Having been driven out of the house and into the theater by the sweltering heat, I could not have been more pleased. The Road to Perdition, directed by Sam Mendes (American Beauty), is destined to become one of the greatest movies of all time. Perhaps I'm just getting old; perhaps I've just seen the same themes recycled time and again. But this movie is indeed different.

The story opens with young Michael Sullivan Jr. facing out to the sea, contemplating the duality of his father's legacy -- one of the best men to ever live, one of the most evil. This duality snakes its way throughout the movie. The story revolves around crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) and Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks), the young man Rooney once took in and who now serves as his personal 'Angel of Death.' Rooney is tied by blood to his own son, but tied by love and loyalty to Michael. Young Michael Jr., intrigued by the stories he reads, steals away in his father's car one night while Dad goes off to 'work' with Connor Rooney, heir to the family 'business.' Connor lets the situation get out of hand, and what was meant only to be a warning turns into murder -- witnessed by Michael Jr. Upon the discovery that young Michael has seen what he should not have seen, the plot is set in motion as conflicting loyalties collide. Soon, Michael Sr. is on the run with his young son, pursued by contract killer Harlen 'The Reporter' Maguire (Jude Law).

I will disclose no further details in order to avoid any potential spoilers. However, I strongly encourage viewers to examine the many dualities that present themselves in the movie: Problems between sons and fathers (Michael Sr & Jr., John Rooney & son Connor), between the world at home and the world at 'work', between good and evil, between those who pretend to be men of god and those who really are, between 'clean' money and 'dirty', between the town of Perdition and Perdition as hell. And along the way, savor the visual brilliance of cinematographer Conrad L. Hall (9 nominations, 2 oscars for best cinematography): rain pouring off fedoras, shots through mirrors (especially on swinging doors), tommy-gun flashes from out of the shadows, absent any sound. Not only has 75-year-old Hall given us perhaps the best cinematic product of his career, but 77-year-old Paul Newman offers one of his best performances ever.

Yes ... I may be getting old. But I've seen a lot ... and this is fresh and invigorating. The Road to Perdition presents a lasting and loving tribute to the gangster genre, to films of the 40s, to dark comic-book figures lurking in the darkness, to villains and heroes, to American film in general. Go see it!


I've long heard that to get their start in 'legitimate' films, many behind-the-camera types work on porno films.

The people who produced and directed this monstrosity stayed too long.

Poorly paced, staged and written, it uses a lot of perfectly good talent (Diehl, Dorn, Eggert) badly.

Much sexual activity is teasingly implied here by the brassiere-popping host to the alien creature, but it never crosses the line...

You'll still want to shower afterwards, though.


Family Guy is THE best show on TV. EVER. It has achieved great things that no other animated sitcom, or any show, has even come close to achieving.

In terms of animated sitcoms, this era should be referred to as 'The Era of Animated Sitcoms' because there are so many of them, and almost every one of them imaginable is being released on DVD. There are some good ones (i.e. South Park, Futurama, and The Simpsons). Every animated sitcom has its own style/technique of creating humor. For instance, Futurama is funny because it always comments or acts on what just happened with a touch of humor. The Simpsons is also a great show because it uses the same comedic technique and style that Futurama does, but The Simpsons deserves the credit for it since it was on the air way before Futurama and still remains on the air using the technique. South Park, in my mind, is the funniest show next to Family Guy, because it uses a smart blend of vulgarity and silliness as it's technique of creating humor.

But enough about other animated shows. Let me tell you what makes Family Guy so funny. Family Guy uses a comedic style that no other show has ever used before. It uses a technique of having flashbacks occur after every joke. This not only reinforces the joke, but makes it seem funnier. It also moves at a very quick pace. These two criteria make it the funniest show on TV. You have to see the show to believe it, but once you see it, you will most likely agree. (FYI, the two funniest moments on Family Guy were: 1) The 5 minute chicken fight in 'Da Boom', and 2) The Dick van Dyke spoof in 'Holy Crap.') Also, in my mind Family Guy is a very modest show because while other shows create humor by getting familiar with their shticks/routines and characters, most of Family Guy's jokes are based on the silliness of current events and pop culture. This also shows that Family Guy is intelligent, in addition to being modest, because it reveals that the show has insight. And this technique is extremely effective because they relate their pop culture references to the particular plot of the episode they are found in.

Family Guy can be enjoyed by all ages, because while younger children may not understand the pop culture references, they will be amused by the hilarious, silly antics of the characters, especially Peter. The show is, however, a little bit more vulgar than The Simpsons and Futurama, but it is less vulgar than South Park. So, in terms of vulgarity, Family Guy would rank somewhere in the middle when associated with the above shows, but it would rank No. 1 in terms humor and intelligence!!

Sadly, it was cancelled last year, not because it wasn't popular, but because FOX kept changing it's time slot, so no one ever knew when it was on. Luckily, we've got the DVD box sets (which, by the way, are selling like crazy) and reruns on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim available to us.


The most satisfying element about 'Dan in Real Life' is that the relationship between Dan (Steve Carell) and Marie (Juliette Binoche) makes sense and is beautifully realistic. The casting of Oscar-winner Juliette Binoche as Dan's love interest was a superb decision; she is exceptionally talented, intelligent, naturally attractive and, thank goodness, appropriately aged for the part! Had this movie been made with Jessica Alba or Scarlett Johansson, it would have been a disaster.

Another wonderful aspect about 'Dan in Real Life' is that it is a perfect film for adults who are interested in a mature comedy that leaves out the three pillars of the 'frat pack' formula: dumb chicks, chauvinistic guys, and sleazy jokes. 'Dan in Real Life' is witty and has fun, intelligent laughs throughout. Whereas other comedies incorporate or are almost entirely based on jokes that shock the audience into laughing, the jokes from 'Dan in Real Life' are more natural and clever, and involve some thinking on the part of the audience.

My only problem with 'Dan in Real Life' is that the rebellious, middle daughter is played too outrageously by actress Brittany Robertson. It's difficult to say if this was a personal choice on her part or a choice by the director. Either way, her character is unrealistic and annoying. But, this is only a minor flaw in the film, and does not take away from the story as a whole.

All in all, 'Dan in Real Life' is a great film, a fantastic escape from the redundancy of offensive and dumbed-down comedies. The quality of the writing, directing, acting, and (especially) cinematography is excellent. It is simply a beautiful, light-hearted comedy.


While trying to build a major mall or complex or something like that, a wealthy landowner ignores ancient Native American artifacts buried on the land, and unleashes the Bone Eater...a creature who goes around and kills people in search of his fallen friends or something like that.

Indeed this movie had to be a Sci-Fi Channel original. If it wasn't, then the director should never direct anything again. The effects in the film is laughable at best, and the Bone Eater monster is nothing but a CGI-animated being added into the frames at a later date. The actors don't even look all that frightened when they see the thing (probably because they really don't, and they're just terrible actors). It's a great comedy, though, even if it's supposed to be pure horror.


It is hard to believe that anyone could take such a great book and and make such a terrible movie.

Imagine King Kong being recast as an organ grinder's monkey and Fay Wray's part being played by a young boy. How about Elton John as Rambo!!!!.This movie is even worse than the TV remake of The Night of the Hunter.

By using the title Watchers and Dean Koontz's name the makers of this movie should be sued for fraud by readers of the book who expected a reasonably accurate adaptation of the book.

Read the book, I have never talked to anyone who didn't like it. Another good book is The Winner by David Baldachi.


90 minutes of Mindy...Mindy is a tease to boyfriend Bill...Mindy prances at the high school dance...Mindy hitchhikes to Big Sur, shoplifts a loaf of 'shepherd's bread,' Mindy nearly gets gang-raped... Ah, the pleasures of Crown International drive-in features. You must remember that these films were never designed to be watched start to finish on DVD players. They were made as 90 minutes of ambiance so the teens of the 70s would have a soundtrack as they got it on in their Pintos and Citations. The lack of pacing and structure didn't matter to the original audience -- they probably only tuned in when the T & A on screen matched what they were up to, out in the parking lot. The film is really irritating when watched as a story. It's a lot more fun to talk about it than watch it. My favorite inanities: 1) Bill and his friend accompany the teacher to find Mindy. With no luggage or change of underwear, they spend 2 nights sharing a motel room with the teacher, just like in real life. 2)After being abducted and nearly raped by depraved bikers, and after their innocent friend 'Pan' is savagely beaten, Mindy and her girlfriend find an unattended motorcycle on the road. Mindy immediately brightens up and chirps, 'I'm going' to Big Sur!!' But again, it's a lot more fun to talk/read about than sit through.


and a 30,000$ budget and this movie still looks like it was made for 50$. You can tell from the first frame to the last that he didn't care one bit about the movies continuity or plot, he was just happy to be making a zombie movie.

What the end result shows is a lazy film maker who loves zombie movies. It could have been great if he just had of given a care. The end result is endless zoom ins on poorly done gore, and even more poorly produced metal plays over it.

What happens when you combine high hopes, big dreams, a decent budget, hard work, and one idiot behind the camera.


'The King of Queens' could be divided into two eras.

The first era, constituted of the first few seasons portrayed the issues of everyday life of a man and his wife making it through life in the city paycheck by paycheck.

The second era, increased the scope of the show, addressing current popular culture and marital issues with a humorous spin.

But besides all of that...

This show was freaking hilarious.

Kevin James, when not doing crap comedy films with Adam Sandler, is a genius of laughter, and his chemistry with Leah Remini was unparalleled on TV.

Jerry Stiller as the psychotic live-in father in law added his own unique style of quirky humor, and Patton Oswalt as the 'man-child' Spence Ulchin was amazing, (he's a great comedian too) 'The King of Queens' was the final sitcom of the 1990s to go off the air, and it's a damn shame. Now, all we have to watch are the idiotic sitcoms full of untalented actors and actresses whose only appeal is their physical appearance. I like many fans of actually funny TV shows am now in a state of mourning


The youthful group in 'St. Elmo's Fire' who just graduated from college barely seem able to make it through high school much less four years at any prominent university. For the most part, these kids are irresponsible, selfish, greedy and stupid, yet co-writer and director Joel Schumacher appears to hold them up as touchstones for a generation. With a now-outdated cast of 'up and comers', a background score that sounds awfully similar to that of 'Terms Of Endearment', and writing which lords the smugness of this circle over us, 'Fire' is a paltry blaze, one that gets even more embarrassing as the years pass on. *1/2 from ****


Uma and Travolta were very good together, but - unfortunately - when they left the screen, the movie was nothing but a bunch of very boring and wordy secondary characters wrapped in some extremely bad writing. Occasional glimpses of greatness like the dance scene between Uma and Travolta quickly eroded when the likes of Harvey Keitel and similar uninteresting thugs came on. And the white dude who tried to act black got VERY, VERY tiresome after way too much exposure in the picture. He weighed down a fairly good performance by the Rock, the only secondary character who you couldn't wait to see leave the screen. Bad, dumb plot. The writers clearly couldn't figure out if they writing to Generation X or the 12-15 year old rap crowd, and the combination turned into a film that kept me staring at my watch!


Let's get it clear from the start: I am an asshole with the emotional sensitivity of cubic stone. Therefore I consider dramas of people with disabilities, social stigma or whatever ailments they have and cry on and on about it as stupid movies with poor taste. I mean, if you have a message, you can tell it without the help of sick or pitiful people.

However, I liked this movie. It is about people with incredible bad luck as personal health goes, but they don't cry about it, quite the opposite, they try to live and people try to 'protect' or 'take care' of them by actively removing them from real life. The message is live life to the fullest, even if the ending is as sad as possible.

My conclusion: as sick people dramas go, this one is a keeper. It is sad, yet hopeful. I like James McAvoy, even if he does seem to always play the arrogant rebel. I also say that Steven Robertson played very well. Either that or he really has partial paralysis. :)


OK, it's watchable if you are sick in bed or have nothing else to do. The suspension of disbelief required to get through this movie is significant though. First, in today's modern society do you believe college coeds get THAT committed to someone in that short of a period of time even if you are a 'virtuous' Habitat volunteer who likes autistic kids? And the 2 week romance blossoms into a letter exchange that leads to John's 'conflict' of whether to re-enlist right after 9/11/01...REALLY? He asks her what to do? Every guy we know was NOT gonna be sitting on the sidelines after those Towers came down(my husband was one of them and I love him and am proud of him for going) John's character is so flat. He's nearly expressionless the entire movie. He's good looking but not Spec Ops...he seems unsure not confident, quiet instead of a hell-raiser, no tattoos, gets into a 'fight' with the preppy boys that is nothing more than a pushing match really...walks around without a cover on his head nearly the whole movie...and there are military technical flaws everywhere (epaulets upside down?). The war scenes are dumb...John and another guy heading off on their own...huh?, then other guy gets shot and John drags him 10 feet and starts giving buddy aid before securing the area or back-up arrival or even having their backs against cover...it's a gunfight for God's sakes, you don't stop fighting until its over...heck I wanted to shoot John in the back. Back home, when the truth is revealed and she spills the wine...we hated her for removing her shirt in his presence...WTH? break his heart and THEN tease him into adultery? She's a head case trollop. Best part of the movie is when he drives away from her...at least he had some self respect and honor there. Overall unbelievable story and we generally did not care about these characters or their love. Dismal!


Whack!!! I got this movie because Elizabeth Hartman was in it. I was disappointed to find out she was in like two short scenes towards the end. Other than that I was basically hitting the fast forward button the entire time. Some teenager goes on a trip to Romania with his Dad and gets bitten by a wolf and turns into a werewolf if there's a full moon. He kills his father and friends. About 30 years past but he doesn't age a bit and enrolls in a high school. There he meets a shy teacher whom he ends up biting and then has kids with her. This movie sucked and I don't recommend it to anyone. Read War and Peace instead. Only Ms. Hartman did a great job. Check out a very young Bob Saget in this one!!


The Beguiled was one of the few early Eastwood films I hadn't seen until I gave the DVD a spin today. And from it's opening sepia-tinged shot to the macabre climax I was utterly enthralled. Too many film-makers these days substitute special effects, fast editing and dizzying camera-work in place of character-driven stories, but Director Don Siegel knew how to get the maximum effect from this relatively simple plot, and the characters are believable and compelling.

The story concerns a ladies finishing school which happens to be situated on the edge of various skirmishes during the American Civil War. The south-supporting ladies find a badly wounded Union soldier (Clint Eastwood); nursing him back to health he begins to manipulate the sexually frustrated women for his own ends.

Geraldine Page is excellent in the role of the headmistress with a secret, and her descent into madness is subtly conveyed. For a film that virtually takes place in a single location it never loses visual interest. There's even a chance that the normal status quo, long abandoned when Eastwood's machinations are uncovered, could return; but the mistresses and pupils descend upon a darker road...

This is a totally different style of film from the same Director's Dirty Harry, made in the same year, and yet they are both equally superb. Eastwood is great playing against his usual stoic anti-hero image, yet there's also some mysterious quality attached to his character. We never really learn much about him prior to his incarceration, and the viewer is free to decide upon his well-shaded persona. Villain or Victim? Whatever you think, all I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed it.


First things first, how can someone with his creativity on the right side believe in a movie like this. I saw this movie and after end of couple of hours was left scratching my head, what exactly is director trying to say.

If its a thriller, there are no thrills, if its action, there is no action barring a chase sequence, there is no Drama, and the much touted love story, it actually never takes off. No passion, emotion nothing is there.

Actually I never expected wonders from the movie, however after the bumper opening it took, I thought of giving it a chance. I have no problems with Himesh Reshamiya whatsoever, and I am not one of the guys who will bash him at every given opportunity. I went in with an Open mind and came out with a closed one.

Let's not put the blame of Himesh Reshamiya, he is just a Debutant Actor. But direction, screenplay, writing, makeup, everything has gone for a toss.

Himesh is very stiff and would take a lot of time to come up the curve. He can do the don kind of roles. Hansika is just a kid, and it shows on screen with her baby fat and the way she walks.

The only actor who was good was the friend of Himesh in the movie, I don't know his name, but he looks promising.

Watch it at your own risk, not even good to watch it for a time pass viewing.

** Strongly recommend to avoid this Movie.**


I would not compare it to Le Placard, which IMHO had more comic moments, but Romuald & Juliette while being a slow starter certainly kept your attention going throughout the film, nicely paced and reaching a heart warming conclusion :) There were many marvellous comedic moments, some brilliant pathos and realistic situation acting by all actors.

It was a typically French film, in which while confronting prejudices and phobias, which in turn the made the viewer confront his own shortcomings! I am certainly pleased to have this in my library, and will no doubt watch it time and time again, which to me is a mark of a great film.


This woman who works as an intern for a photographer goes home and takes a bath where she discovers this hole in the ceiling. So she goes to find out that her neighbor above her is a photographer. This movie could have had a great plot but then the plot drains of any hope. The problem I had with this movie is that every ten seconds, someone is snorting heroin. If they took out the scenes where someone snorts heroin, then this would be a pretty good movie. Every time I thought that a scene was going somewhere, someone inhaled the white powder. It was really lame to have that much drug use in one movie. It pulled attention from the main plot and a great story about a photographer. The lesbian stuff didn't bother me. I was looking for a movie about art. I found a movie about drug use.


I really enjoyed this movie. I am a single dad with a 17 year old daughter who is smart, athletic and talented. I WISH my girl applied herself so well to solving crimes and helping others! So for me, perhaps this is PG level Fantasyland. I read many Nancy Drew books in my teen years, long, long ago. Sure THIS character was ably played by Emma Roberts but did NOT resemble the Nancy Drew I recall from the books. That is due to script, not the acting.

Emma is an adorable teen, playing a self-confident, industrious and proud character with good manners and good taste. She is not caught up in the trendy competitiveness around her. There are some weaknesses in the Plot, aside from not resembling the Nancy Drew of the Books, and trying to figure out what decade we're in. (like, what is that CAR, Anyway?)

I read the IMDb overview before seeing the film, as I was researching Rachael Leigh Cook from other movies. This is not one of Her best roles, but I will continue looking for more of her films. Rachael was too old to play this lead, but does a fine job as the grown-up orphan central to the mystery.

I am very disappointed in other reviews written here. Some expect perfect connection with the books, some expect more credible situations or adult action film. I got what I expected! Good entertainment well targeted to young teen girls, And their Fathers who want good kids with high standards of conduct and achievement. This is a Teen PG Movie, not James Bond! Which would YOU Want for a Role Model for YOUR Teenaged Daughter?


Every movie critic and metal head hated this movie but I enjoyed it. I saw this as a child on TV somewhere and was amazed by the scene where Sammi comes on stage and plays Trick or Treat by Fastway.

The movie itself was typical 80's, guy gets pushed around by bullies and enlists supernatural help to beat up the bullies but goes to far and has to be destroyed.

Matt from Melrose Place picks on Skippy from Family Ties so Skippy gets a record of Tony Fields from Gene Simmons to comfort him and all hell breaks lose, the highlight being where Tony sings (lip-synchs) and dances to a metal song before the shyt hits the fan.

There were a lot of errors and stuff but the music and the overall imagery was enough to keep my fists pumping 8 out of 10


May (Anne Reid) and Toots (Peter Vaughan) are paying an apparently infrequent visit to their son Bobby (Steven Mackintosh) and his family in London. Even as the visit begins, Toots suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving May adrift, unsure, and questioning her life and future. Finding herself attracted to her daughter's boyfriend Darren (Daniel Craig), her actions lead to inevitable consequences.

Beautifully filmed, but for all its heralded realism and acclaim, The Mother offers a collection of mostly unpleasant, even repellent characters, and asks the viewer to engage with them. Reid shines as May, and it is her skill and commitment as a wonderfully understated actor that salvages the film from a completely depressing mire, but Michell and Kureishi have allowed Craig, Mackintosh and Cathryn Bradshaw to create such utterly obnoxious characters, that it becomes increasingly difficult to care what happens to May. As written, the characters played by Mackintosh and Bradshaw are in fact so utterly selfish and cold-hearted that one begins to wonder what exactly was Kureishi trying to say. As directed, they are either unwilling or unable to lift Bobby and Paula above the two dimensional in their ghastly selfishness.

Worth seeing for Reid's performance, but little else. A crying shame...


A number of Richard Attenborough's films as director have been biographies of major historical figures- 'Young Winston', 'Gandhi', 'Chaplin'. 'Grey Owl' is also a filmed biography of a historical individual, but in this case Attenborough's subject is a much more obscure character.

Grey Owl was a Canadian writer of the 1920s and 1930s who promoted the ideas of environmentalism and nature conservation at a time when these causes were less fashionable than they are today. He was widely believed to be an American Indian; the story he told about himself was that he had been born in Mexico to a Scottish father and Apache mother and had emigrated to Canada where he had been adopted as a member of the Ojibway tribe. He lived in a cabin by a lake in a remote part of the Canadian wilderness, where he earned a living as a trapper. He toured Britain twice, in 1935 and 1937, to promote his books and to give lectures on conservationism, and achieved great success, even being introduced to the Royal Family. (During one of these tours Attenborough, then a teenager, saw Grey Owl at the London Palladium theatre). After his death in 1938, however, it was revealed that he had not been who he claimed to be; his real name was Archibald Belaney, and he had been born in the English seaside town of Hastings.

The film departs somewhat from the facts of Grey Owl's life. In a scene set in 1934 he states that he is 41 years old; in reality, he was born in 1888 so would have been 46 in that year. (46 would have been Pierce Brosnan's age when the film was made, so I am not sure why this change was made). Numerous events are compressed into the last four years of Grey Owl's life (1934-1938). In the film it is during this period that he meets and marries Gertrude Bernard whom he called Anahareo; in reality, he met and married Gertrude as early as 1925. The film also omits the fact that they were divorced in 1936 and that Grey Owl remarried shortly before his death.

The revelation of Grey Owl's true identity adversely affected his posthumous reputation, and he was dismissed as a 'fraud'. His supposed deceit was even used to discredit the causes which he had championed. Richard Attenborough, however, takes a more sympathetic view of his achievements. One of the themes explored by the film is the question of ethnic identity. Although the erstwhile Archibald Belaney was not a Canadian Indian by birth, there is no doubt that he had a deep knowledge of Ojibway culture and lore and that he spoke their language fluently. He was accepted by the Ojibway as a member of their tribe. It therefore seems unfair to describe his claim to a Native North American identity as being a fraudulent one, merely because it was an identity he had chosen rather than one he had been born into.

According to the film, Grey Owl's wife Gertrude was herself of Indian descent, but came from a family which had been assimilated into white Canadian culture. Her marriage can therefore be seen as her reclamation of her family's original cultural heritage. She was clearly influenced by her husband, but she also had an influence on him, persuading him to give up his work as a fur trapper as she had moral objections to killing animals for their fur.

One criticism made of the film is that Pierce Brosnan is 'miscast' as the hero, a criticism which seems to be rooted in the preconception that Brosnan can only play action heroes in the James Bond mould. It seems to me, however, that Brosnan may deliberately have taken this role in order to avoid being typecast, the taciturn backwoodsman Grey Owl being about as far from the suave, sophisticated agent Bond as one can get. The original Bond, Sean Connery, also seems to have deliberately opted for contrasting roles when he appeared in films like 'The Hill' or 'The Molly Maguires'. Brosnan is in fact very good in this role, although I would agree with those who found Annie Galipeau weak as Gertrude.

Another frequently-voiced criticism with which I would not agree is that the film is 'boring'. Certainly, it is not an action film like the Bonds, nor is it a great epic biopic like 'Gandhi', and it may indeed seem boring to those who were expecting it to be either the one or the other. It is however, likely to please anyone with an interest in the early days of the conservationist movement or the philosophical implications of national and ethnic identity. The scenes of the Canadian forests are also beautifully photographed. Richard Attenborough has done us a service by helping to revive interest in this half-forgotten but fascinating figure. 7/10


This son of a son of a sequel was terrible to say the least. You would think that production would be better 10 years after the original was released, however Retro Puppet Master was not directed by or written by the original writers and contained poor story, lack of any emmontional connection to any characters, and dragged out slowly scene to scene. No build up of strong plot, very weak climax, you will find yourself slowly getting antsy throughout the movie, if you can sit through the whole reel. I never could understand why a horror movie continues making sequels after the release of their 'final chapter.' I hardly suggest watching this flick, but if you must I wouldn't recommend making anyone else sit through it with you.


John and his wife Emily, accompanied by their child Edward venture from the comfortable environs of suburbia to the village where the husband spent some of his childhood. There has been a death in the family and John must begin proceedings to take control of an old ramshackle cottage, situated by the seaside and once inhabited by an old man who has apparently committed suicide.

Sceptical about the circumstances of the death, John divorces himself from his family and from reality, puts his own life in peril, and puts on the clothes of the old man who is now dead.

The film now changes - nothing is what it seems - the people of his past appear, in full Gothic/hillbilly glory - his wife worries about his mental state - and his son disappears into the reeds.

John finds that the old man didn't commit suicide, that his death is far more mysterious and strange. In a spine chilling finale, we learn that the events of the film actually never happened and that the entire narrative was imagined by the little boy, Edward, who is struggling to come to terms with his parents' divorce proceedings.

Modern Love is a macabre piece of high art cinema, a puzzling and perverse piece of pretentiousness, full of vague suggestion and unexplored red-herrings. It is humourless and seemingly unconcerned with current Indie trends which both validates its creators, but also renders it passé.

But the weaknesses of this Australian film are fully outweighed by its sheer muscular cinematic vision, its bloody-minded and uncompromising precision and its oddball Euro horror. The bastardry of script norms and lack of slick dialogue pales into insignificance against a backdrop of noir and a lead performance that needs to be seen to be appreciated.

One of the most aggressively weird Australian films in years.


It's amazing that this movie turns out to be in one of my hitlists after all. It is by far the number 1 worst movie I have ever seen.

Not only have I ever been this bored before (luckily not for more then 1,5 hours), the pre-adolescent attempts at humor that feature it are not even close to getting but one of the corners of my mouth slightly tilted. After the first very awkward part, you tend to hope that the other parts will be at least slightly better. You hope in vain, it only goes downhill from there.

The movie has no story worth telling whatsoever and repeats this non-story three times. One can only hope that by some miracle all remaining copies of this movie are lost forever and Trent Harris never lays his hands on a camera again...


The saving grace of this film is its humour. Playing up to the strengths of their star, Warner Brothers cast their version of General Custer as a cocky, dashing, irreverent prankster with a romantic streak and an unexpected strain of idealism; it was Robin Hood all over again, and Flynn blossomed in the role. All his best action pictures made use of his talent for mischief and comic timing, and this one was no exception.

It also benefits from the return of former co-star Olivia de Havilland, despite an earlier agreement to break the partnership; the part of strong-minded Libby Custer is a better role than the sweet love-interest types she had grown tired of playing for the studio in Flynn's later films, and after seeing the script he had specifically requested de Havilland be cast so that she could do justice to the part. In this final collaboration, she piles all her considerable acting skill into what is, at heart, basically a romping adventure movie, and the screen chemistry is rekindled -- for once, she and Flynn get the chance to develop their characters beyond the initial romance into an old married couple, to equally winning effect.

The Flynn/de Havilland pairing and the streak of comedy are what have provided this film's durability, when most of Flynn's other Westerns -- held in such affection by the contemporary American public, although allegedly not by their star -- have long since been forgotten. The action scenes are fairly cursory (despite, ironically, the death of an extra in a fall during one of the filmed charges) and the villains of the piece turn out, schoolboy-fashion, to be the same people who were horrid to Our Hero on his very first day at West Point, and thus continue to frustrate him throughout his career. It cuts down on the cast list, but it's a trifle too morally convenient.

However, these are quibbles largely irrelevant to a film that never set out to be more than a rousing piece of entertainment. Ably aided and abetted by a sterling group of supporting players (memorably including Anthony Quinn in an all-but-wordless role as the Sioux leader), Errol Flynn gallops his way through the plot courtesy of his usual arsenal: charmingly sheepish looks, unexpected sweetness, mischievous twinkles, flash-point indignation, cheerful fellowship and sheer high-octane charisma. He's a reckless braggart, but you can't help but like him. And it's hard to go away without the tune of 'Garryowen' threading its jaunty way through your ears for many days thereafter.

This is one of Flynn's lasting hits; it also contains a surprising amount of good acting amongst the fun, and is a film worthy of being remembered.


This as the first of the Ma and Pa Kettle flicks. Marjorie Main (Ma) steals the show in anything she does. Funny to see Ida Moore as Emily, the daffy old lady on the train.. god she was ALWAYS old; she was in 'Desk Set' and 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents'. Their new house is also a co-star here -- its the house of the future with some really cool inventions that Pa doesn't care for. LOVE the painting gag. Keep an eye out for TOM... he starred in 'Nanny & the Professor'. Unfortunately he died real young... oddly enough, his last role was on the series 'Death Cruise'. weird. Directed by Charles Lamont, who not only directed several of the Kettle films, he also did a bunch of the Abbott and Costello flicks, so he must have known a thing or two about comedy. Fun story, plain, simple humor. Even the release date was April Fool's day, 1949. The story starts out by showing us what backward and country-folk they are (the neighbors are even Native Americans), but as the story progresses, we have sympathy and respect for them.


A less than redemptive hunka junk that is mercifully free from the ravages of competence. Some Northern idiots come to the deep South looking for some confederate rifles stashed on the legendary Whiskey Mountain. They are menaced by scary hillbillies, in a wide nod to 'Deliverance'; but it turns out that the hicks are fronting for a Northern marijuana-trafficking badass. This is brought to light so early that it doesn't even qualify as a twist. The women are locked up and raped into catatonia; rather than rescuing them, the guys run down to town to get the sheriff, who is lazy and doesn't believe them. I think if my girlfriend were being raped I'd kind of take the shortest route to the hideout anyway. It's OK though because as soon as they show up to tenderize the baddies the girls get all cheery and hop around, if only trauma were like this in real life. Also featuring a backwoods guy with a beard who cackles a lot. Not exactly bursting at the seams with ideas.


For a comedy this has a decent and inventive plot and Trey Parker and Matt Stone's comic timing is perfect. There are dozens of funny moments to this fantastic movie. I especially like the multitude of colors and the way the clash in the sports arena scenes. Robert Stacks Unsolved Mysteries spoof is also very amusing.


I remember seeing this movie 34 years ago and it was full of suspense and twists. It grabs you at the beginning and keeps you guessing throughout the whole movie. I have thought about this movie for the past several years and have checked in video stores to see if it's available, but was never able to find it or anyone who had even heard of it. I think this type of movie is timeless, and I know it would be enjoyed by a whole new generation of movie watchers. I hope this gets on video soon as it would be fun to see if it has the same impact on me as it did back in the early 70's.

It's very rare that a TV movie can make that much of an impression, but this was did and still does after so many years.


Indian Summer is a warm, multi-character film, that would make a fine afternoon film (with a bit of editing).

The film begins in the past with a group of children being shown a moose, which sets the tone perfectly before cutting into the present, when a group of adults from the 'golden age' of the camp are invited back again to spend a few weeks holiday by the head of the camp, Uncle Lou. The film then allows the viewer to spend time with these characters as they remember their times at the camp, and form new memories in their latest stay.

The film succeeds in the great way it brings across its characters in this gorgeous setting, and allows them room to develop without having to worry about plot developments. Watching these people reminisce, and their relationships with each other is what the film is all about and why it works so well. It never goes to over the top and melodramatic, always keeping its warmth, charm and realism. I've never seen a film where nostalgia is captured so well, and found myself getting drawn in despite never having been to one of these camps as a child myself.

For a warm, nostalgic character movie, I sincerely recommend.


I used to love the Muppets. The Muppet Movie, The Great Muppet Caper and The Muppets Take Manhattan were good family movies, cleverly written and fun to watch. I never thought I would see the day when they would jump on the Hollywood sleaze bandwagon, but here it is: Scooter as a caged rave dancer, Pepe making lewd and suggestive comments every five minutes -- this is not your father's Muppets. It's not Jim Henson's Muppets anymore, either.

This 'It's A Wonderful Life' themed movie has its moments, but not enough to save it. I cringed while watching this with my children. I still have hope for their next movie, but this one was certainly a disappointment.


Antonioni's movies have aged not well. What always surprised me about them is that, besides an unquestionable plastic beauty, there is a dull and didactic 'psychology' of the characters and situations. Remember, for instance, the conversations between Mastroianni and the 'wicked capitalistic' that wants sing up him in 'La notte', or Monica Vitti laughing at the peasants flirting in the train in 'La aventura', or Ferzetti dropping the glass of ink at the end of the same film.

I have reviewed yesterday 'Zabriskie Point'. In this film there are a lot of nice and elaborate shots of the Rod Taylor office, the streets and highways of L.A., the publicity advertisements, the deserts,etc., that show the fascination of the author in his American journey, in the same way than Wim Wenders years later. Unfortunately, there are too a lot of hippie-leftist clichés that spoil the movie: - The boy leaves the meeting, steals an aeroplane and flies over the desert in order to liberate himself and find 'something different'. - The executives in grey suites speak all the time about speculation. - The girl looks at the 'object women' in the swimming pool and leaves because she wants not to be like them. - The couple of fat middle-class in the caravan speak, in front of the beauty of the nature, of building a hotel and earning a lot of money. - Last but not the least, a lot of couples making love in the desert. What a hippie platitude!

Sorry, today, half a century after the 'revolution' of 'La Aventura' we can see that the king is naked, and his films (except 'Le amiche' and perhaps 'Il grido') are only a handful of aestheticism and commonplaces.


I have seen over 2000 Studio-Era sound films-- including lots of Judy Garland, Lena Horne, Shirley Jones, and Deanna Durbin's own Universal features-- plus a decent amount of live and studio-recorded musical comedy and opera. And I assure you, no one tasked with singing in front of a camera and microphone, or maybe anywhere ever, HAS EVER TOUCHED DURBIN'S SOLO here...mono soundtrack and crap 1930s microphones and all. The kid from Canada sings this bit from 'Il Bacio' like she lived and wrote it herself and then happened to show up for a retrospective in Italy late in her career, not like a child who learned it from her music teacher.

If you skip this Extra on the DVD-- or skip ahead to the Garland solo-- you are just depriving yourself, since this cheap MGM teaser just happened to capture one of the greatest performances of the 20c.


The first look on the cover of this picture, it looks like a good rock n roll movie. But don't let the cover fool you, or the fact that Alice Cooper and Blondie is in it. The storyline is just horrible, and so is the acting. Plain and simple: BAD

It's not a movie about a roadie, its just a thin love story, so awful that you see right through it. The only good thing about this movie, is the soundtrack.Some good songs, and that is why I give 2 out of 10. If it wasn't for the music, it would of been 0 out of 10. Meat Loaf is a horrible actor(at least he was in 1980), and the girl who plays the groupie isn't even good looking! This movie was a huge disappointment for me, because it makes a lot of good promises.


These were over 80 minutes of semi unexpected boredom. First, I was wondering how it is possible to produce something like that. Then, reaching 70th minute I was convincing myself that it's only a few more minutes, and I lasted to the very end which I'm kinda proud of as I consider watching this movie as a great test for human's patience and crap tolerance. Was it worth watching at all? Well, as I wrote above, if you want to test yourself, give it a try and if you're strong willed enough, you may even last to the end... The movie lacks coherence and characters seem to have no common sense at all. All happenings in the movie, you can be sure you saw somewhere before, and they seem to be put in this movie just to fill the film reel.


I have been looking for this film for ages because it is quite rare to find as it was one of the video nasties. I finally found it on DVD at the end of last year it is a very low budget movie The story is set around amazon jungle tribes that are living in fear of the devil. Laura Crawford is a model who is kidnapped by a gang of thugs while she is working in South America. They take her into the jungle Laura is guarded by some ridiculous native who calls himself 'The Devil' she has to go though all unpleasant things until they are happy. Maidens are Chained up. The devil demonstrates eating flesh in a horrible manner. Peter Weston, is the devil hunter, who goes into the jungle to try and rescue her,


A sharp political comment posturing as a coming of age story is what this movie is. The annoying thing is that it works effectively on both levels. It isn't supposed to but it does. This tale of four boys and a girl growing up in 1953 Communist Belgrade is a heart warmer. It is what gentlemen refer to as classic cinema. Obviously, 1953 Belgrade is not as harsh a dictatorial and fascist environment as the Communist society is often portrayed. One can listen to rock and roll music, one of the songs played is the song 'Hey Babu Riba' ala the title of the movie. But jeans cannot be bought nor certain drugs which are illegal to possess. Unlike a heavy-handed criticism of a communist society this movie does it by showing how it affects the lives of the five protagonists who refer to themselves as we four. The girl who has a father in exile in Italy and is awaiting a passport for her mother and she to travel out to join him, the piano that is taken away from communion use from one of the boys, the sudden giving of your home and quarters to your new comrades because they need it. The boys spend a lot of time listening to music and it is made clear they despise the fascism that communism has created as they engage in tiffs with a fascist charlatan who has Stalin tattooed on his hands. These all leads to the actions they take later on and the remembrance of a time fading away, as this movie was released in 1986 in the twilight of the Soviet Empire. A great movie worth seeing again and again. 'Repentance is not your enemy but yet it is also nobody's friend.'


What a waste of time! I've tried to sit through 'Sky Captain..' about 6 times, and every time, within about 3 minutes, I start doing something else - anything else! It's a downright boring movie, the acting is terrible, the writing dull, and obviously a first-time director, because it's stiff. And I wanted to love it. I love sci-fi, the old cliffhangers, and I can appreciate the attempt at nods to Flash Gordon, and Metropolis, but my God, what a waste of money. I used to work for Paramount Pictures, and I had written Sherry Lansing in 1993 about using blue screen for screen tests. She told me they'd never have an interest or need to do it. 10 years later, Paramount releases this piece of crap. Sherry was right in 1993, but must have forgotten her own advice when she greenlighted this dog. Blue screen an effect shot, but not an entire movie. Let's not forget, neither Jude nor Jolie are terrific actors (but easy on the eyes). Paltrow's performance reminds me of a high school effort. Too bad - it could've worked, but only under a skilled director. the funny thing is, Sky Captain's director will keep getting work, even after this dreck. It's commerce, not art!


It's often said that Tobe Hooper just struck lucky with his grisly 1974 horror film 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' and every time I see another Hooper film - that view is only reinforced. It would seem that Hooper wanted to make his own version of films such as Scanners and Firestarter in 1990 and so we end up with Spontaneous Combustion; a film with a couple of good ideas and a whole load more that are borrowed from other films. Put it all together and you get a messy, boring film that most people would do well to miss! The film leads the audience to believe that it might be half decent initially with an intriguing back story that focuses on some experiments carried out on two young people in the fifties. The couple have a child and shortly thereafter burn to death as a result of the experiments done on them. Fast forward some years and the baby is now an adult named Sam; but naturally he's not a normal person and soon finds when it's discovered that he has the ability to set things on fire at will.

The film stars Brad Dourif, who must have seemed like a good casting choice given his success with Child's Play two years earlier; but actually was an uninspired decision as the central performance is really terrible; and not helped by the terrible supporting performances. The turgid direction and dull script also don't do the film many favours and the trend of lacking in favours is continued by the special effects, which are very unrealistic and have nothing on the films that this one is ripping off; all of which were made some years earlier. The plot is really slow and it's almost an hour before anything of note happens, and I didn't care for it even then. It soon becomes obvious which direction the film will go in and it all boils down to the sort of tedious ending you would expect. The final confrontation is a big disappointment and nothing is really explained during the film. Not that any revelation would have been interesting anyway. Overall, this is a rubbish film and another reason why Tobe Hooper is a long way from being a great horror director. See Firestarter again instead.


was sort of enjoying this movie until the issues of Ed Norton's facial hair. Without revealing any plot details--on one afternoon he was sporting a light beard but by the same evening the beard was gone and a very luxuriant moustache was in place. It was much fuller than the moustache that went with the beard. Later on, in the course of a dark night in the open the moustache was gone and he appeared cleans haven. This was on an occasion where stopping to shave wouldn't be an option. These continuity discrepancies totally distracted me from the rest of the movie and ruined any credibility it had previously had. Also, I found the lengthy scene of the cowboy alone in his bedroom was way too reminiscent of De Niro in Taxi Driver. Even if it was meant to be an homage it was laid on too thickly for this viewer.


Two movies back to back which dealt with Indian POWs; Veer Zaara and Deewaar. Although Veer Zara was a love story of a guy who gives everything up for someone, Deewaar focuses on the main subject itself. It is not hidden that many Indian POWs are rotting in Pakistani Jails for years - for whom neither Indian Govt. has time or sympathy nor the other side. I'm sure some of Pakistani POWs are in India as well, but let's focus on the movie. Full of actors. Some were stage actors like Raghubir Yadav, Rajendra Gupta, etc. Amitabh Bachchan who plays the role of a Major, acted well. Akshaye Khanna did his part well. There was nothing for Amrita Rao to do than a few giggles and couple songs. I think Sanjay Dutt's role was most solid even though it wasn't too long. He acted really well here and his dialog delivery was also impressive. If you compare it to LOC, which was nothing but a day long movie with story going in all directions (if it HAD a story) - Deewaar is a well directed movie that keeps a good pace and does justice to all actors. 7.5/10


There is a reason why Jay Leno himself will not acknowledge this film. It consistently ranks as one of the worst films of all time. The acting is horrible, the script lacks direction and the director himself doesn't seem sure on which way to take this film. 'A buddy film,' 'an action/comedy,' 'mystery.' Seems half way through, he gives up, and is just along for the ride. Jay Leno and Pat Morita are talented and dedicated performers. It is a shame that they wasted their time and gifts making this mess of a movie. Jay Leno and Pat Morita prior to involving themselves with this, had spent years pounding out their crafts on the Hollywood circuit. Mr. Morita had already been a star in his own right, acting steadily since the mid 1960s as the star of such cult TV and movie classics as 'Happy Days,' and the dismal but affable 'Mr. T and Tina.' And won the hearts of America with his roles in the powerful film, 'Midway,' 'The Karate Kid,' and a host of others. Mr. Leno can been seen on TV shows dating back to the mid 70s. And was a top performer in the comedy clubs of America. He can be seen in countless TV spots and in major films. It is a shame, that they agreed to be seen with this nonsense.


I always liked this movie, I have seen it so many times but I always enjoyed it :) the story is interesting and special. But the only thing I have to disagree with is that I don't think Max lived in a Romanian monastery or what was that :P They don't look that way in Romania.. Anyway, back to the story, Ghita Muresan played pretty well but as someone said before me, his English needs to improve.

And there were some funny moments and some tragical/sad parts too. It worths being seen, I thought it was sweet that the giant wanted to find his love. I recommended to you all. It's not the best movie ever, but it was nice!


This movie is mostly crap and the only reason this movie is worth watching is because Jean-Claud Vam Damme stars in this movie.There are some good action scenes in this movie and the best ones are at the end of the movie.

The acting in this movie is so bad and its the worst acting i have ever seen and the 2 actors Bill Goldberg and Michael Jai White Can not act at ALL.And this movie by far has to be one of Jean-Claud Vam Dammes worst movies he has done and if u what to watch him in one of his great movies u should watch Blood sport,KickBoxer or Sudden Death.

Over all this movie is crap/OK and my rating is 4 out of 10.


I am not one of those people that will walk out of a movie that was based on source material and automatically say, 'The book was better.' I know better than to demote the value of a movie just because it wasn't a faithful adaptation. There is a lengthy process and lots of decisions that go into making a movie that are sometimes out of the director's/editor's/cinematographer's/producer's control and certainly out of the original author's control. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect a movie to be exactly the same, word for word, as a book or play or video game or Disneyland Ride, or whatever! A movie should be judged on its own standard and how it fits in society. Moreover, a successful movie should be made because the material is relevant to the society which it belongs and, if it is based on source material, its relevance needs to be reexamined and enhanced by the filmmakers.

Films like There Will Be Blood follow this paradigm because while it was based on a novel written at the turn of the century, Oil!, it feels relevant because of things like the Iraq war and energy concerns that the film's country of origin, the US, was and is experiencing. Even King Kong, based on the original film, benefits from using new technology and concerns of animal rights that people have.

With that said, I just don't understand why they even bothered to make this movie? Besides the great performances, guaranteed Oscar nods and Shanley's director/writers fee and royalties he will get, this movie seems to come from nowhere. It should have simply stayed as a play. The movie (which is essentially the same as the play) says nothing new about the reprehensible sexual atrocities committed and in many cases covered up by the Catholic church here and abroad. It says nothing new or different than the original play. I can't help but compare this movie to another movie that came out at around the same time: Frost/Nixon, which was also based on a play. Frost/Nixon, while about Nixon's regrets, seems relevant because it seems to have come at a time when President Bush was about to leave office. The regrets that Nixon had, as depicted in the play/movie, about the war and his presidency could just as easily reflected on Bush and his presidency. In that respect Frost/Nixon seemed more relevant and actually benefited from a wider distribution via film because it got people talking and reflecting about the political status quo in the country at the time. In contrast, Doubt felt like it was yesterday's news and didn't seem to offer anything that the play didn't offer.

Of course the movie is 'good,' the performances are outstanding, and the screenplay adaptation is apt, but so what? Why didn't it just stay as a play? Why, besides marketing and financial reasons, make it into a movie? It gave audiences nothing new to discus about the awful subject.


Graphics: brilliant, obviously. The most stunning things were definitely NOT given away in the trailers. Fight sequences move extremely fast, but after watching a couple of them your eyes should be used to it and it won't seem so confusing. Cloud has a wide array of swords, and I kinda wish things were moving a LITTLE slower just so we could see them, because they were each incredibly detailed. Oh, and we finally get to see exactly how one equips Materia...

Music: brilliant also. I was a bit nervous about it, since (from what I've seen) Nobuo isn't the best at writing music to go along with action (remember the Steal the Tiny Bronco sequence?), but it's brilliant and it fits perfectly. I'm glad I preordered the OST. They changed the lyrics to One Winged Angel though, so you won't be able to sing along if you know the Carmina Burana Lyrics.

Plot: the first half of the movie sets up things and introduces everyone in a fairly complex tapestry, but the second half is almost entirely fight sequences, once all the players are in place. I wouldn't call it a weak plot, but it's nowhere near as convoluted as the game's plot was. I think this is in an effort to avoid trying to overshadow the game, and I think that's a good thing...the movie is its own entity, and shouldn't try to top the original in terms of sheer plot.

I admit, I was kind of hoping that this movie would bring FF7 to a wider range of people, but this is NOT a mainstream movie. I was going to give it only nine stars, just because it doesn't even really try to explain anything to newcomers...Marlene (at least I think it was Marlene...sounded like her) gives a bit of background at the beginning, but it's more of a refresher than a crash course. But then I realized, for me this movie is a 10/10, so why should I take off points just because other people probably won't like it as well...if you've played the game, or are at least passingly familiar with it, you should see this movie. But you don't need me to tell you that. If you're not familiar with it, go out and buy it, sit there for twenty hours and beat it, and then see the movie...although even without any background, it's still stunningly beautiful. You just won't get any of the inside references...which make up 50% of the movie (that is, everything that ISN'T a fight sequence).


This Italian film from the '70's is NOT even in the class with Dog Soldiers, The Howling, or even that awful American Werewolf in Paris, BUT...it is fun to watch. I'm talking about watching the lead actress, a stunning blonde, run amok in her birthday suit. We're talking about graphic, complete nudity...it's obvious that she is a real blonde...humma humma humma!! The story is a hoot, the SFX are childish, and the acting (for the most part) stinks. The only redeeming value of this movie is all (and there is a LOT) the nudity & sex scenes. Tame by HBO standards, but still fun to see when you find yourself without a date on Saturday night. OK...HERE'S THE SPOILER...There is NO werewolf (except in the opening scene of the heroine(??)'s ancestor. The girl just imagines that she's a werewolf...in other words, a clinical Lycanthrope.


Yes, I admire the independent spirit of it all, but it's like Road Trip with a bad cast and no budget.

I chuckle when I watch American comedies, I don't laugh. This movie made me laugh, but only because of the abundantly obvious attempts to simulate high-budget American high school/pot-flicks.

If you want good independent American comedy with pot-references, go watch Kevin Smith or Richard Linklater flicks or something. Don't waste your time on this piece of sh't movie.

I mean, how can you take these comments seriously when most people are complaining about the characters not smoking pot!

And by the way: in Norway it's called 'Dude, Where's My Pot'!


Genteel, softly spoken drama from Steven Spielberg was his first real venture into this genre. A departure from his normal adventure/fantasy fare, it paved the way for his 1993 success, 'Schindler's List'.

Based upon Alice Walder's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, the story concerns a young girl's arranged marriage of hardship to a brutal, angry farmer and her painful separation from her beloved younger sister Nettie. While the plot - about compassion, abuse and the power of love to heal all wounds - is often powerful and moving, it loses its way through the fault of continuity and Menno Meyjes' scrambling screenplay. 'The Color Purple' is at times hard to follow and on one or more occasions tends to be a little erratic in regard to time frame. This lapse in scripting has cost the viewer the depth and detail obviously present in Miss Walker's novel. A real shame that maestro Spielberg was unable to pick out and rectify these problems, as most of the show is a wonderful example of his prowess as a director.

Performances are strong throughout, with Whoopi Goldberg making a debut - which she's never matched since with regard to acting accomplishment - as the heart broken Celie who just yearns to be loved. Danny Glover lends solid support, though his 'Moses' was a superior turn for him in 'Places in the Heart'. The standout showing comes from the unheralded Oprah Winfrey as Miss Sophia, the single minded, fighting black woman whose spirit is crushed by a terrible incident involving a patronising, upper class white woman. Good support also from Margaret Avery, Adolph Caesar and Rae Dawn Chong.

Quincy Jones ( co-producer with Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall ) has penned a beautifully melodic score and also provided some original blues for the occasion. Editing from Michael Kahn is sound as always, while director of photography Allen Daviau shows consummate skill in capturing some glorious Southern scenery.

This true affair of the heart will surely bring a tear to your eye, it is just unfortunate we are left with so many unanswered questions.

Wednesday, January 15, 1997 - Video


Man, even Plan 9 From Outer Space is better than this movie. This flick doesn't have enough plot for half an hour, yet they managed to extend it for an eternity of more than an hour. Jet Li and Corey Yuen are pretty good, specially in those exaggerated fight scenes, but stuff like The Legend of Fong Sai Yuk is much better than this sorry thing that would be better left unmade.


Even duller, if possible, than the original (I hope I may say that under the IMDb guidelines). THE FRENCH CONNECTION at least tried to absorb European influences, to complicate the conventional view of the American police detective, even if the attempt was foundered by Friedkin's ambivalence, Americaness and general indirection. The (relative) arthouse boom of the 1960s (especially with the nouvelle vague) allowed for a huge influence of European cinema in Hollywood. This lent a new vigour and complexity to a weary medium, and, in the best of them (eg BONNIE AND CLYDE, early Scorcese), a new subversion of received practice. The original CONNECTION was part of this movement, with its difficultly distanced style, and anti-detective figure. TWO is old Hollywood's right-wing reassertion of American values.

This is figured in the film's very tiresome America vs France dialectic. For instance, TWO is shot like a 70s French policier. It was the French, of course, who insisted on the greatness of American movies when they were ignored at home, and this, in a sense, is a reclamation, a warning against Gallic presumption. This can be seen in the pattern of the two movies. CONNECTION has French gangsters invading New York, with the French style smothering the American thriller - this leads to the dissolution of the detective figure, and irresolution of plot - the baddie got away.

TWO has the American returning to France, with American thriller values imposed on the native genre - the power of the detective is reasserted and conventional resolution is achieved. This is further dramatised in Doyle's relationship with French inspector Barthelmy, whose dominant influence he must shake off before he can control the plot.

TWO seems to follow the original by undermining its detective hero. From the start, Doyle's importance is diminished at every turn. Despite the ending of CONNECTION, he is considered a hero. But he is an American in a foreign land, and his inability to control language or customs means he cannot dominate the plot. He even misreads the signs of the police force, mistaking an informer for a criminal, and getting him killed.

A detective's power comes from his power as subject to see and interpret, but Doyle spends much of the movie being watched, controlled, an object, a body (literally in the scenes after he is dumped by Charnier) to be viewed and interpreted. In CONNECTION, he instigated the action, chasing the criminals, forcing the plot; here he is passive, tied to a bed, locked in a cell, an addict, a dependent.

This loss of phallic power is predictably symbolised in the loss of his gun, and the film follows a depressingly familiar Oedipal trajectory. In the heroin sequences, he is comforted by an old lady who says he looks like her son. His drugged state is like a return to the womb, robbed of adult pressures. Her taking his watch reinforces the timelessness of this state, doubly significant for a man whose career depends on timetables and precision.

Oedipus was the first detective, and to avoid his fate, Doyle must reject this false mother who is dissolving his unified identity, and kill the father (Charnier) so that he can take his accepted masculine role in society. Psychoanalytic theory was popular among academics in the 70s(ironically instigated by a Frenchman, Jacques Lacan), but it's rare to see a film so literally full of it.

If all of these facts tended towards the minimising of Doyle, then the film's style doesn't. Friedkin distanced us from his hero by refusing empathy or character motivation, focusing on the mechanics of plot. Here, Doyle is a very conventional Hollywood hero. Instead of being lost in murky long shot, he is made knowable and understandable to the viewer with the traditional devices - point-of-view shots, close ups, connecting shots etc.

TWO is all about the fall and rise of Popeye Doyle. Plot in this case is subservient to the acting, which is the usual Hackman showiness. The cold turkey scenes, therefore, despite their tediousness, are not disturbing. We are allowed to share rather than coldly observe; this a far less discomforting experience. The scenes are also shot through with a lachrymose manly sentimentality that is very American.

So while CONNECTION tried to imitate the complex thrillers of Jean Pierre Melville, TWO does the complete opposite. Melville's LE SAMOURAI featured a gangster who started the film whole, powerful, outside language, and charted his eventual disintegration. TWO starts with a disintegrated character, achieved partly through inability with language, whose dominance begins when he steps outside language - the concluding action sequences are largely wordless.

In the film, the locale and language are important as they fixed and undermined the detective, but as he regains his power (figured in the return of his gun, and the cathartic burning of the primal site of vulnerability, the tower block where Charnier held him), the Marseilles setting becomes more irrelevant, and the mythic stand-off, which could take place anywhere, takes over. Compare the endings of the two films: one admits ambiguity and despair, the other absolute certainty.


Mind you, it's not supposed to be, but it is. As a wee tot, I watched this movie in the theatre (Being a huge wrestling and Hulk Hogan fan). All I remember from the night is we were the only ones in the theater, and that I didn't really like it very much. I blacked the rest out, and for good reason.

A poor film on par with the greats like 'Gymkata' and 'The Pumaman,' 'No Holds Barred' is a movie set in the high stakes world of pro wrestling. Well maybe the stakes aren't all that high...and quite frankly I feel dirty just calling these people 'professionals' at anything. And really, except for the first scene, there's no wrestling to speak of. So I guess movie is about the marginally low stakes world of amateurish beating-the-c***-out-of-people. Sounds good, right?

Hulk Hogan plays Rip, the champion of the WWF (Never let it be said that Hulk Hogan was typecast, this and movies like Thunder in Paradise showed how he challenged himself with deep roles that really pushed the limits of his talents). Essentially he's playing himself, but with a wardrobe that's more black and blue than the Hulkster's red and yellow. He also has this hand gesture he does. It's kinda like the ozzy devil sign people make at rock concerts, except you stick your thumb in the air, and you curl your index finger in. My friend claimed that it was supposed to look like an 'R.' Try and see for yourself. If that looks like an 'R,' well, then, Mars needs women. But anyway.

Kurt Fuller, with his overacting detector obviously on the fritz, plays a TV exec with his slightly homoerotic heart set on getting Rip, who's evidentally bigger than Elvis, on his network. He won't have any of it (And exits the office with a triumphant hand gesture to no one but the camera), and so the movie follows Fuller trying to boost ratings and get back at Rip. He does so when he creates his brilliantly titled 'Battle of the Tough Guys.' Marketing genius, this guy.

From the numerous hand gestures, to the rather idiotic fight scenes (All played as if wrestling is very real and deadly serious) to the overacting, to the far too frequent shots of Hulk in nothing but undies, this movie has everything you'd ever want in a dumb movie. It's frivolous, not too taxing on the mind, violent, and includes the phrase 'What's that smell?' 'DOOKIE!' 'Dookie?'

A classic for all time.


It is way beyond me how this script was ever sold much less produced and distributed. The dialogue was so bad it was sickening. The train and helicopter scenes appeared to have been done on flash cards by high school students. Lou Diamond Phillips must have hidden under his seat when this --- this 'movie'? was shown at a private screening afterwhich he most likely left by the back door. The only emotion it aroused in me was pity for the cast, they had to 'bite the bullet' to get through this one. I couldn't stand to watch all of it, it was so predictable that it was funny. Who knows maybe it will be picked up by one of the networks as a situation comedy.


Jack Frost, no kids it's not the warm hearted family movie about a dad who comes back from the dead in the form of a snow man. It's about a sadistic killer named Jack Frost who is sprayed with some acid fluid and is morphed into a killer snow man. I happened to catch a copy of this movie so I could have a nice sit back and laugh at it. A killer snow man? Ha, sounds like the perfect comedy/horror movie! Well I was wrong, very wrong.

Jack Frost is about a killer who is being transported via truck to jail so he could fry in the chair at midnight. But it's a snowy night and it collides with a government tanker carrying a new DNA fluid. Jack escapes only to be burnt to death by the acid and morphs into a killer snowman. He returns to the small town of Snowmonton where he was caught by a small time sheriff. Here he is ready to kill again, now as a snow man with cooler powers. He can condense into water, shoot out ice cycles as spears, and grow killer fangs. The only question is, who can stop Frost? This movie is below the typical B-Movie line. The movies begins cheesy but as soon as Jack is burned by the acid, it quickly drops below the cheese line and goes flat. The acting for one is appalling! Here we have a whole cast of unheard of actors who either can't act, can act but has a pointless character, or is just here for a few extra bucks. The only good actor is Scott MacDonald who plays Jack. He looks like a young Richard Kiel combined with Frankenstein. Sadly his appearance is only reduced to three minutes and all we ever see of him is his new snow man form and his wise cracking voice. Plus his wisecracks are anything but funny. Groaning, stupid, and bad.

The plot is horrible! Throughout history there have been numerous murderers. A killer in a hockey mask, a killer with a razer glove, a chainsaw wielding moron, a rapid St. Bernard, but now we stoop to a tacky killer snow man? Oh come on! And the way the characters are introduced are terrible. For one I really wanted Jack to kill the sheriffs son, I mean giving his dad oats with Antifreeze in them so they won't freeze? All the characters are dumb and pointless and the deaths are to cartoony. One woman in strangled with Christmas lights and has her head smashed into a decoration box and a girl is humped to death in the shower (where is the carrot in that scene eh?).

And to top of this horrible movie is the special effects. The first big special effect we have is Jack's DNA mixing in with snow and boy is it terrible. I mean it looks like a 60's fashion of art design, PU! Jack looks fake as well. He looks like a person covered with rubber snow man skin. All the blood and gore is cheesy and the film never takes off with greatness but instead stoops to low levels.

Jack Frost is one of the worst slasher movies ever made. I thought it would be a riot but no! It doesn't try to be funny and it actually tries to be scary. Jack Frost gets 4 out of 10, it at least made me laugh from it's awfulness. Don't even bother with this piece of trash. Jack Frost= D+


1 hour and 40 minutes of talking--boring talking, and more talking and then some. It is hard for me to grasp how an actress like Anne Parillaud, who shone superbly in Femme Fatale, would sign up for such a piece of crap! Unbelievable. If you need a nightcap, this movie might help, although I would prefer some nice classical music. unfortunately, i just found out that i have to write 10 lines for my comment to appear--that's almost as unbelievable! so, short and succinct one or two sentence commentaries expressing one's core take on a movie is not enough. geez, people. i made my point and don't to waste your time with more, unnecessary words--as this movie does. Wolfgang


The movie starts out with three people on a play it by ear holiday who decide to first visit a crocodile farm and then go on to a little lighter activity, a 'fishing' tour.

You pick up some interesting information about crocodiles during their visit to the farm and the information adds just enough to increase the suspense later during the movie as you recall what was told earlier on.

The action in the movie is well timed and not over done. Suspense is built through the 'what ifs', the 'unknown', and the sometimes gut wrenching decisions the characters make in the movie.

I found myself wondering what I would do if I was in the same boat, no pun intended.

The film quality was really good and the effects where realistic, believable and not over the top or cartoon looking and out of place, the way you sometimes get with CGI.

As a horror movie buff I watch just about every horror movie I can get my hands on, in just about every genre, and this is one of the best 'crocodile' horror movies, if not the best I have seen.

Watch this movie and you will not be disappointed.


This movie is bad. I don't just mean 'bad' as in; 'Oh the script was bad', or; 'The acting in that scene was bad'.....I mean bad as in someone should be held criminally accountable for foisting this unmitigated pile of steaming crud onto an unsuspecting public. I won't even dignify it with an explanation of the (Plot??) if I can refer to it as that.I can think of only one other occasion in some 40-odd years of movie watching that I have found need to vent my spleen on a movie. I mean, after all, no one goes out to intentionally make a bad movie, do they? Well, yes. Apparently they do...and the guilty man is writer/director Ulli Lommel. But the worst of it is that Blockbusters is actually renting this to their customers! Be advised. Leave this crap where it belongs. Stuck on the shelf, gathering dust.


I wish I could use the time travel machine to jump back to the moment I considered seeing this movie and make other plans instead. I saw a free screening of A Sound of Thunder, so I can't complain about the price, but I wish I could get my 103 minutes refunded. The acting was mediocre, and the special effects were deplorable. People shouldn't make movies about dinosaurs if they can't afford to make the prehistoric creatures look as good or better than those in Jurassic Park. Spielberg spoiled us. Edward Burns as Travis Ryer was the movie's only saving grace. I noticed that females under 18 rated the movie the highest, and the only explanation is that they ogled over Burns the whole time. The whole long 103 minutes. This movie should have been over in about 80 minutes. It just dragged on and on and on. Don't waste your time or your money on this far-fetched flick.


I got to watch this one without commercial interruption, and let me tell you, even for a TV movie it was pretty predictable. The actors did a workmanlike job with what they had, and the cast was pretty accomplished -- Barry Bostwick, Jane Seymour, Frances Fisher, etc. However, the script was not only predictable (except for the last scene), but the dialogue was treacly and sounded as if it was lifted from a third-rate romance novel. Jane Seymour's psychotic monologues were laughable. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that anyone that creepy would arouse no suspicions whatsoever. As bad as Theresa Russell was in 'Black Widow' -- and she sure stunk it up -- she at least had the sense to play her pseudo-characters somewhat straight. Seymour is a much better actress but didn't overcome the material here.

Lastly, the musical score is incredibly cheesy. It's almost a satire of its genre, like a Kenny G meltdown. A movie with such a lackluster and derivative script really should have gone for something edgier.


This Alec Guinness starrer is a very good fun political satire of corporate industry, and a light eccentric character study as well.

The pacing is a bit slow for a comedy, and none of it is really rolling-on-the-floor type funny, except perhaps the sound effects for the experiments. But it does have its amusing moments, and it is very deft in its execution. The big explosions segment is probably the most farcical element.

The union procedures are quite droll, very reminiscent of I'M ALL RIGHT JACK; especially the feminine socialist with a light romantic crush on Guinness' character. The political machinations actually carry the story. Ernest Thesigner is very notable as a heavy.

I don't think this one works quite as well as THE LADYKILLERS, or KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS; but even light Ealing comedy is better than nothing.


So unfortunately me and my mate watched this!!! It was showing on a Sky channel over here called 'Zone Horror' which basically shows crappy B-movie horror films 24/7. It was a boring Friday night, so decided to have a laugh and give this one a look. Apart from the atrocious acting, the awful plot, the dire effects, the shoddy camera work and the brain numbing ridiculousness of it all, it was OK, LOL!!! In all seriousness it was quite a laugh picking holes in it and laughing at the goofy actors. There is a bit of semi-nudity which perked the movie up a bit, unfortunately it was the 'uggo' who got topless as my mate calls her :oD If you're bored one evening and this happens to be playing, take a chance, you just might like it :)


Originally I was a Tenacious D fan of their first album and naturally listened to a few tracks off The P.O.D. and was rather disappointed. After watching the movie, my view was changed. The movie is pretty funny from beginning to the end and found my self engaged in it even though it was really was a stupid storyline because of the attitudes that KG and Jaybles portray in the movie.

Much more entertaining and enjoyable than movies I have seen in the theaters lately. ex. Saw III (dull and dragging), Casino Royale (way to homo-erotic) which in prior installments I have really enjoyed

If you enjoyed Borat, you will enjoy the tale of The Greatest Band on Earth


I wouldn't rent this one even on dollar rental night.


I have a high tolerance for the weird, but frankly some movies go way, way beyond weird--so far that they make your brain hurt. This is such a film. Trying to understand it or even explain it is impossible and I think the film is best understood while taking drugs--it's that incomprehensible.

The film begins with some very cute Japanese animation involving a cat. However, out of the blue, tons of twisted and occasionally disturbing things occur--making me wonder if I am losing something in the translation. However, even if this is so, why did we need to be treated to images of a magic trick involving dismembering a lady with a clever, defecation, puking, lighting animals on fire, etc.. All this really seemed random and pretty awful. Oddly, and I don't know why, some see this as a work of genius. I just don't get that.


The Plot: A group of young people with ridiculous names (Hutch, Swink, Phineaus, and October)are brought together by the death of their equally ridiculously named friend Loomis. After the funeral, they decide to divide up their late friend's belongings. Among them is a video game called Stay Alive. The group decides there's no better way to show their grief than to all partake in a little virtual bloodshed. But the more they play, the more they realize the connection between the game and the death of poor ol' Loomis.

The Production: This film is just another entry into the latest Hollywood craze of low-budget PG-13 horror aimed at cashing in on the junior high school crowd. The direction is sloppy to say the least with quick, music video style cuts that make the action difficult to follow. The dialog is so bad that it actually kills brain cells. The plot itself is so full of holes that we never even learn where the game came from or why those who play it die.

The idea behind this film, although not entirely original, had some promise. But the poor execution on both sides of the camera make this one big dud.

If you've ever got a craving for a 'killing someone in a video game makes them dead in real life' horror film take my advice and skip Stay Alive for the superior Brainscan.


Dear God! I kept waiting for this movie to 'get started'... then I waited for it to redeem itself... and when it did neither, I just sat there, dumbfounded that: 1) it could possibly be this bad, and 2) that I had just wasted a couple of hours on just sheer stupidity. I had faith that Drew couldn't possibly have made this bad of a movie... and boy, did I ever lose my faith! Don't bother with this one! Drew tried, but the movie was poorly written, poorly acted, and just poorly conceived! I can't believe a script this bad ever got funded! It had a million chances to actually do something with the idea, (the word 'concept' is too big for this movie to even qualify for!) and it STILL didn't go anyplace! Its just pitiful! Where the other reviewer got the idea that it wasn't the worst, baffles me! Because believe me, if it got any worse I'd have slit my wrists before finishing it!


If you are planning to schedule your program for a film festival, do not be misled by what it says in the booklet. This is a complete waste of time and energy. I have watched Bunuel, I have seen Dali, and admired them; but this isn't surrealism, this is not supposed to BE at all. Didn't they ever think about the reputation of human race while taking this picture? After we become extinct by global warming, these will be the remainings of our civilization. What if the aliens sample this as an example of our intellectual capital? With all due respect to the effort put in this, maybe it would be a good idea to terminate all the copies of this film - or whatever it is.


Impactful film of four city slickers in crisis in Appalachia has become synonymous with rural depravity. Each of four businessmen face their darkest fears when they tackle a challenging whitewater trip, on a river about to be replaced by a dam. When locals along the way decide to 'have their way' with the interlopers it leads to several deaths and loads of trauma for the survivors. Each of the travelers is outstanding, although Voight gives the lead and strongest performance. The rural scenery and culture is well-captured, including the breathtaking dueling banjos sequence. I saw this on a date when it came out, not exactly the perfect date movie (although we both enjoyed it). I sort of remember this as a break-out dramatic performance for Burt, Voight was already established. Not the sort of movie you could watch every week but it has a strong punch and is beautifully filmed.


Although in my opinion this is one of the lesser musicals of stars Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly, Kathryn Grayson and director George Sidney, a lesser musical featuring anyone from that line-up is nothing to sneeze at, and in conjunction, the line-up makes Anchors Aweigh a pretty good film despite its flaws.

Sinatra and Kelly are Clarence Doolittle and Joseph Brady, respectively, two Navy men. As the film begins, they're just pulling in to the Los Angeles area for some much needed leave. Brady plans on visiting a girlfriend named Lola. Doolittle is still a bit wet behind the ears, appropriately enough, and seeks advice on women from Brady in private (publicly, scriptwriter Isobel Lennart and Sidney have all of the Navy men comically exaggerating their finesse with women to each other). Brady promises to help get Doolittle hooked up, but primarily because Doolittle won't leave him alone otherwise. A kink is put into their plans when local police basically force them to assist with a young boy who is obsessed with the Navy. He won't give the police any information about who he is or where he lives. Brady helps and he and Doolittle end up taking the boy back home. When the boy's guardian, Susan Abbott (Grayson), finally shows up, Doolittle goes gaga for her. Brady tries to convince him to forget about her; Brady just wants to get back to Lola. But they keep getting coaxed back to Abbott's home, and eventually something of a love triangle forms. Things become more complicated when Brady lies about Doolittle knowing a famous musician, Jose Iturbi, who is in residence at a film studio, and claims that Doolittle has set up an audition for Abbott, who is a singer and actress, in front of Iturbi.

Because of the story, the music is a strange combination of militaristic music--because of the Navy premise, obviously, Broadway pop--what the stars tend to sing in more informal settings, opera--what Abbott's character excels at, Liberace-like popular classical--what Iturbi did, and Mexican music--because Abbott frequents a Mexican restaurant in a Mexican section of L.A. The combination doesn't work as well as it could. Plenty of the songs are good, and everyone involved is certainly talented as a singer or musician, but the genre hopping tends to lose coherence. Worse, there are a couple showcases for Iturbi, who was apparently a big star at the time, that effectively bring the plot to a halt and that seem more than a bit hokey at this point in time. I just watched another film that happened to have outstanding music, Robert Altman's Kansas City (1996), but that misguidedly stopped the plot to periodically turn into a concert film. Anchors Aweigh takes a similar tactic. Yes, this is a musical, but there's a difference between songs that propel and are integral to the plot and concert showcases that seem like contractual obligation material.

There are also some plot problems. It's not very well established why Brady is so against Doolittle's pursuit of Abbott. We can guess that Brady thinks Doolittle shouldn't become involved with someone who has to take care of a kid, and who seems relatively 'proper' and traditional, but on the other hand, Brady can tell that Doolittle doesn't have the same womanizing disposition that Brady admits of himself. Abbott seems like a good fit for Doolittle, and furthermore, Lennart works hard to establish that Brady just wants to get Doolittle out of his hair and get on with meeting Lola--it seems that Brady's character should be quickly pawning Doolittle off on any candidate, whether she's a good fit or not. This might seem like a minor detail, but it's actually the hinge for about a third to half of the plot. The story also seems a bit drawn out. Length is a problem. Anchors Aweigh, clocking in at roughly two hours and twenty minutes, should have been cut down by at least a half-hour.

The above surely sounds like I'm complaining about the film too much to justify an 8. I just wanted to stress what I see as flaws, because the conventional wisdom on Anchors Aweigh is much closer to the idea that it has no flaws.

Sinatra, Kelly and Grayson are certainly charismatic, separately and together. They turn in good, interesting performances. Sinatra looks and acts much younger than his actual age of 29  30 while shooting. He plays an unusually naïve, virginal character--completely different than most of the roles he would take later, and different than his public image as a crooner. For Kelly, this was his breakthrough film, and rightfully so. His choreography is varied and impressive, as is his acting. Grayson is charming, her performance is sophisticatedly understated, and she's simply gorgeous. All of this helps override the flaws with the script and the drawn out pacing.

And there's even a very interesting element that probably only arises because Sidney was allowed to sprawl over a large variety of moods--the infamous Kelly dance with Jerry the Mouse (of 'Tom and Jerry' fame) in an extended fantasy sequence. This is one of the earliest examples of combining live action and animation, and it is extremely well done and enjoyable as long as you're a fan of fantasy. The fantasy sequences tend to be the best of the film. Matched in excellence to the dance with Jerry the Mouse is a long song and dance number featuring Kelly and Grayson, where Brady is imagining Abbott in a scene from a period film while he woos her, having to resort to acrobatic stunts to reach her physically as she stands on a high balcony.

As uneven and flawed as the film is, it is largely successful and entertaining to watch. Fans of classic musicals certainly shouldn't miss Anchors Aweigh, and neither should Sinatra fans, who'll get quite a kick out of his character.


This movie was amazing!!!! From beginning to end, the movie is packed with fun, laughs, music, enjoyable rock music, hot chicks, more music, action, drama, and the f-bomb.

Although some scenes are entirely bizarre and unfitting, they were fun to watch and enjoyable. All in all this movie left you feeling great and happy. Especially those that love rock music.

The soundtrack is great, the laughs are plentiful, and the storyline is simple, entertaining, yet complex. You have to see this movie if you love rock music!

Overall Vote: 10 out of 10!


Talk about your wild life. Barely a B-movie, but what the hay...corny Sci-Fi and lesbian sex. From the mind of writer and director Cody Jarrett, a cheesy slice of fun. A chemical company is dumping waste that is causing mutants in a fish farm. The hot Kristi Russell stars as Dr. Barbara Michaels, an EPA agent sent to investigate this environmental dilemma. She just happens to enter a lesbian relationship with bartender Trixie(Ariadne Shaffer)and their love scenes are about as good as this film gets. A man-size frog incites chaos; causing a car crash, raping the chemical company boss's daughter, raping a girl under the bleachers at a football game, stiff-arm tackling a runner in the football game, raping a nun...all before being shot twice in the chest after an antidote was found all ready. The special effects...well, not special; a guy in a rubber frog costume without the genitalia to prove himself. Tough tadpoles, do you still want to watch it? Go ahead, but bribe any witness to secrecy.


OK Hollywood is not liberal.

Obviously I'm lieing because it is. Im a conservative but the politics i will leave out of my opinion of the movie. This movie was anti bush, anti middle east , anti big oil propaganda but that is not why it was bad.

Fist off i will give credit where credit is due. i saw this film opening night because i happen to like these kinds of films and am a political science major in collage. The cinematography was excellent and the acting was as far as i could tell very good.

The plot was impossible for me to decode however. I have been tested and have an IQ of 138 but no matter how hard i tried there was no way i could piece together the story line of the movie and what characters where doing what.

The story and scene sequence was totally incoherent and poorly organized.

Unless this is one of those movies that is meant to be watch many times to get the full depth pf the story, which it very well may be, i have no idea exactly what was going on.

Which makes sense because if you want to make a political argument and not receive any criticism then make your argument impossible to critique! If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with Bull S.


Antwone Fisher's story of childhood neglect and abuse is an inspiration to all among us who witnessed or even experienced the plight of foster children. Abandoned by a troubled mother, Antwone has never met his father. Growing up with 'church going' abusers who use the 'n-word' not only to intimidate and hurt but also as a term of endearment, as a young man witnessing how his best friend is killed in a hold-up, enduring racial slurs and being teased while serving in the Navy, Antwone's anger is slowly turned into positive power when counseled by a Navy psychiatrist, and a love enters his life.

The scene where Antwone meets his birth mother is one of the most powerful moments in the film. Stunned by the unexpected confrontation, the woman listens in silence to hear the young man tell her how he has lived a life without crime, addictions to drugs, fathering children left and right, all despite his utterly adverse circumstances.

If that scene wasn't powerful enough, the very next one drives it home (and opens the flood gates): A reception to welcome home Antwone; dozens of smiling faces and open arms announcing that HE is part of this great family.

One of the messages delivered by this wonderful film is that there are many well-meaning and sincere people working to help orphans and unwanted children. Even if some of the homes and administrators don't seem to care and appear self-serving, many do give it their all. The character who found Antwone's 'file' once he disclosed the circumstances of his birth is one of those 'bright lights' in the darkness of the system.

The DVD includes a French Language track, various subtitle choices, as well as additional features and information about foster parenting.

As a Clevelander I appreciated the location footage. No matter where you are from, you will be deeply moved by this autobiographical gem.


This little-known comedy from the hit play by Ruth Gordon is a delight. The script, based on the play, is spicy, rich, and completely undated. Ditto the cast but I must underline the work of the leading lady,Irene Dunne. Irene is simply superb - as usual - and lights up the screen with every frame she's in (and she's in it a lot, thank heaven). In addition, director Vidor has given her some unusual close-ups that are mesmerizing. What a gal! I know of no other Hollywood actress from any era who has her versatility and is so convincing in every film. Why she remains so little known is a mystery. I have seen most of her films and this one was a surprise, even for a solid ID fan like myself. See it, everyone!


Mario's first foray into the world of 3-dimensions is incredible. Miyamoto's masterpiece was reason enough to buy a Nintendo 64 when it was released in 1996 and it still holds all of it's charm today. This game is an instant classic that set the standard for 3D adventure/platform games.


This film came recommended as a good action film, which I don't really think it is. I found the story convoluted and not all that easy to follow. There really isn't that much action until the end of the film and it's pretty dark and hard to see what's really happening. I was sure hoping for something different, but, alas, didn't find it here.


When the scientist and family man Matt Winslow (Robert Urich) finally accepts the invitation to work the Micro-Digitech Corporation in a space suit project, he moves with his beloved wife Patricia (Joanna Cassidy) and their son Robbie (Barret Oliver) and daughter Chrissy (Soleil Moon Frye) to a huge modern house in the corporation compound. They meet their friend Tom Peterson (Joe Regalbuto) and his family completely adapted to the new lifestyle, and Tom invites the Winslow family to join the Steaming Springs Country Club. Tom tries to seduce Matt telling him that every member of the club has a meteoric professional ascension in Micro-Digitech, but Matt is not tempted with the offer. Later he is introduced to the director of the club, Jessica Jones (Susan Lucci) that befriends Patricia and convinces her to join the club with her children. Matt feels the changing in the behavior of his family and decides to investigate the club, finding an evil secret about Jessica and the members.

In the 80's, when I saw 'Invitation to Hell', I liked this movie that partially recalls 'The Stepford Wives', with people changing the behavior in a suburban compound. I have just seen it today, and I found a great metaphoric message against the big corporations, when people literally sell their souls to the devil to climb positions and earn higher salaries. I am not sure whether the author intended to give this interpretation to the story, but I believe it fits perfectly. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): 'Convite Para o Inferno' ('Invitation to Hell')