In a style reminiscent of the best of David Lean, this romantic love story sweeps across the screen with epic proportions equal to the vast desert regions against which it is set. It's a film which purports that one does not choose love, but rather that it's love that does the choosing, regardless of who, where or when; and furthermore, that it's a matter of the heart often contingent upon prevailing conditions and circumstances. And thus is the situation in `The English Patient,' directed by Anthony Minghella, the story of two people who discover passion and true love in the most inopportune of places and times, proving that when it is predestined, love will find a way.

It's WWII; flying above the African desert, Hungarian Count Laszlo de Almasy (Ralph Fiennes) is shot down, his biplane mistaken for an enemy aircraft. And though he survives the crash, he is severely burned. To his great good fortune, however, he is rescued by a tribe of nomads and winds up in a hospital. But existing conditions are governed by circumstances of war, and Almasy soon becomes one of many patients being transported via convoy to a different facility. Upon reaching Italy, he is too weak and ill to continue on, and a Canadian nurse, Hana (Juliette Binoche), volunteers to stay behind with him at an abandoned monastery.

Hana soon discovers that her charge is something of a man of mystery, as Almasy remembers nothing of his past, and not even his own name. Thought to be English, the only clues pointing to who he is are contained in a book found in his possession after the crash, but even they are as cryptic as Hana's patient. Slowly, however, under prompting from Hana, Almasy begins to remember bits and pieces of his life, and his story begins to unfold. And his memory is helped along even more by the appearance of a mysterious stranger named Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), who suspects that Almasy is the man he's been looking for-- a man with whom he wants to settle a score. But, burned beyond recognition, Almasy may or may not be that man. Meanwhile, Almasy's memories continue to surface; memories of a woman he loved, Katherine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas)-- as well as memories of Katherine's husband, Geoffrey (Colin Firth). And, crippled in mind and body as he is, those memories become the only thing left to which he can cling with any hope at all, even as his life seems to be slipping farther away with each passing moment.

In addition to directing, Anthony Minghella also wrote the screenplay for this film, which he adapted from the novel by Michael Ondaatje. The result is an epic saga presented in the tradition of Lean's `Doctor Zhivago' and `Lawrence of Arabia'; a magnificent film that fills the screen and the senses with unprecedented grandeur and beauty. Simply put, Minghella's film is genius realized; crafted and delivered with a poetic perfection, watching it is like watching a Monet come to life. From the opening frames, Minghella casts a hypnotic spell over his audience that is binding and transporting, with a story that has an emotional beauty that equals the engagingly stunning and vibrant images brought to life by John Seale's remarkable cinematography; images that virtually fill the screen as well as the soul of the viewer. In every sense, this is a film of rare eloquence, with a striking emotional capacity that facilitates an experience that is truly transcendental. Nominated in twelve categories, it deservedly received a total of nine Oscars, including Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actress (Binoche) and Cinematography.

If one had to choose a single word to describe the `essence' of this film, it would be `excellence.' Even an extraordinary film, however, does not receive nine Oscars without performances that are extraordinary in kind; and the performances given by Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas here transcend the term `Oscar worthy.' Nominated for Best Actor for his portrayal of Almasy (Geoffrey Rush was awarded the gold for `Shine'), Fiennes has never been better, achieving an emotional depth with his character that is nearly palpable. Private and introspective, Almasy is not by his very nature an individual to whom the audience will be able to form an intimate connection; Fiennes, however, finds a way to open that emotional door just enough to let you in, enough so that you taste the honest passion welling up within him. And it works. Almasy does not seek your friendship; he will, however, gain your compassion.

Kristen Scott Thomas, too, received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress (Frances McDormand received the award for `Fargo') for her portrayal of Katherine, a woman whose stoic countenance masks the emotional conflict raging within her, born of the forbidden passion that enslaves her and yet to which she gives herself willingly, casting off her shackles of repression to embrace a love so strong it threatens to consume her. The reserve Katherine must maintain evokes the empathy of the audience, as Scott Thomas successfully mines the emotional depths of her character to the greatest possible effect. It's the kind of performance that draws you in and holds you fast, taking you as it does beyond that curtain of hypocrisy that dictates what must be if only for the sake of appearances, and allows you to experience a true sense of unbridled passion. Understated and shaded with subtlety, it's terrific work by Kristin Scott Thomas.

Binoche gives a stunning, affecting performance, as well, as the kindhearted nurse, Hana; it is her humanity, in fact, which defines love in it's purest sense and offers a balanced perspective of it within the context of the film. Her relationship with Kip (Naveen Andrews) affords us a glimpse of passion of another kind, which contrasts effectively with the intensity of that between Almasy and Katherine. `The English Patient' is a film that will move you and fill you emotionally; one you will not want to see end. 10/10.


Although at times I was the only one in the cinema who was laughing, this is the main pleasure I took from the beautifully shot 'Thirst' - laughter. Although sometimes it seemed that the movie had an identity crisis and didn't know whether it was a tragedy or a comedy, the blackest of black humour shone through at regular intervals.

It helped of course that it the standard of acting by everyone concerned was wonderful, and that I was slightly obsessed by the at times wicked leading lady, who was gorgeously elegant no matter how blood soaked and malevolent she became.

I read reviews that suggested this movie was overlong. I didn't think so. In fact the last scenes, moving and hilarious (I mean, the brown shoes....) by turns, were among the best in the film.


From the first to the last scene, this film is made very realistically,even too realistically that sometimes we can't see details in night scenes(it's dark as real night),in the desert(sunshine is so strong as in real desert).

Script and actor's play are also very realistic. Shots and episodes are edited not to show things and events 'effectively', to 'explain' them, or,as many Hollywood films do, to 'entertain' viewers. Editing here is to represent the events as if they really happened in Afganistan. Camera is set sometimes far from dying solders, even the moment when the main character Major Bandura is shot and killed.

Such method reminds me of masterpieces of Italian neo-realism. And the construction of the story here is based on the same principles as 'Paisà',or 'The Bicycle Thief'--chronological series of 'true to life' episodes and a few pathetic moments, which at first seem to be sudden and illogical, but have inner reasons.

I think the inner reason of Major Bandura's suicidal death is religious emotion--Repentance for innocent people's death(not only his accidental killing of family in the village, but also death of solders under his command).He is not depicted as a eager believer,on the contrary he is depicted as tactful and responsible officer.Exactly for this reason his last decisions(to go back to the destroyed village and to turn his back to an armed boy, whose family he killed)seem an act of Repentance.

The Russian Orthodox choral, which sounds at the end('Evening Sacrifice')is another context,by which all the film can be seen from this point of view.


One Night at McCool's is a very funny movie that is more intelligent than what it should be. Its form is more sophisticated than what I expected, and its randomness was superb. The thoughts behind the movie (mysogeny, sadism, stupid men) are are infantile. That's what I have to say about this movie is that not only does it hate women, but it loathes men. It doesn't have any sympathy for any of the men, really. It seems that way because of the form, but the ending says it all. Nobody cares.

The form has the first 2/3 of the movie told in flashback by three characters: Dillon, the stupid bartender; Reiser, the mysogenistic stupid lawyer; and Goodman, the stupid, holier-than-thou cop. The story is therefore always perverted by their own self images and altered realities. Reiser's BBQ fantasy is a great touch. In the end, we never really know the truth, and nothing is what it seems. Dillon was never that innocent, etc.

Actually, the rest of the movie is funny too. From the randomness of the last 5 seconds of the movie to the overly-obviousness of Tyler's manipulations, the movie seems to have an energy all its own. Everything is just out of the blue, and nothing seems to make sense. Do we really care if it does? No.

It is also a very dark comedy, but has a shallow presentation. Think Nurse Betty, or Jawbreaker. Very candy coated outside, dark chewy inside. If you like your movies random, dark, or just purely mean, see this movie. This one will satisfy your urges for the strangeness that is One Night at McCool's.

8/10


This movie was probably one of the worst movies I've seen in a very long time. A friend of mine grabbed it off the shelf at the video rental store, and all but forced me to watch it, an action we both deeply regret. Ehh... Where to start? The writing, the acting, the quality? All of it, sucked.

Quite possibly some of the worst writing ever displayed in a movie. The dialog was worse than I thought it could ever be in the movies. Blatant dialog, such as 'how ya doing?'...'not that great, doc' (directly after an attempted exorcism of a man's daughter and then his wife's attempted suicide. Of course he's not that great.) was, at some points, kind of funny. If not horribly written, planned out, and obvious. The general plot of the movie, the writing and the way it worked, HORRIBLE. It was like the writers could come up with nothing better to do then write a bunch of crappy dialog and throw in as many sex and nudity scenes as they randomly could. The only almost good sex scene (between the preacher and the tattooed & Peirced girl) was filmed with such poor quality that it looked more like a cheap porno than a feature film. Oh yeah, and they never actually got the deed done.

The acting? Horrible. x100. I think the only good actor was the short Spanish guy who played Miguel, Del Zamora. And his part was written horribly. The worst acting? Arguably Paul Kappellas, whose acting combined with shitty music, a gun, and a half naked bluish white girl running around in the woods made the movie almost unbearable to sit through. He even screwed up his own death scene, one that should have been easy to nail. Although, most everybody else's acting was horrible as well.

The lack of characters also added to the overall suck level of the movie. There were just enough characters so that almost half of the characters died, that same amount of people became possessed at one point, and then the remaining characters couldn't be counted on one hand. Like... 50 thumbs down.

P.S. What IS it with the climax of exorcism movies happening in a stable, anyways?


This movie is so misunderstood it is not even funny. If you think of seeing this one for the shootings.. stay clear. This one deals with the effects and trauma that the survivors must endure. Even the detectives are seeking the answer we all do...WHY? Fantastic acting from the two leading ladies as we see how those we ignore are affected by the very same things we are affected with. Yes the language is harsh at times, but it suits the characters well. There are some loose ends left or unanswered, but all movies have these. The major issues are dealt with and this movie makes a major statement about how all of us adults feel after such major incidents. Highly recommended for teens and adults.


Last year was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of 'The Origin of Species', so it's fitting that Jon Amiel's 'Creation' got released. The movie focuses on the period of Darwin's (Paul Bettany) life while he was writing his famous work, and the mild strain that it put on his family life.

I guess that the movie overplayed Darwin's tension with his religious wife Emma (Jennifer Connelly), and his guilt over his deceased daughter Annie, but I still like the thought of Darwin's theory working like a karate chop on religious dogma. As it was, the US was one of the last countries in which 'Creation' found a distributor, due to the creationism-evolution debate (yes, it's still going on).

All in all, this isn't a masterpiece, but I recommend it the same way that I recommend 'Inherit the Wind'. I hope that one day, the creationism-evolution debate won't be an issue. If this film helps put the debate to rest, then more power to everyone in the movie! Also starring Martha West, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch.


I saw this film at the London Premiere, and I have to say - I didn't expect much, but I did expect something that was at least mildly entertaining.

The original 'Basic Instinct' was no great film and is still something of a 'smut classic' but it was entertaining. I can recall countless times flipping through channels on TV on a late Friday or Saturday night having come across the movie and finding myself beginning to actually pay attention to it.

However, this lame-brain, waaay-belated sequel has nothing. Is Sharon Stone still gorgeous? Well, let's put it this way -- for a 47-year-old, she's pretty hot. Is she as beautiful as she was in the original? No. She also has clearly had plastic surgery on her face, and her haircut in this movie is somewhat unappealing. She doesn't look as soft or genuine or innocent as she did in the original -- which is sort of the whole point of being an evil seductress, and whatnot.

The rest of the performances range from bad to terrible -- and Michael Caton-Jones (a typically safe director -- one who doesn't always do great work but manages to make worthwhile movies) has officially delivered his first true turkey; a movie so bad people were laughing at certain moments that were intended to be serious.

I hear the film went through multiple editing sessions, and it's very clear from the start. Nothing makes much sense. The whole plot is a cosmic mess and the ending -- oh my! Talk about stupid AND unbelievable. (Still predictable, though.) I saw 'Gigli,' I saw 'Son of the Mask' -- and although I'm not looking to 'smear' this film, I can say with my own authority (which you don't have to agree with at all, mind you) that I prefer both those films over this catastrophic failure.

By the way, Stone left five minutes before the movie began and people in the theater began throwing things at the screen during a particularly outrageous and insulting scene inside an orgy-type nightclub.

'Basic Instinct 2' -- basically, it stinks, too.


Story says that on that on December 28, 1895, a small group of thirty-three people was gathered at Paris's Salon Indien Du Grand Café to witness the Cinématographe, a supposedly new invention that resulted from the work done by a couple of photographers named August and Louis Lumière. The small audience reunited that day (some by invitation, most due to curiosity) didn't really know what to expect from the show, and when a stationary photograph appeared projected on a screen, most thought that the Cinématographe was just another fancy devise to present slide-show projections. Until the photograph started to move. What those thirty-three people experienced in awe that cold day of December was the very first public screening of a moving picture being projected on a screen; history was being written and cinema as we know it was born that day.

Of the 10 short movies that were shown during that historic day, 'La Sortie Des Usines Lumière' (literally 'Exiting the Lumière Factory') was the very first to be screened. The film shows the many workers of the Lumière factory as they walk through the gates of the factory, leaving the building at the end of a hard day of work. While a very basic 'actuality film' (movie depicting a real event), the movie took everyone in the audience by surprise, as their concept of moving pictures was limited to Edison's 'Peep Show' machines (the Kinetoscope), the brothers' invention was like nothing they had seen before and so the audience stood in awe, as the people and the horses moved across the screen. The idea wasn't entirely new (Le Prince shot the first movie as early as 1888), but the way of showing the movie was simply revolutionary.

'La Sortie Des Usines Lumière' would become the first in the long series of 'actuality films' that the Lumière would produce over the years. This primitive form of documentary was the brothers' favorite kind of film because they were more interested in the technological aspects of their invention than in the uses the Cinématographe could have. Despite the initial lack of enthusiasm, after the first showing the Cinématographe became a great success and 'La Sortie Des Usines Lumière' quickly became an iconic image of that first screening. It definitely wasn't the first movie the brothers shot that year, and it probably wasn't the best of the 10 movies shown that day (personally I think that 'L' Arroseur Arrosé' was the best of the 10); however, it is really meaningful that the very first movie was the opening of a pair of gates, as literally, this movie opened the gates to cinema as we know it. 8/10


It happened with Assault on Prescient 13 in 2005, it happened with The Lost Boys in 2008 and now it's happened with another classic from the 80's Wargames... :( Why, oh why, oh why won't Hollywood ever learn? Leave them alone...! They can't be remade...! They suck....! We all hate them....!.

Those of you who haven't seen the original 1983 version with Matthew Broderick & Ally Sheedy, go rent/buy it now....!! The hardware may look dated, the special effects are not new millennium but it still beats this rubbish hands down....

For those of us who lived through the 80's when hacking was sexy, the Internet was something mysterious and your disks came as a 8' floppy variety, well we now possess the wisdom to avoid this film like a Thermonuclear War!

Never before has 'a nice game of chess' seemed the better option....


I walked into Blockbuster, itchin' to watch some good old fashion action movies. So i browsed around the action section until this movie caught my attention because the cover had in big bold letter SANDRA BULLOCK. An action movie with Sandra Bullock in it and it's rated R!? YAY! Although I will admit i prefer her in a comedy but if this is anything like 'Speed' then i was sold. Sadly Sandra really is not in this movie, her role is minor: 'Panicky kidnapped girlfriend' (She is in fifth place on the actors listing for Jeebus shakes!) Apparently this was her first movie role (and after watching this movie, i figured as much) Sandra is the only living human in this movie, everyone else might as well be a Zombie in a B-Horror Flick. This movie deceived me saying Sandra was the lead . . . i fell for it like Biff from 'Back to the Future' when Marty yells 'WHAT'S THAT . . .!!!' God, i wish i watched that instead of this.

Sandra is the only bright side of this movie, every time she is on camera it is like she is picking up shock paddles and yelling 'CLEAR!' to get this movies going but it flat lines no matter how hard she tries. More on Sandra later . . .

The Movie is dull. Very Dull. Think of the Dullest moment in your life then imagine living through that moment for 110 minutes (for me, it is this movie). This movie even somehow makes Gun Fights and Bullet time effects boring, so boring that Elephant Tranquilizers are put to shame. And this movie's idea of Bullet Time is a close up of an AK in slow motion which mocks you as the caps spitting out of it represent each second of your life as it slowly ticks away. And I knew i was watching a bad movie because i found myself fast forwarding 'THROUGH-THE-ACTION!' The plot? . . . there was a plot? Music? . . . even by 80s muck standards is Bad but at least it's the one thing that kept me awake. Acting? Sandra Bullock was good and . . . ummm . . . moving on. Is it any good since it IS rated R? No, unless R stands for Ridicules-snooze-fest.

And it is really 80s Cliché when a movie opens with an overhead view of a city (rocking guitar licks or power ballet) and ends with a gun fight in a grim factory complete with steel walkways and assorted pipes. Both of which this movie satisfies. At least this movie establishes what era it's from which was unnecessary since Sandra's hair was screaming '1980s!!!!' And a movie gets really ham fisted when you watch an assassin stripper kill a nerd in the bathroom and stuff his body in a box, which you respond to sadly saying: 'that is probably the most action that poor sap ever got.' Another Hammy moment is at the beginning when some-Secret-Agent-Dude caps a crowd of people and apparently this movie thinks people jump into the air and fall to the ground when they die. All that scene needed was the Mario death ditty or maybe Contra sound effects but Nintendo might have sued.

And it is sad when the main action hero of this movie rips off other BETTER movie icons. Before the big gun scene, Da hero is found standing in a boxing ring ('Rocky' anyone?), sporting a leather fedora (not 'Indiana Jones' too) with an ominous spotlights behind him (Terminator the 2nd before owning T-1000) What is really REALLY sad is that people on Youtube or Dailymotion can film better quality videos (with a crappy webcam no less) then this movie. I'm serious, most Rant videos recorded with bad audio and blurry picture are more entertaining then this movie. I cannot even call this movie by it's given name for it's very name bring back horrid memories of watching this cruel and unusual punishment (a freaking violation against human rights!) The only bright speck in this dark abysmal abyss is Sandra's career started taking off thanks to this movie. But oh Sandra . . . why did you have to be in such a nightmare? The paycheck better been worth it. The DVD also graces you with a little back story on Sandra as an extra, seen how she is the only one from this movie who end up being a house hold name. Which explains why this movie uses her name as bait for unsuspecting movie buffs, Crafty little critter.

I don't have much experience with bad films but i know BAD when i see it. I could bounce back from 'Mazes and Monsters' with a good old campy Bruce Willis Comedy. But not even Bruce could cheer me up after this movie. I have yet to see any Ed Wood or Uwe Boll but I think I'm amped for them now. For i can't even fathom a movie worse then . . . 'GAG' . . . 'Hangmen' . . .


This has got to be one of the most magnificent things I've ever seen on film. I don't know if it's as serious as it seems to try to be, but that hardly matters. This film is extreme, absolutely wild and surreal. The packaging and the marketing only make it more so because you *know* that ever so often some mother has to reprogram her kid to accept our reality after he checks this out from the video store expecting something completely different. Look at the roadmap, for one thing! And where else in America can you see a ten year old kid swear as much as this one does and then get his eye ripped out by pervert the rival of Pulp Fiction's Zed? And that food inspector scene is the best! The amount of well known to vaguely recognized actors in this film is one of the best things about it: Soon, much sooner than you realize, you too will find yourself saying, 'Is that Meat Loaf? Is that Drew Barrymore? Is that the holideck doctor from Star Trek: Voyager? Is that Flea? Is that the sawmill owner from Twin Peaks gassing squirrels with car exhaust? And isn't this guy from the new Rob Zombie movie? He looks an awful lot like Shrek.' I think my favorite scene is at the very end, with Phil in a full body cast. I mean, please, why aren't more movies like this shown in airplanes? This director hardly has anything else to his name higher than Return To Salem's Lot, but he displays true stumbling man-child genius in this creation! If you're an intellectual looking for something to p**s away your evening on, I highly suggest this film for satisfaction. This movie's plot is all too ridiculous, but imagine it taken out of context: *boy arm wrestling an over aggressive Meat Loaf, who seems hell bent on taking out his anger at not being accepted into Guns N Roses, looks over his shoulder and sees the doctor from Voyager enter the bar* Can you imagine what any half brained channel surfer active through the last six years would think of seeing that? Now imagine if you actually cared about Meat Loaf or Voyager to begin with! Or imagine if you're a Flea fan. Rocky Horror Picture Show fans, this film contains notable music, mind you, but its soundtrack is more plasticine than Mad Max 3. What does that entail for you? This is the retarded, inverted mongoloid cousin-sister-mother-puppy of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. How about when Gus' sleeve flies back onto his arm in an act of cable-access special effects quality mastercraft? When I saw this film, it was on the suggestion of my cousin who had watched half of it in a fit of half-aware childhood in the early half of the nineties and who has since been haunted by vague memories of it, I myself had not slept in three days. It made me laugh! Of course, it's also an anxiety movie. The music doesn't encourage the suspense but it eventually gets to the point where it's been fully established that the American Censorship Committee has obviously missed this film entirely and absolutely anything can happen in it and probably will any time Gus turns a corner or the view so much as changes camera angles. I found myself obsessing over the possibility of those cards flying out his window at any second. Watch this movie. Awesome!


Atlantis is probally the best Disney movie that i have seen in years. It has great action scene, magic, an intelligent and weel written script. Atlantis, brings back the magic of the Disney Classics such as 'The Lion King' or 'Alladin'. After Seeing this one i'm sure that this year summer blockbusters season will be great.

I recommend to you all, 'Alantis : The Lost Empire is like a breath of inspiration.

9 out of 10


The movie is a riot - hilariously funny yet graphically violent. Just when you think you can't take any more it gives you more. Great thiller. The cast is excellent and the plot is very convincing. The past does indeed catch up with our hero, but right(?) prevails.


 It's common knowledge and has been said before: No one can ever play Scarlett and Rhett like Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable. Joanne Whalley Kilmer (no longer Kilmer having been divorced from ex-hubby Val Kilmer) plays her own Scarlett and although this is a sequel and not a re-make (God-forbid!!!) she still cannot rise to the occasion (i.e. her voice sounds evil on several occasions, she's got brown eyes [Scarlett in both novels had green eyes and even Vivien Leigh's eyes were green] and her vocal power was not up to the job either. Scarlett is a Southern Belle; therefore she has an incredible talent for flirting (as she did in SCARLETT the novel and GWTW, of course) and to be a great flirt like Scarlett is, you would most likely need a higher-pitched voice, like Vivien Leigh.

 I suppose I'm comparing Kilmer to Leigh a bit too much but when someone possesses a role so masterfully as Leigh did with Scarlett you simply can't help but to criticize any new prospective Scarletts. Timothy Dalton should have had no accent whatsoever, due to the fact that both Margaret Mitchell's Rhett and Gable in the film had none. His acting has never been truly noteworthy (except, maybe his portrayal of the evil, conniving King Phillip of France in THE LION IN WINTER) and he gives very little (if any) freshness or vitality to his Rhett.

 Standouts in the cast are most notably Tina Kellagher (a born actress with plenty of authenticity in her deliverance) as the tragic victim Mary Boyle. And then of course there's Sean Bean as the cold, calculating and not to mention, almost demonically evil Lord Fenton, Mary's nemesis and Scarlett's eventual violator. One thing I could not forgive the writer for was the fact that Scarlett is raped in this movie (a fact that never occurred in the novel; Lord Fenton is cold and of ill-repute among the Irish in the book but he's nowhere near as heartless as his screen counterpart. Another omission from the novel but readded for the film is the character of Belle Watling, played most horribly by Ann-Margret in a cameo role, which we all could have lived without, seeing as how the book was such a run-away bestseller without requiring any assistance from Ms. Watling.

 For a film by itself, SCARLETT is a very good one but not quite in that lofty of a place in terms of being GONE WITH THE WINDs sequel. Another actress was highly necessary for Scarlett as well as Rhett.


'Best in Show' is a often hilarious mockumentary that takes us into the world of dog shows and some of the dog owners who prepare for the event. The only thing that separates this movie from real dog shows is that the dogs in 'Best in Show' act more sane than their owners! Funny stuff from a top-notch cast that includes Eugene Levy (who co-wrote the film), Catherine O'Hara, Parker Posey, Michael McKean, Jennifer Coolidge, Jane Lynch, and Christopher Guest (who co-wrote with Levy and directed). They're all funny, but Fred Willard steals the movie with his explosively funny performance as the dog show announcer who says the most outrageous things. Plus the dogs are cute too. 'Best in Show' isn't exactly the laugh riot that I expected, but there are laughs and it's worth seeing.

*** (out of four)


I wanted to see Sarah Buffy on the big screen, so I first bought tickets and then checked the reviews at IMDb. I worried about seeing a bad movie. Well, I had fun watching the movie. Some parts, which obviously were meant to be scary, were actually quite humoristic, almost as in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I don't consider this a bad movie. It's not a great movie either. Just a rather well made horror movie. It does not rely heavily on special effects, but on camera angles, acting, music. In my opinion, the acting was OK. Sarah did a very good job, quite convincing. The other actors were definitely not bad either, I liked Yoko.

The sets are nice (and I don't care that the sets are the exact same ones that were used in the Japanese original).

The scary moments were often predictable. But not always. I have seen quite some horror, and did not expect to be scared now, but it happened at least twice. Nice.

The movie had some nice scenes that were almost original, like the trails of rubbish, the simple special effects for he ghosts, the eyes of the boy, the cat that made eery noises, the gurgling of the dead boy and his mother.

Don't go if you want to see Sarah in another Buffy episode, because it is very different from her Buffy work, much more serious. Don't go if you only want to see movies that gather Oscar nominations. It's a good horror movie, enough suspense. I gave it a 7.


This movie is terrible. The suspense is spent waiting for a point. There isn't much of one.

Aside from a few great lines ( 'I found a tooth in my apartment' ), and the main characters dedication to killing himself, it's a collection of supposedly eerie sounds.


18 directors had the same task: tell stories of love set in Paris. Naturally, some of them turned out better than others, but the whole mosaic is pretty charming - besides, wouldn't it be boring if all of them had the same vision of love? Here's how I rank the segments (that might change on a second viewing):

1. 'Quartier Latin', by Gérard Depardieu

One of the greatest French actors ever directed my favourite segment, featuring the always stunning Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara. Witty and delightful.

2. 'Tour Eiffel', by Sylvain Chomet

Cute, visually stunning (thanks to the director of 'The Triplets of Belleville') story of a little boy whose parents are mimes;

3. 'Tuileries', by Ethan and Joel Coen

The Coen Brothers + Steve Buscemi = Hilarious

4. 'Parc Monceau', by Alfonso Cuarón ('Y Tu Mamá También', 'Children of Men'), feat. Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier (funny);

5. 'Place des Fêtes', by Oliver Schmitz, feat. Seydou Boro and Aissa Maiga (touching);

6. '14th Arrondissement', Alexander Payne's ('Election', 'About Schmidt') wonderful look for the pathetic side of life is present here, feat. the underrated character actress Margo Martindale (Hilary Swank's mother in 'Million Dollar Baby') as a lonely, middle-aged American woman on vacation;

7. 'Faubourg Saint-Denis', Tom Tykwer's ('Run Lola Run') frantic style works in the story of a young actress (Natalie Portman) and a blind guy (Melchior Beslon) who fall in love;

8. 'Père-Lachaise', by Wes Craven, feat. Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell (plus a curious cameo by Alexander Payne as...Oscar Wilde!);

9. 'Loin du 16ème', by Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas (simple but moving story from the talented Brazilian directors, feat. Catalina Sandino Moreno);

10. 'Quartier des Enfants Rouges', by Olivier Assayas ('Clean'), a sad story feat. the always fantastic Maggie Gyllenhaal;

11. 'Le Marais', by Gus Van Sant, feat. Gaspard Ulliel, Elias McConnell and Marianne Faithful (simple, but funny);

12. 'Quartier de la Madeleine', by Vincenzo Natali, feat. Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko;

13. 'Quais de Seine', by Gurinder Chadha;

14. 'Place des Victoires', by Nobuhiro Suwa, feat. Juliette Binoche and Willem Dafoe;

15. 'Bastille', by Isabel Coixet (fabulous director of the underrated 'My Life Without Me'), feat. Miranda Richardson, Sergio Castellitto, Javier Cámara and Leonor Watling;

16. 'Pigalle', by Richard LaGravenese, feat. Bob Hoskins and Fanny Ardant;

17. 'Montmartre', by and with Bruno Podalydès;

18. 'Porte de Choisy', by Christopher Doyle, with Barbet Schroeder (mostly known as the director of 'Barfly', 'Reversal of Fortune' and 'Single White Female').

I could classify some segments as brilliant and others as average (or even slightly boring), but not a single of them is plain bad. On the whole, I give 'Paris, Je t'Aime' an 8.5/10 and recommend it for what it is: a lovely mosaic about love and other things in between.


It seems to be a common thing in the 90's to play with cliches. Some manage to do so with great talent. Hervé Hadmar doesn't. On the paper, the movie looked interesting though: the weak plot could have been saved by great moments of comedy, dark humour, and a very 'décalé' style. Director Hadmar, unfortunately, kills his direction with his camera angles and his absolute lack of rhythm. Every joke is embarassing as no one reacts in the theater. The movie is incredibly slow, and the actors seem to be wondering what the hell they're doing in this ridiculous mascarade. What could have been a stylish funny mindless comedy ends up being a cathedral of boredom.


Let's see. In the 'St. Elsewhere' finale we found out that there was no hospital and that every thing had been in the mind of an autistic child. 'Newhart' ended by telling us that it had all been a dream. And 'Roseanne' ended by telling us that it all had taken place in her mind. Very 'creative'. Annoying was more like it. Yes, it was just a TV show and wasn't at all reality. It's just that when you get caught up in a great movie or TV show you end up at least wanting to believe that it's all 'real'. At least as far as the reality it portrays on screen. This type of series finale had been done twice before and was old hat, frustrating and simply not fun to watch. Now 'Newhart' being all a dream? At least done in a creative way that far exceeded the expectations of anyone who loved the show. The idea itself was not too engaging but it was so brilliantly done that its arguably the Best Series Finale Ever. Roseanne left me feeling cheated after being such a loyal fan.


One of those movies where you take bets on who will die first and who will survive at the end. There was just something about the movie that made me zone out. I think because I keep looking back and thinking 'yep still in that tree...still looking at the water'. Poor character development. I felt nothing when they were in danger. I was voting for the croc. I found it hard to believe a croc would try to tip a boat in the first place and then when it jumps into the boat I find that really unlikely as well. The croc seems too supernatural at times ('all knowing all seeing'). Also when the croc attacks it's behavior seems very unrealistic. It's a killing machine and wouldn't be letting victims escape twice to three times in a row, especially when attacking in the water.


This film shows a serious side to the often thought of as gore-fest works of fulci. Not a lot of blood and guts here , but a fine tale about murder and the lives affected by it.

A real find, considering it was made in 1972 and will soon celebrate its 30th anniversary.

Check this one out, but be warned it is hard to find!

Ron


David Dhawan copied HITCH and such an unofficial copy The film isn't even 1/2 as funny or amusing as the original it's boring with forced stories like the Lara track of having a child and no hubby Plus there is an unwanted stupid Chota DON and David tries to choke drama too but the film looks disjointed, boring

Songs just pop in, so does romance and everything barring some funny Govinda scenes, the dance before interval nothing else is worth mentioning The last few scenes are quite funny but there tend to get too long

David's direction is as bad as MAINE PYAAR KYUN KIYAA, he needs to change his style or attempt something good Music is saving grace, some songs are good but the situations seem forced

Govinda looks overweight and seems too loud and screams his lines in initial reels but he gets into the groove and gives his best in the office and the scene with Salman in his cabin and towards the end

Salman just plays himself and his nasal tone plus his fake style of acting is a headache

Lara is avoidable, Katrina is fake as usual

The kid overacts


When I was a kid, I loved 'Tiny Toons'. I especially loved 'Tiny Toons: How I spent my Summer Vacation'. I thought it was laughs on the floor funny. A few years later, my friend had the video. And I figured I'd watch it for the good old days. I was still on the floors laughing. My opinion, the Plucky and Hampton skit is the best. They decide to go to 'Happy World Land'. And they end up having a crazy adventure to get there. All the skits are funny. I'm still looking for the video. So, if anyone has any tips. Please write me.

This is one of the funniest cartoons I have ever seen.

10/10


Jennifer Grey seems the unlikeliest of romantic leads and that's probably the reason why this beloved film is such a sure-fire hit. It's all very well doing a version of Montagus and Capulets with sweeteners like dancing and schadenfreude-baiting Jewish society family tropes thrown in but there usually has to be an X Factor.

Swayze probably makes this film safe with his rugged, post-Travolta moves and temperament but its being won over by this curly-mopped Penelope Pitstop teen that brings the dream in reach of the impressionable market. The super (dated? perhaps 'immortalised') soundtrack helps and of course the cunning conceit of setting the film in a resort away from day to day life altogether finesses the fantasy. 7/10


I find it hard to believe that this movie has such a low rating. It is arguably one of the best comedies ever made, and surely the best Bollywood comedy of the 90s. The film did not do too well on the box office and people had diametrically opposite reactions after seeing it. My guess is most people didn't expect it to be an all-out comedy and were expecting a regular movie. If you love comedies, this is a must-see. And Aamir Khan is outstanding.


The vigilante has long held a fascination for audiences, inasmuch as it evokes a sense of swift, sure justice; good triumphs over evil and the bad guy gets his deserts. It is, in fact, one of the things that has made the character of Dirty Harry Callahan (as played by Clint Eastwood) so popular. He carries a badge and works within the law, but at heart, Harry is a vigilante, meting out justice `his' way, which often puts him in conflict with his own superiors, as well as the criminals he's pursuing. But it's what draws the audience; anyone who's ever been bogged down in bureaucratic nonsense of one kind or another, delights in seeing someone cut through the red tape and get on with it-- even if it's only on the screen. And that satisfaction derived from seeing justice done-- and quickly-- is one of the elements that makes `Sudden Impact,' directed by and starring Eastwood, so successful. In this one, the fourth of the series, while working a homicide, Harry encounters a bona fide vigilante at work-- an individual whose brand of justice parallels his own, with one exception: Whoever it is, he's definitely not carrying a badge.

In his own inimitable way, Inspector Callahan has once again ended up on the bad side of the department and is ordered to take some vacation time. So he does; as only `Dirty Harry' can. In a small town north of San Francisco, Harry finds himself smack dab in the middle of a homicide case, which he quickly links to a recent murder in San Francisco because of the unique M.O. employed by the perpetrator. Unaccountably, Harry encounters resistance from the local Police Chief, Jannings (Pat Hingle), who advises him to take his big city tactics and methods elsewhere. Not one to be deterred, however, Harry continues his investigation, which ultimately involves a beautiful and talented young artist, Jennifer Spencer (Sondra Locke). Gradually, Harry discovers a link between the victims; the burning question, though, is where does Jennifer Spencer fit into the picture?

Eastwood is in top form here, both in front of and behind the camera, and it is arguably the second best of the five-film series, right behind the original `Dirty Harry.' It had been seven years since the last `Harry' offering (`The Enforcer,' 1976), but Eastwood steps right back into the character with facility and renewed vigor. And this one definitely benefits from having him in the director's chair, as he is able to recapture the essence of, not only his own character, but that `spirit' that made these films so successful, and he does it by knowing the territory and establishing a continuity that all but erases that seven year gap between #s 3 and 4. As with all the films he directs, Eastwood sets a deliberate pace that works perfectly for this material and creates just enough tension to keep it interesting and involving from beginning to end.

The screenplay, by Joseph Stinson, is well written and formulated to that distinctive `Dirty Harry' style; the dialogue is snappy and the story itself (conceived by Charles B. Pierce and Earl E. Smith) is the most engaging since the original `Dirty Harry,' as it successfully endeavors to play upon the very personal aspects of the drama, rather than entirely upon the action. The characters are well drawn and convincing, and, of course, this is the film that gave us one of Harry's best catch-phrases: `Go, ahead-- make my day...'

As Harry, Clint Eastwood perfectly embodies all of the elements that make this character so popular: He lives by a personal moral code, a true individual made of the kind of stuff we envision as that of the pioneers who settled this country and made America what it is today. Harry personifies that sense of freedom and justice we all strive for and hold so dear, possibly more so today than ever before. No matter who we are or where we come from, there's undeniably a part of us that wants to be Harry, or at least have him around. `Dirty Harry' is an icon of the cinema, and it's impossible to envision anyone but Eastwood portraying him; for better or worse, Eastwood `is' Dirty Harry, without question, just as Sean Connery is James Bond and Basil Rathbone, Sherlock Holmes.

Sondra Locke is entirely effective here in the role of Jennifer Spencer, a young woman wronged and out for vengeance, or as she sees it, `justice.' She manages to bring a hard-edged determination laced with vulnerability to her character, with a convincing, introspective approach that is far beyond what is typical of the `action' genre. Even amid the violence, Locke keeps her focus on Jennifer and the traumatic events that have brought her to this stage of her life. Her portrayal makes a perfect complement to Eastwood's Harry, and becomes, in philosophy and deed, something of his counterpart.

In supporting roles, two performances stand out: Paul Drake, as Mick, creates the best `psycho' since Andy Robinson's dynamic portrayal of the serial killer in the original `Dirty Harry.' With actually very limited screen time, Drake establishes a genuinely disconcerting presence that is believable and convincing, which adds much to the purely visceral response of the audience. This is the guy you can't wait to see Harry take care of in the end. Also effective is Audrie J. Neenan, who makes her character, Ray Parkins, the epitome of the proverbial `low life,' who can be found in any bar in any city. It's a performance that evokes a gut-level response, and it adds greatly to the credibility of the film, in that it helps provide that necessary sense of realism.

The supporting cast includes Albert Popwell (Horace), Mark Kevloun (Bennett) and Nancy Parsons (Mrs. Kruger). With a perfect blend of drama and action, `Sudden Impact' dispenses justice that is a fulfilling respite from reality; the perfect justice of a not-so-perfect world, that makes for a satisfying cinematic experience. 9/10.


Robin Williams does his best to combine comedy and pathos, but comes off a bit shrill. Donald Moffat is too one-note as his father-in-law. Jeff Bridges is excellent though as the quarterback, and Holly Palance and Pamela Reed are marvelous, carrying the film through most of its rough spots. It fills time nicely, but is little more than that.


This movie is just boring.

It tries to copy some effects borrowed to a creative director like Jeunet in 'Amélie Poulain', but it is too much. The dialogs are pretty bad, some of the worst I have ever heard, Guillaume Canet is not convincing (I have almost never found him very convincing), his father in the movie plays very badly, the story is dumb, the ending is... stupid.

I think I have not dislike a movie so much since 'le pacte des loups' (brotherhood of the wolf) from Christophe Gans (and I watch / see about 80-100 movies a year), but at least that movie had some action and lots of good actors.

I had never commented here (only rated), and when I saw the rating and the comments, I thought I had to write something down.

I guess we won't have problems to sell the DVD we were offered : not such a bad movie in our (large) collection !!!

I am open minded (I watch SF, westerns, drama, comedies, silents, horror, fantasy... movies !), but this movie was so boring that I felt like I had lost one hour and a half.


Walker Texas Ranger is one of the worst shows produced in the past 10 years. The script for James 'Jimmy' Trivette, Walker's sidekick, is about as pathetically written of a part as Wesley Crusher on Star Trek TNG, and is played with about as much conviction.

On this show, people don't respond the way people respond to things in real life--everyone is polarized--everyone is either a completely good guy or a completely bad guy (unless Walker himself has a 2 minute talk with them and then they change instantly). That's not how life works, that's not how people are. This show doesn't take place in this reality.

The plot lines are about as realistic as Murder She Wrote, a show where an arrogant old lady can just walk into people's houses without them getting angry, and she can demand that police officers do what she wants and they bend over backwards for her. With Walker, everyone on the show, including the 'bad guys', act like he's the sort of hero that myths and fairy tales are made of, and time itself bends to his whim. The lines that sometimes come out of people's mouths on this show are beyond ridiculous. It's as if the scriptwriter for the part of Wesley Crusher (for the 'serious' parts) and the scriptwriter for Bob Saget's funniest home videos (for the 'humor' parts) got together and wrote all the scripts for this show.

This show is for people who think that good always prevails over evil. It's for the elderly. It's for wishful thinkers. It's for people who want to be guaranteed to always have a happy ending. It's for people who want to drift away into oblivion. It's for people whose drug of choice is their television.

I cringe every time I see even a commercial for this show. My opinion is that it is THE worst show to be on television in the last 10 years.

I used to like Chuck Norris, but this show has forever tainted him in my mind. I can't even watch his older movies without thinking of this show.


Man! I remember this show with nostalgic... I really dug Bravestarr because he wasn't the conventional hero. He was more than a futuristic Texas cowboy. The man had the strenght of a bear, the vision of a walk, and the agility of a ... I can't remember that one.

The action sequences were great! I remember that Bravestarr would always use his bazooka named SARAJUANA (translated to Spanish) anytime he was in big troubles.

This was a quality action cartoon. I loved the characters, the dialogs, the music, and of course, the opening credits sequence! Bravestarr! long live to him. A cult classic in my opinion and a must see.


I really liked this Summerslam due to the look of the arena, the curtains and just the look overall was interesting to me for some reason. Anyways, this could have been one of the best Summerslam's ever if the WWF didn't have Lex Luger in the main event against Yokozuna, now for it's time it was ok to have a huge fat man vs a strong man but I'm glad times have changed. It was a terrible main event just like every match Luger is in is terrible. Other matches on the card were Razor Ramon vs Ted Dibiase, Steiner Brothers vs Heavenly Bodies, Shawn Michaels vs Curt Hening, this was the event where Shawn named his big monster of a body guard Diesel, IRS vs 1-2-3 Kid, Bret Hart first takes on Doink then takes on Jerry Lawler and stuff with the Harts and Lawler was always very interesting, then Ludvig Borga destroyed Marty Jannetty, Undertaker took on Giant Gonzalez in another terrible match, The Smoking Gunns and Tatanka took on Bam Bam Bigelow and the Headshrinkers, and Yokozuna defended the world title against Lex Luger this match was boring and it has a terrible ending. However it deserves 8/10


When one thinks of Soviet cinema, the propaganda masterpieces of Eisenstein or the somber meditations of Tarkovsky generally come to mind. They're great films sure, but generally not the most entertaining material out there. However, the countries within the Iron Curtain apparently enjoyed their escapist musicals just as much as the states had. In fact, from the 1930s up until the 70s, forty of these song-and-dance extravaganzas were released to much adoration by the public. However, they are completely unheard of in the West, so this documentary attempts to rectify that situation. It does a terrific job of both showcasing these films and putting them into the proper cultural context. Despite the fact I've never been a fan of musicals, I found this documentary to be completely compelling from beginning to end. It goes to prove that, no matter how many films you manage to see in your lifetime, you're only skimming the surface of whats out there.

As for the film clips themselves, they're very entertaining. While some of the musicals are blatant propaganda showing workers singing of how much they love working under the regime, some of the films (particularly the later ones) look quite accomplished from a production standpoint. Plus, they are all extremely campy because of how alien they are to my western eyes. There's a few similarities between them and the American musicals I'm used to, but the presence of strict government enforcing of a message gives them a surreal edge. They certainly don't resemble the musicals made in the West. This documentary is both one of the most bizarre and entertaining films I've seen in recent memory, and its an absolute must-see for any film buff. (9/10)


This movie strikes me as one of the most successful attempts ever at coming up with plausible answers for some of the nagging questions that have cropped up in recent scholarship concerning the 'Passion' (suffering and death of Christ) accounts in the New Testament. (What motivated Judas if money was not the issue? What could bring the Sanhedrin to meet on a high holy day? Why did Pilate waffle?) It is a movie for the serious, thinking Christian: fans of 'The Passion of the Christ' will no doubt be disappointed by the lack of gory spectacle and arch characterization. As for myself, I find the portrait painted here--of the willingness of ordinary people to so blithely sacrifice common decency when their own self-interest is at stake--far more realistic and deeply unsettling. (The disinterested, 'just doing my job' look on the face of the man who drives the first nail in Christ's wrist is as chilling as any moment in film.) The film makes no claim to 'authenticity', but the settings and costuming invariably feel more 'right' than many more highly acclaimed efforts. It is a slow film but, if you accept its self-imposed limits (it is, after all, 'The Death'--not the Life--'of Christ'), ultimately a very rewarding one.


I have always said that some plays by their very nature just can't be translated to film, and this one is a prime example.

As a play, this is a very funny farcical satire of the Catholic church, with a razor wit and a central character who is so shockingly unreal we have to root for her even when she starts murdering her parishioners (one of whom made the fatal mistake of admitting he had not sinned since his last confession, so she feels she is sending him straight to heaven).

That's just one example of how far outside of reality the play goes, and in the make believe world of the theater, it works. However, that kind of heightened reality rarely works on film, and it certainly doesn't here.

Director Marshall Brickman has assembled a fine cast who do great work, but by presenting all this absurdity in a realistic fashion the comedy becomes tragedy and you are left with an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach.

Seek out a production of the stage play instead, you won't be disappointed.


I had read up on the film and thought it would be cute, a feel good Saturday night movie. I wasn't expecting anything great, figured it would be mostly fluff but hopefully not a totally bad experience. I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised.

The dialogue was pitch perfect, most of the actors were exceptionally good and it flowed nicely. Ash Christian was perfect, his ability to turn an awkward moment into something touching was nice to see. He could have turned this character into something we've all seen before but instead strayed away from stereotypes and focused on the wittiness of the character. It was wonderful to see Jonathan Caouette again, I didn't know what he would do after Tarnation. Ashley Fink is gem, a great young character actress that hopefully will get more work.

There are moments in the film that could have used some work, but all in all not a bad time at the cinema. My friend described it as a gay Angus/Napoleon Dynamite but it's something more than that. It's a character study into what it's like to grow up gay in a small town, the pain is there but the humor behind that pain (that only age can make clearer) is magnified. I look forward to seeing more of Ash Christian, Ashley Fink and Jonathan Caouette soon.


When i started watching 'Surface'for the first time i was hooked.It had everything i wanted in a show suspense,action,mystery,great plot,and a great cast of characters.My whole family loved to watch the show.It seems when there's a great show on TV the network usually cancels it like they seemed to do with this show.They go by the Nielson rating system which i think is stupid because there is a lot of junk that they seem to watch which the networks keep on the air.If only there was a way for everyone to vote on a show then maybe the good shows won't get canceled.When i watch TV now i only watch good shows so right now thats not watching a whole lot of TV.I hope that the network brings the show back but when they make up there mind with a dumb decision they seem to stick to it.I hope there's a lot of people out there that feel the same way.


Okay...so i've seen a lot of really odd/unusual movies in my day. Fear and loathing in Las Vegas comes to mind when I think of that. Well not anymore...from here on out, whenever someone asks me, 'hey, what's the most unusual movie you've ever seen?' Slipstream is what i'll say! And I do not mean 'unusual' in a good way.

From the very beginning of the movie, it was obvious that this was going to be one of those 'trippy camera effect' movies. By that I mean, little things like flashing images on the screen, rewinding and fast-forwarding people's words and scenes, messing with the color on the screen, flash forwards and flash backs constantly...then you have the actual acting itself. People randomly get violent, shoot things/people, say the weirdest things that just don't make much, if any sense.

The movie is about a writer who starts to intermingle real life with the book he's writing and for a lack of a better way to explain it, you basically see this 'trip' he goes on throughout the movie. The thing is, Johnny Depp went on a similar trip in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but the only difference is that his trip was entertaining to watch, not painful! Honestly, I had a real hard time even finishing Slipstream. It kind of hurt my brain a bit.

I can see some film buff making a claim as to this movie having certain cinematic nuances that make it not only unique but add to the feeling of dementia...blah, blah, blah. Point is, this movie hurts your brain when you watch it....it makes very little sense, it takes all of your concentration to even remotely try and understand what is going on and even at the end, the only thing you can be happy about is that it's over...and you can say you actually sat through it! So in closing, if you want to see a movie that will have you saying 'what the heck' over and over again both out loud and in your head, go ahead and waste an hour and 30 minutes and check this out.

Mr Hopkins, while I applaud you as an actor and commend your choice to take a stab at directing....please, do not ever make a movie like this again. Next time, try something that relies a little more on great storytelling than camera techniques that tend to leave the viewer with a headache.


Before this little black-and-whiter, the touchy topic of criminal rape never made it onto the American screen.There were lots of these topics that Hollywood and the Production Code kept hidden until the rebellious 1960's. So it's not surprising that it would take a little independent company like Ida Lupino's Filmmakers to raise the subject. The result is well-meaning but somewhat compromised, which is not surprising since director Lupino had to work with Code demands to get the movie released.

Interestingly, Ann Walton's (Mala Powers) main problem following the assault is not how others might see her, but how she sees herself. And it's a heavy load she's carrying. Will she ever be able to relate to men again? Will they look at her as 'spoiled goods' (after all, this is 1950)? Small wonder she runs away rather than face these anxieties at home and at work, even though family and friends are generally supportive. Overall, this first part is earnest and well-done. The chase is hyped to inject some action into the plot, but then this is a movie-- notice how the incurious neighbor fails to respond to the honking horn near chase's end. Had those been screams of alarm from Powers instead, the neighbor's lack of response would have raised an interesting albeit complicating issue.

The second half is pretty much given over to the Production Code in the sentimentalized person of Rev. Ferguson (Tod Andrews). It's he (to quote a phrase) who 'gives her courage to face life again'. There's some effort at humanizing him-- is it Ann or her dilemma that he's most interested in. Still, his gentle and understanding presence comes across as a little too miraculous and a little too Hollywood. Fortunately, the ending avoids the usual Hollywood cop-out by emphasizing only the hope of a happy resolution for Ann rather than its certainty.

Give Lupino a ton of credit for dealing with the topic in the first place. Given the overall results, I expect she dealt as honestly with the topic as she was allowed to. I also expect today's audiences find the treatment mildly interesting mainly because of Powers' excellent performance that brings out the purely human drama. However, the film works best now as a document of its time, and what the cultural watchdogs of that day thought was appropriate for adult viewing.


I too was intrigued by the high (8.5) rating for this film, and was very disappointed. I had just seen a couple of good foreign films and was looking forward to making it three in a row, but it was not to be. I went with a spanish speaking friend who felt the same way. There is not much of a plot, if any. I don't necessarily need that in a movie, but it needs to somehow entertain or bring me in. The best I could say would be that it aspires to be an Altman-esque film, albeit with an extremely small ensemble. Sure, there are moments, but a few moments easily get thinned out by 97 slow minutes of nothing. I do not understand the high rating for this film. I give it a 3.


So well made, no CGI crap. Has anyone else been on the 'Jumping Crocs' tour of Darwin's Adelaide River before? Black Water was WAY realistic; Rogue was a bit cringeworthy.

Thought the blonde chick was excellent in it - haven't really seen her before. And the other chick is a babe, she is always excellent.

V. suspenseful - I would compare it to Jaws over any other man eating animal flick.

Got the hole Aussie thing down pat without going OTT with struths and crikeys, as well.

Loved it!


St. Elmo's Fire has no bearing on life after university at all (for the majority of us common folk anyway). Why was this garbage even made? Who can really relate to this? Who lives like these characters? I truly feel sorry for the actors having to deal with such a terrible script. There are some talented young actors in this 'film' that have done a good job elsewhere. It must have just been one whole joke to them on set.

I actually found this 'film' insulting to my intelligence. The only joy I got from this is hoping that Sir John Hughes had a good ol' laugh when he saw a screening of this the same year his masterpiece of The Breakfast Club was released.

Don't make the same mistake I did of watching this because you enjoy 80's films. It really is that offensive to the genre.


It makes the actors in Hollyoaks look like the Royal Shakespeare Company. This movie is jaw dropping in how appalling it is. Turning the DVD player off was not a sufficient course of action. I want to find the people responsible for this disaster and slap them around the face. I will never get that time back. Never. How is it possible to create such a banal, boring and soulless film? I could not think of a course of action that would relieve the tedium. Writing the required ten lines is incredibly difficult for such a disgraceful piece of cinema. What more can you say than reiterate how truly awful the acting is. Please avoid.


It's one of the best movies that I have seen this year ! I don't agree with the person who said it's boring. Of course some people may find this movie not frightening at all, but personally I spent a very good moment. This movie alterns very well sex scenes with frightening scenes. There is also a nice touch of humor. For example when the wife tells her husband that in her childhood she was abused by her father, and then her husband says 'how can someone abuse someone like you', and then he attempts to attach her on the bed for sexual games :D Very funny ! I recommend this movie to everyone, and by the way, sorry for my poor English (I'm from France).


Yes, the votes are in. This film may very well be the Plan 9 From Outer Space for our generation. But whereas Ed Wood's film, for all its flaws, retains a certain charm despite it all, this film defines the word 'charmless' to the nth degree. In fact, I'd suggest to the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary to cite this movie as a key example defining the that word in the next update to the dictionary.

Carrot Top is a performer of such abysmal ability that normally rational people that I know once they hear his name become homicidal maniacs dedicated to wanting to kill Mr. Top as soon as possible. Indeed, if one goes to Amazon.com and look at customer reviews for Carrot Top's movie and other performance DVD, one will find several that could be construed as death threats to Mr. Top.

One other curious fact about this film, I recall that Mike Nelson, the head writer for MST 3000, in his book Mike's Mega Cheese about movies, good and bad, said he saw this film and shortly afterwords couldn't recall a thing about it, including the title. Obviously Mike was suffering a classic reaction to trauma. Viewing this atrocity was so soul numbing, Mike Nelson had to block it from his mind. (Evidently, in a later chapter in his book, Mike Nelson had recovered his memeory of this film. From the review he offers, Mike Nelson was definitely not grateful for the recovered memory.)

The only comment I offer about the film, and it is not a spoiler, it's simply God's honest truth, it's not funny. None of it is, not even a nanosecond of it is funny.


Good actors, good director, well acted, well directed but...Where's the movie? Did they have an script or just improvised it all? At least it is a short-length movie (only 80 minutes, including credits). Nothing seems to happen in this film, nothing at all. A couple of small time drug dealers caught in small time troubles, but you'll never get a clue of what's happening, nor even what are they talking about in some sequences of the movie. Tons of 'f***'s' and 'motherf*****'s', but nothing else...

For the people who love Abel Ferrara's films such as The Funeral, 'R Xmas is going to be a big disappointment, as it's been for me. What was he thinking about? Did he really think that this was a good movie? And if he didn't, then why did he made it?


*** Spoiler in fifth paragraph *** This was an amazingly frank (uh-huh, uh-huh) picture for 1955. Otto Preminger and Carlyle Productions took a chance by making it, the Motion Picture Association of America balked at certifying a film that openly shows a junky jabbing a syringe full of heroin into his arm. Frank Sinatra took a chance both on playing an addicted musician and at falling flat on his face in a role that required at least twice as much acting as he'd ever done. All in all these gambles paid off, the movie is a classic, though it's not perfect.

Nelson Algren's novel may be great, but it has far too much going on to fit comfortably into a two hour movie 'The Man with the Golden Arm' is 119 minutes and often feels much longer. However, in my opinion it's not just Frankie Machine (Sinatra) that makes the film but the other characters and their sub-plots, all involving Frankie. Ultimately it's not just Frankie who has the addiction, everyone and everything seems to be dependent on him and he feels it keenly. When the pressure gets to be too much the drums start pounding on the soundtrack and Frankie steps across the street with his well-dressed 'friend' Louie.

It's an exaggeration to say that Frank Sinatra's music career was ever really in the doldrums, but in the early 50's he was in limbo between his days touring with big bands and the Las Vegas era. 'From Here to Eternity' established him as a serious actor and his career as a singer rebounded as well, but 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was still a significant challenge, the whole show sinks or swims with his performance. He pulls it off with such skill that for several minutes at a time I forgot I was watching Frank Sinatra, he must have known junky musicians and exploited that knowledge to the utmost.

Set side by side with Billy Wilder's masterpiece 'The Lost Weekend' there is more emphasis on the sociological causes of addiction in 'The Man with the Golden Arm.' Whereas Don Birnem (Ray Milland in 'The Lost Weekend') seems to struggle mostly against himself, Frankie Machine is beset by external forces and he takes refuge in the needle. Neither approach is wholly right or wrong, mostly because addiction is impossible to fully explain, but it seems like this film might have benefited from a little more insight into Frankie's internal struggle.

*** Spoiler *** One of the problems I have with this film is the clichéd reliance on 'quitting cold turkey.' I realize that 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was probably setting the trend rather than following it but that doesn't make it any better. In the beginning of the movie Frankie has to all appearances kicked his habit with the help of a doctor and a treatment facility of some sort. Naturally the drama of the film requires that he backslide, but I found the All-American ideal that a man has to face his problems alone (or maybe with the help of a good woman) out of place here. Going cold turkey and riding off into the sunset with Kim Novak seemed too unrealistic. The end of 'The Lost Weekend' was similar but in my opinion was a little less rosy.


Lars Von Trier is never backward in trying out new techniques. Some of them are very original while others are best forgotten.

He depicts postwar Germany as a nightmarish train journey. With so many cities lying in ruins, Leo Kessler a young American of German descent feels obliged to help in their restoration. It is not a simple task as he quickly finds out.

His uncle finds him a job as a night conductor on the Zentropa Railway Line. His job is to attend to the needs of the passengers. When the shoes are polished a chalk mark is made on the soles. A terrible argument ensues when a passenger's shoes are not chalked despite the fact they have been polished. There are many allusions to the German fanaticism of adherence to such stupid details.

The railway journey is like an allegory representing man's procession through life with all its trials and tribulations. In one sequence Leo dashes through the back carriages to discover them filled with half-starved bodies appearing to have just escaped from Auschwitz . These images, horrible as they are, are fleeting as in a dream, each with its own terrible impact yet unconnected.

At a station called Urmitz Leo jumps from the train with a parceled bomb. In view of many by-standers he connects the bomb to the underside of a carriage. He returns to his cabin and makes a connection to a time clock. Later he jumps from the train (at high speed) and lies in the cool grass on a river bank. Looking at the stars above he decides that his job is to build and not destroy. Subsequently as he sees the train approaching a giant bridge he runs at breakneck speed to board the train and stop the clock. If you care to analyse the situation it is a completely impossible task. Quite ridiculous in fact. It could only happen in a dream.

It's strange how one remembers little details such as a row of cups hanging on hooks and rattling away with the swaying of the train.

Despite the fact that this film is widely acclaimed, I prefer Lars Von Trier's later films (Breaking the Waves and The Idiots). The bomb scene described above really put me off. Perhaps I'm a realist.


THE JIST: See something else.

This film was highly rated by Gene Siskel, but after watching it I can't figure out why. The film is definitely original and different. It even has interesting dialogue at times, some cool moments, and a creepy 'noir' feel. But it just isn't entertaining. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in plot but especially in character motivations. I don't know anyone that behaves like these characters do.

This is a difficult movie to take on -- I suggest you don't accept the challenge.


Dryly irreverent, but sadly unfunny satire of detective movies, with stony-faced Michael Caine playing a British author of trashy crime stories traveling to the Mediterraean to assist in writing the memoirs of a would-be gangster; soon, he realizes he's being followed and his life is in danger. Caine narrates the proceedings with considerable sly wit and low-keyed sarcasm, but his actual performance is bereft of energy (Caine's shrill bursts of anger or frustration seem to come out of nowhere, and he connects with nobody on the screen). Other cast members (particularly Mickey Rooney, a silver-haired Lionel Stander, and Lizabeth Scott) do very well in colorfully outré roles, though Al Lettieri has an insulting part as an apparent cross-dressing homosexual (Lettieri gets insulted without being able to defend himself, an unenviable position). Writer-director Mike Hodges has the germ of a good idea (satirize the detective movies of the 1940s without compromising the hard-boiled talk and milieu), but he hasn't a very sharp sense of humor. When a Bogart lookalike--asking a question about a falcon--is the best joke, what follows is anemic indeed. ** from ****


The first hour or so of the movie was mostly boring to say the least. However it improved afterwards as the Valentine Party commenced. Apart from the twist as to the identity of the killer in the very end, the hot bath murder scene was one of the few relatively memorable aspects of this movie. The scene at the garden with Kate was well shot and so was the very last scene (the 'twist'). In those scenes, there was some genuine suspense and thrills and the hot bath murder scene had a nasty (the way slashers should be) edge to it. The earlier murders are frustratingly devoid of gore.


I'm probably one of the few people who defend and even enjoy 'Frisk,' the project that put Todd Verow on the map, if that is indeed where he is. I appreciated that someone had the guts to take on Dennis Cooper and not back away from the material; Verow fairly rolls around in it. Judging from what he's done since then he's well-suited for that type of material and should probably stick to it. 'Vacationland,' a would-be 'teen coming out' film, is so misguided in so many ways it becomes unintentional comedy, and I'm disappointed I have to report that.

First off, our hero, the high school Senior 'Joe' is far too old in appearance to be playing 18 . When we later meet a man who is supposed to be Joe's teacher it's confusing, as the sweaty-faced guy looks much younger than the student he's teaching. Joe's mother looks younger than he does and doesn't 'act' any older either. Second, in Joe's opening scenes he looked like he was either playing, or actually experiencing, mental challenges. To his credit he got better as the film went on and I figured out he was 'playing young,' but it just wasn't working--it was weird.

It's 15 minutes in before anything is revealed about who, what and where these people are, and why we should care. The second scene in the film is an extended bit of business in a men's toilet room that, considering where the story goes later, is absolutely superfluous; the subplot with the teacher goes nowhere at all, even as a 'rite of passage' for our 'young' hero...one minute Joe is nervously trying his hand at bathroom stall sex (a scene so un-erotic it makes you truly wonder what anyone sees in the practice), the next minute he's an expert at sexual blackmail and violent double-crossing. This is followed by an extended scene with the character we'll later learn is 'Andrew,' and that's about all we learn about him, other than he's apparently gay but not out yet.

There's a lot crammed in to the 1:44 running time (which is about 20 minutes too long--I can't imagine how it played with the mind-numbingly long and pointless deleted scenes of Joe walking around); a sub-plot copped from 'Gods And Monsters' with an aged patron who spouts rhetoric appros pos of nothing played by an actor who obviously can't remember his lines (he is conveniently dispatched with in a way Dickens might have come up with on a slow week); a mix-n-match almost-four-way between the boys and their girlfriends, a gay-bashing toilet tramp, a would-be wise sage in the form of a nellie queen (and hasn't the nellie queen suddenly taken over the role of the 'hooker with the heart of gold' as most tired stereo-type?) who exists only to be degraded; blackmail, theft, murder, alcohol consumption and abuse of looping music software for soundtrack recording.

What you will NOT find in this movie are any interior establishing master shots; we're expected to imagine we're in an airport, grocery store office and classroom, as all the scenes in these locations consist of close-ups and poorly edited soundscapes to convey the idea of locales that the production must not have been able to afford. One thing they were able to get appears to have been an actual gay bar; either it's the worst bar in the world or there are only about 5 gay men in Bangor, Maine, as the bar never has any patrons in it. Another good chuckle came when the actors were supposed to be yelling over dance music that very obviously wasn't coming from the speakers, but was just more of the droning loop-music of the 'score.'

Plots and characters come and go, emotions are unreadable and the dialog, clearly inspired by Dennis Cooper, is 'film-speak,' meaning no humans actually talk this way. Since we aren't given any information about these characters it's impossible to care about what happens to them; it's as if Joe et al appear out of the ether one day and might simply cease to exist once the credits roll (certainly the character of Joe's sister, a wannabee Jennifer Grey who is Bohemia-crazy, seems to just simply 'stop,' we never know where she is in LA or what her problem is...but again...does it matter?). Visually the film looks very good at times, more a testament to new developments in hi-def video than anything, I suspect. The editing is pretty clunky though (there was one great edit; Joe is posing naked and says, 'I wanted to play sports, but...' and we cut to a shot revealing his 'butt...' ha ha). Composition is also odd at times (I thought I was watching SCTV's parody of 'Persona' when the boys were talking together in bed and visually it looked as if their noses were stuck together for the whole scene!).

One senses Verow is really restraining himself from making a 'naughtier' or somewhat rougher movie like he usually does, and maybe he shouldn't have held back (the frothy toothpaste/sex fantasy worked nicely, I thought, though the tone was out of touch with the rest of the movie)...he produces and directs this 'sensitive coming of age' story much like Herschell Gordon Lewis directed films without gore...porn films without sex in them. I got some unintended laughs out of this and it wasn't boring, it just wasn't very good either.


The glorious Edward gets to move up in the world when his supervisor tells him that he can drop those filthy Swedish drama movies and head up stairs to the splatter and gore department. Excited along with his big anticipations for the new type of movies he soon will be going to edit, he asks all sorts of questions, about the wage, his workspace and lunch brake. Well, not really. Edward is maybe quite the opposite. Calm, stuttering guy, on top of that, he got glasses. With the exception when he's insane. I guess that created a much creepier atmosphere.

Evil Ed is with all reason a Swedish movie, but somehow a magical force came across the good actors and turned their lovely Swedish accents into stereotypical American voices. I guess that's some of the expertise an actor needs these days. The acting is very.wooden, as in they are inflexible, not bendable (well hey, what did you actually expect?). On top of that the movie has a jamming techno theme song, sounds like its E-Type. In any case, this only makes the movie experience worse. Since I'm fairly harsh against this movie so far, there will usually be a breaking point where I tone the level of happiness up. But there's really not much to say. The blueprints look good, but somehow 'Hanz' spelt coffee over it and partially destroyed it. That's how I look at this movie. If the movie ended where Edward is taken to a mental institute and they refurnished the parts from where he goes insane and kills people, the result would have been much better, but that's just my radical view. I would also like to see more footage from the lose limbs movies.

There are also illogical things to discover in this piece of movie. Let's to say that the actors really are American, living in America, why would they then work on a Swedish movie, like Edward did? And also, that delivery man, why is it that he never uses the doorbell which is located directly beside him? Instead he goes away with tapping softly at the door. Good old Edward really got some good ears to hear all that while he is editing.

Anyway, this movie had its moments, it's just a shame there were not that many. But that doesn't mean I would not recommend it. It's a rather cheap movie, go ahead and buy. It's almost like I see a pattern for the price and the movie. On the other side; if you like watching dubbed movies getting crappier by the second this might be IT. My verdict would then be a rock solid 4.


I gave this movies a 7 out of 10. I think the general dislike of this movie is due to people not really understanding the plot. If you think about the story line this movie actually makes perfect sense, it just doesn't ever give you a dumbed-down explanation. Its true that the special effects are sub-par and it appears semi low budget, but I think the originality of the plot keeps you drawn in. People say that the vampire genre is overdone and clichéd out, But with Bled, what you get is not your conventional vampire flick. Its a dream/alternate reality story- line with a vampire/eternal life spin on it. I loved it. The only thing that kept me from giving it a higher rating was the lack of special effects and that I personally dislike movies where most of the people have accents. But like I said earlier, if you really get the plot this is not a bad movie..


The first time I watched this movie I was ten years old. I thought it was bad then, and at that age I had no cinematic taste whatsoever. I watched this movie on Cinemax about 3 days ago and was reminded why I hated the movie in the first place. Madonna's character, Nikki, is annoying and obnoxious. There's no way that the main character would ever fall in love with her. The jokes were corny and the dialogue was worse than a t.v. soap opera!! I'm glad that I didn't see this movie at the theatre, or rent it. I feel bad for my parents who had to endure watching it with me! Madonna is not necessarily a bad actress, but in this role she is portrayed as a complete idiot.


This movie has some good lines, but watching Dillon's less-than-masterful Rourke impersonation just left me wanting to see the original. I like Marisa Tomei but she's no Faye Dunaway.

Also, in my opinion, the number one movie rule is to make the lead character someone you care about. You might not LOVE the character, but you should care what happens to him. This is achieved in Barfly with the hilarious running gag about the fights with Eddie the bartender. The main fight in Factotum is when, completely unprovoked, he stalks up to the Lily Taylor character in a bar, punches her to the floor and calls her a whore.

The whole thing just didn't work. Again, some great lines -- some laugh-out-loud funny -- but as a movie overall it's a fail. Mediocre attempt at reinventing something that was brilliant, and you can't get past that. Next? Let's remake Breakfast at Tiffany's with Kate Hudson.


I am a huge Willem Dafoe fan, and really sought out this film (I had to get a Region 5 Chinese DVD of it!). But, it is truly one of the worst that I've seen in quite a while.

The acting (except for Dafoe) is horrible. Dafoe and Colagrande BOTH wrote and directed this ( though he isn't credited as a director), and they have NO discernible talents for writing or directing. (Stick to acting Willem; Giada get out of the business, PLEASE!)

Absolutely nothing happens. Except a series of completely unconvincing, totally without believable motivation, acts by these two people (that just met) in this house. Colagrande's sleepy, I couldn't care less expression practically NEVER changes. And the sex scenes are downright lame. I actually cringed twice at one of them. Yuck! They're definitely not the least bit erotic, and yet are the only time the film isn't putting you to sleep. Then, it's busy repulsing you.

Just awful.


I can't believe how bad this 'film' is. For starters, the movie deals with the legend of Big Foot and a group of people having a close encounter with the creature. The premise is interesting and having Lance Henriksen in the cast (ALIENS)gave 'The Untold' a promising outlook. Unfortunately that's as interesting as it gets. This looks like a direct to DVD release...or so I guess. This is basically a production-less affair with probably the worst editing (with a constant 'fading to black' in between every scene!!!)I've seen in my life and acting that will sure make you cringe. Why Lance Henriksen picked this is completely fathomless. And the movie takes cues from just about any other genre movie, from 'Blair Witch Project' (The video scene) and 'Predator', to 'Alive'. This is supposedly based on true events, but the only truth to be found herein is just how BAD this movie is. I'm usually not a harsh critic and believe me, I DID try to enjoy this trash but eventually did NOT. Do yourselves a favor and steer clear from this DVD.

I'll try to put it mildly: This movie is PURE garbage and it made me want to take my gun and shoot my neighbors... or ask BLOCKBUSTER for a refund!!!

And Lance, shame on you! 1* out of 10*


Obviously, a number of agents didn't see beyond dollar signs when they signed up their clients for this 117-minute *omage* to the courtesan complex.

Sure, the film could have been alright, had the $1 million been left out of it. Seriously. The amount of the check doesn't matter,prostitution is still prostitution and no amount of 'love conquers all' can change the fact that no marriage vows ever meant to imply 'for richer for poorer, for pimping as in fidelity'. Picture the story otherwise, though: 2 kids, flat broke, borderline 'desperate' and completely stupid. They collide with wealthy business man. Kids' marriage is strained by imperfect times and the fact that the husband is something of a loser. Enter Mr. Tuxedo, oozing charm and stability -- a virtual magnet for the ticking biological clock -- and with him the wife's temptation, tensions, suspense. Whom will she choose? Maybe, under those conditions, I could actually care. As-is, frankly, Redford's selfish and manipulative playboy winds up the sympathetic character. A woman who will sell herself is just about what a guy deserves who will pimp out his wife. The indecent proposition makes the husband a TOTAL loser, deficient in every positive male characteristic, and makes the wife a cheap strumpet seduced by money rather than confused by another potential love, a woman devoid of moral center and self-respect.

All the impressive talent (acting, directing, cinematography) wasted on this film -- and it was an impressive amount -- couldn't save it from its splashy-but-too-trashy $1 million pitch line. If I see this turkey at one more bridal shower, I'm going to roast it! (Or maybe cross it with Titanic and pitch the tape in the ocean!)


This story was never among my favourites in Christie's works so I was pleasantly surprised to quite enjoy this adaptation. The mouse motif was effective if a little overdone, the bones of the story are there although more emphasis is placed on the 'crime in the past' subplot. The students were all pretty much as I imagined them although its a pity they weren't a more cosmopolitan bunch - perhaps the revised thirties setting didn't allow for that! I thought some very daring risks were taken with the filming; perhaps its because I've not long re-read the book but it seemed pretty obvious to me who the murderer was from their appearance in some reveal shots quite early on.

Humour was much more prevalent in these early Poirots. Sometimes it works but I found a lot of it rather heavy handed in this episode (though I did smile at the 'Lemon sole' throwaway line). Altogether though, a solid entry in the series though not one of the best.


I got to see the movie ' On Thin Ice' on the television in India.. I must say the movie was really well done, and really sent a chill down my spine.. the basic story makes me ponder what makes certain addicts decide to move on where as others still remain addicted...

however, I felt that Diane Keaton was at her best... the scene where she has cravings, and begins rummaging her home for cocaine... was the best... the two boys are good, and Lynda Boyd also showed what a good actress she is....The script is well done as is the cinematography and direction.. and casting

A must must watch movie..... for everyone


Something about 'Paulie' touched my heart as few movies do. It is a witty, funny yet emotional movie. I'm a late comer in becoming a fan of this movie. I didn't see 'Paulie' until May, 2004 and have since ordered the Widescreen DVD from a seller at eBay.

The special effects of showing Paulie talking are superb. My son asked me how the bird knew so many phrases.Probably my favorite part of the movie is when Paulie is in Gena Rowlands (Ivy's) company followed by Cheech Marin (Ignacio). Tony Shalhoub (Misha) plays an excellent part as the good hearted human. You root for him all the way through the movie.

You can't go wrong renting or buying this movie!!


This did for crime what 'Not Another Teen Movie' did for school. I laughed all the way through as 2 inept gangs warred with each other and among themselves. An unsubtle comedy using overt jokes and gags that kept me rolling all the way. I suppose the biggest gag in the entire film was that time never seemed to go forward leaving the characters trapped in the 30's.


I am astonished at the major comments here for this OK surf film. It really stems from the 'California Dreamin' school of barnyard to beach antics and isn't really plausible. The idea that the lead kid learn to ride a board SO well in a concrete wave pool that he beats the real surfers at their game in the real ocean, is just plain silly. In Australia where most urban teens do surf, this film was laughed at audiences took it all with a grain of sea salt. Made in the 80s but with its heart in the 60s, it is fun to watch and looks and sounds good, but it is not a in a classic class at all. Even the actors didn't outlast this. We're seriously in LIQUID BRIDGE or RIDE THE WILD SURF or BEACH BLANKET BINGO land here. Oz stars like Occy and BIG Wednesday hero Gerry Lopez are drafted in to add head nodding recognition to our farm boy's wave prowess, but it only made the crowd in the cinema guffaw. It is for 10 years olds who do not question much. It's not even IN GODS HANDS and that was silly too.


This movie has a special way of telling the story, at first i found it rather odd as it jumped through time and I had no idea whats happening.

Anyway the story line was although simple, but still very real and touching. You met someone the first time, you fell in love completely, but broke up at last and promoted a deadly agony. Who hasn't go through this? but we will never forget this kind of pain in our life.

I would say i am rather touched as two actor has shown great performance in showing the love between the characters. I just wish that the story could be a happy ending.


The original 'Assault on Precinct 13' is gritty, witty, and - perhaps most importantly - short. This remake is mercilessly padded out and talky. Worse yet, the African-American hero of the first movie is here replaced with handsome white boy Ethan Hawke, which makes this 'Assault' less progressive than the 1970s one. God, how I miss John Carpenter and his improbable plot line and his weird sense of humor. I even miss his B-list actors, who are leagues better than Hawke and company.

I can't say I care for the new villains in this version - they stretch what little credibility the story ever had to the limit. The female characters are useless, the criminals are all generic hoods, and Gabriel Byrne gives another of his bored performances. The music's all wrong, too - it's bland action stuff that actually detracts from the tension. Simply awful.


Despite the title, The Sword Bearer, and the DVD cover (action/herioc poses of The Sword Bearer) this is not a super hero film.

(Minor Spoilers) It follows the tale of Sasha, The Sword Bearer, who is cursed with having a retractable sword in his forearm. Cool you say, but no, this is real life. If you had this power as a child could you control it when, say, faced by a mad man, or when your mum's boyfriend is beating her. And if you don't control it, how do you cope with being a two time killer at the age of 12.

This essentially is where Sasha is when we meet him. Wandering aimlessly after another killing (much like A Bout de Soufflé). He then meet Katya, and the pair fall instantly in love, providing Sasha with a real reason to live and try and changes his ways. However, his past is still chasing him, in the form of two police officers.

That is essentially the story, and there is virtually no action on screen, though a lot if suggested.

I really like this movie. Unlike many Hollywood 'super hero' films, we get very little back story, there is no bad guy (unless you count The Sword Bearer himself) abut there is a lot of heart and good character development.

Worth checking out if you can find it.


The Matador is better upon reflection because at the time one is watching it, it seems so light. The humor is always medium-gauge, never unfunny but never gut-busting. The story is a very simple thread. The characteristics of the plot are often recycled features, namely the unscrupulous bad guy in need of a pal and the straight-laced glass-wearing good guy in need of security in life team up and learn from each other and somehow complement each other's lifestyles. I also find the bullfighting parallel to the story unnecessary, as it is a simply cruel thing and the symbolism is hardly potent enough to carry itself. However, it really is a good film, because though it seemed so thin and unaffecting at the time, it wasn't. It has a subtle way of connecting with the audience.

I believe the reason it slowly but surely gives the audience something to take with them is because though it's a formula that is nothing new, even most of the humor, both main characters, virtually the only characters in it, are somehow met and gotten to know. Forget calling them real. That's not at all what I mean. What I mean is that though Pierce Brosnan's filthy, womanizing, boozing hit man is a detached comical character, he's grasped firmly by the writer and definitely by Brosnan, who is aggressively communicating how much he enjoys his breath of fresh James Bondless air. Greg Kinnear's character seems quite the same in his detached scriptedness, but he's given certain very unexpected footnotes that for a moment due to the film's lightfootedness pass us by but then hit us only a moment later. We then realize the film is not simply Analyze This or Planes, Trains and Automobiles told stalely over again. Its truly saying something.

The film's climax is of a sort that wants to partially be a thriller with twists. But with its lightness, how can that possibly be the focus of the film, though the plot has been leading up to it? No, the focus is what Brosnan and Kinnear get out of their unlikely relationship to each other. Strangely, The Matador is a film about regret and loneliness. Brosnan deals with loneliness and regret every day, and though we don't understand why Kinnear is so lenient and accepting with Brosnan continually interrupting his life, it's slowly understood that Brosnan is salvaging Kinnear from a more down-to-earth version of his own feelings as a means of redemption. The very last scene of the movie stays with me. It, I think, is where the film's subtle side-stepping impact finally begins to seep.