This satire is just really, really dead-on, and nobody is spared. But even though this movie has plenty of laughs within the silly story and the grotesque imitation of Hitler (here cleverly renamed as 'Hynkel', and speaking in a hilarious kind of pseudo-German), the general tone is pretty sad, maybe because of the movie's place in history. And the actors aren't even exaggerating that much I suppose. One of the greatest movie moments of all time must be the Jewish barber's ending speech, if only things could have ended in that way. It's not even really the character talking anymore, it's Chaplin saying something he really wanted to say. If you ignore the technical aspects, the movie doesn't feel dated or old, it actually moves at a pretty nice pace. And the sharp humor we find everywhere in this work will never die, the only thing I don't care for is the slapstick, but that just comes with the era I suppose. This is an incredibly daring, harsh take on fascism, it's so hard-hitting still after all these years.


WTF!! Do any of his books/movies end in a happy ending?? The Notebook was good...but sheesh, enough with the depressing endings already. I'm told that he writes about realistic situations that people deal with in real life. Understandable...but sometimes it's nice to see people who have sacrificed their whole lives to only get to a mediocre unhappy time in their lives - to finally find the true meaning of happiness and are able to live it out for the rest of their days. Don't we already know what really happens in real life? Can't we - for one moment (an hour and a half) live vicariously through a movie that ends on a happy note - that gives us hope for our own futures???

Yeah - wah. I know. But for real, I think we need to preface movies that end like this one with a warning. 'Beware: No happy ending.'


How is this a documentary? Much more like a walking ghost tour one might take in any given Southern city. Quotes were generously dropped throughout without the first effort at identifying the source. George Orwell was the most identified quoter.

Documents were referred to without ever being produced in any form. Flat out fraudulent shots depicting period film stock were spliced aside historical film reels with no separation from reality and self-promotion. Film reels which were entirely unrealistic and improbable for the time at hand were dropped in, as if trying to ape Blair Witch, hoping to drum up a spook house on what would otherwise simply be dead real estate.

Is this not in some way a great disrespect to actual victims of TB, a dance on their collective graves for the sake of commercialism? The line between actual footage and manufactured self-service is so thin; the drippings of doubt so insignificantly played down; the scientific boundaries so blatantly ignored... how could this possibly be listed in my TiVo as documentary?

It's a vacation promo, and at that it fully succeeds.

Hell, I'd visit the joint if I could locate it on Google Earth. Not scary said a previous poster. Not too serious either, says I. Fascinating story. Flimsy film-making.


Unfortunately, many great films on IMDb such as this one have their scores 'adjusted' by IMDb. This is truly a fine and intriguing film by the accomplished director of Bonnie and Clyde, Little Big Man, Night Moves, Mickey One, and The Chase.

If you click in the user rating area, you'll see that the actual median for Four Friends is 7.6. However, IMDb has 'adjusted' (dumbed down?) the rating to 6.4.

Per IMDb: 'IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it....The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective.' In other words, we won't disclose our methods, so you can't question how we arrived at the score! What a shame to see fine thought-provoking films like Four Friends fare no better than lame formulaic comedies due to IMDb's 'filters'.


GRANNY IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER Ganny is the best movie i have ever seen. the plot was like nothing ever seen or done before these people are truly blessed with a talent no joke i love this movie. i need to buy it but i cant find at any place. it is a dream for me to go and meet the actors and try and do a granny 2.i rented GRANNY at Broadway video and kept it for a week longer than i should have and asked them if i could buy it off of them they said no a big disappointment and an even bigger one the week after i returned it i wanted to go and rent it again but come to find out Broadway video was out of business. if anyone has the movie or knows where i can buy it at then please tell me write to me at iloverot@aol.com


I've been a devoted IMDB visitor for a few years. This is the movie that finally compelled me to write in a review.

I caught this movie by chance (the opening credits happened to be scrolling past when I turned my TV on one morning). I thoroughly enjoyed the film for many reasons, all of which have been well covered by other reviewers -- the moodiness, the forgotten history of the Czech pilots, the subtle charm of the supporting characters, the fatalism of the main characters, and the first person view during the battle scenes.

But the element of 'Dark Blue World' that really stood out was the lack of dramatic effects, especially during combat (and this is a good thing!). While the pilots were flying in battle no musical score accompanied them, no manipulative shots of worried spouses/girlfriends were interwoven, every little aerial maneuver did not elicit trite patriotic cheers, and viewers weren't asked to swallow unbelievable James Bond-esque pilot heroics. Instead the audience is allowed to feel the melancholy, fear and isolation of these single pilot fighters while they try to stay aloft during combat. As comrades are shot down we are spared tearful howls and the typical (but audience pleasing) revenge based heroics. Instead the other pilots sadly and quietly observe their fellow pilot's fate -- in reality they still need to remain intensely focused on their own safety and objectives at that very moment. We only briefly experience the pilot's breathing and the background roar of the engines as we, the audience, witness a friend spiral quietly down to his death. And then immediately 'we' need to jump back into combat mode and focus on survival.

Too often in Hollywood we're spoon-fed the emotions we're supposed to feel and no room is left for the viewer's imagination. 'Dark Blue World' maintains a sparseness that captivates and involves the viewer, allowing us to invest in the movie and fill in the gaps and spaces using our own thoughts and feelings.

Excellent film, well worth seeing.


Lame is really the best way to describe this movie. It has a real poor script, uninteresting dialog and characters and it's lacking in basically everything else as well.

There are too many characters and problem is that you don't care about any of them. What the movie is lacking is one good and clear main character. Instead now the movie has a bit of everything, it has a bit of an hero, it has a bit of a love interest and it has a bit of villain. I wish it only had a bit less Ghoulies though, fore they are just mostly very annoying in this movie.

Ghoulies are supposed to be devilish creatures, who murder for pleasure. In this movie however all they want to do is drink beer and watch naked college girls. Besides, someone had the 'brilliant' idea to let the Ghoulies be able to talk this time. This works out really poorly and annoying. The Ghoulie-puppets had been definitely upgraded for this movie and they are more detailed looking and are able to do more, however at the same time they are way more fake looking than the ones from the previous Ghoulies movies.

It's obvious that the aim for this movie was more comedy than horror this time. The movie is like a lame '80's high-school comedy (even though this movie got released in 1991). It's humor is really the worst and most lame thing about the entire movie. It's so incredibly annoying and simply not funny at all.

The story is not going anywhere with its story and the movie is just basically one big mess, that never seems to end. The Ghoulies plot line seems basically to have nothing to do at all with the other plot lines of the movie, involving the human characters. The movie is not at all about the Ghoulies terrorizing a college, with the humans trying to hunt them down and stop their rampage. No big surprise that this is Brent Olson's only written movie as of yet. He simply has no talent for it and I think that he has discovered this as well and has gone back to college himself instead.

Even when compared to the previous Ghoulies movies; this movie is just simply terrible!

2/10


As good an advert for republicanism as you're ever likely to see,'Mayerling'is an everyday story of royal folk in late nineteenth century Austria.Set during one of Europe's seemingly incessant internal turmoils it concerns itself with the Emperor Franz Joseph (Mr James Mason),his rebellious son,the Crown Prince Rudolf (Mr Omar Sharif)the Empress(Miss Ava Gardner) and various mistresses,secret policemen,spies,extravagantly-uniformed popinjays,gypsies,dancers,wives, soldiers,swans,horses and the bizarre inbred web of European royalty at the time of Franz Joseph's Austro-Hungarian Empire. Filmed in what the old movie posters used to call 'A Riot of Color' it resembles nothing more than an expensively-dressed but intellectually-challenged production of 'The Student Prince' .Mr James Mason,wearing a very natty little white number,utilises his all-purpose mittel-European accent whenever he remembers.I am a great admirer of his and I sincerely hope the remuneration was comensurate with the distaste he clearly felt for the character he was playing. Mr Omar Sharif,who built a career largely founded on looking directly at the camera with his big brown eyes and looking soulful,gives a stupefyingly monotonous performance as his son the Crown Prince.He is utterly unconvincing as a man who -in the movie at least-cut a swathe through the distaff side of the Austrian aristocracy.With his well-buttered locks firmly in place he preens and poses in ever more unlikely uniforms.As a rebel he talks the talk but conspicuously fails to walk the walk,leaving a bottom button undone on one of his tunics is about as far as his defiance goes.Unhappily married,he falls in love with a commoner.'Forbidden Love' is one of the movie's come-ons.As she is played by the most uncommon Miss Catherine Deneuve he is scarcely pushing the envelope there.Miss Deneuve has a profile to die for and we see rather a lot of it,particularly in the sequence set at the ballet. Now I love ballet as much as the next man,but this sequence does seem to go on for an excessive amount of time,a more cynical critic might consider it to be 'padding'. Rudolf's mother,the Empress is played by Miss Ava Gardner.She gives the part some good old American oooomph,making her a bit like 'Auntie Mame',but it's done with undeniable style.Rudolf is certainly very fond of his mother - I'll put it no more strongly than that. The only performance worth watching is that of Mr James Robertson Justice as Sir Lancelot Spratt - sorry,Edward,Prince of Wales.He is so wonderfully unconcerned about everything going on around him it's a joy to behold.I waited vainly for him to ask Rudolf the immortal question 'What's the bleeding time?'. I am not qualified to dispute 'Mayerling' 's historical accuracy,but,in my opinion,everything else about it is risible. It is a Ruritanian Opera Buffa without the tunes to send you home from the theatre whistling.


You've got to be kidding. This movie sucked for the sci-fi fans. I would only recommend watching this only if you think Armageddon was good.


Another entry in the Pacino-As-Mentor sub-genre. You know the drill: young hotshot with hubristic flaw (in this case, Matthew McConaughey, trying to jump-start a flagging career by latching onto Pacino's coattails -- hey, it worked for Keanu and Colin, didn't it?) is discovered by glamorous and delightfully corrupt father figure (Pacino, natch). Young Hotshot learns from Father Figure all the ins-and-outs of a lucrative yet degrading career (this time, it's football handicapping). Father Figure plies Young Hotshot with money and hookers and power, but we all know that this decadent state of affairs is on a collision course with dissolution and despair . . . that is, until the Young Hotshot finds his moral center by rejecting the Father Figure and all, or almost all, that he stands for. (Clearly, Stone's *Wall Street* pretty much set the ground rules for the Pacino-As-Mentor sub-genre.)

We are also meant to take these latter-day Pacino films as a parallel to reality. Again, you know the drill: Living-Legend Actor demonstrates his unquestioned superiority as compared to an Inferior Young Actor. The latter may bear and grin through the process, but he must recognize that he isn't going to get any of the good lines, much less get a chance to chew major scenery before the denouement. Now it must be said that there are actually two good movies in the Pacino-As-Mentor canon: *Scent of a Woman* and *Donnie Brasco*. In the former case, it was a one-man show, anyway; in the latter case, Pacino had met his match as a scene-stealer in the person of Johnny Depp. However, those two movies were serious-minded, not merely an exercise in showboating for showboating's sake. Pacino has made damn certain that his younger co-stars in the films since *Brasco* are nowhere near as charismatic as Depp. By the way, none of this speaks very well about the Living-Legend Actor. Like his contemporary De Niro, Pacino has spent the last 10 or 15 years resting on his laurels. *Two for the Money* is the worst example yet, worse even than *Devil's Advocate*, which at least had the virtues of featuring a naked Connie Nielsen and being chronologically prior to this movie. Well, this is what happens when you're crowned King too damn early -- just ask Marlon Brando. Frankly, I've seen one too many Al Pacino films with the same plot -- and the same overacting from the star -- to be charitable any longer. Did I say 'none of this speaks well'? Actually, it's humiliating for everyone involved, including the paying audience. No one's going to accuse Matthew McConaughey of being a Shakespearean actor, but even he doesn't deserve the role of second-fiddle to this intolerable old show-off, with the added implication that he, McConaughey, will never measure up to the Greatness That Is Al.

I've not wasted space on the plot particulars. If you want a synopsis, IMDb provides a no-nonsense summary, though I think I laid out a fairly comprehensive summary in my opening paragraph. Basically, you've seen this movie before. Many times. The particular milieu in *Two for the Money* is the seedy world (underworld, really) of sports handicapping. Pacino runs an office of 'bet advisers' -- that is, middlemen between you and your bookie -- and even has a cable TV handicapping show, co-hosted with several of his top guys. One thing the movie got right was the sleaziness of these type of shows . . . but one detail they got dead wrong was the constant use of the words 'gamble' and 'gambling'. If you've ever seen ProLine or other shows of similar ilk, you'll NEVER, NEVER hear Jim Feist and his cohorts say the word 'gamble'. They ask you to call their 1-900 number to get their picks . . . but if you were from, say, Mars, you'd have no idea what you were supposed to do with those picks. 'Gamble' is the F-word on sports-handicapping TV shows -- strictly verboten.

Gambling is against the law, you know.

1 star out of 10.


Helena Bonham Carter is the center of this movie. She plays her role almost immobile in a wheelchair but still brings across her traditional intensity. Kenneth Branagh was tolerable. The movie itself was good not exceptional. If you are a Helena Bonham Carter fan it is worth seeing.


Tears of Kali is an original yet flawed horror film that delves into the doings of a cult group in India comprised of German psychologists who have learned how to control their wills and their bodies to the point that they can cause others to be 'healed' through radical techniques (that can trigger nightmarish hallucinations and physical pain and torture) to release the pent-up demons inside them.

The film is shown as a series of vignettes about the Taylor-Eriksson group--the above-mentioned cult group. The first segment is somewhat slower than the rest but serves fine to set up the premise for the rest of the film. The rest of it plays out like a mindf@ck film with some of the key staples thrown in the mix (full-frontal nudity, some gore) to keep you happy.

I say check this out. May not be spectacular, but it's concept is pretty neato and it delivers in the right spots. 8/10.


DOCTEUR PETIOT, starring Michel Serrault, is a brutal story about a brutal man. A doctor who heals the sick in occupied France, even if their ability to compensate is not there. Yet, he preys on the weakest amidst the populace. The imagery and cinematography are superb, and lend an additional macabre feeling to this complex story. He is the perfect psychopath. Seductive and altruistic, intelligent and caring, calculating and murderous. A movie certain not to be forgotten soon by the viewer. Kudos to Mr. Serrault, for his chilling portrayal.


This was an excellent idea and the scenery was beautiful but that's where it ends. It seemed like a lackluster Set It Off meets The West. The plot barely made any sense. There were so many characters and not enough time to develop their personalities. There were too may unnecessary things going on that didn't pertain to the plot nor did it help further the story along. There were also long blank moments where the plot could have been explored but was used for silence or unnecessary conversations. The script should have made more sense as well as the directing. I had a huge question mark on my head watching this movie. But the casting was great in my opinion. If you're only watching for eye candy then this is the movie for you.


'Menace' is not funny. It tries hard - too hard. but rarely brings a smile. There is no acting, just mugging. One of the main characters wears a stupid grimace on his face the entire movie. No doubt as the less talented Wayans brothers starred, wrote and produced the film they were entirely blind to their lack of talent.

Menace consists of a series of unfunny, one joke skits. The punchline can be seen a mile off, but you have to wait until it all unfolds. No zippy one-liners or snappy dialogue here. Just one scene after another building up to the joke. The jokes themselves are juvenile. Loc Dog (the one with the perma-grimace) talks to a beautiful woman - but then she has ... bad breath and then she picks her nose and then, wait for it (remember you must always w-a-i-t) she farts! How funny is that? Ten-year old boys may find it funny as they won't have heard the jokes as many times before. Alternatively, if you like watching movies completely drunk or stoned then you will be able to follow along and may even find it amusing. The challenge will be getting drunk enough to reduce your mental state to the level of the movie without passing out.


15 years ago, Power Rangers was one of the shows that swept the nations, especially that of the youth. When I was a 3-year-old kid living in the Philippines, I would watch this show every Friday on ABS-CBN (Channel 2 over there). When the movie came out in 1995, it was all shock and awe to me when I watched it with my dad and 2 uncles. My grandparents even sent me a 'Balikbayan' box full of Power Rangers stuff (including the easy-to-build Megazord figure and the stuffed toys of the Rangers). I even played the video games, and loved only one of them ('MMPR: Fighting Edition'), which was REALLY sad. Anyway, it was the show that set a stepping stone on my interest on robot series (especially anime mech series like 'Gundam') Now that I'm 18, I'd like to think this show is pretty cheesy to me now. To prove this, I took a trip down memory lane by buying a 2-set DVD collection with 'MMPR: The Movie' and 'Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie' and watched both of them. I was like, 'Ugh. How awful. Just another junk in the attic for me.' For all of you people of my generation, this is NOT a show that you'd want to watch over and over again. I'm not saying to leave it behind for the rest of your life, but occasionally is not a bad thing now, is it? Instead of 'Power Rangers', I'd recommend something like 'Mobile Fighter G Gundam' (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED), 'Ninja Senshi Tobikage' (aka Ninja Robots), or even the ORIGINAL Sentai shows that were the basis of 'Power Rangers.'


I seem to remember a lot of hype about this movie when it came out, but had avoided seeing it throughout the years. I wish I'd waited longer. Maybe this movie was funny in 1988, I don't know. I was younger then, but it didn't seem like the world was that different. Michelle Pfeiffer, lovely as she is, is never convincing. Mercedes Ruehl not only chews scenery, but stuffs it in her cheeks like a gerbil to save for later. Dean Stockwell is about as convincing as a mob boss as James Gandolfini would be as principal dancer for the Bolshoi. And Matthew Modine demonstrated the most pronounced case of delayed puberty I've ever seen. All in all, it's not bad enough to make you want to pluck out your eyes with a melon-baller, but it's not far off.


Tremendous black--and-white nighttime cinematography, and plenty of it, highlights this supposedly-true life account of a 1950s murder in Kansas in which an entire family was wiped out by two men.

The story was written by Truman Capote, so you get the very Liberal anti-death penalty message at the end of the film, which is ludicrous knowing the facts of this case. Robert Blake and Scott Wilson play the two atheist losers who have twisted outlooks on life and who unnecessarily murder this nice family.

Despite the annoying slant at the end, this is a riveting story from the start and the cinematography makes this even more fascinating. Famed photographer Conrad Hall did a fantastic job on this. It makes me wish more modern-day films were made in black-and-white. See it on DVD.

Blake, Wilson, John Forsythe, Jeff Corey and the entire supporting cast are excellent in here. My third viewing of this film came in early April of 2005, shortly after Blake, in real life, was pronounced innocent in the murder trial of his wife. One can't help but look at Blake and this film differently after that.


After watching the rather sloppy WW1 spy thriller, Madam Lili (1969)starring Julie Andrews on tv this afternoon, I suddenly thought I had seen a far superior WW1 spy thriller. All I could remember was that it was produced by Dino De Laurentis. It only took a short search on IMDB to find Fraulein Doktor. Once I recognised the title the memories came flooding back. It is, for its time, a reasonably well crafted story revolving around true events such as the death of Kitchener and the German offensives of 1918.It also has a female spy who is much more believable than Julie Andrews! As with other reviewers the first and strongest memory was of the well produced battle scenes and of men and horses in gas masks. If you have an interest in war films and particularly WW1 it is a film well worth seeing if you have the opportunity.


Charlie Chaplin responds to open auditions at Lodestone Studios. Rival Ben Turpin arrives at the same studio, obviously another unemployed comedian! Turpin tries to horn in on Chaplin's action after the studio head hollers, 'Next!' Chaplin manages to walk in over Turpin, however. Charlie amusingly manages to botch jobs as an actor and carpenter. In the end, he manages to get a big break, but will a star be born?

There are a lot of jokes involving the buttocks. The initial scene involving slapstick from Chaplin and Turpin is a relative highlight. Note that Gloria Swanson is the typist in the far background left on your screen, in the film's opening. Agnes Ayres also appears.

*** His New Job (2/1/15) Charles Chaplin ~ Charlie Chaplin, Ben Turpin, Charlotte Mineau


As most people I am tired of the by the numbers clichéd movies that Hollywood makes. There seems to be no creativity in Hollywood. Companies only want to spend money on remakes are sequels that have an audience built in.

This movie is a welcome change. It could be classified as romantic comedy for it's genre but don't let that turn you off this movie. This is a very original movie which is not like most things Hollywood produces.

If you are reading this, you already know the basic plot so I will not bother going over that. The only movies that come to mind to compare this to are 'Interstate 60' and 'Art of Travel' which are little known gems that take a different path than most of the Hollywood garbage.

This is well worth seeing if you are tired of watching more of the same.

Dean


This movie was terrible!I rented it not knowing what to expect.I watched the 1st 5 minutes and the movie and knew it was a bomb.The acting was bad and there was no plot.The monster is soooooo fake.It growls and its mouth doesnt move.Also why would they have a doctor playing a xylophone to kill the monster.Just plain bad don't even waste your time.(1 out of 10)


Sammi Cheng & Andy Lau are coupled yet again in their 3rd film -- YESTERDAY ONCE MORE -- directed by HK's actioneer Johnnie To...fans of To's action films will be disappointed to find not a single gun was used in the filming...furthermore, fans of Cheng & Lau's previous films, NEEDING YOU & LOVE ON A DIET, will also be disappointed to find that YESTERDAY is no where near as funny or endearing...

Mr. & Mrs. To (Lau & Cheng) are a divorced couple...both affluent HK citizens...both incredibly mischievous...both just happened to be professional thieves -- 'two birds of the same feather'....A couple years earlier, they divorced over an inability to find middle ground on splitting the loot...Now she's remarrying...to the son of a rich heiress -- a total momma's boy (Carl Ng) through & through...The soon-to-be mother-in-law (Jenny Woo) is suspicious of Mrs. To's past & thinks she's only marrying her son for the family jewels -- the heiress' priceless ruby necklace...

The necklace is stolen...is it Mrs. To's materialistic eye that gets the best of her?... or is it her ex-husband, Mr. To's way of sabotaging the marriage to steal the jewels for himself?...

This is not a movie about two pple falling in love or rekindling a love...its about two pple who have always been in love but have somehow been to foolish to realize it...they let pride & greed overwhelm them...

Overall: YESTERDAY is one part caper/heist film & one part homage to classic Hollywood glamour from its golden years -- i.e. Cary Grant & Grace Kelly's TO CATCH A THIEF...Johnnie To is riding too heavily on Cheng/Lau's chemistry from their previous films...hoping Cheng/Lau's immense popularity & fan base will be enough justification for this third film....I think Sammi Cheng is one of the most likable/charming entertainers working t'day...& Lau is definitely the Tom Cruise of Asian cinema...

I really enjoyed their first two films & consider the Cheng/Lau pairing comparable to those classic Hollywood couples of the 40's & 50's...but YESTERDAY falls very short of expectations...terrible writing, ridiculous situations, product placements galore, & all the subplots & supporting characters were unnecessary...come to think of it...this film was unnecessary...unless you just love celebrity watching...


Madhur Bhandarkar directs this film that is supposed to expose the lifestyle of the rich and famous while also providing a commentary on the integrity of journalism today.

Celebrities party endlessly, they like to be seen at these parties, and to get due exposure in the media. In fact the film would have us believe that this exposure MAKES celebrities out of socialites and the newspapers have a huge hand in this. IMO there is much more synergy between the celebrities and media and it is a 'I need you, you need me' kind of relationship. However, the media needs celebrities more and not vice versa. Anyhow, in this milieu of constant partying is thrown the social column (page 3 of the newspaper) reporter Konkana Sen Sharma. She is shown as this celebrity maker, very popular at the social gatherings. She has a good friend in the gay Abhijeet and in the struggling model Rohit (Bikram Saluja). She rooms with an air-hostess  the sassy Pearl (Sandhya Mridul), and a struggling actress - Gayatri (Tara Sharma). The editor of the newspaper is Boman Irani and a firebrand crime beat reporter is played by Atul Kulkarni. The movie has almost too many plot diversions and characters but does work at a certain level. The rich are shown to be rotten to the core for the most part, the movie biz shown to be sleazy to the max with casting couch scenarios, exploitation of power, hunger for media exposure. Into all this is layered in homosexuality, a homosexual encounter that seems to not have much to do with the story or plot, rampant drug use, pedophilia, police 'encounter' deaths. In light of all this Pearl's desire to have a super rich husband, a socialite daughter indulging in a sexual encounter in a car, the bitching women, all seem benign ills.

The film has absolutely excellent acting by Konkana Sen Sharma, Atul Kulkarni has almost no role  a pity in my opinion. But the supporting cast is more than competent (Boman Irani is very good). This is what saves the film for me. Mr. Bhandarkar bites off way more than he can chew or process onto celluloid and turns the film into a free for all bash. I wish he had focused on one or two aspects of societal ills and explored them more effectively. He berates societal exploitation yet himself exploits all the masala ingredients needed for a film to be successful. We have an item number in the framework of a Bollywood theme party, the drugged out kids dance a perfectly choreographed dance to a Western beat. I hope the next one from Madhur Bhandarkar dares to ditch even more of the Hindi film stereotyped ingredients. The film is a brave (albeit flawed) effort, certainly worth a watch.


It is sad to have to say that a film is truly awful and one tries to find ways around saying this. However, this is a dreadful film. Gene Hackman wastes time (and one suspects, many dollars) on re-playing his most famous, and oft recreated, role as 'Gene Hackman'. Otherwise, television actors are given the chance to become film stars, and successfully, resist the temptation. Patrick Swayze has a minor part and went on to greater things, for which he must be eternally thankful.

I watched this film, as a result of someone else's review and I felt that another point of view was merited. You may not agree with my review but now, at least, you have been warned.


No wonder a lot of us hate classical music; and what are the children to think? With 'educational' PR like this, serious music will soon slip from life support to the morgue. Kids know when they're being talked down to, and this is no exception; why can't someone good do a movie about classical music for kids? I must admit, I enjoyed the actor who played Beethoven, he took to the role with enthusiasm and a keen balance of the poignant and humorous aspects of Beethoven's character; he obviously did his research. Otherwise, this is a third rate rehash of the old ABC Afterschool Special format, with none of the occasional charm those short films had. Sorry about the rant, but this is an important subject for young people to know about, and it could have been done well; I wonder if musicians or filmmakers were responsible? Either way, the kids are hipper than you think, folks...

Medtner


In my opinion this is the best Oliver Stone flick -- probably more because of Bogosian's influence than anything else. Riviting stuff -- full of dread from the first moment to its dark ending.


Supreme Sanction is a movie about a female assassin who works for the U.S. government. She has to kill a known TV reporter, but spares his life when she sees that he has a little daughter. Because she hasn't killed him, she becomes the next target of her employers.

The script isn't good although I've seen worse B-movies. A hit-man with remorse, the government killing innocent people in the name of fighting terror,... What's next? Aliens rescuing the victim??? No, Supreme Sanction will never win any award because of the script. And the acting isn't any better I'm afraid. A few better known actors (Michael Madsen and Kristy Swanson), who clearly had a lot of bills to pay and therefor accepted to play in this movie, together with some other actors who probably don't even know what a camera really looks like don't do any good to the movie either.

So why should you watch this movie? Well, if you haven't got anything better to do but to watch some action flick and you are tired of the 10,531st rerun of Mc Gyver or the A-team, than this might be the movie you want to see. Otherwise you better leave it alone. I give it a 3/10.


Dahl seems to have been under the influence of Wenders' The American Friend. Innocent Nick Cage gets recruited for a hit. Dennis Hopper plays a real Hit Man. Lara Flynn Boyle is dangerous. The Hero gets more entangled the more he tries to extricate hisself. And small town America does not seem all that safer than the Big City. Like it's predecessor mentioned above, this movie has lots of plot twists and turns that seem improbable, but all lead to the cathartic self discovery.


A malfunction in space sends astronaut Neil Stryker (Glenn Corbett) off course and headed to something of a parallel world, called Terra, circling the sun exactly opposite Earth. As a being from space would pose a threat to this world's order, Stryker is held until a determination can be made as to exactly what to do with him. Stryker, however, gets suspicious of his surroundings and escapes. With the help of a sympathetic nurse and a old scientist who opposes the government, Stryker will try to board a spaceship and head back to Earth.

Stranded in Space (or The Stranger if you prefer) is another of those 70s made-for-TV movies that was to be turned into a regular, weekly show. In this case, it's easy to see why it didn't make it. First off, there's nothing new about the show's set-up. It was undoubtedly designed to follow the same formula used by The Fugitive or The Incredible Hulk or Planet of the Apes. You know, a stranger constantly on the move going from one town to the next taking whatever odd job he can all the while being pursued by a government agency or newspaper reporter. It's a formula that's been done to death. The second strike against Stranded in Space is its lead, Glenn Corbett. Could this guy come across any less likable? I was rooting for him to get caught. Without sympathy for the main character, this kind of show would never work. Finally, this is supposed to be science fiction. Just because everyone is left-handed and someone has hung three fake looking moons on the horizon I'm supposed to jump to the conclusion that this is some distant planet? So it's a mere coincidence that they all speak English, dress just like people on Earth, and drive Plymouth Furies? Yeah, right.

The lone highlight for me was the inclusion of Cameron Mitchell in the cast. Sure, it's difficult to watch him in something this dreadful, but you know the old saying - any Cameron is better than no Cameron (yeah, I've never heard it either).

As with a lot of these 70s made-for-TV movies, I watched Stranded in Space courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I wouldn't call it a great episode by any stretch of the imagination, but there are a few good jokes along the way. So in the end, while I rate the movie a 2/10, it gets a 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.


I feel privileged to have accidentally seen this movie. I actually ran across this movie by accident. I was taping another movie on Showtime one night, overnight and this movie came on afterward. So I sat and watched it and boy was I blown away. The acting is absolutely superb. Kathy Bates...who has been my favorite actress since Misery and Fried Green Tomatoes gave an amazing performance as a domineering mother who tries desperately to hold on to her old school values (religion, family) at the risk of alienating her family. Martin Sheen is superb as the 'tough' patriarch who is really not in control of anything in his life or family. The one thing I really loved about this movie is how it tells what happens when the heroes come home. It shows the true damage that is done to our soldiers after they fight pointless wars for political and financial gain. This movie just blew me away and I feel blessed to have accidentally taped this movie and seen it. This is a must-see for anyone who wants a true drama, this is not too melodramatic and preachy, but pulls at your heartstrings like none other


I've also been looking to find this movie for quite some time, and how great it would be to find it on DVD...

I saw this movie when I was about 6 years old, in the Netherlands. And I was very impressed by it. It was shown before Walt Disney's JUNGLE BOOK!

What I remember of this movie is fragmented. I remember that an Indian boy was friends with an eagle. This impressed me very much. For some reason he was thrown out of his village (did not grasp the reason for this). When other boys threw stones at him, he climbed a rock and jumped off. At that time he turned into an eagle and flew away with his eagle friend. As an eagle he was still wearing his turquoise necklace.

CB


I believe Cockpuncher to be the best piece of work that has come out of the Steven Seagal factory in a long time. This movie was the first one I have seen since that fine film preview. My point? He is done. Every movie is the same. Maybe he will be good in Machete because he won't be the star. We can only hope.

P.S. Thanks for speaking to UCSB when I went to college. It was an amazing speech. You really influenced some people out there.

So I have to write ten lines about this movie? Umm....I like the smoker guy who killed a bunch of fools. Whenever anyone smells menthol's LOOK OUT. Because there could be a killer with a silenced glock (and another loud one) who wants to kill you.

Is that ten?


I run a group to stop comedian exploitation and I just spent the past 2 months hearing horror stories from comedians who attempted to audition for, 'Last Comic Standing.' If they don't have a GOOD agent, then they don't even get a chance to audition so more than 80% of the comedians who turn up are rejected before they can show anyone that they have talent! If they do make it to an audition, I was told that it's 'pre-determined' if they get a second chance. So what the TV audience sees is NOT the best comics in the US.

If the comics do make it to the show, then most of them don't get IMDb credits. I know this because I did the credits for all 6 seasons of, 'Last Comic Standing' and I don't get paid for doing the Producers' job. It's really a disgrace. A month ago, I asked, 'Last Comic Standing 7' on Facebook why the Producers aren't giving IMDb credits and I was banned from their Facebook Page!!! I am not a comedian so I do not have a personal stake in this. I just want people to know the truth. I don't like seeing ANYONE getting exploited and that's why I've been helping the comedians. Comedians get exploited on HBO, BET, TvOne and other cable networks but NBC is a BIG THREE network so those in charge should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this exploitation to happen.

Please watch this video of a comedian who was victimized: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMb4-hyet_Y


Altman is very proud of the fact that people in his movies talk over each other, because, he says, people do that in life. Well, people also cough, burp, go off on tangents, etc. The point is that just because people actually do something doesn't make it compelling cinema. That's one issue.

The bigger issue is that this just isn't a very clever or direct or hitting or relevant satire, in 1988 or 2004. Garry Trudeau is still living in the 1960s and thinks everyone except a small core of Republican elected officials is a 60s-style hippie liberal. I mean the guy still trots out Zonker in his strip - a character that is a complete anachronism, yet Trudeau still employs him as if he is representative of a large stripe of American youth.

Don't get me wrong. I am a conservative, but I'm not saying that this is bad because it's got a liberal bent. It could take a liberal tack and be funny and relevant, but it's not. It is mainly a vanity piece with a bunch of prominent celebrity liberals (including the odious, repellent Ron Reagan, Jr.). At times it feels unscripted, and the rest of the time it has a snarky air of self-importance and 'aren't we oh-so-clever?'-ness.

Someone said that this show insists it has a cult following. I think its cult status is more wished-for than actual. I'm certain there are two or three people out there who taped all the original episodes in 1988 and still have them, but if that is the standard, then every show ever aired is a cult classic to some degree. If Tanner didn't have the names Altman and Trudeau attached, it would be another forgotten HBO production from the 1980s. Instead, it's presented as hard-hitting, incisive political commentary from guys who are at the top of their game. The reality, however, is about as far from that as possible. Pat Paulsen's presidential satire is more relevant than Tanner ever was, and he's been dead for a decade.


Probably grossly underrated by all who never experienced the hell of living under communist regime. Although, it seems hard to believe, all of it happened, actually the reality was even worse than the movie. It resembles Orwellian fiction, only this is no fiction. John Hurt is excellent as always. Yes, the screenplay is not full of action, but life is not either. Plot is breathtaking. Yes, people were shot, yes thousands of them. Their 'crime' was that they wanted to leave communist 'paradise' without government authorization. At times the movie drives tears in your eyes. We need more movies like this to really appreciate what America provides for us. Excellent movie, highly recommend! God bless our country, USA!


This has the funnist jokes out of all the Cheech & Chong flicks. It's the first one I saw with these guys. I found it to be really good. My dad actually recommended me to get it. WHAT A GREAT ROLE MODEL, and my GRANDMA actually bought it for me, knowing what it was like. What a family I have. Well this movie is pretty good and great to rent when you want to see a good classic. I must warn you though, this isn't gut-busting funny. It has its moments but not as funny as There's Something About Mary. Check it out anyway. I'm sure you'll laugh. Unless your an anti-drug activist or something.


One of the most underrated comedies. Dan Akroyd is hilarious in this over the top role; Charles Grodin gives a performance nearly as good as in 'Midnight Run;' and Walter Matthau gives a superb comedic performance in this sometimes subdued, sometimes wacky film. Akroyd and Matthau have great chemistry together....


Enchanted April was one of Harry Beaumont's last movies- he only directed a few more after this one. He had made the 'Maisie' movies in the 1930s and 1940s. In the opening credits, it says 'From the novel by Elizabeth', and completely leaves off the author's last name... rather odd, but since it was von Armin, they may not have wanted the German association at the time... Sad to hear it was a flop when it was released, with those fun names like Frank Morgan (the Wizard) and Jessie Ralph, who played W.C. Fields' disapproving mother- in- law in 'Bank Dick'. Two gals in London (Ann Harding & Katharine Alexander) decide to rent a castle to host two of their friends, but things don't go the way they planned. Reginald Owen plays the husband with multiple personalities. Aside from a few funny moments, it DOES move pretty slow. Ralph is the only bright spot here, as the overbearing take-charge type, and the picture is quite fuzzy and out of focus for much of the film. The views of Italy are all obvious backdrops. The only saving grace here is that the Turner Classic version is only 66 minutes long. Too bad they didn't give Frank Morgan a larger role. This was remade in 1992 by the BBC as a British Film.


I had the privilege recently of viewing what is said to be the last 35mm, Technicolor, stereo print and found it much livelier and more touching than remembered. Also closer to the original material -- basically, all screenwriter N. Richard Nash did was trim, change much recitative to spoken dialog, and insert a transitional scene or two (including a very amusing one for Pearl Bailey). Oliver Smith's production design is stagy in the 'Li'l Abner'-'Guys and Dolls' '50s adaptation mode, but it works well for this work's folkloric, unrealistic quality. Stereotyping and racism are present, but not to a wince-inducing degree. Further, for a movie of its time, it's pretty frank -- the adultery, violent behavior, drug use, and self-destructive habits of the denizens of Catfish Row are not at all minimized in the telling. But there are debits, beginning with all that variation from the stage text. The loss of so much compromises Gershwin's brilliance -- no wonder the family doesn't like it. The reorchestration, especially of Sammy Davis Jr.'s material, is disconcertingly trendy and vulgar. George knew what he was doing, folks; you didn't have to mess with it so much. And while Poitier and Dandridge act well and their singing doubles sing well, there's a huge chasm between the characters' singing and speaking voices -- you're constantly aware of the artifice. What really counts here, of course, is the music, among the greatest ever written for the theater, anywhere. Despite all the tinkering, it survives,and you'd have to be made of stone not to be moved by it. If the treatment isn't entirely to the estate's liking (and it shouldn't be), there's still no reason not to spend some bucks to restore this ambitious filming of Gershwin's masterpiece and make new generations more aware of his genius.


This movie was just terrible, the first movie wasn't that great i mean it's ridiculously stupid if they didn't have enough with the first 5 films you had to add another one, why just not make this into an ongoing series like James Bond, i'll tell you exactly why because the bond films are actually very very good and these films just stink, i don't understand, was this supposed to be a cross between to genres like horror and comedy for goodness sakes my 1 year old niece wouldn't be scared of such a ridiculous attempt at horror, a spit in the face of people who at least want to be scared at some point in a so called horror film. Please no more of these movies.


I've seen this film literally over 100 times...it's absolutely jam-packed with entertainment!!! Powers Boothe gives a stellar performance. As a fan of actors such as William Shatner (Impulse, 1974) and Ron Liebmann (Up The Academy, 1981)I never thought an actor could capture the 'intensity' like Shatner and Liebmann in those roles, until I saw Boothe as Jim Jones! As far as I'm concerned, Powers Boothe IS Jim Jones...this film captures his best performance!!!


No! no - No - NO! My entire being is revolting against this dreadful remake of a classic movie. I knew we were heading for trouble from the moment Meg Ryan appeared on screen with her ridiculous hair and clothing - literally looking like a scarecrow in that garden she was digging. Meg Ryan playing Meg Ryan - how tiresome is that?! And it got worse ... so much worse. The horribly cliché lines, the stock characters, the increasing sense I was watching a spin-off of 'The First Wives Club' and the ultimate hackneyed schtick in the delivery room. How many times have I seen this movie? Only once, but it feel like a dozen times - nothing original or fresh about it. For shame!


This is the very La Nouvelle Vague.One of the best films of the New Wave and I dare say one of the first ten ever made! Why? The atmosphere, the story,the actors (actress) are all brilliant. This is the theater, a fairy tale, the life, the film.Paris. Thank you Mr.Rivette.


This has no relationship to Virtual Encounters 1, so it's not really a sequel. The two videos just share the general concept of people having simulated sex through a virtual reality machine. So if you were really blown away by the story and dialog in VC 1 (yeah, right), and expecting a continuation in VC 2, just be warned. All the actors and actresses are new, but it has the same excellent director, Sybil Richards.

But like VC 1, you get lots of beautiful women and a lot of great sex scenes that push the envelope of soft core just about as far as it can go.

If you have VC 1 and you liked it, you'll like VC 2. If you don't have either, but like really good softcore sex, get both.


Stewart Moss stars as a scientist who is on a working trip with his wife, and one gets the feeling that he was picked for this role for his ability to roll his eyes back in his head...imagine the auditions for this..'can you...no, that's not quite it, thank you, next!'. Anyway, he's bitten by a bat, and then, he's either changing into some kind of bat creature and killing people or....he's not. For no one else sees his strange transformations, but he himself seems to think that he's changing because his wedding ring pops off when his hands turn into claws, etc. To its credit the movie does kind of hold back on whether he's just nuts or whether he's actually transforming into something until almost the very end. This has some good locations & sort of a decent atmosphere at times but unfortunately none of that can make up for the somewhat lame story and the wonderfully bad acting. Kind of fun in a 'so bad it's good' way, but leans more towards just plain bad. 4 out of 10.


Being an Austrian myself this has been a straight knock in my face. Fortunately I don't live nowhere near the place where this movie takes place but unfortunately it portrays everything that the rest of Austria hates about Viennese people (or people close to that region). And it is very easy to read that this is exactly the directors intention: to let your head sink into your hands and say 'Oh my god, how can THAT be possible!'. No, not with me, the (in my opinion) totally exaggerated uncensored swinger club scene is not necessary, I watch porn, sure, but in this context I was rather disgusted than put in the right context.

This movie tells a story about how misled people who suffer from lack of education or bad company try to survive and live in a world of redundancy and boring horizons. A girl who is treated like a whore by her super-jealous boyfriend (and still keeps coming back), a female teacher who discovers her masochism by putting the life of her super-cruel 'lover' on the line, an old couple who has an almost mathematical daily cycle (she is the 'official replacement' of his ex wife), a couple that has just divorced and has the ex husband suffer under the acts of his former wife obviously having a relationship with her masseuse and finally a crazy hitchhiker who asks her drivers the most unusual questions and stretches their nerves by just being super-annoying.

After having seen it you feel almost nothing. You're not even shocked, sad, depressed or feel like doing anything... Maybe that's why I gave it 7 points, it made me react in a way I never reacted before. If that's good or bad is up to you!


Pretty pictures with a cool sound track do not constitute a 'movie'. Like all pop promos, MDH's pretentions are are outdone only by its' unjustifiable budget. One dollar spent on this aimless, purposeless dross was one dollar too many. Stick to penning pop songs Bono.


One is tempted to define the genre of Gert de Graaff's movie as `event of the thought' following the example of Merab Mamardashvili. The nominal storyline is a certain Bart Klever's torturous quest for that ephemeral substance which constitutes the essence of personality. The script for his new movie is taking shape simultaneously on his computer and in his own imagination. This film-monologue originated as a response to Fellini's `8 ½' and cost Gert de Graaff 13 years of work. Excitedly playing with real and fictional characters as well as with the audience, it reveals the whimsical interconnection of the real and imaginary, the paradoxical co-existence in two different galaxies: that of Guttenberg and that of MacLhuen. For some time we are apt to side with the script writer, who believes that the cause of all misfortune is the damned stereotypes of mass mentality (`man', `catholic', `window washer'). And together with him we fall into a trap when the author-creator is finally faced with the insoluble dilemma: how can one eliminate from the future movie. Bart Klever? Just five minutes before the finale thanks to the common petty reproaches of the wife of the creator, who is deeply immersed in work, we realize that together with the main character we have again been `framed'. Really, what is the price of the art for the sake of which it is acceptable to renounce one's own name and the day-to-day care for the young daughter?

So who is he, this Bart Klever? Is he a brilliant prophet or someone possessed like Frenhoffer from Balzac's masterpiece (just like the latter the script writer in the end erases from the computer memory everything has written)? Gert de Graaff suggests that we answer this question ourselves.


I learned much from previous viewer reactions. Is there one that does not mention 'propaganda'? Too glib. 'Perception is concept dependent'. I love Fred Astaire musicals, the great, great songs, & Fred's peerless grace. But comrades, if you see idle, brainless, rich parasites dancing on the downtrodden & unemployed, that's a valid criticism of 'capitalist propaganda'. Any movie is steeped in the values of its time & place, not to mention those who fund it  the pipers who call the tune. Great art transcends all, as did 'Nevsky', as did 'All Quiet on the Western front'. I confess. I saw it last 40 odd years ago. But the images are burned in my brain. It's the greatest battle scene ever likely to be filmed. And it makes you horrified to be thrilled. 'Plastic ice' did someone say? That's real death you're watching. Real extras died making this. 'Real looking' is now special effects-defined it seems. Likewise 'too long' - for an age of shrunken attention spans? Mozart had 'too many notes'? Propaganda, Catholic Church defamed? The Vatican was STILL at it when they called on ancient favors to get the German Christian democrat gov. to recognize Croatia in the 1990s  remember the chaos & genocides? Forget the props, the lighting of Nevsky painted the Medieval world  like a Breughel. There's one in Hampton Court Palace showing a massacre. Crude Dutch nationalist propaganda maybe, but it tears at the heart. Stylized acting? So what's Henry V (Olivier movie)? Naturalism? Does anyone believe English medieval knight-killers talked like that? As said, the music of Prokofiev is magnificent. Only Ken Russell & Eisenstein had the balls & genius to match sound & image at this 100 octane level. OK, you want the snaffle & bit. I'll risk the nervy thorobred every time. Eisenstein did not copy Wehrmacht helmets, rather, his model seems to have been those buckets worn by 'Teutonic knights' in nazi pageants of the 1930s. Eisenstein was a genius , but unlike Hollywood directors, he had near unlimited (non-commercial) time & funding. Modern Russian directors are free from political shackles, but have no money. Even Kurasawa had to make a late (great) movie in communist Russia. He was revered but unfunded in his own country (much like Russell). How much propaganda is in the eye of the beholder? Imagine sane people from another, peace-loving world. How would they react to Nevsky? Would the battle, or the grieving for the dead dominate their cognitions? If we didn't know about the gas chambers & SS, what about 'Triumph of the Will'? Where can I get a Nevsky DVD, cheap?


I'd read about FLAVIA THE HERETIC for many years, but I only got to see it early last year, when I went on an insane movie-buying binge, and, for whatever reason, it has been on my mind lately, though it's been some months since I watched it.

It's a striking film, set in Italy somewhere around the 15th century. Definitely Medieval-era (though I don't think any specific year is ever given). This being the time of Christian ascendancy, the age is a time of utter madness, and the movie captures this very well.

Flavia, our protagonist, is a young lady who encounters a fallen Muslim on a battlefield. He seems a warm and intriguing fellow, and she's immediately taken with him. Her father, a soldier of a a family of some standing, comes along, almost immediately, and murders the wounded man right before her eyes. But she'll continue to see him in her dreams.

Her father ships her off to a convent that seems more like an open-air insane asylum--the residents, so harshly repressed by unyielding Medieval Christianity, slowly go mad. Flavia comes under the influence of one of the nuttier nuns. But in a mad world, only the sane are truly mad, and this sociopathic sister clearly recognizes the insanity around her. Her take on the times in which they live strikes a chord with Flavia, who, being young and apparently sheltered, is beginning to question everything about this world in which she finds herself trapped.

The movie is unflinching in its portrayal of that world, showcasing a lot of unpleasantness. We see a horse gelded, a lord rape one of the women of his lands in a pig-sty, the pious torture of a young nun. Through it all, Flavia observes and questions, rejecting, eventually, the Christian dogma that creates such a parade of horrors in terms that would gain the movie some criticism over the years for seeming anachronistic. I disagree with that criticism. Flavia's views, though sometimes expressed in ways that vaguely mirror, for example, then-contemporary feminist commentary (the movie was made in 1974), revolve around what are really pretty obvious questions. It is, perhaps, difficult to believe she could be so much of a fish out of water in her own time, but that's the sort of minor point it doesn't do to belabor. Flavia is written in such a way to allow those of our era, or of any era, to empathize with her plight. Getting bogged down on such a matter would be missing the forest for the trees.

Flavia is heartened when the Muslims arrive, invading the countryside, and she finds, in their leader, a new version of the handsome Islamist who still visits her dreams. Smitten with her almost immediately, he allows her to virtually lead his army, becoming a Joan of Arc figure in full battle-gear, and directing the invaders to pull down Christian society, and wreak vengeance upon all those she's seen commit evil.

Is she the herald of a new and better world? She may think so, but Muslims of that era weren't big on feminism, either, as she soon learns the hard way. As they say, meet the new boss...

This is really just a thumbnail of some of the things that happen in FLAVIA THE HERETIC. The movie is quite grim, and with a very downbeat, rather depressing ending. Not a mass-audience movie at all, to be sure. It's quite good, though, and doesn't belong on the 'nunsploitation' pile on which it is often carelessly thrown. I think there's much value in the final film, and I'm glad I saw it.


Pere is an idiot, but he is aware about it and acts in consequence. His life is totally boring and he doesn't know how to change it. When his last friend, Nicco, dies. He feels totally empty and he decides to go out to become drunk. When he is returning home, he crashes with a girl that puts advertisements. Although she ignores him, he fells in love and starts to follow her, obsessively. Well the beginning of the film is a bit slow, and can result boring for most people. However, as action begins, it is a little better (not much!, maybe, the best part is the 5 minutes of sex (almost 30 different scenes about it) that you can see in the middle of the movie; it is not good for the erothism, but for the funny and unexpected that is the scene. Probably it is the best of the film. Neither the actors nor the directing is good, and the results is a boring film that that can result funny for some people (not for me). All the film is based on absurd situations (idiot, as the film says), that have anything interesting. I like Ventura Pons, but I have to admit that this is not one of his best films (maybe his worst!), he knows to do it better.


The animation quality here is decidedly below par IMO, regardless of the age of the OAV. The plot itself makes sense, but the characters don't.

This might sound picky, but considering that the city of Olympus is almost exclusively populated by living machines, would YOU feel comfortable there as a human? Would any machine ever emulate human arrogance, short-sightedness and greed quite so effectively? I doubt it. There are some pointers towards this in the movie, but only when the team can be bothered to put them in, by and large the 'bioroids' (or whatever they are) are interchangeable with human characters. Seems sloppy to me.

The main characters seem to have some kind of emotional entanglement, though no light is shed on this. Little light is shed on the backstory at all, a great pity. The short length of the film coupled with the focus on mecha and the crime means that we don't see any character depth. The groundwork's all down, yet we're left with no finished product. A cropped version of this OAV would have made a great TV episode, once some character sub-plots had been established.

The highlights of this short film are the mecha designs and the action/espionage.

The flaws really start to show through once you've had a chance to digest all the goings-on, so I couldn't recommend this for owning, but it's certainly worth a watch or two! Whilst this review is mostly negative, I really do think it's worth your time to watch this, but it's not something to rush out and buy.

In a nutshell: A watchable wasted opportunity.


Is this a good movie? No, certainly not. But for Jolie lovers it's must-have. Her non-polished acting and semi-nudity scene will please her fans for ages to come. The current rating however (3.2) is too low. The movie might lack a good storyline, and isn't a great sf-movie altogether but the acting is good enough (and like mentioned before, Jolie's acting is nice and raw), the movie is shot very direct, with a lot of close-ups. The scenery is bizarre. And last but not least, leaving van Damme out was a very good choice. Presumably, non of the Jolie lovers would like to see her having sex with him. This movie has all the potential of becoming a cult movie.


This is the first of 'The Complete Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare' BBC series I've seen, and if all of them are like this, I might watch no more. Being practically the full text of the play is everything this 'Romeo & Juliet' has going for it, lacking in all other departments. Alvin Rakoff reveals himself as a dreadful director, both in the technical and artistic aspects. In the former, because he commits mistakes that even a first grade film student would wisely avoid. Take in consideration, for example, the badly edited first shot of Abraham and Balthasar in the opening scene, or the Nurse's entering of Friar Lawrence's cell, asking where's Romeo with him being so very in front of her that she'd clearly see him even if she was blind. And, in the latter, because every single one of the performers is misdirected, even if some of them are good actors. Rebecca Saire looks exactly the way I've always imagined Juliet to look like, and she doesn't seem to be a bad actress for a teenager, but her performance totally lacks passion of any kind. Patrick Ryecart as Romeo is even worse, being not only as dull as Juliet, but also way too old and not even good-looking, coming across as a combination of Malcolm McDowell and the Chucky doll. Putting them together makes impossible to think they feel anything for each other, let alone being the main players of the greatest love story ever written. Alan Rickman, in his screen debut, plays Tybalt like if he was Darth Vader, which is a huge mistake that takes away the complexity that Shakespeare intended, no character being a hero or a villain but all flawed human beings. This Tybalt is so mean-looking that we don't believe the characters' pity after his demise. As for Paris, I kept thinking of 'Prince Valium' from Spaceballs. Only Celia Johnson manages to do the character of the Nurse some justice.

At 168 minutes, this production is unable to make us empathize with the characters, because the characters don't empathize with each other and never seen to believe their own roles. The best screen version is still Franco Zeffirelli's. But, to be fair, this BBC one isn't nearly as bad as abominations like George Cukor's flamboyant geriatric version, or the crime against Humanity that is Baz Luhrmann's feature-length MTV video. 4/10.


For a movie like this, there's always something to follow by in years to come. Clive Barker, the man who brought 'Hellraiser', makes a horror movie that is part-Goth, part-Mythology, and all horror in-between. 'Nightbreed' are a bunch of mutants who only come out at night, and roam the place called Midian. Now a man name Boone(Craig Sheffer) claims to suffer hallucinations he goes to this shrink Dr. Decker(David Croneberg) who 'helps' Boone with his problems. Unaware of this situation, Decker claims to be a purist which he's only a hate-monger in disguise. Boone however, goes into Midian and make the claim that he's one of the mutants there. But a mutant named Peloquin(Oliver Parker) sees Boone as meat! His bite however, spares Boone so after he is killed by a gauntlet of fire arms, he's one of them now. After being mislead by Decker, Boone does everything in his power to protect Lori(Anne Bobby) from him. Lori saves a mutant from the sun, and in return helps the others as well. I liked the lady mutants one who gives a smoky 'kiss of death' and the Porcupine Woman who dreamed Boone show off her power that is so seductive and deadly at the same time. I've enjoyed this horror movie all the way, and the rule of it is, never trust a shrink! Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars!


Forgive me, but this work of director Peter Hall is horrendous. If you can't get to us with the plot, why not kill someone's cat or dog. That surely reaches the audiences. This viewer is tired of seeing animals sacrificed for the plot of a movie. And, believe me, I saw it coming before she opened the package. How predictable can you get. Take a cute animal then kill it in a gruesome way. I have never been a fan of De Mornay and this performance tells me why. Overacted and somewhat stagnant in interpretation, I found her rather silly and definitely boring. I did like Banderas, but felt bad that he had to play opposite De Mornay. He has done much better in other films namely 'Philadelphia' where he had some honesty in his dialogue. In this chestnut he did his best to keep his character real. But the writers, Green & Rush, did a good job in preventing this with their trite storyline and insipid dialogue. Please, let us not be subjected to this kind of entertainment. Some of us aren't fooled by corny plots, bludgeoning animals and generally long winded dialogue. Seeing her get away with it, made me furious.


Brilliant actor as he is, Al Pacino completely derails Revolution  his Method acting approach is totally ill-suited to the role of an illiterate trapper caught up in the American War of Independence. Much of the blame should be attributed to director Hugh Hudson (yes, the man who made Chariots Of Fire just a couple of years earlier  talk about a come-down!!). One of the many jobs of a director is to marshal the actors, coaxing believable performances from them, but in this case Hudson has allowed Pacino to run amok without asking for restraint of any kind. It's not just Al's career-low performance that hinders the film though: there are numerous other flaws with Revolution, more of which will be said later.

Illiterate trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) lives in the north-eastern region of America with his son Ned (Sid Owen/Dexter Fletcher). He leads a simple life  living off the land, raising his son, surviving against the elements. The country is lorded over by the English colonialists, but during an eight year period (1775-83) a revolution takes place which ends with the British being defeated and the independent American nation being born. Dobb gets caught up in the events when his boat and his son are conscripted by the Continental Army  swept away by events they can barely understand, the Dobbs finds themselves fighting for their lives and freedom in one bloody engagement after another. Tom also falls in love with Daisy McConnahay (Natassja Kinski), a beautiful and fiery woman of British aristocratic ancestry. Their forbidden love is played out against the larger historical context of the fighting.

Where to start with the film's flaws? Most key actors are miscast  Pacino has been criticised enough already, but Kinski fares little better as the renegade aristocrat while Donald Sutherland is hopelessly lost as a ruthless English soldier with a wobbly Yorkshire accent. Robert Dillon's script is muddled in its attempts to bring massive historical events down to a personal level. At no point does anyone seem to have decided whether this is meant to be an intimate character study with the American Revolution as a backdrop, or an epic war film with a handful of sharply drawn characters used to carry the story along. As a result, the narrative falls into no man's land, flitting from 'grand spectacle' to 'small story' indiscriminately and meaninglessly. John Corigliano's score is quite ghastly, and is poured over the proceedings with neither thought nor subtlety. Hugh Hudson's direction is clumsy throughout, both in his mismanagement of Pacino and the other key actors, and in the decision to use irritatingly shaky camera work during the action sequences. The idea of the hand-held camera is to create immediacy  that feeling of 'being there' in the confusion of battle and musket fire. Like so many other things in the film, it doesn't work. The one department where the film regains a modicum of respectability is the period detail, with costumes, sets and weaponry that look consistently accurate. But if it's period detail you're interested in a trip to the museum would be a better way to spend your time, because as a rousing cinematic experience Revolution doesn't even begin to make the grade. Nothing more than a £18,000,000 mega-bomb that the ailing British film industry could ill afford in the mid-1980s.


Ugh. Unfortunately this is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. None of the characters are remotely likable, which makes this film difficult to watch. They're all miserable thirty year olds who don't take responsibility for their crummy lives. I was only able to make it through a half hour of the film, so there's a chance things got better afterward, but I doubt it. I can't imagine five people as self-absorbed as they are would manage to remain friends with each other for ten years.

Three sex scenes in the first half hour were also disappointing, as they had no relevance to the plot, and were clearly a gratuitous (failed) attempt to bring some life to this otherwise dull film.

Save your time and money, and skip this movie.


I had never heard about this film prior to coming across it as I was perusing the shelves at a local rental store. Having just watched the latest Harry Potter installment, I was intrigued by Rupert Grint and wanted to see more of his work. Reading the description on back about 'an overzealous, evangelical Christian do-gooder,' and identifying as an evangelical Christian, myself, I thought, 'Ooohthis should be interesting.' And so it was. I found Mr. Brock's story beautiful in both words and images; and sadly enough, all too familiar. The contrast he drew between Ben's parent's interpretations of what it means to be a Christian was a poignant commentary on how Christians view themselves and the impact that perception has on those around them. On the one hand, we have Ben's mom stating, 'Whatever happens behind these walls, Ben, we're God's ambassadors. We show the world a smiling face.' On the other hand is Ben's dad discussing truth in his sermon at the beginning of the film. At the end of his monologue, he states, 'The more a person parades their Christianity for the benefit of others, the less I am inclined to trust the Christianity they claim. God tells us true faith is the freedom to choose truth. Now, how you express that, the way, the manner, the means at your disposal, these things are of no consequence, be you Christian or atheist, unless in your heart you are true.' If only our churches were full of Christians who ascribed to this latter definition of what it means to be a follower of Jesus, rather than the former. What a difference that would make! As a Christian and a psychologist, I would want an imperfect yet authentic faith over a perfectly polished image any day. What a tragedy  to feel like I always need to play a role when, really, I just need to rest in the freedom of being completely who God made me to be. I think Mr. Brock provides a refreshing glimpse of what this freedom in Christ looks like. I recommend this film for anyone who desires a fresh look at faith.


after seeing this excellent film over 100 times, i still find new things that blow me away with this movie, great special effects, incredible acting, and a plot full of ingenious twists makes this movie an excellent depiction of capitalism versus communism, and in this ending everyone is happy and all is well. best movie ever!!!


Grey Gardens is a world unto itself. Edith and Little Edie live in near total isolation, eating ice cream and liver pate in a makeshift kitchen in their (apparently) shared bedroom. Cats loll about while mother Edith insults her daughter's elocution. This is a Tennessee Williams play come to life and should inspire screenwriters and playwrights, as the bizarre and overlapping dialogue is 100% real.

The situation in the house reminds me exactly of how my grandmother and her 50-ish daughter lived for a decade (other than that they were poor and clean). They would bicker all day, grandmother talking about her gloriously perfect past while her daughter continually blamed her for missed opportunities with men, work, and self-expression.

This film is a must-see for anyone writing a mother/daughter relationship of this kind. It is sad and voyeuristic, but the filmmakers did an amazing job getting the Edies comfortable enough to expose themselves so recklessly. It is rare to see true life this way and all the more special considering the context--remnants of a powerful family fading into nothingness in the skeleton of their own mansion.


OK... so... I really like Kris Kristofferson and his usual easy going delivery of lines in his movies. Age has helped him with his soft spoken low energy style and he will steal a scene effortlessly. But, Disappearance is his misstep. Holy Moly, this was a bad movie!

I must give kudos to the cinematography and and the actors, including Kris, for trying their darndest to make sense from this goofy, confusing story! None of it made sense and Kris probably didn't understand it either and he was just going through the motions hoping someone would come up to him and tell him what it was all about!

I don't care that everyone on this movie was doing out of love for the project, or some such nonsense... I've seen low budget movies that had a plot for goodness sake! This had none, zilcho, nada, zippo, empty of reason... a complete waste of good talent, scenery and celluloid!

I rented this piece of garbage for a buck, and I want my money back! I want my 2 hours back I invested on this Grade F waste of my time! Don't watch this movie, or waste 1 minute of your valuable time while passing through a room where it's playing or even open up the case that is holding the DVD! Believe me, you'll thank me for the advice!


Thin story concerns two small town brothers and their struggles over family honor. David Morse is the responsible, straight-laced cop and 'good' brother; Viggo Mortensen, the 'bad' boy, is a former soldier and ex-convict. As an actor (particularly in his earliest years), Sean Penn seems to have modulated his performances under the Method. Turning first-time writer and director for this arty, obtuse drama, he works his script and characters out through the same methodical process, slowing the pacing down to a crawl (ostensibly so we can catch every nuance and inflection). This approach might be fascinating if there were three-dimensional characters to care about, but photogenic Morse and Mortensen aren't really convincing as siblings. Worse, we expect more from prominently-billed veterans Charles Bronson and Sandy Dennis, who hardly get a chance to come through with anything interesting. The picture is balky with turgid sequences, a wobbly narrative and confusing editing (always slanted to point up the artistic excesses). Penn's tricks with the camera show off a talented eye, yet they are mostly an irritation. *1/2 from ****


After the turning point of NIGHT MUST FALL, Robert Montgomery (for the most time) came into his finest films and performances: HERE COMES MR. JORDAN, THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE LADY IN THE LAKE, RIDE THE PINK HORSE, THE SAXON CHARM, JUNE BRIDE. Even some of the failures he was in were interesting enough to be still watchable (RAGE IN HEAVEN, MR. AND MRS. SMITH). But Montgomery wanted to do more and more production and directing work. In 1949 he made what would be his last movie performance - he played Collier Lang, an egotistical movie star, who is dragged into helping the authorities do an investigation about a young girl's boyfriend.

Apparently my view of this film is a minority view. Most of the views given are favorable about it. I thought it was a dull, witless script, with Ann Blyth's groupie heroine not very appealing as a character. She admires Montgomery as a star, and this 'helps' when he is called in to assist the authorities, but after awhile I found there was no chemistry between them. The script was also devoid of much fun, although Montgomery and Roland Winters did try. The only thing I recall to this day as a joke point was that Taylor Holmes is the wealthy father of Blyth, and he is an admirer of Winston Churchill. So he always dresses up as Churchill, and we see him wearing a floppy broad brimmed hat, smoking a large cigar, and painting (Holmes' bald head helps in the disguise). That was the most memorable joke from this film - not much of a real memory.

Montgomery went into early television, and finally won the attention and respect he always had deserved in motion pictures. His last contact with the movies was his direction of THE GALLANT HOURS about Admiral William 'Bull' Halsey, starring his friend Jimmy Cagney. It is a far better film than this. For his overall film and television career, I will give this mediocre film a '4'. That strikes me as generous.


After having red the overwhelming reviews this film got in my country, I but wanted to see it. But - what a disappointment! To see a bunch of one-dimensional characters in a plot that lacks of originality is not worth the money and the time to spend. I sometimes wonder about the filmcritics in switzerland.


I saw this movie when it aired on the WB and fell in love with Riley Smith immediately. I would recommend the movie to people of all ages who just feel like being entertained and not much more. I wish they'd air it again or cast Riley Smith in another movie!


Just went on YouTube and finally watched this Oscar-nominated animated short directed by Richard Condie. I had previously watched his funny Getting Started there. In this one, a couple are playing Scrabble. The wife keeps shaking her eyes while her husband has nothing but E's on his side. The wife leaves for a while to vacuum her bed and bathtub(!) before catching her husband looking at her side. Briefly before this, the husband catches a TV show called 'Sawing for Teens' with the stars sawing something and the husband getting his own saw. That program gets interrupted by a special report of a nuclear war happening (the newsman is a skeleton here) as everyone panics outside though the husband fell asleep during this time and thinks a parade is going on as he and his wife continue arguing about the game...There's plenty of other bizarre things going on before the touching ending comes on. Quite hilarious and well worth seeing for any animation buff out there. Can't wait to see any more animated shorts from Mr. Condie...


I started to watch this show by accident, but I love it. The fact that main character is in a wheelchair is something that lacking in television, especially for kids shows. My five-year-old nephew (as most children do) would just stare at people who were in wheelchairs or had some other type of handicap but after he watched Pelswick it just seemed to be a normal occurrence to him. Every time he saw a wheelchair he would simply say 'Like Pelswick' and go on with what ever he was originally doing. And YES the animation is a little crude, but if you can stand to watch through the first season of the Simpsons then this isn't that bad. The 'Genie' is actually an Angel who is there to help Pelswick learn lessons in life. He CAN NOT walk some else said he could walk some of the time, I've seen every episode and he never to my recollection walked, he is a paraplegic he has no feeling below his armpits (he mentions it in an episode). As for the humor if you can get a copy of the 'Ntalented' episode, which lampoons boy-bands, you will instantly love this show.


'Thursday' is a good movie but we recognize too much from other movies in its genre and therefor it lacks originality. If you have seen 'Goodfellas', 'Reservoir Dogs', 'Pulp Fiction' and a bunch of other movies that were inspired by that last one you have seen almost every part from 'Thursday'. There is a scene that involves torturing that has even the same dialogue as in Tarantino's 'Reservoir Dogs'.

Still, it is a good movie. Because not every part is taken from the same movie the complete thing has some new ideas and some nice touches. The opening sequence to begin with, is quite impressive. We meet Nick (Aaron Eckhart), Dallas (Paulina Porizkova) and Billy Hill (James Le Gros). They get into a fight with a clerk in a gas station over a cup of coffee and it ends with the death of that clerk and the arrival of a cop. We've already glimpsed at a suitcase with a lot of money in it.

Then we meet Casey (Thomas Jane) in Houston. He is married to Christine (Paula Marshall) but used to be working with Nick. She doesn't know a thing. Then Nick gives him a call and says that he is coming. We learn that he has screwed his friends over and the problems are about to start.

What happens exactly is not for me to reveal but we meet some other characters, all interested in the money or the drugs Nick also had with him. Casey has flushed those down the drain.

Very funny moments, a lot of blood, a very funny sub-plot involving actor Michael Jeter and some surprises (although if you really think about it you see them coming) this is a good movie with some very fine performances, nicely directed by Skip Woods.


I first saw this movie at least thirty years ago, and it remains one of my all-time faves! It's a classic - the intriguing plot, great characters, suspense and shocking twist ending (all set against the backdrop of the gorgeous Monterey/Big Sur coast) never get old. Roy Thinnes portrays Johnny Brant, a captivating character that grows more mysterious as his true identity unfolds. The acting is great and believable; viewers get caught up in the web that develops between the workaholic husband, disenchanted wife and the alluring stranger (Thinnes as Brant). I have searched for a copy to buy for years - I guess TV movies don't get released to video, unfortunately. Great movie, see it if you can find it.


There was no need for this movie, plain and simple. The original, although hated by some, was something I found to be actually really entertaining, mainly because it was before Jim Carrey started to really lose his touch, and Cameron Diaz was, well, 'Smoooooookin!' 'Nuff said. So why make a sequel/prequel thing? Honestly? Knowing that Jim Carrey wouldn't do it should've been clue enough that it didn't deserve to be created. But then they just make mistake after mistake. Jamie Kennedy. Why is this man still allowed to breathe? The writing and story: terrible. Why would I ever want to see a baby wearing the mask? Moreover why would I want to see it fly? Ever? HOW DID SOMEONE THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?! The acting is despicable, in fact nearly everything about this movie is. I'm trying to keep calm, or IMDb probably won't let me post this. Bottom line: don't watch this piece of trash. Pick up the original, see how good Cameron Diaz looked and how Jim Carrey used to have a career, and laugh. Don't waste even a second of your time on this.


This is a brilliant series along the same lines of Simpsons. Following a family as they go through life and problems etc. Slightly less realistic than Simpsons, talking baby and dog anyone? Family Guy goes where SImpsons or Futurama dares not, reaching past into the sicker jokes and more racy gags. And believe me, it works! Almost all the gags hit the mark and they'll have you in stitches(especially the random, frequent flashbacks!) When my brother first showed me this I wasn't hooked but after a few episodes I was hooked. You will be 2. 10/10 for a truly brilliant show. COngrats to Seth Macfarlane for bringing this show to life. :)


What a boring movie. While it did have humorous parts, it was just plain boring and lengthy (for a 90 minute movie). I believe that the cause was a lack of action.

When I rented this movie, I expected to see white blood cells combat the evil viruses, but no such luck. It was more that the virus was thwarted than defeated.

The movie had promise, but since made for little kiddies in mind, it did not meet its potential, in my opinion.


Yes, in this movie you are treated to multiple little snowmen on the attack in apparently a very warm climate so yes this movie is definitely not to be taken seriously. It is in fact a much worse movie than the original as at least with that one the whole production looked like it cost more than a couple of bucks and a video camera to make. It has its funny moments, but really playing off the cheapness of your movie and making that be your intended laughs is kind of weak film making if you ask me. You can not come up with a good story, your effects are going to really be bad, hey let us just make the movie look as bad as possible with horrible one liners and we have our movie. The first one at least had a somewhat credible story as the snowman in that one attacked during the winter and not what amounts to a resort. It also had better effects too, this one is just a step or two ahead of 'Hobgoblins' as far as the monsters are concerned and you really want to be more than a step a two above a bunch of hand puppets. Still, it makes up for all of this with a super ending that depicts a great sea vessel being taken out by the mighty frost. Actually, I am just kidding, but really it was the funniest part of the movie.


This is the forty minute film that introduces us to the character of the Butcher, who will later be examined more thoroughly in the feature Seul Contre Tous. In this film, it follows the early period of his life from 1965-1979, but focusing on the late seventies. The first images are of a slaughter of a horse, then the birth of a baby, the Butcher's daughter, who we quickly see growing up each year. The Butcher (played by Philippe Nahon in both films) is a man bitter with the world. He hates many things. His anger comes to a head when a man assaults his autistic daughter. The Butcher then maims the wrong man, and finds himself in prison.

This film follows the butcher's life to just after his release from prison, then Seul Contre Tous takes over from there. I watched the films the wrong way about, Seul Contre Tous first. Try and watch this little film first if you can.


I will admit that this movie was awful, cheesy, sexist, badly dubbed, and poorly edited, but I loved it anyway. I first saw this movie when I was 14, and it has stuck with me ever since. FYI, this is very close to hard-core porn as I remember. It certainly got my juices flowing. This flick gives a whole new meaning to swedish erotica. It is a humourous take on human sexuality as seen by hot randy female aliens who are, I think, just looking for some spermatozoa for their dying race.


I wasn't expecting to much of this movie when I went into the theater but I had been waiting for it for many years. To sum it up, it was pretty damn good! Chad Michael Murray was pretty good, I thought he was going to be another Chris Flynn from Wrong Turn but I was wrong. Elisha Cuthbert was also good but the best performance has to go to Brian Van Holt. He played the bad guy too well, I mean he was sick, sadistic, and very cruel. The back story between the brothers was good, plus I liked how no killings took place until about 40 minutes into the film. It gave you time to pick the character you wanted to see live and the one you wanted to see die. Jon Abrahams was pretty good as the goofy best bud of CMM. I liked how Chad kind of cried when he found him dead, it was better then just him being like, 'Whatever, my buddy is dead, who cares'. It showed how he really cared. So overall, this was a darn god slasher with some great effects. Bravo!


German filmmaker Ulli Lommel has managed a task many horror fans thought was impossible: he's unseated fellow Teuton Uwe Boll for the crown of director of the worst horror film ever made.

Lommel is truly the Ed Wood of the new millennium. This film is as shoddy and laughable as the best-worst of EW. I am both proud and embarrassed to say that I watched it in toto, morbidly fascinated to see just low the bar could be set. The answer is: subterranean; Lommel dug a pit and buried it.

The fun begins with the cast of international nobodies. Only someone who has lived in Los Angeles, where every auto mechanic, doctor and mailman is an actor or screenwriter waiting to be discovered, could easily understand how Lommel managed to find so many wannabe actors willing to spew his ridiculous dialog with a straight face.

The main character, a villainous beat cop, is played by a German actor with a thick German accent. Aside from being a serial killer, he is also the oldest beat cop in LA. Despite the fact that he stops innocent women drivers and takes them into custody, then drags them into his home (which inexplicably is the top floor of a furniture warehouse), and does all this in plain sight of his rookie partners, the LAPD refuses to investigate, going so far as to physically attack one of his accusers in a ninja style raid on his apartment.

The sets are excruciatingly bad. The production designer's budget apparently included just enough money for a can of paint; enough to paint 'Precinct 707' on a cardboard wall.

Since the actors were obviously unpaid non-professionals--a sad assortment of European emigres (possibly deportees if they acted in their native lands), bimbos, mimbos, and desperate middle-aged women--and since little if any money was spent on sets, special efx, locations or other production value, it is only fair to mention that they did spring for a few genuine-looking police uniforms. Sadly, they couldn't afford a police car; the uniformed cops cruise the streets in a shiny new Mercury rental.

More than half of the story focuses on the dirty deeds of our deranged German LAPD officer and the futile efforts of two young rookies to stop him. One of these young actors is especially pitiable because he's the only actor in this whole mess with even a vague shot at a real career in the movies. The other fits right in, with a rockabilly hairdo and tortured Brando posing that needs to be seen to be appreciated.

The latter part of the film is where the title gets its zombie, as the victims of our killer are resurrected after he murders a girl who had just visited some voodoo priestesses to have a protective spell put on her. Don't ask why a girl from Romania would resort to voodooism in anticipation of being murdered, just accept Lommel's logic and enjoy the absurd ride.

After much prolonged hand-clawing out of straw-covered roadside graves, the zombie girls manage to make their appearance. They look exactly as they did before death, maybe even prettier, with black glamor make-up generously airbrushed around their eyes. Looking nothing like zombies, they look more like high fashion models ready for the runway.

At this point in the movie Lommel borrows a creative note from his lauded countryman Boll, and injects large doses of cheesy Euro-trash techno into the soundtrack. We're talking prehistoric electronic bumblebee noise. Stuff they might have played in an Ibiza disco when Lommel was still young enough to shake his booty.

Unlike other zombies, Lommel's girls speak and function as normal... er, I mean, as they did before becoming zombified. This gives our auteur ample opportunities to shower us with more of his golden dialog. Yes, a golden shower it is.

I won't spoil anything by revealing the shock ending. All I can say is it's perfectly in tune with the rest of this masterpiece. The spirit of Ed Wood lives on... or should I say his geist.


Obvious attack on Microsoft made by people who don't appear to understand intellectual property or market economies generally.

Loony liberal tim robbins plays a painfully obvious caricature of bill gates, and is a cartoonish corporate villain ordering murders right and left.

While microsoft may engage in some anticompetitive activity at times, it's unlikely they actually murder people. Therefore, the film is over the top and ridiculous from the beginning.

The 'deeper' point is apparently that major tech innovations should be free to the public, and not subject to intellectual property laws. However, this ignores the fact that most major innovations would never have been developed if not for the market incentives (and rewards) provided by intellectual property.

It's one thing to be opposed to anti-competitive conduct -- that's common sense. It's quite another to be opposed to market competition in the first place, which is what the film's mantra ('knowledge belongs to mankind') represents.

Yet another example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality.


I wasn't entirely sure what to expect from a Comedy, Drama, Fantasy, Sci-Fi genre, but, given the actors involved I thought I'd give it a spin. The tone of the film felt awkward, going through patches of each of the genres but never quite felt balanced, so eventually I gave up trying, and concentrated on the cinematography and individual performances, which I thought were good on the whole, considering each character had little depth because of the nature of the story (won't give anything away here). I have to say it felt a LOT longer than its 96 minute runtime, and not in a good way. In the end I was looking for closure, some measure of satisfaction but it didn't turn out to be the clever or ingenious piece I had hoped it would be. I think Tony mistakenly thought what he did do at the end of the film gave us that... but it was a tragic mistake to try and validate the previous 95 minutes with the ill-conceived conclusion. Ultimately I feel cheated. IMO it would have been better to let it stand without the 'ending' as a piece of Art... just. Or... I may have missed the point completely :)


To summarize, my group of friends and I spent about 45 minutes outside the theater sharing our favorites gaffes, plot inconsistencies, untied loose ends, and other ridiculous aspects of this movie. I found the story trite to the point of inconsequential and the plot lines as underdeveloped as the dino embryos still locked in the shaving cream canister from Jurassic Park 1. The editing was poor and none of the characters engendered any sort of sympathy or feeling. In short, this movie lacked any of the suspense and thrill that the first movie provided from a story standpoint

Even the new dinosaurs were few and far between (although I really enjoyed the pterodactyls.) We got several brief shots of the new species and only 2 really were involved in the action.

As a scientist and former childhood paleontologist, the lack of any real scientific content (not that it had to be realistic, but logically formed i.e. how they built the dinos in #1 and malcom's chaos ramblings) was disappointing as well.

In short, the movie seemed to be nothing more than an excuse to trot dinos back on the scene to make some money. I hope that movie-goers don't fall for this trap again (although I did apparently)


Way to go ace! You just made a chilling, grossly intriguing story of a necrophiliac cannibal into a soft, mellow, drama. Obviously a movie called Dahmer would be one of two kinds: Horror, or documentary right? This was neither. It wasn't close to any detailed facts, (in fact it barely had any substance at all) It wasn't really morbid or scary or didn't even try to be very disturbing.(as if you would've had to try!!) What the hell was this writer/director thinking?? Here's one of the most REAL examples of sick serial killers ever and we get badly shot, poorly acted gay bar roofie rapes and lengthy droning flashbacks to alone time in his old parent's house. I think Jacobson was actually trying to present (or invent) 'the soft side' of j.Dahmer.