Accepted is one of the best teenage comedies I have seen in a long time. It has an original script, talented cast and it delivers an hour and a half of pure unadulterated fun.

It tells the story of a high school graduate Bartleby 'B' Gains (Justin Long) who is not accepted in any of the collages he applied to, so to avoid his parents' disappointment he creates a fictional collage. In the attempt to fool his parents completely he creates a fake website and turns an old psychiatric hospital into a school. Everything goes smoothly until a lot of other 'accepted' students turn up on his doorstep. Now he and his friend have to figure that collage thing out not only for themselves but for the others too.

Justin Long as a lead man is absolutely brilliant, his character is as natural as he can be and the supporting acts are outstanding- Jonah Hill as Sherman Schrader, Columbus Short as Hands, Maria Thayer as Rory, Adam Herschman as Glen and Lewis Black as Uncle Ben.

The humour is fresh and simple and most importantly funny, right from the start to after the credits .The plot develops so easy that by the time you stop laughing at the last joke you start giggling at next other. Along with all the fun the movie brings a very common subject to our attention i.e. the collage education. If usually the students in the movie are united against the school government, in this case they are united by the mutual desire to go to school and learn.

Yet the movie doesn't brand all other schools as wrong, it just shows that there is another way. You what they say 'If there is a will there is a way.And may be sometimes the children know better what they need than their parents.

This movie is an unmissable little story about the great opportunities in life wrapped up in the best format possible.


Dennis Patrick plays a man who accidentally kills his daughter's boyfriend and then reveals his secret at a local bar. Joe (Peter Boyle), a bigot who is getting drunk there, at first takes it as a joke, but then the story is confirmed on the evening news. Instead of calling the cops or the like, Joe decides that, since the guy killed a hippie, they must be kindred spirits! He blackmails the man into becoming his pal. At first, the film seemed harsh and judgemental, but, as it revealed itself, it actually became quite a complex portrait of the current society. Yes, I think it does exaggerate a bit, but in amusing ways that don't really detract from the power of its messages. Susan Sarandon debuted in this film, and it's a shock to see how pretty she was around 23. Well worth seeing.


I just love this show.It's so funny and cool.Kuzco is such a hilarious and interesting character, I love him.He's the thing that makes this show what it is, although Kronk and Yzma are so funny and charming too.Everything about this show is great for me, because it always manages to make me laugh, no matter if it's only once an episode.It's just so funny and all the characters are so lovable and cool, it makes the show worth the time to watch, unlike some crap on Disney channel.Give this show a try next time it's on, if you've seen the movie, and even if you haven't seen the movie, you'll find this to be very enjoyable anyway, so go ahead.


At times I really wonder when I look at the comments here it seems as if most people have seen a completely different film than I have. I've just seen it... and liked it. Not in the way, that it made me happy, but in the way of having seen a good film!

The film needs some patience, yes. And yes, the main character is REALLY annoying, but that I'm sure is by intention.

Maybe it really makes a difference if you watch this film in a cinema or at home. Most people watch films at home like they are listening to elevator music. This movie definitely doesn't fit as background noise.

And no. Good directing doesn't mean having five laughs or explosions a second. Good directing means following your subject and keeping the story and actors together. And while that doesn't work out perfectly, at least I think it works quite good.

I liked the photography and sets, even if they brink on the surreal at times. The opening scene is really special.

I also liked the acting  Guillaume Depardieu is NOT playing Pierre. He is acting the role of a Pierre who is himself playing a role! Pierre is not the romantic hero that he so hard tries to be, he is a presumptuous and self-righteous idiot, a downright weakling who by and by harms all the people he claims to protect. That even his love for truth is simply a pose is beautifully demonstrated by his ongoing lying and not even once asking questions or explaining himself.

People are wondering where this or that person came from and other stuff: No character who is seen for more than two scenes is left unexplained, there is enough information scattered throughout the film on everyone.

And even the strange building begins to make sense as soon as the target practicing is seen: Remember that Isabelle fled from a war zone - and obviously this is a refuge for fighters in a civil war, most likely Bosnia (which was still going on, when the film was produced). At least that's what is hinted at by the story Isabelle tells Pierre when she first meets him and by the later scene where Pierre shows Isabelle the book with his father on the cover, which is surrounded by books on Bosnia.


If you are looking for the feel-good hit of the summer, Dark Harvest 2 might just be your ticket. The production values of this movie are extremely high (looks as if it were filmed with a Sony Handicam and edited using iMovie), especially the sound effects -- they sound straight off of a 'Spooky Halloween Sounds' CD! The scarecrow from the cover, although he doesn't appear in the movie and otherwise has no relevance, is terrifyingly realistic! From beginning to end, you'll watch as a man aimlessly searches for his daughters through a, pun intended, MAIZE! At the climactic ending of the movie you'll see, well...you'll have to watch for yourself.

What I'm really trying to say here is, don't come within 1000 yards of this movie. I rented it because I thought it would be a campy sort of 'Troll 2' funny, but it's not. I cried after I watched this movie, because I realized I had spent money on it (and I found the $4 I spent on renting it). I actually fell asleep for 20 minutes and still knew what was going on.


This film was such a mess I actually reimbursed my friends who I dragged to see it. The only reason I went to see it was that my friend was an apprentice editor on the shoot.

I'm sure that this film was meant to be campy, but the approach was so heavy-handed and self-reflexive it turned out really flat. Judd Nelson stars as an obsequious garbage man who is a hack comedian on the side. His life is hell and made worse by his obnoxious and overbearing companion Bill Paxton (who I feel embarrassed for - this was a really tasteless role for a talented actor). A freak accident alters Nelson's career course and mayhem ensues.

The attempts at humor were corny, predictable and often base and tasteless. Wayne Newton in the cast as a talent agent is a novelty but he adds nothing - comedically or otherwise.

Overall, it's a very weak and uncreative attempt at camp humor that goes over like a lead balloon. At least you could laugh AT Plan 9 From Outer Space. This one just makes you wonder who thought this was a good enough idea to finance and film. One of the all time worst bombs you'll ever witness.


Following his role in the fine caper SEVEN THIEVES (1960) – which I’ve watched several years back – Edward G. Robinson seemed to be stuck playing elderly criminal mastermind types (apart from the odd juicy role as in THE CINCINNATI KID [1965]). I’d previously watched the pretty good “Euro-Cult” effort GRAND SLAM (1967) and, apart from this, I’ve yet two more similar titles from Italy to check – one of which was directed by future goremeister Lucio Fulci! Anyway, this is the kind of international production – featuring American and Italian actors and a British director – which was prevalent during the 1960s; it’s harmless and easy-going in itself but hardly memorable and definitely overlong – especially since to procure finance for the heavy-duty equipment required for the heist (such as an army tank and an airplane!), the gang involved have to pull a variety of minor thefts first.

The gang, of course, is an incompetent lot led by an American (Robert Wagner) and his bimbo girlfriend (Raquel Welch) – the others are a ‘pacifist’ black man, a perennially hungry Italian and a diminutive Englishman. They try to induce an ex-gangster (Vittorio De Sica) to turn over his fortune to them, except he’s destitute…but, under the auspices of “Professor” Robinson, he proposes instead a caper of 5 million dollars’ worth of platinum! Needless to say, the gang members don’t trust one another (Wagner instructs Welch to seduce De Sica so as to get the name of their fence in Morocco – where they are to retreat after the robbery), or else bungle the job (commissioned to hold up a restaurant, the Italian can’t resist sitting at table and order a multi-course meal for himself!). Amusingly, in the face of similar failures, De Sica tries to show them how they used to do it in the old days – however, ostensibly holding up a petrol station, it transpires that the owner is a nephew of his and he merely asked to borrow some cash!

The central heist sequence is typically elaborate: while the gang, including Welch, ‘take’ the train transporting the platinum, Wagner kidnaps pilot Victor Spinetti and his airplane. When the job is done, he fully intends to double-cross De Sica – but neither his partners nor Welch herself are willing to go along with this, so he’s forced to relent. Coming from the time when crime didn’t pay, the gang contrives to lose all their stash in mid-air when the plane’s bomb-bay doors are accidentally opened…


This movie clearly has an agenda, which could be summed up like this: Never, never cross the border (either physical or metaphorical). Let's shun everything that's on the other side with a wall or a fence or something else, let's pretend all 'gringos' are evil, satanic, or drug dealers. All that is outside one's country's border (and specially US borders) is dangerous, malevolent and people there will hate you, or envy you or try to steal you or something else. The 'based on true events' is only a perverse tag that can be pinned on anything to give it some aura of credibility or, in this case, just to help pushing the film's ideology down some naïve throats out there. The perversity of the film lies in the fact that it reduces countries, people and all else into very black and white stereotyped categories: Mexicans into disgusting people, Mexican police into a bunch of corrupt cops, republicans into the right-wing morons, democrats into almost hippie humanists and so forth. Is there anything good about the film? I hardly think so, but may be you think differently.


this is really films outside (not in a motel room). With real costumes (not only strings and swimsuits). You have to see this movie. it's the only porn movie I know that is worth watching between the sex scenes.

Bon Cinema

Laurent


I've loved this movie for a LONG time. I hadn't seen it in a while, so I again checked it out and actually found it even more enjoyable now. I loved the Chipmunks cartoon when I was young, so naturally I adored 'The Chipmunk Adventure.'

I honestly can't think of a better plot to this movie. It's not wildly creative, but I've always wanted to travel all over the world, and so I just have so much fun watching it as my longing to travel grows even more. The part with Elenore singing to the little penguin always makes me cry...

'The Chipmunk Adventure' will remain a favorite of mine forever, I'm sure. I guess it's because I saw it when I was so young. I don't think it would make quite an impact on someone older seeing it for the first time. (Unless, of course, they have a young heart)


I was sick one day and was skimming channels and I came upon this terribly rank movie. The plot and even the subplots (if you can find one) have been done to extinction. BUT, as bad as the story was, I reserve a special comment for Liza Minelli. Her character was absolutely one of the most annoying characters I have ever has the misfortune of seeing on film. Her only two competitors in this category are John Leguziamo in 'The Pest' and Julia Stiles in anything she's done (or half-done). Maybe she performed exactly as the script suggested or maybe (groan!) that is the limit she has to her acting range. Either way, they should have had a rewrite and killed her off in the first 30 seconds of the film (eg. Like the girl that fell off the balcony in Lethal Weapon (I) (but at least she had nice breasts))

Most Humbly Submitted...Douglas Neidermeyer


In the veins of Jeepers Creepers and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Monster Man surprisingly well-made--though mindless--little horror. Throw in a little buddy-comedy, nice gore and intense scare. It's hard no to say that Monster Man is really entertaining. The low budget seem pretty obvious, but it doesn't effected the presentation of the movie in general and put more big budget horror movies in shame.

Yes, the plot somewhat generic as possible. Pair of friend, Adam (Eric Jungman)and Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to interrupt the wedding of a woman Adam has always loved. While Adam is more nerdy type, Harley is a self-proclaimed ladies man and very offensive loudmouth. Adding a bonus to the plot, then they picked up a sexy hitchhiker, Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Things turn into nightmare when a monster truck with scary face drive stalking them. When dead body starts counting, they must do the race against the time before their own life on risk.

The plot is obviously reminiscent of many prior famous horror movies, but Michael Davis as the writer and director succeed in keeping the tension. The scare is build well enough, where characterization is never be the best, but fairly okay. The script also littered with comedies that works for the funny moments and they quite enjoyable rather than annoying and also wait for the twist in the finale. It's hilarious and shocking in the same time, which is pretty amusing.

As conclusion, Monster Man surprisingly entertaining. It deserves more attention in the big screen. It proves that big budget doesn't make an effective horror movie, but skill does! Something that the director has shown and delivers.


Born, raised, and educated in Scotland, I was appalled at this disgusting portrayal of a man who was no more nor less than a cattle rustler. Worse yet, the thread of the entire movie was sex in one form or another, by implication or verbally. To view it, one would think that 18th century Scotland was populated by a bunch of sex perverts and homosexuals. Lange was a joke acting as the 'young' mother at age 49 but Liam Neeson was even worse! Taking a 'bath' in a Scottish loch is NOT commonplace as they portrayed him - but, it did give them yet another opportunity to demonstrate how sexually driven we were. Save your money and watch Pinnochio.


I saw this movie yesterday and thought it was awful; it was pointless and just plain stupid. the supposed plot concerned a prospective bridegroom too caught up in the problems of the world to relate to his bride and the other people in his life. He disappears on his wedding day (in a tux no less) and hooks up with an assortment of weirdos.

We saw it with a bus-load of people on the way down to Atlantic City and everyone agreed that it was a terrible movie. It was trying to be profound but it wasn't; it was stupid and offensive. If I wasn't on a bus I would have walked out on the movie. Anyone considering seeing the movie or renting or buying the video you have been forewarned.


This movie was awesome!! (Not quite as good as the Leif Garrett masterpiece Longshot) but still awesome!! I thought Ashley looked freakin' huge compared to Mary-Kate in this film. I wonder why. Who woulda thought they could swith places like that and almost get away with it. Dad was kinda a jerk though and Mom was a little too chummy with Helmit Head. I give it 4. Any one who likes this movie shoudl check out Longshot.


Nightbreed blew my mind the first time I saw it. And it's held up quite well over the years. The sets and monster effects work, are some of the best I've ever seen. Nobody I know seems to have seen this film, which I believe tanked at the box office, because of the lack of interest in horror, in the early nineties. It plays like a dark, horrific fairy tale, and is a lot deeper, then you'd think, with a strong message against bigotry, presented by a rich mystical past, that Clive Barker created. What sucks is the film ends on a really cool sequel note, that we'll probably never see. My only minor gripe is that Craig Sheffer is only a passable actor at best, and the the project might have benefited with a better actor in the part. Just a minor complaint though as Sheffer does alright. I had a similar issue with Scott Bakula in Barker's Lord Of Illusions, not really a terrible performance, but I just didn't like him in the role as much as I would have other people.


I just realised I've been using IMDb for years now and I've never reviewed my favourite film. By favourite I don't mean something I like for now, I mean this film is so supernaturally perfect that there is never another animated experience going to touch it. This is obvious because I am never going to be a child again; I saw this film on ITV in the early nineties. I was 12 which is the age group this film is directed at, I'm also male, the gender that this film is intended for (the overwhelming majority of Miyazaki's protagonists are female). Consequently this film indelibly inspired my childhood psychology and I am forever indebted to Carl Macek (sp?) for producing the English dub of this film which is far superior to the Di$ney production which is not even funny - I've never even been able to watch that one - of course subtitled is the only way ultimately however the Macek version is SO good (the voices almost exactly corresponding to the original Japanese actors) that this version is available on the Japanese DVD! It's not available on any distribution in an English-speaking country. Go figure.

There are hundreds of competent reviews so I'm going to put some trivia here, not that I'm the definitive archive of information for this film.

First up I'd like to agree with the reviewer who stated that you need 20 out of 10 to review Miyazaki's films - they are so in their own league that they make almost the whole catalogue on IMDb combined pale into insignificance.

The fascinating story with this film is that Miyazaki based the countryside around Slag's Ravine (Pazu's town area) on the Welsh mining communities. He visited Wales for a few months in the early 80s (might be late 70s) just after one of the great mining strikes. Being an avid supporter of the student socialist movements in the sixties he felt their plight. The fight between the townsfolk and the pirates at the beginning serves to illustrate this empathy with the working man. The countryside and the clouds especially in this film remind me of where I grew up as his film depicts a fantasised version of the rolling hills of the midwest British Isles.

The island is of course from Swift's genius satirical novel of the eighteenth century - the story in Swift's book is, deliberately, ridiculous. In Castle in The Sky, Miyazaki weaves together myths such as Atlantis and the Tower of Babel - I think the architecture in addition is based on Peruvian ruins though I'm not sure, someone told me that.

Anyone who gets round to reading this review and who likes this film REALLY will want to check out Miyazaki's epic series Mirai Shounen Conan - Future Boy Conan - based on the short sci fi novel 'The Incredible Tide' by Alexander key (novel is available online). Conan is basically a prototype for Laputa's Pazu and Shita. In addition you may not be familiar with his earlier work for Masterpiece Theatre - some of his key frame animation. He also did key frame for Sherlock Hound - this has some of the finest backgrounds I've ever seen too. Also check out Miyazaki and Takahata's first feature film Horus Prince of the Sun (1968) - amazing by today's standards in fact. What else... Gauche the Cellist and The Flying Ghost Ship - though they're pretty rare.

This film is such a gift, I don't know what we'd do without it with all this other crap storytelling around, this is like an oasis. Arigatou Miyazaki-sensei!


Everything about this movie is bad. everything. Ridiculous 80's haircuts. Ridiculous moustaches. Ridiculous action and fight scenes where you can actually see that the adversaries do not even hit each other. Bad, bad, bad 80's music. Repeated scenes of people running through woods. A bad guy with a silver plastic hand and silly hair. Stupid dialogue. The acting is nonexistant. Everything looks extremely cheap. This movie even surpasses 'Plan 9 from outer space' in its utter badness.

It's not 'funny bad' it's just bad.


An on screen caption informs us that it is 'the Caribbean Sea, May 1891'. A small lifeboat drifts aimlessly at sea containing six convicts from a shipwrecked prison ship, and the ship's Doctor a Lt. Claude De Ross (Claudio Cassinelli). It's night, a strange current takes the boat towards a strange, unnamed and uncharted island. The boat hits some rocks and is torn apart. One of the prisoners is killed by what appears to be a slimy mutant fish-man creature. The next morning morning Claude wakes up to find himself washed upon a beach. He finds a pool of white bubbling water and one of the prisoners dead beside it. Claude warns another surviving prisoner Jose (Franco Iavarone) not to drink the water as it will kill him. They both eventually meet up with the other surviving prisoners, Peter (Roberto Posse), Francois (Francesco Mazzeri) and Skip (Giuseppe Castellano). Francois wanders off on his own to try and catch an animal for food, he finds and kills a large water bird. But in turn he is killed himself by one of the fish-men. Claude, Jose, Peter and Skip continue to explore the island as they put Francois's death down to an animal attack of some sort. Soon after Skip is killed when he is impaled on a spike at the bottom of a pit. Now only Claude, Jose and Peter are left. They stumble across a cemetery with lots of empty graves and signs of recent black magic rituals. Claude spots a snake on a nearby rock, suddenly a shot is heard and the snakes head explodes. A woman on horseback named Amanda Marvin (Barbara Bach) is revealed to be Claudes saviour. She tells them to leave the island immediately as it is owned by a Edmund Rackham (Richard Johnson) and he doesn't like visitors. Claude, Jose and Peter decide to carry on regardless, eventually finding Rackham's large house in which they are invited to stay. That night Peter goes after Amanda and tries to rape her in a swamp, Peter quickly becomes food for the fish-men. And a Voodoo priestess called Shakira (Beryl Cunningham), who lives with Rackham, performs a black magic ritual involving slitting the throat of a chicken at the cemetery. The next day Claude and Jose decide they should leave the island as they feel very uneasy about Rackham and think he is lying to them. Jose rides off on horseback and is lost. Claude is saved from one of the fish-men by Amanda and is again told to leave. Claude wants to confront Rackham again. Rackham reveals that he has a scientist, and Amanda's father, named Professor Ernest Marvin (Joseph Cotten) who he needs to be kept alive. Rackham says that the longer Ernest stays alive the chances of his own survival will dramatically increase. Rackham tells Claude his plan. Rackham has found the lost city of Atlantis at a depth of over 2,000 feet. He is using the fish-men as a means of getting at the lost treasures of Atlantis, and needs Amanda and her father to control them. He claims the fish-men are descendants of the original inhabitants of Atlantis. Rackham offers Claude a share of the treasure if he will help him keep Ernest alive. Later Claude remembers the name Ernest Marvin as a scientist who was condemned for experiments transplanting animal organs into human beings. Finding Ernest's secret laboratory he discovers Rackham had lied to him and the fish-men aren't descendants, their actually genetically altered people turned into amphibious creatures by Ernest's grotesque experiments! Rackham has finally had enough of Claude and decides to put an end to his meddling by sticking him in a large tank and slowly filling it with water, as the islands volcano starts to erupt and send lava flying everywhere. Rackham wants to leave the island with his treasures and Amanda, will Claude escape almost certain death to save Amanda and get off the island before the erupting volcano tears it apart? Directed by Sergio Martino I really liked this film that mixes various genres. The script by Sergio Donati is fast paced, interesting and entertaining. The plot is revealed bit by bit, which kept me interested in watching it all the way through. I must say at this point that I've seen the original version and not the one with added scenes inserted for it's US release by Roger Corman. Barbara Bach makes for an extremely attractive leading lady, but I hated the way she was introduced by shooting a snakes head off, I thought it was more than a little distasteful. Richard Johnson makes a great villain and Claudio Cassinelli a likable hero. The fish-men themselves look a little fake when the camera lingers on them too long but their cool looking and I've seen worse. Some of the miniature effects look a little poor too, but overall again I've again seen a lot worse. There's no real gore, violence or nudity in it, but that didn't really bother me actually. The photography by Giancarlo Ferrando and the production design by Massimo Antonello Geleng combine to create a very nice looking film. Period costumes, props and sets like Rackham's house and Ernest's lab with it's old scientific equipment. The lush green jungle settings also add to the visual splendour on show. I really liked this film and I was entertained throughout it's running time. I'm not sure who I'd recommend it too as it mixes various genres, I guess someone who maybe fancies something a little bit different and generally well made. If you can find a copy give it a go, I'm glad I did.


The filming crew did not have good access to the occupied territories, so filming of the Israeli side dominated. I was struck by the nearly completely opposite points of view of the mothers. The Israeli mother lost a child who had the possibility of a life of tremendous happiness. The Palestinian mother lost a child who had only the possibility of a life of privation and despair. With such completely different viewpoints, any meeting had no real chance of any meeting of the minds. The word 'peace' did not have the same meaning to each of them. Peace to the Palestinian was freedom. Peace to the Israeli was security. With such an abyss, is this sort of film really worth much? I finished with the feeling that I had watched pointless propaganda -- both sides were unconvincing.


I saw this when it premiered and just re-watched it on IFC again. This is a great telling of the many possible stories about the immigrant farmworker population that came to Hawai'i to work the sugar plantations in the early 1900's. My grandparents were part of that migration; my parents were born on a Kohala plantation (Big Island) at the time setting of the movie. I moved to the Big Island over a year ago after living in California for over 30 years. I was surprised to see that many of the former cane growing lands are still undeveloped, with wild cane still growing, years after the plantations closed. I've heard many stories from my aunts and uncles who were kids growing up on the plantation. This movie helps to image those kinds of stories and memories. This story is more of an historical document than a romantic plot-driven movie. It leaves me shaking my head to read a review like ccthemovieman's. Some people just don't get it.

I didn't recall that Youki Kudoh had the starring role, with which she did an incredible job. I recall her great performances in Jim Jarmusch's 'Mystery Train' and in an Australian film, co- starring with Russell Crowe, 'Heaven's Burning'. Tamlyn Tomita did a great job with her pidgin English, especially for someone who didn't grow up in the Islands. I had forgotten that Toshiro Mifune had a cameo role as the moving picture show narrator. And I missed the fact that Jason Scott Lee had an uncredited, non-speaking part as one of the plantation workers during the payday scene.

I was saddened to find out that the director and co-writer, Kayo Hatta, died in an accidental drowning in 2005.

There are two other excellent foreign films that mirror this cane plantation experience: 'Gaijin' about the immigrant cane workers in Brazil (many of them Japanese) in the same time period; and 'Sugar Cane Alley' about the cane plantation experience in Africa. The latter is still available, but 'Gaijin', sadly, doesn't appear to have been shown in quite a while. Another great film about the early Asian in America experience when immigrants were more like slaves is 'A Thousand Pieces of Gold'. This was set over the Chinese workers' involvement in the building of the railroad, starred Rosalind Chao, Chris Cooper, Michael Paul Chan, and Dennis Dun.


Upon seeing this film once again it appeared infinitely superior to me this time than the previous times I have viewed it. The acting is stunningly wonderful. The characters are very clearly drawn. Brad Pitt is simply superb as the errant son who rebels. The other actors and actresses are equally fine in every respect. Robert Redford creates a wonderful period piece from the days of speakeasies of the 1920s. The scenery is incredibly beautiful of the mountains and streams of western Montana. All in all, this is one of the finest films made in the 1990s.

You must see this movie!


Then again, I like Rachael Ray. She is fun, sweet, fresh, and such a joy to watch. I have to alter just about everything she makes as I am a vegetarian...but it's great to see her with a program that shows more of her personality. After all, she is a television personality. I think it's cool that she is so inviting with her fans and still appears to be down-to-earth. The studio audience appears to be rather small, but that just makes for a cozier environment. Some people have posted that the show sucks. I guess it depends on your own interpretation of it and of her. If you notice the early episodes of 30 Minute Meals you will see a completely different personality than in those of the past few years. I'm sure she will find her comfort zone with this show as well. Good luck Rachael!


Coming from Kiarostami, this art-house visual and sound exposition is a surprise. For a director known for his narratives and keen observation of humans, especially children, this excursion into minimalist cinematography begs for questions: Why did he do it? Was it to keep him busy during a vacation at the shore?

'Five, 5 Long Takes' consists of, you guessed it, five long takes. They are (the title names are my own and the times approximate):

'Driftwood and waves'. The camera stands nearly still looking at a small piece of driftwood as it gets moved around by small waves splashing on a beach. Ten minutes.

'Watching people on the boardwalk'. The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon and a boardwalk. People walk across the camera frame, their faces too far and blurry to make them interesting. Eleven minutes.

'Six dogs at the water's edge'. The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon with a sandy stretch of beach nearby. Far away at the water's edge, six dogs not doing much, just relaxing. Sixteen minutes.

'Ducks in line, gaggle of ducks'. The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon near the water's edge. Dozen and dozen of ducks stream in single file from left to right. I assume that Kiarostami released them gradually. The last two ducks stop dead on their track and suddenly a gaggle of ducks rolls quietly from right to left. I assume Kiarostami collected the ducks and re-released all at the same time. It is not the first time that he deals with the contrast between organized and disorganized behavior. Eight minutes.

'Frog symphony, oops, I mean cacophony, for a stormy night'. The camera stands over a pond at night. It's pitch black except for what appears to be the reflection of the moon on the undulating water. It is a stormy night and clouds race to cover the moon. The screen goes dark. What remains for us is the cacophony of frogs, howling dogs and, eventually, morning roosters. Hit me on the head if this was done in a single take. I saw this segment as a sound composition put together in the editing room and accompanied by a simple visualization. Twenty seven minutes!

Except for the mildly amusing ducks, this exercise in minimalism left me cold. A nonessential film for Kiarostami admirers.

I thought I would rate 'Five' a five, but four is what it deserves.

The film is dedicated to Yasujiru Ozu.


Early talkie feature based on a popular stage play. A murder has been committed and a bunch of people hire a medium to conduct a séance to see who the murderer is. While the lights are out there's ANOTHER murder...so it's someone in that room.

What follows is an obvious, dull and creaky murder mystery. Most of the cast overacts to a ridiculous degree. They act like they're on stage (where you have to overdo things) and it looks silly on screen. Most embarrassing is Bela Lugosi (two years before 'Dracula') who REALLY overdoes it as a police inspector. Static direction by Tod Browning (who was always overrated) doesn't help.

For Browning and Lugosi completists only. I give it a 3.


I saw 'New York: I Love You' today and loved it! I was really looking forward to seeing this after watching 'Paris je t'aime' and overall I think I liked this one much better... Perhaps I need to watch 'Paris je t'aime' again I don't know... I read few of the reviews here about NY:ILY and yes, the movie is not without its faults. When you're paying tribute to a city like New York - it can get rather overwhelming and nothing seems fair enough to do the city due justice... so without elaborating on any of the film's shortcomings, I'll just write about what I liked.

Unlike 'Paris je t'aime' in which each director's short film was properly segmented and titled, NY:ILY isn't and many reviewers over here have found the seamlessness of stories and overlapping of characters here annoying and even confusing. I thought otherwise. I loved how the stories just flowed one after the other and I especially liked the overlapping of characters - it might be gimmicky because it's done so often in films now. But I still liked it because I didn't find it forced. And the idea that we're all connected in the end has a wistful, even whimsical quality to it - which some might find corny but I find beautiful.

I liked all the films but the one that touched me the most was the one by Yvan Attal with Robin Wright Penn and Chris Cooper. It was so well-acted and scripted that the reveal in the end - again not unused in the past - brought me to tears and I was crying throughout the segment that followed. I always liked Wright Penn and now I'm also a fan of Chris Cooper. Those precious initial few seconds when he's standing alone outside the restaurant, just before he gets the call - speak volumes about Cooper's ability to convey a character by just being there without saying anything.

Most of the stories in this film involve characters who are either meeting each for the first time or have met each other just recently with the exception of 4-5 stories in which the characters have known each other for a long time. It seemed to me (and I might be wrong) that the stories were different but they were all trying to drive home the point, the need even, to just step back and view in a new light the people and the things we've known in our lives for a long time; to see the people and the things around you with the eyes of a stranger and appreciate them just as you did when you met them and saw them for the first time.

The other films that I liked were the ones by Shunji Iwai with Orlando Bloom and Christina Ricci, by Natalie Portman with Carlos Acosta and Taylor Geare, by Brett Ratner with Anton Yelchin and Olivia Thirlby, by Shekhar Kapur with Julie Christie, Shia LaBeouf and John Hurt and once again the one by Yvan Attal with Ethan Hawke and Emilie Ohana when they're in the café. I really need to see more work by Yvan Attal as I seem to like him a lot!

Overall, watch this movie with an open mind. Don't read the reviews before watching it! It might not live up to your expectations of what a movie on and about love in New York should be and I doubt any movie will really live up to that conception. Just watch this movie for some good music, beautiful landscape cinematography, some slice-of-life comfort and a story or two that might just tug at your heartstrings.


I'll get to the movie in a minute. First, someone wanted 'proof' about Clinton's comments at Georgetown, where he claimed that the USA 'deserved' the 9-11 attacks. Well, here's what Clinton said:

'In the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was a Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it.'

WE'RE still paying for it? Whaddya mean 'we', paleface? The Marines didn't storm the Temple Mount.

But in truth, Clinton never really came out and flatly said that we 'deserved' 9-11. Like all his statements during his presidency, he IMPLIED that we deserved 9-11. Just point out 'fact' A, B, C, and maybe D, and let the listener deduce that they must add up to conclusion X. When in truth, most of Clinton's 'Facts' added up to guacamole.

But that's beside the point. We're here to talk movies, not politics. Unfortunately, when Oliver 'Captain Conspiracy' Stone does a movie, you can't escape his warped politics. It was only a matter of time before he focused his paranoia and bitterness on the Reagan Era, and what better time than when Stone's dreams almost came true, on the day Reagan nearly bought the farm. Unable to find any nefarious plots or schemes in Hinckley's assassination attempt, he invents one with Al Haig. From a simple misunderstanding of the chain of Constitutional authority, Haig is transformed from a public servant who really should have brushed up on his remedial civics into a raving megalomaniac. You almost expect Haig to rub his hands together like Montgomery Burns and tell Cap Weinberger to 'Release the Hounds.' Stone even recruits the smarmiest person in Hollywood to play our former Secretary of State, Richard Dreyfuss. A guy you love to hate on sight.

Overall, the movie is OK. Average, hovering on below average. Don't bother renting or buying. Try to catch it on cable. 4 out of 10.


After hearing that some of the people behind the low-budget flicks 'Terror in Rock'n'Roll Önsjön' and 'It came from outer space... and stuff' were involved in making this movie, I decided to buy it unseen on DVD. I wish I hadn't. The other movies were funny, tongue-in-cheek and kinda stupid. While Kraftverk 3714 is devoid of any humor at all. And it is so god-awful that I'm getting angry just thinking about it. The worst actors possible, the worst script possible, the worst special effects available. And the most unsexy sex scene ever. Uhhh. And the whole thing goes on for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Please, do not ever make another movie.


Marie: You are smooth. Dan: No, I'm not smooth. I'm Dan.

If you're anything like me, smooth and single do not go together. You see someone you like, rare enough as that can be, and you want to say something but you don't. Or maybe you do say something but it ends up being perhaps the least intelligent thing you've ever said in your life. More often then not though, you stare from afar and admire without having to deal with taking that which most agree is the only way to get anywhere in life  a risk. You can't blame a guy for being a little frightened though. Maybe he's been burned hard before or maybe he's trying to focus all his energy on his career. There are reasons, some valid, some not, and all of them can be interpreted as excuses rather than reason. You tell yourself you don't need it or it isn't the right time for you but you still wish it were happening. Any way you break it down, it's not easy. Sound familiar? If you thought yes even just a little, then DAN IN REAL LIFE, the new comedy from director Peter Hedges, is a must-see. It will reach inside of you and somehow manage to both break and warm your heart all at once.

The Dan from the title is Dan Burns (Steve Carell), an advice columnist who is admired for his insight into living a balanced, fulfilling and morally uplifting life. Four years or so before the film opens on Dan waking up to his day, he lost his wife and love of his life. After that tragedy, Dan was left to raise their three daughters alone. Between that and focusing on his career, finding love again was not one of Dan's priorities. And so he became more functional than feeling. Removed from the power of intimacy, Dan no longer knows what it means to be that close to someone and has resigned himself to never knowing that again. That is, until he meets Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a book and tackle shop in Connecticut on a quiet morning. They're interaction is casual, comfortable and it catches both of them off guard. There is only one problem really. She is already seeing someone. Unfortunately for all involved, that someone is Dan's brother, Mitch (Dane Cook). His entire family has come up to their parents' country home for their yearly visit and Dan must now spend the weekend pining and yearning for the fleeting feeling he had with Marie that morning. It only lasted an hour or so but it only took that long to awaken Dan's heart from its coma.

With so many family members to deal with (Jack Mahoney and Dianne Wiest are at the helm), DAN IN REAL LIFE does drift away from its grander purpose from time to time. While the cyclone of kids and parents and aunts and uncles makes for trying times for Dan, Hedges also uses it unnecessarily as a means to distract, with the presumption that it would ultimately make for a more complete film. Luckily, Hedges has got Carell to carry the heavy burden. It is a pleasure to watch Steve Carell come into his own more and more with every picture he makes (despite the occasional EVAN ALMIGHTY-sized misstep). He is charismatic, charming and obviously a sharp humorist. As Dan, he is also self-deprecating, awkward and scared. Carell is the rare comedian who pushes himself to find character in his roles rather than rely solely on his comedic instincts and established persona. Perhaps more importantly, he is entirely relatable as Dan. Whether he's flopping down on the cot in the laundry room where he is subjected to sleep as the only single adult at this reunion or fidgeting around the kitchen, unable to stan d still in his anxiety, Dan is every guy who has even been unsure of himself and felt alone in the crowd. Carell gives Dan so much heart that he becomes the heart of the film itself at the same time.

I wondered after seeing the film if I enjoyed the it as much as I did, despite its slight shortcomings (Juliette Binoche  I know you might like to lighten up every now and then but I don't recommend it unless there is chocolate involved), because of where I am in my life. Would someone who has found that someone else derive as much meaning and comfort from this film? I can't say. What I can say, as someone who knows what it means to be lonely, DAN IN REAL LIFE knows what it means to be surprised by life and love and how these moments and people need to be appreciated and cherished. It also knows that anyone who might be feeling lonely on any given day or for months at a time needs to be reminded that surprises still happen.


In Fassbinder's earlier films, his ideas sometimes surpased his ability to execute them. He was always a great writer, but it took him some time to get his style of camera work and storytelling down pat.

The Merchant of Four Seasons is one of Fassbinder's first movie to make great use of color, from the bright green pears in the merchant's cart to the bright red roses at the funeral (a funeral in a Fassbinder movie? who'd have thought).

His camera work was getting there too, but it was still fairly minimalist. The occasional zooms seem a bit uncomfortable at times and unnatural, but then again, Fassbinder was still coming out of his purely avant garde phase. This might be because Michael Ballhaus isn't behind the camera, but instead the slightly inferior Dietrich Lohmann.

Still, this is Fassbinder, and you get your fix here. Broken dreams shown so vividly and unflinchingly as to alienate audience and drive them into a depressed stupor. Just what the doctor ordered. An early classic that shows remarkable progression when compared to his first films released only 2 years prior.


This movie tries its darndest to capture that classic bad canadian movie feel:

'quirky' and obnoxious characters (a few); 'quirky' town with 'quirky' folk; a 'quirky' coffee shop or restaurant (coffee shop here); lots of shots of canadian stuff for postcards (ocean stuff here); lots of mention of 'gotta get out of this town'; downright booooring.

And it succeeds on all counts.

Something to note, though. I couldn't figure out whether this movie was just trying to be post-Northern Exposure 'quirky' comedy or something surreal like a drug-induced or psychotic hallucination. The editing of this movie jumped around nonsensically from one unrelated thing to another with zero pacing or motivation. Not to mention the fact that half the time we didn't even know where we were jumping. Take for instance, the very opening shots, of yelling teens in a car. Who are they and what the h--- did they have to do with anything? And this sub - uh - plot (use that word plot loosely) concering kids that seem to span generations. I don't think they actually do, but the editing makes it look like they materialize from flashback, all of a sudden, to current time. Huh? What did I miss?

Avoid. Unless for laughs. Or you want to try and trip out on the inept editing.


I would say 'Bride of Chucky' is a 'return to greatness' but the series was never really great. Very good #1 was, #2-3 were throwaways, and I think this 4th installment is equal to or even better than the first movie. And it contains the best subtitle/tagline: 'Chucky Gets Lucky.' So he does, in the role of Jennifer Tilly, who thoroughly rejuvenated this series as Jeri Ryan did for 'Star Trek: Voyager.' Tilly didn't just create a presence; she added much needed humor, back-story, drama, tension and a great little sidekick/play-thing for Chucky. And as much as I liked her in the feature, she can't get all the credit: the props (watch the first 1-2 minutes for horror-homages), the writing, the inside jokes (again, the opening + Pinhead) and Chucky lines were great ('In fact, if (this) were a movie, it would take 3-4 sequels just to do it justice,' among others.) Mercifully, Chucky and the series has given up on Andy the 'Hide the Soul' quest, and just settled for a new way out of his body. He teams up with his ex (Tilly) whom he transfers into a 'Bride' doll and a couple of Bonnie & Clyde teens (Really, Heigl?) to regain this pendant buried with Chucky's human corpse. This is for any Chucky fan, 1980s slasher-horror fans or even to those who's never seen any of the previous 'Child's Play' films. It's funny, dark, harmless, gory  but not over the top and despite Tilly's literal 20 minutes of screen time, it's always great to see her. After all, you barely see her play poker anymore. (Side note: of course, I picked up on the Superman reference  Hackensack, NJ.)


I have to say, when 'Pushing Daisies' came out I was immediately won out by the fairy-tale like setting of such grimness. The narrator made a cake out of the whole ordeal by making death seem as routine as, well, Ned (Lee Pace) baking pies. And that bringing them back to life was just as routine.

The trio of Ned, Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) and Charlotte 'Chuck' Charles (Anna Friel), plus sometimes-sidekick Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth, who made the musical Wicked such a delight) made for some fantastic dialogue and silliness. It definitely deserves the title of a (romantic) comedy/drama.

Ned and Chuck made for a shy and not-quite-ready-for-love couple who are still exploring their feelings even though they cannot touch - an obstacle that seems to be truly no obstacle with aids such as gloves, cellophane, and quirky schedules around the apartment. But despite the awkwardness presented as they work their feelings around a strange secret which only a few know, they still manage to show their on screen chemistry in touching scenes like when Ned gives Chuck the beehives. The presence of Olive, though, makes for some break-out-in-song moments in the pie shop and unforeseen complications for the couple.

Second season sharply declined, putting a damper on a show that had real potential. On some of the episodes, the plot line was rushed and awkward, making you ask 'what just happened?' in both the overall dead-person-of-the-week plot and in the overriding plot line. The addition of Chuck's father plus two half-brothers for Ned didn't help, and at least one of the plot lines felt almost recycled (didn't the episode 'Comfort Food' feel like the episode 'Bitter Sweets' in the fact that the dead-person-of-the-week died in food?). A few touching moments (the beehives) happened to help advance the relationship between Chuck and Ned, but every time they got close, the writers decided to throw in another monkey wrench rather than let the relation develop (Oliver comes back from the monastery, Chuck's dead father comes back to life and doesn't go back, you get the picture).

Shame it didn't work out, but the concept was good and seemed surreal in a good way, just enough Pleasantvillesque color/happy-smiley going on and implausible scenarios to remind you that it's not 'Dead Like Me.' Then again, it's in 'Pushing Daisies time,' according to Creator Bryan Fuller, so it makes it plausible again.

It should have lasted longer, but it's merely wistful thinking at this point. Kudos to whatever new show attempts to replace this short-lived gem.


I would like if they brought back surface. I really enjoyed the show along with my family. I felt the plot development and storyline were first rate. Like the other person said, it seems that everything gets reduced to the lowest common denominator. Nothing but bland, politically correct junk survives. Just look at the internet to see how many people were watching the show. Also it is not nice to leave us hanging as to what happened the all of the characters on the show. This is the same thing that happened to the time travel show I think was called 8 days but should have been called backstep. Did the Olympics kill surface? I know the writers strike killed another one of my favorite shows years ago called greatest American hero.


I agree with another user here and have to say that this is one of the best Kung Fu movies ever! I watched this as a kid and absolutely loved it! The scaffolding scenes are brilliant and you can really empathise with this guy because he is treated as an outcast. Nice humour and fantastic kung fu this movie rocks! If you like Kung Fu you would love this!!!


a fine romantic comedy. errol flynn shows what a deft touch for comedy he possessed. a talent that probably shows some of his true prankster self. the comedic writing on this film is excellent. eleanor parker does a nice job as flynn's ex wife whom errol is trying to win back. eleanor is also easy on the eyes. the sets exude 1940's glamour and style where appropriate.

flynn's comedic timing and wit are displayed to full effect here, watch his double takes, his ability to verbally counter punch with a snappy comeback or act the straight man, and his total believability and sincerity where required, this guy could act! it is a shame errol did not get a chance to do more roles like this throughout his career, he was multi-talented to the extreme. if you enjoyed 'it happened one night' with gable and colbert or some of the william powell and myrna loy comedies you will enjoy this.

well paced and lots of laughs. a lost diamond of a movie.


This movie is everything a Tenacious D fans can hope for. Director Liam Lynch partnered with The 'D' is a concoction of epic proportions. Of course you need to understand the humour and format of Tenacious D. When I saw it there wasn't too many laughs from the audience but the reason is not a lack of humour or intelligent jokes. This movie seems to have been released on to an unsuspecting public that haven't familiarised themselves with the musical duo. This movie does stay true to it's roots. For the few of you who have seen the HBO TV series and heard the album, they have not forgotten what their audience loves. Like the TV show people have noticed from the trailer the JB and KG apartment scenes and of course the open Mic nights that each Tenacious D episode would start and finish with. The soundtrack is phenomenal and each song blows you away.

...And Dave Grohl plays a fantastic Devil.

This is the perfect movie for those of you looking for a hard time and a rocking musical.


I've seen other Guinea Pig films, like Mermaid in a Manhole & He Never Dies, and while they're pretty sick, they at least have a bit of a sense of humor to them (however dark). Devil's Experiment though, is nothing more than filming a bunch of punks submitting a young girl to many methods of torture and violence and there's no plot and no redeeming values to it whatsoever. It isn't remotely scary, except for perhaps the mind-set, but it's definitely disgusting and I certainly would not call it entertainment. Now, I'm not the paragon of good taste in films and I like my trash and sleaze, but this was too much for me, really. I'm all for disturbing, in fact, I seek out things that are disturbing whenever possible, but this was a bit much. The young woman is kicked, beaten, submitted to continuous noise via headphones until she drools, and then pelted with raw meat and innards and left hanging in a hammock out in the woods somewhere. If you think that sounds great, go for it, but it certainly put me off viewing any more Guinea Pig stuff. 1 out of 10, absolutely nauseating.


'Die Sieger' was highly recommended to be one of the few good action movies made in Germany. I watched it last night and I must admit, that I am deeply disappointed. If that is supposed to be 'the last best hope' for entertaining and challenging German action cinema, well then there is not much left.

'Die Sieger' tries to be sexy, daring and furious but it is nothing of that kind. The characters are wooden and stereotype and whenever they do something unexpected (which doesn't happen too much) the act against their nature. That makes it hard - for me almost impossible - to follow them or even identify with them.

Most of all I think the film is very bad cast. There is not one character in whom I believe. Maybe the superior officer at the SWAT unit - but that's about it. Those people that try to look like or act like special units, like elite cops - I don't believe them. Not for a second.

The story is not so bad after all. But I think it's badly told. You don't get to know the bad guy at all - for example. And when after a 'very dark' show down Karl Simon (the good guy) asks his already dead opponent 'why? ... what for?' I did ask myself that very same question, knowing, that Dominik Graf wouldn't have the answer.

I sincerely hope - no - I believe that Germany can do better, even with action films.


I borrowed this movie from library think it might be delightful. How wrong am I!

It is such a bad movie that I have to write something about it. Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her. She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters. It is so ridiculous.

And the dialog of the film is so pretentious, and lack the humorous fact that make then acceptable.

Totally failure.


You would probably get something like this. I'm translating movies for a living and this is the first movie in my 5-year working experience that I found offensive to my intelligence. Of course, there are stupid Hollywood movies about drunken teenagers on a spring break, but those movies don't even claim to be serious works of art. But when someone strives for greatness and poetry, but delivers a muddled (and often ridiculous) story, a bunch of disparate scenes, pretentious dialogue... Then you get the worst kind of a movie that some other reviewer very accurately defined as 'pretentious crap'. To those who find this movie intelligent or even masterful, I can only say - it's your intelligence and your imagination you obviously used to try and make some sense of this pitiful attempt (it's in our human nature to try and make sense of things) .

One more thing: I can tolerate political incorrectness very well, I'm all for artistic freedom and suspension of disbelief, but the Slavic female character was just too much. I wish someone told the director that it's kind of ridiculous (even in an unrealistic art movie) to portray a Slavic woman as a half-articulate dishevelled creature connected to the forces of nature, probably due to the fact that she had spent her entire childhood looking at the stars and milking cows on a three-legged stool.


'The Screaming Skull' opens with a warning and an offer for free burial services if you should die watching it - Now there's a hook! The story itself has a fairly interesting premise for a horror flick: scheming husband marries a wealthy woman with a history of mental illness, then attempts to convince her that she's going insane with shrill noises, mysterious knocking and skulls that turn up at inopportune times. Add to the formula a sufficiently creepy gardener who still cherishes the memory of the man's first wife who he was devoted to. Maybe it's just that the 1950's didn't have the technology to pull off some of the scare scenes needed to juice up this movie, the techniques used here seem contrived and mundane. But then again, when I first saw 'House on Haunted Hill' as a nine year old, it gave me the heebie jeebies in the same way I'm sure this film did for young viewers of the same era.

Don't get me wrong, the film is not terrible, it just seems to get tedious at times. But there's some great atmospheric tension in the generally huge but unfurnished Whitlock home, and the gardens and pool are a nice touch. For me the best played out scene involves Eric Whitlock (John Hudson) going maniacal in the pond attempting to retrieve the hidden skull, he just wades right in clothes and all, in neat contrast to the mentally challenged gardener (director Alex Nicol in a dual role). It makes you wonder who the real dimwit was.

In it's own good way, perhaps the most shocking thing about the film: how about that neat roadster the Whitlock's make their first appearance in - gull wing doors in 1958! That at least made me jump out of my seat!


This is a plot driven movie and extremely entertaining. Nothing startling or original within the plot, but crucially, it moves along at a great pace and therefore keeps your attention. I didn't really notice the acting which I guess is a good thing. John Mills was fine but did seem to take everything in his stride somewhat considering how his life was falling apart around him. He would be clumped on the head, stand up 20 seconds later, dust himself down and carry on as if nothing had happened. A minor quibble in a film with a strong story, authentic locations and a plot that continually keeps you guessing right up to its conclusion.


This movie has everything a fantasy movie should have, romance, clever witticisms, great acting and a fair dose of magic.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and was drawn to its original plot (based on the Neil Gaiman novel which I am now looking to read) and colorful characters.

One of the most striking things to me actually was how self contained the story is. Unlike so many sci-fi fantasy movies out there right now which leave open-endings and such this was a pure fairy-tale, satisfying in and of itself with no need for a sequel.

Original. Fun. Feel-good Fantasy.


City Hall takes on the politics of a city rather than country, state or any sort of major political table. Granted it shines on New York City which is a huge political arena, especially nowadays, but it still goes for a smaller scale and puts the microscope on a few key players in a city wide scandal stumbled on by the mayor's right hand. Director Harold Becker is a director very familiar with elements of the thriller having done Mercury Rising, Malice, and Domestic Disturbance and I think in many ways he incorporates so many of the formulaic thriller genre that its almost to a fault. I mean City Hall is meant to be a political drama, not a thriller but instead when all is said and done and once you get to the meat and potatoes of the film it feels and looks like a thriller but a decent one at that with very important part of the recipe that immediately makes it stand out...what else...or rather who else...Al Pacino. The film begins by giving you a really good look at life in the mayoral office and the inner workings of the city. As the film continues it broadens its political spectrum to include a democratic boss, and his connections and then we are introduced to some of the goings on within the city. As events unfold a mystery begins and the political aspect is kind of left in the background but it still has a brilliant set up.

I absolutely hate talking about Al Pacino. I mean even if ONCE he didn't give a good performance how could I ever say it? The man is acting royalty. There is just something brilliant about his entire demeanor. In City Hall Pacino plays the New York City mayor. He has a sense of duty and honor and immediately appears to be a very upstanding politician. He also delivers one of the most powerful and outright engaging speeches I've ever seen at the 'James Bone' Funeral. I re-watched that speech four times and the first time I watched Pacino give it, my mouth gaped open and I almost wanted to stand up and applaud. Its brilliantly written and brilliantly delivered by Pacino. John Cusack, who I really do enjoy as an actor, turns in a mediocre and overdone performance as the deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun. He is kind of the focus of the film and him and Pacino have good chemistry together when they are on screen but there is just something in this performance...he seems like he's trying too hard. His accent is just bizarre, and although he is supposed to be cutthroat and intimidating he doesn't get seem to pull it off. Maybe he was having an off film. Bridget Fonda, on her way out of her high point stardom does an okay job as attorney for police widows Marybeth Cogan. Her performance is very similar to Cusack's in that she just doesn't seem to find her groove with this character. Danny Aiello is terrific although his character is a little under explored as democratic boss with ties to the mafia Frank Anselmo. Martin Landau makes a decent cameo as Judge under scrutiny Walter Stern.

The problem with City Hall is evident in my review of the characters and actors. Everyone is...okay. There is a lot of back story that they try to bring out without actually showing it and it unfortunately leaves you just a little bit confused about the whole conspiracy. And of course you have Al Pacino in a rather small supporting role but he's absolutely brilliant at it and outshines and overshadows every other actor in the film. It almost feels like maybe they are intimidated by him being on screen with them. So City Hall could have been this huge political epic drama/thriller but it felt cut and toned down to an average run of the mill one BUT it still has to be seen for Pacino and a different spin on the inner working of politics. If you just won't see this movie than find Pacino's speech at James Bone funeral because the word electrifying doesn't seem to give it justice but you can see what makes Al Pacino so incredible because in a mediocre film he pulls out this wallop of a speech and makes you feel it. If you're a John Cusack fan which I am...he's definitely done better but he is the main character and all in all he does get his justice. A decent movie but unfortunately potential loss. 7.5/10


The movie Heart of Darkness is an insult to the book by Joseph Conrad! To be quite honest the movie made me want to fall asleep. On the other hand, the book was definitely extraordinary. I feel that the movie left out several key elements and missed some of the main points from the book. In addition, the actors were boring and lacked originality and enthusiasm.

The book, while not an adventure story or easy to understand, is full of hidden meaning and interesting twists in the plot. The book, though very confusing and complex, is astonishing. When you do finally understand it, you feel as if you have actually learned something. The novella, or short story, had several key ideas like futility and craziness, which the movie left out. In addition, several key scenes were changed, which in return affected the entire plot. Many of the scenes seemed to be very 'choppy', in the sense that they did not fit together. In summary, the movie seemed to be a bad interpretation of the book.

I would only recommend watching this movie if you cannot picture or understand the book, but otherwise I would skip this one. It was dreadful, and in complete disarray. If you have never read the book then, definitely do not watch the movie because you need the basic information from the book to understand the movie. The movie was a horrible spin-off of an outstanding and detailed book.


Forget everything that you have ever read about the Mallachi Brothers' straight-to-video release 'Snakes on a Train,' especially if it was a negative review. This movie is way more fun than the movie that it obviously rips off: 'Snakes on a Plane.' Frankly, I am surprised that more people aren't rhapsodizing about this low-budget Asylum Release. Instead, most reviews that I've read have nothing kind or critically worthwhile to say except the usual stupid herd mentality idiocy, such as the acting was amateurish, the action didn't numerically live up to the advertising, and the entire thing amounted to a hideous waste of time. Of course, it doesn't help that the title is a tip-off to the obvious rip-off nature of this film. Actually, I felt that 'Snakes on a Train' surpassed 'Snakes on a Plane' for a number of reasons.

First, the producers used real, genuine snakes until the last fifteen minutes when they substituted either giant fake snake heads or computer generated a super-giant snake that consumed an entire Amtrak like train. How many movies have a snake gobble a train? As a result, 'Snakes on a Train' ranks as the first movie to scale that height.

Second, this low-budget movie employs some grisly gross-out effects. The woman who coughs up baby snakes--real ones--was fantastic! The special effects of her forearms getting tore up later in the movie were visually enticing! Also, you get to see a little white girl get eaten alive by a snake. She was as cute as she could be, no more than 10 years old or thereabouts, and she died screaming all the way as nasty olé giant mister snake head swallows her. Not only kids in jeopardy but kid eaten! This is exactly the kind of graphic material that you won't find in 99 % of all theatrical Hollywood releases. Of course, she wasn't eaten by a real snake, but it's the subversive thought that counts.

Third, it is one of those cursed upon movies where Alma (Julia Ruiz of 'That Guy'), the chief female character--no heroine--has a curse placed on her by her parents because she didn't marry the man that they recommended. As a result, she is filled with snakes, coughs up quantities of green radiator fluid slop then chucks up a baby snake. Imagine Medusa, the mythical characters that had snakes for hair, only with the snakes in her belly. Her psycho-shaman type boyfriend collects all the snakes that come out of her because they are heading to L.A. on a train to see a relative of his who can put all the snakes back inside of her and return her to normal. Talk about a whacked out character performing stomach churning routines. Prepare yourself for lots of slime, blood, and gore.

Fourth, the train had only about twenty or so passengers, not hundreds. Nevertheless, it looked like the Mallachi Brothers filmed this above-average horror flick on-board a real train with real snakes and they played up the swaying motion of the train on the tracks.

Fifth, the snakes slither around for the first hour, quietly infiltrating the train before they turn weird and attack everybody. In other words, it's suspense, suspense, suspense, before people start dying from snake bites.

Up until the last five minutes when the snake grows bigger than the runaway train and swallows it, 'Snakes on a Train' is warped, wonderful, and way-out. It doesn't have the Attention Deficit editing of a big league Hollywood movie. It's a fantasy about an unfortunate Hispanic women victimized because of her feminist, at-odds-with-society attitude.

Altogether, you've got gory fantasy type stuff; suspenseful snakes slithering around the train, and am over-the-top gigantic snake at the end. Incidentally, they get on board the train because a bunch of other Mexicans have bribed a train employee and the Mexicans on board think that the girl is so cute that they let her and her boyfriend on free.

I think it's better than 'Snakes on a Plane' if you want a tough, little, independently produced horror movie.


this film has no plot, no good acting, to be honest it has nothing, the same songs play over and over awful acting and if you can actually sit there and watch the whole thing and enjoy it there is something wrong with you. I wish i could give this 0 out of 10 but i cant so it has to be a 1 which is generous! ice-t isn't even a good rapper and even worse at acting, every bit of the film is rubbish, i got this film on DVD without knowing what it was for the price of £1.99 and thought that i had picked up a bargain, i then looked at the IMDb rating and didn't take it into consideration but after watching it found out that the DVD i had bought was a complete waste of time, money and electricity. if you have this film there are two things you can do sell it to someone who doesn't know about it or burn it!


Two things haunt you throughout L'intrus (The Intruder): who's the intruder and is it a movie or a dream you're watching? The ending is so shocking that for a while you're at a loss for an answer to either of those questions. The intruder pops up as different characters, different men in different circumstances who don't belong in the scene, so they're expelled from it, kindly or brutally, but often without emotional involvement. The main character, Louis, is a contemptible man. He's got rough ways, some mean job and no heart. He needs one and goes after it. He has a heart transplanted and afterwards decides to start a new life. Can this man succeed in his quest for redemption? A guy like that could cut your throat at the drop of a hat. You know it but Claire Denis doesn't encourage you to judge him. Occasionally, there's a young Russian woman -a beautiful girl who seems to inhabit someplace between heaven and earth - who does judge him. She may even punish him. But not Denis. There's the character played by Beatrice Dalle who wants no business with him: don't touch me, she says. But Denis lets this man be himself, films him in his self-absorbed quest. I don't know if what she films is the heart or the mind but it isn't the traditional plot basics. Whatever she films, you get it in the end. You know who's 'the' intruder, you know why, more or less, and some scenes come back to your mind with their full meaning. But was it a movie or a dream?


'The Triumph of Love' doesn't triumph over anything. It is a plodding, ponderous, 4 hours of torture. Actually it's a little less than 2 hours long, it just seemed much longer. It pains me to even think about the amateurish performances of such fine actors as Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw. The supporting players are not quite as awful. Maybe they were trying to be so over the top, so as to be clownish, but, if so, I didn't see it that way. Mira Sorvino doesn't make an impression one way or the other. She(he)'s just there. My guess is, the play of the same name, written by Marivaux some 270 or so years ago, is much better. It couldn't be any worse. Clare Peploe, the writer and director of this movie, was inspired by a recent production of the play. I don't know what she was thinking when she created this bomb.

Maybe it all got lost in the translation.


Sly Stallone is hardly the finest actor in the world but compared to his brother, Frank...well, roll out those awards now! Mullet haired, muppet Frank seems to think that every part he plays, calls for him doing the role as an American/Italian Wise-guy refugee from the 'Godfather.' Please, somebody make him an acting offer 'he can refuse!' This film just stinks the place out, even by the terrible overacting in this, Frank still steals the acting dishonours. All the people compensate for their lack of talent by shouting their lines and throwing their arms about, gesticulating wildly in a style that went out of fashion back with silent films.

The plot, what there, is, makes no sense as a meteor lands and turns all the women into sex-crazed nymphets but as this is 15 certificate film, that just means they strip to their underwear and make moaning sounds like dogs on heat. What happens in the end, I'm not quite sure as I was losing the will to live long before the film finished.

Avoid this like the plague and watch 'Deep Impact' for a reasonable film about a meteor about to hit the earth.

N.B. Point of order: when one of the female leads strips down to her underwear, she has her knickers/panties under her suspenders/garter belt, it's knickers over the suspenders to allow women to go to the toilet with less fuss. A trivial point, perhaps, but shows how dumb this film is when they can't even get this right!


I give the show a six because of the fact that the show was in fact a platform for Damon Wayans as the Cosby Show was for Bill Cosby, it dealt with a lot of issues with humor and I felt that it in fact tailored to getting a laugh as opposed to letting the jokes come from the character.

Michael Kyle An interesting patriarch and a wisecracking person. He is PHENOMENAL in movies, but in the show he was there for the wisecrack and though I loved it, I felt that the laugh was more important than plausibility.

Jay Kyle I have loved her since House Party and have enjoyed her in School Daze and Martin, this was a great role for her and she made a great choice in picking this sitcom to co-star in. I also feel that Jay and Michael were more like equals in the show but Jay was more the woman who fed her crazy husbands the lines and went along with his way of unorthodox discipline because she may have felt that it worked

Jr Just plain stupid, his character should have been well developed and even though he does have his moments of greatness, we are returned to the stupidity as if he learned nothing, which drives me nuts!!!!!!!! Not to mention that most of the situations (in episodes I've seen) seems to center around him

Clair The attractive sister who dated a Christian, I found her boyfriend's character to be more interesting than she was (she'd be better off sticking to movies, the writers should have done more to show her intelligence but it's not stereotypical enough)

Kady Lovable and the youngest daughter. I think the writers established her character most on the show aside from the parents and Franklin

Franklin I LOVE this character and I think they derived it from Smart Guy (T.J. Mowry) which only lasted one season. They did a great job of casting for this little genius (the effort would have been made if Jr would have been the smart one but show the down sides also)

All in all, this sitcom is a wonderful thing and it's homage to the Cosby Show is well done, I love the show and wished it would have stayed on longer than that. I can't wait to see the series finale


If you enjoy the original SNL cast and shows then avoid this movie at all costs. When this first came out my friends and I waited in line for over an hour to get in to a sold out movie house. half way through the movie the theatre was 3/4 empty. We refused to leave thinking it would get better. When the movie ended we were the only ones left in the theatre. The movie lasted only one day in all theaters then vanished from sight. In interviews with 'Mr. Mike' he refused to comment on this film. The film was an inside joke on the episodes of SNL that came out right after the films release and closing in one day. We all tried to contact 'Mr. Mike' by phone and mail to get a refund but were totally ignored.


I almost didn't rent this because of all the bad comments but did anyways.I thought it was similar to darkness falls which i also liked. The only part i hated about the tooth ferry was the 2 red neck brothers at the gas station.They were funny and the dialog made me laugh but this was not a comedy. It ruined the movie a bit for me because it was unnecessary.The rest of the movie was the way a horror or suspense film should be. The make-up was good and I have seen way worse movies then this one. It was a simple story with believable acting.It's not the scariest or goriest movie, but I wasn't ticked off or wanting a refund after watching it. On the DVD there was previews of other movies that all look good and i'm gonna check them out.


In celebration of Earth Day Disney has released the film 'Earth'. Stopping far short of any strident message of gloom and doom, we are treated to some excellent footage of animals in their habitats without feeling too bad about ourselves.

The stars of the show are a herd of elephants, a family of polar bears and a whale and its calf. The narrative begins at the North Pole and proceeds south until we reach the tropics, all the while being introduced to denizens of the various climatic zones traversed.

Global warming is mentioned in while we view the wanderings of polar bear; note is made of the shrinking sea ice islands in more recent years. We never see the bears catch any seals, but the father's desperate search for food leads him to a dangerous solution.

The aerial shots of caribou migrating across the tundra is one of the most spectacular wildlife shots I ever saw; it and another of migrating wildfowl are enough to reward the price of admission to see them on the big screen.

One of the disappointments I felt was that otherwise terrific shots of great white sharks taking seals were filmed in slow motion. Never do you get the sense of one characteristic of wild animals; their incredible speed. The idea of slowing down the film to convey great quickness I think began with (or at least it's the first I recall seeing) the television show 'Kung Fu' during the early Seventies.

An interesting sidelight is that as the credits roll during the end some demonstrations of the cinematographic techniques employed are revealed. There are enough dramatic, humorous and instructive moments in this movie to make it a solid choice for nature buffs. Perhaps because of some selective editing (sparing us, as it were, from the grisly end of a prey-predator moment) and the fact that this footage had been released in 2007 and is available on DVD it is a solid film in its own right. And you can take your kids!

Three stars.


If you didn't enjoy this movie, either your dead, or you hate Adam Sandler or Don Cheadle.

An Excellent cast, all of who gave good performances. This movie proved that Adam Sandler is good actor, despite what critics say. Adam Sandler is becoming a very well respected actor. It all started with his performance in Big Daddy, then he did a couple bad movies, then he broke through with terrific performance in 50 First Dates, The Longest Yard, then Click, and now Reign Over Me.

Back to the movie. Adam Sandler plays a man who has lost everything. The closest thing to family he has are a mother-in-law and father-in-law. After his old college roommate (Cheadle) ran into him, he seems to turn his life around. I will say no more, because I do not want to ruin the movie, but I strongly recommend this movie. One of the best movies of 2007.


First off, I would like to point out that the reason why I gave this movie 1 star out of 10 is because there is no option to give it NO stars! it really is that bad! I was never eager to see this film after I saw the ads for it, I ended up seeing it only by chance because some friends of mine had tickets and had one spare so I tagged along. Before seeing it I had a fairly good idea that it wouldn't be genius - the premise seemed far too silly and stupid for anything good to come out of it, but at the back of my mind I was thinking 'but there must be something good about it for UMA THURMAN and Luke Wilson do to the film...' not that I think either of them are particularly terrific but they are big-named stars who would normally only do films that would enhance their reputations. However, about 10-20 minutes into the feature I realized that the movie was probably worse than I had at first anticipated. I was shocked at how terrible the script was. It really gave the actors NOTHING to work with, so much so that they really looked like they didn't know what they were doing (especially Luke Wilson). The story was completely predictable - if you've seen the ad then you've pretty much seen the movie! And there was nothing original about it - it pretty much borrows from every 'super-hero' story that has ever been which would be acceptable had the film been set up as a satire of that genre, but alas it wasn't. The direction seemed to be of realism. I got the feeling that the director wanted the film to feel completely realistic and not satire at all, and yet there were some moments in the film that were so unbelievably unrealistic that it would have worked if it were a satire. At one moment in the movie two of the characters seem to die and one of the surviving characters has a line like 'Oh well, she's dead...time to move on' and he says it in such a droll voice that it completely didn't make any sense. I found myself checking my watch after about 40 minutes to see how much longer I would have to sit through it. And then it struck me...I began to think 'I wonder if the studio have made this picture as a test to see if they can make the worst possible movie ever made, and still pull a large audience...' I couldn't think of any other reason why this film would be made. For movies to be made these days, the script goes to a massive screening process and very very few scripts actually make it to the production stage...I can't comprehend how this one got past the first draft stage... By the end, and exceedingly, dumb-founding-Ly stupid climax, I was laughing heartily - just not at what the film-makers wanted me to laugh at, but instead at how ridiculous and stupid the movie was. Thank God I didn't have to pay money to see it...because that would have really annoyed me!!! Oh, and could I just add, that of the two Wilson brothers, I have always preferred Luke because I think he is a better, more versatile actor...but if he wants to step even further into OWEN's shadow then this is exactly the way to do it...I doubt that he will get many more job offers after this crappy waste of 2 hours!!! and remember, it only got a generous 1/10 because I couldn't select 0!


Holy crap. This was the worst film I have seen in a long time. All the performances are fine, but there is no plot. Really! No plot! A bunch of clowns talk about this and that and that's your film. Ug... Robert Duvall's character is senile and keeps asking the same people the same qestions over and over. This earns him the same responses over and over. I am pretty sure this film got upto a six because people think they should like it. Good performances with famous and well regarded actors, but the actual complete work is a steamy turd. Well, maybe that's a bit deceptive since steam rising from a fresh pile sounds a little like something happening and in this film NOTHING HAPPENS! Sack


This movie possesses something most other movies of its genre do not: intelligence and good messages. Accepted, is the story of a kid named Bartleby (Justin Long) who gets rejected by every college he applies to. His parents are incredibly strict, frustrated and disappointed. So, Bartleby and a few other students who face similar problems start a fake college, to pawn themselves off to their parents as college kids. Not everything goes to plan, and the movie is about them winging it. But behind this plot which sounds ridiculous, there are good messages, morals and a new outlook on the American educational system. The college they create 'South Harmon Institute of Technology' accepts those who did not get accepted anywhere else. The message is that you do not need 'money, tradition, or fancy books- you just need a desire to better yourself.' they are a completely unorthodox school, but what the movie teaches is that thats still OK- and different (whether its a person or a school) is not necessarily bad, and that every one no matter should be given the chance to better themselves- despite whether they are 'weird.' its a message of non-comformity and has traces of anti-authority sprinkled in as well. But not only are messages great- its hilarious! haha i laughed very hard. the humor can be subtle but can also be blatant as well, and is a great mix. Fraternities beware.


I LOVE this movie....one of my all-time favorites!!! This was the first big screen movie my mom took me to see when I was 9. I highly recommend it to every african-american. This story is about love, trust, challenges, and everyday life of a black family. All the actors worked well together. I wish it was on video, but as of yet, it is not available that I know of. I caught it on television a few years ago, and recorded it, so whenever I get the urge to watch it...I have it! The soundtrack is awesome too! A must-see!


There is not a single sympathetic character in this entire movie. Is it the lawyer played by Kenneth Branagh that we're supposed to be pulling for? Well, let's see -- we learn he's a sleazebag defense attorney who gets criminals off on technicalities. He treats his coworkers like cattle, gets them involved in his own personal crisis (in the process, getting one of them killed), jeopardizes the safety of his kids, threatens his ex-wife's new boyfriend, tries to strong-arm the police and school administrators -- and all this for what? Because he was THINKING WITH HIS LITTLE HEAD! I was really pulling for the father and his gang to beat the stuffing out of the lawyer and drown him in the swamp...it would have made for a far more satisfying ending.


This movie made me very happy. It's impossible not to love the smart and sweet orphan girl who changes the heart of a selfish lawyer only interested in pursuing success in her career. This is a very optimistic movie and I sincerely believe that we need more films like Curly Sue. It touched my heart.


Veber is not renown for his outstanding directorial skills. In fact nobody cares as long as they got the laughs, quite a few here to be honest, scattered in the whole process, thanks to Depardieu's half-wit characterization and the dialogue Veber puts in his mouth.

But this is not enough to make a great comedy since there's no movie outside of the usual Veber premise: a tough guy is doomed to team up with a very naive character. In L'Emmerdeur, La Chèvre or Les Compères there was a real story going on over the fire vs. water proceedings. Le Diner de cons, although it was a play, managed to create a real suspense about the next catastrophe Pinon would cause. In Tais-toi the backstory about the vengeance is both redundant and too weak to arouse our interest. Plus the heavies are lame both on screen and in the script.

Now what's wrong? Veber wraps this up creating no action, no rhythm. Instead he uses systematically and overuses ellipses (maybe he met William Goldman in Hollywood) and the 'music' really stresses that lack of nerve and a backbone in the story.

So you'll have to be content with Depardieu's performance.


One of the few reasons to make these pointlss films is to give some actors a chance to hopefully star in better films if they're acting is any good. The only good thing in this movie is the acting, the three female leads are better than most horror films like this. There's 2 scenes that may cause an unexpected jump.

Young small children are use to crawl through holes and lay dynamite to explode mines. When one does collapse causing a cave in all the children die, becoming zombies. The adults in the mine stay dead, no reasons are given as why the children become flesh eaters. When still alive they looked terrified before the cave in, innocent, so they must become enraged at any adult which exploited them int he mines (only reason that come to mind).

A mother and her 2 daughters move into a house near the mine, along with a land devoloper who wants to build a resort and another of those creepy people who seem to know exactly what's going on yet no one believes him.

Nothing new here, you're usual clichés, predictable, a lot of negatives for this film, very few positives.


(Honestly, Barbra, I know it's you who's klicking all those 'NO's on my review. 22 times?? How many people did you have to instruct to help you out here? Don't you have anything better to do, like look at yourself in the mirror all day?)

Steven Spielberg told Barbra that this was 'the best movie I've seen since 'Citizen Kane''. That pretty much says it all - and serves as a dire warning!

What are the ingredients for a sure-fire cinematic disaster, and one that will haunt you, never letting you forget the tears of both laughter and pain? The ingredients: Barbra Streisand's face, a musical, feminism, Barbra Streisand's voice, Barbra Streisand directing, and an ultra-corny/idiotic premise.

Hollywood is full of egomaniacs, this much we know. In fact, nearly everyone  by definition  has to be an egomaniac in Hollywood. Why would anyone want to act? For the 'art'?!? Well, if you're dumb enough to believe what they tell you in their carefully prepared interviews And Streisand has the biggest ego of them all! This is quite an achievement. To be surrounded by narcissistic cretins, and yet to manage to top them all  remarkable.

The movie, like all her 'solo' endeavors, is an ego trip straight out of hell. Every scene Streisand is in is automatically ruined. Stillborn. But as it that weren't enough, she sings a whole bunch of Streisandy songs  you know, the kind that enabled the Mariah Careys, the Celine Dions, and the Whitney Hustons of this world to poison our precious air-waves for decades now. Just for that she deserves not one but 100 South Park episodes mocking her.

The premise, Streisand dressing up as a man to study to become a rabbi, sounds like a zany ZAZ comedy. Apart from it being a cliché, the obvious problem is that Streisand doesn't look like a woman nor does she look like a man  in fact I'm not even sure she's human. The way she looks in this movie, well it cannot be described in words. E.T. looks like a high-school jock by comparison. She looks more alien than Michael Jackson in the year 2015. She looks HORRIBLE.

The songs. They made me shiver. Particularly 'Papa Can You Hear Me Squeel Like A Demented Female Walrus In Heat?' and 'Tomorrow Night I'll Prepare the Sequel, YENTL 2: THE RETURN OF THE BITCH'.

Did you know that Streisand considered having a nose-job early on in her career, but changed her mind when they told her her voice might change? Can you believe that? She should have done it! Killing two flies with one swipe, that's what it would have been.

If you're interested in reading my biographies of Barbra Streisand and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail.

SHOULD BARBRA STREISAND FINALLY GO INTO RETIREMENT? CLICK 'YES' OR 'NO'.


Marjorie (a splendid and riveting performance by Farrah Fawcett) narrowly avoids being assaulted in her car by vicious serial rapist Joe (superbly played with frightening conviction and intensity by James Russo). However, Joe steals her wallet and finds out where Marjorie lives. He pays her a visit one fateful day. After subjecting Marjorie to plenty of degradation and psychological abuse, Marjorie manages to turn the tables on Joe and locks him in the fireplace. What is Marjorie going to do with Joe? Director Robert M. Young and screenwriter William Mastrosimone concoct a harsh, gritty and often disturbing morality tale that astutely nails the stark brutality and painful debasement of rape while also showing how any person when pushed to extremes is capable of shocking acts of violence and inhumanity. Joe perceives women strictly as objects while Marjorie only sees Joe as an 'animal.' However, this movie to its admirable credit refuses to make Joe out to be simply a vile one-dimensional creep; instead he's a terrifyingly real and ultimately pitiable human monster with a wife and kid (Joe's climactic confession in particular is genuinely poignant). Fawcett and Russo are both outstanding in the leads; they receive fine support from Diana Scarwid as the passive Terry, Alfre Woodard as the sensible Patricia, and Sandy Martin as sympathetic policewoman Officer Sudow. Both Curtis Clark's agile cinematography and J.A.C. Redford's shivery, skin-crawling score greatly enhance the considerable claustrophobic tension. A real powerhouse.


Picture the scene: A bored student with an empty day ahead, A video shop with a special offer of 5 video for a week rentals. This ex-student usually just grabbed a pile of videos of dubious quality for the most arbitrary of reasons (The Turning anybody?). Occasionally the odd undiscovered gem did make it into his VCR - this being the case with this film. Everything about the film is good, but much more than this the parts all mesh to provide something all too rare - a cracking good film. Why this never got a UK cinema release is beyond me, especially when we consider the crap that we have to wade through at the multiplex week on week. Whilst I'll happily accept this isn't Oscar material (but neither was sodding Titanic - schmaltzy cgi-tinged bollocks) it is a an extremely enjoyable film. I was trying to think of a way to describe how best this film should be appreciated/accepted - The perfect film to watch while bonding with your Dad, after a coming home for the holidays, after a large Sunday lunch.


I came across The Last Stop one day at a video store and they were selling it for only $2. I decided to give it a try and bought it. It was pretty good, i enjoyed it. The story is about several people all caught in a cabin somewhere in nowhere because of a raging blizzard. There is a police officer, nancy,his ex girlfriend, two brothers that just got out of jail, a older man and his lover, a black man and the couple that owns the cabins and their retarted son that never speaks. Suddenly someone is found to be murdered and a bag full of cash is found. Everyone is a suspect. The Last Stop is a pretty good thriller, i would give it 8/10


Lets enter the world of this movie for a second, so you can better understand the type of movie we are dealing with here.

Edison is one of those really stupid movies where the bad guy and his goons have been letting loose 50,000 bullets shooting at the good guy behind walls and pillars, shouting at them, and then finally get to the good guy face to face and instead of killing him......instead of wasting this guy that has caused you SO MUCH grief....instead of just walking up and POP!.....What do you do? The bad guy.....he talks to him. He grabs the good guy and talks to him while holding his gun. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT! SHOOT HIM! SHOOT HIM NOW! But he talks to him anyway. Oh another thing. At the end, a newspaper says 'PULITZER PRIZE WINNER STORY RIGHT HERE' or something right above on a front page of a paper, when its like the first time the story is printed. So how in the heezy did someone win a Pulitzer for it that fast? Yea, you know those types of stupid movies? Yea well that's Edison in a nutshell.

You get Mr cool Morgan Freeman and shifty eyed tough Kevin Spacey who both phone in their roles completely, LL Cool J who scowls literally every single moment of the movie,while proposing to his girlfriend in a damn night club of all places,and who's last line 'Duck' was something from like a lethal weapon movie that was never made... and Justin Timberlake whining and spewing nonsense every time he talks, little cocky bastard.The only bright spot was a crazy Dylan McDermott doing his best 'Denzel from Training Day' impression, which was pretty entertaining.

Oh yea so whats the movie about? Eh, something about scandals involving the city Edison's fictional special unit police force called 'F.R.A.T. (I swear I'm not making this stuff up) which was supposed to be a obvious play off of S.W.A.T. Anyway little journalistic super singer boy Justin Timberflake smells something foul afoot after a murder involving 2 undercover cops from FRAT, and he goes scurrying off looking for a story, gaining his boss' (Freeman) trust along the way while they both unravel something even bigger and sinister than what they both thought. blah blah blah. Its like a bootleg pelican brief meets a halfassed training day.The pacing was slow and off, the script was horrible, and the acting was extremely uninspired. It jumped everywhere without going anywhere. People get put in comas and you forget about them. Everyone in this movie just didn't THINK. Damn what a stupid movie. Its becoming harder to write any sort of review for it because the movie left my brain the second it ended...No lie Basically, do NOT waste your time!