One thing about Hollywood, someone has a success and it's always rushed to be copied. And another thing is that players give some of their best performances away from their home studio.

Rock Hudson got such accolades for his performance in the Texas based film Giant that Universal executives must have thought, let's quick get him into another modern Texas setting.

Similarly Robert Stack got great reviews for The High and the Mighty as the pilot who was cracking under the strain of flying a damaged aircraft that it was natural to give him another crack up role.

Both of these ends were achieved in Written on the Wind. Before Hudson was the big ranch owner, now he's the son of a hunting companion of Robert Stack's father who took Hudson under his wing. In other words the James Dean part without the James Dean racism from Giant.

Lauren Bacall is the executive secretary of an advertising agency that Stack's Hadley Oil Company uses. Hudson likes her, but she's dazzled by Stack's millions and when he woos a girl he's got the means to really pursue a campaign. She marries Stack.

And last but not least in the mix we have Dorothy Malone who's Stack's amoral sister who has a yen for Rock, but Rock ain't about to get tangled up with this wild child.

Dorothy Malone spent over 10 years in a whole bunch of colorless film heroine roles before landing this gem. She got a Best Supporting Actress Award for her part as Marilee Hadley and it was well deserved.

If you like splashy technicolor Fifties soap opera than this is the film for you.


The subject matter was good, direction was OK. Mohanlal was efficient in his role as a Major. The acting of the supporting actors was amateurish at best. The casting director and director should be held responsible for this debacle. Hawaldar Jai was terrible, he stood out like a sore thumb with his poor histrionics. He did not look the part nor did he move like a soldier. There was a scene where a satellite feed was required of the skirmish with the militants and they were showing it from a camera angle. Satellite is located hundred of miles in the sky so the only angle is from above.It was quite an embarrassing moment. Audience these days are matured and they recognize when one is trying to pull wool over their eyes. The Director is a Major so the story could be out of his personal experiences. No problem there, but the movie is only as good as its actors and Director. So if Major Ravi is going for any other projects he should pay more attention to the casting.


I'm serious as well, I mean don't get me wrong, if you haven't got a bent for this type of Z grade, creaky creature feature {why would you be watching is my first thought?} then it's a rating of about 3 to 4 out of 10 tops, but to me it's a special kind of nonsense that takes me back to a nice time in my childhood. You know the kind, the memories that never leave you. Eagerly taking it all in with youthful wonderment as Doug McClure and Peter Cushing tunnel beneath the mantle to do battle with a host of creatures and sub-human species'. And guys,! now we are all grown up we can admire most seriously at the wonder of Caroline Munro and her heaving cleavage. No wonder my older brother was keen to take me to the cinema to see this one!.

Yes the effects are bad, men in suits, strings pinging parrot monsters around and exploding rubber frog like thingies amuse us greatly. And yes, Cushing and a surprisingly pudgy McClure act as if they have truly been mesmerised by the evil Meyhas at the 'core' of our film. But it matters not, zany and clunky and awash in glorious colour, At The Earth's Core is a throwback to a special pre-ILM time when kids like me queued around the block to see such joyous nonsense. 8/10


Kolchak is sheer entertainment. Great stories and a great cast and nothing else to weigh it down. Darren McGavin gives an energetic performance that pulls the audience along with him. Simon Oakland, Jack Grinnage and Ruth McDevitt give McGavin the kind of solid support that most leading actors can only dream of having. Some excellent guest stars add colour and verve to individual episodes - Erik Estrada in Legacy of Terror, Phil Silvers in Horror in the Heights, Antonio Fargas in The Zombie. It's easy to see how a boyhood spent watching Kolchak drove Chris Carter to create The X Files. Darren - RIP. Simon - RIP. Ruth - RIP.


Chayanne is beautiful enough, Vanessa is beautiful enough, I liked the storyline. But I went in with the expectation to see lots of energetic hot salsa dancing, I was disappointed. There needed to be more dancing, especially salsa.


Castle of Blood is a good example of the quality work in the horror genre being turned out in Italy in the 60s. The film has all of the right elements - old dark house, atmosphere, a decent story, and Barbara Steele. Steele makes most any film worth seeing.

The story concerns a haunted castle. People have visited, but none have returned. Our hero makes a wager that he can spend the night in the castle and return to collect his winnings. But, the night he visits is a special night. It's the night each year when the dead return to relive their deaths.

The only flaw I see in the movie is the running time. It almost feels padded. There is a large portion of the first act where literally nothing happens. Our hero stumbles around in the dark finding nothing of interest. But once he does find something, the movie picks up and become quite enjoyable.

Castle of Blood is a definite must for Steele fans and fans of Italian Gothic horror in general.


It was simple and yet so nice. I think the whole sense of sex segregation in society, which can be bitter, was shown very delicately. It had a bitter kind of hummer in it. The fact that most of the actors were not professionals, made the movie more tangible and more realistic. There was a 'documentary' side to the movie too. The best scenes were those that all the girls, banned from watching, were listening passionately to the soldier, who is supposed to keep an eye on them, broadcasting the game. If you are an Iranian, the familiar cheering and dancing in the streets after a game won, fills you up with National pride!! If you are not Iranian, you'll still love it all the same!


I just got the UK 4-disc special edition of Superman 1 for about $5. The additional stuff includes the 1951 feature Superman and the Mole-Men. So I slapped it into the DVD player last night, and here are my findings.

Some initial disappointment - I hadn't checked, and I think I had it mentally tagged as one of the Kirk Alyn serials. I'm not a huge fan of George Reeves as Superman, and I hadn't seen anything other than the odd clip of Kirk Alyn - but hey ho, never mind.

This black and white production runs for less than an hour. It has the feel of a couple of episodes of one of Reeves' early TV series, a two-parter, put together for cinema release, although IMDb says it was filmed as a cinema release in advance of the first TV series. In any event, it's an odd choice for reasons I'll get to later. I'm of an age where I recall TV and movie productions which are limited to one or two locations and sets, so there were no major surprises here. Even so, for a low budget movie, this one is REALLY low budget.

The story concerns the small town of Silsby - population 1,430 - which, puzzlingly, is also home to the world's deepest oil well (6 miles). The story opens with the well's foreman hurriedly taking steps to close the well down. This conflicts with the arrival of Metropolis reporters Kent and Lane to report on the well, at the behest of the oil company. As Clark is sniffing out the fact that the drill has emerged into a radioactive cavern 6 miles down, a couple of odd little guys (small in stature, big in head, black in jumpsuit, and bushy in eyebrow) emerge from the capped-off drillshaft, and start mooching round town with puzzled expressions on their faces.

A deep breath now, here is the remaining plot of the picture. The little guys scare some kids, so Jeff Corey (playing the town's rampant xenophobe) incites some pals to kill these 'creatures'. Superman steps in (moderately ineffectually) and catches one of the little guys who has been shot and takes him to the local hospital. Corey's pals burn down the shack the other little fellow has hidden in and assume he is killed, but he escapes and legs it down the shaft. Corey incites a lynch mob (despite the sheriff arresting him) to hang the hospitalised Mole-Man. Superman stops them entering the hospital and takes the injured chappie to the shaft to return him to his fellows. A total of 4 Mole-Men emerge with a weapon of some sort which they fire at Jeff Corey (I call this an Aargh! gun because its sole effect seems to be to make Corey go 'Aargh!') and Superman saves him. He immediately changes his ways because of amazement at Superman saving him after the way he has behaved, the Mole-men go back down the shaft. The end.

Despite the film only being an hour long, there is an inordinate amount of creeping around, bewareing and pursuing - I have left out all the 'Mole-Man 1 creeps from A to B, looking out to make sure no-one is following him' stuff. The Mole-Men are never engaged in any way whatsoever - they have no dialogue - they just turn up, get persecuted, and go back. They do look a little creepy, but they are hardly the bug-eyed monsters that the town's reaction implies.

Reeves is quite a good Clark Kent - very much a hard-nosed reporter, much more so than Phyllis Coates' rather indifferent Lois Lane. But he is a terrible, terrible Superman. Not only does he not look the part (at least his hair is dyed black in this, which is an improvement from the rather light hair he sported in some of the TV episodes), the way he plays it is all wrong in my book. I'm sure he was told to 'strike the pose' (which Superman does constantly), but someone should have told him that it should be fists on hips, not fists on ribs. And he plays Superman as a rather strict and touchy schoolteacher - he doesn't actually wag his finger in remonstration, but he may as well have done.

And Superman does a huge amount of walking around (I say a huge amount - he isn't actually in it all that much), and a bit of running. He takes off and lands a couple of times, but isn't seen in flight at any point. Oh, some bullets bounce off him, and he uses telescopic vision as Clark, but with no accompanying visual effect. In fact, visual effects are conspicuous by their absence, and the few which are present aren't very good.

I've tried to consider this effort by reference to the standards of the time: but even by those standards I think it's a pretty threadbare effort. Thankfully, production standards on the TV series were higher, and at least they took the trouble to come up with stories which had a bit more to them.

Something of a disappointment - I shan't be watching it again.


This is a truly terrible sci-fi/horror film from 1957. In fact, despite Ed Wood, Jr.and his dreadful films getting a lot of publicity, this turkey is every bit as bad as the worst of Wood. Now the acting is a bit better than you'd find in the Wood epics (such as PLAN 9 and BRIDE OF THE MONSTER), but the special effects managed to be significantly worse than Wood's! However, bad movie aficionados will be happy to hear that it's so bad that it's still excellent viewing. Like a Wood film, it's great to watch this crap-fest and laugh along with your friends.

The film begins with a scientist flying about doing some testing in his jet. However, out of nowhere, a UFO streaks by and his report of this over the radio triggers a panic by the Air Force. However, later, they realized that the UFO didn't appear on the radio and they think the scientist is a nut! But, when soon after this planes start disappearing all over, they realize there must be something to his sighting.

So far, the film isn't great but it's watchable. However, by the time the horrible flying monster appears, you know you're watching a turkey. First, through horrid use of stock film and crappy models, airplanes keep changing mid-flight. Some may not be bothered by this, but with airplane lovers like me, seeing an F-80 turning into an F-86 to an F-102 fighter plane made me crazy--especially since the planes look nothing like each other. Second, through 'clever' cinematography, all you really see of the monster is a ball of fuzz for half the film! This is frustrating and you hope that when you finally do see it clearly, it will be worth the wait. Well, no such luck!! The 'monster' looks less realistic or scary than the duck from Groucho's 'You Bet Your Life' TV show!! In fact, it's significantly less realistic than any of the Japanese giant monsters!! In fact, Big Bird from 'Sesame Street' is even a bit scarier and realistic!!! It's just god-awful in every way and might just be the dumbest movie monster in history--about as bad (or worse) as the monsters in ROBOT MONSTER or TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE!!! The bottom line is that this is an absolutely dreadful film that sane people won't like. Bad film fans like me (who are a crazy bunch) will probably love it! All others...be afraid,....be VERY afraid!!

FYI--You might notice that some clips in this film are from other sci-fi movies!! I am positive the crashing Washington Monument scene was stolen from EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS but I also saw a couple other scenes that I swear are from other films. What a hack job!


Comment this movie is impossible. Is terrible, very improbable, bad interpretation e direction. Not look!!!!!


I've seen this programme a few times and the more a see of it, the less I like it. Jamie Lynn Spears was approached to do this because of the fact that she is Britney's sister and I'm sorry to say that that in the show is obvious. They've created the character Zoey to be everything people want to believe Jamie Lynn is, clever, original, smart, pretty, popular etc. The characters around her are only there to make her look better, by being smarter then them, more popular than them, more wanted by boys then them. There is nothing original about this and it's poured with money, so every kid there has the coolest of fashions and stuff. I also have to say, for a 13 year old girl (or however old she is, can't be much older) she wears very mature clothing, those short skirts are too short, it makes young people want to wear them, and all that make-up, this adds to the rising problems of why young girls get into so much trouble. The only thing I will say is that the opening credits are sung by Jamie Lynn and, given her age, isn't bad at all, much better than her sister anyway when it comes to vocal ability. Sorry, it's too mature and yet too dumbed down. It's poorly acted with predictable story lines and there is far too much stereotyping going on too.


A team varied between Scully and Mulder, two other scientists, a pilot, and the guy who plays Bana on Seinfeld, go up to an Arctic research post where all members have died off by either killing each other or killing themselves. They discover there's a worm- a virus- that is parasitic to the point of madness and death. The problem is, after a certain dog lashes out, anyone could be infected, but who? This is not just my favorite episode of season 1, but also one of my favorites from the show. The Arctic environment encloses the characters and, of course like Carpenter's the Thing, it's a lot of fun watching these even-tempered characters suddenly start to flip out in dramatic scenes. And the visual effects of the worm and its effects under the skin are cheesy, I didn't mind them at all. The drama between the characters ends up working more than it would usually because of the tension and because all of the actors (including the Bana guy) understand what's going on in the story. And, as usual, I loved the ambiguity of the ending. Highly recommended.


This animation has a very simple and straightforward good vs. evil plot and is all about action. What sets it apart from other animation is how well the human movements are animated. It was really beautiful seeing the fleeing woman running around on the screen from left to right and look around, her movements were done so well. Why don't they use this rotoscopic technique more these days? It's quite effective.

Fire and Ice, in it's prehistoric setting and scarcely dressed women, was clearly devoted to showing the beautiful damsel in distress in various sexy ways, her voluptuous body serving as pure eyecandy. Some may hate this and regard it as yet another moronic male sexual fantasy, others (including plenty of women) will adore it's esthetic quality. I for sure did not mind! Bakshi just loves animating lushious, voluptuous babes, as can also be seen in Cool World, and I don't think he has to apoligize since it's pretty much animation for adults. But I had also enjoyed this animation as a child and I never forgot it.

This one was just special, so different from the standard Disney or Anime fare, and for that reason alone well worth the watch since it's possibly Bakshi's finest. For those who like animations with lushious women: try Space Adventure Cobra as well.

I give Fire and Ice 8 out of 10.


Erotic cinema of the 1970's was tame compared to the triple X romps of today, which is good. Because there is a good story around the naked rituals and sex scenes. Of course, I wish that they had some vampire effects which they had at the time period and the sex did get in the way of the story a little. Plus some of the accents were hard to understand at time periods, but it's worth watching the unedited version then the edited up version which is titled THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING. But if you don't care for allot of naked women dancing and having sex, then this isn't the movie for you. However, I did enjoy it and I give it...7 STARS.


that got destroyed quickly by the poor quality acting, cinematography, numerous pointless scenes and a terrible villain. Well let's see Joe Estevez is bad (as usual) but he isn't the only casting problem, writer Vivian Schilling is no great actress, in fact, well she sucks. Her script isn't so bad, it's just bad directed. In fact if the direction had been better and if better actors had been cast, this could have been a really good film.

 But alas, with all of these problems 'Soultaker' fails to be even kind of passable as a horror movie, plus the pacing is just awful too.

 The MST crew had some fun with this one but it definitely wasn't one of their better efforts. 5 for that, nothing for the original.


When I watch a low budget film I know what to expect. I expect the acting not to be as good (budget reasons), I expect the lighting not to be as good (budget reasons)I expect the sound not to be as good (budget again). Stop judging these low budget movies like a big budget film!!! I'm a filmmaker myself so I understand the budget constraints on a low budget film. Stealing locations, shots etc... the list goes on and on. I don't want to say all the acting was bad. Jose Rosete, Chris Angelo, Victor Zaragoza are good. Raul Martinez is a natural. Not sold on Carl Washington yet. He has to understand that every line is not important, some are throw away lines. I say if a film makes you want to see what happens next, it's a good film. I liked this movie. I gave it an 8. I wanted to see what was gonna happen next. Great job Quiroz brothers!


I used to work in a video store. I saw this title in the horror section and took it home as a free rental one night.

This movie was truly awful, there is no redeeming quality about it, because it actually takes a well respected sub genre of film and just goes about destroying it. If the first film wasn't low budget enough then this film truly takes the biscuit, being housed (mostly) indoors and at night...therefore avoiding the scenic cost setting of the first film In the first 5 minutes of this film a college lecturer comically runs over an attractive student. Rather than be mortified, the lecturer half heartedly apologises and the girl mentions that despite being thrown across the cars bonnet (he sped up as he approached her) that there is nothing to worry about...after which he attacks her with a crowbar and kills her! If this isn't strange enough, he wants to perform an experiment upon her, bringing her back from the dead....and so feels the need to remove her clothing to do so.

Soft core female nudity (and pubic hair) is rampant throughout the film and is, to be honest,the only real thing to hold the average male viewers interest...like the swimming scene in the first film...but even having said that this film goes from bad to worse with its bad character acting, crappy dialogue and absurd plot turns....why introduce a pivotal character who has survived 29 days from zombie attack only to kill them within 10 minutes....its just a very very bad film


I watched this movie recently and fell in love with it. I loved the storyline and the actors. It has a little of everything. I was completely taken by the unfolding of the story. It has so many surprises along the way. I highly recommend it. In fact, I loved it so much that I ran out and bought the book. I felt I had to read it in order to appreciate the art in the writing behind the movie. I also wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything that was in the book but kept out of the movie. I recommend people who love the movie to read the book because there is enough difference in the book, especially in the second episode, to want to read it. It has become my favorite movie. I am now a Sarah Waters and Elaine Cassidy fan!!


This is one irresistible great cheerful- and technically greatly made movie!

The movie features some of the greatest looking sets you'll ever see in a '30's movie, even though it's all too obvious that they are sets, rather than real place locations. Often if a character would fall or shake a doorpost too aggressive, the entire set would obviously move.

The best moments of the movie were the silent, more old fashioned, slapstick kind of moments. It shows that René Clair's true heart was at silent movie-making. The overall humor is really great in this movie. Also of course the musical moments were more than great. This is a really enjoyable light and simple pleasant early French musical. Though the best moments are the silent moments, that does not mean that the movie is not filled with some great humorous dialog, that gets very well delivered by the main actors, who all seemed like stage actors to me, which in this case worked extremely well for the movie its overall style and pleasant no-worries atmosphere. No wonder this worked out so well, since this movie is actually based on stage play by Georges Berr.

It's a technical really great movie, with also some great innovation camera-work in it and some really great editing, that create some fast going and pleasant to watch enjoyable sequences. There is never a dull moment in this movie!

René Clair was such a clever director, who knew how to build up and plan comical moments within in movies. It's a very creative made movie, that despite its simplicity still at all times feel as a totally original and cleverly constructed movie, that never seizes to entertain.

The last half hour is especially unforgettably fun, without spoiling too much, and is really among the greatest, as well as most creative moments in early comedy film-making.

The movie is filled with some really enjoyable characters, who are of course all very stereotypical and silly and were obviously cast because of their looks. It all adds to the pleasant light comical atmosphere and cuteness of the movie.

One of the most pleasant movies you'll ever see!

8/10


Superbly developed characters into the lots of funny situations full of spirit, absurdness and Serbian mentality. Movie is a great comedy, enjoyable, interesting, unpredictable. Best point in a film: characters, then humor itself, story and dialogs. Humor has 'inner development' , rare in Serbian movies. So, it is consequence of characterization, is well motivated, spontaneous and cogent. Also it is sharp, intelligent and lucid. Most of the movies, unfortunately, had constructed humor (devise a joke and put it into a characters's mouth) or ordinary situation comedy, burlesque, farce. Some of the 'art immortality' are incorporated in this movie. Little masterpiece, hardly reachable.


One thing is for sure...you should not watch this film if you are having a bad day. The story is based around a sad event and follows a character who has to live with a sin that he cant handle. The story is drip fed to you rather than the usual dumbed down explanation so it keeps you wondering what is going on. Eventually the dots are joined up and the performances make sense. All the characters were OK and Wil Smith did another good day at the office.

There are no doubt a lot of moral questions to be asked but if you just accept and buy into his agony then it is easier to accept what he has chosen to do. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. The journey it takes you on is interesting enough, if not overwhelming.

A good enough film that unfortunately leaves you a little sad at the end. I would recommend this film if you like the sort where you have to think and not just watch explosions and fights.


I was eager to see 'Mr. Fix It' because I'm a huge David Boreanaz fan. What I got, though, was a 1-1/2 hour nap. The premise seemed enjoyable: Boreanaz is Lance Valenteen, proprietor of a business called 'Mr. Fix It', where dumped men enlist his help to get their girlfriends to take them back.

Among the problems with this movie are the editing, script, and acting. Although I've found Boreanaz delightful in his other film roles (with the exception of that 'Crow' movie he did), this was disappointing. At times, his character was interesting and others, flat. The supporting cast reminded me of soap opera day players. I realize it wasn't a big-budget film, but some of the scene cuts and music just didn't seem right.

My advice: watch at your own risk.


'Dope Sick Love' is a really remarkable documentary made for HBO about two pairs of heroin addicted lovers roaming the streets of NYC. I managed to catch it one night by accident and found it absolutely mesmerizing. There is no narration and we never see any interviews with the subjects, the camera just follows them around, like a third eye, completely detached. The people being followed don't even seem aware that they're being filmed! (or, at least, they don't seem to care). The footage is amazingly candid. Some of the most candid I've ever seen. This is as real as it gets. The nuts and bolts of what its like to be on the street and addicted to heroin. We watch them score dope, shoot it, make up, hustle, and even impersonate cops to rob people, and about a million other tiny details that less observant documentary filmmakers would leave out.

Some of the footage is truly horrifying. Like watching one guy frantically searching for fix he lost. I found myself praying that he would find it, just so that his misery would temporarily end. And when he does find it, the guy literally dances in the street.

The cyclical nature of drug addiction becomes very apparent while watching this. EVERYTHING is about getting the next score to these folks, yet the next score seems to be well worth the immense trouble they go through.

I would love to get a copy of this, if anyone knows where it is available. Highly recommended, if you can catch it on HBO.


The banter and humorous rescue scene help to make this one of my favorites of the 14-movie series. Wonderful acting, great cast. And this movie contains one of the few oft-noted facts about Sean Bean's career. The part where he and Alice Krige fall off the horse into the water was not scripted but was left in since they both went right on acting after it happened.

This is a good follow-up to the intense ending of Sharpe's Enemy.


Hayao Miyazaki's latest and eighth film for Studio Ghibili, 'Gake No Ue No Ponyo' (Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea) is a wonderfully fun and imaginative look at childhood. At a time when it seems that film animation has been dominated by Disney/Pixar's CGI masterpieces, it is both refreshing and comforting to know that Miyazaki is still relying on traditional hand-drawn animation to tell his charming and enchanting stories.

The story revolves around the friendship between a magical sea sprite/goldfish and the human child that she encounters during a curious outing to see the human world. The human child, Sosuke (Doi Hiroki) lives in a small house on a cliff overlooking a small port city in Southern Japan (based on Seto Island) where he lives with his young mom, Lisa (Yamaguchi Tomoko). Sosuke names the strange goldfish 'Ponyo' and takes it to the daycare/nursing center that Lisa works at. Ponyo is definitely not your typical goldfish and soon begins to adapt and take on human aspects (she develops human speech and an appetite for ham meat) by sampling some blood from a cut on Sosuke's finger.

Yet just as Sosuke and Ponyo begin to develop a bond, Ponyo is taken back by her father, Fujimoto (Tokoro Joji) who is a former human who has rejected the surface world and is now attempting to collect and develop magical elixirs taken from the sea that aid him in repairing and rejuvenating the world's oceans.

Ponyo's desire to become human has become so strong however that Fujimoto is unable to contain her anymore and she takes on a more human appearance and breaks free from her water world home and goes back to see Sosuke.

During her breakout, Ponyo unintentionally releases Fujimoto's cache of magical elixirs which unleashes all sorts of magical sea creatures that causes a violent storm in the seas surrounding Sosuke's town. Desperate to resolve Ponyo's rebellion, he soon calls upon the help of his beautiful wife, Ponyo's mother - the water elemental, Mother/Lady of the Sea (Amami Yuki).

As with his past films, Miyazaki's 'Gake No Ue No Ponyo' touches upon various themes of ecology and environmentalism, this time focusing on the health and vitality of the world's oceans. The opening sequence is at times sobering when Ponyo encounters a drudging vessel which is scraping the ocean's floor, uncovering mountains of garbage and debris. One can understand the anger and frustration of the character of Fujimoto who has spent his lifetime trying to repair the damage civilization is doing to its oceans, yet finding it an daunting and almost fruitless endeavor.

Enough can not be said of the remarkable animation in this film. It is at times bizarre and outrageous but at the same time charming and curious. Clearly Miyazaki wanted to capture the sense and style of a child's imagination. The art style has the appearance of crayon/pencil drawings and is wonderfully colorful and fanciful. It is almost like a child's color book come to life.

Child actors Nara Yuria and Doi Hiroki do great work as Ponyo and Sosuke. They bring adorable charm to their roles. Nara Yuria in particular sounds so darn cute as Ponyo that it is little wonder that Doi's Sosuke falls for the magical girl. Former campaign girl/model and actress Yamaguchi Tomoko (Shichinin No Otaku, Swallowtail) is also very good in her role as Sosuke's modern mom, Lisa. I was a bit confused at first by her character as I initially thought she was Sosuke's older sister. It also didn't help that Sosuke kept referring to her as 'Lisa' rather than Mom but I guess it is perhaps a sign of the times and an indicator of the modern Japanese family (in the anime series Crayon Shinchan, Shinnosuke also refers to his mom by first name as well).

80s comedian Tokoro Joji sounds totally different as the serious Fujimoto but wisely doesn't make his character sound cartoony villainous or goofy menacing. While we don't get to know his character more, former pro-baseball player and actor Nagashima Kazushige ( who portrays Sosuke's father Koichi) also delivers some nice voice work. The opening theme 'Umi No Okasan' by Japanese soprano Masako Hayashi is simply beautiful and stirring. In contrast the Fujimaki Fujioka and Nozomi Ohashi 'Geke No Ue No Ponyo' theme is light and amusing and evokes images of a traditional Japanese nursery rhyme. During one brilliant sequence the soundtrack takes on an almost Wagnerian operatic sound with music that sounds like 'Die Walküre'.

The film is not perfect however and does suffer from moments where the central story of Ponyo and Sosuke takes a back seat to some of Miyazaki's overwhelming fantastical visuals. I also had wished we had more time to explore Fujimoto's back-story as well as the relationship between Sosuke and his father.

Like 'Kiki's Delivery Service/Majo No Takkyubin', 'Howl's Moving Castle', 'Princess Momonoke/Momonoke Hime' and 'My Neighbor Totoro/Tonari No Totoro', 'Gake No Ue No Ponyo' is another Miyazaki classic that is a marvelous feast for the eyes. Like a modern day fairytale, the film tells a timeless story of friendship and love that will surely be cherished in years to come.


Many people know how it feels when a loved one is lost. The feelings of pain, grief and sorrow can be unbearable. However, sometimes it is the memories they leave behind that trigger the saddest emotions. This theme is superbly portrayed in the short film 'Tulip', directed by the award winning Australian actress, Rachel Griffths. Described as a movie 'as much about memories as it is about love', a string of sensitivity and sentimentality is expertly threaded into this triumphant 15 minute film.

'Tulip' is a beautifully wrought, touching and heart-warming story of a man's journey in coming to terms with the loss of his wife through the relationship he shares with a very special animal, 'Tulip'. The film opens with a rising dawn, the chirping of birds and a vast landscape, introducing the sense of rustic harmony present throughout the film. A soft music plays, marking the entrance of Ruth (Jean Bain). She wears a flowered dress and apron with a sun hat on her head. She gently pets Tulip, caressing her ears and patting her back. The furnishing of the house is impressive and the attention to detail is creditable (a vase of tulips can be seen on the bench), reflecting the peaceful rural community. Will (Charles 'Bud' Tingwell) greets Ruth as she is spooning the milk from the bucket. They pour the milk and coffee together, a sign of companionship and teamwork. Not a word is said but it is obvious that their relationship is close and affectionate; they paint a perfect picture of happiness.

Sadly, happiness doesn't last forever. The tragic passing of Ruth affects Will deeply. An effective scene of fading cars highlights Will's isolation and vulnerability at the end of the day of the funeral. Soon he sinks into depression and becomes oblivious to his surroundings when everything seems hopeless and lost. At Will's moment of despair, Tulip becomes the symbol of Ruth, the genuine connection Will has with his late wife. It was through Tulip that Will learns to cope with the absence of Ruth and overcome the heartrending feelings of loneliness.

Each of the characters is realistically and solidly portrayed, especially the part of Will. Charles 'Bud' Tingwell brings the character to life through personal investment. The recent loss of his own wife (Audrey Tingwell) is effectively reflected in his acting. Every sag of his shoulder and every frown on his brow make the viewer empathize strongly with the character. The character of Ruth is wonderfully carried out by Jean Bain. Although Ruth does not say a single word throughout the movie, her sweet personality and loving relationship with Will are obvious. Lois Ramsey and Kati Edwards give delightful performances in supporting roles as the friendly Margaret and Mary. They also add a subtle humor to the bittersweet story.

An anecdote from Griffths' childhood, the story of loss and discovery is remarkably captured in 'Tulip'. Beautifully shot and superbly acted, this film will surely make you misty eyed, triumphant or feel like drinking a cup of milk.


The original is a relaxing watch, with some truly memorable animated sequences. Unfortunately, the sequel, while not the worst of the DTV sequels completely lacks the sparkle.

The biggest letdown is a lack of a story. Like Belle's Magical World, the characters are told through a series of vignettes. Magical World, while marginally better, still manages to make a mess of the story. In between the vignettes, we see the mice at work, and I personally think the antics of Jaq and Gus are the redeeming merits of this movie.

The first vignette is the best, about Cinderella getting used to being to being a princess. This is the best, because the mice were at their funniest here. The worst of the vignettes, when Jaq turns into a human, is cute at times, but has a lack of imagination. The last vignette, when Anastasia falls in love, was also cute. The problem was, I couldn't imagine Anastasia being friendly with Cinderella, as I considered her the meaner out of the stepsisters. This was also marred by a rather ridiculous subplot about Lucifer falling in love with PomPom.

The incidental music was very pleasant to listen to;however I hated the songs, they were really uninspired, and nothing like the beautiful Tchaikovsky inspired melodies of the original.

The characters were the strongest development here. Cinderella while still caring, had lost her sincerity, and a lot of her charm from the original, though she does wear some very pretty clothes. The Duke had some truly funny moments but they weren't enough to save the film, likewise with Prudence and the king. As I mentioned, the mice were the redeeming merits of the movie, as they alone contributed to the film's cuteness. I have to say also the animation is colourful and above average, and the voice acting was surprisingly good.

All in all, a cute, if unoriginal sequel, that was marred by the songs and a lack of a story. 4/10 for the mice, the voice acting, the animation and some pretty dresses. Bethany Cox


I saw this film on the A&E channel this past weekend. The mystery was okay, I was not able to guess the culprit before the end. But I enjoyed the characters and their development much more than the mystery. There was a mystery about some of them, especially George Abernathie, performed by the wonderful Michael Fassbender, and George's cousin, Susannah. In fact, the story of those two characters left me wanting to know more. From what I've tried to glee about the Agatha Christie book of the same title, I think this film did not follow it to the letter. Very good performances by the actors involved, especially Fassbender and the lady who played Cora/companion.


I love how everyone treats this show like it was the next great American sitcom. I watched five episodes of this abomination, and the only person that came close to an actual teacher was the old guy that sort of loved and hated his job. The rest of them were just pretty people trying to read the lines written by people who never actually went inside of a real classroom. I loved how every episode consisted of the two idiots (one who got laid and the other who didn't) getting into some form of zany trouble that indirectly involved their students. The British girl who thought she found an likable quality in the main idiot, but in the end was somehow shocked that he turned out to be a jackass. The hot chick that was there for the particular purpose of being hot, and the principal and her lackey that served to somehow move the almost non-existent plot forward. I loved how almost all the teachers on this show were very young, but I ask you to think back to your high school days and remember the teachers that you had . . . did they look like that? Or did you go to the high school that had middle-aged people teaching in it? That is the high school that everyone else went to. The show lacked any form of research into what goes on in schools. In public schools, principals do not have the power to higher and fire teachers, the school board does, but in every episode that I watched the principal made threats to fire her teachers. Think back to your history class . . . . . or think of any history class, did you ever see an incredibly hot British chick teach an American History class? No. Did you ever see a teacher's lounge that is so huge that you could actually play basketball in? No.

Teachers could have been a great show had it actually of based itself in some form of reality. What makes teaching funny is the stories that you get from interaction with students, and the teachers find it funny because they deal with the students day in and day out. The overemphasis on their lives outside of teaching just made it another four camera sitcom that had unrealistic people in an unrealistic environment saying unrealistic lines, and I'm sorry, I just didn't buy it. The show could have modeled itself after other currently successful sitcoms and used a single-camera format, and it should have centered more around the teacher's relationships with their students and not with each other.

It gets a star for trying and a star for the hot chick (she was really hot).

In the end, it was a failed sitcom that will go down in history as a hacks attempt to understand a profession. I only hope that if they make another sitcom based on teaching that they learn from their mistakes so that a monstrosity such as this never touches the television screen.


I can't think of anything, I repeat, ANYTHING positive about this 'Movie'! The whole 1 hour 45 minute movie could be shrunken into a short 5-minute movie! In most scenes, there is absolutely nothing going on and it seems just the camera was left on recording on purpose only to increase the time of the movie! All you see is someone in the background walking around or watching TV with no specific subject or even talk what so ever! I just feel I've wasted 105 minutes of my, my family's and my friends' weekend for nothing! If a movie is poorly made or the scenario isn't great that's whole another story, at least it leaves you something to discuss about but about DISTANT, I just have to call it a 'Movie' because it was motion pictures recorded by a camera.

If you haven't seen it, imagine a 105-min long movie based on two-three lines of story! What will you end up with? 5% of content and 95% of fillers! That's exactly how 'Distant' was at least for us! Actors did a great job acting roles that had nothing special in them, they barely talked or showed any special emotions! I picked up this movie in the comedy section of a store relying on what I read on the back of its cover. I'm still wondering what was funny in it other than our face after watching the movie.


This was the only time I ever walked out on a movie. Years later, I saw it in the cable listings and thought, 'Maybe I should give it another try.' Suffice to say that I was right the first time. This ranks second only to Godzilla 1998 as the worst movie I've ever seen.


Super-slick entertainment with a stellar cast, an outstanding script, and a firm grip on the approaching 1950's. At the time, RKO was turning out classic noirs by the dozens. But whatever the value of those shadowy downers, they reflected a war-time mood soon to give way the sunnier climes of the Eisenhower era. Few films of the late-40's are further from that noir cycle or more attuned to the coming consumer decade than this sassy little comedy.

Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) works as an ad-man on Madison Ave. where in his little daughter's words-- he sells things to people that they don't need, at prices they can't afford. He's making good money, but like thousands of others, he's tired of living in a cramped urban 'cave'. So, with wife Myrnah Loy, they strike out after their dream house in the wilds of the Connecticutt countryside. Needless to say, in the arms of nature, they get more than they bargained for and in hilarious fashion.

There's hardly a lifeless line in the entire script. I don't know if writers Panama and Frank got an Oscar, but they should have. Of course, the humor revolves around all the problems that pop-up when city people build a big house on rural land. The annoyances pile up almost as fast as the mortgage, with all the eccentric types running the construction show and giving Grant a hard time. Of course, no one carries off annoyance or frustration more humorously than Grant, so it's just one well-placed laugh after another, particularly when the locked closet appears to have an infernal mind of its own. Yet, oddly, the film appears to have no comedic high-point. Instead the laughs are spaced out so expertly that they don't peak at any particular point. That's a real movie triumph for any era.

Reaching back 60 years later, we can see how deftly the script ideas look ahead rather than behind. With their live-in maid, the Blandings may not be a typical American family, but that post-war migration from cramped cities to spacious suburbia was typical. And what more suggestive job for the coming consumerism than Blandings as an 'ad-man' tasked with finding catchier ways to sell more 'ham'. More than anything, however, there's the movie's sunny optimism. Oh sure, the feeling falters at times, yet the belief that a better future is on the horizon if the Blandings just stick to their dream carries them through. Indeed, life was going to improve for a lot of people during the coming surge, so I expect the film resonated deeply with audiences of the day. It's that easily over-looked subtext, along with the sheer entertainment value, that makes this movie a key comedy statement of the post-war period.

So, if you haven't seen it, catch it next time around.


The most beautiful film. If one is looking for serious depth, meaning and excellent performance then you have to get to watch this movie. excellent performances by the whole cast. Even more beautiful than A Beautiful Mind itself. Simply awesome!! I wish this movie entered the Oscars. I cried through the whole movie for the schizophrenic character. ..The most beautiful film. If one is looking for serious depth, meaning and excellent performance then you have to get to watch this movie. excellent performances by the whole cast. Even more beautiful than A Beautiful Mind itself. Simply awesome!! I wish this movie entered the Oscars. I cried through the whole movie for the schizophrenic character.


PROS: Akshay Kumar's performance(is it just me or does this guy always manages to trump AB in their movies together?). Some touching scenes in the 2nd half.

CONS: The whole 1st hour(the jokes were flat to say the least). Every scene involving Rajpal Yadav. Major stupidity in AB's decision making. Let me get this straight, he believes brutally insulting his son's soul in every possible way(that will likely ruin their relationship beyond repair) is a better way for him to make Akshay finally take some responsibility then actually telling him the truth?? WTF? He considers Akshaye is too soft to bear the fact that his OLD father is soon gonna die due to cancer, but thinks insulting him will make him stronger? Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic here? Easily the movie's biggest flaw.

- Akshay becoming a stunt man. LMAO!! We're told he finished 1st in college every year and has a degree in MBA. But when the time arrives to support himself, and his pregnant wife, he becomes a stunt man. LOL!! How abt actually applying for a normal job in ur field? Or Heck, anywhere else where ur life isn't in danger? This is some incredibly dumb writing.

- The ending. I hate this sort of melodramatic crap. Everything is pushed down our throats to feel sorry for AB's character, which I couldn't. The entire thing reminded me a little too much of Srk in KHNH(which I hate). This 'please feel sorry for the guy with the illness' crap has run its course. I felt more like puking than sympathy for the OLD man. Couldn't watch the final 20 or so minutes because of it and thus had to fast fwd. the whole thing.

Bottomline: Waqt is just too dumb to be called a good movie. Its obvious director Vipul Shah targeted this at the emotionally fragile chicas and oldies who could care less about a story that actually makes sense. Give 'em some decent song picturizations, fancy outfits, plenty of glycerin-filled scenes and some star power and they'll happily lap-up crap like this.


Atlantis: The Lost Empire is a better movie than I thought. I never thought this movie would lead to my expectations. True, this movie started slow, but as the movie wore on it became more to my liking. The story takes place in 1914 and is about a guy named Milo. Milo believes in the fabled Atlantis. Along with friends of his grandfather, he embarks on an amazing adventure of his own. Along the way, he must endear friendship, betrayal, trust, and more. The voice cast is great. They surely know how to carry movies with only their voice talent. The music is nothing special but likable anyway. The animation is not the best, but it is still good enough. Overall, this is a good family movie for all ages. I rate this movie 9/10.


This movie is truly unique. It really captures the spirit of the play, but makes it entertaining to the modern generation. The romance between Tromeo and Juliet was believable, and erotic, not pulled off by many adaptations. It is also so funny I was almost crying with laughter.

Like with most Troma its in your face, taboo subjects, gore and sex, and yet add in some really good acting and a Shakespeare plot. You really have to see this movie to believe it!

There are some hillarious jokes in the credits (best credits I've seen since Hot Shots) loads of Troma in jokes as well as general satire and shakespeare refs. And Lemmy from the house of Motorhead narrates. I lent this movie to a friend and had an almost impossible job of getting it back. Troma at its best, this film really is a gem, and goes in my top 5 favourite movies of all time.

Though its not the sort of film you'd watch with your mum, and might offend some people. For anybody bored with run of the mill cinema, with a wacky sense of humour you MUST SEE THIS FILM.


Deepa has again tried to bravely bring out a subject that no one wants to talk about. The story line is OK, cinematography is outstanding, screenplay and acting are way below average. I guess the blame is to the citizens of Uttar Pradesh in India from where her original set was destroyed in 2000. This resulted in a totally different cast, I just wonder what a spectacular movie it would have been if it had the original Shabana Azmi, Nandita Das and Aamir Khan. The current actors Lisa Ray (who's just good for squirming in Bombay Dyeing bedsheets) and John Abraham are pathetic, need basic lessons in acting. Seema Biswas, Raghubir Yadav and Kulbushan Kharbabda have saved the movie as much as they can. The kid had done an outstanding job. The editing and the flow of the movie is also not something you would have expected from Deepa. Great subject, sends out a strong message about a practice which is still pretty rampant in rural India but falls short of the standards Deepa set for herself in Fire and Earth. Watch it once...when its on DVD, don't bother paying $10 to see it....well its out beats the average Hindi movie any day


I'm an atheist. To me history and truth mean a lot.

This film is made after a novel published in 1921, which is still being updated up to this day as if it was a history book. Well it's not. The movie is about the novels 1950s version. Some actors were GREAT but that doesn't cover the plot.

In short man invents a super-bomb so God and his friends hold a tribunal to see if they must intervene. The devil analogy persecutes man, and for defense we have the spirit of man. What is the spirit of man anyway? And why was the first defendant Adam? Eventually you just get US Christian propaganda in a 5th grade history book of the time. Though other religions are mentioned, only European Christianity is explored.

First we get the caveman story. The women are scrawny stereotypes of damsels in distress. Real cave women were as strong as men and just as resistant. Hard times, hard life, adapt and survive. All this is watered down by mid-century stereotypes.

Next we get Egypt's first pyramid construction. Today we see a different story and know that there were a lot less deaths and regular citizens at work as well. Loosing mentioned amount of many lives in the process would have been a national disaster and nobody after would try to beat it. As if there was only ONE pyramid build.

The part about Moses and one true god was as if the Spanish inquisition was asking nicely. Inquisition itself was never even mentioned in the movie.

Helen of Troy's evil grim was so vile that I didn't see why so many were even interested in her. In reality they were just soldiers, following commanders orders, who were 'discussing' a political issue of power. She was just an excuse.

The Cleopatra story was were I saw this film was to inaccurate and filled with propaganda. Here brother was a LOT younger. She was not obsessed with poison, was quite educated to restore library content, and was politically competitive to drag beaten down Egypt out of dirt.

The part with Nero and praying Christians in a cave were disgusting. Yes, Rome burned down. Yes, there was persecuted Christianity. But the way they portray it was as if the Coliseum build itself and there was no Vespasian to rebuild Rome.

Attila the Hun appears in a short seen and than we jump to King Arthur. The crusades are mentioned with minimal bloodshed. And there is no mention of the crusades east to Russia that ended in an ironic battle. The knights just went home and started jousting for fun of it. A LOT of stuff is put down like no indoor pluming, hygiene and plagues.

Then they cover Joan of Ark, where she always has to much makeup and looks like a princes. Territorial politics were replaced with an unjust court. The sidesaddle alone on a stool makes me want to ask how someone could follow here. At here burning I wanted to yell 'Hura! Now die already! Cheap special effects, where is the fire?'.

By the time they mentioned Leonardo I already got fed up with the movie. Columbus, Spanish slaughter of America, yelling Queen Elisabeth 'kick the Spanish armada' and so on and so on.

The ONLY reason I wanted to see this movie was the fact that it was the last one with all 3 Marks brothers. And all they got was the scene with Manhattan and Indians. Amusing, but no more than a smile.

The witch-hunts are mentioned briefly, as well as plagues (after renascence). When they start portraying revolutions, things gut power-hungry and anarchistic. The US revolution was pursued by the French revolution. Oppression and incompetence are bad, but you can't just blow the old way up out of anger, you must replace it with something. So they replaced the French monarchy with new French monarchy. So we get Napoleon and his ambitions to go to India by land. But they replace his motives with unity and band him for only the title 'Emperor'. The conquests in Europe, defeat in Russia are sacked to Waterloo.

The US civil war, the English rich inventors (Tesla not included). 'Mister Watson, come here, I want you' almost made me laugh for teenage reasons. Technological hard work was watered down to the final discovery and comedic misuse.

Eventually after 85 minutes we come to world wars and organized crime, but none of its horrors. Adolph's words 'I invade Russia. This is my last territorial demand' were hilarious. It was his LAST territorial demand.

To build suspense God puts a countdown clock to doomsday on the 'wall' for the final words. All mighty cant pause the universe for a second? There was no need for the persecution speech but the defense made one last throw.

Last we see the man of tomorrow as the final defense. Apparently a paradox man, because the bomb was to go of today. His toys are a music box in the shape of a gun and a pencil box sword. Now that is so wrong Pens and pencils drew so many weapon blueprints that its kill count surpasses the atom bomb. And making music out of a weapon? Deluded egoistic generals make music out of weapon fire. So the man of tomorrow is already a monster.

The way I see it, all the defense had to do was blame the devil as the true conspirator for mans demise and case closed. And honestly, compared to all barbaric stuff our ancestors did centuries ago we are pretty humane at painless backstabbing these days.

To summarize all I will just quote 'Firefly's episode 'Jaynestown': 'It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of son of bitch or another. Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need'.


I have seen this movie but not in a single sitting. What happens it that it is playing on the TV, I watch for a few minutes, find that I have take all that I can take and then leave the room. During those few minutes I do not laugh once, experience no pleasure in what I am viewing, and find myself more depressed that angry. Interestingly, I am told the psychological states are incompatible, that is, one cannot be angry and depressed at the same time. This movie tests that theory.

I think part of the problem is that I spent nearly ten years in Chicago so as I am watching the scenes I am thinking of my own experiences in that rotten town and thus I am clearly bringing a lot of my baggage to the piece. It is entirely possible, I am willing to concede, that if you are not a Chicago denizen you will find the piece amusing. If so, I envy you.

And yet. John Hughes set his films in Chicago and those movies worked for me. I think the difference is that Hughes was a first rate writer. I think it obvious he knew how to comically balance his situations, as well as make his characters both sympathetic and believable. In a comedy (as distinguished from a farce) this balance vital. And it is not easy to achieve. If it was everyone would be making great movies and we would not have to fret as we do in the real world wondering when genius will ever appear. In 'Adventures in Babysitting,' it doesn't. I hated those characters.

There is a difference, profound and real, between sympathetic and simply pathetic.

For me every scene in this movie is a clunker. There is no humor, no humanity, no people one can recognize. Just actors reading their lines as if it all they can do to restrain themselves from screaming them out, certain that finally hilarity will ensue, this time for sure! It's like watching the antics of very bad comedians. It's embarrassing and after a while, usually at the point when I get up and leave, I start to feel pity for all concerned, which is a kind of emotional connection, I suppose. Elizabeth Shue is terrible. She doesn't act, certainly not act comically, and it's entirely possible she can't. But lord how she tries. She looks older than 17, and acts way younger like a seven-year old straining in a school play certain that this is how one gets an award. And she is not alone. It is as if everyone cannot relax and let the tale flow. As if everyone simply has no idea what they are doing.

Now, this was an early effort for Chris Columbus and he clearly would improve and having better writers (e.g. John Hughes himself) certainly helped, so perhaps some forgiveness is in order. But the film just reeks of desperation. Yet like I said it may work for some. If any of the above appeals to you, and it clearly did some of the reviewers, then go get the DVD and knock yourself out. Otherwise, avoid this mess like you would a dark Chicago alley where as you hurry by you can only see shadows and hear muttered threats.


William Faulkner was one of the American writers to win the Nobel Prize in literature. Faulkner mostly wrote about life in the South particularly during the depression years. Many of his stories have been adapted to screen. Short stories like Two Soldiers is an endearing tale of two brothers in December 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The older brother, Pete Greer, goes to Memphis, Tennessee to enlist like hundreds of thousands of young men, some who would never come home. His younger brother doesn't take his departure well. He manages to get a bus ticket to Memphis without any money to find his brother. He surprisingly becomes a soldier of another kind since he wants to enlist also at 10 years old. Ron Perlman does a surprising performance as the military leader who manages to take care and bond with the boy. This short film won an Oscar for Best Short-Live Action film which is well-deserved. If it was longer, it could compete with the longer films. Everything else like costumes, art direction, and recreating the era of America in 1941 is perfect. The film also shows the heartbreaking war at home as most Americans were surviving the great depression. The actors and actresses are not known but they do a first rate performances. If Hollywood would make more quality films, I would probably go to the cinema more. If Broadway had more quality shows, I would go to the theater more.


This movie promised bat people. It didn't deliver. There was a guy who got bit by a bat, but what was with the seizures? And the stupid transformation? Where was the plot? Where was the acting? Who came up with the idea to make this? Why was it allowed to be made? Why? Why? I guess we'll never know.


When you start watching this animation-masterpiece, you quickly notice, that it's a European production. Although the Europeans have (sadly) integrated some of the clichés you would normally find in an American production of this kind, most are missing. One of these is that there is an overwhelming evil that only our (very few and very unlikely) heroes can vanquish. Another is that one of the group is only in the business for the money, is greedy, runs away when the heat is up but somehow gives in to his better nature. This movie would have been better off without both.

The movie is based upon a TV-Series that was out four years before the movie. Unlike the movie, the TV-Series is a cartoon and not a computer animation. At first I thought the computer would kill the charm and character of the plot but I was quickliy convinced: Whoever did the animation knew his or her stuff! Although the characters are obviously fictional (in stills they don't even look real), they seem as alive and sentient as the audience following their quest. Making characters who by 'normal' standards could be considered deformed (those micro-legs could never carry that giant body let alone make it jump) so alive and lovable is more than 'just a highlight'! The creation of the world is another masterpiece. Not so much because of its looks but because of the inventiveness of it. The world our heroes travel is not solid like our own but is made of many pieces of land varying in shape and size that seem to be floating in mid air. When a person steps on a smaller fragment of ground, it nods a little bit as if feathering from the weight. In some cases up and down no longer apply but our heroes still manage to get a foothold somewhere. Although the world of floating islands is completely surreal, in this movie it is absolutely believable and after a short time it doesn't seem any weirder than running into a car somewhere in New York.

I wrote that the looks of the world aren't as breathtaking as the idea. As true as that might be to my mind, the quality of the world, the characters and the attention to details is staggering. Although the faces of the characters have relatively few attributes, emotions can be read as clearly as in Sean Connery's or Dustin Hoffman's face. The world around the characters is wonderfully colourful and no two settings are alike. The background is always in motion, something is always going on which makes the world seem even more alive. If you stop the movie and look at the background you will be surprised how many details you can find.

The existence of Hector actually puts the cherry on top. Hector is a furry little 'thing' (possibly the equivalent of a dog in our world) who is totally lovable and extremely funny. Although he isn't really important for the main plot, he would be missed like Scrat would be in Ice Age. The really cool thing about Hector is that you need to speak Gibberish to understand him.

If the movie is so great, why didn't I give it 10 stars? Well, the plot in itself was rather thin. Two hunters are sent out to rescue the world from a really bad dragon who wants to swallow the world, isn't really original. That in itself wouldn't be much of a problem. What I missed was the background information. What kind of a dragon was this and why did it look that way? I love mythical stories but if they get too thin then they seem to be written after the movie is finished in a feeble attempt to give the whole thing some depth.

Another thing I didn't like was Zoé. Although a little girl like her could be considered adorable, she was somewhat of a pain in this movie. She seemed pretty resistant to all types of learning about reality, kept dreaming of some hero from a story book and basically slowed the others down. She would have been OK if she had developed a little more and a little earlier in the movie - or had been less of a girly to start with. To me the idea of this girl who was there to twist the story a little backfired on the writers.

All in all, this is a really good movie for just about all ages.


So boring you'll fall asleep after the 20 first minutes. Sorry Mr Boutonnat, I do admire your work (all these beautiful 'films' you directed such as 'Tristana', 'Sans logique' etc...) but here, the plot is extremely... vain ! Except the magnificent photography, everything appears dumb and there's no envy to know what will happen at these 'medium' actors. Moreover, the dialogs are minimalists. The famous question 'where are the children' is repeated so often it looks like a farce. Believe me, it's a pure waste of time (concerning the plot), and 3 hours is a long long time. Certainly the real reason of this box-office total mess !


Delightful! It never pretends to be a masterpiece, but it's a mini-gem of late seventies British comedy. Given that the producers wanted to sell it abroad, it stars an American (the late character actor Richard Jordan), but at least he isn't the usual dull Hollywood hunk type. Surrounding him is the cream of British character acting talent, led by a wonderfully waspish and superior David Niven.

Niven's Ivan the Terrible naturally gets the best one liners and all the best reaction shots. He also manages to be surprisingly menacing and intimidatingly dangerous. The moment in the snooker club when he drops the charming facade and threatens Richard Jordan will come as a shock to those viewers who think of Niven as being only a light drawing room comedy star. He is filled with genuine power and ruthlessness as we see all at once how Ivan earned his nickname. All the more surprising given how ill Niven was at the time. Shortly after filming this production he lost his powers of speech to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (known as Lou Gehrig's disease). This is the last picture Niven made where you can hear his own voice, being dubbed thereafter by the comic impressionist Sid Caesar.

Alongside him you can spot numerous familiar faces from seventies cinema and television. Elke Sommer (flashing her breasts in true seventies era politically incorrect bimbo mode), Oliver Tobias, Michael Angelis, Brian Croucher, Davy Kaye etc, etc. Davy Kaye gets one of the biggest laughs as he holds up a security guard caught making a phone call. 'Who you ringing?!....Bloody Dial-A-Disc! You gormless git!'

Great shots of London street locations; making the film a period patina time capsule of red phone boxes with chunky round-dial manual handsets, black cabs driven by 'Cor blimey, gov!' cockneys, and ladies and gents modelling all manner of deeply dodgy late seventies retro leisure wear and hair styles.

Unlike the classic Ealing comedies of an earlier era, the 'hero' is allowed to get away with his crime and escape to a life in the sun. How times had changed! The morality code by which crooks in films always had to be seen to be punished had long gone by the seventies, with anti-heroes like Pinky Green earning status through their cheeky anti-authoritarianism and determination to 'cock a snook' at a stuffy capitalist establishment of be-suited fat cat businessmen. We are encouraged to cheer as Pinky makes off, unpunished and free as a bird with his ill gotten gains. Compare that to the ending of The Lavender Hill Mob!

Highly entertaining, quaintly dated in its fashions and attitudes, and the stuff of late night cult viewing. Perfect to watch at midnight after the pubs have shut; if you're of a certain age, are feeling a touch nostalgic, and have always wanted to see David Niven in a branch of McDonalds, silently intimidating an American via the use of a retractable telescope!


After watching 'A Texas Tale of Treason' you feel a renewed disgust for the nature of the Hollywood beast. Inside the interviews and conversations of all involved with the project there is a common sense of comradery and rebelliousness that spans backgrounds, social classifications, and even geography. This can be attributed to hard work on the entire production's undying commitment to the project and the love the of the story from the original film, and the complete creation of vacuum that is it's creator. The scale of people involved in 'Waldo's Hawaiian Holiday' was amazing to me, at a no budget, no glory production. There were no trailers or craft services, no amenities at all, and yet everyone involved stuck right there with it. If nothing ever comes of this project, Antstuie Productions have laid their foundation for being a serious, honest company that's never going to lay down and take it or sell out and make a movie just for the money. I'd like to see any L.A. director go through the guerrilla process to get a shot. More realistic true to life cinema is lacking in this time of CG and green screens. The masses may enjoy their entertainment spoon fed to them in nice bite sized censored calm bits, but there is a large group of people out here in the world that share the opinions and insights of the filmmakers that still make films for the love of the material or love of storytelling, not DVD sales or box office. I loved this documentary, and I hope that IFC has the cahones to pick it up and air it so that maybe, just maybe, one more person will decide to pick up a camera and film some real life so we the viewer can have even a temporary understanding that everyone everywhere is the same, and anyone anywhere can be a true storyteller.


Unremarkable and unmemorable remake of an old, celebrated English film. Although it may be overly maligned as a total disaster (which it is not), it never builds any tension and betrays its TV origins. Richard Burton sleepwalks through his role, and Sophia Loren's closed (in this movie) face doesn't display much passion, either. (**)


This all looked quite promising. An up-and-coming Presidential adviser is framed for a series of murders, as he has been tipped off that a conspiracy is going on within the White House. It stars the excellent Donald Sutherland among several capable actors. Yet very few people have a good word to say about it.

The whole thing really needed some depth. You can pick up the idea that the President is being too left-wing with his ideas, and some within the Government want him dead to stop those ideas being carried out. Conrad appears to simply want the country to be Governed his way, rather than the way of the elected leader.

However, the action scenes had a few logic holes - the sewers and elevators already mentioned, and the rather haphazard assassination method - and Linda Hamilton's character is completely uninspired. Her 'the President's my Father' 'diversion' was ludicrous - that would make the President about 10 when that happened. Worse still was her predictable final scene with Bishop.

They could have made a challenging, inventive political thriller, but either bottled it or failed. They could've gone to town on special effects, but the good ones were wasted. They could have achieved so much more in general. This was barely worth the £1 it cost me.


i read the book before i saw the movie i knew the movie was going to be good because the book was great i seriously recommend you see this amazing fantastic movie. i know you will like it. when i went to see it i was there with my sister and there was nobody that was with us i was a little disappointed but nobody that i know has gone in to that movie and came out saying that was a horrible movie. nobody can it is so great i think everyone will like it (to bad nobody wants to see it) anyway i hope from what you have heard about this movie from me will make you want to see this movie i guarantee you'll like it as much as i do (im obsessed) literlly i am


It's just one of those films, you're either love it or hate it, my girlfriend and me loved it, told my brother to rent it and he hated it, said it was too flashy and colloquial, then again he only usually goes to see big action movies, so probably not enough explosions left him disappointed. There were some great new talent (I'd never heard of the leads before anyway)? Des Brady (the directors brother?) was especially good. Playing a right dick at the start I thought he never would redeem himself but he managed to crawl out of the dark hole he had created and by the end I was really routing for him. A very surprising film with a whole lot of heart, if you can live without a body count and explosions then this one is very original. Yashimo. Brixton in the UK.


For Estoninans Finland sometimes seems like a land of dreams. A land where many of us want to go and work there or start a business. Find love, start a new life etc. But... Aku Louhimies has made this brilliant piece which shows that everything is not so good in Finland as well. That Finland can be just as Paha maa (The Bad Land) than any other country. It shows that people there can be just as miserable in their lives than we in everywhere else. That sometimes there's nothing good. This movie nicely shows why Finland is one of the top suicidal countries. It's not easy to live in North. Cold climate changes us. I've become more and more attracted to Finnish movies and this one is very good. The acting is great as well. Jasper Pääkkönnen has become one of the top Finnish stars. Beware of the sex scene (if you have little children) and a little depression that might come afterwards the movie! 8/10


I have to admit that this 're-imagining' of the original 1968 film was a huge disappointment. Specially when taken into consideration that this is a Tim Burton film. He is defenetly one of the most original and, might I say, cool directors Hollywood has produced.

I am personally a great fan of his work, but something obviously went wrong with his latest flick, The Planet of the Apes. I really enjoyed the original film. When it first came out people expected just another cheezie 70's science fiction film, but a very surprise anding totally proved that theory wrong. It had indeed a clear cut message. An obvious anti-war message. Fear of the cold war, where it was taking the world and fear of the use of nuclear weapons played a big role in the mind of the film-makers. Those reasons made the film rise above all expectations and it became a instant classic. Although, the new film, the 're-making' or whatever, leaves us with nothing. No message, no ideals behind it. It is just another money-minded summer blockbuster.

Visually Tim Burton does not let you down. The dark and creepy settings were excellent and of course the make up was terrific.

Obviously that is not enough to keep people intrested in a film. There has to be an exciting plot or storyline. In this movie the plot is highly uninteresting and it is extremely badly thought out. The script is very lame and it is full of gaps. It looks like this film had been written in a big hurry. The explanation for why the apes where there, and why the ruled the planet was indeed very stupid and proved the script-writers ignorance.

It raised a lot of questions, which had no reasonable answers to.

For example; Why did the apes speak English?, why were there other ape-species than chimps on the planet (given that there were only chimps in the space ship that crash-landed on the planet) Where the hell did all of those humans come from? How were a few chimps able to evolve into a huge raise of all kinds of monkeys in only a few thousands years. (I mean it took a few million years for us to evolve from monkey to man!)

And finally, the bad surprise ending was just plane dumb. It was probably just thrown in because the original film had such an end, then they felt that the audience were expecting the same kind of ending. The ending also raises a lot of questions, which I KNOW, don´t have intelligent answears. Did Theid learn to work the space ship?, which was power-less, and learnt to fly back in time and take over the earth single hand?, and, what did he do, breed with all the women? And lets say that that would happen, I higly doubt that history would stay the same, like Washington would be built exactly like it is today! (I mean wouln't there be a huge banana instead of the memorial?)

Well, just to say something posative about the film. Some of the cast was great. Helen Bonham Carter's character was interesting and well-acted, as for Tim Roth as Theid. He was very good, a little exaturated at some points of the film. Michael Clark Duncan was also fine. I was not happy with Marc Whalberg. He is not much of an actor, and plays here a very macho colour-less character. Very unbielevable and is nothing compared to Hestons character in the original. And the main female character had no reason or place in the film. She was just casted for the looks. Hardly said a word throughout the entire film.

Well, I think that in the future when people think about the Planet of the apes, they will think about the original one. The latest will soon be forgotten.


Although I have not seen this mini-series in over twenty years I can still remember how the balance between character,plot and tale of marvelous adventures succeeded. The use of special effects was restrained making a more poetic rather than literal telling of the story. The two versions I've seen were dubbed (English and French)but the actors appear to speak their own language not just Italian so there is a synchronization problem. It does not spoil the story telling. Among the cast Irene Pappas as Penelope is the most recognizable to North Americans. Recommended to all followers of Odysseus' ever returning.


I first viewed 'They Died With There Boots On',about 1970 and though it has been many years since,this film and its impression remain.the cast was good to excellent and the lead man was truly heroic.When I first saw this film I knew the wisest as well as the only real position to have was to enjoy this film as a rousing bit of entertainment and then some.I felt then as I even feel now that the Silver Screen does not as such provide for a true depiction of much of anything let alone The Life of George Armstrong Custer,however the Director Raoul Walsh was to contribute to the real value represented in this film when I watched a semi-documentary with other great directors like Vincent Mennelli wherein these central figures talked about there accomplishments with valuable comments providing a glimpse into the Hollywood mind set.This is what I considered something of interest and where all of this became terribly interesting and very enjoyable.Yet, there have been so much made of all the problems with the silver screen and its story telling ability that some of the enjoyment has been lost and perhaps you would find that to be true here as well.Custer ranked 34 in a graduating class of...34.Much has been made of Custer's final class ranking,but of the 68 cadets who entered the Military Academy with him in 1857,half of them had already flunked out or quit by graduation day,June 24,1861.It is suggested in the movie as the various instructors are determining if a soldier is fit for command and then they come upon the name of George Armstrong Custer and there is to be certain an exchange between the two sides and here is where the Sargeant on Duty says in almost a low tone even to suggest as if that came out by accident'His squadron would follow him to hell,'Your at attention Sargeant,reprimands Tape.If Iam not mistaken when Flynn shows up at a initial battlefield it acknowledged that Custer did not see action right away and indeed he was doing work as a reliable attaché to not only Sheridan,but Hancocks forces as well only to end up for a time with the Army of The Potomac under General George McClellan.There is some truth to the audacity attributed to Custers battlefield heroics as was illustrated when in a counterattack ,'young Custer spurred his horse to the lead and boldly plunged in among the stunned Confederates.As a lone Union Soldier surrounded by rebels,Custers audacity shone through.He accepted the surrender of several enemy soldiers,including a rebel captain.Yet most outstanding was that in this action he personally captured the very first Confederate battle flag taken by the Army of the Potomac.This notable act of courage marked him as an officer of great battlefield promise.'Robert L.Bateman-Armchair General.There is a problem here and that is the telling of the story and the truth as to George Armstrong Custer,the story is good Hollywood entertainment perhaps even great entertainment but for whatever reasons all that could be told was changed for entertainment purposes.Though this maybe jumping the gun it might be well to know that Tom Custer was to lose his life at the 'Little Big Horn' only a few feet from where George Custer was to die as well.They were brothers and Tom Custer to this very day holds a honorable distinction of being amongst a very small group perhaps only 3 others to have been awarded the Medal of Honor twice in his military career.The list of engagements that the motion picture shows indicate that Custers indeed was an active young officer.He was not with Union forces at either Chancellorsville or for that matter Fredericksburg however he was with them at the Battle of Antietam and at that point in time he was actually promoted to Captain by General McClellan but that was not to last as McClellan was soon to be replaced due to the historical fact that The Army of The Potomac had the means,and the information(discovered wrapped around some cigars was General Lee's plans to split his forces)and yet he failed to act for some 17 hours.It can be speculated that the war could of been over then and there had that occurred but when McClellan failed to act President Lincoln replaced him permanently and the promotion was lost as a result. Custers greatest victory may of in fact come at Gettysburg,Pa.His forces which occupied an area called cemetery ridge at the field at Gettysburg in the summer of 1863 were able to defeat a Jeb Stuart Led Cavalry of some 6,000 rebels with but a force of 2,300.I Think the heroics at Gettysburg by Custer are worth some discussion.There is speculation had in the movie that Custers appointment was a blunder, well you better guess again because not only did Custer have men in his corner but he established a petition to present to the Governor of the State of Michigan which by the way was relatively new to the Union Cause and where preparing to form Cavalry regiments.Though Custer was severely admonished for that kind of shenanigan when he showed up in all that Gold Braid it was not by accident as you would be led to believe.The truth be told Custers defense at Gettysburg prohibited Jeb Stuart from having lunch at the Unions rear stores and vitally protected that flank.This action by the way occurred and it was timed to coincide with Picketts Charge so to make for the greatest likelihood of success.It was a critical victory and Custer was at his bravest and best.His men did follow him to hell and lived to tell about it.


The role of economics in the industrialized North American market must have always been theorized in the homelands of the engines creation. Persons and industrialist such as Mercedes Benz and the Bavarian Motor Works (BMW) surely realized the opportunity of the North Ameircan market with the purchase of fuel and number of automobiles purchased per household. This type of economic phenomena sparked the concept of Speed Racer.

After the new constitution of Japan the industrialization of the isolated island nation of Japan must seek opportunity once again via economic partnerships with its global neighbors. This also helped spark the economic opportunities in the European and North American market if not the global market.

Speed is a young avid driver who without knowing any better is driven by his demanding father Pops Racer who has challenged himself his whole life to make a better machine better at winning races. It was in fact Pops Racer who drove his first son Rex Racer to the brink of destruction with his strategy of how to best use the technology he developed. As a mature Racer, Rex, finally realizes his own inherent values and becomes independent but still feels obligated to his younger bother Speed.

The exact relationship of Rex Racer to persons such as the Inspector are never really clear, but put into dramatization. Rex is eventually accused of being a type of agent for a country or organization due to his ability to be in places at times when there is no other explanation to how he would have known Speed was in trouble. Or the fact that the situations involved some types of illegal activity were his secretive knowledge is leveraged against an evil plot. This brings a level of cloak and dagger romance to Speed Racer.

The mixture of Speeds innocence with Trixy, Sprital, and Chim Chim brings a level of comic human nature. This concept is a good form of rhetoric to balance the themes and plots as they are played out from episode to episode. So, instead of a dry detective story the thrill of international race car driving, romance of cloak and dagger, and comedy of human nature is put into one story, Speed Racer.


I think Micheal Ironsides acting career must be over, if he has to star in this sort of low budge crap. Surely he could do better than waste his time in this rubbish.

This movie could be far better, if it had a good budget, but it shows repeatedly through-out the movie. There is one scene at a outpost, which looks like, its outside the front of a railway station, and i bet it was.

There is one scene which made give this movie a 3, and it shows the space craft landing and taking off over a lake, surrounded by forests. This was well done, but the rest of the movie, forget it.

There is another scene, which looks like a engineering plant, which i bet it, and does not look like a space outpost as the character say it is.

This movie is stupid, has a serious low budget, makes no sense and God Help Micheal Ironsides.


This sad little film bears little similarity to the 1971 Broadway revival that was such a 'nostalgic' hit. Keep in mind that when Burt Shevelove directed that revival, he rewrote the book extensively. I have a feeling that this screenwriter wrought as much of a change from the original 1925 version as well. I played the 'innocent philanderer' Jimmy Smith on-stage in 1974, and thought this $1 DVD would bring back memories. Not a chance. Even the anticipated delight of seeing 'Topper' Roland Young play 'my' part was a major disappointment. Three songs from the play remain, and are done very poorly. Even the classic duet, 'Tea For Two', is done as a virtual solo. The many familiar faces in this 1940 fiasco do not do themselves proud at all, and the star, Anna Neagle, just embarrasses herself. When I feel gypped by spending a dollar, I know the film must be bad. Another commentator mentioned the Doris Day version, which is actually called 'Tea For Two' and is about doing the stage play (the original, of course), so those who are seeking the true 'No No Nanette' might find a more recognizable version there.


Working with one of the best Shakespeare sources, this film manages to be creditable to it's source, whilst still appealing to a wider audience.

Branagh steals the film from under Fishburne's nose, and there's a talented cast on good form.


I saw this one at Sundance, and I can't figure out why it won the directing award. It was painfully slow and literally colorless. It's the type of movie that is only appreciated by film fest snobs who think any movie that a lot of people like must be beneath them.

The jury at Sundance this year seemed to be making a conscious effort to reward the underdog, ultra-low-budget films. That's all well and good, but this wandering, dragging mess looks like a home movie. Mini-DV shot in a snow-covered gray winter results in a drab look for a drab movie.

Certain motifs (snakes) are beaten to death in spite of the fact that they add nothing to the story and make no sense as symbols.

Now, it wasn't all bad. Vera Farmiga is phenomenal in her role as a mother with a drug problem. She will be going places, and she deserves it. Her co-star Hugh Dillon also does a fine job. Frankly, there are many fine moments in this movie, but they just don't fit together very well.


The story of the bride fair is an amusing and engaging one, and it is to the filmmaker's credit that he sets out to portray rural Minnesotans with the same respect ordinarily reserved for Coast-dwellers. It is weird, though, to find an independent movie, the brainchild of a single person, that is as unambitious and cliché-ridden as a committee-brewed Hollywood potboiler.

The portrait of rural people is intended to be affectionate, I think, but these characters don't ring true to me--I have had quite a few meals in small-town diners, but never overheard a debate on the merits of different nineteenth-century English novelists. One might suggest that writer/director Semans has no more experience with rural culture than the Coen brothers, and considerably less satiric verve.


I did enjoy watching Squire Trelane jerk around the crew in this episode, though after a while the whole thing just seemed a little too long. Sure, the histrionics were kind of funny for a while, and the ending was a pretty good way to wrap the whole thing together. I think the problem was that I enjoyed seeing Trelane when he was full of bravado and fun, the fun seemed to vanish when Trelane became vindictive and nasty. Talk about a mood killer--going from the obnoxious but affable host to the guy sentencing Kirk to death! But, despite this, the episode was enjoyable and worth my time. For die-hard Trekkies, this is a must-see, for others it's just a pretty run of the mill one.


This is an excellent movie. Phoolan had no role model's to base her actions on, yet was able to bring about very necessary change to a land that was living in darkness when it comes to female treatment. I like the fact that it was a real story rather than made up, it added to the horror of the story, & the triumph.


Richard Dreyfuss is, indeed, in this flick, but in a rather small part. He is NOT the 'obsessed' filmmaker - he's the group's business manager/accountant. Even the box describes the film inaccurately. There are no erotic scenes with Sondra Locke, as advertised, unless one uses the term 'erotic' quite loosely. I would not have considered viewing the film without Richard Dreyfuss being in it as a major character. I might have, however, had I realized that the famous 60's anthem, Leonard Cohen's 'Suzanne,' was an artistic influence. Other than the brief recitation of lines from the end of James Joyce's 'Ulysses', and an interesting visual reference to the end of Ingmar Bergman's 'The Seventh Seal,' I found it a poor attempt to meld symbolic elements and moods immortalized in films like 'Last Year at Marianbad' and 'Un Chien Andalou.' If you like the idea of the eccentric artistic troupe, there are many superior films, ranging from 'Bye, Bye, Brasil' to 'Cecil B. Demented.'


Florence Chadwick was actually the far more accomplished swimmer, of course. She swam the English Channel both directions. She swam from Catalina Island to the California coast. Marilyn Bell's is a sweet story, but the usual glorification of us Canadians in the face of a superior world. Another sample of our inferiority complex. Our political system works pretty well and the health system allows people not to die in hospital lobbies. That's pretty good. Better than Lebanon. What should we do about hockey though...? And curling. The notion of calling this a sport, of its inclusion in the Olympics...! ah, but we digress...


Any movie that has nude scenes of Karen Allen and I'm still so bored I walk out, that is a stinker!

Karen gets stuck in Paris, and befriends a sissily-handsome French man with whom she is having sex soon. Of course he's married, ('But, cheri, why should that be a problem?') What could be an interesting clash of cultures is (believe it or not) just dull. I walked out.

Maybe the movie got a lot better after I left; but it would have had to have gotten a LOT better to make up for a rotten beginning.

My advice, if you find yourself in this, run, do not walk, for the exit. Save your time and your energy. Most assuredly save your money. It's a shame the production company didn't save its money.


I don't mean to sound pretentious here, but to call this the next cult classic is yet another example of the lowering standards filmmakers have for themselves. This movie is an offense to everything we hold sacred, and not in the good 'artsy ' way of offending. This film becomes the archetype for PAINFUL dialogue, delivered by even more pathetic actors.


Tressa's vocal performance was Outstanding!! Tressa played the female singer role, while Richard was in the club. When she first step out on stage, and started to riff and strut her stuff, it made my soul shake. Her voice is platinum. She needs to make a CD. She has more fans then she realizes. I loved her show stopping performance in the five heart beats, which she also starred with Leon when she was younger. How can a little girl have a voice so big. She is truly amazing.Good voice Good Good Good Good voice voice voice voice excellent voice fantastic voice , back shaking , tear crying , uplifting, take you back in the days voice. Tressa if you read this commit, please take my advice and start recording a CD. If not just for the love of singing, but for your fans. I believe you can truly make it. Look at these other one hit single studio singers, lol.


I was skimming over the list of films of Richard Burton when I came to this title that I recall vividly from when I first saw it on cable in 1982. I remember dialogue from Tatum O'Neal that was just amazingly bad. I remember Richard Burton's character looking so hopelessly lost, and then remembering how his motivations didn't translate to me. In short, I remember 'Circle of Two' because it was so phenomenally awful.

This movie came out at a time when America was going through a rather disturbing period of fascination with unhealthy or skewed angles on teenage sexuality. Recall 'The Blue Lagoon' (and other Brooke Shields annoyances), 'Lipstick', 'Little Darlings', 'Beau Pere' and other films that just seemed to dwell on teens having sex, particularly with adults. As a teenager during this time, I found the obsession, combined with the sexual excesses of the 70's and 80's, made for a subconsciously unsettling environment in which to figure it all out, so to speak.

'Circle of Two' is not execrably acted or needlessly prurient, like 'Blue Lagoon'. In fact, it tackles the question of love between the young and the old in a brave, if totally failed, way. But honestly, it is one of those films you will *never* see if you didn't see it on its first run because it was so truly awful. No one would want to have this garbage ever surface to be publicly distributed again.


Peter O'Toole, one of our finest actors, is magnificent as a reserved school master who is dedicated to teaching young boys. He meets a show girl and falls in love. The story is one of love and devotion. Petula Clark adds spirit and sensitivity, not too mention a remarkable voice. You will enjoy this film even though the ending might not be a happy one. I enjoyed it.


When commenting on this film, one must realise that it is based on a true story, and must therefore be reviewed for the quality and accuracy of it's portrayal of the events, as well as its entertainment value. It may well be implausible that Jack Shepherd should surrender twice to Jack Wild because Wild had captured Edgeworth Bess. None the less, it happened. It must also be noted that the director was young and inexperienced, which explains why he relied upon tried and tested techniques. There were occasions when Clavell did not have the confidence to follow the script as written. The film would be better if he had. And yes, I used to have a copy of the script (Stanley Baker's copy - one of five), which I returned recently to my father, Rafe Newhouse, the writer.