Channel surfing and caught this on LOGO. It was one of those 'I have to watch this because it's so horribly bad' moments, like Roadhouse without the joy. The writing is atrocious; completely inane and the acting is throw-up-in-your-mouth bad.

There's low budget and then there is the abyss which is where this epic should be tossed and never seen from again. I mean, the main characters go to a ski retreat in some rented house and the house is, well, ordinary which is no big deal, but they choose to show all the houseguests pouring over it like it was the Sistine Chapel. I'm sorry but watching 6 guys stare into every 10'x10' boring room with a futon in it and gushing is lame. I guess they didn't learn anything from the Bad News Bears in Breaking Training (see hotel room check scene)...wow a toilet !!! yaayyyyy !!!! I don't buy the its all over the top so anything goes routine. If it smells like...and it looks like...well, you know the rest.

Avoid like the plague.

edit: Apparently other more close minded reviewers believe that since I disliked this movie, I am an 'obvious hater' which I can only assume means I am phobic, which of course is not true. I decided to do this wacky, crazy thing and judge the movie based on the actual content of the film and not by its mere presence (i.e. its refreshing to see...)

Sure, it may be refreshing to see but that doesn't equate into a great movie, just give them some better material to work with and tighter direction. In fact, I applaud the effort. Frankly, I'd rather go listen to my Kitchens of Distinction catalogue than watch this again.


Prince of Central Park (2000) is so utterly bad. It was a pure waste of my time and I can't believe I actually watched the whole thing. Please do not watch this movie, if it's the last thing you do!


wow, this movie sucked.

This movie was a embarrassment to the original sandlot.

Everything about this movie was awful.

The acting was horrendous. Every part except the part of the 'mexican' sandlot manager was terrible.

Luke Perry, though only bit parts was absolutely awful. This was is worst role ever. Even the kid actor playing him as a kid was someone you'd want to punch, even in the end, lol.

This movie reminded me of those kid movies that go that extra mile making a part goofy way beyond the funny stage. The humor was for 6 year olds.

If your over 12 and want something worthwhile to watch, skip this movie and watch a sitcom instead.


I know that Trey Parker and Matt Stone really hate celebrities and spoof them in every single episode of South Park (if not showing them, then mentioning them) and they love to mock and joke and make fun of themselves too, but I felt this mockumentary went too far.

For one thing, the most common running theme in the 'documentary' is that they're episodes are meaningless pieces of crap they put out just for the money. Obviously, that's completely untrue if you even bother to watch any episode, and the constant 'You know, I learned something today...''s said at the end of almost every episode by the main characters. The creators are also depicted as pompous, arrogant asses who only care about money, including a supposed-to-be-funny-but-isn't scene involving Isaac Hayes delivering lines for Chef (over the phone) and Trey Parker yelling and screaming at him for sucking and hanging up. I guess it's supposed to be funny, but the pretension in it just really made it... cringe.

The way they interview employees working for Trey and Matt shows the duo as tyrants who push their employees to the limit, all just for money, in the end. Completely untrue, obviously, and all a joke, but it's just not funny. It's disturbing, even though it's just a joke.


This movie treads on very familiar ground -- the confusion of art and reality in the life of actors. It does not have anything particularly novel or interesting to say on this subject and is in fact rather dull. The final scene in particular is interminably tedious. Seeing the audience crying at the 'moving' acting they are seeing on the screen made me ask 'who do they think they are kidding?'

Nevertheless there are some good performances and interesting scenes, particularly from some of the minor characters. Ben Gazzara plays an old and slightly touched actor, who gets a whole posse of policemen clapping his performance when they come to arrest him.

Christopher Walken again plays an over-the-top wacko. Remember his character 'The Continental' on Saturday Night Live; an aging eurotrash satyr chasing a young woman around the furniture and trying to get her into bed? He does an identical turn in the film, chasing his young (male) prey around an antique table and plying him with champagne.

Overall this film was both enchanting and irritating, but mostly irritating.


I had high hopes for this film, since it has Charlton Heston and Jack Palance. But those hopes came crashing to earth in the first 20 minutes or so. Palance was ridiculous. Not even Heston's acting or Annabel Schofield's beauty (or brief nude scenes) could save this film. Some of the space effects were quite good, but others were cheesy. The plot was ludicrous. Even sci-fi fans should skip this one. Grade F


*****WARNING, MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS WHICH WILL BE MORE ENTERTAINING THAN THIS TRIPE.****

Heres some good advise to anyone living in the U.K. Whenever Channel 5 has an old 80's comedy on late at night, read a book instead. I am currently in the process of recovering from a seizure, due to reading some of the comments on this film on here. I am actually shocked at the fact that someone actually said this film was realistic! All I can say is thank god the Cold War never escalated or else we might as well have given the Commie's our borders... I found this film dire in the utmost pretence, maybe it is just my British perception of what makes a film funny, who knows? But in all aspects, this film is not just awful, its teeth grindingly terrible.

I've never been a fan of Bill Murray, and its rubbish like this that justify my feelings towards him. Don't get me wrong, I loved Ghostbuster's, which was made only three years after this film. But this just sums Bill Murray up really. I can safely say that I haven't wasted my time so blatantly like this since seeing the first running of Operation Delta Force over here, though these two films have more in common than you would think. For 1 thing, they both have terrible action sequences from beginning to end, and 2nd. They are both riddled with cheesy Cliché's, throughout.

Heres one thing, these guys are supposed to be in the 'U.S Army'. Yet they are allowed to wallow around their Camp, Willy nilly, seducing female Military Police Officers, and subsequently shagging them silly in the Generals Quarters. Talk about Random! This film is just terrible for this I'm afraid. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no feminist sympathiser, but the fact that these two women actually fall hands over heels in love with the two characters shortly after arresting them, letting them go free... Twice, is just insulting to the female race. The fact that one tatty haired, fat lipped bum (Winger) and his hapless sidekick Ramis can simply sweet talk themselves into into the MP's underwear, to which they fall madly in love with the two of them is nothing short of ludicrous.

Then there is the training scenes, where you get to meet the Squad 'Phycho' who unconvincingly threatens to kill anyone who touches him or his stuff, followed by the overweight bloke (played by the late and great John Candy) who claims he joined the army to 'avoid paying $400 for anger management classes'. Leading to loud mouthed Murray paying tribute to the 'Giant Toe,' (WTF?) 'Drill Seargent' who honestly couldn't organise a pi$$ up in a brewery, let alone his band of recruits. All this scene serves to do is to prelude loads of fight scenes, with people saying 'way to go ass hole'!' all the time, etc etc.

The scenes then carry on showing the rag tag bunch making utter tits of themselves on the Assault Course, leading to a scene where one of them shoots wildly into the air at some passing birds with an assault rifle, peppering a watch tower with bullets. (Just like that. Yep, told you this film was random...He miraculously escapes undisciplined as well...) Eventually Leading up the the passing out parade, where the hapless squad make a magic turn around within the space of two hours. (Bugger me, Miracle!) Thanks to some wise words from Murray, to which they then direct a massively none military like dance routine in front of a Geriatric 'General' in front of the rest of the squads. All of this to the immense pleasure of their two Girlfriends on the stand, who really should've been arresting them... Everyone laughs it off though. This bit is nothing short of amazing though. He then chooses them to guard a new Multi-Million Dollar Prototype Armoured Vehicle in Italy (which turns out to be just a mobile home painted green with loads of gadgets on the inside), claiming 'This is exactly what this Army needs!' righto...

Then there is the dire finale, where Murray and Ramis decide to steal this top-secret prototype Military Vehicle to pick up their newly acquired and somewhat Hyperactive MP Girlfriends in Germany. To which the Hapless Captain (John Larroquette) then finds out and leads the Squad of fresh recruits on a retrieval Mission for this vehicle. To which they then take a 'wrong turn' en-route and end up in Soviet Held Czechoslovakia, where they are captured. (Like we didn't see that coming...) Thus begins a rescue attempt by Ramis and Murray + Birds in hand, to which is where a big fight, loads of shooting from the hip and blowing tanks up. With them coming back as National Heroes, humiliating the Russians by calling them 'pussies,' etc etc. The end. Thats right. No Courts Martial, nothing. They only just stole a prototype Military vehicle, drove it into a Warsaw Pact country and almost caused an International incident which could've sparked WW3!

This film is honestly more fun that being diagnosed with a terminal illness. I know its meant to be a Comedy, it got all the right actors for it, but where in the hell is it? Have Channel 5 cuts those bits out? The only redeeming feature in this film is the repetitive use of naked women taking showers, and female Mud Wrestling. (like I said, Random) Not that it helps to divert from the fact that this is an utterly crap film, of course. This film should realistically be aimed at immature 9 year old's, sadly, we have to watch it instead. 1 star out of 10 - Total Tripe. My advice, do something a little more useful with your time. Like Castrating yourself...


Spoiler alert  although I think this one was spoiled coming out of the can It's hard to even imagine that a film with these stars, from this studio, made at this time period, could be so awful, but it is. It is the film's biggest flaw by far that it just doesn't make any damn sense.

Rich widower American aristocrat Penn Gaylord leaves his small daughter 'in charge' and goes off to World War I where he is killed. Then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. The three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years, and some jerk named Barclay is trying to take their home away from them. This is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script, more holes in it than The Warren Report. What happened to the Gaylord fortune? If the will is worth half a billion, why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on The Munsters? Who the devil is this Barclay clown? And why is he able to take someone's home away from them? The questions just pile on top of more questions.

The usually affable and charming George Brent is playing Barclay, who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone, taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt; yet no one besides Fiona (Barbara Stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. Why? None of these questions are ever answered. We instead just follow Fiona's life from one train wreck to another, the evil Barclay takes away her home, her fortune, and even her child. What does she do? Shoot him? Set him on fire? No, too logical. In a completely improbably wrap-up, this woman, who's only prior romantic involvement with Barclay was, save for the technicality of marriage, rape, suddenly decides mid-sentence (literally) that she does not hate him, she loves him. And they're going to live happily ever after. All of a sudden for no reason in the world, this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle-twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. Yeah, sure, steal everything in the world that belongs to me and I'll fall in love with you. On what planet does that happen? I can only guess the reason I never heard of this film before I happened to catch it on Turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.


This is one of the best films I have seen in years! I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she is excellent as Emma Woodhouse. Alan Cumming is superb as Reverand Elton, and Emma Thompson's sister, Sophie, is hysterical as Miss Bates. And check out the gorgeous Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley; what a gentleman! Whoever said you need sex and violence in a movie to make it good has never seen Emma. I think that is what separates it from so many others--it's classy.

If you're looking for a film that you can watch with the whole family, or looking for a romance for yourself, look no further. Emma is that movie. With a beautiful setting, wonderful costumes, and an outstanding cast (have I mentioned the gorgeous Jeremy Northam?), Emma is a perfect ten!


I attended an advance screening of this film not sure of what to expect from Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher; both have delivered less than memorable performances & films. While the underlying 'general' storyline is somewhat familiar, this film was excellent. Both Costner and Kutcher delivered powerful performances playing extremely well off each other. The human frailties and strengths of their respective characters were incredibly played by both; the scene when Costner confronts Kutcher with the personal reasons why Kutcher joined the Coast Guard rescue elite was the film's most unforgettable emotional moment. The 'specific' storyline was an education in itself depicting the personal sacrifice and demanding physical training the elite Coast Guard rescuers must go through in preparation of their only job & responsibility...to save lives at sea. The special effects of the rescue scenes were extremely realistic and 'wowing'...I haven't seen such angry seas since 'The Perfect Storm'. Co-star Clancy Brown (HBO's 'Carnivale' - great to see him again) played the captain of the Coast Guard's Kodiak, Alaska base in a strong, convincing role as a leader with the prerequisite and necessary ice water in his veins. The film wonderfully, and finally, gives long overdue exposure and respect to the Coast Guard; it had the audience applauding at the end.


I'm sorry but I didn't like this doc very much. I can think of a million ways it could have been better. The people who made it obviously don't have much imagination. The interviews aren't very interesting and no real insight is offered. The footage isn't assembled in a very informative way, either. It's too bad because this is a movie that really deserves spellbinding special features. One thing I'll say is that Isabella Rosselini gets more beautiful the older she gets. All considered, this only gets a '4.'


The only time I seem to trawl through IMDb comments is when I've seen a duff film. I guess I'm looking to find reassurance that it's not just me. For me, then, Lonesome Jim was a duff film packed with unbelievable characters in unbelievable situations which limped on lamely and boringly towards a cop-out hackneyed conclusion. So I check out what other people have to say and feel a bit like Jim, out on a limb, alienated, as page after page of multiple star ratings and plaudits leave me doubting my critical faculties. Yet maybe I should check the settings for the comments presentation, since after a while the gushing dies down and I'm relieved to see appreciations that mirror my own. I feel vindicated. It IS a rubbish film, it DOESN'T hang together and it DOES constitute a wasted evening sitting through it. Praise be to kindred spirits.


Being a huge die-hard Monkey Island fan, I fugured this one would be terrible since Ron Gilbert didn't make it. Boy was I surprised! Although it's still not as good as the first two, it has the comedy that I wanted. I was a little nervous about the new graphics, new SCUMM engine, and just the fact that it was on a CD. But it all came together, and it was interesting to finally hear the voices of your favorite characters. I especially enjoyed that SWORD FIGHTING had returned. And the whole story about finding the big uncursed ring was just incredible. Go ahead and try out this two-CD adventure. And now we can rejoice, because Monkey Island 4:Escape from Monkey Island is coming out REALLY REALLY soon! This fall!


I am obsessed! The story is amazing and the show is highly addictive, but I love it. I am on Season 2, disc 5, and I tell you that I am too attached to the characters now. For anything bad to happen to them would seriously affect my vote for the show. And, Michael is on my list now. Kidding... I am so happy to see there is a Season 3, because I was too afraid to go onto disc 6 thinking that it would be ending. I can't wait to see the rest now. Thanks to the directors/producers/and actors of Lost...I enjoy watching TV again. Before Lost I surfed through every channel going to bed sad because of my disappointment in television, but I have to say that Lost is my kind of entertainment!


This man is nothing short of amazing. You truly feel as if you have lived his life with him throughout these tragic events, and cry along with his family in the end. He was so passionate about his cause, not just for himself, but to ensure others who will survive him do not have to go through this wretched pain. I watch this video every time I am having a bad or 'down' day, and it always manages to make me see the great and brighter side of life, just like Jonny did, even with his unbearable pain. My only regret is not knowing about Jonny sooner, as I visited England 2 times during his life, and would have been able to say I'd met him. It is comforting to know Jonny is sitting on his cloud, pain free! Rest in peace, Dear Jonny. You deserve it!


This is an evocative and idealized portrait of the early life of Lincoln(born 1809 Hodgensville-Kentucky- and died in Washington 1865). Ford's excellent movie takes Abraham Lincoln(Fonda) from his youth. He studied laws, common law and began practice as lawyer in 1837.This Hollywood biography follows Lincoln from his log-cabin days, initial relationship to Mary Todd(Weaver), following the couple from their first ball,and his departure for congress candidate. But focuses mainly on a brothers(Richard Cromwell,Eddie Quillan) accused for murder, the posterior trial with amusing court debate scenes and the protection for their mum(Alice Brady). The Lincoln-Fonda as defender advocate and Donald Meek-prosecutor are nothing short of brilliant.

Excellent performance from Henry Fonda as idealistic,traveller Springfield solicitor , he was to star regularly for Ford from this movie, as ¨Grapes of wrath,My darling Clementine, and Fort Apache¨. Besides sterling acting by Alice Brady as grieved mother, she was a great actress from the silent cinema, but this one results to be her last movie because she early died from cancer.The Lincoln's deeds developing make for skilfully appealing entertaining.His portrayal shows a nostalgic longing for things past and old values and describes his goodness,uprightness and willful. Lincoln, like John Ford, was a straightforward man who never varied the ideals of his youth.This American masterpiece is correct on both counts, as splendid biography and as magnificent drama.

Another biographies about Abraham Lincoln are the following: 1) ¨Abraham Lincoln¨(1930) by D.W.Griffith with Walter Huston, Una Merkel, talking from his birth until his assassination; 2) ¨Abe Lincoln in Illinois¨(1940)by John Cromwell with Raymond Massey, Ruth Gordon, concerning similar events to Ford's film through his career as lawyer 3)TV version titled ¨Gore Vidal's Lincoln¨ with Sam Waterston and Mary Tyler Moore as Mary Todd.


1st watched 12/24/2009  4 out of 10 (Dir-Robert Ellis Miller): Emotional Christmas fluff that doesn't really get specific enough to explain how the real story happened in this factual-based incident of a man who is wrongly put in jail trying to get a job for his family to make Christmas happen for them. The three kids in the family then run away from home on a trek to Washington D.C. to enlist the then President of the United States, Herbert Hoover. This trek provides some side stories like their positive encounters with a hobo and a puppeteer, which makes the story kind of like a Disney 'animals on the run' movie and doesn't quite fit here. At the ending, there isn't any details given as to how the President helped the family and this is another downpoint to the movie, in my opinion. The movie does eventually bring tears, but it takes too long to get to this. The movie isn't supposed to have been an original TV movie(according to IMDb) but it has the obvious fade-outs that make it look this way  so I'm not sure their information is accurate. All in all, this is a simple movie(that could have been more complex) with a happy Christmas-like story but blandly played and without a lot of substance.


My only reason registering to this site was for the opportunity to write a comment to this movie. I felt that I had to get rid of some of my anger by writing it off me.

The movie 'Babas bilar' must be just about the worst film I ever seen. I really do believe that the script may have seen to been able to become a pretty good movie or at least OK, but somewhere on the line something happened. What makes it even more odd is the fact that the cast appears to be quite alright on paper. Put to practice both script and the cast fails to deliver. There are to much action, it happens to much things and you can't help wonder why it happens. And then the cast, the actors make such a poor effort that you almost start to cry.

If you have to much time at hand I would say you can see it. If not - don't.


As soon as it hits a screen, it destroys all intelligent life forms around ! But on behalf of its producers I must say it doesn't fall into any known movie category, it deserves a brand new denomination of its own ! It's a 'Neurological drama' ! It saddens and depresses every single neuron inside a person's brain.

It's the closest thing one will ever get to a stroke without actually suffering one. It drives you speechless, all you members go numb, your mouth falls open and remains so, and the most strange symptom of all is that you get yourself wishing to go blind and deaf.

No small feat for such a sort of a 'movie'.

The only word that comes to my mind just having finished my ordeal is OUTRAGE !!!!!!


After seeing The Aristocats: Special Edition in a two pack with The Fox in the Hound, I decided to buy it since both of these films were childhood favourites.

The Aristocats is a classic, definitely. It might not be a five-star classic, but it is a fun film and makes a good evening's entertainment. It is somewhat a light refreshment from the darker, more serious Disney classics. The Aristocats tries to be a light-hearted musical comedy, and I think it just about succeeds.

The storyline doesn't really make much sense and I don't think the plot is particularly strong, but it is certainly not weak. The animation and backgrounds are a bit scratchy in places, typical of Disney's 70s films, but it does have a rustic, old fashioned charm about it.

The Aristocats strongest points are the characters, the music and the humour. The music is very memorable - try getting 'Everybody Wants To Be A Cat' out your head in a hurry! The songs are written by the Sherman Brothers, who also did the music for The Jungle Book. There was one song called 'She Never Felt Alone' that was going to be in the film, but sadly didn't make it into the final feature. It is a shame, because I think it would have fit in very well.

The characters are unforgettable. Thomas O'Malley is voiced by Phil Harris, and is basically Baloo in a feline form. Eva Gabor gives Duchess this warm and maternal feel and the kitten's voices actually sound like children, and not an actor imitating the voice of a child. The secondary characters are here by the dozen and yet you still end up understanding their personalities. Edgar, the 'villainous' butler plays a similar role to Cruella De Vil, but he's more comical than scary, often ending up in funny situations. Even though he's the bad guy, he's still lovable all the same.

The two British geese - Abigail and Amelia really had me cracking up, along with their crazy (and drunk) uncle. I also like the dogs, who tend to argue over who is 'the leader.' I could go on, but I won't spoil it. But I can tell you, The Aristocats is funny and will entertain everyone without having to resort to rudimentary toilet humour.

The bottom line - The Aristocats might not be Disney's crowning achievement, or even their strongest film from the 70s (that award is a tie between The Rescuers and The Many Adventures of Whinnie the Pooh). But it is an enjoyable romp and is sure to entertain. If you are looking for a dazzling work of art, you might be better off watching Bambi. But if you want a fun night in, The Aristocats is the way to go. It is a charming and lovable film and it's impossible to dislike. Enjoy! (And besides, it's good to have a film where cats aren't seen as the villains).


I have never read Sarah Water's book. Although I have not read the book, the 3 hour movie is very interesting. It begins with an interesting storyline with a twisted ending. I have to say these 2 actresses are amazing. Sally Hawkins is stunning successfully portrayed the character in love with her mistress and betrayed by her love. Their romance slowly blossoms as they spend more and more time together. The love making scene is very tender and emotional, well acted. The end is quite intriguing and these 2 ended up together after all they have been thru, which is a bless. Overall, it is a great movie to see, a very interesting plot with excellent performances.


Unwatchable. You can't even make it past the first three minutes. And this is coming from a huge Adam Sandler fan!!1


I'm normally a fan of Mel Gibson, but in this case he did a movie with a poor script. The acting for the most part really wasn't that bad, but the story was just pointless with flaws and boring. I thought I would like the movie a little but I didn't like it at all actually. I give it a 1 1/2 out of 5!


Yes. I'll admit it. I believed all the hype surrounding this piece of work, about the trials and tribulations of 6 people, living in Mexico City concerning their sexual lives. And so, I was really expecting to finally see a Mexican movie (in ages) that was both popular and interesting to watch. Unfortunately the film was utterly disappointing. The story presents us with two couples, both with very obvious marital problems. When a third party comes into the life of each couple, their problems reach a pivotal point. Or absolute absurd. The plot then turns into a battle of the sexes. The stance taken by each group (yes, they literally group, girls with girls and boys with boys) is blatantly stupid and childish (I guess the humor was supposed to be there). And it all goes from bad to worse. The performances range from good (Miss Zavaleta) to mediocre (Mr Bichir), with Serrano doing an acceptable job on his opera prima. However, the flat circumstances that make up the plot, the one-dimensional characters, the very poor (if not stupid) perception of what sex represents in a mature relationship etc, make the movie fail. Miserably. SPyL has had an (impressive) good reception at the box-office. Believe the hype at your own risk.


I will admit, I thought this movie wasn't going to be any good but I soon changed my mind. The movie was keep you guessing as which direction it's going. Pierce Broson is amazing in his role as a hit man, who suddenly becomes burned out & asks a man he met at a Mexican bar for help. Greg Kinnear is an awesome straight man, as his role as a mild mannered man from Denver, who starts a innocent conversation with Pierce at a Mexican bar. The movie will have you laughing as Pierce delivers hilarious one liners (mostly about sex).

The imaginary in this movie is very well done, especially at the bullfight scene & when Pierce sees himself when trying to finish his last jobs.


As much as the movie was good, i have nothing more to say about it than what was said already. all i wanted is to point the fact that the movie isnt from Sweden but from Denemark. Maybe I wrong and in that case i'll be happy to know my mistakes so take the and notify me.


I love cheesy horror movies, I think dead alive and bad taste are great and I think slumber party massacre II (not even related to this movie) are hilarious. But this movie absolutely stank, I didn't laugh, I didn't even enjoy it.. you can see all kinds of mistakes that aren't even campy. The best take of the scene where the woman leans out the window is the one where she smacks her head on the sill? Give me a break.

Don't rent this thinking it's related to the slumber party massacre series. It's awful and I don't even have a clue how it got any distribution. Rent it with a fake name and burn it, do everyone else the favor.


So this ugly guy with long, nasty hair and his girlfriend end up in this house and they argue and argue about his old girlfriend. There was suppose to be something scary in it but I didn't see anything scary at all. There is some mention of a demon from the sea but that doesn't go anywhere at all. I wish it did because then it would've taken the tension away from the jealous love triangle. The title of the movie makes it look like it would be a scary and exciting movie but it is so far from it that I couldn't believe it. I waited and waited for it to end and was so happy when it did. It did not live up to the title like it should have so boo hoo hoo. The cover had a cool picture but I shouldn't judge a cheesy movie by its cover.


I rarely write a negative review for this site, but this time felt complied to. Night Listener is without doubt one of the dullest films I have ever seen.

There was nothing happening in this film what so ever - I didn't care for any of the characters, didn't buy in to the whole mystery type plot, didn't care how it ended....nothing.

There is no comedy, no action, no thrills, no suspense, nothing. The highlights include (no spoilers - there's nothing to spoil): a man climbing through a window, a dog barking outside a hotel room, a car going over some rough ground and a truck beeping it's horn.

I really enjoyed 'One Hour Photo' and hoped for a similar eerie role from Williams, but alas was sorely let down. What's more disappointing is that I'm sure there is a good film in there somewhere - the idea was interesting and I should have felt sympathy for the characters, but it just didn't work for me.

I might even have given it 1/10 but that score is reserved for the remake of The Producers


The opening scene makes you feel like you're watching a high school play. But I've seen high school plays with better acting! Every line was delivered so obviously that I felt like I was watching actors work instead of seeing characters. I found the character development to be poor and the acting very forced! I found that 25 minutes into the movie, I really didn't care what happened anymore because the plot was overly obvious and I was bored. I kept hanging in there, waiting for the film to redeem itself, but it never happened. Sister Theresa was overly sweet, even for a nun, yet appeared impulsive and slightly manipulative. All in all, I was mighty disappointed.


This is one of those films that looks so 'dated' that being that way is part of the fun. You see and hear things you would NEVER see or hear on the silver screen today. Some of that is good; some it too corny for words, some of it bad (depending on your viewpoints on certain cultural issues.)

For instance, in this short (68 minutes) 1931 film you have:

The grandpa of the family that is featured in this story extolling the value of patriotism and why one should speak up against criminals for the good of the United States (picture that in today's films!)

A district attorney (Walter Huston) almost begging for death penalty sentences and the populace shown as supporting it 100 percent (once again, picture that in modern-day movies.)

Along the way you have some shocking violence, such as a young boy being picked up a few times and literally thrown head first into a closet, and his father being picked up and swung repeatedly head-first into a wall. This is a tough stuff, to say the least.

Yet the film is dotted with comedy, mostly by the patriotic grandpa, memorably played by Charles 'Chic' Sales. There are a bunch of laughs for all those who view this unique crime film. And, for soft touches, there are the two young boys, one of whom - Dickie Moore - went on to become a pretty famous child actor in his day. Here, he is just a little tyke of about 5 years of age who, understandably, is far from being a polished actor, but you can see stardom for him on the horizon. In fact, he did just that the following year with a solid performance in 'Blonde Venus,' starring Marlene Dietrich.

Anyway, this is an entertaining film because of an effective mixture of violence, comedy and sentimentality....and it has a nice feel-good ending and a thought-provoking message. It was up for an Academy Award, too, for 'Best Writing, Original Story.' I am sorry to say it is only available for viewing on cable TV as it has never been put out on VHS or DVD.....and that's a shame.


If derivative and predictable rape-revenge thrillers are your thing, then you're in for a rare treat... They don't really appeal to me, so I couldn't find any single thing to redeem this peculiar tale. It seems like something straight out of the 1980s, a different age when this would have gone straight to video. Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer do OK work with a weak script and a tedious scenario. But what is Gillian Anderson doing getting involved with a film like this after the brilliance of her performance as Lady Deadlock in the BBC TV adaptation of Bleak House last year? The director is said to have been influenced by witnessing a near-rape and by his work on documentaries, but even that's not an excuse for the bizarre scene where a pack of rural hounds beat up Dyer. I don't think I was the only person in the cinema laughing. What I can't understand is the involvement of the companies behind this film - FilmFour and Verve Pictures. Both have been involved in some great independent British films in recent years. Verve distributed Bullet Boy, Code 46 and Red Road - Straightheads doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. FilmFour and Verve take note: is this really the best you can do? What are independent British filmmakers going to make of your artistic judgement? It's a big blot on both of your reputations. Listen carefully: can you hear the thousands of fans of independent British films crying in despair?


Having read all of the comments on this film I am still amazed at Fox's reluctance to release a full screen restored version in DVD. Yes, the history may be a bit inaccurate and it is certainly not as powerful as the book, BUT it was the 2nd film by Fox made in Real Cinemascope and the production values alone merit a restoration and distribution. I saw this film in second grade and it triggered my lifelong interest in all things Egyptian, culminating in my visiting Egypt 4 years ago! Amazing the power of film on a child's imagination, eh? In high school I read the book and made a promise to myself to one day take that dream trip. Now, true this film was made in the 'old school' style, meaning that Egyptians were portrayed by pink skinned and blue-eyed Brits. However, has anyone seen the current HBO series 'ROME'? Everything old is olde again. One can't imagine why in this day and age we are still casting actors mincing around as Mayfair aristocrats in Roman drag. Not one actor on ROME could pass for an ancient Italian. That being said, the AMARNA period in Egypt is still one of the most fascinating events in human history. This film is immensely appealing ( to borrow a word from NEFER) for its historical information (BEER! BRAIN SURGERY! IRON!) and its gorgeous cinematography and score. I have a dreadful Taiwan DVD version which I watch over and over again praying that one day a true restored widescreen version will be available. For anyone else interested in this subject I highly recommend the historical novel 'A God Against The Gods' by the author of Advise and Consent. If anyone of you film buffs out there knows how to contact Fox to urge them on, please let me know!


The horrific production doesn't qualify as a 'film.' It was obviously shot on video tape, and very poorly at that! There is a constant screaching sound for the audio(sounds like a bad microphone), which is so annoying that you sometimes cannot understand what the characters are saying. Badly dubbed-in music will suddenly appear in a scene, and the entire editing of this thing rates about a ZERO!

The plot is contrived and ridiculous. A late 20's gay man trying to hide his live-in lover from parents visiting? PLEASE! And the reaction the mother has when she finds a picture of her son kissing his boyfrioend is beyond melodramatic and rolls right into stupid. Talk about a stereotypical view of gay life! The acting is worse than a porno movie, and the direction is very poor!

As far as 'production' goes, there isn't any!

This title is simply a lame videotaped attempt to call itself a 'Film.' There is no heart and soul to give it even the smallest bit of praise.

It's just a stupid waste of time, so avoid it at all costs! BAD ACTING! BAD WRITING! BAD DIRECTING , and the title of 'producer' is vanity as this trash probably costed them the price of the videotape they shot it on.

This ametuer garbage has no business getting released onto a dvd as it's deceptive to the cunsomer. I cannot stress how horrible this 'SUGARPLUM' crap is!


I learned a thing: you have to take this film like a funny period comedy, if you don't want to be disappointed. The film's enjoyable because it's a delicious comedy. I think the over-hype damaged it: the too much glorified Monica Bellucci appears in few scenes and isn't so good as they wanted to let you believe. She sounds unnatural, false: the best actress in this film is Sabrina Impacciatore, who speaks with a perfect Tuscan accent and shines together with Massimo Ceccherini. Elio Germano is very, very good: the most promising young Italian actor, according to me. Daniel Auteuil looks like Napoleon, but I preferred other actors. So, the most hyped performances were also the worst.

Costumes and production design are okay: sure, American period movies are more accurate about these things because have bigger budgets, but the Italian ability rewards the lack of money. A nice period comedy, in short, with a first-rate casting (except for Bellucci and Auteuil).


The movie was great and everything but, there were a lot of mistakes in the 'soccer' scenes, i wonder if any of the guys who were working on the movie have ever seen a soccer match before..? first of all, i don't understand how she wanted to try for the boys team? in soccer boys and girls cant play in the same team and these are the FIFA rules. And don't get me started on who when they found out that she was actually a girl they let her continue to play...!! second of all, players cant paint their faces with colours and play like that, again FIFA rules not mine.

and don't get me started on the way they scored goals its was ridiculous completely unrealistic. and all the players seemed like they didn't know Jack about soccer.

and when duke was training Viola why did they only concentrate on shooting what happened to passing and dribbling. or was shooting her only problem?! and why the hell were all the posters on the wall in their room were for players from Chelse ?! don't they like any other players from any other teams.? it was like this was the only team they know...! but other than that the movie was good and i enjoyed the rest of it, just the training and the game scenes were unrealistic for me. they really should have consulted some one a bout them...!


you know, i always fancy disturbing or strange movies, especially when they get shown at the fantasy film festival in hamburg, germany. but subconscious cruelty was probably the worst film i saw this year. will this comment contain any spoilers?

no, because i just did not understand this movie. but well, what can you expect from a flick that was introduced to a festival crowd 'we (the guys from the festival) know that not all of you will watch this one until the very end'...

i like splatter movies and i also like movies with a strong graphical language. but this? there are a lot of bloody scenes in this one, but why? what is the director trying to tell us? is he saying that we lost all morality and all religious feelings? or is he saying that incest will always end in a disaster? who knows - i do not.

if you want to watch a movie that keeps you thinking for quite some time - watch it. but don´t expect to think 'wow, i got the message' - i did not get it...


This movie could be used in film classes in a 'How Not to Script a B-Movie' course. There are inherent constrictions in a B-movie: Budgets are tight, Time is precious (Scarecrow was apparently shot in 8 days) and the actors are often green and inexperienced. The one aspect you have complete control over is writing the best script you can within the limitations set before you. Scarecrow's script seems to have been written in a drunken haze. I could go through about fifteen examples of the nonsensical scripting of this movie, but I'll just mention one: The Gravedigger. The character of the gravedigger is introduced about an hour into the movie. He seemingly has no connection to any of the other characters already in the movie. He is shown with his daughter, who also has no connection to anybody else in the movie. The gravedigger is given a couple scenes to act surly in and then is killed to pad out the body count. Why give the Gravedigger a daughter? Why give the daughter a boyfriend? Why introduce them so late in the movie? Why not try to make them part of the ongoing storyline? Scarecrow doesn't seem to care.

The 'story' of Scarecrow goes something like this: Lester is a high school kid (played by and actor who'd I'd peg to be in his early 30's) who is picked on by the other kids. He is an artist who draws birds and has a crush on a classmate named Judy. His mom is a lush and the town whore. One of her reprobate boyfriends makes fun of his drawings (by calling him a 'faggot' for drawing birds instead of 'monsters and cowboys.' If you have a high school student still drawing cowboys I'd think him to more likely be gay than a high school student who draws crows) and later, kills Lester, in a cornfield, under the titular scarecrow. Magically, Lester's soul goes into the scarecrow. Somehow, this transference changes Lester's soul from that of an artist into that of a wisecracking gymnast (I know some reviews have called the scarecrow a Kung-Fu scarecrow. I disagree. The scarecrow practically does a whole floor routine before jumping onto the truck during the climax of the movie). The scarecrow then goes on to kill those who tormented him, those who smoke pot in the corn field, those who dig graves, boyfriends of daughters of gravediggers, pretty much anyone who showed up on the movie set.

The bonus feature on the DVD should be mentioned. The director (a Frenchman) does an impromptu version of rap music, admits he enjoys not having executives around on set so he can screw his wife while working and gives a quote to live by (and I'm paraphrasing): 'Life ez a bitch, but et has a great ass'

Number of Beers I drank while watching this movie: 5 Did it help: No Number of Beers needed to enjoy this movie: Whatever it takes to get to blackout drunk level.


***Tip: Have It Read To You, Heres How***

1) Copy And Paste This To Notepad (NOT WORD) 2) Go To. START>ALL PROGRAMS>ACCESSORIES>ACCESSABILTY>NARRATOR

having your testicles ironed.

When Jonathan Ross started his career he was on a show call 'The Last Resort' now a days he is the first resort to host anything and anything. TV Award Shows that half the time he is up for nominations in, Comic relief, chat shows, quiz shows, game shows, charity shows, Brighton. Just when you at you wits end and think you can find salvation in the wireless the lisping twang of good old J.R. Hits you like a freight train going none stop from Texas to downtown N.Y. That has lost a hour and is trying to make it up.

About this show (FNWJR).

Its a normal chat show format with J.R. As host and a house band that concisest of four gay men (ha ha ha, ow my aching sides.) and season one had Andy Davis, but he left or was fired to give way to Ross's Ego.

Ross will more less use his guests as props and you really don't hear them speak because of his 'Its my ball and I'll take it home' attitude, you also see that the bigger the guest the more he is willing to lie and suck up to them, to get in with the big boys (Like the weak kid at school who hangs round with the bully).

However when a small reality T.V. Star comes on he'll happily humiliate them, asking personal questions about the past and telling them about their lack of talent to get the laughs. Sometimes he will under estimate the popularity of a guest, say something to belittle them and then when the audience act shocked, he will quickly turn and start making himself the fall guy, the best example of this was when 'Life On Mars' star John Simm came on and he said how does someone like you get work, your OK looking but not Hollywood good-looking (Bare in mind the Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry was in the green room, he was really only trying to suck up to them before they were even on the couch). When the audience acted shock Ross quickly said 'What, I'm bit light headed from wearing that corset, I don't know what I'm saying'. If he don't have any low forms of TV life on he'll just dig at the four gay men on the piano with jokes more out of date than his fashion.

Its very much a different story when a Hollywood A-lister or big TV star comes on the show in that he'll tell them stories to humor them. When some actor explains that he was in a support band then Jonathon Ross will say something like 'Wow, well he ever I go to see a band i was try to look interested for the support band, to make them feel as though they are wanted' with an underline message being 'please like me, I was probably one of the people that cheered you when you was in your band'. Top this off with an audience of Ross fans so hooked on every bad old joke and bulling, it really makes for a poor show.

Your better off watching US chat shows instead, they are more scripted but not anywhere near as hard to watch.


For those not in the know, the Asterix books are a hugely successful series of comic books about a village of indomitable Gauls who resist Caesar's invasion thanks to a magic potion that renders them invulnerable supermen. There have been several animated features (only one of them, The Twelve Tasks of Asterix really capturing the wit and spirit of the books despite being an original screen story) before a perfectly cast Christian Clavier and Gerard Depardieu took the lead roles in two live action adaptations that proved colossally successful throughout Europe but made no impression whatsoever in the English-speaking world.

The uncut French version is great fun, but sadly does not appear to be available in a version with English subtitles outside of the UK DVD. While there's still no sign of a US theatrical or DVD release, the Miramax version of Asterix et Obelix: Mission Cleopatre is also on that DVD (and has played on UK TV), and you'll never guess what - it's been completely re-edited (at least 21 minutes gone) and dubbed into English. Maybe Harve mistook it for a Hong Kong movie - after all, he never saw a foreign film he didn't think couldn't be improved by heavy re-editing and shelving for a few years.

Whereas Asterix et Obelix Contre Cesar was lovingly dubbed into English from a particularly good translation script by Terry Jones but otherwise left unaltered, that sort of thing really isn't the Miramax way. The results ain't good. The film was the best attempt to get the books mixture of slapstick, anachronisms and highbrow classical humorous asides to the screen, but a lot of the classical references are gone (such as the great Raft of the Medusa sight gag or the Cyrano de Bergerac references from Depardieu), alongside anything that seems too French or might slow the picture down, with the result that the first 20 minutes are now a real slog. Several punchlines to sequences are missing, Depardieu's part has been trimmed (his part was already fairly small because of his serious health problems during the shoot: the US version has been partially digitally regraded to change the unhealthy pallor of his face in the original!), and as usual with dubbing, because literal translations into English don't fit properly, lines are either rushed so much they're not funny anymore or the dialogue has been changed completely (a couple of these changes are admittedly funny, like one character dreaming of a world in which he could move his lips in French and hear the words in English).

Not a total disaster, but very disappointing considering how good the full-length version is. It would be nice to think that Miramax would do a Shaolin Soccer and release both versions, but since they've shelved both films for two years since paying $45m for them (another classic case of Harvey's notorious chronic buyer's remorse: gee, wonder why Disney were so p****d at their overspending) and still have no release plans, that may just be too much wishful thinking.

It's a real pity that such an accessible and entertaining film will now only be available to non-French speakers in such a clumsily bowdlerised version. It seems the plucky Gauls may have been able to defeat Caesar's legions but are no match for the Miramax jackboot.


Im proud to say I've seen all three Fast and Furious films.Sure,the plots are kinda silly,and they might be a little cheesy,but I love them car chases,and all the beautiful cars,and the clandestine midnight races.And Ill gladly see a fourth one.

Wanna know what the difference is between those three and Redline?Decent acting,somewhat thought out plot,even if they are potboilers,and last but not least,directors who have a clue.All three were made by very competent directors,all of them took the films in a different direction,equally exciting.Redline looks like the producer picked out a dozen women he slept with on the casting couch,and made them the extras,then picked up his leads from Hollywood's unemployment line.And the script.Yikes.Its Mystery Science Theatre 3000 bad.This is 70's made for TV movie bad.

Yeah,the movie had a few cool cars,but you don't really get to see that many in action,and the action is directed so poorly you cant get excited by the chases,and if the cars aren't thrilling you,why go to a movie like this?

Im in the audience with a bunch of teenagers,and I cant stop laughing out loud.Im getting dirty looks,but this was just a debacle.

Rent the F&F movies.Go to Nascar Race.Go to a karting track and race yourself.Whatever you do,avoid Redline like bad cheese.


Okay people, I have to agree with almost everyone else's reviews here. The characters. Are. Stupid. They're ALL stereotypical, and yet have nice clothes and are always skinny.

Don't even get me started on Jamie Lynn's role as ZOEY. Zoey is a pretty, popular, tan, blonde young teen who everyone just LOVES! She has a 'rebellious', great, personality that everyone agrees with no matter how dumb or extreme it is. Most annoying of all: her voice is so darn bubbly and obnoxious. 'OMG!'

Take for example the first episode. The moment she steps onto the huge PCA campus, everyone seems to love her. The boys want to ask her out, the girls want to be her friend, etc. Thinking she's all that, the episode plays out with Zoey always being the center of attention; she is the so-called best player of the unofficial girls basketball team, confident, and has everyone pity her when she weakly gets hit in the face. Oh boo-hoo.

My favorite character by far is this whole series is a girl that appears much later into the show, Lauren or something, who is the ONLY person ever introduced in the show to hate Zoey.

And Zoey doesn't even seem to be very loyal to her friends sometimes. In one episodes she even calls her friend a freak without EVER apologizing and doesn't show the least bit regret in doing so.

Zoey is ALWAYS the best:

-Desiging professional T-shirts and backpacks (which become a big hit)

-coming up with VERY elaborate schemes BY HERSELF to teach a single person a lesson.

-Flawless grades

-Taking the blame for stuff that wasn't even related to her just so everyone else could be happy.

-Coming up with a commercial that was so good it was put on TV. The list goes on and on...

Ugh. She has no acting talent. She's always the perfect person. She acts snotty and rebellious and preppy and...UGH! Can't stand her.

Not only that, but everyone in the show always has great clothes. EVEN THE NERD! Her wardrobe is better than mine, and mine is pretty freaking decent.

No one cares if everyone at PCA loves you, Zoey, and would do anything for you, even if it meant giving their right arm.

BUT regardless of these cardboard characters, the plots are creative. Not everyday things. They're interesting and amusing. The humor is usually good-natured and fun, but the characters are so paper flat that it's hard to enjoy it.

This show would be really good if Dan Schnieder put a bit more time thinking of the type of characters he wanted, because they are so typical, so boring that's it's lame and stupid.

Point: No one's the least bit overweight, everyone has stylish clothes, Zoey is the definition of Mary-sue, the story lines are well-thought out, and the humor is laughable. But again, I want to emphasize that the characters taint the show. Watch the show if you must, but don't say I didn't warn you if your eyes start to bleed.


Christopher Smith is an obvious horror fan and this is made clear in his debut horror flick 'Creep'. 'Creep' although a little bit loose on information, proves itself worthy of a true gory classic. A little less glossy than recent US horrors (Amityville Horror remake, House of Wax remake) this dark and gruesome tale follows Kate (Franka Potente) through the labyrinth of underground tunnels and disused railways as she, and a number of others along the way, try and flee a murderous attacker. Though some bad reviews have slated this film, I truly believe that on a tight budget and for a UK production from first time director Smith that 'Creep' truly does live up to its name. It delivers fast-paced gory action more or less from the beginning, sometimes too fast as the story is patchy in some areas, but with a perfect location and the best character-reaction-at-the-end I've seen in a while, 'Creep' delivers some scenes that are definitely the stuff of nightmares.


'World's Finest' is an unique project. It's a trailer for a Superman/Batman crossover movie that doesn't exists and will also never exists, at least not in this form, with these characters, actors and plot line anyway.

So the movie is one big tease, even more than standards everyday real movie trailers. The trailer will hype you all up for nothing. In that regard, I really didn't liked this short project. When watching this trailer it makes you hungry and excited for more and at the same time sad- and perhaps you'll even feel cheated afterward, when it turns out that a full length movie of this trailer will never exist at all. Sort of makes you wonder why this project was made in the first place. Surely to show off Sandy Collora's skills but couldn't he had also done this with a real movie short, like his earlier movie 'Batman: Dead End'.

But when you have to judge this short purely for what it is, so from a movie technical point of view, it's a really great one. It's great looking and way more professional than you'll perhaps at first would expect, although the people who've already seen 'Batman: Dead End' will already know better than to expect a short with cardboard sets, cheap homemade costumes and third-rate actors. The short is not constantly impressive looking and obviously the budget wasn't sky-high but for most part it's very impressive and professional looking, with nice costumes, sets, special effects, cinematography and lighting.

The short has a good quick and typical trailer build up, with perhaps a bit too many posing shots too completely find it credible but hey, it works well for the trailer style. It has some impressive shots but also a couple of lame ones, mainly the Superman flying sequences. It was obvious that the guy was just standing at a moving car, with a camera aimed at him from an angle below. I even found it a pretty laughable thing to watch. But really the better and more spectacular moments really compensate for this.

Michael O'Hearn seemed like a pretty good Superman/Clark Kent, although he obviously isn't the greatest talented actor around. Clark Bartram reprises his Batman role well again and Kurt Carley seemed like an awesome Lex Luthor. The rest of the cast also served its purpose well enough.

It's especially interesting to watch this short after the recent new modern reinterpretations of the two main superheroes of this movie, in the movies 'Batman Begins' and 'Superman Returns'. It's interesting to compare the style and character treatment of those movies with this one. It's actually amazing and fun to hear how much Kurt Carley does sound like Kevin Spacey, the actor who played Lex Luthor in 'Superman Returns'.

It's a good looking and well made and constructed trailer that however will makes you hungry for more, even though you know that there won't be more. Whatever happened to the Waner Bros. plans to create an actual full length Superman/Batman movie by the way? I thought that developments were underway for it a couple of years ago but nothing has been heard of it ever since. Instead two new separate Batman and Superman movies were made; 'Batman Begins' and 'Superman Returns'.

7/10


'House of Dracula' is a good sequel to 'House of Frankenstein'. There isn't as much action but the acting is just as good. Onslow Stevens is the benevolent Doctor who turns bad after receiving blood from Dracula via a transfusion(Dracula was actually receiving the transfusion to overcome his 'affliction' but he puts a spell on a hunchback nurse and then transfuses his blood into the Doctor.). It turns out that Dracula really didn't come to seek a cure but instead drain blood from a beautiful nurse. Dracula is destroyed and the Wolf Man is next in line for a cure(which is successful). In the meantime, Frankenstein's monster is discovered and revived briefly before burning to death(don't worry, the same trio came back in 'Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein'). John Carradine again plays a sinister Dracula(Baron Latos is his alias at the start of the film and in 'House of Frankenstein'). Lon Chaney is the sympathetic Wolf Man and Glenn Strange returns as the Frankenstein monster. Lionel Atwill again plays an inspector, which he often does in the Universal Studios monster films. A keeper for your collection.


This movie is about three teens who have been best friends for the longest time, and go on the most messed up ride of their life. When Heroine becomes the choice drug in their town, these three teens find themselves wrapped up in it all. This movie portrays heroine addiction very well, and is something you can't stop watching. MTV has never been the best at doing made for tv movies, but this one has to much good content to not watch it. I enjoyed this film, at the beginning I thought it would be the worst movie I've seen, but then as it went on it got better, and I couldn't turn away.


Either or, I love the suspension of any formulaic plot in this movie. I have re-visited it many times and it always holds up. A little too stylized for some but I fancy that any opera lover will love it. Norman Jewison, a fellow Canadian, takes enormous chances with his movies and his casting and it nearly always pays off in movies that are off centre and somehow delicious, as this one is. I have often wondered at the paucity of Cher's acting roles, whether she has chosen to minimize this part of her life or she does not get enough good roles to chew on. I have found her to be a superb actress who can retreat into a role, as in this particular one or be loud and daring and fierce as in 'Mask'. I found the comedic strokes broad at times ( a hair salon called 'Cinderella')but this was the whole intent of both the writer and director. Nicolas Page plays the angst ridden tenor of opera, all extravagant gestures, at one point demanding a knife so as to slit his own throat. The Brooklyn scenes are magical, this is a Brooklyn under moonlight, romanticized and dramatic, just like opera. All in all a very satisfying film not to everyone's taste by a long shot, I loved the ending, everyone brought together like a Greek Chorus, every part subtly nuanced and blending with the others, the camera pulling away down the hall, leaving the players talking. 8 out of 10.


One of the worst movies I've ever seen. When I was trying to watch this I had flu and i was pretty open minded for any brainless entertainment. Unfortunately this was too much. How, so many totally ungifted actors can be in one movie? This movie makes porn look like European art-movie. Cast just speaks out their lines without any emotions; special thanks to Charlie Snows (Baldwin) soon-to-be-ex-wife who talks about her divorce like the rest of us talk about the weather. Just horrible (and funny).

With lots of booze and friends this might just make it as a background entertainment and few laughs, just like Ed Wood-movies. The plot is a joke and soundtrack straight from some cheeky soap-opera.

Hopefully nobody paid to see this movie.


As an avid Disney fan, I was not totally impressed by this movie, certainly not motivated enough to catch it in the theaters. I am, however, so glad that I caught it on DVD and watched the special features.

You MUST check out the 'Moose commentary': the entire movie can be viewed with commentary from Rutt and Tuke, the comic relief moose of the story, who are voiced by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas. Two veterans of the famous Second City comedy troupe ad-lib - in character - for an hour and a half about a movie that they are clearly fond of. I laughed the whole time. The enjoyment I got from this commentary completely made up for the tepid reaction I had to the film itself. Do yourself a favor and listen to it!


I wont take too much time here, just wanted to state that Darkman 3 is awesome. I have all 3 on DVD, added these to my collection of DVD movie sets. Darkman ranks up there with the best, like Indiana Jones, Aliens, Star Wars, Die hard, you get the point. There isn't too many good horror, thriller, sets out there. Many thanks to the whole crew, and set for giving us the Darkman trilogy. By the way if your wondering how I came across this one on DVD. I purchased it through the internet, it is however region 4, as you know most US DVD players are region 1. If you own a Sony Playstation 2, you have the best DVD player since it is an all region player. Just go to set up then choose witch region setting you want ( 1-9 ).


La Teta i la Luna (The Breast and the Moon) describes the life of a 9-10 year old boy named Tete who is obsessed with breasts growing up in Catalunya. I love this movie because the characters are very honest and very human, like all the characters in Bigas Luna's movies (also director of Jamon, Jamon). Tete reminded me of how intriguing and exciting life can be at that age. Also being from Catalunya (North-east of Spain) it brought lots of memories to my mind. This movie shows how beautiful Catalunya is, nice people, nice life and specially lots of non-uptight people.


I admire the effort of trying to reach out to the rest of the world with this tragic story. However, the movie is done SO BADLY that most people I know couldn't sit through it. The movie was relevant to me since I lived in Estonia when these events took place, but it is written horribly and fails to capture the attention of someone who knows nothing on the matter. The music choices do not flow well with the movie, it seems as if someone just turned a CD player on in the background to put the actors 'in the mood'. The acting... well, what acting? The only people acting are Jürgen Prochnow and Donald Sutherland, even though Prochnow seems uncomfortable in this role. As far as the relationship development goes between Erik Westermark (Jürgen Prochnow) and Julia Reuter (Greta Scacchi), it is like watching a train wreck. There is absolutely no chemistry and it is painful to witness their 'sincere moments.' This is not a good movie. There is a difference between trying to get a message out (could've been a documentary!) and trying to make a good movie. This is a failure and anyone here who says otherwise makes me wonder if they are trying to promote it. As a matter of fact, as a native of Estonia I am offended by this miserable effort. This tragedy deserves more than just a homemade low-budget ghost chase excuse of a movie. This could have been much more!


If you ever have the chance to see Sandra Bernhard live in person, you better move on it sweetie. I saw her last year in Los Angeles at the opening of her Everything Bad and Beautiful tour and i still can't believe that i was in the first row, and lucky enough to experience such a phenomenal show. She is now in New York with the show and it coincides with the release of her groundbreaking stunner, 'Without You I'm Nothing'. We have lost Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Nina Simone, but Sandra is still with us. Patti Smith is missing in action, but not Sandra. Barbara Streisand continues to peep her head out once in awhile but Sandra more than makes up for where Babs leaves off. Okay, i want it known, Ms. Bernhard is a little of these influential entertainers and more. I really wanted to push this film because of its truth, honesty, humor, eclectic songs (ranging from Laura Nyro, Sylvester, Nina Simone, Prince), and a script that defines the decadence, joy, sadness, ups and downs of the 70's and 80's. It is my opinion that many (and i mean, MANY) comics have lifted, okay outright stolen, so much from this show if not from Sandra herself. I won't name names but come on, people, you and i know who they are. See, the thing is, Bernhard plays by her own rules. This movie shows, as does her live performances, that she is a performer who has stayed true to the old school of show business, as well as pushing forward. Her performances are reminiscent of smoky jazz clubs (during the time of Miles Davis,Coltrane,Monk), 70's TV shows, intimate cabaret acts and concerts that are reminiscent of everyone from Judy Garland to Joan Jett. Most comedians couldn't even touch where Sandra is coming from or going to. So, here i was, a year ago, watching Sandra at the Silent Movie Theater, in total awe and joy. I wanted to meet her after the show, give her something that meant something to me, that, hopefully would mean something to her. But i listen to my copy of Giving Til it Hurts, and just thank her in a prayer, of sorts for making me laugh, making me think, making me FEEL. You can't deny this lady's presence and you certainly cannot deny the talent that just rushes from the stage. She's still here, damn it, even after the release of Without You I'm Nothing, some 15 years ago. And she looks great, by the way. I know this firsthand, walking from the theater one audience member said to another, 'She is SO FUNNY..and she still looks incredible!!! If you can't experience her live yet, please see this movie. As for me, I do hope that Sandra will see this. You've meant a heck of a lot to me, gotten me through some tough crazy times. If you can send me an email, please do. If not, knowing that you are still kicking it out and will continue to do so, is enough for me. Come on, people, give it up for the Lady!!!!


First off, I didn't know what to expect when I started the video.

Anytime someone brings back a cult type movie genre and adapts it into the present, something gets inexplicably lost in the translation.

That's not the case here. This movie just starts off on the right track. It's part familiar territory but manages to take it over the top as well. Crockzilla scene anyone? That has to be seen, and just try and keep a straight face. This movie takes some of the old fun cult movie classics and manages to blend it seamlessly into a modern production. It's good to see someone is filling the need in this market. Very well done.


Ohhh the brutality, ohhhhh the dying breed, ohhhh the sense of loss, ohhhh the prejudice! Jeez, when are all you whiney revisionists going to stop analyzing Westerns for crying out loud? S**t happens. If it offends your socially engineered sensibilities then go back to the comfort of your Meryl Steep collection.

Boring, tedious, and very tiresome waste of celluloid-particularly in light of Coburn/Hackman/Bergen's presence. Nothing interesting or intriguing here, unless you are obsessed with 19th century desert dentisty. May have been a little better without the constant diversion of the out-of-place mexican guy with the bad tooth. A monument to the stupid ultra-left creeping sensitivity of the 60/70's. Virtually impossible to sit through the entire film. I think I'd rather have my eyes stapled open for the entire Lucky Luke/Trinity series. 4 Horses/10-all deader'n hell.


'Side Show' is one of the weirdest Horror movies ever made from Full Moon Pictures. Very gory in some places, but not as shocking as the Trailer makes it out to be (The Trailer for this movies shows all the gory parts). Also, the acting and visual effects are well done. I would recommend this movie to horror fans everywhere.

8 out of 10

Fans of Horror Movies like this should Check out Puppet Master, Skinned Alive, Slumber Party Massacre, Sleep Away Camp, and other Full Moon Pictures flicks. For other recommendations, check out the other comments I have sent in by clicking on my name above this comment section.


Plot: Ed and Alice are engaged. They live together and are living the dull life. He has slept around before meeting Alice. She has a lot less experience. She decides she needs to sleep around before marrying. He very reluctantly agrees they should both see other people for a while.

At first he is not really into it. His wild days are behind him and he is simply content. Until one day Alice comes back and tells him she made out with some random guy; who of course starts to fall for her.

Of course this is a BAD idea which causes extreme strain on the relationship.

Good movie. You can see the train wreck coming but still good.

Worth a rental.


Virtual Sexuality proves that Britain can produce romantic comedies as vapid as those from America. The only differences are an ending that ties up the loose bits differently than an American film would and a cameo by Ram John Holder, which is always welcome. That's enough to make this a watcher on a cold winter's night.


The St. Francisville Experiment claims 'this ain't no walk in the woods', a direct slap in the face of Blair Witch. Where Blair Witch proved to be a film that overworked the viewer's imagination through simple suggestion, The St. Francisville Experiement overworks the viewer's patience. One must say, however, that this is destined to be a camp classic.

Warning: Spoiler is forthcoming!!

I viewed this movie in a local theater in which the movie's 'paranormal consultant' Troy Taylor spoke about the making of the movie. Should anyone want to see this movie without knowing the forthcoming information, stop reading here. For those of you who can't resist, read on my friends and all shall be told.

Mr. Taylor, a writer of rather unintriguing ghost stories which he claims are all true, informed the audience at this video screening that The St. Francisville Experiment was not a documentary. Shock! Amazing! As if we didn't know... He informed us that all of the frightening discoveries the participants made were all staged and prearranged by the film's producers. Matter of fact, he informed us that the last 15 minutes were not even filmed in Louisiana, but rather in California. All four participants were true actors (notice I didn't say good...). One of the participants is actually a special effects technician on ER.

What infuriates me about this film is that it proclaims everything is true. It feebly attempts to outdo The Blair Witch Project by claiming it's true whereas Blair Witch was a hoax. The amazing thing is that no one could have belief this film for an instant. Filled with dreadful acting and hilarious lines such as 'surround yourself with the white light' and 'I love the ghosts', The St. Francisville Experiment belongs at midnight movies everywhere so the crowd can properly heckle, boo, jeer and chant 'I love the ghosts!'

Talk about false advertising. True stories are not filmed with staged special effects that look as if the neighborhood Boy Scouts troop set up a haunted house. From the bug in the sandwich (ooh...scary...) to the annoying Madison, from the 'seance' which is nothing more than the foursome playing on an Oujia Board to the two mice being found under a bed, The St. Francisville Experiement is one embarrassing hoax of a movie. Lion's Gate would be wise to dump this thing into the nearest trash compactor or advertise it as it really should be:

'The St. Francisville Experiment: A comedic look at how not to make a movie'.


my friend made me watch this awful film.. ugh.. it was so stupid...

its about some black guy who gets a plane company and turns it into a stupid pimp thing

with snoop dog acting as pilot for god knows why.. this movie is trashing white people and having many racist stereotypical events making fun of

Asains white people and trying to make the movie seem like all black people are cool pimps and all white people a losers... and black people get all the girls blah blah blah and so forth..

i despise my friend for making me watch this movie.. i kept saying 'GOD TURN IT OFF!!' and he's like 'NO I BET SOMETHING FUNNY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN' we did end up finally turning it off half way through.. thank god...

i recommend this movie to people with very very poor taste in humor..


Maybe people do like having the devil around more than God. Maybe we like that safety net of a reason; making a mistake only to blame the devil for the pain and suffering in the world. There is so much hardship, spilling out into the masses, that it is difficult to not see the sadness on the faces of all you pass. Leland P. Fitzgerald understands all of this; he knows that maybe everything won't be OK, and maybe helping someone leave this Earth to avoid the pain their life has waiting for them is a risk he needs to take for someone he loves. Credit goes to screenwriter/director Matthew Ryan Hoge for creating a lyrical prose about two suburban families who have crossed paths in good times and bad. Just looking at the cast of almost all A and B list actors shows that the material really resonates with its audience. Emotions don't need to be worn on one's sleeve to exist. Sometimes all we want to do is end the suffering.

Ryan Gosling brings an understated performance to the table here that encompasses the inwardness of his character Leland's emotions. He is a very passionate and intelligent young man, cutting through the BS of life, knowing what he sees and accepting the worse with the better. The film is a catharsis for the souls of those affected by the horrific event of Leland killing his ex-girlfriend's mentally challenged brother. In the confused mind of this teen, he goes into the incident knowing full well what he was going to do, he was going to stop the pain that he sees everywhere, but most of all on the face of young Ryan Pollard. Almost immediately he realizes that he has made a mistake, that maybe playing God is not a job he has been put on Earth to do. Whether or not this is true will soon be put to debate as the murder begins a chain of events, which finally bring meaning to many people's lives as they wake up to the tangential fragility of life. This boy has opened their eyes to both sorrow and rebirth.

With haunting ballads sung by former Sunny Day Real Estate frontman Jeremy Enigk, the movie goes through a journey of small vignettes of two families' lives in the aftermath of tragedy. The acting is superb throughout with special mention to a few. For someone who plays the naïve lug in most films, Chris Klein actually does well with much the same material here, yet also with an evolution into a man of purpose. His aloofness is effective when utilized in the right part, similar to his success in Election, and I am interested to see if directors will be allow him to expand his talents and sink his teeth into something more substantial. Jena Malone is effective in much the same effect as well, playing the role of troubled youth as she has in Donnie Darko and Life as a House; Don Cheadle is a stalwart of professionalism giving us a different take on the compassionate therapist from the one he did in Manic; and Martin Donovan is brilliant as the grieving father trying to keep his wits together and eventually realizing he must keep his family from falling apart as well. Also, it is great seeing the beautiful Sherilyn Fenn in a small but important role.

When tragedy hits, people band together to get through it all. As Leland astutely points out at one point, you see men and women helping others out and hugging when they see the pain and suffering surrounding them, but after a couple of days everything goes back to normal. Cheadle's character extrapolates the optimistic viewpoint that at least we get a glimpse of people's true nature of wanting to help and be good to each other, only to be shot back at with the retort, 'well at least we do during tragedy.' Maybe we don't want to think we are good natured because it does make us feel we should be good all the time, and that when bad, must have in-turn meant to be so. By being flawed we allow ourselves to rebound and try again. Leland's mistake lets him see the love he had for those close to him as well as opening the eyes of others to wake up and not let their loved ones drift any further from them. One can't focus on the sadness of others when they must first come to grips with their own. Hoge has crafted a parable for this and a truly effective piece of film-making with hopefully many more to come.


The whole set-up of this contrived Disney family film (ad-exec gets his teenage daughter a horse because she 'wants one more than anything else in the world') is just an excuse to film the big climactic horse-show at the end. All the other ingredients (the ad campaign for the stomach pill, Kurt Russell as a potential boyfriend for the youngster, Lloyd Bochner as a potential rival for Dean Jones over the affections of Diane Baker) are shelved near the end simply to showcase the horse. Over half the picture is padding, and worse: it is whiny and obnoxious. The kid is the ninny-sort who cries on the couch with a dog in her arms, and as usual she gets her way. * from ****


I have always been a huge fan of 'Homicide: Life On The Street' so when I heard there was a reunion movie coming up, I couldn't wait.

Let me just say, I was not disappointed at all. It was one of the most powerful 2 hours of television I've ever seen. It was great to see everyone back again, but the biggest pleasure of all was to have Andre Braugher back, because the relationship between Pembleton and Bayliss was always the strongest part of an all-together great show.


A rather disappointing film. The club scenes were ok, but over done. The plot was thin and boring. It's only redeeming features were some of the characters. The Chemist and The DJ were pretty fun characters. Tim Curry's character was just bizarre and stupid.


Unless you are already familiar with the pop stars who star in this film, save yourself the time and stop reading this review after you've reached the end of the next sentence.

FORGET YOU EVER STUMBLED UPON THIS FILM AND GO WATCH SOMETHING ELSE.

But if you insist on reading, consider:

Lame vehicle for Japanese teen idol pretty-boys featuring nonsensical, convoluted 'plot' that drags out for an insufferable amount of time until you're ready to scream.

Nothing in this film makes sense. It's an endless series of people expressing various emotions, from joy to anger, from happiness to tragedy, FOR NO GOOD REASON. We can obviously see something incredibly 'dramatic' is happening, but we just don't GIVE A CRAP WHY 'cause there's no backstory.

By the time this film is over, you will be sick and tired of these stupid, lanky, girly stars' faces. You'll be revolted at having spent all this time watching them smile, sneer, cry, look mysterious, be 'serious,' and any other pointless expression they slap on their faces.

That some moron would ever go so far as to refer to this piece of insipid trash as being the 'soul' of any of its 'actors' should prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt what the trailer and countless adoring comments on this site will not tell you:

Only the 'converted,' mindless minions will like this film, the majority of them teenage girls with a pathological adoration for anything androgynous. Freud would have a field day.

Unless you're one of these mindless 'fans,' stay the hell away from this abomination.


The Waiting Womans Ward of a large lying-in hospital, with all its joys and sorrows, is the place where LIFE BEGINS.

This nearly forgotten drama is a fine little soap opera, replete with comedy and tragedy, all tied into the lives of the maternity staff and their patients. The frankness with which the subject matter is handled points up the movie's pre-Code status.

Marvelous Aline MacMahon, as the sympathetic head nurse, is the calm center of the film, the rock around which all the currents flow. Able to handle any crisis or emergency, she is the mothers' best, sometimes last, friend. Surrounding MacMahon is a bevy of excellent costars: Loretta Young as a convicted murderess released from prison long enough to give birth; Eric Linden as her frightened young husband; brassy Glenda Farrell as a dame who hates children; sweet Clara Blandick as a very mature mother in for her sixth birthing; Preston Foster & Hale Hamilton as thoughtful, compassionate doctors and Frank McHugh as a comically frantic father-to-be.

Movie mavens will recognize Bobs Watson as a wee tyke who wants to see the Stork; Paul Fix as a nervous husband who promises to behave like a `little soldier;' Gilbert Roland as a distraught Italian husband and Elizabeth Patterson as a snooty doctor's wife interested in adopting Farrell's son - all uncredited.

There are a few absurdities in the plot - some of the mothers are obviously much too old; Farrell becomes blatantly drunk in the Ward but none of the staff seem to notice; an obviously psychotic patient is able to wander around at will - but this really only enhances the quirky entertainment value of the film and keeps things from becoming too serious.


This film deals with the atrocity in Derry 30 years ago which is commonly known as Bloody Sunday.

The film is well researched, acted and directed. It is as close to the truth as we will get until the outcome of the Saville enquiry. The film puts the atrocity into context of the time. It also shows the savagery of the soldiers on the day of the atrocity. The disgraceful white-wash that was the Widgery Tribunal is also dealt with.

Overall, this is an excellent drama which is moving and shocking. When the Saville report comes out, watch this film again to see how close to the truth it is.


Well I too had heard read all the breathless reviews and comments about how this movie might deserve the Best Picture Oscar so I went to see it today. What a major disappointment! 1) If you read the other reviews you will learn from members of the U.S. military who served in Iraq how unlikely the events of this movie are. They mirrored my own thoughts; as the movie played I - a complete civilian - kept thinking to myself, 'say WHAT? there's no way that would happen like that..' 2) There's very little that actually happens in terms of plot. A new bomb disposal guy shows up to replace one who was killed (a death that isn't really clearly explained). The new guy gets an adrenaline rush from his work. His attitude puts others at risk. THAT'S IT! 3) This movie is nowhere near as suspenseful as claimed. If you want suspense try one of the Bourne movies. If you want to see a war movie that's emotionally powerful, try renting Go Tell The Spartans, which is about the Vietnam War, and stars Burt Lancaster (who told me PERSONALLY in a serendipitous supermarket encounter that it was a film he was immensely proud of and one he viewed as some of his finest work, and which he was still upset had been largely ignored in the wake of the over-hyped Apocalypse Now), or an old WWII black and white classic Sink The Bismark, which, especially for an English film, is unbelievably heart-wrenching. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON Hurt Locker.


My comment is limited generally to the first season, 1959-60.

This superb series was one of the first to be televised in color, and it was highly influential in persuading Americans that they had to buy a color television set, which was about $800 in 1959, the equivalent of more than $3,000 today. How many of us would pay that much for the privilege of watching a show transmitted by a cathode ray picture tube on a 17-inch screen? I was eleven when the series began, and I watched it from the beginning.

Watching it now, 50 years later, several things come to mind. First, many of the story lines involve the Comstock Lode and the heyday of silver mining, which dates to 1859. For 1859, the weapons and clothes are, for the most part, not authentic. (The haircuts are left out of the discussion.) That's basically a nitpick.

And, it would have been impossible for Ben to have arrived in the Lake Tahoe area in 1839 and to have amassed a 100-square mile ranch in the next twenty years. Pioneers were still trying to solve the Sierra Nevada problem as late as 1847, and the Gold Rush did not even begin until two years later.

Indians are not played by Native American actors. John Ford was using Native American actors in the 1920s. The Bonanza producers could have easily done so thirty years later. That is a major nitpick for me.

There are other time-line problems. In Season 1, Mark Twain appears, and he is depicted as a middle-aged man. Mark Twain was 24 years-old in 1859. The stories also vacillate between 1859-1860 (pre-Civil War) and what was more suitable for an 1880 time-frame. There are continuity problems, over and over.

It is somewhat off-putting, too, that there is so much killing in the first season. In time, the killing was reduced.

Many of the episodes take a socially liberal slant, which would be hard to believe, given the time-line, but give the writers credit for anticipating the seismic shifts in the Nation's attitudes beginning in the 1960s.

Having said all that, the acting is good, and I have come to conclude in my latter years that Adam's character was drawn better than any other's. I don't think Pernell Roberts ever got the credit he deserved. Also, Season 1 reinforces the fact that Dan Blocker (Hoss) was a good actor.

Many of the stories trace real historical events. The guest stars were interesting.

This was great family entertainment, and the series stands up very well by any measure.


This film was a big disappointment.

I take the opposite view of the critics. This is not a case of the material not being up to the level of the actors; here the actors (Bette Davis and James Cagney) are simply not up to the level of the material. Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert were every bit as big as Davis and Cagney, and look how It Happened One Night turned out - an all-time classic. With a very similar story, Davis proves that she has no talent for comedy (good thing for her that this is just about the only comedy she ever attempted!) Davis' one-note performance oozes petulance, but none of the nuances of Colbert's acting in It Happened One Night. Cagney, who was a great comedy actor, just seems out-of-sync with his costar, Davis. The script provides some decent lines and gags, but the delivery seems better suited to drama than comedy.

Part of the problem is the soundtrack, which, like the delivery of Davis and Cagney, seems more suitable to a light drama than a comedy.

Jack Carson, who played similar roles throughout his career, has more capably handled very similar material. In a fairly typical supporting role Eugene Palette delivers a respectable performance. In a slightly different role as an old west relic, Harry Davenport, is very good. But in one of his poorest performances, William Frawley is quite irritating. His character's constant references to fictional cops are a poor effort at irony.

I really love every one of these performers, and it is a shame that, as an ensemble they achieve no more chemistry and no better result than The Bride Came C.O.D.


I just saw this film in Austin Texas at the Austin Gay and Lesbian Film Festival and it was my festival favorite. The gymnast is a film NOT to be missed. It is an honest 'coming to terms' story about relationships, self discovery , growing older and having the courage to change and move forward. Not only is this a good story but the glorious aerialist performances by Dreya Weber and Addie Yungmee will take your breath away! See this film! It will be coming soon to a festival near you. This film deserved to be picked up right away by a major network or studio. I will certainly purchase this when it becomes available on DVD.


It must be a long time ago that I have seen such a bad movie. I have to say it is really hard to make a good and/or realistic movie about air disaster but this movie was such a waste of time and money. Also I think this is an unofficial way trying to get a bad reputation on Airbus. First, the cockpit look a lot like an Airbus cockpit, second you got a stick, third using computers to control rudders/elevators/aileron via 'fly by wire'. When I saw this movie I thought like the intention of the film was 'don't fly with computerized airplanes like Airbus, use Boeing instead they have a direct connection of steering and rudders.'

All I can say: Bad story, horrible acting (most of the actors), worst film trick ever...


Because of the depth of his character studies and complexity of story lines, James Joyce's works do not easily translate into film. Yet John Huston, in his last film before his death, achieved a perfect translation of Joyce's story. He received great support from his son, as writer, and daughter, as actress.


This movie is perfect for all the romantics in the world. John Ritter has never been better and has the best line in the movie! 'Sam' hits close to home, is lovely to look at and so much fun to play along with. Ben Gazzara was an excellent cast and easy to fall in love with. I'm sure I've met Arthur in my travels somewhere. All around, an excellent choice to pick up any evening.!:-)


i have to say that this was the worst film of priyadarshan(releasing alongside much better kyonki which was also his directorial venture) ,it contains no specific storyline and just focuses on body showing by debuting actresses and some silly comedy sequences. I think priyadarshan is becoming too much repetitive in his comedy flicks just like govinda and David dhavan had done in the past after giving some good entertainers they also went on to loose their audiences.So it will be good for him to concentrate more on script and try some variations in his direction.Give us more of herapheri's and malamal weekly's rather than giving duds like garam masala!


Why such a generic title? Santa Claus??? So bland and unpredictable. Movies before that tried to cash in on the holiday spirit, most notably 'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians', at least was entertaining to watch because of the campiness to it, and all the stock footage being used... for some reason, that seemed happy to me. But this movie just screws Christmas in the butt, and screws the joy of all the kids. Santa lives in space? His enemy is a devil named Pitch? Santa gets help from Merlin the Magician? How random is this!? Well, since it was made in Mexico then some of you might understand the way of how the film was made. I had to admit some of the effects were just wacky for the time. It was a all-out cluster of madness! Though, despite all the troubles with the movie, it still feels like a Christmas movie. Good conquers evil, and Christmas still plays a part of our hearts of every good girl or boy in the world, or possibly universe, thanks to Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.. apparently. So, I think you should give it a try, even if it is one of the worst holiday movies of all time... though it should put a smile on your face any day.


The tagline on the box hails, '100 TRAPPED PASSENGERS... 3,000 VENOMOUS VIPERS!' You almost have to admire that degree of 'no chance in hell we're ever going to deliver on this promise' bullshit. I could admire The Asylum's hucksterism more so if they made movies that, well, you know, were good or, at the very least, worth a damn. Haha, and it's what I like about theses movies. They are garbage. You put them in a toilet and then you flush. It worth the price if you are a fan of cheesy movies. It may become a cult classic among many fans. The gore scenes are effectives, there's not much I can say, it's a Z flick that parody the new movie with Samuel L. Jackson, hell, it may be better so who knows!


This comic book style film is funny, has nicely paced action and a great futuristic style to it. Writer Steven de Souza, who also wrote Commando, gives Arnie plenty of lines to dish out: 'Send me a copy,' after signing a contract and stabbing a pen into the lawyers back; 'What a pain in the neck,' after strangling subzero with barbed wire; 'He had to split,' after slicing his body between his legs; and finally, as Killian slams through a billboard bearing his own face, Arnie concludes, 'Now that hit the spot.' Funnily enough, bears some similarities total recall, another sci-fi flick starring Schwarzenegger.


This movie is just a lot of fun. I've seen it a couple of times, but it always has something funny that I remember. The 'duckies and bunnies' car scene is one of my favorites, and I still quote Morone's versions of certain words!

There are so many running jokes, that it's amazing. But I love Michael Keaton anyhow!


This is a quite slow paced movie, slowly building the story of an ex stripper who begins a new family life with a complete stranger. The viewer slowly feels that there's something wrong here ...

I really loved this movie even though it leaves a slight bitter taste in the end. It is clever, well paced and very well acted. Both Philippe Toretton and Emmannuelle Seigner are deeply into their characters.

The little son 'pierrot' is also very touching.

A thriller which does not seem like one. A very unconventional movie, very particular atmosphere throughout the whole movie though you might feel awkward a few times with a couple of scenes.

i'll give it a 8/10 !!


This movie is not only boring, it is also really badly done. The graphics are so bad, they are not even second rate - they are dreadful. The characters do not show any facial expresssions, the voice acting is empty and without any soul, and the plot absolutely lacks .... well... anything and everything. My 5 year old likes it - but thinks it's a bit boring. I agree with him.


Barbra Streisand in 1964 was still a curiosity, and probably raised more than a few industry eyebrows when CBS signed her to 10-year, $5 million television deal (nothing these days). But more important than that, Barbra and her manager insisted on creative control--and got it. She had this special filmed her way, and for the most part her vision was by turns clever, canny, and incredible. Opening Act I with the title song (not written specifically for her), Streisand races through a classy cast of songs linked with 'I'm Late' (from 'Alice in Wonderland'!--she even keeps in the line about fuzzy ears and whiskers and 'too much time to shave'!); this is a totally charming, if not bizarre, selection--and enjoy it because it didn't make the TWO soundtrack albums released. She slows down for 'Make Believe' (which gets perhaps too slow), but the dramatic 'How Does the Wine Taste?' is amazing. 'A Kid Again' is cute (with Streisand looking tiny in a huge chair--is that where Lily Tomlin got the idea?), as is 'Sweet Zoo' ('I'm an alligator--crocodile??--no, alligator!'). 'Where is the Wonder' is very cool and elegant, and her 'People' number, surrounded by an orchestra who tap for her at the song's close, is stunning. Act II is set in New York City's Bergdof Goodman, with Streisand acting kooky in high fashion get-ups (when she playfully stomps on the mink, the audience watching the tape actually gasps). Act III, before a studio audience (made up of lucky fan club devotees), begins with a powerful version of 'When the Sun Comes Out' (Streisand actually looks out of breath at the dramatic close), followed by 'Why Did I Choose You?' (probably her best early song), a too-quick 'Lover, Come Back to Me' (where she's ultimately drowned out by the orchestra), and a 'Funny Girl' medley. The finale, 'Happy Days are Here Again', which reportedly took 12 takes, closes the hour in amazing fashion. Sponsored by Chemstrand (a fiber-making company!), this black-and-white gem moves fast, with jazzy set-ups, terrific cinematography, kicky sets and costumes. They really don't make 'em like this anymore--and that pertains to the special and to La Streisand.