Starting with a 'My Name is Joe' like scene in Alcoholics Anonymous tBM careers into a mad spiral of infidelity, double standards and clandestine affairs. but what do you expect from a family of lawyers?

A genuinely funny film, with some of the most outrageous characters since The Birdcage, plot and subplot are intertwined with surreal scenes of decadent Parisian life (ever been to a wedding reception in the gents toilet where the brides grandmother and her deranged girlfriend are smoking dope and cracking blue jokes? No, me either!) leading to a final scene of almost Arcadian symbolism.

Excellent.


No matter what other people have said you can't review this movie without comparing it to the original, if it existed on it's own it would be a 2-3 out of 5 film but it is a remake of a 4-5 out of 5 film and so has standards to live up to and we need to see if it reached those standards. If the film was a re-working or, as in Planet of the Apes, a re-imagining of the original you would be able to look at the film in it's own right, only referencing the original. Imagine it this way, if someone took the model in the 'Mona Lisa', posed her in a different way, and painted her you could only compare the framing,concept etc to the original but if someone just repainted her in the position of the original you would have to compare it totally.

That said this film doesn't just fail to be as good as the original it fails spectacularly, like it or not the original was one of the best movies ever made, the shower scene will never be forgotten, the remake was meant to be a celebration of Hitchcock but ended up actually degrading him and his master work.

The degrading aspects of this picture were Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. It's nothing to do with wether they acted better or not it's that the relationship between Norman and Marion in the original was really quite innocent, Norman didn't really understand sex, he had hardly any contact with the outside world and when he meets beautiful Marion and watches her change you feel that he is partly doing it from fascination as he doesn't really understand sex and his attraction to her,this makes Norman sympathetic and almost an anti-hero, you are on his side because he doesn't fully understand the world and is constantly fighting with himself and his 'Mother'. In the remake that whole dynamic is gone, I must admit to Janet Leigh not being my type but she is very attractive and you can see that, Anne Heche is really unattractive and so Norman finding 'her' Marion attractive is unbelievable if you add that to Vince Vaughn's Norman masturbating whilst looking at her and you get a Norman that is just waiting for a chance to jack off at any naked woman no matter what she looks like, who you feel absolutely no sympathy for, they further destroy Norman's innocent nature by putting the porno mags in his room. It destroys a character that we have come to like and feel sorry for, it's like re-making 'It's a wonderful life' and having the main character a pimp, totally degrading.

The only other character that I had problems with was Rita Wilson as Caroline, Marion's workmate. In the original when Pat Hitchcock says the line 'he must have noticed my wedding ring' it elicits a response of laughter as she is absolutely kidding herself, when Rita says it it just seems plausible as there really isn't any other reason why any man would flirt with Anne Heche over her.

I'll admit that I am very biased, the original 'Psycho' is my favorite film of all time, had the film been a reworking, with a different angle, then you could have turned these characters on their heads and it would have been perfectly acceptable.

Hitch famously thaught the film would be too gory in colour and made it in black and white to lessen it. This also made the film more atmospheric and frightening in it's own way and it gave it a beauty that could never be captured in colour and it is a sad statement about how movies are de-sensetising the public that people have said how the shower scene was more frightening in colour. (n.b before people think 'he can't spell' remember I'm from England and we spell it colour)

A remake should be just that, re made, this is a forgery, a complete copy and a very bad one at that. I could go on comparing but there is no point, almost everything is superior in the original. The only one thing that is better is the performance of Viggo Mortensen as Sam Loomis, John Gavin was very flat in the original (Hitch called him 'The Stiff' behind his back) and Mortensen gives a more believable if less likeable performance. William H. Macy and Julianne Moore are the only other actors that hold up to the originals.

Overall a movie that should be labeled 'Expensive Embarrassing Failed Experiment. Only view if comparing to original or if original is unknown to you. But view original too' The movie would have got a 3 out of 5 if it were original or a reworking but as it is 0.5 out of 5 (for Macy, Moore and Mortensen)


Most movies I can sit through easily, even if I do not particularly like the movie. I am the type of person who recognizes great films even if I do not like the genre. This is the first movie I could not stand to watch. Cat in the Hat is the worst movie I have ever seen--and I've seen a lot of movies. The acting is okay (Myers is good as the cat, it's just that he is REALLY annoying). The silly songs the cat sings were boring and monotonous, even for the children in the audience. The plot drags on and on, and viewers must suffer through poor dialogue. The 'witty' parental remarks are disgusting, not funny (I remember some awful comment about a garden hoe being compared to, well, a type of person people call a 'ho'). Even though the movie is really short, it seemed to last FOREVER. Do not waste your time. I know small kids who hated this movie. If children can't stand it, I do not know how any adults can. I would like to fume more about this film but I do not even feel like wasting anymore time writing this review about it. I HATED IT! So, in summary, do not spend 90 minutes of your life watching this! See a GOOD movie!

1/10 stars--the lowest review I have ever given a movie.


Powers Boothe turns in a stellar performance as 1970's cult figure Jim Jones of the Peoples Temple. Jones physical likeness to Jones is uncanny and the story is acted out chillingly. The movie keeps you riveted and is a must see for anyone. check it out.


Another of the endless amount of cookie-cutter 'Kickboxers Fight to the Death for the Amusement of Wealthy Scumbags' films that there were so many of in the 90s... Y'know, the ones created by taking the words 'Death', 'Blood' and 'Steel' and the words 'Ring', 'Fight', 'Match' and 'Cage' and putting them in a random generator! Saying that though, Death Match is a pretty good entry in the over-used genre, thanks to its exciting fight scenes and the surprisingly good acting of its kickboxer cast.

The story concerns two buddies - ex-Kickboxing World Champion John Larson (played by pug-faced Middleweight Kickboxing Champ Ian Jacklin, probably previously best known for his awful performance as the main villain in Ring of Fire 2) and Nick Wallace (Nick Hill, a likable guy probably best known for the role of street-fighter Sergio in Bloodsport 2) who work the L.A. docks loading crates onto ships. One discovery of a boxful of guns and a brief fight later, our two heroes are jobless and propping up an L.A. bar. Sensible John Larson decides to head North and look for a job; headstrong Nick Wallace has heard of a guy paying good money for fighters to fight in private kickboxing matches. 'Why should things change?' says John, ' If you need me, i'll be there.' Predictably enough, it isn't long before Nick has gone missing and his good friend is fighting in the deadly 'ring of death' trying to find a lead to his missing buddy.

Sure enough, there are no prizes for originality here, but like i said before, this films strength lies in its action, its cast of real-life fighters and the fairly good performances it manages to wring from them. Ian Jacklin in particular surprised me. Previously i'd just seen him as the bad guy in Ring of Fire 2 and in bit-parts in tripe like The Steel Ring, and i've always been quite amused at how bad an actor he is (good fighter though!). But in Death Match, he's pretty good! Given a decent script and a haircut, he proves himself to be quite the charismatic leading man! And his friendship with Nick is very well portrayed. Jacklin and Hill have a nice chemistry and you really believe these two characters care for each other. Enough for one of them to lose a job, travel halfway across the country and risk death to save the other - I wish i had a friend like that!

It was also nice to see Matthias Hues as a villainous henchman with a little more depth than we're used to seeing from his many 'villainous henchman' roles. However don't be fooled into thinking he's the star just because he's on the video cover (with, it seems, his head stuck on the body of Michael Bernardo from the cover of Shootfighter) - he is good while he's on screen, but he isn't on much..

On the negative side, the film is pretty slow when there's no fighting going on, with lots of unnecessary scenes (whats with gangster Jimmie Fiorello's pointless story about his grandfather??), and the end fight is disappointingly short, but on the whole i enjoyed it! Plenty of fights, most of them good. Isn't that all we martial arts really need? And of course eye-candy, here in the lovely form of the very pretty Renee Ammann. All in all, a pretty entertaining kickboxing movie.


Hey people, what's up. It's me man, the one and only Mike 'Sonny Sakura KIller' Kelly. You know........ you can't really write a review on the script of Sakura, cause there we didn't have one. As far as I know, the story was just made up as we went along. I had the best time of my life making that film, and got so much stank that I ran out of Jism...........fun times. So glad that you all enjoyed the film. I really didn't get to do the fights that I had envisioned. Every time I set up some moves, the fight director kept changing them. Still, I had a blast and met some really great people. Especially the purple female Ninja who has seem to fall of the film-making scene.


It was pointed out in a now deleted post from another IMDb user that anyone who might see 'The Medusa Touch' should be warned about a scene that's eerily reminiscent of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in NYC. But I hope anyone reading this will consider this warning. Despite an interesting pedigree (producer Elliott Kastner produced 'Harper' and 'The Long Goodbye'; co-producer Arnon Milchan co-produced the Oscar-nominated 'L.A. Confidential' and screenwriter John Briley won an Oscar for 'Gandhi') and an international cast, I found 'The Medusa Touch' to be a heavy-handed, unintentional laugh riot. It was a poorly directed, horribly written and acted mess. It tried to capitalize on the 70s telekinetic thrillers genre. The movie fails on many counts. Please consider 'Carrie' and the underrated 'The Fury' (both directed by Brian DePalma). They were two entertaining and exciting thrillers that dealt with the same subject matter.


'Against All Flags' is every bit the classic swashbuckler. It has all the elements the adventure fan could hope for and more for in this one, the damsel in distress is, well, not really in distress. As Spitfire Stevens, Maureen O'Hara is at her athletic best, running her foes through in defiance of the social norms of the period. Anthony Quinn rounds out the top three billed actors as the ruthless Captain Roc Brasiliano and proves to be a wily and capable nemesis for Brian Hawke (Flynn). For the classic adventure fan, 'Against All Flags' is a must-see. While it may not be in quite the same league as some of Errol Flynn's earlier work (Captain Blood and The Sea Hawk, for instance), it is still a greatly entertaining romp.


OK, I would give this a 1, but I'm gonna give it a two because I laughed while watching this film...First of all, I can make a much better movie than this one...in a week...The special effects made this film look like a joke. One shouldn't make such films with horrible special effects because then people won't take it seriously. The acting and direction was also horrible. The screenplay had many plot holes and the whole film wasn't believable at all. This has to be the worst Indian film ever. The songs were also bad. The acting was bad and artificial. Need I say more. Don't watch this movie unless you are curious to see how bad it is. That's why I watched it. I am going into film and I wanted to see how bad a bad film can get. Trust me, I watched one of the worst films in history if not THE worst film.


This is another of John Travolta's 'come back' movies, and if he continues on with characters and movies like this one, his come back will take hold.

This is so sweet...sickeningly so if you're not into the romance comedy scene. If you are, this is one innovative RomCom. Every performance (including that of Skippy the Dog) was beautiful, without much more than a trace of the irreverence found in 'Dogma.' (Although, as movies go, I loved Dogma!)

Travolta is not nearly as brash in his performance as the previews would lead you to believe. He is an angel and if you consider yourself to be well read, then you understand that angels were far from perfect. You will not, therefore, be insulted by this film. Even those who are overly sensitive to such things shouldn't be insulted by this work, as Nora went to great lengths to see to it that it was the least abrasive as possible, given the subject matter.

I love this, and love it more each time I watch it. It's beautiful and sweet, engaging, and endearing.

It rates a 7.3/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Aaliyah blows all the female cast members out of the water, including the official love interest Marguerite Moreau.

I would have loved to see this movie play out as Akasha's power trip. Aaliyah is simply electrifying whenever she is on the screen. She does sensual, beautiful and menacing to the power of 10. Watching her take on a bar full of vampires is a sight to behold.

Lena Olin is cast in the ungrateful role of 'the older woman', which is hugely unjustified. She looks fantastic and at 46 (according to the IMDb) still looks stunning.

The story unfortunately is very limited plot wise, we've seen it all before, etc.

The most heart wrenching is Akasha's death scene, especially keeping in mind what happened to Aaliyah after filming.

All in all, a remarkable vampire movie.


In my personal opinion i think this is the greatest video game ever created! I first played this game at my friends house years ago, the very next day I went out and got my own. Since that day close to seven years ago I have not stopped playing it. I can't help it I just can't get bored of it. I've been addicted to other games on other, much newer systems but I keep coming back for more Goldeneye. Every mission is amazingly fun and challenging, the multi-player mode was like none other. I hope you can be as fortunate as I was to have played four player multi-player mode because I had brothers and friends who would get together and play this game all the time.


No ,I'm not kidding. If they ever propose a movie idea, they should be kicked out of the studio. I'm serious. Their movies are exactly the same in every one, and they only consist of traveling to foreign locations, having a problem which they easily resolve, hoping to be popular, and getting new boyfriends. Think about it. If you have ever seen a movie starring them with a different plot, contact me and tell me its name. These 'movies' are poor excuses to be on TV and go to other countries. There is a reason that the movies never go to theaters. I'm sure that when they were really young and made some O.K. movies, some studio boss bought all their rights for 15 years, or something, so that now that they're, what, 17, they can make movies in other countries whenever they want using the studio's money. Let me advise you, STAY AWAY FROM MARY-KATE AND ASHLEY! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!


When i first saw this show advertised to be on Australian TV back in the late 90's i ignored it thinking it was just capitalizing on the Kevin Costner movie 'Bodyguard'. But then i caught an episode and i wish i had watched it from the start. The partnership between Sean Pertwee and Louise Lombard was so well acted and the structure of each episode was extremely entertaining. It wasn't an overblown TV show that you can tell spent most of its energy in making things explode so that they could put that clip in the commercial to lure audiences and then not deliver on any other level. The show delved into the lives of the two main characters and thats what made it interesting. The stories for each episode where also well written with interesting guest stars who were good actors. And of course there was a lot of action and intrigue which is always good. But what was great was that there was humour, and it flowed naturally from the characters, it didn't appear contrived. It was British but in a good way, and if this show was made in America it would no doubt be on DVD by now. I don't know why British TV production companies are not interested in releasing this show on DVD. It was a great show and deserves a DVD release.


good lord! (and that coming from an atheist), this 'movie' is bad !

much has already been said by the reviewers before (the ones who rated this piece 3 and below) to which I fully agree, I just like to add a few things:

among the three guys who had to eat their own digestive end products, got chopped up by an Axe, raped by a broomstick, had their balls blown away - the ex-boyfriend suffers the worst torture while having to listen to the girl's endless and pointless babble at the kitchen table (as do we, but at least we have the mercy of the mute button).

had the director cut out the point- and endless graveyard and inverted scenes, our suffering would have been over after 30 minutes.

the only things that made this flick at least somewhat bearable are Emily Haack's tits (one point).

forget it. don't buy it. don't waste your time. and your sanity. my brain is so fried after watching this I feel the urgent need to watch (and suffer?) 'Scrapbook' right now.


It's nice to see a romantic comedy that does not have the prissy man lead, this has solid acting from both male leads and also from the female lead and although the story is a little long and a little cliché you cant help but like it.

I think the story was a little rushed at the end, but extending that would have made the story even longer. Superior to other romantic comedies such as 100 days with Mr arrogant, and possibly tied with my tutor friend.

It would make an interesting introduction to Korean cinema, not as great as My sassy girl, but still good.


Be very afraid of anyone who likes this film. They probably inhaled too many paint chips as a child. Its so awful I refuse to relive a plot. O yeah, there wasn't one! This movie is a true definition of what Hollywood creates for people who don't want to think at a theatre. Do the bad guys win? Do the good guys win? Who cares!


TV version of 'Twister' springs a few leaks but manages to remain watchable. My sister bought this at a Wal-Mart a few years back when it was released, I saw it back then and thought it was okay. Later 'Twister' with Bill Pullman and Helen Hunt comes out (or was it before? I think it was '97) and did a better job overall. But 'Twister' was more silly fun; this is realistic with a message. It all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study?

John Schneider and Devon Sawa (he's the reason my sister bought it) star, and Devon Sawa, who went on to 'Wild America,' 'Final Destination' and 'Slackers' got his big break here. So in a way, I was one of the first people to see him really take off. I don't know if it's an honor or a shame, I haven't seen how he acts in recent films.

'Night of the Twisters' all depends on personal taste, like I said, it all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study. 'Night of the Twister' has the latter. So you decide.

I give it a 2.5/5...

- John Ulmer


'Maximum Risk' is a step sideways for Van Damme and just more of the uninspired B-movie action stuff we've come to expect from films featuring the macho Belgian martial artist. The flick has gaping plots holes, goofs galore, a messy conglomerated plot, and a gorgeous Henstridge who spends most of her time looking like she's waiting for a cue. 'Maximum Risk' doesn't distinguish itself in any way and will likely not have much appeal beyond the usual young male audiences. (C-)


How this film could miss so many of the fascinating, complex and mysterious aspects of the original story or the original movie is truly remarkable. An unbelievably thin and unengaging plot, ankle-deep characterisation/motivation and a really awful soundtrack (replacing tension with vast swathes of noise, replacing the arcane musical references of the original for digitised crashes and roars. Then there are the specific references to the original which are merely 'plastered on' over the cracks... Dreadful. In a world where gormless, brain-dead Amerikan remakes of The Italian Job (a tear appears), Get Carter (sobs uncontrollably) and Alfie have desecrated our screens recently, this one takes the proverbial biscuit. Execrable nonsense. How Ellen Burstyn ever got involved is a wonder... Rubbish.


I suppose that today this film has relevance because it was an early Sofia Loren film. She was 19 years old when the film was made in 1953.

I viewed this film because I wanted to see some of Sofia Loren's early work. I was surprised when she came on camera having had her skin bronzed over in brown makeup to resemble an Ethiopian princess. Surely, today, this would have been viewed as a slur and to be avoided in movie making. It actually became annoying watching Ms. Loren in skin color paint throughout the film.

Yes, this film would have been better made if the real opera singers had made this movie. Then, the singing and the actual facial gestures of the real artists would have been apparent. I discount the comments by others about whether the real opera singers are older and heavier in weight.

As beautiful as Ms. Loren was at age 19 and still is today, the film would have been better received as though it were being performed on the stage. After all, we don't see beautiful young people on stage with 'old opera singers' back stage singing from behind the curtain! Do not discount the success of using heavy-weight opera singers. One only has to refer to the most artistically produced television commercial for the J. G. Wentworth Company with the opera singers on stage singing so professionally the praises of the company's product. This is one of the best and entertaining TV commercials produced to date.

The quality of the movie print also makes this production of a somewhat lesser quality. The color ink has faded much and that can not be helped.

To improve this film on DVD the production company should add English language subtitles so that we, who do not speak Italian, can know what the lyrics are saying. It would help the story and teach it more than the narrator giving 30 seconds of introduction to the scenes.

Watch this film not because of the story of Aida nor the fact that this is an opera. Aside from Ms. Sofia Loren none of her co-actors are known nor remembered by this writer. Instead, watch this movie if you are a fan of Ms. Loren and wish to see her at age 19 -- no matter what the production is.

Larry from Illinois


The first point that calls the attention in 'For Ever Mozart' is the absence of a plot summary in IMDb. The explanation is simple since there is no story, screenplay, plot or whatever might recall the minimum structure of a movie. Jean-Luc Godard is one of the most overrated and pretentious directors of the cinema industry and this pointless crap is among his most hermetic films. I believe that neither himself has understood what is this story about; but there are intellectuals that elucubrate to justify or explain this messy movie, and it is funny to read their reviews.

My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): 'Para Sempre Mozart' ('Forever Mozart')


I loved October Sky. The thing I loved most had to be the music. It worked two ways: in the first hour of the film, it gives the viewer a time-frame. This is done by playing songs from the late Fifties. In the second hour, an instrumental score takes over. The music now fits the mood of the film perfectly.

I did not only enjoy the music, I also quite enjoyed the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Homer Hickam was especially a surprise for me. He gave off a first-class performance, as did Chris Owen (Quentin) and Chris Cooper (John Hickam).

I've seen this movie about escaping the life already laid out for you twice now, and both times I thoroughly enjoyed myself.


The photography and editing of the movie is exceptional for the time period. Eisenstein builds upon each scene of the movie leading to the the sailor's revolt and the massacre at the town. As much as the movie is a high point in the cinema, it is also an example of SZocialist Realism. by 1925 the Soviet government actively used the arts, including film, as a means to spread the message of the revolution. Eisensteins portrayal of the revolt on the Battleship Potempkin offers the viewer insight into the message of the Soviet elite. Marxist theory and perspectives of class struggle are demonstrated as the sailors who represent the oppressed workers and the officers who represent the elite of society. Much of the film demonstrates the communist party message and how film was used as a tool of propaganda.


A great opportunity for and Indy director to make an interesting film about a rock musician on the brink of stardom. It could have been a decent film if it would have dealt with John Livien's traumatic past and how it is torturing his psyche. Instead, it is a ridiculous attempt to identify John Livien's life with John Lennon's. John Livien's suicida mother's hero was John Lennon and she wished for him to become as powerful and prolific as Lennon himself. Instead of focusing on John Lennon's musical brilliance, and his wonderful ability to bare himself for others to learn something about their own life, it showed Lennon's legacy to be that of a confused, drug addicted soul, who should looked upon as a God instead a man. I am a huge John Lennon fan and this movie reminded me of another 'crazy' person obsessed with Lennon, Lennon's killer , Mark David Chapman. Lennon was a man who was brutally murdered by someone else who had an identity crisis with Lennon. Do we need to be reminded of that? John Lennon gave so much to the world with his music and honesty and I was repulsed to see another disturbed person, as the main character in this movie obsessed by Lennon, and not show his beautiful contributions to the world. Yoko Ono graciously honored John Lennon's memory,by making the memorial in Central Park to give his fans a chance to pay their respects, and remember John. Instead the director of this movie chose to use that site to have the killer attempt to commit suicide. I found this so disturbing and disrespectful to Lennon's memory. He was a man of peace who died a brutal senseless death, and to see such violence near this site felt like a revisiting a terrible wound for any Lennon fan. It ruined the movie completely for me . It could have been a decent movie, but it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Let John Lennon, and his family rest in peace and not be reminded of his vicious murder by this irresponsible movie.


This was talked about to death by the critics when it honestly isn't that great. Sure, 'CHAOS' and 'INSIDE MAN' are literally the same movie, just with variations in suspense. But I found 'CHAOS' more enjoyable because it was fast paced kinda like the silly film 'Swordfish.' The reason this film is more popular is because this got released in the States and 'Chaos' was aired all around the world at film festivals and foreign theaters, but has yet to find a distributor in the U.K. and U.S.A.

It's true that this film makes lots of tributes to classic films like DOG DAY AFTERNOON and other Spike Lee films, but that doesn't mean that it is a pleasant film to watch.

Watch it if nothing else is on T.V., but you'll probably get bored with after awhile.


There is no greater disservice to do to history than to misrepresent it. This takes the easiest and most shallow route, simply portraying him as a monster. Only showing his negative sides, and exaggerating them. 'Those who are ignorant of the past doom us to repeat it'. He was a human being. That may prove tough to some people to accept, but an important part of life is facing that which we don't want to. Rather than demonizing the man, we ought to try to understand him. Otherwise, we stand little chance of preventing anyone similar in the future, or possibly even the present, from succeeding at anything of remotely comparable scope, as far as damage and misery goes. Hate him and what he did, don't make him into something mythical, intentionally or otherwise. Frankly, far too much of this mini-series could play 'dumb dumb *duuum*!' after or during scenes. The whole thing nods, nudges and winks at the audience, with a clear message of 'was this guy evil or what', incorporating every single bad trait(as well as making up several that go directly against who and what he was), letting them appear more or less out of nowhere, and having them be constant throughout his life, not something he came to believe or claimed to. This should never be used to educate. Use Der Untergang(Downfall, in English), and maybe point out the few inaccuracies of that, instead. This, this is disrespectful to the actual events that took place, and to any and all survivors, not to mention those who died. The cinematic quality? Top-notch. It's well-done, through and through, excellent production values, a solid arc to the well-told plot, what characterization does occur is strong and credible, dialog and script are great, all acting performances are masterful(Carlyle looks and behaves the role... as it was written... perfectly), the music is well-composed, cinematography and editing are flawless and creative, and this is definitely dramatic, entertaining and riveting. They get dates and many occurrences, and do them justice. If I had been offered to work on this, and did not feel I could be objective enough to have Hitler appear as a fully fleshed-out person, I would have declined, citing that as the reason. I don't blame anyone for loathing him. How can you forgive what he did, and are we sure that we should? That is not what I am suggesting. Finally, let me point out that, as I write this, we are in a world-wide economic crisis that has lasted for about two years, and that is not terribly dissimilar to the stock market crash of 1929. The two reasons it hasn't led to a depression of the new millennium are as follows: governments are giving money to the banks to keep the market going, and the majority of the countries is now friendly towards one another. Apart from that, the lesson hadn't been learned. Hopefully, it has now. Back to this... my suggestion? Read a book, non-fiction, dealing with the subject. There are plenty of informative, smart ones. The DVD holds a trailer. I recommend this only to those who know better, and vehemently urge anyone who has watched it, to seek out the truth. 8/10


Charles Bronson continued his 80's slump with what could possibly be his worst movie of the decade, if not ever. In it he plays a detective who goes to great lengths to track down a pimp who has abducted an Asian girl and is currently selling her to the highest bidder. It's a shameful attempt at action and is quite possibly the most depressing movie ever made. A lot of people consider the Death Wish sequels to be Bronson's worst movies. The Death Wish sequels weren't great movies but were in most cases competently made and very watchable. Kinjite however is an utterly dull thriller which is punctuated by mean spirited racism and child molestation. It really is a rephrensible film and all of it is made worse by the fact that it tries to preach a 'Law and Justice' mentality that is too overwrought to really say anything. Indeed the movie begins with underage sex being interrupted with Bronson then anally raping the pedophile with a dildo. The Chicago theater I watched this in just gasped at the awkwardness of this scene, only to gasp at the awkwardness of the pimp raping the girl in this film. It has no point other than to exploit and really the movie wasn't well written enough to rise above the exploitation level and deliver something that would work. Bronson seems more into things but clearly this is far too repugnant to save. I want to point out that I think Charles Bronson is the coolest actor ever but this effort is ultimately his worst. The action sequences are poor also.

1/2* out of 4-(Awful)


The Fanglys is set in a small Texan town called Layton on the eve of Halloween as the townspeople treat it like the second coming of Christ or something, I mean Halloween isn't that important is it? Anyway, Sheriff Pete (Burton Gilliam) has been called out to yet another murder as local boy Ned (co-associate producer John William Galt) has discovered a body in the local woods. Could it be the Fang Lady (Justin Hamilton)? The central character involved in a local legend about a witch who kills teenagers, who knows? Being the fun sort of guy he is Mark (asisstant director & producer Robert Harvey) convinces his missus Kelly (Laurie Reeves) to ride out to a cemetery that his mate Steven (Josh Gobin) found the night before for a Halloween party. The idea of spending the night in a cemetery in the middle of the woods obviously appeals to Kelly & she agrees, along with Steven & a girl he picked up named Camille (Natalie Woods) & their nerdy friend Jerry (Tim Boswell) they all set out for a night of fun, well as much fun as you can expect to have in an isolated cemetery. However they soon discover that the legend of the Fang Lady is far from the bedtime story many make out...

Edited, executive produced, written & directed by Christopher Abram The Fanglys is a pretty rubbish attempt at a horror film. The script is very predictable, dull & doesn't deliver any sort of entertainment value whatsoever, in the right hands & with a decent budget The Fanglys could have been an effective horror film but as it is it isn't. It moves along at a fair pace but the on-screen 'action' is so poor that it doesn't matter, I don't quite know what else to say other than The Fanglys is a really bad film & I can't see anyone getting any sort of enjoyment out of it. The dialogue is basic, the character's are clichéd & lifeless while as a whole the film seems a lot longer than the 90 minutes running time. There are a few lame attempts at humour which don't sit that well along side the horror elements & what was that retard keeping in that cage? I'd imagine the budget didn't allow the filmmakers to show it. Oh, if you want to know what happens to Jerry at the end then you'll have too keep watching past the end credits as the lame truth is revealed, assuming you can actually make it that far of course (believe me it takes some doing).

Director Abram doesn't do anything special. Abram thinks bathing scenes in neon light is stylish, I can tell him that it isn't when your film is supposed to be set in the woods. There's no atmosphere, scares, tension, excitement or any of the elements that makes a good horror film good. Forget about decent gore, there's a bit when someone eats some skin off an arm & a pitchfork stuck through someones throat.

Apparently The Fanglys had a filming budget of $2,837 which makes it one of the lowest budget films ever to have a commercial release, & to be brutally honest it shows. What about the retarded guy & his false joke shop teeth that look ridiculous? The terrible special effects, the camcorder cinematography & the terrible acting from everyone involved that makes it even more of a pain to sit through.

The Fanglys is straight-to-video crap, it has no redeeming features whatsoever & it's low IMDb user rating score is fully justified, it's one of those films that within half an hour I was looking at the clock & wishing the thing would just finish.


ROCK STAR is a well-told Hollywood-style rendition of the tale based on fact actually on how Ripper became Rob Halford's replacement for Judas Priest. Mark Wahlberg poured on his likable boy-ish charm and performed with believable admirably, something he has been known to do since the release of BOOGIE NIGHTS.

Stephen Herek, no stranger to musically-themed movies, takes the audience through the wonders of the breakneck lifestyle of an extinct species, the Hair-Metal Rock God. Wahlberg's 'Izzy' acts as the film's host plays the everyman who gets to see his wish come true. His likable character quickly wins over the heart of the viewer, who wants to see him succeed and gets the chance to give him the Metal 'goat horn' hand-sign several times over.

The only real complaint with the story is that the supporting cast, namely the other members of the band, were not fleshed out, or even introduced, properly. More interaction with these life-long Rock musicians would have amplified and solidified Izzy's new surroundings.

Naturally, ROCK STAR is filled with great music. Rabin's score, the Steel Dragon's original work and plenty of 80's-style Metal hits makes this soundtrack a must-have! Let's all hope that films like ROCK STAR not only give a credibility to a style of music that helped define a generation but also spark a very-needed revival.


I really enjoyed the reunion a lot! I would have rated it a 10 if they had had 'Hassie' and 'Little Luke'. There wasn't even a mention of where they are today or why they didn't participate in the reunion. They were very popular characters and I think it was a mistake not to give an explanation about their lack of appearance.

Anyway, I was glad that TNN ran the series again! I had been looking for episodes for years and what a joy to be able to tape the whole series (I may have missed a few episodes). Jenny Hanahan


A hilarious Action comedy in which Damian Szifron takes into the lives of Díaz, a cop whose wife has cheated on him. He is living in a hotel feeling guilty about his wife's unfaithfulness, falling into depression he stops caring, running red lights just for fun, feeling sorry for himself. And Silberman, a Jewish shrink on probation, a leftist liberal who does not trust cops at all. He is told to accompany Díaz in his daily duties, unable to refuse due to the terms of his probation. Soon the situation reverts when Silberman himself finds out his wife is cheating on him, and ends up being comforted by the very person he was supposed to help, a person he did not trust at all in the beginning. A nuclear conspiracy, car thieves, international spies, a hysterical wife. Weird characters in a delightful comedy about friendship and heroism.


I f you thought Sam Mendes' first film, the much heralded American BEAUTY was a movie with style to spare, wait until you see his highly anticipated second effort, the unrelentingly grim 30's gangster melodrama ROAD TO PERDITION. Some critics have hailed this new movie as a worthy successor to THE GODFATHER, a rash judgment made by several reviewers taken with Mr. Mendes' extraordinary technical prowess. If the mechanics of movie making are what make a picture great, then yes, ROAD TO PERDITION is a distant cousin to THE GODFATHER in terms of what it achieves in cinematography, editing, music scoring and sound. What it doesn't have is a resonance that all great stories and some very rare movies have that stay with the viewer long after the experience of reading or seeing it is over. As with American BEAUTY, there is a cold, distancing feel to this movie, despite some very tense scenes involving paternal love, loyalty and betrayal.

This story of a hit man (Tom Hanks) and his relationship to a surrogate father - figure who is also his boss, an elderly Irish mob leader (Paul Newman) , seems to have been culled from innumerable gangster movies of years past. The father /son motif that hangs over this picture is so heavy handed in its treatment that there is not much room for spontaneity ; the entire enterprise has been very carefully wrought , and nearly all the dialog is delivered with an air of great portent : this is obviously a gangster film , hence the requisite amount of violence and bloodshed , but the film is nearly devoid of any humor to speak of ; only in scenes involving a young boy driving a getaway car in a cunningly edited montage is there any sense of lightheartedness to leaven the pervasive sense of doom.

That being said , I have nothing but the highest praise for the stunning look of this film ; indeed , it is not an overstatement to say that this is one of the most beautifully photographed and designed movies I have ever seen. Veteran cameraman Conrad Hall will very likely win another Oscar for his work here . The production 's sets and costumes are just as exemplary ; in fact , the entire film is a technical marvel. Mr. Mendes continues to astonish with his vivid use of color, and he and Mr. Hall again make very dramatic use of red blood splattered against pale colored walls , all the more effective and disconcerting due to the preponderance of blacks, blues and grays that dominate the movie's color scheme.

If I have failed to duly note the acting , it is not because the actors do not purport themselves ably ; everyone in the film is top notch, with special mention going to the two malevolent bad guys : Daniel Craig is the classic 'man you love to hate', the spoiled, impulsive son of Newman's gangster father ; and an almost unrecognizable Jude Law as an especially slimy miscreant who goes on pursuit of Hanks and his son and figures very importantly in the film's riveting second half. But acting in a movie this dazzling is bound to take a back seat to the photographic fireworks on display here. If a Rolls-Royce was a movie , I've no doubt it would look like ROAD TO PERDITION.


Big Fat Liar is what you get when you combine terrific writing, great production, and an emphasis on clever ideas over adolescent pap. The two stars work great together, and--what can I say? Amanda Bynes shines. Putting 'Irkel' and Lee Majors in the film were brilliant touches. Watch this film with your kids. If you don't laugh throughout it, you must not have been paying attention.


eXistenZ was a good film, at the first I was wondering what is going on, organic 'pods' made out of mutant reptiles which connected you and other players to a surreal virtual reality game via a umbilical cord, well it seems a little odd.

But once it gets going its a pretty good film, with a few twists with a great open ending and the good aspect of weridness throughout the film is entertaining too see as your not sure whats coming next.

Security personnel throw away the metal detectors; they have bone guns !


A girl is looking for her soul mate-- this movie was very strange-- lots of sequences that look like an hallucinations. Tommy Lee Jones is the only stable one in the picture. It was hard to figure out what the director was trying to say-- Most of the time the main character is dressed in weird clothes and makeup. A weird combination of reality and madness.


I have only seen the minimum wage episode yet i have no intention of watching the others, how can that be? Morgan starts theatrically complaining about his awful situation living on minimum wage right at the beginning of the episode and the complaining never stops. Ever. Luckily for the viewer, his skinny girlfriend is just as annoying as Morgan (if not even more annoying).

And then to top it all, they go to the movies and buy bottled water for 2,50 and after that go to a restaurant to eat out all the while they naturally *drumroll* complain about being poor.

I don't care if the other episodes may or may not be better than this. No one should be forced to watch this crap.


The message of this movie is 'personality is more important than beauty'. Jeanine Garofalo is supposed to be the 'ugly duckling', but the funny thing is that she's not at all ugly (actually she's a lot more attractive than Uma Thurman, the friend who looks like a model).

Now, would this movie work if the 'ugly duckling' was really unattractive? When will Hollywood stop with this hypocrisy?

In my opinion, despite the message that it wants to convey, this movie is simply ridiculous.


I like it because of my recent personal experience. Especially the ideas that everyone is free and that everything is finite. The characters in the firm did not really enjoy their 'real' lives, but they did enjoy themselves, i.e. what they were. The movie did a good job making this simple day a good memory. A good memory includes not only romantic feelings about a beautiful stranger and a beautiful European city, but definitely about the deeper discussion about their values of life. Many movies are like this in terms of discussion of the definitions of life or love or relationships or current problems in life or some sort of those. Before Sunrise dealt with it in a nice way, which makes the viewer pause and think and adjust her breath and go on watching the film. Before Sunrise did not try to instill a specific thought into your head. It just encouraged you to think about some issues in daily life and gave you some alternative possibilities. This made the conversations between the characters interesting, not just typical whining complaints or flowing dumb ideas. You would be still thinking about those issues for yourself and curious about the next line of the story. The end was not quite important after all. You could got something out of it and feel something good or positive about yourself after the movie. Movies are supposed to be enjoyable. This is an enjoyable movie and worth of your time to watch it. I am on a journey too. The movie somehow represented some part of me and answered some of my questions.


For the first three seasons, Sabrina was a gem hidden away on TGIF (and later, early school-day afternoon reruns). Each episode had a maniac, zany energy and rapid-fire pacing that overcame the occasional awkward joke. Melissa Joan Hart exuded a keen talent for physical comedy, particularly in her facial expressions. Her two aunts, playing the 'straight men,' or as straight as two witches could be, had great comic timing and general chemistry with Hart. Salem, as a talking cat, was free to dabble in whatever mad scheme he was interested in, and one could laugh and take it all in stride because he was, after all, a talking cat. Sabrina's friends rounded out the social experience at school, in which also housed the typical 'evil cheerleader' and 'totalitarian principal.' Perhaps the most interesting and unique aspect of the show was the ability to merge pop culture (e.g., bands of the era, Jerry Springer), archetypal human condition/morality (e.g., the importance of friendship, the spirit of Christmas), and the literal representation of such related metaphors in the Magical Realm. Unfortunately, like so many other shows throughout the age of television, the show hit its peak during the first three years, which coincided with Sabrina attending high school. Starting in season four, the move to college marked what would become a precipitous decline in the general quality of the show, particularly when the writers chose to introduce Josh as Harvey's rival, and concocting thin excuses for Aunts Hilda and Zelda to remain on-screen as key players. The final season, where Sabrina works at a pop culture magazine, was unequivocally disappointing. Still, in the end, Sabrina (particularly the high school years) remains a unique entry as a hybrid situational comedy with magical elements that elevates it above the tiresome fare that is produced in this genre every year.


This movie was incredible!!!! I did not know the back story on it so I needed to let it unfold before me on DVD. It had many twists and turns but still kept the story fresh and exciting. The acting by Elaine Cassidy was in a word Brilliant as well as Sally Hawkins. The storyline is rich with plausible occurrences as well as fresh ideas from the present.

There is truly something about Ms. Cassidy's eyes that leaves 'a mark.' This movie is a refreshing look on the way in which we look at the 'victorian times' and how we view that society. A very worthwhile watch.


I first saw the movie a couple of years ago and was totally and utterly impressed but its sensuality. It is one of the most touching films I have ever seen, though it might appear a little bit pretentious and artificial - too much beautiful, if you will. Anyway, one thing is for sure - the camera man has done a great job - each picture deserves to be cut off the film and displayed as a separate peace of art, comparable to the Chirico's or Bernard Buffet's paintings.

The music forms a perfect background for the story, especially U2's one played between the first and the second novels at the beach scene. As for the casting - I cannot be objective since I like Sophie Marceau and Jean Renaue very much and cannot add more to the praising comments of others.

However, the very fact that many people (critics and those sophisticated in cinema) criticized the movie made me watch it with a more critical eye for the second time. No doubt, the setting is splendid and the casting is gorgeous. But this is somehow not enough to make a comprehensive and cohesive film. The second novel (when Sophie Marceau tells her story to Malcovic is somehow superficial and does not tell much about the motivations of the people involved - was it only about shooting a beautiful and sensual love scene with the naked Marceau or what?). Apparently, it does not add anything to the idea of the movie and even the husky voice of Malcovic is being unable to link it to the main plot.

Other stories are more justified and are really beautifully shot, which indulges many of the logic fallacies within them. The scene when Jean Reneau is overlooking the city through the huge window of his apartment on the top of the high building is absolutely incredible. The feeling of moist air and fine haze, which is being spread by the first 'Ferrera' scene can literally be sensed through the screen. No doubt, Antonioni is a great master of shades and semi-shades. My favorite novel is the last one - the most romantic, deep and meaningful - I guess that it the most Antonioni-like one in the whole movie - almost a parable.Probably, the overall positive impression from the movie is mainly due to the last one shot somewhere in a small Ghotic Italian town, with its winding narrow streets and crooked pavements, fountains with the l'eau potable and monumental cathedrals... It was laconic but really touching.

I hope that my impressions and comments on the movie, however chaotic they are would motivate somebody to spend an evening watching it (it works better with the home theater, having somebody caring by your side, than in the movie theater). Enjoy.

I beg your pardon for the imperfect English and any possible misspellings


Presenting Lily Mars is a real pleasant little film which showcases the comedy skills of actress Judy Garland, along with her standard singing moments. The plot consists of Lily Mars tagging along after producer John Thornway for her big break. I think the comedy is light and nothing too heavy here. I really recommend this film for everyone. Judy is breathtaking in this role!


I don't understand why making remakes has become the trend. Every remake I have ever seen is awful, and this is no exception. If any of you have seen the quote from Ben Jones, that it is a 'sleazy' piece of trash, he is quite right. Why they would take a wonderful television show, which I loved, have never missed an episode, and own seasons 1-4 on DVD, and ruin it, I'll never know. The television show was a family show, and although Daisy has the body, it was really flaunted, or even addressed in the show, save the outfits. A family show has been turned in to a dirty piece of garbage, and I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. Another thing I didn't like was that John Schneider and Tom Wopat are excellent actors (along with the rest of the original cast), and they are also extremely cute. The new Bo and Luke are not even a little cute. That was one of the drawers for the show. The casting is terrible. They could have at least gotten a brunette for Daisy. I don't think Burt Reynolds is a qualified Boss Hogg, either. Every other role he has ever played is totally opposite this role. The only role they cast halfway decent is Willie Nelson as Uncle Jesse, but still it is no comparison. Denver Pyle is an actor all his own, and that made him perfect for the role. I think that the casting is awful, the story is awful, and all in all ruined a wonderful show and turned it into a dirty, terrible movie. I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. I only saw it out of curiosity, plus there was a free ticket in season 4 DVD. I would never have paid to see this movie, but it was free. DON'T PAY TO SEE THIS MOVIE.


This is a great film!! The first time I saw it I thought it was absorbing from start to finish and I still do now. I may not have seen the play, but even if I had it wouldn't stop me thinking that the film is just as good.


I have to say I was very curious on viewing this film, and it was considered a notorious disaster when released by 20th Century Fox in 1970. It has also popped up on several critics lists of bad films, and this only deepened an interest, as I just had to see what made this movie so bad.Upon seeing it, I think I have my answers. Although I will say it does make for curious viewing, the acting, direction, and script are so laughingly bad, that the supposed satire is completely missing. Racquel Welch seems to try to carry the film, but after the opening sequence of the sex-change operation, the film goes so far down hill that she cannot handle this task alone. John Huston as Uncle Buck Loner is certainly no help, as he licks and leers at the screen, he sometimes looks like he wonders himself what he's doing there. Rex Reed bounces around as Myron, Myra's alter ego, and even has his own celebrated masturbation scene. Bravo for debut performances! Farrah Fawcett plays a dumb blonde; she certainly seemed convincing in this role. But , of course, arguably the most notorious role went to Mae west. The sight of a 75 year old woman with a plastic face making sexual innuendos seemed more suitable for a horror film. I don't mean to put this cast down personally; but in this film, no one comes out looking good. The direction seems so unassured and non-existent, that the film is not only bad, but boring as well. Throw in some old film footage of old stars, and the movie becomes even more disconnected. To each his own to anyone that enjoyed this, and I was glad I at least saw it, but Myra Breckenridge seems to be the disaster that it was always reputed to be from the beginning.


I felt brain dead, I'll tell you. This is the worst film I have ever bought. (in my ignorance I thought this was the Peter Jackson film of the same name). The performances are so terrible they are laughable. The special effects have not stood the test of time and look dire. The script promotes that kind of TV movie, stare into the middle distance kind of acting. The cast look as if they have been taking lessons from Joey Tribbiani, they have one look each, and stick to it. Plus I have never been confused by a movie until I sat down to watch this. The is it a dream or no plot is so terrible that frustration sets in within a few minutes. Avoid like a plague.


Perhaps I'm being too generous when I give this film two and a half stars out of five, but there was an occasional moment. However, as 'An American Werewolf' movie this one is a missed chance! There are no real plot connections to the superior original to speak of, but the story is similar in some ways to 'London'.

*Possible Spoiler Warning* American kids go to foreign country, one falls in love with a beautiful girl. Another one of the kids gets slaughtered by a werewolf in the same night that one gets bitten, and despite his undead friend's warnings, by the light of the full moon he sprouts fur, fangs, and claws!

But there are some differences in the story, for one; the girl is one of the werewolves. Second; there are three American Kids. And third; there's some weird-@$$ werewolf cult intent on taking over the world! As crazy as it sounds, that last one, WASN'T a joke! *Spoiler Ends*

The films suffers from many things, first the weak acting drags it down immensely! Tom Everret Scott's performance is amatuerish at best, and he and Julie Delpy, who plays his love interest, don't seem to have any chemistry together at all. Second; A weak script that seems to be all over the place. Many elements of suspense and dark comedy, that made the original one great, are missing in this one. And whoever said that eating out the heart of the werewolf that bit you will change you back human? Last I heard this wasn't part of werewolf lore at all! Third; terrible special effects; The werewolf effects are done with computer animation, which works for things such as dinosaurs, ghosts, and space ships. But seems choppy, fake and artificial, when used for furry creatures like werewolves.

However there were a few things that saved this one from total 'turkeydom', there's one hilarious scene in a Paris cafe when Andy (Scott) is having coffee with Serafine (Delpy), he drops a bunch of condoms on the table, and tries to pass them off as chewing gum, by chewing and blowing a bubble! Also; the soundtrack, a very cool mix of alternative rock bands like Bush and Smashmouth. Although none of the songs have the word 'moon' in their title, like the original movie, the soundtrack is great nontheless. And another funny scene when a rotting corpse, played by Julie Bowen, attempts to whistle and her eyeball pops out, had me laughing out loud.

But as a whole this film seems to lack the wit and suspense of the original. And the overly contrived ending doesn't help it out much either.

**1/2 Two and a half Out of Five Stars (Average.)


Maybe being a government bureaucrat is not the most glamorous way of making a living but it's still a way to make a living. However, after watching this movie, one may come away believing that every government bureaucrat is a lazy, bloated, conceited, paper pusher who lives exclusively to partake of his next lunch break. Not exactly a pretty picture, but this is the picture that the audience has to endure when watching what is nothing more than another tedious, noisy, overacted action movie. Just what the doctor ordered ... right? How many more of these movies has Hollywood made? One thousand? Two thousand? The formula for making these movies is so beaten into the dust that by now it should be completely unrecognizable. The locales change but the plots remain the same, and with the same shallow character development and the equally shallow acting as trained performers are asked to devolve into pseudo-cartoon characters and act accordingly. This movie seemed to run-on interminably. 'When will this movie end?' I repeatedly thought to myself. Leonardo DiCaprio was totally unbelievable as a CIA operative, but what has to be one of the great gaffs of miscasting, an overweight Russell Crowe plays a CIA bureaucrat. Please note that in this movie the on site operative is 'lean and mean' while his desk jockey supervisor is fat. This is called stereotyping. What was the casting director thinking? Why not have Jack Nicholson play an overweight office clerk? Or Nicole Kidman play a frumpy department store saleswoman? And the story was so fantastic that no amount of literary license could afford it credibility. An obviously non-Arab American (Mr. DiCaprio) trying to pass himself off as an Arab ... speaking fluent Arabic ... concocting all kinds of hair brain schemes that are doomed to failure ... trying to out think and outfox real Arabs who are completely unfooled by his laughable Arab masquerade ... trying to romance a Palestinian woman while in the middle of conducting a highly sensitive and complex espionage mission ... etc. By now you get the point. Next time try casting an actual Arab in the role. Not even the most naive movie goer can believe all that. There should be a rough balance between the protagonist and antagonist. In this movie the protagonist is so transparent and incompetent that it leaves the story in shambles. Next stop for this movie - DVD land and oblivion. And one other thing. Don;t let this movie discourage you from working for the government. The pay may not be great, but the fringe benefits are excellent, a critical fact that this movie conveniently omits.


I'm a HUGE fan of the twin sisters. Although this was one of their 'not soo good' movies. I'm not saying it's bad, I can't say it's bad, but this whole popular and not popular thingy isn't good. Although I give this movie a 4.


This is the worst movie I have ever seen. A movie that is about a stupid looking monster from the ocean that threatens a small town which has to be filled with the dumbest people on earth.

SPOILERS IF YOU EVEN CARE

They can't even kill the damn thing by the end of the movie. The movie ends and they're like, 'Well, some day we'll have to kill it.'

Avoid at all costs.


Waters's contribution to the world of cinema has to be searched with a telescope, and then when/if something is found (by sheer chance and lots of luck) it has to be analyzed with a microscope.

And after it has been analyzed it would get discarded into the lab's 'rubbish bin for totally useless things'. One single atom of that microscope is worth all of his movies combined.

CB is etremely campy, and intentionally so. The usual JW stuff: comic-strip dialogue, simplistic plot, moronically cheerful characters, chewing-gum pop, overacting etc. Waters knows that he is incabaple of making a movie of quality, so he hides behind the mask of the 'intentionally cheesy film-maker' - which supposedly makes him a special kind of 'anti-artist'. But in the world of cinema, being an anti-talent often gets mistaken for talent, which is exactly what Waters had hoped for - and eventually got. It's a con act. Charlatans infest the world of cinema and modern pop art; it's a plague.

Perhaps we have John Waters to blame for inspiring Baz Luhrman to make all those horrible, dumb turkeys. It's like a virus: one Waters creates five new bad directors, and then these five each create more, and so on. Where will it end? With 'Dancer In The Dark'? Can that bomb actually be topped?


I originally saw this film years ago during Cinemax Friday after dark series(back when the cable box was built like a keyboard),and it intrigued me. Even though there is a pointless aspect to the film it is well acted.The performances of Depardieu & Dewaere are very enjoyable.They have a good chemistry together & Miou-Miou makes a pink fur look breathtaking.A movie like this probably wouldn't be made in these politically correct times(at least not in the US), since it seems to sensationalize things like violence,robbery,& casual sex. This movie proves that with a talented cast & also talented directing a good movie is a good movie no matter the subject.It saddened me to find out Patrick Dewaere committed suicide & in the near future I,ll will check him out with Depardieu & Miou-Miou in Get Out Your Hankerchief.


Well, there you have it, another disillusion on my account. Two, actually! First of all, even though I like to think of myself that I know a little something about 70's euro-exploitation and its most prolific contributors, I never heard about Joseph W. Sarno before. Here's a guy who made over seventy rancid and cult-laden exploitation movies and I haven't seen a single one! How? Why? What happened here? Secondly, and even worse, just when you think to have found a new source for obscure cult movies, that director's most famous and supposed 'masterpiece' turns out to be an irredeemably dull and irritating film. Admittedly, lesbian vampire movies form a pretty insignificant sub genre as a whole, but some of them bath in ominous atmosphere and curious sensuality (like José Larraz' 'Vampyres' or Harry Kümmel's 'Daughters of Darkness'). Joseph Sarno's film has nothing to offer, except copious amounts of gratuitous nudity and even that becomes boring rather quickly. The events take place in a secluded old castle, hidden deep in the German mountains, where five centuries ago lived a malicious and bloodthirsty (literally) baroness. Her loyal disciples still throw naked dance parties in the castle's catacombs, which are lit by penis-shaped candlesAUCH, and hope to resurrect the baroness any time soon now. Suddenly (don't even ask how) the castle is full of young and sexy female guests, so even more erotic rites ensue. Sounds delicious and entertaining enough, but 'The Devil's Plaything' contains a massive number of sequences where literally nothing happens and where the cast members' ignorant facial expressions are simply unendurable! Sarno isn't capable of creating suspense or building a Gothic atmosphere (or maybe he just didn't bother to) and the actresses' capacities restrict themselves to standing in front the camera topless and pull a really pathetic face. Please do yourself a favor: no matter how desperately you strive to see all lurid lesbian-vampire movies of the 70's, this one isn't worth a penny! Even the repertoires of Jess Franco and Jean Rollin are pure art compared to this dud.


I've been watching this movie by hoping to find a pretty and interesting story yet the story line wasn't good at all. The play of the actors weren't any better.

Of course Shahrukh Khan was there yet he wasn't enough to make this movie 'credible' and interesting.

I've read that this movie was based on the novel of Flaubert 'Madame Bovary' yet for me I didn't see it matching with the Indian mentality.

In general we buy movie to dream and have a good time, not to waste our time and change our mood into worse. I just can't understand how it could get such a 'high' vote with an average of 6.8/10.

So it's the kind of movie you should run away & ignore because there is nothing to appreciate in it! You will just waste your time unless if you like 'dark movie' with 'strange and non sense story'.


Gayniggers from Outer Space is a short foreign film about black, gay aliens who explore the galaxy until they stumble upon Earth. Being gay, their goal is to have a male-only universe in which all people are gay. Hence, when they discover women or 'female creatures' live on Earth, they are at first terrified; eventually they decide to eliminate all women on the planet and liberate the male population.

An offensive title with a racist, homophobic and sexist storyline, albeit probably intended as a satire, give this film some shock value. However, there's little substance underneath. As another reviewer pointed out, there are few jokes besides the characters' names (eg. ArmInAss); I think I laughed once at one small gay joke. I think I got the point of the film quickly, a satire of bad science fiction, but after that I had had enough; I kept wanting the film to end already (and it is a short film!). Not brilliant or particularly well-written.


I know that Chill Wills usually played lovable old sorts in Westerns. But his role in this segment is something I've remembered for a long time. Wills could be a first rate villain. Yes, Burgess Meredith's Fall was correct! That look in Hepplewhite's eye! It expressed porcine greed, ignorance, and the threat of violence all at once. Quite a performance, I think.

The segment itself was a good one, too. Question: couldn't the little black bag cure alcoholism? I guess it did, sort of, with Fall. But the doctor would have been wise to apply the cure, if he had it, as quickly as possible to Hepplewhite.

There is one moment that was annoying but also necessary. And it is something that appears to recur in these Night Gallery segments. It's Serling's constant need to sermonize. For that's what we got, one more time, with Dr. Fall. I don't know what was more frustrating, losing the black bag and all its miracles or not being to stop Fall from preaching about the bag's benefit for humanity, all while rubbing Hepplewhite's greedy face in the mud, and, therefore, all but begging for Hepplewhite to strike out at him. But as I say, it was necessary. At least it was for me. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been able to see Wills' performance discussed above. All done without moving a muscle or speaking a word.


Romantic comedies can really go either way, you know? You'll see one that's really sappy, and you'll think you want something more realistic. Then, you'll see one that's realistic, but it might be too dull to keep you interested. Or maybe you'll see one that does everything right, but just fails to make you smile. Romantic comedies are tough movies. You go into them with a lot of expectations, and usually, whether you like it is simply a matter of whether the filmmakes was anticipating your expectations or those of the guy or girl next to you.

Of course, if you've got a girl next to you, and you're a guy like me, it probably doesn't matter all that much whether the movie's any good, you've got other things on your mind. For you, I say, 'Go get her, Tiger!' For the rest of us, I say, 'See _A Guy Thing_.' It's a lot of fun.

Because _A Guy Thing_ knows you're going in to this movie with expectations, so it doesn't pretend that its 'Guy about to get married meets the woman of his dreams, and it's not his wife!' plot is going to make everyone happy. Sure, maybe you like it, but maybe it doesn't ring true, or you think it's cruel. _A Guy Thing_ covers that. What _A Guy Thing_ does is fill the screen with the best supporting cast I've seen in a long time, so if you don't the main plotline, you've still got something to make you smile.

Whether we're talking about the seasoned veterans of big and small screen, like Larry Miller (Pretty Woman, Best in Show), James Brolin (Traffic), Julie Hagerty (Airplane!), David Koechner (Saturday Night Live and Conan O'Brien regular, Dirty Work, Austin Powers II) or Thomas Lennon (The State and Viva Variety), or new faces like Shawn Hatosy (The Faculty), or Colin Foo (Saving Silverman), we're talking about a bunch of very talented and skilled actors who know exactly how to take advantage of the film's inspired characterisation, steal the show, time after time, and still frame the piece with an energy and a joy rarely seen in romantic comedies these days.

And that's not to detract from the actual romantic throughline and the stars that carry it along, because it's very sweet and terribly well done. Jason Lee (Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, etc.) is touching as the young professional whose life may be spinning out of control, and Selma Blair shows an understated brilliance in portraying the aspiring socialite and sophisticated career woman every guy wants to marry except for the guy who actually is.

A lot of the success of the movie, though, falls on Julia Stiles, the right girl in the right place at the wrong time, and she wears it well. Not since, gosh, I don't know when, have I seen an actress in a romantic comedy that has made falling in love with her so easy. Of course, it's all in the closeups, the voice, and the subtle smiles, but it's magical, and it's one of the big reasons why we go to the movies in the first place.

But Julie Stiles's slightly offbeat sophistication would be lost were it not for the fact that the rest of the cast is so incredibly dead-on in their classic simplicity. This is a movie that paints a broken world of irreconcilable stock types, makes them fall over each other to make you laugh, and then comes through with a great deal of heart.

A Guy Thing is a movie you've definitely seen before, and the filmmakers clearly knew that when they set down to make it. We haven't really seen any new romantic comedies since Shakespeare; the relative success of this one or that one is entirely dependent upon the execution of the classic story of boy meets girl. A Guy Thing does embrace that with a bit of a metacinematic edge, often taking the scenes into the absurd in order to give the audience a chance to acknowledge the powerful emotions and ancient plot devices at play.

For the record, it also even manages to poke fun at the rather traditional structural notions of sex and gender that form the center of every romantic comedy, so even the feminists out there might get a kick out of it.

And guys, I think we can all agree that we wish our friends are as cool as Jason Lee's friends in this movie. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but when you try to explain to your girlfriend why the pharmacist and the clothing store clerk are among the coolest dudes in cinema, I suggest you just say 'It's a Guy Thing,' and leave it at that.


It's kind of fascinating to me that so many reviewers consider this a masterpiece. I am not a dullard as far as quality films go, and I will agree that from a technical filming standpoint, as well as for several of the characters portrayed, the film is in an award-worthy class. But there is no sense (for me) of this film actually going anywhere; I mean, taking the viewer anywhere. It is a series of mood scenes, perhaps remarkable as such, but I want more from a film. I look for story and movement and a fulfillment of arrival, none of which did I find in this film. Yes, it might be considered poetry on film . . . but there is much poetry that I cannot live with for the same reason: that it paints pictures without going anywhere.

One thing further to be said is that it documents a mid-century English childhood, which is necessarily limited in its universality. I was personally appalled at what a young British boy had to live through, in that time and place. Having grown up in America just a decade earlier, I can authoritatively say that the contrast is immense. I cannot help wondering if this contrast has had some effect on those reviewing the film so favorably. In other words, could there be a tendency to judge the film entirely on its 'filmic magic' (which I acknowledge is there) and completely ignore its lack of relevance to the nature of one's actual recalled experience?


Finally got to see this movie last weekend. What a disappointment..it barely reaches 'made for TV' level. Given the list of actors, I would have expected something substantially more sophisticated. The movie lacks a good story, well, actually any story for that matter. It has no credibility, instead lots of predictability. Save yourself the money and the time.


From what I understand, Mr. Bava abandoned this project before completion...AND RIGHTFULLY SO!!! If I were him I definitely would have made sure that EVERY copy was burned and if anybody in the future ever asked me about this film...IT NEVER HAPPENED & IT NEVER EXISTED...end of story.

Despite some great sets and good photography this is one horrible film...is it supposed to be scary? (not in the least) is it supposed to be funny?? (puh-leese) A total waste of time...and I really don't like to have to say that!!


Meek, tiny, almost insignificant. Polanski finds the invisibility of his characters and makes something enormous out of it. In front and behind the camera he creates one of the most uncomfortable masterpieces I had the pleasure to see and see and see again. It never let's me down. People, even people who know me pretty well, thought/think there was/is something wrong with me, based on my attraction, or I should say, devotion for 'Le Locataire' They may be right, I don't know but there is something irresistibly enthralling within Polanski's darkness and I haven't even mentioned the humor. The mystery surrounding the apartment and the previous tenant, the mystery that takes over him and, naturally, us, me. That building populated by great old Academy Award winners: Melvyn Douglas, Shelley Winters, Jo Van Fleet, Lila Kedrova. For anyone who loves movies, this is compulsory viewing. One, two, three, many, many viewings.


This movie sucked on so many levels! Ever seen the Dentist? This movie made The Dentist look like a masterpiece. I do not recommend this movie to anyone, unless of course you are really really really really really bored, then maybe. It was SO corny. The killer reminds you of the grandpa from the monsters, except he has goggles on. When Jessica said 'I want you to meet someone, my inner bitch, I thought she was going to kick his butt, however all she did was throw a frig-gen trash can at him. I was very disappointed. And when the ranger had the crying scene about his wife, I SO felt the pain behind his tears.........NOT!!!!! So before watching this movie, grab a blanket and a pillow, get comfortable because it is very relaxing.


Just kidding about the weight loss thing; well, you might lose weight you never know. Anyway, what can I say, I love this film. It has that same sense of youth and innocence found in films like Stand By Me and The Goonies. Jake's Closet illustrates the beauty of life's simple things and how often we overlook them. The film reminds us what it's like to see the world through children's eyes and all the magic, mystery, and horror they perceive. Jake's Closet presents a tale uniquely human in its compassion that anyone who's had a childhood can both relate to and fall in love with. Watch it with friends; watch it with loved ones; build a fort - wine optional.


I watched this show on the basis of it being told it was reminiscent of David Lynch's Twin Peaks - a show which I adore. The show quickly starts introducing us to the main characters and rather unusually the pilot episode is to me the best of the lot, its extremely dramatic and really gets out the whole evil side of the show ready to progress throughout the rest of the season. My one biggest criticism is I felt a little let down by the show - probably not through its own fault, as it got cancelled after a mere 1 season, it seemed to display show much potential and it deserved a lot better treatment than it got. The acting is excellent, and this show has some of the best characters (good and evil) in it I have ever seen that are well developed in a short space of time. There is the odd cheesy effect for the first 5 or ten shows which are a bit overly dramatic, but this is rectified as the season progressed. Well worth a watch, definitely something out of the ordinary!


A touching documentary that puts a human face on the tragedy of 9/11 by showing how one small community coalesced to honor two high school friends lost on that day. The film interweaves the lives of Chris and Tom through interviews with family and friends and snippets of old photos. Through their reminiscences we glimpse two lives tragically cut short. The film also documents how, through a series of coincidences, an inspirational memorial garden was brought forth through the efforts of many people, both known and unknown to the two victims. Through the laughter and the tears(and the sweat) we see the power of hope and honor and love. This films evokes many different emotions, but the final feeling is one of admiration of the human spirit undaunted by tragedy.


When I first saw this show, I was 9, and it caught my attention right away when Stewie was trying to call Lois on the phone in the hotel. I laughed and kept on watching. When the episode was finished, i wrote down the name of the cartoon and watched it regularly. This separates itself from the Simpsons and other shows on say, Cartoon Network because the jokes are more mature, not too much, but it's TV-14 for a reason. The quick film cuts after each punch line and cute, funny movements and behavior of the characters make it special. Talented Seth Macfarlene is the creator and the voice of quite a lot of characters in the show. A good theme song, and a crazy family that there's always something funny, makes this my favorite cartoon along Sealab 2021 and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Check it out it's funny stuff.


This movie is sad. According to my fellow IMDb users, (*SPOILER*) RAPTOR uses stock footage from the Carnotaur films. Well, since I have not seen the Carnotaur movies, I cannot say. But, I do notice some pretty bad editing and even worse acting. This movie is one big steaming pile of s***. It makes absolutely no sense. Here is this thing that calls itself a PLOT: Mad scientist re-creates raptors. Raptors kill people. Sheriff investigates. *SPOILER* (although I don't know what it is that I'm spoiling) Sheriff catches on to mad doctor's plans. Army guys are sent in and raptors start killing army guys. Raptors. Yeah, right. I could make a clay figure that looks more real. The FX are the cheapest ever used in a movie. There is a lot of gore. Cheap gore. It doesn't even look real. I will agree with another person who rated this movie that the only thing this movie has going for it is the fact that it ends. There are about two seconds of originality in this film. And that only comes from when the sheriff is talking to some tax agent on the phone about his electric bill or something. This idea has been used in about 100,000 other movies with 100,000 different names. Overall, I'm gonna give RAPTOR 1/5 just because it ended.


Enjoyed the movie very much. Certainly will leave the audience wanting to know more, and there is truly a lot more historically to find out!

Did the production team fall to the temptation of over dramatization, particularly of the shooting event? There is a ton of interesting accurate material hinted at? Prince Albert's contribution to UK and the monarchy warrants a movie on it's own but granted that was apparently not part of the intention here.

The costumes and sets are especially good but am I alone in thinking that this production (which judging by the length of titles at the end was certainly not a cheap one) wanted badly for a British Court historical etiquette expert beyond the Duchess of York? i.e. Did Princess Victoria really stuff an entire truffle/rissole(?) into her mouth while speaking to the Prime Minister in the company of His Majesty with her mouth full?

'Could never really felt that sympathetic to Victoriain this movie, or indeed in her shoes at all. Yet loved the casting of the principals, whose acting was convincing, so did the script really allow us to really get to know them well? I always felt like a totally detached, uninformed outside observer, much more so than with 'Mrs. Brown' or even 'The Queen'. Yet to be honest I still could not take my eyes off the screen, except that is for some of the more avant-garde camera techniques which were distracting from time to time.


This movie is... horrible and wonderful at the same time. I first saw it when I was about 13 or 14 years old, so it has a great deal of nostalgic value for me. In this movie, Cesar Romero actually plays the character of Octavio, the man who 'discovered' Santana. There are also two other actors, Monte Markham (plays Sam, who is trying to save his daughter) and Peter Mark Richman (plays the priest), who have large filmographies, and these are the only performances that are okay. The rest of the acting and the movie itself have all of the B-film qualities that some of us cherish.

I recently spent 2 years trying to acquire a copy of this movie, and it is almost nonexistent. I am assuming that it was discontinued very shortly after its release. But I did eventually find a copy and paid a pretty penny to acquire it. If you happen to come upon Judgement Day in a video store (unmistakeable with a cheesy green 'satan' on the cover), count yourself among the blessed who live near one of the few video stores that still has a working copy. A must see for those of you who like to laugh at cheesy attempts at a scary movie.


Detective Sergent Vince De Carlo (James Luisi) and company are on the case of a vicious Serial Killer/Rapist. Can Psychologist Carol (Susan Sullivan) help, or will she become the killer's next victim? And what is with the killer's hilarious White Dude Afro?

Inspired by the case of serial killer Ted Bundy, 'Killer's Delight' aka 'The Dark Ride' is a rather dull Serial Killer tale from 1978 that doesn't offer much. If anything, it's more of a police procedural flick than a horror movie, as much of the violence occurs off camera. Sure, we get mutilated bodies, but we don't get a whole lot in the exploitation department-especially considering that they are from the aftermath, and not during the crime. Those hoping for the likes of 'The Toolbox Murders' or 'Maniac' will be very disappointed.

Fortunately, there is an impressive scene involving a woman trying to escape the killer that get's the tone right, and is quite suspenseful to boot. Also, John Karlen is quite effective as the killer, though his hilarious hairstyle (white guys with Afros are always worth a chuckle) is more than a bit distracting.

'The Dark Ride' is too routine and mediocre to really warrant a recommendation, as it lacks the proper exploitation elements, and is dated even by the standards of the time. Those looking for a better example should probably turn to 'Don't Go In The House' and a few others instead, as this just doesn't cut it.


I love this movie so much. It always makes me cry. If you appreciate Drew Barrymore half as much as I do, you'll love this movie. It's got all the essentials I look for in a movie. It has good actors, good characters, good humor...a lot of heart-warming moments too. The flash-back moments when we see Josie in high school make me cry though. Every single time. I'm sure you'll like this one, don't judge based on the fact that it looks like a teen movie, even though it is, in a way, a teen movie. Sure, if you're a guy, and all you watch are hardcore special effect movies only in the top 250 movies of all time, then this isn't for you. But if you like romantic comedies you will not forget after seeing it, pick it up at a video store and enjoy: Drew Barrymore is great in this one!


How could 4 out of 16 prior voters give this movie a 10? How could more than half the prior voters give it a 7 or higher? Who is voting here? I can only assume it is primarily kids -- very young kids. The fact is that this is a bad movie in every way. The story is stupid; the acting is hard to even think of as acting; the characters are characterless; and the dialogue is terrible. I saw this one rainy afternoon on the Sci-Fi channel. In the sad event that it is ever rebroadcast, I suggest you read a book instead.


Mann photographs the Alberta Rocky Mountains in a superb fashion, and Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan give enjoyable performances as they always seem to do.

But come on Hollywood - a Mountie telling the people of Dawson City, Yukon to elect themselves a marshal (yes a marshal!) and to enforce the law themselves, then gunfighters battling it out on the streets for control of the town?

Nothing even remotely resembling that happened on the Canadian side of the border during the Klondike gold rush. Mr. Mann and company appear to have mistaken Dawson City for Deadwood, the Canadian North for the American Wild West.

Canadian viewers be prepared for a Reefer Madness type of enjoyable howl with this ludicrous plot, or, to shake your head in disgust.


I'm surprised that no one yet has mentioned that there are two versions of this same film. The lion's share of the footage in both is identical, but here is where they differ: In one version (the version I have seen most often on broadcast TV), the group of clerics guarding the gateway consists of the 'Brotherhood of the Protectors', a (fictional) splinter group of priests and brothers 'excommunicated' by the Church. In the other version, which I've seen only once on TV, the clerics guarding the gateway are depicted as priests of the official Church, meaning the Archdiocese of New York (or perhaps Brooklyn). Also, in the former version, in most of the pertinent scenes, the clerics are referred to as 'brothers' (and in some scenes, you can see where the lips say 'Father' so-and-so but the dubbed audio says 'Brother' so-and-so. In the latter version, I believe everyone is referred to as 'Father'.

In any event, it seems that one of these two versions is more or less a partial re-shooting of the other, with all 'Brotherhood of the Protector' scenes re-shot as 'Archdiocese' scenes, or vice versa. (Kind of reminds me of the Raymond Burr cutaway scenes in 'Godzilla'). I have videotaped both versions off broadcast TV, so no, I'm not imagining this. Can anyone shed some more light on the story behind these two versions of the film?


Having read this story a while ago I was very excited to see the movie. I read the book again. It is one of my favorite Nicholas Sparks books. What I think what makes the story is the relationships. That was the down point for me in the movie because I think the relationships were poorly expressed in the movie. I have no idea what the point of changing main characters roles (Tim's and Alan's characters). The movie didn't at all capture John and Savannah's relationship. Maybe if you haven't read the book you might like this movie, but I thought it was so dull compared to the book. I thought Channing was a great pick for John,but I had a feeling he was going to bring all young adults out to watch it, so I think it was more geared towards them. The ending cuts the whole point of the book out so I was also unhappy with that. I was hoping the movie was more like the notebook or a walk to remember and the way they captured the books. I do feel like I wasted a Friday night out and 10 bucks on a sappy love story, not at all the story I was expecting to see.


There aren't many good things to say at all about Underneath, Soderbergh's untrue endeavor into neo-noir. Soderbergh remakes Robert Siodmak's decent noir Criss-Cross faithfully, not altering the plot very much at all, however the adaptation drains it of every ounce of its state-of-the-art film noir atmosphere, giving it the same story set in the very least appealing places, lifestyles and anachronisms. Soderbergh, who would later make wonderful crime films like Out of Sight and the Ocean's series with great style and atmosphere, takes the dangerously obvious route to modernization by renovating the story with the ugliest, dullest and flattest fashions of the early 1990s. Nightclubs have terrible, revoltingly dressed garage bands, Peter Gallagher's uninteresting version of Burt Lancaster's anti-hero is left by his femme fatale girlfriend for compulsively buying cinematically lifeless modern appliances like stereos, TVs, and other up to date pieces of equipment that suck the reaction out of the film.

It could've been more entertaining and less boring had it a few saving graces like a good score, more flesh to its characters, more than just William Fichtner giving performances that aren't wooden, a crisper pace. Unfortunately, Underneath has none of these things. Soderbergh, a fine director, does not utilize his dry detachment to the benefit of his film this time. That disposition works wonderfully when he's helming a crime movie with more tongue in its cheek like the George Clooney pictures previously mentioned, or a social or character drama like Traffic or sex, lies and videotape. With a movie like Underneath, it intensifies the boredom experienced by the viewer.


... so what's in those missing 10 minutes that were so horrible they had to cut them out from the original film? We were three years into the film production code... Barbara Stanwyck had starred in the original play, but here, Carole Lombard plays Maggie King. Co star Fred MacMurray is probably best known for 'Double Indemnity', with Stanwyck, as well as his hit TV show 'My Three Sons'. Keep an eye out for a young Dorothy Lamour (Bob Hope movies) and the too-fabulous Franklin Pangborn, who spiced up just about every film put on tape. Of course, he works in the beauty salon on the ship! Add the sublime Charles Butterworth and Anthony Quinn. Good timing and clever banter at the beginning. Maggie's buddy Ella is played by Jean Dixon, who was the best friend in 'Holiday' and 'My Man Godfrey'. In 'Swing High', Maggie the tourist meets a soldier who is leaving the army. Maggie misses her boat when it leaves port and gets tangled up with the soldier. The dashing 20-something Quinn has a small scene at the local bar in Panama where Johnson (MacMurray) has been playing the trumpet. Maggie, Harry (Butterworth), and Skid band together and try to figure out how to get back to the States. Some good singing by Lamour. Good (but brief) acting performance by Cecil Cunningham as 'Murph', the wise, helpful owner of the local saloon in Panama. While others have lamented at how bad it is, it wasn't so awful, and is even a little exotic, with the fake Central America locale setting for the first half of the film.


Tom and Butch Cat fight over the capture of Jerry Mouse because the one who doesn't catch Jerry gets kicked out. The two cats dress in their master's clothing to disguise themselves and lets the other have it! Confused, Tom and Butch whack their master's rear and all three of them get kicked out.


Ridiculous horror film about a wealthy man (John Carradine) dying and leaving everything to his four children, and his servants to be divided up equally. One condition--they must spend one week in his estate to get the money. And if any of them die, the others get more. Guess what happens next....

I saw a brand new print of this film on cable. The colors were bright and vivid and the house itself looks beautiful. That's about all the good things I can say about it.

Let's list just some of the problems this film has: the killer is screamingly obvious; the servants are called Igor and Elga--come on!; some of the sound recording was so bad I couldn't make out the dialogue (no great loss I'm sure); the gore was sparse and very poorly done; the other murders were simply boring, stupid or impossible and this movie contains some truly abominable acting--so bad you just stare at the screen in disbelief. Even pro Jeff Morrow was terrible! The only fairly good acting was from trouper Faith Domergue (who deserved better than this) and John Carradine (who looks painfully old and frail here). I do have to admit though--the closing line in this movie is a gem!

Why this was renamed 'Legacy of Blood' is beyond me--there's another 1978 horror film with that name!

Whatever its name is, it's a bad movie. To be avoided at all costs.