woman whom she has never met. While in Texas on a business trip, she is led by these visions to the murdered woman's hometown, La Salle. There she comes face to face with another person who has frequently appeared in her visions. A man by the name of Terry Stahl, who is played by Peter O'Brien. Joanna is now on a desperate search for answers. A search that could in the end result in her very own murder.

I really don't know where to begin here folks. Which should I mention first? The atrocious acting, hideous directing, or the terribly bland story? No matter which one I choose my point behind each is the same: they simply suck. Adam Sussman's screenplay is downright moronic. Its not interesting. Its not compelling. Its just plain unpleasant. I kept waiting for something to jumpstart the 'film' (I've placed quotations around film because I don't believe 'The Return' deserves to be called an actual film due to it's foulness.) and at least give it some slight chance of hope, but nothing ever happened. I was left out in an unbearable cold to freeze. Not even stellar performances from the actors themselves could have saved this disaster. Of course they probably knew this having read the script then agreeing to do the 'film'. I assume this is why the acting was so awful. At least that's what I'm choosing to believe. I really hope the cast doesn't pride themselves on their performances. They need immediate medical attention if they do.

Now the directing was unmistakably bad, but I can't quite crucify Asif Kapadia entirely. (Well I could, but I won't since I'm such a nice guy.) I look at 'The Return' as a test for Kapadia because for all of you that don't know, this is his first full-length feature 'film'. He's just getting his foot in the door and still learning. Next time around, well if there is a next time, hopefully he will have improved vastly. The only thing he was able to accomplish here was almost completely duplicating the visual style of Marcus Nispel's 2003 re-make of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Now that's nice the 'film' was given that, but unfortunately he still won't be receiving any kudos from me for that. Copying someone else's work isn't something I consider to be praise worthy. (Even if it is from a film I very much enjoyed.)

I think Jim Sonzero's American re-make of 'Pulse' will now have to fork over the title of Worst Film of the Year to 'The Return'. It beyond question is deserving of the title in almost every imaginable way. Now I don't doubt this will make a small, and I mean very small, profit. No matter what though, it won't surpass or even parallel the fluke success of Gellar's previous acting effort, 'The Grudge'. On that note, there's one last thing I'd like to add. I can honestly say I had never been embarrassed to have been seen leaving a theater auditorium until seeing 'The Return'. That is something I never wish to experience again, along with the 'film' itself.


It has been some years since I saw this, but remember it and would like to see it again. It kind of became a 'therapy' for me with a personal experience of my own.

A thirty-five year old man laments over a high-school baseball game in which he 'missed the ball' and his team lost. He thinks about it 20 years later, 'if only I'd hit that ball' and how his life would be better because of it. Then, he gets a chance to find out....and gets a little more than he bargained for.

It reminds me so much of when I was in high school, I twice tried out for our drill/dance team and didn't make it. This team was the closest thing to a sorority in my school. If you were on it, you were 'all that.' I didn't try out till my last two years of HS and after the second time, I took it really hard. I'd hit and bruised my leg badly just before tryouts and wore tights to cover the bruise, and that caused me to not make it. That was in 1987.

Through the years, even now sometimes, I think 'If only I hadn't hit my leg I would've never worn those stupid tights.' Now I don't sit and think my life would be any better or even any different had I made it, but seeing this movie made me realize that we never really know how different things may be by changing one little thing way back in the past. Who knows, it could have changed the course of events to the point that I wouldn't have met my son's father.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who has that one moment in the past they wish they could change. Be careful what you wish for!!!


This lasted several years despite the late hour it was on.

Like a lot of 80's crime dramas, it looked cold. Both physically and figuratively. This isn't a bad thing though. And the (obviously) low budget actually worked in it's favor. Gritty during a time when 'slick' was in.

Allan Royal's wraparound segments as the news writer gave it a slight edge.

The only actors I remembered were Scott Nylands (Earthquake) and Tony Rosato (SCTV). The cast of barely knowns was a good thing because one could see the group as a whole and not as a bunch of people supporting a 'star.' And yes, that's a young Clark Johnson (Homicide) in a recurring spot.

I hope a DVD release is in the future. Someone out there wanna get on that?


This film rocks...so hard...

The cameos...the drug references...the sharing...the love...the ROCKING!!! When Jack and Kyle first met in Tim Robbins' 'Actors' Gang' theater company years ago, who knew that such a legacy of awesome music and hilariousness would ensue?? All that door to door rocking paid off...

Although anyone who enjoys classic rock will get a major kick out of this film, I would definitely recommend renting the original 6 HBO episodes at your local video store before going to see the film in the cinema. They're on the Tenacious D Masterworks DVD, which is available for rent at pretty much every video store. There are some inside jokes in the film that refer to these earlier episodes that will add something more enjoyable to the overall viewing experience...


Whether you're a fan of the series which inspired it or not, there's no denying this is a patchy piece of work. But in the best possible sense. Keen to get away from the trappings of old sitcoms which made an uneasy transition to the big screen, Messrs Pemberton, Dyson, Shearmsith and Gatiss have gone down a different road, addressing the problems of dealing with their success along with adding other creations and, inevitably, rehashing some of their best-loved characters. It's a pity they didn't stick to just a more consistent League of Gents movie because as inventive as including themselves in the screenplay is, it weakens the finished movie. Well worth renting though.


When I voted my '1' for this film I noticed that 75 people voted the same out of 146 total votes. That means that half the people that voted for this film feel it's truly terrible. I saw this not long ago at a film festival and I was really unimpressed by it's poor execution. The cinematography is unwatchable, the sound is bad, the story is cut and pasted from many other movies, and the acting is dreadful. This movie is basically a poor rip-off of three other films. NO WONDER THIS WAS NEVER RELEASED IN THE USA.


If you have ever seen a Bollywood movie, you know they are longer than most movies due to the multiple song and dance routines (each one is over five minutes long). Fortunately, this one has fewer song and dance routines and fits into the 'standard' movie length. Don't get me wrong, I like Bollywood movies, but tend to fast forward through the song and dance portions. I bought this DVD because I am an Ian Bohen fan. Although his role wasn't as large as I hoped, he still had a good amount of screen time. And his character was much different than his other roles.

Overall, this was a good movie. Like most Bollywood movies, there is at least one element of controversy/conflict of the traditional Indian culture. But true love triumphs over adversity and a happy ending is had by all.


The story of Sweeney Todd evokes memories of the work of classic writers like Charles Dickens, and more contemporary writers like Edward Gory. As a musical, it naturally becomes more like the musical Les Miserables. Both deal with the grim effects of poverty in the Industrial Revolution, and the breakdown of organized society. But this musical is different from Les Mis in one very important aspect: Stephen Sondheim, the songwriter who can adapt to any style. To be sure, he's had his successes and failures, but one thing about his shows you can always count on: They will be something unique. Who would have thought someone would write a musical about a barber who slits people's throats and makes them into meat pies? Sondheim did, and he did it marvelously. The entire show is set in a factory, to suggest the ever-present catastrophic effects of the misery of those at the bottom of society, and this serves the needs of the show perfectly. The catwalks and railings are moved throughout to suggest streets and walkways and bridges. Techniques are borrowed from Kabuki and Noh, with the visual stagehands and set changes. Then, to top it all off, cast the great Angela Lansbury as the gruesomely practical and humorous Mrs. Lovett, and George Hearn, with his operatic baritone voice, as the murderous Todd, and you've got yourself a stellar musical vehicle. The rest of the cast moves smoothly through the clichés of the love story perfectly, except for Johanna and Pirelli, who sound a bit too forced. If the Johanna and Pirelli from the Broadway show could be here, it would be perfect. Hearn acts while he sings more than Len Cariou on the OBC album, and the accents don't sound as forced here. Through it all Sondheim's score never fails to underline the dark seriousness of the story. As I said, he can adapt to any style. In Follies he imitates the '30s '40s style of showtunes, in Pacific Overtures he captures the subtle art of Asian music, Into the Woods knocks off the 32 bar Disney style songs, and Assassins covers a history of American music. Here, however, he does wonders in making his score distinctly English, from parlour songs to operatic duets and soliloquies to society waltzes to Gilbert/Sullivan style patter. And yet still, the show remains deadly serious, even though it provokes more laughs than any musical comedy. In it still, is a grim warning on the evils of taking revenge. Here is where this movie makes a mistake, in cutting the Judge's solo in which he flagellates himself out of guilt for his crimes. Without it, the Judge is just a conventional villain, and this movie's point is that there are no straight villains. Both Todd and the Judge learn, too late, the horrors of having to accept responsibility for their actions, and Todd loses everything in his obsession. This is well brought out by the chilling reprise of the grim yet rollicking Ballad of Sweeney Todd, ending the show with Todd and Lovett rising from the grave to tell us that the end is the same: in a world full of Sweeneys, vengeance begets only vengeance. 'Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd. He served a dark and a vengeful God. To seek revenge may lead to Hell, but everyone does it, and seldom as well as Sweeney, as Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street.'


One of the best horror/suspense movies I have seen in a long time. Wow, it was a big surprise and stunning at how good this movie was, sometimes a gem like this will surface but is rare. I expected a popcorn monster flick and a mildly diverting way to spend a late night but instead a very well made and directed movie with great acting and made with passion and heart.

This is a movie that makes you feel for the characters and what happens to them, and it is filmed like you are there and it is really happening. I know some people in other reviews compare it to 'Open Water', but I disagree because I thought Open Water was quite boring and mediocre, while this movie was the opposite, although superficially they are filmed in the same 'realistic' style.

The actors are unknowns, at least to me, but they all are very effective and convey the dire situation with frightening intensity and realism. The story is well done and flows smoothly, the plot is logical and appears to be something that could happen, all the actions and thoughts of the characters are quite what a person would do and think about. Very believable and this makes the movie more real because of it.

I had tears in my eyes at the end. I must say a movie seldom has this effect on me, this is how powerful and emotional this movie was done and I am suitably impressed by the director and actors of this great movie.


Oh, Yawn. Not another chick flick where the men are all pigs and the women will get even for the abuse they suffered. The only difference is that, in this film, everybody's a pig or has mush for brains. I hated this film for the moral issue of why it's right to send a man to prison for life for a murder he didn't commit. Is that a more immoral act than his abuse and deviousness. This movie shows all the situational ethics of bad writing. I saw it on the CBC's 'Best of Britain' series. If this is Britain's best, no wonder the British film industry is in trouble.

The only bright spot in this film was David Tennant, He plays his character as so despicable that I'm likely to spit on the next person who speaks with a Scottish accent. Kate Ashfield tries to play the victim but comes off in the end as immorally devious as David Tennant's character. They deserve each other.

In the mush for brains category are the parents who see nothing wrong with the obviously psychotic Brendan. English policemen are made out to be so incompetent that they're unfit to give out traffic tickets. The British Policeman's Union should sue the makers of this film for defamation.

This film isn't worth the electricity it takes to run your DVD to watch it.


Most people (36) gave this movie a 10 and those who don't are being too critical or maybe expected something else. This is one of my favorite movies from the 80's, it grows on you, and has it all. I just got it on DVD and 20 years later it still does not disappoint, having plenty of action, drama, romance, and even comedy. Add to that the great car chases, automatic weapon shootouts and lots of stuff blowing up and you have a fun, edge of your seat experience! You will even be humming or whistling the main theme song for days after seeing this.

You can watch this movie with your wife/gf and you will both enjoy it lots. The premise is that of a paperback book hero, like Doc. Savage, really existing and helping people fight evil so he can write the story is almost true to life here. The actor Jake Speed is also a director, producer and writer of many films. In THIS film Jake Speed (the character) is an Indiana Jones adventurer type, he usually uses his head to get out of sticky situations but will sometimes resorts to brute firepower (yay!,and sheer dumb luck too!). Keep an eye out for his one 'James Bond' hi-tech equipment, the ultimate road warrior SUV dropping out of the sky.

The heroine is the very beautiful young love interest from the early Jim Carey vampire movie 'Once Bitten' and here she is a little older and still a knockout even compared to her teenage blonde little sister.

The bad guys are 'real bad' men and are the worst lowlife villainous scum you love to hate. The ending is just perfect and can stand alone or invite a sequel, sadly never made - but you can just imagine what would happen next!

You have to see this movie just because it will entertain and amuse you and that's worth the price of a ticket.


...this one just isn't worth the cost of a movie ticket. What these filmmakers have done cannot properly be called filmmaking; rather, they just chose sixteen students of some diversity (though not quite as much diversity as the reviews have suggested) and set them loose. The results are, to be brutally frank, far more often boring, self-indulgent, overwrought and off-puttingly grainy than truly insightful.

There are, of course, moments of recognition and identification of the sort only possible in documentary film, but overall there's not much more truth here than in 'Bully' or, for that matter, a decent TV documentary of the same sort. Though full of talk about sex and sexual diversity and racism, the film brings nothing to the table that will be of use to anyone who has thought about any of these issues with any seriousness. And while certain segments serve absolutely no purpose other than to inject a bit of (admittedly welcome) comic relief, most often the five-minute limit keeps up from becoming emotionally involved with any of the students. An interesting idea, but thumbs down for CHAIN CAMERA.


I knew that 'Evening' was a girlie film, so I was expecting to be bored. A wicked tease on IMDb had said that it was a 'chick flick' but that your companion would survive.

Survive? Yes. I am still here, but when the two of us came out we were amazed to find that it had only lasted two hours - it seemed a much longer evening than that! I suppose that, for Yanks, it is supposed to be elevating or fascinating because it is about rich people living on the beach - well, next to the beach, in a house with a wide verandah and a lawn but no apparent lawnmower. If that sort of thing impresses you it might seem quite a short film.

There's a Monty Python film about a Knight who just won't die. He ends up a wriggling (why do Yanks add an third syllable to this word I wonder) torso in the road still shouting threats at his nemesis. This film is also about a sort of living dead. Vanessa Redgrave (inappropriate name for the grave dodger shown here) goes on and on dying whilst having inappropriate guilt. She's not worried about having been a wide-eyed, breathless bimbo, but imagines herself a murderess.

Obviously, being a girlie film, there's a chap who is supposed to be the Mr Darcy/Heathcliff character. I'm not a woofter, so I can't claim to be a good judge of such things, but the tedious wimp who is wheeled out for this role seems only to have the title of servant in his favour. He's a bloodless cypher.

As you might gather, the main characters aren't much cop, but the minor ones manage, amazingly to be much worse. There's a fellow whose only job is to react to the news that his girlfriend is preggers. Fair enough, but it isn't the role of Hamlet - why ham it up so badly? Forgetting that it was a girlie film, I thought he was going to be thrown out because any decent girl-friend would have told him that face-fungus didn't flatter him, but then I realised that she must have encouraged him to grow a 'beard' because he looked worse without it.

I kept awake by noticing which actors and actresses had their earlobes attached or free and noting interesting bits of scenery - if you're dragged along to it, see if you can spot the stuffed buffalo head, just the sort of thing you'd expect in a beach cottage.

Apart from the obligatory wedding, there is only one piece of action. You'd have thought that they'd have got it right. Sadly, though, the hit and run accident is carried out by a car that couldn't be there. When the accident is discovered the cast wander about shouting for a character that they can't know is nearby (but we do as the audience). If they don't have any clue that the person is within a couple of miles of the place, then why do they wander about aimlessly shouting for him? I suppose that the director's excuse is that it is supposed to be a half-remembered dream sequence...

Another scenery item that caught my attention was a copper bottomed saucepan. I didn't think that the technology to do this was developed until the fifties.


I'd give this film a zero if I could. How anyone could rate it any higher is beyond me. Until I saw Rollerball, this was my pick for worst film ever from a major studio with a real budget (claiming Mangler 2 or Leprechaun in the Hood as the worst ever isn't really saying much, those are supposed to be bad)

Tim Curry's mom must have needed surgery or something for him to agree to this non-sensical garbage. I'm really not sure what happened here. The novel was great, the director Frank Marshall had a solid track record with Alive and Arachnophobia (perhaps they should have changed the title to 'Africa'), the cast was good and the budget was there. You'd think someone would have bothered to read the script.

You'd be better off watching Battlefield: Earth again than wasting your time with. Congo makes you long for the return of MST3K


I saw the movie in the theater at its release, then watched the VHS tape over the years, and while strolling through Target saw this DVD bundled with 'Pushing Tin' for the exorbitant sum of $5.50.

There is something about this comedy that has really clicked with me - how Kelsey Grammar, 'with a tattoo on his thing', is an unorthodox commander who inherits a rusty diesel sub and a crew of screwballs and misfits. He's up against the Navy's best - a Los Angeles Class nuclear attack sub - and his old captain (Wm Macy).

Bruce Dern plays the bad guy, Rip Torn the admiral running the exercise - If you don't laugh hysterically during the 'run silent' segment with the cook, well, you have a different kind of humor from me.

Towards the end the machinist says 'D.B.F.' with no explanation - it is apparently some inside knowledge gotten from an old submariner consultant - thanks to Google I learned that with the advent of the nuclear subs the old salts would wear 'DBF' pins - Diesel Boats Forever.

A Navy friend said that many of the technical aspects aren't correct but who cares - it is one of the funniest movies I've seen.

I don't think it takes a clairvoyant to know who will win in this exercise!


It's a testament to Gosha's incredible film-making prowess that he was able to complete both Hitokiri and his stunning masterpiece, Goyokin, in the same year, 1969. And it's a testament to how criminally underrated he remains for the general public (compared to media darlings like the great Akira Kurosawa), that both Hitokiri and Goyokin have received less than 500 votes between the two of them.

Shintaro Katsu is Okada Izo: mad dog killer, loyal to the Tosha clan and their boss Takechi, played by another genre stalwart, Tatsuya Nakadai. The Tosha clan was part of a larger alliance that supported the Emperor against the flailing Shogunate. The historical backdrop is fairly accurate - with Japan's increasing political turmoil between imperialists and the Tokugawa and the pressure by the West to end a 300 year social and political seclusion. It helps a lot to know a thing or two about Japanese history and what eventually led to the Meiji Restoration and the abolition of the Tokugawa Shogunate, but it's not essential by any means. The movie was made primarily for a Japanese audience so certain things are taken for granted but it flows very well for the uninitiated as well.

As one would expect from a Hideo Gosha film in his golden years (the late 60's) the visual palette is breathtaking, the use of external and internal symbolism hiding behind pictorial beauty. Style however is never decorative for Gosha - it is always employed in the service of story.

And speaking of story, Hitokiri is dominated both literally and figuratively by the tortured main character Izo Okada. As most chambara protagonists, Izo finds himself in a moral double-bind, torn between giri (obligation) and ninjo (natural impulse) - although it takes a while for him to realize what exactly his giri is. In the first half of the movie Izo is trying for social self-advancement. Lofty aspirations of social rank and marriage with an aristocrat's daughter - a great progression for someone coming from a farmer's background in the rigid social caste system of 19th century Japan.

The turning point for Izo is when he realizes at what cost self-advancement comes, the loss of identity and by consequence the loss of self. It is at that point that he undergoes a very symbolic transformation from a famous swordsman of the Tosha Clan to a 'nameless' drifter without past or future, Torazo the Vagrant. Although not technically nameless and not a genre drifter in Yojimbo's mold, it is the loss of his former self and the cast off of ego, ambition and self-dillusion that allows Izo to see things as they really are and redeem himself.

Hitokiri ends (which I won't reveal here) in the best way any story can end: both positive and negative with a deeply ironic twist that gives Izo the last laugh, a last sardonic remark in the face of death.


Bizarre. This movie is supposed to be based on a famous photographer, but everything that happens in this movie is fiction. I guess it tries to explain why Diane Arbus had a fascination with oddities and made it her primary photography focus. In the movie, wolfman moves into the apartment above hers. She seemingly becomes obsessed with him and falls for him. She puts her kids and husband second over the wolfman, and even tries to incorporate him into her family gatherings. Some of the wolfman's freak show side kicks come over to visit and she mingles with them. The whole thing is very bizarre.

FINAL VERDICT: Nothing memorable. There is just something weird about a woman who gets her jollies from shaving the wolfman. I think you can find better films out there.


A question immediately arises in this extremely idiosyncratic film: Who are the crazy people?

The answer become less clear as the film goes on.

Renee Zellweger loses the whiney note in her voice and, while her voice is still high, she is incredibly effective as the shell-shocked Betty. In fact, she is so effective I almost wanted her to be just a little more crazy because her created reality was so believable.

This is the first time Ms Zellweger has been called upon to carry a film and she is more than equal to the task.

Chris Rock  though as foul-mouthed as usual  is fairly subdued as Wesley. He is able to sublimate his manic energy and it only occasionally surfaces and always when it is needed most.

There are some interesting allusions: the first time you see Betty she is dressed almost exactly like Dorothy Gale from the `Wizard of Oz'  then later in the film she is compared to Dorothy when she says she has never been out of Kansas before. At one point the song that Doris Day was best known for, Que Sera Sera' is on the soundtrack and then later Charlie (Morgan Freeman) describes her as having a whole Doris Day thing going on.'

This is an extremely quirky film with good performances by everyone including the supporting cast.

It has a surprising ending that, as contrary as it sounds, is actually fairly predictable.

If for no other reason see this film just to listen to the master of the human voice: Morgan Freeman.


This is listed as a documentary, it's not, it's filmed sort of like a documentary but that I suspect was just because then they get away with a shaky camera and dodgy filming. This has just been released in the UK on DVD as an 'American Pie style comedy' it's not that either.

Basically it follows around a group of teens on spring break as they go to Mexico for cheap booze and with the quest being to get there virgin friend finally laid. Throw is a couple of dwarfs, also on the same sort of quest and you have a non-hilarious tale of drunk teens trying to get some girls.

Considering the 18 Rating this has very little nudity, and practically zero sex scenes, mainly I guess the rating is for swearing of which there is plenty.

If you like crude Jackass behaviour without the humour, then this may be your thing, if you have any brain cells left then I would probably avoid this!


I think it definitely is. The writing is of such a quality that beginner students of the English language should model their conversations after its dialogue. For example, the exchange between Paul Kersey(Bronson) and Ms. Kathryn Davis(Deborah Raffin) (more about this character later) is extremely clear and to the point: Ms. Davis says, 'I hope you like chicken. It's the only thing I know how to make,' to which Kersey deftly responds, 'Chicken's good. I like chicken.' If that's not English Grammar 101, I don't know what is.

Another thing about this Ms. Davis character: Kersey sleeps with her on the second date after she practically throws herself at him and tells him she wants to see him 'one last time'(this being only the fourth time they've ever met) before she moves to her sister's house in Binghamton,NY to get away from the creeps; then he really doesn't even bat an eye while her corpse is burning in the street only minutes later. Kersey never even says her first name through the entirety of the film. Not once. Never a 'Get over here, Katy,' or a 'That's a nice dress you wearing, Kathryn' or a 'Be careful, Katie, or the creeps'll get ya!'

And while this 'love' is developing between the two, Fraker(Gavan O'Herlihy) keeps his ever-watchful eyes on them. It's almost as if Kersey is using her as bait to get to Fraker, much as he uses the camera or the car. Sure enough, when Fraker bites, Kersey bites back hard...in the most incredible sequence of events ever caught on film! The final fifteen or so minutes are possibly rivaled only by the final thirty minutes of Delta Force in their brilliance. And that's giving Delta Force a lot of credit. In what other film can you see Ed Lauter take out Alex Winter in order to get Charles Bronson's back, a troubled gang leader seemingly calling a hotline to summon neo-nazi bikers to come to his aid, and nimble Broadway dancers wearing mesh halter-tops posing as street punks, all laid down to a soundtrack written by none other than Jimmy Page. If that's not the highest of high comedy, then nothing is funny.

Truthfully speaking, there are a thousand ways to state the unintentional comedy of Death Wish 3, but the only way to truly understand it is to watch it and judge for yourself.


If you value your freedom!

I first got seriously interested in The Branch Davidian debacle after reading an article in UK journal 'The Fortean Times.' Wanting to learn more, I rented this documentary and after watching it, I was stunned at what I saw. This film peaked my interest in the subject and I have read several books on the subject since then. This film is a must see for people who only know the facts as reported in the so called 'mainstream' media. The baldfaced lies, double talk, and contradictory statements made by officials and politicians shown in this film will make you think twice about calling people who question the governments actions in this fiasco 'nuts' 'loonies' and 'kooks.'

Whats scary is that I know some people who consider themselves open minded 'intellectuals' and freedom loving 'liberals' who are still convinced that the government did the right thing at Waco and refuse to watch this film or read any of the books on the subject. They continue to insist its not worth their time because its all propaganda from gun loving, Clinton hating, religious fanatic,right wing anarchist nuts. One publication from an organization comprised of many so called 'great minds' that claims to be dedicated to promoting 'reason','common sense' and 'rationalism' condemned the film claiming it would poison peoples minds and strongly suggested this film should be suppressed. They even hinted the Davidians had it coming. I won't mention its name since I'm a coward. If you are one of those reading this (of course you probably would not be reading this anyway), I can only say its a shame you won't open your mind.


New York has never looked so good! And neither has anyone in this movie. While the script is a bit lightweight you can't help but like this movie or any of the characters in it. You almost wish people like this really existed. The appeal of the actors are what really put it over(John Ritter, Colleen Camp and the late Dorothy Stratten are particularly good.) Go ahead and rent or buy this movie you'll be glad you did.


If we really want to get serious and find Osama Bin Laden, then we should take this stinker down to Gitmo and force the detainees to watch it. They'll be singing within minutes. Of course, I'm sure that making them watch this god-awful dreck violates the Geneva Convention in several ways.

Look, my 5 year old daughter isn't allowed to watch TV at home. So take her to her grandparents or cousins and she's a little TV zombie. She got up and walked away after about ten minutes. That's how bad this is.

You know, when the person responsible for this garbage was a young writer, I bet he or she had dreams of the great American novel. Now they have to look in the mirror every morning with the realization that they wrote what is possibly the worst hour of television in the history of the medium.

And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us...


I recently rented this doc, having remembered hearing about it from IMDb.com and being intrigued by the premise. I knew very little about either of these bands, but I do remember hearing 'Not If You Were The Last Junkie On Earth' by The Dandy Warhols ages ago and enjoying it. That being said, this is my perspective on the doc:

One thing I found incredible about this film is there is no need to have any prior knowledge of either of these bands. The director (Ondi Timoner) wastes no time in engaging the audience and familiarizing them with the people in this film. I quickly became grooved to the lives both Anton and Courtney as well as their respective bands, The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. I think that is part of what makes this doc so good, and what makes Ondi Timoner such a master documentarian.

I also loved how the 'story' of these bands was told. Most of what you see is of the bands on tour. Both bands start out playing small venues and struggling to make it in the recording industry. Throughout the film, each band strives to remain unique and uncontrolled by the norm. However it is this that makes the two bands similar, and thus the brilliant perspective on how two bands of a feather can go in such different directions.

I would basically recommend this for ANYONE who likes film in general. You do not need to have a particular love for documentaries, or either of the bands. An appreciation for music helps, but the music itself takes a backseat to the love/hate relationship between The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols.


Yes, this is one of THOSE movies, so terrible, so insipid, so trite, that you will not be able to stop laughing. I have watched comedies, good comedies, and laughed less than my wife and I laughed at this movie. The other comments give the idea well enough. The characters are so unpleasant you cheer the rats on, the effects are so poorly done you wonder whose elementary school art class was in charge, the acting-- oh the acting-- talk about tired dialogue and embarrassing pauses.

But the rat, yes, the big rat. Why we didn't get to see the rat until the end rather surprised me. Often the 'big one' isn't shown until the end because the budget is limited and good effects chew up so much money. I surmise, however, that in this case the big rat was hidden until the end because the filmmakers were ashamed that the best they had was a guy running around dressed up like a woodchuck with third-world dentistry.

The most sublime part of the whole movie is the elevator scene. After figuring out that the rats couldn't stand loud noise (migraines from the bad acting?), the main dude rigs up a fire alarm to send the rats into a frenzy. If you've ever wanting to see a pair of rats waltz while blood squirts out of their heads like a geyser, this film is for you. Really, you need to rent it and see for yourself.

But not for more than 99¢, OK?


The video case for this film reads 'a story of beauty, passion, and forbidden fruit'. Are they talking about the same movie I just saw?! They can't be, as the film I just saw was beautiful, but there was no passion and as for the fruit, this is all hogwash meant to entice the potential viewer to see this movie. If only it did have some passion or some life to it, I would have greatly enjoyed this film. Instead, it was an agonizingly slow paced and not particularly interesting film that I would definitely not want to see again. It isn't that it's a bad film (after all it IS very beautifully filmed), but it is dull beyond belief. I kept waiting for something exciting or interesting to happen, but then the movie just ended. There was no great sense of excitement, mystery or anything--just a rather unexciting story about a young girl who becomes a servant and spends the next 10 years of her life working as a maid.


This is an excellent, fast paced thriller by Wes Craven (Nightmare on Elm Street), who for 85 minutes leaves aside the supernatural and presents us with something even more terrifying - the evil of human beings. We are far more likely to encounter the benign evil of Jackson Rippner than Freddy Kruger, and Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins) does an excellent job of presenting a sociable, friendly, even charismatic killer. The performances by Murphy and by Rachel McAdams (Claire, from The Wedding Crashers)are brilliant. Most of the film takes place on a very intimate level, between two people, their eyes, their faces. It is action on a small scale, not the broad sweep of the canvas, and it is no less compelling for these limitations. The cinematography is nothing special, though of course one can do only so much with a camera in the confines of a passenger jet, but the dialog is excellent, the story taut. There are no distractions, no subplots confuse the issue which is at its heart a battle between the main characters. By keeping his focus and avoiding distractions, Wes Craven is able to take what is a very minimal plot and turning it into an exciting, fast-paced action thriller.


definitely needed a little work in season 2. Such as the Virus between Max and Logan, and Ames White along with his ancient, super cult. During season two, however, the only thing that kept me watching was to see if Max and Logan would ever get rid of the nasty virus infecting Max. Very good drama in season two. But of course like all TV shows, if there's something a little wrong with it, the broadcasting company takes it off the air. I was seriously hoping for a third and final season. Season 2 leaves you hanging, unless you read the books by Max Allan Collins, then you will know what happens.

Dark Angel should be put back on the air for one more season even though it might cost a lot just to get all the original actors again. since Jessica Alba's carrier sky rocketed after the show. If that would be the case, then there should be a movie to complete it. just like the show Firefly, which of course FOX canceled as well.


William Lustig's followup to 'Maniac' proves conclusively that, without Tom Savini's spectacular effects and Spinell's convincing performance, 'Maniac' would never have become the cult hit that it did. 'Vigilante' is badly directed, with a simple-minded script that spells everything out for you and is predictable at every turn, and also mediocre performances by all the actors. Judging from the sense of 'deja vu' this film gave me, Lustig had watched 'Death Wish' several times too many before making this! (*1/2)


First i have to say that i don't like since fiction movies at all so much! But there are some movies i liked really. This is one of the others ;) I've the same opinion like some (most)others here. The Film is still going on in my back, but the few effects are really not enough to watch the whole time....I think what they have done well are the animated sceneries with 3 suns and 4 Moons, but its the only i liked. There are no intelligent dialogs (are there???). But its a Great Film for everybody who loves Lara Croft or some other Girls in HOT-PANTS... ;)

For the directors: ' Stop to try again, PLEASE!!! '


I was actually satisfied when i played this game.The graphics were something new.The missions were great.But yet,I felt i wanted more out of this game.For a James Bond game its pretty good but not as good as his other games.It would be great if they could make a 360Remake for it.It would be much better then.This may just be cuz I'm into games as Resident evil,Dead rising and those kind of games.So it could be better but it was OK to play.One thing i absolutely hated about this game was Natalya!She was irritating dying all the time and she couldn't run either.I recommend this game for those who like FPS games more than i do.7/10 STARS


The fact that there are positive comments about Dan in Real Life on the IMDb just makes me realize that their junket staff are hard at work trying to get people to watch this utterly horrific film.

I have no words, no idea where to start to describe the truly awful film I sat through last night - Dan in Real Life. Steve's characters in previous films led me to believe that I would feel something for his character and enjoy the dialog but like other posters I felt uncomfortable and embarrassed for the cast.

The dialog was so contrived, the family was this cookie cutter Walton's family and the film has been so many times before that I am shocked someone thought it was an original idea.

Do yourself a favor and take a pass on this terrifyingly bad movie and don't believe everything you read on the IMDb since the first comments were clearly written by folks sitting in a different theater watching a GOOD film.


How can you sum up just exactly how feelgood and right and touching this film is?? For several weeks this DVD leaped off the shelf at me every time I went in the store - having seen Steve Carrell in a couple of films previously, I didn't want to smear my thought process of him - so I resisted and resisted, until finally I grabbed it up with a 'What the hell!' attitude! And how surprised was I! I just wish I had purchased it earlier. Having watched it three times in two days I am still smiling at how the portrayal of a widower struggling with three daughters, yearning for that which is missing since the passing of his beloved wife, who thus meets an intriguing woman, charming her in such a profound and interesting (dare I say bookish?) way, throws a whole different light onto life that makes him realize she is what he has been searching for.

The snag of that woman being his brothers girl complicates matters - which portray Dan comically shy and with a heartfelt chagrin, seeing his 'someone special' bringing such fun and enjoyment into the family home as well as his brothers life. You just really begin to feel for him.

Then when the blind date occurs with Ruthie Draper - that is the turning point in Marie's estimation of Dan!! The look she gives him when he repeats her comment, about not liking Ruthie - sheer Green-Eyed Monster! Triggering an absolutely hilarious scene as the two couples compete on the dance floor! This sequence is one of the most well-crafted as Dan starts to loosen up with regard to Marie.

Other gut-wrenching scenes - Dan returns from the Book and Tackle Shop, confronted by his brothers, begins to describe what has just occurred....when Dan's face drops it brings a sharp intake of breath!!

His youngest daughter Lilly making the present celebrating their love for Suzanne, his late wife, brings a little heartfelt warmth and a little gulp as Dan realizes just what he has lost in life.

When Dan plays guitar and sings at the Talent Show....his voice cracking slightly as he reprises the song....absolute gem!

The acceptance of what occurs late in the film by his daughters...they all three love their father and want to see him happy, will not let him deny his love for Marie; the desperateness of Dan not to fail his daughters because he is their rock, their stronghold...and tell him so much more than that with just a few words.

I could go on and on but I will leave it for now - maybe return and add more comments here in the near future....but I will end by saying....

....if you want to watch a film that is just so damn good, with twists of comedy to lighten up the drama, that never feels forced or crass, that comes over as a genuine portrayal of a man discovering new life - not just with a woman but also with his extended family, then look no further.

DAN IN REAL LIFE - 9 out of 10 for such a well-rendered cinematic experience with a score by Sondre Lerche, that intimately takes you there throughout whilst never being intrusive, with fine performances by the ensemble cast. I cannot wait to re-watch this again!!


I write this after just seeing the latest episode broadcast in the UK, and to me it must be a tough job to keep up the standard. The last episode shown called 'Blink' has elements of Gothic horror all to do with statues that aren't quite what they seem. The Doctor and Martha don't appear much, but that doesn't detract from a well crafted episode. The general standard has built to a high level and the last three episodes, the two parter with 'The Family' and the latest have to me been the best that the current team have ever done.

It's not just David Tennant holding it together, the whole supporting cast week in, week out are helping as well. For those awaiting series 3 abroad, the wait is is well worth it.


I think there's a reason this film never came close to hitting theaters. It was probably my neighbors down the street who filmed this movie with their mother's video camera. The acting is very amateur. This movie is definitely not something you would want to watch unless you were extremely bored. The actors even seem to double as directors and crew members, with no 'professionalism' whatsoever. Should the director(s) and/or actors choose to continue with their endeavor of making movies, I would definitely advise them to brush up on their skills and perhaps take a few (ok, many) classes on film-making and acting.


This seems like one of those movies that we think we should like, but I didn't. It seemed to be trying way too hard to be 'artsy'. All flash, with no content. It has some beautiful scenes, and any one of them are nice to watch, but tack them all together and it becomes an arduous task just to sit through it. I rented this because of the glowing reviews on the video carton, and the fact that I'm a big Shakespeare fan, but I was very disappointed. I just found it a bit pretentious and, at times, boring.


Czech movie goers may have enjoyed and rated this film highly because it was Czech, but I found it to be trite, tedious, moronic, boring, and insipid. Again, I suspect 'ramping' in order to increase sales of this dog of a film. Amazon describes this film as being about a couple of fellows that refuse to grow up, but I will go one further--I think it is about two fellows that have entered a state of dementia and perform actions that make no sense to anyone. I have been told that one of the actors in the film committed suicide after the film, and I would believe it. When he saw his performance he probably realized what a gosh awful job he had done and realized that the only way to avoid terminal embarrassment was to make the 'big exit', which I am sure was much more dramatic and a much better performance that he had done in 'Autumn Spring.' Don't waste your time or money on this pathetic performance. It's nothing but a dog in a manger.


I was prepared for a bad movie, and a bad movie it is, so I guess I shouldn't complain. Twentysomething Tom (gay poster boy Robert Stadlober) has so many issues he doesn't know if he's coming or going. I wouldn't have stayed but for the pretty girls: Serious Mavie (Anna Brüggemann); no-nonsense Angie (Emma Daubas); Sarah Baumann as the star of the movie within the movie. And then there's Tom's soul mate, wild-eyed Margarete (Jana Pallaske). She reminds me of Béatrice Dalle and Gina Gershon. If you've got to remember, these are fine memories. She looks good even in the most ridiculous outfits, and I mean ridiculous, even by Berlin standards. I wonder whether I'd have liked this movie when I was the characters' age. My guess is I wouldn't. Watch out for indie idols Oli Schulz and Max Schröder of 'Der Hund Marie' performing as street musicians, feeling no pain.


This movie was Flippin Awful....I wanted those hours of my life back. For god's sake, -stay far away from this awful crumb ball movie at all costs. Its not worth mentioning the title, but the ratings on this movie are pretty generous for a vomit scum movie like this. And where do I begin? The dumb A** kids in the movie.....The zero plot or story?...the garden-variety college/frat boy-esquire scenes of towel slapping? Or the VERY bad acted, teen angst innuendo? $$$#@%@! My god, It NEVER ended!.....I remember thinking I would have rather kissed the movie theater floor, then sit through this one again.

But what do you expect? Most people with the brain power to look up reviews, are not going to be the target audience here at all- so GO SEE Pirites 2 again, or the Jet Lee one, -If your debating to yourself. Look, This movie will just cost you your soul, your money, your energy, and your brain cells. HEED THE WARNING.


An obscure horror show filmed in the Everglades. Two couples stay overnight in a cabin after being made a little uneasy by the unfriendliness of the locals. Who, or what, are the Blood Stalkers? After awhile they find out. Watch for the character of the village idiot who clucks like a chicken, he certainly is weird.


This Columbo is unique in that we don't really know the exact outcome until the very end. Our favorite dark horse detective suspects a pair of identical twin brothers of killing their rich uncle; each points the finger at his brother. In a mystery series in which the crime is shown at the beginning of the drama, this twist could reasonably be used only once or twice, and this was Columbo's time. Other than that wrinkle, this episode fits in well with others of the series. It has a lighter tone than some, with a very funny performance by Jeanette Nolan as the fastidious and loyal housekeeper who takes an instant dislike to Columbo.


This could have been a rather entertaining film, but instead it ranks with other duds like Leeches and Rest In Pieces at the bottom of the cinematic food chain. Had they played this flick tongue-in-cheek, it could have been a very entertaining film, like Re-Animator or Dead ALive, but Juan Piquor Simon plays it tongue-in-cheek in spots but straight more often.

The premise of this film is a small community that is besieged by mutated slugs. There is an abandoned toxic waste dump near a sewer line that mutates the slugs into aggressive, meat-eating monsters - albeit monsters that move slowly and can be squished under your boot. Health Inspector Michael Garfiled and two accomplices are the only people that seem willing to fight the slugs while the sheriff and mayor think they are crazy. The climax is a laugh riot - unintentional at that - which makes you scratch your head as to how stupid (actors and screenwriter) the scenario of destroying the slugs is.

STORY: $$ (No new ground charted here. Simon seems to play the gore elements tongue-in-cheek but the dialogue is straight. Had Simon worked with a clever script - one with plenty of one-liners and eccentric characters, this could have been a cult film).

VIOLENCE: $$$ (You won't be letdown here. We get plenty of exploding chest cavity scenes as well as a grand head explosion in the middle of a fine Italian restaurant. The blood and guts, that many horror film watchers enjoy, is in full swing here. You also get corpses of people who have been picked clean by the slugs and plenty of slug smashing scenes).

ACTING: $ (Wow! Michael Garfield seems to know that this script is a stinker and he delivers his lines with a facial expression that suggests he knows how preposterous this film-making endeavor is. Kim Terry, as his wife, does an adequate job even though she does little beyond the hold-your-face-while-you-scream bit. The 'teenagers' were all horrible actors - no exceptions. Man, this film could have used Bruce Dern or Jeffrey Combs!)

NUDITY: $$ (Two teens get naughty in bed before they get dispatched - in a poorly done scene - by a horde of slugs that crawled into the girl's bedroom. Both male and female nudity here).


This is one of those so-called 'Hollywood Social Commentary' films that wants to have it both ways. And believe me, in this film, both ways are clichéd and stereotypical. STOP-LOSS is a 21st Century John Wayne Film dealing with some anti-war sentiment but clearly ending on the note that 'If you are a MAN in today's society, you get your act together and march off to war with your buddies.' In many ways the film was a great sequel to TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE as it portrayed a military equally as insane and out of control, a quasi FRAT PARTY/ANIMAL HOUSE extravaganza mixed in with a Texas Red Neck world of repressed homo-erotic proofs of masculinity. This movie had it all in one scene after another of clichéd imagery. And then rebellious military deserter Ryan Phillippe goes on a 'Road Trip' with best friend's girlfriend, an artificial storyline manipulation to visit families of dead servicemen, maimed soldiers in military hospitals, etc. and finally to broach the issue of fleeing to Canada or Mexico. But male honor and patriotism win out in the end, as all freshly scrubbed and handsome, he rides off into the sunset on a bus with his buddies back to Iraq and a world that a few minutes before he assured everyone he could never again tolerate. FULL METAL JACKET meets SANDS OF IWO JIMA . But in the end, John Wayne rides again! And a Hollywood Blockbuster ultimately gets to keep both sides of its audience in the palm of its hand.at least it would like to think so. As far as I was/am concerned, just take me back to the more convincing reality of IN THE GARDEN OF ELAH.


I have never seen such terrible performances in all my life.

Everyone in the entire film was absolute rubbish.

Not one decent actor/actress in the whole film, it was a joke.

Reminded me of drama at school...


Saw this piece of work at a film fest in CA. My god, what was the director thinking? Film professors should use this film as a case study on what NOT to do when making a short film. First off, this project makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The film takes place partially in 'The Waystation', some stupid vapid bar in the middle of nowhere, where nothing really takes place.

THe acting is beyond bad. So bad in fact that I almost thought it was a comedy. The lead actress Julia Reading is a step below the acting in most amateur porn films. There is one or two decent performances, including the guys who played Jacob and Fenner but it's like the director had no clue on how to work or use his thespians. The only thing worse than the acting was the dialogue, which bordered on absurd. The writer (whom I assume is also the director) writes each character like they are auditioning for a comic book villain.

The overall production value is pretty good, but to be honest, with a film this bad it's easy to overlook it. The production design is pretty good, although the Waystation looks like any ordinary bar. The costumes and make-up are okay, and I understand the production was working with a low budget. It's just when the characters speak, or they try and push the plot forward, the film unravels into a muck of crap.

As I've said, this film is god awful. It's like the director/writer watched a lot of sci-fi films and threw all the parts he liked into a blender and came up with this. My only hope is that he used other people's money on this, because if he used his own, he's a total sucker.


Boy this movie had me fooled. I honestly thought it would be a campy horror film with absolutely no humor in it whatsoever, boy I got the cold shoulder that time. This movie was, and I'm truthful, pretty damn good. It was not scary at all but the campiness and the sly humor really mad this movie interesting. Some to the horrible acting and cliché killings were so painful to watch, I almost laughed at how bad it was, but to some extent I enjoyed it. The killings all vaguely relate to snow sports and Christmas, which made things more intriguing. The POV camera angles were awesome.

The movie is about a viscous killer who dies in a car accident collision with a chemical truck while being transported to prison. He is later resurrected in that very same chemical with snow spliced into the mixture. These were the ingredients chosen to make the perfect killer snowman. He than takes his revenge, as the snowman, on the police officer who convicted him.

This movie had such bad acting, with the exception of Christopher Allport, that is was funny. I will say that I am also pretty disappointed that this movie was not a horror, but in fact a dark sitcom. They had a great story with a good plot but it wasn't executed right. All in all I like the movie at first but now it is really annoying. But this movie is way better and darker than the sequel.


i love this show! it is amazing...i can never miss an episode even if i've already seen it. the actors are perfect for the parts......i love Gilmore girls! i've gotten all my friends to watch it. even their parents watch it now. i watch it daily and i usually watch it more than once a day. i wish my mom was like Lorelei. my friends say that i talk and act like Lorelei. Lorelei and Rory have a wonderful mother-daughter relationship. it is a great teen show because they actually kind of learn from watching it. my vocabulary has widened from watching Gilmore Girls. Lauren graham and Alexis bled el are perfect for the parts of Lorelei and Rory. i think Luke and Lorelai should get married because Chris has left Lorelei and Rory way too many times. and has broken Lorelei's heart too many times too.


This should not have been made into a movie. Everything about it was idiotic and I don't think I laughed even once. There were bits and pieces that were okay I guess but that's about it. A lot of parts were strikingly similar to a lot of other movies which did them a hell of a lot better. There were some famous actors/actresses in this but no one did a good job, they must've just not cared. This is one of those movies that tries to have a 'cute' ending but it was so idiotic that it literally had no redeeming values. Carrot Top is probably the worst comedian out there right now. Do yourself a favor and steer clear of this one!

Final Decisions:

Movies : NOOOOO!

Purchase DVD : Absolutely not!

Rental : Only if you've seen EVERYTHING else and have a free coupon but even then it's still not worth your while.


I love these actors, but they were wasted in this flick.

I can only wonder, what WERE they thinking agreeing to this crap???

Debra Winger just phoned it in; Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard were caricatures. Some people thought it was deep. Well, if you liked 'Breaking the Waves', you'll probably like this too. I hated both. 3/10


First thing first . In this genre movie the first thing you need is a good music , and thats where Mr. shankar and his party fails.

music is completely pale and uneffective. On other hand there is AJAY DEVGAN , WHO HAS REMOVED A LETTER 'A' from his spelling , done good job but was of no use to a bad casted movies like this.

ASIN is like a doll which is used to amuse public, even though she is good to look at but her role in movie is to dance, actually she is dancing member of a rock band and i don't think any rock band have there dancer as a member of band.

in nut shell this movie is a piece of crap a piece of ***t. watch it if you wanna get fooled.


A lot of the negative reviews here concentrate on the historical accuracy of this film. OK, it had about as much to do with the actual NFL as your average war movie has to do with an actual war, or a Western has to do with the true 'old west'. So, I think we should give them an artistic license pass on that one.

The problem here is, the director (Clooney) apparently thinks that making a screwball comedy means a) do stupid things, b) mug for the camera, and c) take stupid scenes full of mugging and stretch them out way too long. Screwball comedies need a fast pace, not necessarily frenetic, but moving briskly along at all times. Here, things drag, and drag, and drag. After you watch this movie, it will make you appreciate how brilliant Mack Sennett was when he pretty much pioneered the genre with his Keystone Cops. After 90 years, you would think that directors would have studied the old masters and learned a thing or two, maybe even improved on things a bit. But no, it's as if someone had watched an automobile pioneer build a Duesenberg, and nearly a century later, paid homage and 'improved' on the concept by cobbling together a child's wagon with square wheels.

I've enjoyed several of Clooney's movies, I consider him a gifted actor. But very few actors can competently direct themselves; Clint Eastwood notably took a while to get the hang of it. Clooney is clearly at the bottom of a very steep slope. The movie becomes more watchable during the very few times he is out of the frame, but when he's in the picture, he makes himself the centre of attention. In the fight scenes, his mugging is so obnoxious you wish somebody would thump him for real.

If you are making a screwball comedy and want some romance thrown in, you need to develop some chemistry between the male and female leads. Clooney and Zellweger have all the chemistry of pair of dumpsters sitting in a parking lot. No spark, no sizzle, not even a post-mortem twitch. Zellweger, who has also turned out some pretty good movies, must have traded her botox injections for oak tannin, giving a stunningly wooden performance. She might just have pulled off the 'tough broad in a man's world' act if just once, while trying to out-testosterone the guys, she had looked into the camera with a little half-smile and twinkle in her eye. But no, she kept her jockstrap cinched up tight to the very end.

Of course, the biggest sin here is that the movie simply isn't funny. Doing stupid things is not the same as slapstick. Doing stupid things very inventively, like the Stooges, or very athletically, like Buster Keaton, can be hilarious. But otherwise it's boring and, well, stupid. I think I got one good laugh out of the entire movie.

Avoid this one. I saw it for free on cable, and still wanted my money back.


People love the original story for its ending. The Hollywood style ending made this 99 version of 'A Dog of Flanders' just for kids movie. I didn't cry this time because the story was too Hollywood. Japanese TV series are much better.


I wasn't expecting much because of the harsh reviews, and proceeded to enjoy the movie a great deal as a result. Softer colors and less stunning compositions of the shots than some of his previous films, in my opinion, allowed the narrative to take the focus. Though the religious conflict in a vampire flick was commonplace, I felt like many of the other things were not. For example:

how his powers were often revealed through interaction with her.

the very strong and well acted love scenes.

the symbolism of the man they killed to get closer to each other actually separating them even more.

Their strong differences of what it means to be 'vampire' created by their prior life experiences.

the lack of scores of other vampires appearing or being created through the movie.

I've heard and read several things about 'tricks used in other films'. Of course. However, i feel that tricks are used to emphasize what is happening in the scene and I feel that he does this well. I don't need a director to use new tricks. I prefer that the tricks that are used are used well and appropriately, which i feel is the case with this film.

I recommend it.


In Queen of The Damned,Akasha(Aaliyah) was more sexy and had a bigger,demanding presence, she just caught your eye and attention. now the movie did have faults, like the lack of explaining Akasha's past. What i also Did not like was the that the movie didn't really explain or show more of what the relationship between Lestat and Akasha was/ or was like.Akasha's (Aaliyah's) role was sort of limited in the movie and she didn't appear until the 2nd half of the movie and then to top it off, her(Akasha's) death came 2 quickly.But i liked how Akasha fought back when the ancients tried to kill her, because in the book the last fight between Akasha and The ancients was rather boring (they killed Akasha in like 2 secs).Akasha's head got knocked off in 1 sec and Lestat turned into the biggest punk in the world.

Aaliyah played Akasha very well and Stuart was perfect as Lestat, they could not have picked a better Akasha or Lestat. 'REST IN PEACE AALIYAH'


This film looks great, and that's about where my praise ends. 'Love Is a Many Splendored Thing' came out in the very schizophrenic year of 1955, when candy-coloured nonsense like this co-existed with trail-blazing artistic fair like 'Kiss Me Deadly.' As a trend toward smaller, socially conscious films like 'On the Waterfront' and 'Marty' established itself in the mid-50's, other directors felt the need to stick with the unchallenging, pandering melodrama that classifies so many other films from that decade, and 'Love' is one of the latter.

This is the kind of 50's movie where the Technicolor is used to its garish utmost and the lighting is invariably high-key; even scenes taking place in a dark room or at night are brighter than the average sunny day. I never want to hear the theme song again, as it's played frequently enough over the course of the film to last anyone a lifetime, and I certainly don't want to hear it sung by the shrill, ear-piercing choir that belts it out over the end titles. Jennifer Jones and William Holden are passable, but really anybody could have played these parts. Jones' role is horribly written--her character is incredibly inconsistent, and it seems as if whenever her character is required to make a decision about something, the screenwriters flipped a coin to decide what that decision would be.

People will undoubtedly tell me I'm taking this film too seriously, that I'm unromantic, etc. But I loved 'All That Heaven Allows,' released the same year and just as cornball in its own way, except that Douglas Sirk is able to turn melodrama into an art form, whereas Henry King (director of 'Love') is not.

I'm usually able to enjoy bad melodrama, but in this case I was just bored.

Grade: D+


A great movie about triumph over all the nay-sayers who try to kill your spirit, achieving the impossible. I won't go on about it, other than to say that I liked to reflect on the this film when I'm facing something particularly daunting, and realize that if Lindberg could do what he did, I can certainly face the task before me. Definitely a 'feel good' movie.

See it. You won't be disappointed.


This is a fair movie, good for one-off viewing. The plot itself is fairly well worked for a picture of this kind which is a pleasent surprise as is the acting, which although a little hammy, is better than normal for these types of flick.

The 'special effects' are hilarious - a translucent giant and a blatantly polystyrene/papier mache hand wobbling unconvincingly on a bit of wire.

Definitely to watch once for kitsch entertainment value.

5/10.


This is one of the most ridiculous westerns that Hollywood ever made. Gary Cooper plays 'Reb Hollister', a former confederate officer wanted by the law. He meets up with a moron named Weatherby, played by Leif Erickson, who is a U.S. Marshal with no knowledge of firearms. Weatherby is on his way to Dallas to see his fiancee, Tonia Robles, played by Ruth Roman. Senor Robles, Tonia's father, has plenty of men, but they can't seem to be able to keep an eye on his cattle, which are regularly rustled by the Marlow brothers. Will Marlow, played by Raymond Massey, has financed the loan on the Robles estate, making things completely absurd. He even has the power to call for mortgage payments before they're due, simply because he feels like it.

Since Weatherby is a Boston boy who can't fight, since he only became a Marshal so he could visit his fiancee, Tonia, (Just another instance of more plot nonsense. Are we to assume that you only have to pass a written test to get this job? Wait a minute, this guy couldn't pass the written test either.) he switches identities with Reb Hollister, who of course is an expert gunman. Reb takes the liberty of greeting Weatherby's girl with a passionate kiss, while Weatherby looks on like an idiot. Gary Cooper, Hollywood's number one stud, is in fine form here as Reb. Before the movie's done, not only does he take Weatherby's job, he steals his fiancee also, and Ruth Roman as Tonia, falls for him so hard and so fast that she gives chump Leif Erickson the brush-off before the films little more than half over.

There isn't a shred of plot credibility in the whole film, so despite the good cast and lush photography, the film is a dud. And Cooper's character is a complete heel to boot. The film also stars Barbara Payton as Brant Marlow's girl, a beautiful and talented actress who squandered away her chances, unfortunately, by making too many headlines for the wrong reasons. I strongly suggest you pass this one up.


SOLDIER is not as bad as many have made it out to be. I found the film to have some of the sacarstic, cynical humour like that in Paul Verhoven's Starship Troopers. The lack of dialogue and over the top action is deliberate and adds to the comic-book atmosphere.

One particular trivia-bit stands out for me - Todd has the names of several space-war campaigns tattoo'd onto his chest and one of these battles is TANNHAUSER GATE. For the oblivious ones out there, Tannhauser Gate is mentioned in Roy Batty's elegiac last lines in Blade Runner. To imagine that Todd could have fought alongside android troops like Roy is mind boggling to say the least. Maybe script writer David Peoples was nostalgic?

I'll give this one 3 out of 5.


Way back when I was renting videos for free I picked this one up. OOPS The things I wanted to mention outside the summary already given were these. 1: Someone who had a lot to do with making this movie had a strange and sick fascination for food, it was gross and unecessary. 2: There is some kind of a soundtrack in the background of the film that seems to be there the entire time and by the way I felt for days after viewing this trash I figure they had something subliminal going on in the track. Either that or it was just traumatisingly bad or both. Many times throughout the movie you can tell the writer and director did not have much experience or talent. And don't even ask about the acting.


Claustrophobic camera angles that do not help the movie: Too long face only shots where you most of the time get the feeling that the lower half of the film is missing (that the screen is cut off), because there seems to be important actions going on, but you cannot see them. There is anyway already too much confusion in the movie, so these viewing angles make it worse and do not contribute to artful visuals.

I like artfully made movies and unconventional camera work. I can handle deep and slow movies. But this one is trying too hard to be something artful and fails in my opinion painfully.

Nothing to get attached to, to any of the characters, because they are not worked out well enough. To work out characters more is needed, than just minute long face shots, at least with this set of script+director+actors.

I wonder whether some of the not so good acting is due to the script and director or due to the actors.

I will stay away from films both written and directed by Le You for sure in the future.

What an annoying film even for someone who would be interested in that part of history, and for someone who spent time in Shanghai.


When I first heard about this series on AnimeTV,I have to say that out of all the shows that I have seen,this one tops it all off. I had to see this show,and that is what I really did. When I got the first volume of this show,it was the best. I really liked the animation,and all the fight scenes were awesome. I have to say that my favorite characters in the show were Saber,and Archer and of course I also like Illya. And of course,all the episodes on the volumes were interesting,and very cool. Another thing I have to say about the series is Michael McConnohie(famous for Transformers,and others) playing the voice of Berserker. He does have a cool character. And I even watched the entire series all over again before watching the final volume. So if you to see something good,then see this show,it's the best.


Yes, this is one of the better done television movies and I wouldn't expect less from Joe Sargent. One thing for this reviewer is that I was also a great fan of The Carpenters, I got to sing all of their material in elementary school and middle school choir and I got to do much of the solo material of which Karen sang lead. I thought she was one of the most wonderful pop singers of the 70's - and being a child/teen singing these songs and learning music - the one thing I was looking forward to was meeting this woman. I never got to, she died three weeks before that was to happen. And yes, that did effect me for I knew nothing of anorexia - and could not understand completely what happened.

When this TV movie got produced, I got quite an understanding. Maybe not everything in Karen and Richard's life is open to the television audience, but in opening the parts that were shown, I got to understand much from the music industry of that time. What upsets me is that I am writing 'of that time' and seeing 'now'. No one has learned a darned thing, even though this was a very informative and heartfelt look into a family's problems in the music industry.

These films aren't done for fun, they're done to open a door and show us something. Here was a wonderful woman who got caught up in the whole idea that her talent was based on weight. She was fine. Didn't know it. She got mixed messages about her weight from the brother she loved, the parents she loved and the music industry that cared more about her looks/weight than the talent within. With the onset of MTV, it got worse. With 'American Idol' it's like a puss festering in an English accent.

A wonderful TV film, I am sure later someone may give it an HBO treatment but either way, many lessons to be learned and the absence of another wonderful talent.


The ending of this movie made absolutely NO SENSE. What a waste of 2 perfectly good hours. If you can explain it to me...PLEASE DO. I don't usually consider myself unable to 'get' a movie, but this was a classic example for me, so either I'm slower than I think, or this was a REALLY bad movie.


Really, REALLY... What pleases audience (american one!) in this so called show is totally beyond me. What can we learn from these series:

1. Each casino there is spending about 2-3 billion bucks every year to rent a satellite and enormous quantity of hi tech high resolution cameras for their security team. Let FBI bites the dust of them.

2. Every security employee must have voluptuous breasts, of course natural ones. The tits must be shown all the time otherwise they will lose their job.

3. If the employee happens to be a male, he needs to get breasts implanted, then go to step 2.

4. Only in Hollywood one can blatantly rip off other show's ideas then implement them as their own and call all this crap 'original' and 'art'.

5. Every security with tits bigger than 39D is considered immortal and cannot die.

I really would like to have the opportunity to vote with minus values. -10/10 for this one!


I thought they should have called this movie 'Whites' instead of 'Heights'. Godawful...the kind of film that makes people hate New Yorkers. People who are so self obsessed and think their lives are so important...give me a break. Such a lily white cast that Glenn Close was the most ethnic character in it, this film was crying out for someone real to come in and steal it...and so they introduce, get this, a character even whiter than the rest of the cast (I thought he was an albino at first)who's supposed to be Welsh!I'm still trying to decipher that accent! Intellectually dishonest...this movie is the kind of film that's able to fool so many people into thinking it's worthwhile because it has the trappings of something more ambitious. Better to fill the theaters with MI5-10 than with this pretentious crap...must have been a better play because you can't fall off the floor.


Although a film with Bruce Willis is always worth watching, you better skip this one. I watched this one on television, so I didn't have to plunk down cash for it. Lucky me.

The plot develops slowly, very slowly. Although the first 30 minutes or so are quite believable, it gets more and more unbelievable towards the end. It is highly questionable, if a seasoned soldier like Lt. Waters would disobey direct orders. And even if he would, if the rest of his platoon would. They know he puts them in direct danger, and they know they will certainly die if they follow him, but what the heck, he is our Lt. so let's do what he says (despite the direct orders, remember).

Still, there are some nice scenes in this movie. They somewhat save a village, where the total population is being massacred by the rebels. Well, they save a dozen villagers or so, the rest was already killed. The strange part of it, that they did take the trucks which the rebels left behind. They rather go on foot. Maybe because the roads are unsafe, but there was no explanation for it. Anyway. I think this was what earned the movie the one point I gave it.

What made this movie an insult to the brain and hence completely unbelievable is that a group of 7 soldiers can kill of so many rebels without being hurt or killed themselves. Only near the end they loose a few comrades. And that is only because they have to fight of an army of nearly 500 or more. Can you believe that?

They fight of an army of so many, kill hundreds of them, and only loose a few of themselves. And they have rounds and round of ammo. Never run out of it. Grenades and claymore mines, an M60 machine gun and even an RPG. Where do they get this stuff. Carrying it around or what? They even got a laptop which shows them the activity of enemy rebels. And this laptop has a battery which goes on for days. Really? Who think up this crap.

I guess if you turn off your brain completely and accept that the rebels are a bunch of idiots, you give this movie a high rating. If not, skip this one. It saves you time.


This movie may bear some historical importance, and it sure seems astonishing how well the facts are together, the setting, the rocket, the space suits, the surface of the moon, all scream 'a classic' - but in the end, the result makes a pretty dull movie for todays eyes, and the 50ies tech scenes you might hope for in a movie like this are by far not enough to reward sitting through all the tacky dialog and predictable plot developments. The characters and plot may reward a scientific sociological analysis, but bear too little entertainment value many times.

Much of this movie seems like a good movie for nine-year-olds. The mature themes, the human drama and the violence are kept to a level suitale for children as well.

The images of the earth and the moon seen from space may actually be more accurate than the ones in '2001', but so what if their use is dramatically inefficient. Especially 2001 may seem like a stretched out meditation over themes of this movie, and, has Star Wars not somehow modelled it's space-scrolling opening titles on the opening titles of this Film? But then again - the inheritance is marginal.

If its a real groundbreaking and mega-influential mature 1950ies Sci-Fi classic you are looking for however, check out 'Forbidden Planet'.


David Beckham is a British soccer star and the husband of Victoria Beckham ('Posh Spice' of the Spice Girls). His trademark is a goal shot that curves across the pitch and into the net. The soccer equivalent of an unhittable curve ball in baseball. 'Bend it like Beckham' means making that type of spectacular shot. Apart from that, and a little shrine to him in the main character's bedroom and a faux-cameo at the very end, the movie has nothing to do with him.

The movie is full of little soccer in-jokes, such as the present that one of the characters' parents give her of a jersey with the number 9 on it (property of the great Mia Hamm, to those in the know), references to 'Posh 'n' Becks,' the video homage to the WUSA one of the characters plays for a disbelieving friend ('They *have* that??'), lesbian gags, sports-bra gags, and so on.

The story is about a teenage girl in England who idolizes Beckham and wants to be a soccer star. She has a real gift, but the two seemingly insurmountable obstacles she must overcome are the absence of a professional women's league in the UK (hence their fascination with our WUSA), and her parents, who are Indian immigrants set in very old-fashioned ways that do not allow daughters, among other things, to engage in contact sports. The girl's family are portrayed as figures of ironic fun, but with great affection -- think My Big Fat Greek Wedding. The girl loves and respects them enough to go through sitcom hell to conceal her growing soccer stardom from them.


This adaptation of M.R. James's short story 'A View From A Hill' was first shown on British television in 2005, on the little watched digital channel BBC 4. I saw that it was being repeated again on BBC 4, and decided to give it a go, remembering the BBC's successful 1970's adaptations of other M.R. James stories including 'Whistle And I'll Come To You My Lad' and 'The Signalman'. Though not in the same class as these masterpieces, 'A View From A Hill' is nonetheless an enjoyable and at times suspenseful drama.

A historian arrives in a small rural village to look over the collection of a recently deceased collector of antique artifacts. Whilst out in the countryside, he sees an abbey that has been in ruins for hundreds of years. But what does this have in connection with an old pair of binoculars and a gruesome legend about the ominously named Gallows Hill? And what do the brusque country squire and his servant know about the situation? Whilst not scary in any way, I enjoyed this little production, and had the running time been longer than 40 minutes it could have become a truly great adaptation. As it is, it all feels a little rushed and a bit more exposition to set the mood would have been welcome.

I give it 7 out of 10.


I entered the theatre intending to pass a pleasant 90 minutes being entertained if not enlightened. I left neither entertained nor enlightened. This movie can't make up its mind what it wants to be and ends up being not much of anything. There are a few funny lines and a few incredibly pretentious movie references (The 400 Blows--for this character? come off it!). While none of the characters gets treated with much respect, the over thirty gay men get the worst of it: all predatory, fat, sad, slobs. If you're in the mood for a movie dealing with gay relationships check out Parting Glances, Longtime Companion, Trick, All Over the Guy, Red Dirt, Maurice, Philadelphia instead. You'll thank me.


I am a huge Woody Allen fan and so when I saw that this was playing at the cinema I couldn't help myself. I wanted to see how Allen would follow up his magnificent film Match Point seeing as this is another one of his films shot in G.B. (which is unique among Allen's work) along with what seems to be his new muse Scarlett Johanson. Scoop is much lighter than MP and the humor is Scoop's most enjoyable aspect. The plot revolves around Johanson's character (a journalism student) who gets a tip on a hot story from beyond the grave. She falls in love with a suspected serial killer (Jackman) and she must decide whether the truth is worth finding. Oh and all of this is done with the help of a bumbling magician turned detective played by Allen.

I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed Johanson's performance but I am a bit bias, I could watch a three hour film with Johanson in ever frame and remain enchanted. She plays a ditsy, yappy, bumbling sweetheart that is kind of a variation in a sense of Allen's stereotypical neurosis stricken character. She adds appropriate body language for comic effect. Needless to say almost anyone who sees this will find Johanson's character sickeningly cute and that is a plus.

Allen is Allen... He is still playing the same character much like Chaplin and his Little Tramp character. Something that occur in this film makes me wonder if I will see the neurotic little hypochondriac again however. He is not in the cast of his next picture and has been spending more time exclusively behind the camera as of late...

Jackman is also enjoyable as the suave, millionaire murder suspect. I cannot say that Jackman does anything in particular to make the role his but he suits his character none the less.

In terms of the plot I cannot help but feel that this is fresh... In fact it stinks of Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Johanson and Allen are more detective-like than anything. However I must applaud Allen on his ending because it is a bit more clever than your typical unoutstanding Hollywood version of this film. Instead of everything being black and white, things are painted in shades of gray. Being entirely innocent has nothing to do with it nor does unequivocal guilt. Though the plot seemed old Woody still has a knack for one liners. I did find his allusions to his last film interesting... Come for the humor, laugh and be merry.

Needless to say if you enjoy Allen's work watch it. If not watch something else...


LACKAWANNA BLUES is an entertaining, engrossing, emotionally-charged HBO-TV movie based on the childhood memories of actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson (who also appears in a small role). This joyous motion picture experience is centered around Santiago-Hudson's childhood guardian, Rachel 'Nanny' Crosby, a strong, big-hearted black woman who ran a boarding house in upstate New York during the 1950's. Nanny was a one-woman social service organization whose boarding house was filled with drunks, derelicts, cripples, drug addicts, misfits, and everyone else in town who needed a hand-up instead of a hand-out. The crux of the story revolves around Nanny's relationship with young Ruben (beautifully played by Marcus Franklin),a boy whose divorced parents were unable to raise the boy properly so Nanny took him in. S. Epatha Merkeson, who has been wasted for years in the thankless role of Lieutenant Van Buren on NBC's LAW & ORDER, turns in a powerhouse performance as Nanny, the neighborhood mother-figure whose boarding house became a symbol for the downtrodden black folks in her town. Merkeson is nothing short of magnificent, in a performance that earned her a Golden Globe and an Emmy Award. Merkeson is backed by an impressive all-star cast that includes Terrance Howard (brilliant and heartbreaking as Nanny's husband), Louis Gossett Jr., Rosie Perez, Jimmy Smits, Delroy Lindo, Macy Gray, Michael K. Williams, Jeffrey Wright, Henry Simmons, Patricia Wettig, Ernie Hudson, Mos Def, and Hill Harper as the adult Ruben. Colorful and exciting, beautifully photographed and exquisitely scored, this is one of a kind motion picture experience that works on all levels, but if for no other reason, is worth seeing for the electrifying starring performance by S. Epatha Merkeson, who is given the role of a lifetime and makes the most of it.


4 realz son my game iz mad tite yo I cant wait 2 get on dis show and roll up in da club n do it real 905 style wit mad models n bottles, son!

No, I'm just kidding. This is a sad show, created by, and for the enjoyment of, sad men. Men who are so neutered by modern existence that they channel their frustration into the clubs, where they eke out fleeting self-validation preying on chicks in hopes of getting their little wieners touched to try and dull the sting of loneliness and make them feel, even if just for one night, as though their seat on the Board of the Sausage Party of Toronto is a little less permanent.

I read some comments on here saying that this show represents Canadian TV's finally stepping up to stand on a par with American TV or somethingorother. Well, that's not aiming short at all. It's like, Yes! Pat yourself on the back, Canada -- you've finally cracked the elusive formula for such groundbreaking American content as 'Studs', 'Change of Heart', 'Elimidate' and 'The Fifth Wheel'. See, the real brainchild here is tacking '...meets Candid Camera' onto the pitch. Genius. And there's nothing that straddles that thin line between fratboy camaraderie and latent homosexuality like a group of grown men taping each other on hidden camera, admiring each other's 'game' up in the club. The man-love on display here is so palpable they should really consider rechristening it 'Keys to the Steam Bath'.

On a side note, how interesting that the folks who gave this show such glowing reviews seem to have registered an IMDb account for the express purpose of doing so (I guess I'm guilty of employing the same means to do the opposite here.) My personal favorite is the one enthusiastic reviewer that claims to hail from the 'United States' who gushes that 'Now it's clear that the talent in Canada has the ability to produce American quality television.'

Smooth.

But why even bother manufacturing online buzz? You can't really get cancelled, after all -- you're on the Comedy Network in Canada, baby! The viewing public will go on ignoring your show for years to come. In all likelihood you'll be just fine, coasting comfortably along that proverbial plain of mediocrity with the majority of the Comedy Network's original programming.


While the main story is supposed to take place in Morocco, this movie was shot in foggy Romania in 18 days on a very tight budget. However broken their cards may be, the actors and the crew play them with remarkable skill and commitment, so that in the end I found the result both touching and graceful. Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau provides a formidable performance as the bad guy. The script and direction provide some gems. Whether you will like the movie or not, however, will probably depend on your take on Alexandra Staden in the title role. Other reviewers have pointed out Staden's inadequacies as Modesty Blaise. They may have a point, but I found her interpretation delightful and very fitting. Modesty manages to overcome terrible odds through discipline, innate talent and courage. Staden appears to be doing the same here.


A lot of things in this futuristic satire are more theoretically funny than actually funny (though it does have some laugh-out-loud moments) but a lot of that is because it seems to have been cut by the studio to better appeal to exactly the idiots it's mocking. Many situations aren't allowed to develop, there's obvious overdubbing of expository material, and worst of all a narrator explains EVERYTHING (most of which needs no explanation), probably because some preview audience didn't understand what was going on. In other words, a movie about dumbing down has been... you guessed it.

One hopes that a longer, better version of this comedy will eventually surface on DVD, and it will become the cult fave it deserves to be, but even in this mutilated and somewhat comic- spirit-diminished form it's one of the more memorable films of the year-- a screech of disgust against our culture and all the ways it's become trashified, stupidified and uglified in the name of appealing to the yahoos. I watched it right after Land of the Dead, George Romero's latest milking of the single idea that consumers = zombies, which is basically the same point Judge is making; yet where Romero's counterculture viewpoint (now zombies = underclass that needs to revolt against the rich) seems hopelessly out of date, Judge's take is fresh, dead-on and far more disturbing. Just listen to the yahoos in your movie audience whooping it up for President Camacho's State of the Union just like their counterparts on screen, and you'll know that we're all doomed.


I've loved this movie since the first time I saw it lo these many years ago. I'm not sure how many times I've seen it, perhaps 10, perhaps 20. This last time I watched it I was struck by a detail that I hadn't noticed before.

Toward the end of the picture, the slain heroes are conveyed back to the town via sled. There are a couple of closeups of the dead men. The one that struck me most was a shot of the blond youth. All you see on the screen is his profile from head to hands. His hands are holding a flickering candle. The wind is blowing and his thick blond hair is dancing in the wind, in tune with the flicker of the candle flame. The contrast between death and the life he has lost is incredibly powerful. The moving hair and candle flame remind us of the life force that once inhabited his body.

Every time I revisit this film I see something new.


I read a lot of high hopes from readers of the book that this would be a faithful adaptation of Nora Roberts' story. Not having read the book, I don't know if this adaptation was faithful but I do know it wasn't good. Actually, the screenplay was the best part of the movie so kudos to Nora Roberts.

I planned ahead and watched Carolina Moon because of Claire Forlani. I've never been sure if she's a good actress. She's been decent in some movies, average in others and really bad in this one. But, Forlani wasn't alone. The performances were all over the place. Oliver Hudson was wooden and boring. Josie Davis was hammy. Then, amidst all this B-rate acting, there's Jacqueline Bisset! She didn't have a lot to do other than portray bitterness but, even sleepwalking through that, she was miles ahead of the others.

Still, Forlani remains one of the most breathtaking women in movies and I was not disappointed in that capacity here. I believe Forlani can be more than eye-candy but, until she turns in a good performance in a good movie, she continues to excel at that. And, I'll continue to faithfully watch everything she participates in. Fandom is fun that way.

This movie though, Carolina Moon, was pretty bad. In addition to the bad acting (fake Southern accents are really distracting) the direction was pedestrian. It wasn't horrible. It was just the boring made-for-TV caliber you're used to seeing on Lifetime.

If you're a fan of any of the stars you can probably enjoy Carolina Moon for that reason, as I did. If you're a fan of the book you might enjoy seeing the story on the screen, albeit in a lackluster form. Otherwise, this movie is unremarkable.


In order to pull off a job like this caper in Rififi (e.g. The Score and its opines), one has to have nerves of steel. This one apparently demands and commands it. Jules Dassin is the master.

I was on the edge of my seat throughout. It deserves to be better known, even though it was not at the time of its release in 1954, due, one supposes, to the director being blacklisted in the hypocritical Hollywood of its day.

I would recommend this film to anyone who has not has the pleasure of seeing it.

I cannot give it enough stars.


Like NIGHT STALKER and then X-FILES, the show set up a fantastic situation and the main characters had to sort it out. Unlike these, the hero(es) weren't left holding an empty bag at the end. They had usually tangible results. It was also made clear that the 'good guys' were in a dirty profession where they occasionally had to pull some nasty things. Imagination, wit, acting which didn't always take itself too seriously ... I miss it. One reason being, I'm hard pressed to think of too many shows - BANACEK aside - which did as good a job of taking the viewer and grabbing their attention right off the bat. The writers excelled at setting up hugely improbable, if not downright impossible situations which the characters then had to find an explanation to. explanations which often took 90 degree turns into the clearly unexpected yet, for all that, still made sense. Too, I agree with another reviewer that the Anabelle character was somewhat underused, but when she was on screen, it wasn't just for eye candy. She was quite competent in her own right and stood up to the two male leads when she felt the point she was making warranted it. A rarity in those days. Sullivan? If he wasn't in the Department, he'd be working for the KGB or CIA. He's that sort of coldly efficient, ruthless type. He knows how the world works and realizes what it can take to get the job done. King? It's clearly a game to him. One he excels at and which he parleys into ideas for the detective/spy novels he writes as his ostensible 'real' job. He's probably the most fun to watch of the three, although they all have their moments and often, too. I do agree that the eventual spin-off series featuring only his character lacked the interest of the original, however.


Another 'good overcoming evil' story, but with a difference. This includes learning self-discipline. When Julie goes with her teacher to a Zen monastery, she learns about herself. She also hones her karate skills.

When the Zen monks visit the city, some awkward and comical moments ensue. Not uproarious, but entertaining nonetheless.

Next Karate Kid has much to say about looking within, and improving what is there -- as well as using what you have.


They really can't get stupider than this film dealing with 3 losers who try to capture the college spirit during the annual spring break festivities at many of our higher schools of learning. The problem is that these losers try to do this 15 years after their college years when one is assigned to watch over the daughter of a woman senator being groomed to be the next vice president.

Trouble is that her daughter is anything but popular, but of course she comes out of all that. The girls go through drunken rages, exotic dancing and other absolute nonsense.

It really can't get much worse than this awful film.