I'll get to the movie in a minute. First, someone wanted "proof" about Clinton's comments at Georgetown, where he claimed that the USA "deserved" the 9-11 attacks. Well, here's what Clinton said:"In the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was a Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it."WE'RE still paying for it? Whaddya mean "we", paleface? The Marines didn't storm the Temple Mount. But in truth, Clinton never really came out and flatly said that we "deserved" 9-11. Like all his statements during his presidency, he IMPLIED that we deserved 9-11. Just point out "fact" A, B, C, and maybe D, and let the listener deduce that they must add up to conclusion X. When in truth, most of Clinton's "Facts" added up to guacamole.But that's beside the point. We're here to talk movies, not politics. Unfortunately, when Oliver "Captain Conspiracy" Stone does a movie, you can't escape his warped politics. It was only a matter of time before he focused his paranoia and bitterness on the Reagan Era, and what better time than when Stone's dreams almost came true, on the day Reagan nearly bought the farm. Unable to find any nefarious plots or schemes in Hinckley's assassination attempt, he invents one with Al Haig. From a simple misunderstanding of the chain of Constitutional authority, Haig is transformed from a public servant who really should have brushed up on his remedial civics into a raving megalomaniac. You almost expect Haig to rub his hands together like Montgomery Burns and tell Cap Weinberger to "Release the Hounds." Stone even recruits the smarmiest person in Hollywood to play our former Secretary of State, Richard Dreyfuss. A guy you love to hate on sight.Overall, the movie is OK. Average, hovering on below average. Don't bother renting or buying. Try to catch it on cable. 4 out of 10.


I enjoyed this movie a lot. I thought that the plot of the movie was realistic and relevant to anytime period in American history. There is always that woman that does what she needs to do to climb the class system. I feel that the character of Lilly was portrayed correctly and could of not been done better. What I enjoyed most was when she realized what love really was. Throughout the movie all of the men that fell for her were in love with her, had given her everything, even lost their careers for her. Until she had met Cortland, she did not understand why these men gave up everything for happiness. The way her life had ended up was far from what she expected to be possible. I'd recommend this movie to anyone of a mature audience so you are able to understand the content and the under-laying meaning of the movie and plot.


There is not much more I can say about this movie than all of the commentaries on page one, except - as Jesse says - "it's the berries". All of page one's commentators wrote eloquently - as almost so as the dialog is in this movie. This just may be one of those illusive things we hear so much about, but usually are made so by the actors who deliver the lines: a beautiful script. Maybe Robert Redford did hold strict sway onto the actors/actresses during the filming of this movie, so that the beauty of the story would not get lost.I, too, attended church when I was very young and into my late teens. The church's pastor spoke very eloquently and quietly as the Rev. Maclean did in his church. That, in itself, is a totally different picture that is portrayed of Southern Baptist churches - no holy-rollering in my church. It was a big church, with many different programs to keep its congregation busy - the most inspiring perhaps was the music-department with its huge choir and almost classical anthems. Too, the Sunday evening-congregation was almost entirely younger people. Are you even aware it was once safe to go to church on Sunday night? How I wish it still was ! Watching "A River Runs through It" is very much like going to hear a beautiful sermon in a church whose members are fully involved in life. As has already been so beautifully written, the sermon for this movie is the open-space beauties of Montana - yet, aren't there also missile-silos there, too? Fly-fishing or any other activity which draws family-members closer together for a happy life - and deep understanding of one another - becomes a blessing. Although you see some of the shadier aspects of life then, too, the simplicity of the story paints a lasting impression on your heart, if you let it. Speakeasies and prostitutes are counter-balanced by the simple gatherings of old-fashioned, community picnics as this movie contains - in heavy contrasts to modern families taking their kids to Disney Land for screeching joyrides and calling it "a day together". There is noting wrong with that, but as "River" demonstrates, some of its taciturn beauty could do nothing but make life richer. This is the third film I've seen in which Tom Skeritt (?) plays a father, all different styles and brilliantly acted.Brad Pitt, mostly an undiscovered talent except for "Thelma and Louise" and "Meet Joe Black", and all of the cast-members deserved many awards. Little stories superbly told will get 10-of-10 from me over any movie with violence, foul language, ugliness and "action". I am thinking particularly of "Crash" and most of "Arnold's" movies. What a savior for peace this movie is.


*WARNING. THERE MIGHT BE SPOILERS AHEAD, IF YOU CARE.*Okay, the basic premise of this homegrown Texas film is: College kids + spookhouse + evil magic book = scary stuff. In practice, it equals a lot of time looking at the time to see how much longer this movie is going to drag on. A bunch of frat boys, along with assorted girlfriends & volunteers, is setting up a charity haunted house. The project is being presided over by a thoroughly repellent character, whose main purpose seems to be verbally & physically assaulting as many cast members as possible. I had a hard time believing that anyone would even attempt to work with this person in any capacity: he's nothing but rude and abusive to everyone, including his girlfriend and his buddy. Regardless, the kids are visited by local character & annual pumpkin-carving champion "Pumpkin Jack", an elderly coot who is described as the "Santa Claus of Halloween", and who drops off a load of props for the house, including an ominous book that figured prominently in the irritatingly strobe-flashed prologue(where a gaggle of robed cultists get turned into stir-fry). Needless to say, some damn fool starts messing with the book, and eventually most of the costumed monsters turn into real ones, and the remaining few normal folk have to try and survive. There's some good stuff in this film, but not much: everything is shot well, and the makeup effects are decent. On the other hand, the performers either underact, or overact drastically; much of the plot makes little sense outside of a "this happens so that can happen" series; there is hardly any musical score to speak of, just snatches of songs throughout the film; and the movie takes an hour to actually get anywhere. That last problem is the most telling: two-thirds of the 90 minute running time is used to repeatedly set up the characters. Tom is a nice guy dating Heidi the control freak, but he used to date Jill, who is now dating Dan the jerk, but she's started a relationship Kira the girl who wears too many shawls/capes. Dan is a really big jerk, Gary likes to play jokes, and Steve & Lily like to have a lot of sex. Stuff that could have easily been dealt with in 20 minutes or so drags on and on, to the point where the lesbian "sex" scene(calm down, it's pretty tame) left me looking for the fast forward button. That leaves us with half an hour of lo-calorie scares, a klunky ending and a deep-seated dislike of ol' Pumpkin Jack, who I blame for the whole mess. Unless you can get this on some sort of deep-discount rental(and really have seen everything else in the store), put it back on the shelf and keep looking.


Not only was this movie better than all the final season of H:LOTS. But it was better than any movie made for TV I have ever seen!Looking at the "Top 250" I see that only one small screen movie has made it: How the Grinch Stole Christmas. I think it is time to increase that group to 2.I will admit that the original series had several shows that were better than this, but I didn't mind. I just LOVED being able to enter the world of the Baltimore Homicide Squad again!


i usually don't write reviews but i can't understand why this is rated so high and wanted to give a warning to horror lovers since i can only assume that all those high ratings were given by average TV watchers.i have only watched the first two episodes but those two were so cliché, it wasn't even funny any more. the same old stories you've probably seen/read a couple of times already - living toys, evil things from other dimensions... and it's not just that these stories aren't innovative, they are also pretty bad versions of those clichés. i'd prefer e.g. "chucky" and "silent hill" over those two episodes anytime. and don't even ask about the visual effects... the ones in the first episode are alright but the ones in the second... awful. looks like some film student's project gone wrong. blood... or gore... erm... nothing worth mentioning.it might be interesting for some ten year old kid who probably hasn't seen/read that many scary stories yet (although i'd rather recommend "beyond belief" - now that's what i call a decent mystery TV show). but for an adult horror fan this is worthless. i only gave the 3 points because there is in fact some beautiful cinematography (especially in the second episode) and some nice acting.


This film proves that the "commercial" cinema ,or else,the Hollywood movies are in a serious crisis.There is absolutely no reason that this movie should have been produced apart from the fact that somebody expected success based on Shaquille's name.There is no worth referring to the plot :it is a bit more perplexed than a knot.What else?The screen is somewhat dim,O'Neal is a bad actor but Francis Capra is even worse.Rating: 1 / 10.


This is the only movie I have ever seen that has prompted me to write a critique on any internet site, and that is a significant statement from someone who likes "The Attack of the Monolith Monsters." This movie is perfect for anyone who wants an inoffensive movie. It is devoid of sex and violence, for example. I believe that this movie is safe for children of all ages. This movie is perfect for anyone who does not want to be entertained, challenged, or stimulated in any way. Adults could easily catch up on their sleep in front of the TV while the kids watch this movie. Don't be surprise ,however, if you wakeup to find the kids have turned the TV off and started a board game. As an adult who enjoys being entertained, who enjoys everything from the mundane to the fantastic in realism, drama, comedy, and action, all of those adult things that reflect real life on earth and/or stimulate the imagination, this movie has nothing to offer.


I resisted seeing this movie and I understand why it was not a big hit in theatres. "October Sky" feels and looks oh so familiar. And it is. All plot contrivances and emotions have been explored before in other films -- and possibly even better. But despite it's familiarity and resistance to all formulas Hollywood, this movie is winning and likeable at every turn. Sputnik is the inspiration for this journey of the heart, mind and soul. Just as the characters from Steven Sondheim's musical MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG stood agape atop their apartment roof hoping it would launch their new generation ("What do you call it? You call it a miracle."), Sputnik has a similar affect on the young rocket boys of this true tale. While jaded townsfolk of their 1950's coal town dismiss the event, Homer Hickham sees Sputnik as his ticket out of a life in the mines.Masterful direction and casting make the journey of rocket boy Homer and his pals seem fresh and new. Especially affecting are subplots concerning Homer's ailing young school teacher. Remarkable restraint is shown in depicting their delicate relationship. Also remarkable is the father / son supblot that anchors the film. Perfectly played all around. Even Homer's mom gets her moment without cliche or intrusion. Her ultimatum to her husband is both dignified and heatbreaking. "Myrtle Beach" says it all. A major video chain I despise has a sign next to this film stating that you'll love this film or they'll refund your money. For once, I agree with them. You'll never look at the October sky quite the same again.


This film is a complete re-imagining of Romeo and Juliet in Tel Aviv and Nablus. The lovers are one from Tel Aviv et the other from Nablus. There is a border between them, and a constant state of war with the Israeli army ever present everywhere and the Palestinian militants everywhere else with their bombs. The situation is bleak enough. We can imagine love in that enormous loveless trap. But the film goes several light years further by imagining the two lovers are gay, Noam from Tel Aviv and Ashraf from Nablus. To be gay is accepted in Tel Aviv. It is off limits in Nablus. The conflict between the two peoples, the two communities is thus doubled with a conflict between two cultures, two ethics. But this could even be livable if the war did not bring some extra dimension. Ashraf's sister is going to get married to a militant activist in Nablus. Ashraf finally tells his sister about his being gay. She cannot accept it but accepts to speak about it later. From the wedding itself the newly married husband sends a commando into Tel Aviv to set up a bomb attack. It takes place in a café in Tel Aviv and one friend of Noam's is severely wounded. Bad enough. The Isareli army sends a commando to Nablus to arrest the person responsible for this attack, but it turns sour and the newly married wife is shot dead in the street. The funeral follows the wedding. The husband and widower volunteers for a suicide bomb attack. Ashraf volunteers to take his place. The exiled lover comes back to Tel Aviv to die and kill a few people to avenge his sister. He arrives at a diner managed by some friends of Noam's. But Noam sees him and gets out to speak to him. Ashraf has moved back to the middle of the street and he detonates his bomb when Noam reaches him in the street. The vengeance reunites the two lovers in death. We thus have the dual conflict but we do not have the Prince of Verona, a neutral character that can impose peace, or even worse the Prince seems to have chosen sides and to be on the side of Israel. The game is entirely false and death is sure on both sides. But the dimension of impossible love is all the stronger because it is redoubled by a play in the film, a play that shows love in Auschwitz, between two prisoners, one wearing a yellow star and the other a pink triangle. This is both strikingly strong and breathtakingly shocking: gay love in Auschwitz. What comes out of the film is that over there in Tel Aviv or Nablus love is impossible. The film is thus a denunciation of the conflict in Palestine that cannot but continue though it has no reason to even exist though it has thousands of reasons to go on. We should never have let Great Britain deal with the region a long time ago. Today we have to find a solution in which no one will be humiliated. This will only be able to succeed if everyone comes together in order to find a lasting solution. But so far everyone is trying to avoid that general confrontation and discussion preferring bilateral manipulations. So suffering will go on and love will be forbidden, of course not sex since children are needed for the war to go on: so let's procreate more and more little soldiers. But love is just an extra-terrestrial concept.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne


Pleasant, diverting and charming. The best part is the swing numbers, especially the rendition of My Buddy, partial though it may have been. The acting was a bit over the top in areas but the mood set by Wilder is so pleasant it is hard not to enjoy this film.


I have seen about a thousand horror films. (my favorite type) This film is among the worst. For me, an idea drives a movie. So, even a poorly acted, cheaply made movie can be good. Something Weird is definitely cheaply made. However, it has little to say. I still don't understand what the karate scene in the beginning has to do with the film. Something Weird has little to offer. Save yourself the pain!


There is so much to love in this darling little comedy. Anyone who has ever built or bought a house, or even just been short of space,will find that there is more than just a grain of truth in the plight of the addled Mr. Blanding.Melvyn Douglas,with great comedic flare, both narrates and acts as the Blandings' attorney and voice of reason.As well Myrna Loy is at her best as a rather scatterbrained but extremely patient wife. But the best performance is Grant's. He is the American everyman, especially relevant at the time of this film's release, when the nation was in the grips of a housing shortage after the end of the war. The themes are universal,lack of money, work strain, fear of infidelity.Yes, it does wrap up awfully neatly, but you must keep in mind that this was a time when the world was just recovering from a terrible war, and wanted a happy ending. It is still relevant today, and I must chalk up the poor reviews I see to a present preference for dumbed down, gross out comedies. The look of the film is slick, and there are some great bits of comedy is well, particularly toward the beginning.While it may have lost some of it's social relevance, nearly sixty years after it's release, it is still a gem.


Walking home after the film, I was humming the familiar waltz music that Natalia and Alexandre were dancing to. I've heard that before - where? Ah, from Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" (track 2), 'got it just as I arrived at the door. It's "Waltz No. 2 from Jazz Suite No. 2" composed by Dimitri Shostakovich, performed here by The City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra. Yes, I went and picked up the soundtrack from Tower's. What a treat! The film score by Alexandre Desplat was fulfilling - there are fifteen tracks besides two tracks of the delightful waltz. It's not often these days we get a soundtrack entirely dedicated to a comprehensive film score. Reminds me of favorite scores by Maurice Jarre, Ennio Morricone (beginning notes of track 6 have traces of "Nuovo cinema Paradiso"), Georges Delerue, and John Barry. There are subtle nuances of strains and notes from the strings, celeste, piano, and harp. Emily Watson and John Turturro delivered a credibly consuming paired performance. The love story, their intimate connection, is very much between Alexandre and Natalia - his childlike yet tormenting inner world, and her generous and bold understanding of him - a relationship alone to them both. Director Marleen Gorris of "Antonia's Line" (1996 Academy Award's Best Foreign Language Film from the Netherlands) gave us a quietly sensitive film - not without its unsettling human conflicts, intrigues, obsessions, family strives, lovingness and respect. The front-end subject is the mind-game and mathematical logic of chess. Beneath it can be a mild tearjerker of a drama set in the late 1920's. Cinematography captures the serene beauty of Lake Como in northern Italy near the Swiss border.I highly recommend the soundtrack if you don't feel like going to the movies. Alexandre Desplat's lyrical film score of "The Luzhin Defence" is complete.


An MTV-style film crew consisting of American T.V. programme producer Zack Zardine (Matt Borlenghi) his camerawoman, the Australian Cecily (Kate Fisher) and two surfer 'dudes' named Bog Hall (Dax Miller) and Jeremy (Joel West) arrive on some nice looking island somewhere, it's not actually revealed where. The crew plan to shoot an expose on 'bloodsurfing' which is apparently the latest craze in extreme sports. Surfers throw bait into the sea and cut themselves to attract sharks, just to see if they can out-surf them without being eaten. Once there they are greeted by Sonny Lofranco (Cris Vertido) and his wife Melba (Susan Africa). Their search for the perfect location leads them to the shark infested waters of Lilo-Cay. Sonny, Melba and their daughter Lemmya (Maureen Larrazabal) take them in their boat. Soon after arriving and having already shot some 'bloodsurfing' footage Sonny, Melba and Lemmya are all killed by a 30 foot saltwater crocodile that some say 'owns' the island. The boat is sunk. Zack, Cecily, Bog and Jeremy appear stuck on the island until such time a rescue party arrives. However, after a run in with some, erm well I don't really know what they are. Pirates? Drug smugglers? Revolutionairies? Fat ugly people who just don't like being with other people? Who knows? And more importantly who cares? Not me that's for sure. Anyway, after escaping from these guys who look like pirates, they are picked up just off the coast of the island by Captain John Dirks (Duncan Regehr) and his girl Arty (Taryn Reif as Tara Reif). The film crew believe they have been saved. Little do they know that the crocodile and Captain Dirks go way back and he has a score to settle and four members of a film crew aren't going to stop him. Captain Dirks heads back to Lilo-Cay for a final showdown with the giant man-eating crocodile.Directed by James D.R. Hickox this is one awful film, but it's still not as bad as Tobe Hoopers Crocodile (2000). Everything about this film sucks. The script by Sam Bernard and Robert L.Levy is terrible, extremely slow as the crocodile isn't even seen or mentioned before the 30 minute mark and by that time I was seriously bored and annoyed with the hideously unlikeable characters thought up by Bernard and Levy. The whole film is also frustratingly predictable as well, within the first 10 minutes anyone familiar with horror film stereotypes and stock characters will be able to guess who dies and who will survive. The crocodile effects are awful and seem to be repeated over and over, there is a small puppet head that obviously has someones arm stuck inside it controlling it's movements as the water splashes become huge! The CGI shots of the crocodile are just plain embarrassing to watch. There is no gore apart from when a character is bitten in half which is achieved using CGI to digitally remove the actors legs, again it looks terrible. There is also a brief scene when someone is impaled on wooden spikes when they set a trap off. There is a reasonable amount of nudity and sex, plus the female actresses are nice and easy on the eye. There are basic continuity and logical errors in the film too, in one sequence Cecily is filming Bog and Jeremy 'bloodsurfing' but from the angle and distance she is at it would be physically impossible to obtain footage of both the sharks and surfers at the same time, and surely that is the whole point of her shot? When Dirks manages to harpoon the crocodile the angle of the wire changes dramatically between shots, in one shot the angle of the line looks like it's coming from the sky, in the shot straight after the angle is completely different and it seems as if the line is coming from below the surface of the water when in actual fact the harpoon is attached to the back of the boat and the line should be almost level with the surface. I could carry on, like why does the crocodile jump off the edge of a cliff if it's so smart as this film tries to make out? But I would probably exceed the 1000 word limit if I listed everything that was wrong with this film, so I won't. I hated this film, but rather scarily it's still not as bad as Tobe Hoopers effort at a giant crocodile film. Definitely one to avoid.


This picture seemed way to slanted, it's almost as bad as the drum beating of the right wing kooks who say everything is rosy in Iraq. It paints a picture so unredeemable that I can't help but wonder about it's legitimacy and bias. Also it seemed to meander from being about the murderous carnage of our troops to the lack of health care in the states for PTSD. To me the subject matter seemed confused, it only cared about portraying the military in a bad light, as A) an organzation that uses mind control to turn ordinary peace loving civilians into baby killers and B) an organization that once having used and spent the bodies of it's soldiers then discards them to the despotic bureacracy of the V.A. This is a legitimate argument, but felt off topic for me, almost like a movie in and of itself. I felt that "The War Tapes" and "Blood of my Brother" were much more fair and let the viewer draw some conclusions of their own rather than be beaten over the head with the film makers viewpoint. F-


Though I did not begin to read the "Classics" in literature until I was 47, it's never too late. Jane Eyre is a favorite for many reasons, mainly because there isn't a part of the book I liked less, only parts I enjoyed more. The 1983 TV mini-series with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton was everything I hoped it would be. I saw it as a full length movie in 2006. Dalton's 'Mr. Rochester' was very good but I absolutely loved Zelah's 'Jane Eyre'. Relecting on another 'Classics' movie I saw recently, I was disappointed in the production, direction and dialogue. It was only faithful to the avarice and arrogance of Hollywood. Artistic license to the great works in literature is nothing short of plagiarism. Using the title after such license is fraud. Leave it to the Brits to get this one right (among others). You won't be able to reread the book without reliving the movie with it's proper context and spirit. Well done BBC.


Any true wrestling fan would have to consider this Wrestlemania to be one of, if not the best of all time. It was packed with excitement and surprises. One of the greatest matches of all time was between Shawn Michaels and Steve Austin with special guest ref Mike Tyson. The show that Michaels put on was unbelievable, especially considering the shape that his back was in and that this was his last match.


Okay. So there aren't really that many great movies around. Recent gems like American Dream, The Straight Story and even Toy Story 2 don't normally come so close together. But boy (!) does this film counter-balance the quality.I have NO idea what these people thought they were doing. Are the financiers in this world so easily convinced to fund such a crock of ****? I can just see it now...Producer - "So we've got Joe Fiennes. He's cute as a button and was pretty good in Shakespeare in Love. And we've got Rhys Ifans, who isn't cute but was cool in Notting Hill. We'll mix in a really mediocre score, a few forgettable post-Britpop tunes, hemlock root and lizard brains and hey presto you've got the worst film of the new millennium.And believe me, it's gonna be a hard job to make anything as bad as this in the next thousand years."The Bank - "I like it! Any unnecessary sex? Bad camera movements? And what about the worst accents this side of Devil's Own?"Producer - "Yeah, we got plenty of those."The Bank - "Sounds great, where do we sign?"Please.


For romantic comedies, I often judge the quality of the film based upon the mistiness of my eyes by the end of the experience. Unfortunately for "The Wedding Date," I can only rate the film with 4 out of 10 possible tears.My apologies to fans of Debra Messing and Dermot Mulroney, but I did not see much chemistry between their two characters. The premise of the film is a reverse "Pretty Woman," with Dermot playing the role of Nick, a high-priced male escort hired by Debra's character Kat to accompany her to England for her sister's wedding. A romantic relationship presumably develops between patron and client. But the dialogue seemed forced and artificial. And there weren't enough romantic sparks flying in the relationship of Nick and Kat.In a supporting role, Amy Adams was a standout as Kat's sister. Whenever Amy came on screen, she served as a spark plug and catalyst for the film's energy. Perhaps if Amy Adams had been cast in the role of Kat, the film might have had more dynamism. But as it turned out, instead of reaching for Kleenex, I was looking for the Visine in attempt to at least pretend that this film had some genuine sentiment and romance.


If you have read the books then forget the characters that Tolkien built in your head. The representation of hobbits, dwarves etc have had the 'disney' treatment. The dark riders are excellent, and as I had always imagined from the books.Cinematically this is an excellent film, mixing live motion and animation to produce amazing effects for the year. I only wish he (Bakshi) had been given the money to complete his epic.It's worth having the video as they will be worth a bit after the 2001 Lord of the Rings !!


Wow. I have seen some really bad movies in my time, but this one truly takes the cake. It's the worst movie I've seen in the past decade - no exaggeration.As a US Army veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I found it nearly impossible to even finish watching this ridiculous film, not because it brought back memories - far from it - but because there was absolutely no attempt at "authenticity" to be found anywhere in the film. Not so much as the tiniest little shred. It seemed like it had been written by an 8 year-old child who got all his notions of war (and soldierly behavior) straight out of comic books. The film was made in Honduras, which should have been a clue, but even that can't fully explain the atrocious production values of this cliché-ridden piece of trash.I could try to list all the endless technical flaws, but it would take virtually forever. From the ancient unit shoulder patches which have not been seen or worn since WWII, and the character's name tags, like "ColCollins" (worn by the character "Colonel Collins"), which was actually spelled using the reversed, mirror-image "N" of the Russian alphabet (not the US alphabet) the list just goes on and on. The uniforms, the equipment, the plot, and most especially the behavior of the characters themselves -- every single scene was just chock-full of ridiculous flaws, inaccuracies and utterly mindless clichés.Neither the storyline itself nor the characters were the least bit credible or believable. It was all laughably childish, in the extreme. This was obviously a movie that was meant to appeal strictly to pre-pubescent boys, and I have little doubt that even they would find this film utterly absurd.In short, this film has absolutely NO redeeming qualities at all. It's a total waste of time. I'd strongly advise anybody reading this to pass this garbage by; it's truly not worth wasting a single moment of your time for.


Much like Orson Welles thirty years earlier,Mike Sarne was given "the biggest train set in the world"to play with,but unfortunately lacked the ability to do anything more than watch his train set become a train wreck that is still spoken of with shock and a strange sort of awe. Despite post - modern interpretations purporting somehow to see it as a gay or even feminist tract,the fact of the matter is that it was a major disaster in 1970 and remains one today.How anyone given the resources at Mr Sarne's disposal could have screwed up so royally remains a closely - guarded secret.Only Michael Cimino ever came close with the political and artistic Armageddon that constitutes "Heaven's Gate".Both films appeared to be ego trips for their respective directors but at least Mr Cimino had made one of the great movies of the 1970s before squandering the studio's largesse,whereas Mr Sarne had only the rather fey "Joanna" in his locker. Furthermore,"Heaven's Gate" could boast some memorable and well - handled set - pieces where,tragically,"Myra Breckinridge"s cupboard was bare. Simply put,it is overwhelmingly the worst example of biting the hand that feeds in the history of Hollywood.


It is very hard to rate this film. As entertainment value for 21st century viewers, it fails miserably. However, for the student of early sound films and history, it is a jewel. "Show of Shows" was a revue filmed to compete with MGM's successful "Hollywood Revue of 1929", which still survives intact complete with its Technicolor scenes.The purpose of the all-star revue was to showcase a particular studio's silent stars in speaking roles, and show that they could make the transition. However, Warner Bros. seems to have forgotten this and employs many acts and stars that they didn't even have under long-term contract such as Ben Turpin, Lloyd Hamilton, Beatrice Lillie, and even a marching band. Meanwhile, their biggest talent - Al Jolson - is noticeably absent. Even at a high salary he could not be compelled to join in. Almost every act is overly long and the film plays like a dozen or so Vitaphone shorts strung together with no continuity. The finale is also overly long, but it is really enjoyable with all of its dance numbers.The highlights of the film are two numbers from Winnie Lightner - "Pingo Pongo" and "Singin in the Bathtub", a couple of numbers with Nick Lucas, John Barrymore performing Shakespeare, and the Chinese Fantasy "Li Po Li" with Nick Lucas and Myrna Loy. This last number is the only part of the film that survives in Technicolor, and it really is quite attractive. Reasonably enough, the players in these good acts were long-term Warner Bros. stars so perhaps the director knew how to play to their strengths since he was familiar with them.This film acts as a snapshot at an odd point in film history - the year 1929, which was the bridge year between two eras - the silent and sound eras, and the roaring 20's and the Great Depression. Just two years later this same film would have had an entirely different cast, as Warner Bros. would abandon its silent era stars and the stars they hired just to produce the early musicals in favor of those stars that gave Warner Bros. its distinctive urban look and feel - James Cagney, Joan Blondell, Edward G. Robinson, and others.


A drama at its very core, "Anna" displays that genuine truth that all actors age, and sometimes, fade away. Anna is a character that believes America is her safety net, her home, and it can do her no wrong  but she refuses to belittle herself to do work she doesn't believe in. She is hard-nosed, optimistic, stubborn, and arrogant when it comes to her life, yet not afraid to let others in, yet drop them at a moments notice. Anna flip-flops between personalities, which makes this film ideal of an aging star, but not idea of the viewing audience. "Anna" has been praised for its star Sally Kirkland, and her ability to get "grungy" for the role, but a month into 2008, "Anna" does not remain a staple of film culture. It is dated, dull, and formulaically chaotic.Director Yurek Bogayevicz has a message hidden within "Anna" about the falsehoods of Czechoslovakia, both politically and socially, but Kirkland refuses to let them upstage her. Bogayevicz is not afraid to play with the camera, to use wooden frames to allow Kirkland to stand out, and he is not afraid to lessen the surrounding characters so that when you walk away from the film, it is Kirkland you remember. If it isn't obvious, this film didn't sit well with me. From the opening of the first act and deep within the second, "Anna" felt like a high school theater production. The characters were non-existent, there was no enlightening pre-story, and there was no definition of time or place. There was Sally Kirkland, stubbornly saying that she is better than the other actresses vying for the same lifestyle that she wants. Randomly she encounters a friend, a young girl that has also traveled a long distance to get to America for the glitz and glamour, and two of them (within the span of 20 minutes) build a friendship that could break all walls. It is emotionally boring and unbelievable. Again, randomly, we meet Anna's boyfriend Daniel (played by the weak Robert Fields), who brings nothing to the table in terms of definition or character  only to boost the attention onto Kirkland's Anna. Through the course of nearly two hours, we watch as more random acts coupled with unnamed characters intertwine together to feebly create a story that is held together by loose threads  and SALLY KIRKLAND. Arg, it pains me to continue to say this but "Anna" could have been a fantastic film had Bogayevicz presented equal time between Anna, Daniel, and Krystina, but instead we are forced into a one-sided game where emotional scenes speak louder than plot.Is this where Charlize Theron found inspiration for her beauty-less role in "Monster", or Halle Berry in "Monster's Ball"? Was Sally Kirkland one of the early actresses discover that by letting themselves go for a character Oscar will shine in their direction? Throughout this film I was disgusted by Kirkland's portrayal of Anna, and Bogayevicz's lack of excitement for anything else fluent. Bogayevicz gives us an Anna that doesn't work hard for her parts, doesn't care for others, and is generally mean spirited  yet we are to feel sympathy for her? Near the beginning of the film, she forces what she wants to do onto others, and gets upset when she doesn't get her way. Sure, aging actresses my have that appeal to them, but Kirkland creates a more childish character instead of a mature one. That is where "Anna" could have improved. If this was a mature Kirkland, I would have gobbled it up, but this stammering childish Anna was impossible to believe. While my favorite scene was near the end where Anna goes to watch one of her older films playing (included is absurd make-out characters) and the film burns, this scene is also one of my least favorite. Anna has made a phenomenal life for herself, creating films and building the dream, yet when anyone else wants to enter that spotlight, she gets jealous and outraged. This didn't make for a character I wanted to stand behind nor win Oscars. Coupled with the classic 80s background synthesizer, the outrageous over-the top wardrobe, and the displaced ending (where did that come from and what happened??)  "Anna" slipped far in the scope of amazing cinema. It was a show-piece, an opportunity for an aging star to yell at the world one more time. In this one it worked, but I don't think I will be fooled again.Overall, I cannot say that I was impressed with this film. "Anna" is not a film about an aging film star; it is about Sally Kirkland, and ONLY Sally Kirkland. Bogayevicz tries to do more with the story, but fails either because Kirkland will not allow him or he just realizes that there isn't enough to support a full story. There are one or two decent scenes in this film, but nothing that promotes this film as innovative or influential. Bogayevicz did not create a character that audiences would believe, tear up for, or dedicate a Sunday afternoon with  he created an annoyance. Kirkland wasn't Anna, she was an actress playing her a bit overdone and crusty on the sides. Perhaps I missed the scope of this film, but what makes films like this work is the cooperation of everyone involved. That wasn't the case here. In "Anna", Kirkland orders Daniel to act like a dog (apparently as a symbolic act) and yet during the entire emotional scene, I couldn't help but think that was what Kirkland was like to those on the set. She didn't make this into a film, she transformed it into her own production, and because of it "Anna" failed. I cannot suggest this to anyone  from one Czech to another  skip it! Grade: * ½ out of ***** (for that pesky theater scene that creeped me out)


It's boggles the mind how this movie was nominated for seven Oscars and won one. Not because it's abysmal or because given the collective credentials of the creative team behind it really ought to deserve them but because in every category it was nominated Prizzi's Honor disappoints. Some would argue that old Hollywood pioneer John Huston had lost it by this point in his career but I don't buy it. Only the previous year he signed the superb UNDER THE VOLCANO, a dark character study set in Mexico, that ranks among the finest he ever did. Prizzi's Honor on the other hand, a film loaded with star power, good intentions and a decent script, proves to be a major letdown.The overall tone and plot of a gangster falling in love with a female hit-man prefigures the quirky crimedies that caught Hollywood by storm in the early 90's but the script is too convoluted for its own sake, the motivations are off and on the whole the story seems unsure of what exactly it's trying to be: a romantic comedy, a crime drama, a gangster saga etc. Jack Nicholson (doing a Brooklyn accent that works perfectly for De Niro but sounds unconvincing coming from Jack) and Kathleen Turner in the leading roles seem to be in paycheck mode, just going through the motions almost sleepwalking their way through some parts. Anjelica Huston on the other hand fares better but her performance is sabotaged by her character's motivations: she starts out the victim of her bigot father's disdain, she proves to be supportive to her ex-husband, then becomes a vindictive bitch that wants his head on a plate.The colours of the movie have a washed-up quality like it was made in the early 70's and Huston's direction is as uninteresting as everything else. There's promise behind the story and perhaps in the hands of a director hungry to be recognized it could've been morphed to something better but what's left looks like a film nobody was really interested in making.


I can't say this is one of the best films I have ever seen. But then again, I can't say it's one of the worst I have ever seen.OK, so it's basically a girl does skating, is good at it, wants to go to an expensive school, can't afford it and has to take a Hockey Scholarship. She has to hide her skating secret from her friends.Personally, I didn't like the actress playing Katelin. She absolutely couldn't cry to save her life, just made wailing sounds, like a toddler pretending to cry to get it's own way.Katelin was just an annoying person. The way she tried to act all nice and helpful to people. Also the part where the two skaters are calling her names and they say something about her choreographer and she says she 'draws the line' made me cringe.We all knew where it was going to go with her and Spencer. Classically they didn't like each other and sort of get together at the end was just typical.Overall, I think this is a movie to watch if you like skating but if you don't mind the main skater being extremely annoying. It's good to kill time basically.


I have spent the last week watching John Cassavetes films - starting with 'a woman under the influence' and ending on 'opening night'. I am completely and utterly blown away, in particular by these two films. from the first minute to the last in 'opening night' i was completely and utterly absorbed. i've only experienced it on a few occasions, but the feeling that this film was perfect lasted from about two thirds in, right through till the credits came up. everything about this film, from the way it was shot, the incredible performance of Gena Rowlands, the credits, the opening, the music, the plot, the sense of depth, the pace, the tenderness, the originality, the characters, the deft little moments.... for me, is truly sublime. i couldn't agree more with the previous comment about taking it to a desert island because the sheer depth of this film is something to behold. if your unlucky enough to have a house fire, i guarantee that instead of making a last ditch attempt to rescue that stash of money under your bed, you'll be rescuing your copy of this film instead.


I got in to this excellent program in about season 4 and since then i have seen all the episodes got all the episodes on DVD and keeps getting better and better with the seasons of 9 and 10. It now may not have Richard Dean Anderson now but the addition of Ben Browder and Claudie Black it has still given the show more strength and original still even after 10 seasons. Sadly now the sci-fi channel got rid of this amazing show with no hope relay for a 11 season there are making two direct to DVD movie and hopefully more. Atlantis is still going strong on its 4th seasons. And there is a third spin off in the works the stargate franchise is nowhere near dead. This TV show is a must see for all sci-fi fans and people of genres because this has such a wide range of things to appeal to all ages and all types of people Watch IT !!!!! 10/10


What do you get when you mix a lump of clichés with a directionless pacing and a group of characters who you don't care about and a failed attempt at creating an appealing visual style and an even bigger lump of clichés and a weak sense of humor and a really big budget? Why, you get one of the most intolerably unwatchable movies ever made! I'm referring, of course, to Domino.Here are some things that people might say during the viewing of this movie:"Ooh, wow, the storyline is told out of sequence, that hasn't been done a billion times before. And much more skillfully than in this movie.""Wow, look at all of the flashing lights and grainy film texture and elaborate transitions! The director is trying so hard to make things look arty and to establish a visual style! It's just too bad that none of these effects add anything to the movie or make sense with the scenes they're in, and it's also too bad that most of them come across as irritating!""I've heard that exchange of dialogue in about twenty thousand movies before!""I've seen this scene in about thirty thousand movies before!""This one too!""Uh, didn't they reveal this 'plot twist' about half an hour ago? Was that supposed to be surprising?""If this movie is supposed to be showing a 'tough chick' going around kicking ass... when why doesn't she do very much of it?""I can't believe how unoriginal this dialogue is.""How long is this thing? I feel like I've been watching it for over four hours already.""I have no idea what just happened, but also, I don't particularly feel motivated to try to figure it out.""Is this over yet?""I want my money back.""The songs in this soundtrack feel so misused here.""It's ironic that all of the cursing they use actually detracts from the impact of each one.""UGH."And, finally: "I might have to end my friendship with the person who recommended this movie to me."In summation, this movie is a failure in nearly every aspect. Avoid watching it at all costs. If your house is on fire and this movie is playing in the only room that isn't flammable, you should seriously consider being burned alive instead.(If I sound bitter, it's because I just spent over two hours watching this movie and, uh, I didn't enjoy it very much.)


A cannibalistic backwoods killer is on the prowl and two bickering couples might be his next source of protein in this bargain basement Friday the 13th-clone cheapie. There s literally nothing of interest to see in this one, the killings are surprisingly sparse and when they do happen, completely amateurish. It also adds ghosts into the mix for no reason what so ever. I felt drained after watching it as if my brain was liquefying and draining out my nose. And it remains without a doubt Donald Jones' worst movie. If you're thinking of renting it because of Code Red's snazzy new DVD re-release Don't botherMy Grade: F


*SPOILERS* Four men, Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Drew (Ronny Cox) and Bobby (Ned Beatty), decide to go on a rafting trip on the Cahulawassee river, before it is flooded.They wanted to have fun, to have a nice weekend in the nature.But when two mountain men cross their path and rape one of them (Bobby), everything begins to go to Hell in a Handbasket, and this 'nice weekend' will even cost one of the four's life...'Deliverance', which in Italian is stupidly titled 'Un Tranquillo Weekend Di Paura' ('A Calm Weekend Of Fear'), is the Grandad of movies like 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'The Hills Have Eyes', 'Wrong Turn', 'Last House On The Left' and all the other 'Evil Nature/Revenge' subgenre films, and one of the scariest, right next to 'The Hills Have Eyes'.Based on a book by James Dickey (who appears in the movie as Sheriff Bullard), it's a chilling story on how someone can go into a situation thinking he knows everything, when he doesn't.And the image of the dead man's hand raising from under the water, or the hands holding the rifle from the one-sheet are haunting images that will never leave your mind.Deliverance: 9/10.


A first time director (Bromell) has assembled a small but powerful cast to look at the world of a middle aged, middle class, depressed hit-man and his struggle with his relationship with his father. This film in less than 90 minutes presents an incredibly interesting contrast in human nature. David Dorfman as the 6 year old son of William H. Macy is the most refreshing little actor I've seen in awhile. Macy is brilliant in a part that almost seems written for him as a self tortured sole struggling to break the reins of his father and his business. It's always great to see Donald Sutherland and here he's wonderful as the callous father of Macy. The films alternate audio track is well worth it to hear the director explain how he picked the cast, locations, and filmed the movie. The basic dolby 2 channel sound is adequate for this film and well recorded. The cinematography creates the mood along with a very subtle musical background. Any film buff or observer of human nature will enjoy this one especially if he's a fan of contradiction.


I am a member of a canoeing club and I can tell you the truth that Deliverance is synonomous with the peacefulness and tranquility of the experience. As we put our boats into the water, banjoes echo in the back of the conscious mind. This movie is timeless because it waxes philosophical of human's place in nature and technology's effect upon man's relationship with nature. We see it in the bow fishing. We see it in the home made tent. There is also city man's disdain and feeling of superiority to the rural woodsman "cracker". The fact that the Banker from Atlanta (Ned Beatty) has "bad teeth" is meant to put him on the same level with the woodsmen who also have bad teeth. Ultimately, the struggle of life and death supersedes "civilized man's" suppositives about "The Law". This canoe trip ends too soon for the viewer, but alas Not Soon Enough for the characters.


Given the chance to write, direct and star in my own movie, I would probably choose something about robot women with guns. Anthony Hopkins, however, decided to make possibly the strangest movie anyone has ever seen. "Slipstream" is a movie that is so strange that even David Lynch would probably look at the person next to him and say 'What's going on?'.This is a movie where, in one scene, a man crosses the road towards a yellow car facing to the right which suddenly changes into a pink car facing to the left. This is a movie where two characters have a conversation interspersed with shots of random people laughing and insects climbing up walls. This is a movie where a man starts talking about "Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers" only for the actor of that particular movie to suddenly show up as himself (and then disappear into thin air). This is a movie that decides to throw the need for a coherent plot straight out of the window and use fifteen different edits whilst doing so, as well as changing from black and white to colour for seemingly no reason at all.I must, however, commend Mr Hopkins for his choice of actors in this movie (some of whom portray multiple characters). All of those involved throw themselves into their roles, even if they probably have no idea what they're actually doing. My favourite here was Christian Slater's thug in a hat who was impressively menacing whilst babbling nonsense and singing the American national anthem. Anthony Hopkins has been quoted saying that he did this movie as a joke and that's possibly the best way to sum up "Slipstream". It's a joke on the audience. You'll watch it from beginning to end, trying to understand what is going on and hoping that the answer will come, only to discover that the answer never actually does. What the punchline to this particular joke is, only Anthony Hopkins will ever know.I mentioned David Lynch earlier and I'm a big fan of that particular director. I would guess that Anthony Hopkins shares my love for the likes of "Twin Peaks", "Blue Velvet" and "Lost Highway". However, "Slipstream" isn't as satisfying as any of the movies of Lynch despite imitating many of his techniques (although I was surprised to discover that nobody talks backwards in "Slipstream"). It's far too chaotic and random - as another reviewer here pointed out, it's the movie version of Alzheimer's disease. No doubt there are a small number out there who are able to watch this and draw something from it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, "Slipstream" quickly becomes an annoying and confusing experience that was only made due to Hopkins' involvement.Watch at your own risk.


The cast of this film contain some of New Zealander's better actors, many of who I have seen in fabulous roles, this film however fills me with a deep shame just to be from the same country as them. The fake American accents are the first clue that things are about to go spectacularly wrong. As another review rather astutely noted the luxury cruise ship is in fact an old car ferry, decorated with a few of the multi colour flags stolen from a used car lot. Most of the cast appear to be from the (great) long running New Zealand soap Shortland Street. It's as if this movie was dreamt up at a Shortland Street cast Christmas party, the result of too many gins, and possibly a bit of salmonella. Imagine "Under Siege" meets "The Love Boat", staged by your local primary school and directed by an autistic and you get the idea.If you are an actor, I recommend you see this film, as a study on how to destroy your carer.


So it has come to this. Fast, expensive cars that only the upper 1% will ever drive. The girls that pose next to them in gearhead magazines. Second-tier and no-name actors. Cheap promotional appearances by people from niche culture. This is the garbage that Hollywood has to offer. Don't get me wrong; I love the mindless action flick with hot chicks as much as the next guy. But please, will the collective Braintrust that greenlights this stuff please stop, count to ten, breathe, have a hearty "Woooooosaaaaaah", then rewind twentyfive years and recall what made movies enjoyable once upon a time? Then actually MAKE some movies like that again? I have nothing against poker, but the entire pop-culture explosion it has enjoyed over the past five years is ridiculous. Everyone and their mother thinks their Maverick now (not that half of them even will get that reference). Some executive said, "Hey, what demographic do you want to leach $9.50 out of?" "I know, sir. The 18-35 market." "Ok, let's give them poker, girls, and fast cars." "Brilliant idea, sir." The result? A film that I've seen a hundred times late at night on Spike TV, and more often than not, starring Dolph Lundgren. Now don't misunderstand me;I am not a film snob. Over-the-top artsy flicks like The English Patient don't float my boat, but generic films that should not have even been made straight to DVD bother the hell out of me too. Only adolescent gearheads will have their engines revved by this, and I imagine the ones in the higher end of their IQ range will see this for what it is: a junkyard.


very few chess movies have been made over the last couple of years ,but this one is more than just a chess movie its a story about the need to be loved and the need to win it,John Toturro plays a psychologically challenged man ,nothing matters to him accept 64 squares and 32 pieces ,the game validates him as a person ,when he looses a game he looses the one thing that makes sense to him and John Torturro expresses this in a beautiful fashion,even the love of a woman was not enough to save him from his sad existence.It makes you wonder if there other Luzon's out there who obsess about the game,i am sure they are,if you are a chess enthusiast it won't hurt to watch it.Its an intelligent piece of work laid out properly and executed well,it achieves its objectives,unfortunately i doubt if there will be sequel.


In the beginning of this film, one of the commentators says that he was told that he has two strikes against him: he is black and male. But in addition to that, he has a third strike: he's gay. "You're going to have to be stronger than you ever imagined," he is told. "Paris is Burning" is a documentary about gay black and Hispanic men who are tranvestites or transsexuals.The miracle of "Paris is Burning" is that director Jennie Livingston takes a subject that could have very easily become a freak show and allows the people in it their humanity. We learn their views of homosexuality, men, women, their hopes, their disappointments, their dreams. Some of these dreams are so unattainable it's tragic. Many of the people are seriously in denial;This is not a film for everyone. There are shots in this movie of nude transsexuals. If you have a problem with homosexuality, then this movie isn't for you. But if you do see this movie you'll realise "Paris is Burning" isn't really about men wearing women's clothes, it's about a group of people who are routinely marginalised and put down by society at large, and what they do to get a sense of community in their lives.I've watched this movie four times since it was released in 1991, because it says so many things: it's a commentary about materialism in our culture, about gender roles, about rich and poor people, about the media and what it celebrates, about fame and adulation. "Paris is Burning" is one of the most humane, and one of the saddest, movies I've ever seen.


The Oscar season has arrived so this means a slew of these deep, engaging, powerhouse ensemble films are all over the movie theaters in hopes of gaining an audience and having the opportunity to earn Best Picture in the big show. Among them is this film that is based off a very popular and well-acclaimed play. The original playwright was actually the writer and director of the film adaptation; which comes as a double-edged sword. On one hand, who better to translate the play than the original writer? On the other hand, who better to not see the mistakes and drawbacks of the play and fix upon them than the original writer himself? Doubt mixes excellent acting and plenty of tension and suspense; with a frustrating ending, unnecessary dialogue, questionable directing, and of course, the inability to provide substantial answers. It is a growing trend among these "high-caliber" films to not answer all questions it provides, and this has to stop.Doubt is like a joke without its punch line, like a book with the final 20 pages missing, like losing reception while watching the fourth quarter of a hotly contested football game, and like not having the 50 cents to continue playing the arcade game and see what happens next. Doubt, just like the previous Best Picture frustrationfest No Country For Old Men, doesn't really end; it doesn't provide us with considerable answers nor does it deliver enough for us to figure out the ending. Yes, that was the intent, but this isn't a test of humanity, it's a cop-out. I do not pay money to see an unfinished work, I pay money to see a beginning, middle, and end, and pray that I don't fall asleep during the three acts. We are forced to become the "writers" of the movie by filling in the blank ourselves as to what happened before and what will happen to the characters we saw screaming at each other.This little drama is about a nun (Meryl Streep) who seems very sure that the well-beloved priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is making sexual advances towards a child that goes to the church; the first African-American boy in the Catholic church. The church is secretly torn as to whether or not he really is committing heinous sins behind everyone's backs. The plot thickens as some of the kids begin behaving differently, which attracts the notice of a young teacher (Amy Adams). The story is set right after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which shook the nation for quite some time and questioned their faith in humanity and in each other.Doubt's strong points come in the acting ensemble and also the ever-engaging suspense that builds slowly and never boils over. Streep seems to be Oscar-worthy in every role she's in, and here she is no different as her sternness and cold-hearted behavior places a blanket of fear in all the students and with some of the staff in the church. Hoffman excels yet again as the priest, by successfully meshing suspicion with a charming personality and a friendly aura. The seemingly hypocritical personality is tough to pull off, especially when we are suppose to like him and also ponder about him at the same time; but Hoffman steps up to the plate against one of the best actresses of our generation and fantastically delivers. When these two argue, you can hear the fireworks fly without ever seeing one launched. But let's not forget Amy Adams (Enchanted) and Viola Davis (Law ad Order) for their superb job either. Doubt's casting ensemble is among the best in 2008.Yet, like previously stated it's the writing and directing that ruins this film, especially when dwindling down the third act. Questions pop up, but they aren't answered. Characters pop up, but provide no real enhancement towards the plot. Kids behave different, but we never truly find out why. There are awkward angles in the camera-work
and
there's no actual reason why. John Patrick Shanley, the writer of the play, had one previous film in his directing repertoire: Joe Versus the Volcano. Whether sheer arrogance or stupidity, we are stuck with seeing overdrawn sequences of random conversation, utter annoying chatter that bores to no end (There was a two minute discussion about coffee and how much sugar the priest wanted) thanks to Mr. Shanley.Bottom Line: The lack of an ending is a stupid trend that's just as irritating as the seizureific camera-work in action films. It doesn't matter that we have a great talented acting cast, or decent cinematography, or a good story being worked upon, or good usage of sound and music; because we have a barrage of unanswered questions that sprinkles all over a film that is over 100 minutes yet doesn't even finish! The translation from play to film is good and quite accurate, because we have the original madmen behind the projectbut he took the mistakes and stupid hiccups from the play to the film as well. This decade has seen its share of blockbuster and high-profile films that could have gotten a much higher score from me if they had just decided to add a few more minutes of footage and actually end: Sideways, Cast Away, No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading are a few examples.Newsflash: end your stinkin' movie. Please or at least provide a good amount of clues for us to easily fill in the blank (like Wall-E's depressing backstories), instead of staring into space as the credits suddenly start rolling and you are left with a feeling of emptiness, confusion, and mental anguish. Have a beginning, middle, and the end please!! As a critic, I prefer my films to be whole, not incomplete. Doubt feels incomplete, which is why it gets an incompetent grade.Someone has to break this stupid trend.


I had to give this film a 1 because it's that bad, but don't make this think that I didn't enjoy watching, because I laughed and laughed, and I even had a few questions. So half of the time I was laughing, half of the time I was saying "what in the hell is going on?" or "why would someone do this?" et cetera. I mostly enjoyed the terrible fog effects, the 80's style nude scene/battle/dialogue/nude scene, and the way that the warrior's swords flap in the wind when they ride their horses. And there's some crappy model effects (those aren't supposed to be real trees, are they?) and I still don't understand this guy that they find in the cave, what in the hell is he? A friend of mine told me about these movies and I thought I would give em a try, and I basically liked the film as people like Ed Wood films, I have no real enjoyment of what the film was meant to be, I look at it in my own hilarious way. So don't let this distract you if you really thought this was an action movie, it is, I just liked it for other reasons. It's much, much worse than Evil Dead, so it can actually make you think as though you are wasting your life by watching it (which came into my mind a few times). I guess the best thing for most people would be to have a few drinks, have some friends around, and laugh at this film. Maybe this is a bit harsh, but I don't think so, rent it and you'll see. Yo.


I must admit, I was expecting something quite different from my first viewing of 'Cut' last night, though was delighted with the unexpected Australian horror gem. I am a true horror fan as true as they come, and found 'Cut' to not only be the best of the genre Australia has ever produced, but one of the great parody/comedy films of late.My only concern is that mainstream audiences may not pick up on a lot of the comedic elements - the film was not overly clever in it's application but made me laugh at every turn trying to fit in EVERY possible cliche of the horror genre they could. I am certain this was intended as humour....hoping this was intended as humour.And of course, there was the gore.The use of the 'customised' garden shears was brilliance - besides the expected stabs and slashes. In short, there was a huge amount of variety and creativity in the many violent deaths, enough to please even the skeptics of this films worth.The appearance of both Kylie Minogue (short that her appearance was) and Molly Ringwald was just another reason to see the film - both performances were fantastic, as well as Simon Bossell ('The Castle') in a brilliant role as the jokey technician.All in all, I think this movie is one of the best horror products of the last couple or years, as well as a beautiful satire/parody - toungue-in-cheek till the very end.Loved it. Go see it!


Since I am so interested in lake monsters i really dug this movie. This movie is worth a see. If you like the so awful they are good types of films check it out. The effects are really good as well just think "Land of the Lost". I originally watched this movie in the early 90's maybe more like 89/90 on a local channel monster show called "Morgus Presents". I didn't scare me but I was 8 and anything B felt more like an A. Years later I seen it on DVD at a local Circuit City and bought it immediately so I can give it a 9 because it has a personal spot in my heart right there with The Monster Squad and Gremlins. Good B movie fun for all ages.


Music that grinds on the nerves like fingernails on a blackboard, acting that is so zombielike it was a shame to waste the cast by not making a second movie; casting everyone in it as true zombies---with the cast of Sabrina the Teenaged Witch as the heroes... a movie so downright awful that if "stoners" were still around it might be considered a cult movie---but, oh so amateurish, the scripts might as well have been carried around by the actors, their lines read as they slowly shuffled through the movie---banal, illogical sets modeled after LA subdivisions, props straight from ToysRus! Was a movie ever made that is so completely and totally inept??? Logic flies to the wind in this plodding, senseless, pointless and with a "monster" so stupid and uncoordinated that it couldn't catch a turtle in an icebox---lowcut, leggy---and amazon! It kept my attention all the way through; the way a terrible, ongoing chain accident in the fog involving multiple vehicles keeps one watching to the very end... as, after a ridiculous ray-gun fight in a prison on another planet, a pneumaticaly-disadvantaged sexy and mentally unbalanced bounty hunter chases a retarded extra-terrestrial fugitive---TO EARTH! Don't let anybody p**s on your popcorn, you might actually enjoy watching this one. It's that bad!


A movie has rarely left me as cold as this one. There is not a bit of tension, not a second of fear, not a moment we jump, even a little bit. The girl is cute, yeah. That's it. Was that worth a movie ? I knew it wasn't supposed to be a great movie, but I was at least expecting one.


I have to agree with some of the other comments and even go a step further. Nothing about this film worked, absolutely nothing. Delmar our central character makes the decision to become a surrogate mother in order to earn enough money to buy a restaurant but along the way fall for a wise ex-jailbird. At the same time her friend Hortense is trying to get her lawyer boyfriend to finally marry her. She also happens to be sleeping with Marlon who is desperately in love with her. Then there's Delmar's brother Jethro who gets involved with a former coke addict, Missy who reveals she was sexually abused by her adopted father. On the sidelines we also have the eccentricmother who has an assortment of equally odd friends, one of whom dies on the couch at the beginning of the film. So far so good but after introducing these characters and story lines addressing life, death, grief and love in the first half, the film simply loses direction. If the writer had only selected one or two characters and allowed us to follow their stories maybe things would have been fine but equal screen time is given to all with the result that no one story or character is fully developed. For instance, why does Delmar think she will be able to hand over her child in exchange for money, especially when the prospective parents are a creepy bigoted lawyer and his semi alcoholic and depressed wife? Why is Hortense so desperate to marry a man who is a jerk and clearly doesn't love her? How is it Missy manages to kick her coke habit overnight? Is Jethro regularly drawn to women with overwhelming problems, or is Missy the exception? Has Delmar and Jethro's mother always been on the eccentric side, or is it a more recent development? Why is Jethro so keen on Cadillacs that he has one in the middle of his living room? Why did Moses spend years in prison for stealing a car, a relatively minor crime? How does Delmar manage to end up giving birth to Moses' baby when there is no suggestion that they ever had sex? These questions are posed in the screenplay but sadly are never answered. I can only assume they were answered in the original novel and that is why the writer felt the need to include it all in the script. Big mistake. Losing several subplots especially the Hortense and Marlon story, which adds nothing to the overall film, would have tightened things considerably and allowed more time to develop the Delmar, Jethro and Moses characters who are clearly more central to the plot and underlying themes than anyone else. Add to that the most pedestrian directing style seen outside of the average soap opera and the result is a huge missed opportunity for all, including Jorja Fox who does her best to rise above the material. I'm not surprised that this appears to have been the director's last film as this effort shows no evidence of a visual style or ability to tell a moving and intelligent story.


Oh man, this s-u-c-k-e-d sucked.... I couldn't even get any camp value out of this......and I sat through the whole thing on Showtime.... Don't bother waiting around for the 'naked' scenes either.....it's too late and only plastic Jenna Jameson is involved.. Shows how much discretionary cash must be laying around Hollywood just to get your name on the closing credits.. I guess Showtime had to throw something in at 1am... Next time I think I'd even rather be watching ESPN loop around every 30 minutes...


I don't know what the previous reviewer was watching but I guess that's what reviews are, personal taste. Missed in this movie was the depth, a very deep film, many layers of emotion, affecting. Undercurrents of withheld love because of submission to societal beliefs, taboos of the times and classes, race relations not being in a very good state of equality, guilt, yearning, hate, confusion, very dark emotionally I thought, under the skin, you have to submit to the aire of it, a flowing movie, not slow as stated before, release yourself to the flow of the film, the emotions will show themselves, characters reveal their flaws, their nasty insides, excellent and actually very cruel!


Goodnight Mister Tom is so beautifully filmed and beautifully realised. It isn't completely faithful to the book, but does it have to be? No, not at all. John Thaw is mesmerising as Tom Oakley. His transformation from gruff to caring was so well realised, making it more believable than Scrooge in Christmas Carol. After Inspector Morse, this is Thaw's finest hour. He was matched earnestly by a young Nick Robinson, who gave a thoroughly convincing portrayal of an evacuee traumatised by the abusive relationship with his mother. The script and music made it worth the buy, and you also see Thaw playing the organ. Amazing! The most moving scene, was Willie finding out about Zak's death, and then Tom telling him about his deceased family who died of scarlatina. Buy this, you'll love it! 10/10 Bethany Cox


It is nice to see the likes of Oliver Stone, Brian DePalma, Al Pacino, and even Michelle Pfiefer make one monumental piece of cinematic garbage. It is nice to see people so rich and 'successful' wasting their time on one of the most forgettable, trite, and pathetic pieces of film-making of all time. This movie represents the worst of Hollywood.What is this? Is it based on a true story. Well, they do start with some basic news bites and facts that they read off USA today. But then the movie departs to some fantasy world and a 'cuban' refugee going to make it in the American drug subculture; kind of like Rocky on cocaine. Is it a movie about Cuba or Cubans? For the life of me I don't believe there is a single Cuban in this movie. The accents are totally fake, and scene with Antonio's mother looks like a poster for midwest American values. The whole scene looks like something out of the Dick Van Dyke show. Is this movie about Miami? It looks more like L.A. transposed in Florida. Afterall, a palm tree is a palm tree. Is this a romance novel. The relationship between Pacino and Pfeiffer is so obvious from the getgo, and there is not one shred of possibility that these two characters could ever care for each other. Is this a drug movie? Well, no issues of obsession or addiction are even mentioned. The behavior of the actors after a line of coke is nothing different than had they had a drink of water. Admittedly, the acting is terrible.Let's get to the rest. The music is disgusting and sounds like latin elevator music or something out of a Lawrence Welk show. I think I heard a polka? The camera work is shoddy with too much movement and far more cranes than could ever be effective. Clearly, the photography budget was excessive. The sound is bleached in a number of spots, and the dialogue seems to be carried out in a warehouse. The writing is appalling. This is one of those movies were the script writes itself. You are dragged from one trite piece of dialogue to the next, each pushing the plot like a sack of bricks.So I am going to ask, Is this even a movie? It could be a drama series patched together for two and a half hours. But at least a drama series has some kind of focus. Maybe it is just a bunch of poorly acted scenes taped together. Whatever it is, movie or not, it is a piece of crap.


Alone in the Dark is Uwe Boll's kick in the nuts to Hollywood after House of the Dead's punch in the face.If anything it proves just how much of a master manipulator Boll is. After forcing Artisan out of business over the flop that was House of the Dead, one can only assume the normally credible Lion's Gate Films only released AITD under contractual obligation after acquiring Artisan's assets. Because AITD is an even bigger example of complete lack of coherent film-making ability, plot exposition and just plain stealing poorly from other movies because it was supposed to look cool instead of because it fitted within the movie's framework.But then that's the point, isn't it. Boll isn't trying to make a coherent film because he isn't trying to direct Alone in the Dark. He's just trying to manipulate Hollywood.Alone in the Dark, like House of the Dead, Dungeon Siege, Far Cry, Bloodrayne and the other 3 or 4 projects that are "announced" or in "pre-production".These aren't movies to be directed, but investment portfolios. Every single one of them rushed into production under the pretence that the tax law Boll and his investors are exploiting may be closed within the next 2 to 3 years. The more bomb projects he can release within that time-frame, the more money he and his investors can gain. Why bother making a good movie when a bad movie's making you a mint anyway? The result is movies like the awfulness of Alone in the Dark.Alone in the Dark, like all his other movies are just a cynical exploitation of Hollywood's current trend for lazy film-making.And to those who support Boll by calling him misunderstood or the next Ed Wood, congratulations, by making a cult figure out of the man, you're just making it easier for him to get investors but giving him notoriety.For more information, read here: http://www.cinemablend.com/feature.php?id=209 http://www.cinemablend.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699 As an aside, just don't ask me how he's getting his cast-lists together. Unless the actors are in on the investment-scam somehow, that mystery has still to be uncovered.


Beaudray Demerille(a weak Peter Fonda, who also directed), an aging gambler, wins young teen Wanda "Nevada"(pretty, but not talented Brooke Shields) in a poker game. Together the unlikely pair(of course)embark on a search for Indian gold in the Grand Canyon.That's the story and there really is no need to search for a deeper meaning in it. It just isn't there. The acting is very weak too, which was quite a surprise given the fact that Peter Fonda was in the lead.If you're looking for something interesting in this film, take a look at the nice scenery and some good looks of a young Brooke Shields. Her character however is so irritating(especially at the beginning)and dumb, that she never quite comes off as sexy or appealing. Too bad, but, given the story, I doubt anything more could be made of this. I wonder why Peter Fonda directed and starred in this film. He must have even talked his father(Henry Fonda)into a (useless) cameo in this ridiculous mess. Unfortunately, this was their only film together. Couldn't Henry be in EASY RIDER for example? 3/10


Now, I flicked onto this just out of curiosity and had to keep watching - in the same way that you watch a car crash...I appreciate the fact it's a spoof, but that should not stop me from criticising the god-awful directing, acting and dialogue. Seriously, this rated as one of the poorest movies I have seen - it looked more like an episode of Tales from the Cryptkeeper, and a poor one at that...Okay - a few criticisms (1) when the doctor had his heart attack in front of the monster (we never see the monster attack him, so we assume its a heart attack), the army then launch shells, rockets, bullets at the monster - which was feet from the doctor - yet the doctor is not touched by any missile and is still alive (2) the army attack from about 100 yards away, and we see a flame-thrower being used - geez, those things have a range of no more than 30 metres! (3) when the monster tries to take the professor, the soldiers run into the classroom and fire into the ceiling; the monster drops the kid, and the soldiers don't try to shoot the monster??? come on! (4) the monster looks like it something out of Power Rangers! (5) there is one scene where the five "good guys" (the priest, the girl, the doctor, the reporter and the kid) all look shocked and we get reactions (along the lines of hand to mouth) one after the other - so natural! (6) the general just runs away, time after time (7) the general refuses to try electricity and wouldn't listen (8) the acting is awful (9) did I mention the rubber suit monster???? (10) that god-awful music, non-stop!


Ernest Borgnine was so wasted in this movie.There was no point in putting this great actor in this movie.One of the greatest actors in the world wasted,and for what reason, none what so ever,so america if you want to put classic actors in movies DON'T WASTE THEM


This is one of those movies that they did too much promoting for. If you watch T.V., then you might as well not watch the movie. Almost all the funny scenes are spoiled in the previews, except one which just happens to be Jennifer Annisten being the funny one. It is typical Jim Carrey humor and it is really funny. Just don't go see this movie expecting to be surprised. All in all, if you like Jim Carrey or comedies this is a must-see, otherwise just watch the previews and you'll be just as satisfied.


How this movie got made with a supposedly $70 million budget and without being completely retooled is beyond me. The storyline and dialogue are beyond amateurish. Characters say things no real person would ever say and almost never react to things that were said before. No one seems to be grounded in the real world. The acting of the leads is fine given that the writing is such a dud...but several actors in supporting roles really drag the production down. The hero's hair probably should've gotten its own credit, it was so oddly attention- grabbing...not to mention that it gave one of the better performances in the pic. Finally, for a movie about L.A. being besieged by giant reptiles, this film is shockingly boring. What a shame! If you do see this, your mind will be constantly racing, thinking up ways that you could have taken the SFX scenes and built a far better movie around them. Sadly, it wouldn't have taken much.


You'll probably never see it, but the uncut version is about 50% better than the one you can buy. Put it another way: once you've seen it in its original form, the current version is only half as good.It's still wildly creative and sick, a total success on so many levels.


I like this movie a lot, but it's a fact, that you cannot understand it, unless you're from the ex Yugoslavia. Most of the actors are now dead and those were the best actors in ex Yugoslavia. I appreciate that this movie is now on Divx and I can have it in my collection. Macedonia. Serbia. Montenegro. Bosnia and Herzegowina. Croatia. Slovenia.All of this was ex Yugoslavia, a melting pot of the Balcan nations. It could be a dream land, if Slobodan Milosevic, Franjo Tudjman and other nationalists wouldn't poison the nation's mind with their sick ideas.


My title just about sums this heap of crap up I should have taken a hint when I saw it was a Fred olen Ray movie - but i thought 'HEY, IT MIGHT BE BETTER THAN HIS USUAL RUBBISH' boy, was i wrong! This has to be the worst movie ever targeted at children. The acting was awful, the humour was non-existent, The Direction was the worst i have ever seen & The special effects wouldn't seem out of place on a 1950's Disney movie.WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO DEE-WALLACE STONE! Who once had such a promising career in the 80's. Movie veteran & former child actor Russ Tamblyn was a awful bad-guy & the budget was so low it was a totally unbelievable even as a kiddie movie.I haven't seen the sequel made in 1999 and nor do i intend toIf you want a good kid movie Watch 'HONEY I SHRUNK/BLEW UP THE KIDS/KID' OR ANY DISNEY MOVIEMY RATING AS A 19 YO :- 2/10RATING AS A KID MOVIE :- 3/10 AT THE BEST!


VILLA RIDES (1968) turns out to be something of a big disappointment! And even though Sam Peckinpah had a hand in the screenplay, along with Robert Towne, it still emerges as a leadenly written movie dryly directed by the undistinguished Buzz Kulik. Firstly, top billed Yul Brynner as Pancho Villa is wrong for the part! He's not charismatic enough to play the great Mexican revolutionary! His one note performance lacks the fire and gusto Anthony Quinn or Gilbert Roland could have brought to the role. Brynner simply looks like a Russian aristocrat dressed up like a Mexican bandit who is in the middle of the Mexican revolution instead of the Russian one. Also, second billed Robert Mitchum is totally wasted in the picture! His part as a biplane flying ace lobbing home-made bombs from the air in the cause of the revolution is a poorly written meager role that could have been played by any minor star. Mitch hasn't a decent line in the entire movie and brings to one's mind his other Mexican revolution picture the far superior "Bandido" (1956) which unfortunately nobody seems to have any interest in releasing on DVD. Besides lacking any kind of style "Villa Rides" also suffers badly without the presence of a female star! There is starlet Grazia Buccella as a young Mexican girl who gives Mitchum the glad eye but her casting is merely perfunctory. Someone like Claudia Cardinale or Jean Peters could have perhaps added a couple of badly needed notches to the faltering story line.There are a couple of good action scenes in the movie but a couple of good action scenes do not a movie make and the less than perfect Panavision picture quality plus the over repetitive Maurice Jarre theme tune doesn't help matters.As is Paramount's wont there are no extras - not even a trailer! Yup, a disappointing movie and DVD presentation that could have been and should have been a whole lot better.


This film is in no way entertainment but more of a look deep into the depths of the darkest side of human behaviour. Loosely linking a half a dozen stories of the worst kind of depravities, perverted sex, greed, violence and intolerance. All the action is played out over a few very hot and sticky days during a heatwave in Vienna and the heat is maybe responsible for some of the anger and hate in the film. For me the treatment of the retarded girl by the security equipment salesman was about the worst episode, closely followed by the scenes of drunkenness and perversity in the 'slags' flat. You will be gripped and I hope horrified by this film. I hated it but I felt compelled to see it through. 1/10 for 'fun' 8/10 for displaying 'man' as he sometimes is.


Much to her adult children's chagrin & nearly immediately after Elizabeth's (Dame Judy Dench) husband's death, the widowed, attic tenor saxophone player becomes bent upon openly returning to her musical hobby. Now that George is dead, Elizabeth no longer has to practice playing sax in the attic. As she grows more pleased with playing in the open, Elizabeth takes a stroll along memory lane, remembering when she was a 15 year old member of a jazz swing band, "The Blonde Bombshells": supposedly, an all-girl WWII group of talented jazz swing musicians. One of the "Blonde Bombshells'" band members was a womanizing, cross-dressing drummer, Patrick (Ian Holm), with whom Elizabeth remained friends.Both Patrick & Elizabeth's 12-year-old grand-daughter, Joanna (Millie Findlay), press Elizabeth to round up the former band members & take up performing together again; this time as a bunch of sexagenarians. Among the band members she finds are the (still foxy!) bass playing, Madeleine (Leslie Caron); Dinah (Olympia Dukakis), a trumpet playing, alcoholic & out-spoken, money-grubbing divorcée & widow living off of wealth from her many (ex)marriages in a Craigievar Scottish castle; Gwen, (real life US star jazz singer, Clio Laine), having at the lead vocal; Annie, (June Whitfield), as the Salvation Army trombone player; Betty, (the late piano player, Joan Sims), who's located training the ivory keys in a Hastings pub.As Elizabeth, Patrick & Joanna scout the world for members of the 1940's band & try to convince them to resume performing together, Elizabeth is oft times beside herself as she learns more than she wants to know about their adult lives--including her own--while having a blast playing terrific music with the last of the living 'Blonde Bombshells'.Amusing, nostalgic, historical, sentimental, multi-generational entertainment that is seriously fun. The actors deliver wonderful performances. Regardless of their ages, they are still Bombshell entertainers who put on quite a show. (The DVD is now out & worth owning because of the bonus features & Dolby Digital sound). Surely as a fan of any of these terrific actors the VHS is a collector's item.


Far by my most second favourite cartoon Spielberg did, after Animaniacs. Even if the ratings were low, so what, I still enjoyed it and loved it, was so funny and I adored the cast, wow Jess Harnell and Tress Macneille were in there and were just fantastic, the whole cast were brilliant, especially the legendary Frank Welker.I'd love to see this cartoon again, was so awesome and the jokes were brilliant. Also I can remember the hilarious moment where Brain cameos in it, you hear his voice and it played the PATB theme instrumental, that was just fantastic, I love it in those cartoons when cameos pop in. I wish this cartoon and Animaniacs came back, i loved them


This documentary has been aired on both RTE and BBC in the last number of months. Having seen it twice now I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in media and documentary film making.Initially this documentary was meant to detail the political life of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The Irish crew set off with those intentions. What happens when they get to Venezuela is startling as they witness first hand the attempted overthrow by rebel factions (particularly the oil concerns in Venezuela) of Chavez and his government. What we the audience witness is just how the media manipulates the situation and in effect backs the overthrow of Chavez by distorting events that transpire as the coup heightens.It really is an excellent documentary and a remarkable piece of work by a couple of novice filmmakers.


I first saw "Breaking Glass" in 1980, and thought that it would be one of the "Movie Classics". This film is a great look into the music industry with a great cast of performers. This is one film that should be in the collection of everyone and any one that wants to get into the music industry. I can't wait for it to be available on DVD.


If you a purist, don't waste your time - otherwise, hold onto your hat and enjoy the adventure. I loved the Stewart Granger/Deborah Kerr version - I've seen it dozens of times, but this film is every bit as good, only different. I won't detail the differences because it would spoil the film. Also, it is a pleasure to see Alison Doody again (I'm a huge Indiana Jones fan), Patrick Swayze is good as Quatermain, and the supporting cast is superb. I find the quality of the supporting cast one of the trademarks of a Hallmark Production and this film was no exception. The cinematography is splendid and the score is perfect. If you are looking for entertainment, you won't be disappointed.


If Deborah Messing were not already cast as "Grace", this might be a tolerable film. However, it is simply another story of a frustrated spinster with issues, who hires a paid escort (Dermot Mulroney) she reads about in a Time magazine article to travel to London for her sister's London wedding. How new is this plot?Neither funny, nor remotely romantic, the Wedding Date slides over the storyline of deceptive sex by bride and best man, and paid for escorts to pass off the film as Four Weddings without Hugh, and definitely, a dead end deal for the naive groom who is ignorant to the sexual history of his bride (Amy Adams). While Messing has perfected the repressed princess, 30- something woman with a failed relationship history, her neurotic and drunken moves on yet another faux beau is simply the restating of her TV series. If this woman is an actress, get a role that does not rehash what is already on prime time.Lots of drunken female bonding, cricket visual jokes, and Mulroney in a towel (nice!), but the film is a bore with the obvious happy ending. Expected Messing sequel: Divorce Date.


Yes this a B- grade horror. But at least the producers, directors, and cast does not pretend this flick is manna from heaven. The plot is corny, a psychotic serial killer on his way to execution is splashed with genetic acid turning him into a snow man. The snowman a.k.a. Jack Frost then goes on a murdering rampage to find the small town sheriff that finally arrested him. With a limited budget the crew had to make do with limited special effects, most of the money appears to spent on the snowman's costume. Particullary difficult shots are managed by cartoons or pan away shots (shots where the camera moves away to disguise the details).  This is no kid's movie and should not be confused with Disney movie of the same title. If you do not let your children watch pg-13 movies alone than parents should not let their kids watch this movie. This movie has two claims to fame. 1. The beatiful Shannon Elizabeth (American Pie)did her first major movie role. The scene where Jack Frost attacks Shannon Elizabeth is worth watching a few times. 2. This movie has the worst snowman joke ever. The joke is so bad that the directors credit the joke teller in the credit list.


Monster is a mind numbingly awful movie about an evil American concrete factory (are there any else in Hollywood?) polluting the waters of the small Colombian town of Chimayo somehow creating a catfish-like beast with a predilection for lamb and loose women. James Mitchum is Bill Travis the man who is sent down to Chimayo by his foul-mouthed boss Barnes who himself can't keep his hands off of his secretary's rear to get to the bottom (pun intended) of the story. While in Chimayo Bill must contend with an annoying reporter who apparently broadcasts all of her stories in perfect English directly back to America. I guess in the seventies there was a market for news from small South American towns. There is also a radical named Sanchez that wishes to sabotage the factory for polluting the water which, by the way, also supplies the town with jobs for the locals, but why let cold hearted economics get in the way of touchy-feely enviro-marxism. Pete the factory boss is unwittingly aided by the monster when he has sex with his ex-girlfriend on the beach, tells her that he is seeing the mayor's daughter Juanita and it's over between them, then she is promptly eaten that night. A little side action without the evidence. My hat is off to you Sir. John Carradine rounds out the cast as a priest that believes the monster is sent by God to punish sinners. You can see the contempt he has for being in this movie in his face. Might as well filmed him running to the local currency exchange to see if his check didn't bounce.Supposedly based on a true story, so much so they say it twice in the opening credits, this film is awful on all fronts. Filming began in 1971 and was abandoned until eight years later when Kenneth Hartford put his foot on the throat of Monster by adding his two annoying children as new characters, even putting his daughter, Andrea in top billing with Mitchum and Carradine. The sound quality is nonexistent and most of the scenes seem as if someone smeared tar over the camera before filming. This is made even more tedious during the many scenes done at night. The monster itself is laughable as it rears its ugly rubbery head for the anticlimactic ending. James Mitchum along with his brother Chris are proof that nepotism in the acting industry needs to be curtailed. Utterly unwatchable dreck. Shame on you John Carradine.