This whole film should have lasted 45 minutes - maximum. Although an interesting concept/theme, it really did not develop as a story. Once the initial idea of a brave (stupid?) bomb disposal expert (cowboy?) are introduced, and this happens very early in the film, the rest is repetitious. Characters were not explored, and aspects of the location and politics were ignored. There was some nice insight into the appalling difficulties faced by troops in such a foreign environment, and the difficulties in differentiating between friend and foe. But the way in which the unit operated stretched belief! Individual performances were good, and special effects were adequate, but not enough to overcome the basic lack of content.


Here's a gritty, get-the-bad guys revenge story starring a relentless and rough Denzel Washington. He's three personalities here: a down-and-out-low-key-now drunk- former mercenary, then a loving father-type person to a little girl and then a brutal maniac on the loose seeking answers and revenge.The story is about Washington hired to be a bodyguard for a little American girl living in Mexico, where kidnappings of children occur regularly (at least according to the movie.) He becomes attached to the kid, played winningly by THE child actress of our day, Dakota Fanning. When Fanning is kidnapped in front of him, Washington goes after the men responsible and spares no one. Beware: this film is not for the squeamish.This is stylish film-making, which is good and bad. I liked it, but a number of people found it too frenetic for their tastes as the camera-work is one that could give you a headache. I thought it fit the tense storyline and was fascinating to view, but it's (the shaky camera) not for all tastes.Besides the two stars, there is the always-interesting Christopher Walken, in an uncharacteristically low-key role, and a number of other fine actors.The film panders to the base emotions in all of us, but it works.


First of all, let me comment that the audience LOVED it from the first moment. Perhaps current events in the Middle-East led people to take the attitude, "I came for a comedy and by George I'm going to enjoy it." but for whatever reason, everybody seemed really into the comedy of it. The last few times Woody has tried to do a straight comedy (Small Time Crooks, Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Hollywood Ending) I've felt like the one-liners felt strained and a bit antiquated. I remember thinking at one point, "That would have been funny in the early sixties." So going in to this movie, I was afraid Woody was becoming tone deaf, however, in this one his comic sensibilities were in perfect tune. Admittedly, there were plenty of my fellow AARP card carrying folks in the screening, but there were also plenty of 20-somethings and 30-somethings as well, and they all seemed to get it and give up the occasional belly laugh in addition to numerous guffaws, chuckles and the like. In many instances, the throw-aways had people laughing so loud you missed the next line.Thematically, Woody was traipsing familiar ground. As I suspected from the trailer, this film had a lot of Manhattan Murder Mystery in it, but then again, there was more than a smidgen of Oedipus Wrecks (New York Stories), Alice, and even a little tribute to Broadway Danny Rose at the very beginning.Even with Woody in the movie, Scarlett, as Sondra, was, at times the Woody-proxy, but her character was far from the Nebbish that, say, Will Ferrell gave us in Melinda and Melinda or Kenneth Branaugh attempted in Celebrity. Instead of archetypal ticks and quirks, Sondra's nerdishness comes directly from the family history which she shares early on. On numerous occasions the "family business" leads her to malapropisms that we get as an audience, while the characters on the screen can only perceive them as strange non-sequiturs. Since we are all in on the joke, we can't help but laugh. But the laughs don't come from recognizing the Woody nebbish, but truly from the character. To a great extent, unlike Farrell, Branaugh, Cusack or even Mia Farrow before her, Scarlett is not required to use the Woody voice to evoke the Woody role. Thus, we don't find ourselves ripped out of the narrative as a Woody's voice suddenly emerges from someone else' face.As my friend commented on the way out, Sid, the character played by Woody, is a supporting role, but more center-stage than I was hoping going in. However, this time Woody seems to have written a character that truly fits his current persona. Unlike his Ed Dobel sage character in Anything Else, or his blind director in Hollywood Ending, this time the character is a comfortable fit. Perhaps more importantly, this time the character works in the story. Within the elevated circles they find themselves in, he is even more fish-out-of-water than Scarlett, which is used to great comedic effect throughout. Sid is a declining, itinerant magician playing to small audiences, but the fact that he is from another era is placed front and center for our enjoyment.But what about Jackman? What about Ian (Swearengen) McShane? I liked both of them to the extent that they are used in the piece. I particularly liked McShane's short but effective turns. Jackman is charming with the ease of "Old Money" that was so often portrayed in films from 50 years ago. (Class echoes from Purple Rose of Cairo?)So what did I think? Short answer, maybe his best straight comedy since 1994's Bullets Over Broadway. Less stylized than Mighty Aphrodite. Less caustic than Deconstructing Harry. Less forced than Small Time Crooks or Hollywood Ending. Woody has finally found a comic voice that works in the 21st century.


Maiden Voyage is just that. I'd like to say straight away that I watched 5mins of this before I just couldn't stand it anymore. As already stated in another comment, this film doesn't fall into the whole "so bad it's good" thing, it's just bad. The acting is awful, the sfx are poor, and the story is bland and stupid. Even the extras suck, the "bag guy guards" and such appear to hold their weapons like water pistols.Don't even bother watching this film, the only thing special about it is that, no matter how low your expectations are, you will still be disappointed.


This is a candidate for the single most disappointing movie experience of my lifetime. Cool title, excellent director (I saw "To Die For" and "Drugstore Cowboy" before this), and hey - Uma Thurman in the cast. How can you go wrong? Well, that is a question that throbbed in my temples for hours after I watched this turkey.Disjointed and unfunny in an attempt to be offbeat, this is a dead-zone of a movie that should be avoided at all costs. Its critical lambasting was well deserved. You have here one of those rare films that does not contain a single redeeming quality. Zero out of ****.


Though I saw this movie years ago, its impact has never left me. Stephen Rea's depiction of an invetigator is deep and moving. His anguish at not being able to stop the deaths is palpable. Everyone in the cast is amazing from Sutherland who tries to accommodate him and provide ways for the police to coordinate their efforts, to the troubled citizen x. Each day when we are bombarded with stories of mass murderers, I think of this film and the exhausting work the people do who try to find the killers.


I should put out an alert all over saying that the movie shouldn't be watched. It fails to a fitting tribute in such a magnificent manner that it is almost an insult to the memory of those brave men. The special effect were horrible, I hadn't expected the total failure on the part of the director to appreciate military technology. How can a machine gun which normally fires at the rate of 600 rounds per minute fire at 1/10th the speed? How can soldiers fall forward when a grenade explodes in front of them? How can people survive when there are artillery shells falling as close as 20 feet away? How come the artillery shells fall only on either side of the road and not the road itself?Not only did this disrespect for the weaponry appall me, it was the cliched situations and the incongruity of the dialogues which had me screaming murder. There were the standard dialogues like Ye bhi kisi ka bhai hai, ise laath mat maro and Pakistan se jyaada musalmaan to Hindustaan me hai and LOC cross mat karo ye mera hukum hai. Stupid to say the least.What Shobha De had written is true. The director worked without a script and it shows. There is no flow to the movie. There is no gradual progression from one battle to another. It is just one gunfight after the next with no connection to the overall scheme of the war. The explanatory scenes are awful. The chief of army staff looks unconvincing. To make matters worse the theatre people had indiscriminately cut footage to fit the four hour long movie into 3 hours.


This movie is based on the art of Frank Frazetta, the mythical fantasy illustrator. Some of the characters are straight out of his paintings (the Death Dealer being the best example). Surprisingly, the animation manages to keep the feeling of the original art. Bakshi is well known for his heavy use of rotoscope (the technique of tracing a live action sequence) and this film is no exception. However, since the subject of the movie is quite realistic (all characters are humans), this works pretty well.But what I really like here is the plot: for once we have a story with interesting characters and nice action sequences, a really hideous villain and a gorgeous babe. This movie has the feeling of the best Conan comics, not surprisingly since Roy Thomas is the writer of the Marvel series of our favourite Cimmerian! This is a far cry from the crappy live action Conan, not to speak of all the B-movie of the genre.Definitely recommended!


...except for Jon Heder. This guy tanked the entire movie.The plot sounded entertaining. A 29 year old slacker son(Heder)still lives with widowed mom (Keaton)who happens to meet a new love (Daniels). Slacker son is jealous and anxious to lose his comfortable life and tries to sabotage the relationship. He also meets a girl(Faris).I really liked the performance of Daniels and especially Faris but whoever casted Hader would be better of selling hot dogs at the beach. Heders performance is annoying, which would be a good thing since he plays an annoying guy, problem is he is to bad an actor to loose this act making this guy likable in the finale. At the end you still wish you can personally punch the guy in the face and you're upset about the end. In the future every movie with this guy will be a no go for me!


"All the world's a stage and its people actors in it"--or something like that. Who the hell said that theatre stopped at the orchestra pit--or even at the theatre door? Why is not the audience participants in the theatrical experience, including the story itself?This film was a grand experiment that said: "Hey! the story is you and it needs more than your attention, it needs your active participation". "Sometimes we bring the story to you, sometimes you have to go to the story."Alas no one listened, but that does not mean it should not have been said.


After Chaplin made one of his best films: Dough & Dynamite, he made one of his worst: Gentlemen Of Nerve. During this first year in films, Chaplin made about a third of all his films. Many of them were experimental in terms of ad-libbing, editing, gags, location shooting, etc. This one takes place at a racetrack where Chaplin and his friend try to get in without paying. Mabel Normand is there with her friend also, and Chaplin manages to rid himself of both his and Mabel's friends. He then woos Mabel in the grandstand with no apparent repercussions from his behavior. Lots of slapstick in here, but there is very little else to recommend this film for other then watching Chaplin develop. The print I saw was badly deteriorated, which may have affected its enjoyment. Charley Chase can be glimpsed. * of 4 stars.


A film as bad as this should be withdrawn from all stores world wide. So full of boring, dull, unimaginative characters, and with a lead character with such an annoying attitude and dry voice constantly giving a thoughtless voice over for every action and feeling, this film holds the record for the most challenging film I have ever watched. As I had payed money to own it, I felt a duty to see it through, and how I regret it. My head hurt throughout because of the terribly dull characters and their pointless, plot less lives. A bunch of kids who have zero knowledge about anything, are all frigid and worst of all, have terrible dialogue throughout, just mulling around as the main character tries to get a date with the girl. Boring, so much so my friend was shaking with hatred and I was red with embarrassment that I'd thrown away £6. The DVD was on eBay the following day, and I didn't make much of my money back. Avoid like the plague.


Four tales of terror regarding the events at a creepy old mansion are recounted to sceptical Scotland Yard investigator Holloway (John Bennett) as he investigates the whereabouts of the latest occupant of the house that dripped blood.One can only struggle to find the words to describe the true brilliance that is The House That Dripped Blood'. This Seventies horror anthology is quite remarkable in the way that such a visually innocent movie is capable of inducing horror in even the most discerning of viewers. Incredibly, the number of depictions of violence on-screen can be counted on one hand but the film is still able to portray brutality and succeeds in conjuring up the most horrific images in the viewers own imagination, all the while refraining from taking the obvious route of graphic violence. In a rare feature of early Seventies horror the technicalities of the movie are virtually flawless, from the faultless performances of the star-studded cast (featuring the legendary Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Ingrid Pitt) all the way to the superb direction and story telling courtesy of Peter Duffell and master of the macabre writer Robert Bloch (the author of the novel Psycho'). The only real complaints that one may have with The House That Dripped Blood' are the somewhat asinine plot-twists at the end of the first two segments and the predictable ending of the picture, but even these minor details fail to detract from the overall viewing enjoyment.The first segment, entitled Method for Murder', tells the story of Charles Hillyer (Denholm Elliott), a horror author who rents the creepy house while he works on his latest novel. While working on the novel, Hillyer continues to start seeing the murderous character from his story in and around the house and soon begins to question the difference between fiction and reality. Elliott's performance in this piece is truly exceptional and his character is given a surprising air of believability. The key to this segment, as with the others, is the mystery surrounding the events that take place. The viewer is made to question whether the sight of the murderous character of Dominic is merely a hallucination, a schizophrenic disorder or whether the character is actually there. Duffell's direction succeeds in creating an unsettling atmosphere coupled with a slow, methodical approach to engendering the tension and suspense required to make the segment greatly enthralling.The following segment features Peter Cushing as the new occupant of the sinister house. During a trip into town he comes across a wax museum of horrors and decides to venture in. While there, he discovers a wax model of a beautiful woman that seems all too familiar to him. Cushing's character (Philip) is then joined by his friend Neville (Joss Ackland) who also wishes to visit the museum, much to the dismay of Philip. In this segment the viewer is given no more than very subtle clues as to the mystery of the wax woman but in general the viewer is left in the dark. There is far less tension to this particular story yet the segment still succeeds in maintaining its air of mystery through a particularly harrowing dream sequence and the general ambiguity of the story. Duffell's direction is once again exceptional and while this is quite possibly the weakest of the four stories, there is no denying that through some creative direction and credible acting Waxworks' is still a delightful entry into the film.Waxworks' is followed by what is, in my opinion, the greatest of the four segments  Sweets to the Sweet'. Christopher Lee stars as John Reid, the father to a young girl who to begin with has an inexplicable fear of fire which is soon remedied by caring nanny Ann Norton (Nyree Dawn Porter). However, John appears to be harbouring a dark secret about the family. Sweets to the Sweet' is easily the most sober and intricate of the four stories and that is why the segment is undeniably compelling to the viewer. Throughout the segment small and subtle clues are released about the truth behind the family, but it is not until the immensely horrific final scene that everything slots neatly into place. This is the best example of how Duffell used dramatic tension and suspense to create the foreboding atmosphere that made the entire film great. Accompanied by a wonderfully arranged soundtrack, Sweets to the Sweet' is an exercise in sustained fear that grabs the viewer by the throat and refuses to let go until the agonising screams that end this piece finally cease. Personally, I believe that this short segment would have made an entertaining and haunting feature length movie and I would give this segment a rare 10/10.The film is ended with the story surrounding the missing performer that the investigator was originally interested in. Jon Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt star as two performers who are currently working on a horror movie. Pertwee's character is disgusted with the amateurish production and props of the film and so he purchases his own vampire cloak from a strange shop of mysteries. However, strange things begin to happen when he wears the cloak and soon he begins to fear the worst. This segment, which places the inspector amongst the events, is a nice way to wrap up a wonderful anthology. Although there is an irrefutable air of camp to the segment this is, in a way, what makes the story so enjoyable. Unfortunately, there is little in this segment that could be classed as frightening in any sense and the predictable ending could have been executed better but nonetheless the segment has its redeeming features. Horror buffs should definitely look out for Pertwee's brief comment on Bela Lugosi's and Christopher Lee's portrayal of Dracula. This slightly comical and light-hearted approach to the final segment is in essence an adequate and almost natural way of ending the picture even if it lets down the film when compared to the earlier examples of suspense-driven horror.To sum up, The House That Dripped Blood' is one of the greatest horror anthologies that features an incredible cast, great stories and above par direction. There are certainly worse ways to spend one hundred minutes of your life and while blood and guts fans will be highly disappointed, fans of more tense horror efforts should enjoy this film immensely. My rating for The House That Dripped Blood'  8/10.


I can remember watching this for the first time, when I was 9 years old. I wanted to be one of the "barbarian brothers". This movie is still great. One original aspect was that the fight scenes where very short. Implying that the "barbarian brothers" where so good that they finished there enemies off quickly! Plus, you have chases, a cage fight, a dragon, and yes even a bar brawl! Yes, the acting is bad so that's why it's not a ten, also the story line has received a lot of criticism. I think it is quite original. Not to many movies in it's genre have the same original story lines, or colorful dialogue. I definitely recommend this film.


The sequel to the ever popular Cinderella story reminded me somewhat of what they did with one of the Beauty & the Beast movies. It's basically three short stories rolled into 1.OK, the mice are adorable (I love Gus! He's sooo cute!), and Lucifer's awesome (as usual). I liked some of the newer characters as well, (Pom Pom was adorable and I did like Prudence.). Still, the storyline was somewhat limited, but still very cute. So, I vote 7/10.


This film could be one of the most underrated film of Bollywood history.This 1994 blockbuster had all of it good performances,music and direction.I remember I was in Allahabad when this movie was running and it was somewhere in March at Holi time , the people there were playing its song "Ooe Amma" at their loudspeakers in highest volume. If someone who likes to watch Some Like It Hot and drools over Marilyn Monroe he should see this movie.Thumbs Up to Govinda.How many of you know that this film was shot in South of India and after Sholay could be one of the very few blockbuter to hit Silver Screen.With films like these Indian comedy could never be dead.


Hrm-I think that line was from the old movie posters.This is a dumb movie that seems to have been translated from some language that was totally unfamiliar to the translator. Here's a tip: Any movie that starts with a black screen and text reading "In the future..." is going to be fun. This means that the premise is so implausible that they have to explain it to you.In this case, "In the future..." means that, instead of fighting wars, nations have guys climb into giant robots and duke it out to determine, well, that's never terribly clear, but it's probably something really important. There are good guys (obviously capitalists, i.e. "us") and bad guys (Commies!) and there are big stop-motion robots.Sadly, the effects budget was pretty slim, so we don't get to see a lot of the big robots. There are plenty of cheap looking interior scenes, and then a big space fight near the end. The space fight is especially nice, as it serves precisely no purpose other than the blow the remainder of the effects budget.With said money now spent, the climactic fight degenerates into (and I'm not making this up) two guys hitting each other with sticks. I can always get a laugh in a bar by re-enacting the final scene, complete with a last line guaranteed to leave any audience scratching their heads.Like I said-it's dumb. That's why I bought the tape.


Fabulous costumes by Edith Head who painted them on Liz Taylor at her finest!The SFX are very good for a movie of its age, and the stunt doubles actually looked like the actors, even down to body type, a rarity in movies of this vintage.A cozy movie, with splendid panoramas -- even when chopped down to pan and scan.


ANTWONE FISHER is the story of a young emotionally troubled U.S. Navy seaman. His problems lead him to Jerome Davenport, a psychiatrist who helps him realize that his troubles stem from his childhood upbringing. Get ready to shed a tear or two. The movie could thaw the coldest heart. I loved the story, which turns from something so very awful to happen to anyone into a positive ending. ANTWONE FISHER is a powerful movie, most importantly about forgiveness. Other important issues that get you thinking are child abuse, adoption, and foster care.Oscar winner, Denzel Washington does an impressive job in his directorial debut. There were many scenes which I enjoyed watching. They included the beginning (dreams of a little boy  check out the gigantic-sized pancakes!) and the ending (dreams turned into reality), which beautifully tied the story together. Another wonderful scene occurred when the doctor encouraged Antwone to search for his family to find answers to his questions about his family that abandoned him. My favorite scene happened when the young man finally confronted his mother and her reaction towards him. Priceless.All the actors represented their parts well. In addition to directorial responsibilities, Mr. Washington continues to show why he won an Oscar award and is successful in all his acting roles. He had a strong presence in this movie.Actor, Derek Luke demonstrated why he was so right for the part of Antwone Fisher. He portrayed very real and heart-tugging work.Joy Bryant who played the part of Cheryl, Antwone's love interest, resembled a ray of sunshine on the screen. The chemistry flowed well between the romantic characters.Novella Nelson who played the part of Mrs. Tate, a despicable character, deserves special mention.Although we only see her for a few minutes, the actress who played Fisher's mother gave an outstanding performance.Everyone should see ANTWONE FISHER.


It's not the most well made slasher movies of all time, but for what it is, it's pretty amusing. The plot is lame but the kills are not too bad. I have to be honest, if you don't follow the bands that are featured in this film, you wont find this film as funny as those who do. I knew someone who saw this film and was really disappointed because of the poor quality of the film but you have to understand that it was made in the spare time of being on tour, in between playing to moshing kids and drinkin' with friends backstage...it's not made to be taken seriously. It's ubber cheese at it's punk best and with over 100 kills,most of which are ultra gory, it's a fun movie to have friends over to watch, drink and be merry!


So, Todd Sheets once stated that he considers his 1993, shot-on-video Z-epic, Zombie Bloodbath to be his first feature film. Anyone who's ever seen a little beauty called Zombie Rampage knows exactly how untrue that statement is. I mean, what makes this one that much more superior? Well, then again, Zombie Rampage doesn't include that mullet guy, now does it? For one to comprehend exactly why Zombie Bloodbath is actually considered worth a damn, one must remember what the 90's were like for lovers of bad horror. A decade that all but said goodbye to B and Z-cinema as we knew it. Technological advances, awkward trends, and the internet would abolish the mysterious charms of the s.o.v.'s big-boxed golden years. And anything remotely resembling quality schlock was all too self-aware for it's own good, basically defeating the purpose. Luckily, not everyone changes with the times. Enter Zombie Bloodbath.And I guess this is the part where I explain the same exact premise from 500 other zombie flicks from the last 40 years. Alright, so, Some kind of accident at a nuclear plant infects everyone in sight, turning them into flesh-eating zombies, who go on a rampage, inflicting some of the most gruesome, yet humorous gore-scenes of the 90's. The first 20 minutes are cluttered with the most awkward-sounding conversations you could imagine. Conversations that let you know that this isn't just a low-budget zombie flick, this is a Z-grade disasterpiece, fella. plenty Hysterical, non-existent acting to go around, and that goes triple for Mr. Mullet. That guy is truly the highlight of the night.The fact that Todd Sheets seriously considers Zombie Bloodbath to be THAT superior to Zombie Rampage, amuses me to no end. I mean really, both are complete jokes on celluloid, but then again, so is Redneck Zombies, so, obviously Todd Sheets is in the company of awsomeness. By 1993, a movie this bad would no doubt, be a full-blast spoof, but Mr. Sheets stands his ground, giving us some good old fashion schlock, the way it was meant to be, unaware, clueless, and pointless. God bless Todd Sheets. For anyone seeking surprisingly worthwhile 90's B-Horror, Leif Jonker's Darkness should be at the top of your list. As for Zombie Bloodbath, if you're a gorehound who got bored sometime around 1990, then '93 would be the perfect time to pick up. 8/10


I'm too old to know (or care) exactly what the difference between rap and hip-hop is. And, being Canadian, it's likely that I've never actually seen MTV, but I'm not certain.But I thought this film was very funny when I saw it, a bright little satire. Hip-hop culture is so pervasive these days that it's difficult not to keep hearing about it over and over. (If only we could say the same about bagpipe music.) I got most of the jokes (at least I think I did). Sure, it's derived from Spinal Tap, but there are lots of targets that could stand a Tap treatment. Just not the Carpenters, they're sacred.


I thought this was a quiet good movie. It was fun to watch it. What I liked best where the 'Outtakes' at the end of the movie. They were GREAT.


THE JIST: See something else.This film was highly rated by Gene Siskel, but after watching it I can't figure out why. The film is definitely original and different. It even has interesting dialogue at times, some cool moments, and a creepy "noir" feel. But it just isn't entertaining. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in plot but especially in character motivations. I don't know anyone that behaves like these characters do.This is a difficult movie to take on -- I suggest you don't accept the challenge.


This movie stars Emily Watson, of Breaking the Waves fame. This movie about one man's obsession takes place at a resort where a chess tournament is being held. A chess master arrives and shortly after falls madly in love (at first sight) with a woman, played by Emily Watson. She falls for this oddball of a man, who is obsessed with chess. This is all at the dismay of her mother, who is far more interested in seeing her with another young gentleman; a proper gentleman. Her mother feels that this is just a passing fancy for the young woman, as she has a tendency to take in odd animals and such. What ensues is mostly a journey through the man's psyche. It tells the story of how his past is closely tied with his present. Emily Watson is amazing in this, as well as the actor who plays the main character. It is definitely slow, but is well worth the watching. The ending was even satisfying. :)


First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!The real "Crime" (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in!


Eight academy nominations? It's beyond belief. I can only think it was a very bad year - even by Hollywood standards. With Huston as director and Jack Nicholson and Kathleen Turner as leads I probably would have swallowed the bait and watched this anyway, but the Oscar nominations really sold it to me, and I feel distinctly cheated as a result.So it's a black comedy is it? Can anyone tell me where the humour is in Prizzi's Honor? It's certainly tasteless (the shooting in the head of a policeman's wife is but another supposedly comic interlude in this intended farce about mafia life) but with the exception of a joke about 'your favourite Mexican cigars' (which I imagine is an old joke for Americans who have been officially forbidden from buying anything Cuban for the last 50 years) I failed to spot anything of a comic nature - and I did try. There is a lot of Mafia cliché but cliché doesn't constitute humour in my book.Is it a romantic comedy of sorts? Never. The characters and their relationships are so completely incredible and shallow that they are on a par with Ben Afleck and Jennifer Lopez in Gigli.Is it a cleverly devised parody about the Mafia? Not in a million years. The plot is just pointlessly absurd rather than comically absurd, and it usually just has the feel of a really bad (and cheap) Mafia movie. It feels more like a homage than a parody.With one-dimensional characters and little in the way of humour written for them, the actors are left doing dodgy accents and pulling faces. Well it isn't enough; even when the face is being pulled by that master of the comic facial expression, Jack Nicholson (repleat with puffed up top lip ... now is that meant to be a parody of Brando's padded jowls in The Godfather?... Oh! Who cares?... all I know is, it isn't funny).Throw in some slow, plodding direction (this film drags on for 2 hours), some hopelessly daft and clichéd dialogue such as; "You remember the Camora? Well we're far bigger, we'll track you down wherever you go", and clichéd mannerisms and you'll be reaching for that fast forward button before you can say "capiche?". Prizzi's Honor is far from being Huston's "masterpiece" and is rather a very poor last work. It's definitely one work in the great director's canon that should be given a concrete overcoat and tossed into the Hudson River.


Following directly from where the story left off in part one, the second half which sets about telling the inevitable downfall and much more grim side of the man's legacy is exactly as such. In direct contrast to the first feature, part two represents a shift from Che the pride and glory of a revolutionised country, to Chestruggling liberator of a country to which he has no previous ties. The change of setting isn't just aesthetic; from the autumn and spring greys of the woodlands comes a change of tone and heart to the feature, replacing the optimism of the predecessor with a cynical, battered and bruised reality aligned to an all new struggle. Yet, as Che would go on to say himselfsuch a struggle is best told exactly as thata struggle. While Part One certainly helped document that initial surge to power that the revolutionary guerrilla acquired through just that, Part Two takes a much more refined, callous and bleak segment of Che's life and ambition, and gives it an assertive portrayal that is both poignant and tragic in a tangible, easy to grasp manner.While the movie's tone in some regards does stray off and differ quite drastically from Part One however, there still remains that same documented approach taken a month ago that avoids melodrama and fabrication as much as possible. This somewhat distant, cold approach to telling Che's story and struggle will no doubt turn some viewers off; indeed, I still remain reserved about whether or not the feature itself should have been named after one manif anything, the entirety of Che, taken as a whole, delivers a tale that goes beyond mere biography and instead documents a man's struggle alongside those who helped carry him along the way. By no means does Soderbergh try to paint a humanistic portrait here akin to what Hirschbiegel did with Der Untergang half a decade ago (excuse the ironic contrast); Che is a slow moving, reserved and meditative approach to telling a history lesson that just happens to be narrated by the one man who arguably- conducted the whole thing.Yet by moving from the lush green landscapes of Cuba and retreating to the bleak, decaying backdrop of Bolivia for Part Two, the story does inevitably take on a distinctly contrasting tone that doesn't feel too disjointed from its predecessor, but does enough to give it its own reference points. Here, the basic structure of Part One is echoed backthere's the initial struggle, the battles, the fallen comrades and the recruiting of those to replace them, all the while we see some glimpses of the man behind the movement. Yet, as anyone with the vaguest idea of the actual history behind the feature will know, Part Two is destined to end on a much more underwhelming, and disquieting note. This difference, in combination with the similarities to Part One, make a compelling and memorable whole; by all means, both could be digested one their own (and kudos to Soderbergh for achieving as such) and enjoyed as they are, but taken as one statement, Che delivers exactly what it sets out to achieve.Indeed, everything that made Part One the treat that it was one month prior is still evident here from the subtle yet engrossing performances from the central cast to the slow building, realistically structured combat scenesthe drama inherent to the characters on screen is just as vague and indiscernible, but with a feature such as this, Part Two once again proves that avoiding such elements don't necessarily hurt a film when there is enough plot and reflection on other elements to keep the viewer engaged. In fact, upon writing this review I was at odds as to whether or not to simply add a paragraph or two to my initial review for Part One, and title the review as a whole, yet I felt that to do so would only serve to disillusion those who may sit down to watch the entirety of both films consecutively.With that said, I cannot rightfully decree whether or not Che holds up to the task of engaging an audience for its sprawling four hour plus runtime, but upon viewing both segments I can at least attest to each part's ability to do just that. With a reflective, intricate screenplay combined with endlessly mesmerising photography and nuanced performances that do justice to the movie's characters without drawing attention to themselves, Che Part Two is every bit as compelling and rewarding as its predecessor, but this time with a tragic but uplifting, reaffirming conclusion fit for the history pages of film.- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)


This, along with "Hare Tonic," ranks as one of the best Bugs cartoons, indeed one of the best Bugs, ever. There are some comments about how Bugs in these cartoons is "basic," meaning, I guess, that he is as yet not fully developed. I actually prefer this "basic" version from the mid-40s (Chuck Jones' was the best version) who is actually more rabbit-sized and far more amusing than the eventual long-legged version who towered over Yosemite Sam and Daffy Duck. The latter-day Bugs came to be too suave and sophisticated for my liking. Also check out "Hair Raising Hare" (1946) and "Rabbit Punch" (1948) for great examples of classic Bugs and classic Chuck Jones.


This Columbo episode is probably noted more for the director, Steven Spielberg, as one of his early films. It should be looked at for Jack Cassidy's role as the murderer who kills his partner in writing to maintain his lifestyle. Jack Cassidy would appear in a later Columbo. After all, Columbo meets his match in Jack Cassidy's character. He is a mystery writer who plots to perform the perfect murder. After his first murder, his next victim would be the annoying general store owner/widow who would blackmail him for money. Rather than losing more money, he kills her. It is very entertaining to watch Cassidy and Falk as always. Falk's familiarity as Columbo makes him watchable after viewing this episode repeatedly over the years. What television today forgets about the success of years is that people will want to watch the shows again and again if they like the characters. It's not about who does it, how and why, it the familiarness of Columbo and his likability which scores high with viewers like myself.


The Farrelly brothers, Bobby and Peter, are at it again. With "Fever Pitch" the creators of other films that have dealt with a lot of gross themes, abandon that tactic when they decided to bring Nick Hornby's film to the screen, something that it would have been hard to do. The novel, of the same title, dealt with a man's obsession with soccer, since it is set in England, where that sport consumes most of British sports fans. It's to the credit of the writing team of Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandell, to transform the book into a language that would appeal to most Americans, when they make their hero, a Boston Red Sox fan."Fever Pitch" is a film that presents an obsessive fan, Ben Wrightly, whose life revolves into the Red Sox season, and who is an eighth grade teacher with uncanny ways for involving his students into the subject he tries to teach them. When Ben takes four of his best pupils for a tour of a local firm, he meets, and falls hopelessly in love with the brainy Lindsey Meeks, a young woman who is going places, but at thirty, has no life of her own.The story follows the two lovers through the ritual of attending the Red Sox, at home games, in Fenway Park. This team's fans are probably the most loyal people in the world, having stuck with a team that does marvelous things but, until 2004, never won a World Series. In fact, the ending, from what we heard, had to be changed because that was the year in which they finally won the event that had eluded them for eighty six years! Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon are perfect as the couple at the center of the film. Ms. Barrymore is a natural who always surprises in her appearances in front of the camera. Jimmy Fallon, a popular television comedian, turned movie actor, has a better opportunity here than in his last appearance in "Taxi", in our humble opinion.The Farrelly brothers film will satisfy their fans as well as baseball fans with this baseball tale.


Ah, McBain
 The character name is immortalized and forever ridiculed by "The Simpsons" but it will also always  to me personally, at least  remain the name and title of a tremendously entertaining and outrageously violent early 90's action flick; directed by the cool dude who brought us "The Exterminator" and starring two of the most ultimately badass B-movie heroes Christopher Walken and Michael Ironside (the latter with a cute little macho ponytail). I guess "McBain" will largely have to be labeled as a guilty pleasure, because there's no way I can convince anyone this is an intellectual motion picture. The film is unimaginably preposterous (most action heroes take on a small gangster posse
 McBain takes on an entire country) and yet takes itself way too seriously. The script is a non-stop and incoherent spitfire of clichéd situations, nonsensical twists, compulsory sentimental interludes, grotesquely staged action sequences and utterly implausible character drawings. It's a totally delirious movie; I loved it. Vietnam POW McBain's life is saved by fellow soldier Roberto Santos on the very last day of the war. They each keep half a dollar note as a symbol that McBain is in Santos' debt. Eighteen years later, Santos is a spirited rebel leading the revolution against the corrupt president of his home country Columbia. Santos initial attempt to take over the power fails and he's publicly executed on El Presidente's balcony. His sister travels to New York with the dollar note and turns to McBain for financial assistance and manpower. McBain and his former Vietnam buddies, who all coincidentally happen to be fed up with the injustice in this world, charter themselves a miserable little plane and fly to Columbia to open a gigantic can of whoop-ass. Okay, let's not fool each other here. The fact you're reading a user- comment on "McBain" already indicates that you have some sort of interest for low-budget B-movie action. One of my fellow reviewers spent quite some time composing a list containing all the main stupidities and insensible moments of "McBain". This list is totally accurate and I can only concur with it. Heck, I could even add some more senseless sequences to that list (like the preposterous and needless heroic self- sacrifice of a soldier who doesn't even have any affinity with the goal of the mission and the rest of McBain's squad), but what's the point? You definitely know not to expect a 100% coherent and plausible masterpiece. We know from beforehand this will be a silly and exaggeratedly flamboyant movie, and it's maybe even the exact reason why we want to check it out! This is a terrifically outrageous and exciting movie about a bunch of former Vietnam buddies turning into mercenaries and declaring war against the corrupt Columbian president and the national drug cartel. Please don't expect another "Apocalypse Now". This particular motion picture relies on the ruff 'n tuff acting performances of the macho leads, a whole lot of explosions and gunfights and  last but not least  a fantastic soundtrack in which Joan Baez sings a cover of "Brothers in Arms".


This was a gem. Amazing acting from the leads Liam Cunningham, Orla Brady and all the supporting cast. The movie raises a subject not only pertinent to Ireland and Irish history but to many communities around the world and many marriage units within those communities. With intensity and sincerity the movie shows how the religious convictions and traditions drove a wedge on a loving and passionate family. The title "Love divided" couldn't capture it any better. Even though it was a true story and happening in Ireland of the 50th seeing how the life of the whole village erodes and "pogroms" are starting reminded me of Russian history. The intolerance and prejudice are still too powerful in the world and unfortunately it's deeply hidden inside the human nature. Just like in the movie the Liam Cunningham's character says "the hatred had always been there under the surface". It was interesting to watch the moral choices people were making in this story. Also the character of a catholic priest and what happened to him in the end of the story was quite meaningful. The story however gives hope that love of two people can conquer everything and love makes us better, stronger. Liam Cunningham's character goes through the whole transformation in the course of the story becoming a man he always wanted to be. Again acting is a top notch. Story is fast-paced. Irish countryside is as beautiful as ever. Highly recommended.


This is by far THE WORST movie i have ever watched. I've seen some pretty awful movies in my time but this ones takes the cake, no, wait, i mean the the whole damn bakery. It is so bad that i believe a word to describe the way you will feel after watching this atrocity has yet to be created. Please just do yourself a favor, if you ever get the urge to watch this and watch thirty minutes of that annoying purple dinosaur Barney, then multiply that thirty times fold and you would still only get a small fraction of the horror you would be in store for. In summation, i guess you really can call it a horror movie, but only if you're willing to be scared senseless by the worst acting in the business and utterly pointless story.Real Rating, -10 Disgusting


If you are hoping for ANYTHING new, you have chosen the wrong movie. Who can think that a movie that is a virtual replay of it's predeccesors can be good. Maybe the producer and maybe the director but hopefully they were not serious when they made this THING. This whole movie is like making a greatest hits DVD of the 1st 3 films, but changing the actors. BHHAAAAD.


I really love this movie, saw it again last week after 3 years or so. This movie is perfect, great acting, great story, great directing/camera-work/music. It is a gift to show it to someone you love. too bad jaco van dormael did not make more movies after this one. Top 5 work. Really!!Today, it's 3 years and 3 days later then the comment above. it was never posted because it was not more than 10 lines. Anyway, i saw "le huitieme jour" again yesterday. This is with no doubt in my movie top 3. together with "Cinema Paradiso" which is also a masterpiece. The soundtrack is also really good. I am really curious about "jaco von dormael's" new movie. I hope it will complete my movie top 3. If you see this movie, rent it. Or even better. buy it. Because you will want to see it again.


Perhaps I would have liked this film more if I wasn't so attached to the characters in Henry Fool. To those who've never seen Henry Fool, I wouldn't worry. As Hartley jokingly said in his introduction to the film at TIFF, the film has lots of exposition and explanations.This film is very heavy in plot, which keeps the film moving. There are many humorous moments and the film certainly has Hartley's trademark humour and rhythm of dialogue. Over all, a technically well made film and sure to satisfy new fans of Hartley who are just beginning explore his work. As for the older fans who loved his earlier works like Trust and Amateur, this film could go either way. I have mixed feelings about the film and Hartley's later films in general. What Hartley does best is setting his stories in small situations, focusing on the intimate and idiosyncratic ways in which his characters interact with each other. Since his late 90s and onward, his films have widened in scope in terms of subject matter. Mass media in No Such Thing, Religion in the Book of Life and now Terrorism in Fay Grim. I don't know if Hartley's talents are suited to such big subject matter or if he's able to do it justice.Strangely enough, the film can still be reduced to intimate relationships, a simple love story about a woman who goes to seek out the husband she loves. The only problem is, I've seen Henry Fool and everyone seems incredibly out of character in this film. You can tell this film was written long after Henry Fool was finished without any intention of a sequel. Somehow, the terrorist plot feels conveniently tacked on through the use of Henry's books of confessions as a macguffin (in the hitchcockian sense). Fay's motivations for finding Henry seemed motivated purely by the needs of the plot rather than what being faithful to who fay was as person in Henry Fool.I guess I'm slightly disappointed in the film because it's not true to the characters in the Henry Fool and it doesn't exactly work as a straight ahead thriller. There's too much irony and wryness in Hartley's approach to such as big topic as terrorism. It somehow works and doesn't work at the same time. All I could say, you would either love or hate the film depending on your take on Hartley's work and how well you know Hartley's work. Fans of Henry Fool, be severely warned for a disappointment. For the rest, welcome to the world of Hal Hartley and enjoy the ride.


I love Julian Sands and will at least attempt to watch anything he's in, but this movie nearly did me in. I'm hard pressed to remember when I found any other movie to move....so......slow.........ly.....zzzzzzzzzzzzPop it in the VCR when you've run out of sleeping pills.


As predictable as a Hallmark card, but not without merit, The Rookie makes for a solid outing. Dennis Quaid, the most reasonable jock actor working today, is absolutely perfect as the science teacher turned baseball player Jimmy Morris. The film is never dumbed down for the children, as would be expected from a G rated film. As a sports film, The Rookie is one of the best I have seen since Any Given Sunday.


I went to see this a few days ago, and it's hard to forget that film...for the wrong reasons. This film is supposed to be funny, it's not, not a single laugh in the theatre( perhaps for josé garcia and gérard Depardieu ), and it's boring, boring, boring. It was even hard sometimes to understand what they were saying. They just talk to fast and don't open their enough for us to understand. I was with a friend and more than 4 or 5 times i caught myself saying after a line that was supposed to be funny " what, what did he say", and i'm french. I hate to say that, given the fact that i think good films are made here, but i apologise in advance for all foreigners who will go see the film ( if ever shown outside of France ).We're deeply sorry for that cr@p. 2/10


Just imagine the real Hitler, who was a master of propaganda and speech, would have been such a mumbling moron as Carlyle portrayed him in this film.Nobody would have followed him, not even a desperate, unemployed guy in the 1920s.This is just a Hollywood cardboard piece of propaganda itself, disguised as "true history".I pity everyone who actually believed anything from this show. Carlyle and the producers didn't get anything right with this.Why was Hitler able to win so many people, a whole county for his ideas if we was such a sausage? Why did people follow him to death? By portraying him as such a loser they make their own film totally unbelievable. This film is a mixture of old WW2 propaganda and MTV urban myths about one of the most important persons of the last century. Imagine a film about Churchill where the director only shows him as a drunkard for 90 mins. This film is a disgrace and I wonder how they could talk an actor like Carlyle into this dreck.


Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary?


Some of my old friends suggested me to watch this movie but I got chance only recently. I had high hopes of seeing something interesting from Kamal Hans, what I saw was bunch of garbage camera angles mixed at high speed. I could not understand what was the message except demeaning Hinduism. I am more like many religion type but I felt Kamal Hasan is a man low character to have orchestrated this kind of thought. He could have made a horror movie than this crap. He tried to add Hollywood genre of viruses and god forbid he did not convert that guy into a mutant and ultimately going to go for world domination. This is a much befitting movie for a film school vs regular public. Shame on him for not holding up to the talent he has. Starting of story tried Chaos to borrow ideas from Butterfly effect, then in between little religious harmony at the cost of insulting Hinduism (Once again I insult Hinduism more but this movie has no equal and my insult is same for religion in general which may have made this movie intellectual one.)


An uninteresting addition to the stalk 'n slash cycle which dominated the horror genre in the 1980's. This was filmed as Pranks but released as The Dorm That Dripped Blood which is an obvious steal from the 1970 horror anthology The House That Dripped Blood. Daphne Zuniga is the only recognisable face in the cast and this was her first horror movie (she has also appeared in The Initiation and The Fly II).


Dumb is as dumb does, in this thoroughly uninteresting, supposed black comedy. Essentially what starts out as Chris Klein trying to maintain a low profile, eventually morphs into an uninspired version of "The Three Amigos", only without any laughs. In order for black comedy to work, it must be outrageous, which "Play Dead" is not. In order for black comedy to work, it cannot be mean spirited, which "Play Dead" is. What "Play Dead" really is, is a town full of nut jobs. Fred Dunst does however do a pretty fair imitation of Billy Bob Thornton's character from "A Simple Plan", while Jake Busey does a pretty fair imitation of, well, Jake Busey. - MERK


Based on the personal experiences of director John Singleton's time at the University of Southern California,comes Higher Learning. A film centered on the racial politics that occur at modern day colleges.There are three main characters to which the film bases its foundation around for its story: Malik Williams, an carefree lowbrow athlete who is an African American male. Kristin Conner, a sheltered soft white girl, and Remy, a unsophisticated unconnected white male. All three are overcome by the sudden realities that college life is not as good as it is advertised as all three go through disappointment by being unprepared (Malik), by being naive (Kristin), and by being unwanted (Remy).One good thing about the film is that it does show that modern American colleges are just high schools writ large. The colleges are not places to build character , develop potential, or enhance personal advancement, but they are institutions used to gather all sorts of students in a one-size-fits-all atmosphere. It is an experience that usually is built for failure for most students. It would have been good if the film built it story about this travesty rather than racial politics.But it didn't and that's where the films falls apart. Singleton ,it seems, had a pretty bad experience at Southern California. Through this film he lets it all hang out. There is no need to beat around the bush here. Singleton lets the heroes and the villains of this piece be easily seen.The black characters in the film are pretty much seen as the heroes here while all the whites in the film are seen as the villains, save for Kristin, who was raped by a fellow white student.Who can understand the inconsistencies of this film? Black gang members who come to the aid of a white girl after she points out to them who supposedly raped her? The ease that the black gang members have at the university while a bunch of skin heads meet in a dark small dorm planning violence? The performances of Omar Epps (Malik) and Kristy Swanson (Kristin) are disappointing. They do seem like the third choices for the roles that they played in this movie (Tupac Shakur and Drew Barrymore were supposed to play Malik and Kristin but were unavailable). O'Shea Jackson aka Ice Cube ,Busta Rhymes, and Regina King were all irritating in their respective roles. And Laurence Fishburne was woefully miscast here as the history professor. Only Michael Rappaport did well in this film and he did considering that his character ,of the three main characters, changed the most in the film.John Singleton wanted to take on the matter of race and inequality in American college life with this film. And he did so quite badly. It was sort like killing a fly with a shotgun. Life is far more complex than it seems and people are alike all over and he should know this. Higher Learning is proof that he did not understand this at all. Seeing the film ,then and now, would only confuse, disappoint and enrage the same public he would wish to speak to. Not to mention it would not entertain them in the slightest.


This one is considered a key Pre-Code film  from the director who later made the musical biopic THE JOLSON STORY (1946), but also the paranoid sci-fi INVASION U.S.A. (1952)!  and features one of Barbara Stanwyck's best early roles.She's supported by a fine cast which includes popular actors and valued character performers of the day  George Brent, Douglass Dumbrille, Edward van Sloan, Nat Pendleton and John Wayne (at one point addressing Stanwyck with the titular nickname, derived from a popular song which is heard constantly throughout) in the former category and, in the latter, Robert Barrat (as Stanwyck's father), Donald Cook (as her most tragic conquest), Alphonse Ethier (as her elderly mentor  more on this later), Arthur Hohl (as a lecherous politician) and Henry Kolker (as Cook's boss and father-in-law, whom Stanwyck also seduces). Curiously, scenes in which Walter Brennan appeared were subsequently deleted at his own request when the film ran into trouble with the censors!Abetted by crackling i.e. typically hard-boiled dialogue and realistic Anton Grot sets, the narrative contains unexpected overtones of Nietzschean philosophy fed to our small-town heroine by the intellectual Ethier (Stanwyck complains to him early on that she's no "ball of fire" which, of course, contradicts her later comedy  directed by Howard Hawks and co-starring Gary Cooper  of that name!). Under Ethier's auspices, she quickly blooms into an essentially heartless character determined that nothing shall stand in her path to success; the symbolic depiction of her rise in stature at the New York firm she's eventually employed with is reminiscent of a similarly sardonic one  relating to an ambitious statesman's lust for power  in Sergei Eisenstein's October (1927)! Sociologically, it's also interesting that Stanwyck is constantly seen sticking her neck out for her black maid/companion.The first two-thirds of the film are simply terrific; at first, I found the latter stages somewhat disappointing  because I was expecting to see Stanwyck get her comeuppance by falling for the belatedly-introduced George Brent character while he ignores her
but, just like the others, he's soon under her spell! On second viewing, however, this aspect felt less jarring  as it's evident that Stanwyck has been affected by the two deaths her selfish behavior has caused, and that her tenure in Paris has softened her (even if she tries to cling to her hard-earned wealth for as long as it's possible).Released on DVD by Warners as part of their FORBIDDEN Hollywood VOLUME 1 COLLECTION, the film is presented in two strikingly different edits  a recently unearthed Pre-Release version and the tamer Theatrical Release print. Among the considerable footage cut from the latter is dialogue pertaining to Stanwyck's life as a tramp from the age of 14 (though it's heard in the accompanying trailer!), while many other scenes have been shortened (i.e. censored for content): the violent fisticuff which develops between Stanwyck and Hohl after she resists his advances; the seduction at the railroad car; the scene in which Dumbrille is surprised with Stanwyck by Cook; the shooting, followed by a suicide (only shots are heard in the shorter version); Stanwyck thinking about her conquests while the phonograph is playing (again, only Brent appears in the version released to theaters), etc. Tha latter, then, utilizes alternate takes for some scenes  and includes an establishing shot of the city which is missing from the longer version; however, we also get an obviously tacked-on happy ending (the Pre-Release version concludes abruptly on a very effective open-ended note) and an equally unconvincing cautionary letter sent by Ethier to Stanwyck in New York which, basically, has the function of substituting all references to Nietzsche!


The premise of Cabin Fever starts like it MIGHT have something to offer. A group of college teens after finals (in the fall?) goes to a resort cabin in the woods where one by one they are attacked by an unseen flesh eating virus.Unfortunately, the first paragraph is where any remote elements of film quality stop. Cabin Fever is little more than college kids looking for sex, booze, talking non-stop about nothing, and seeing how many F-bombs they can get into 1:40 minutes or however long this mess is.The kids act and react stupidly to everything around them. One of them for instance discovers that the skin virus has infected her legs, so what does she do? She keeps shaving her legs failing to take proper medical attention for her wounds. The scene is little more than a gross out. In another scene, Rider Strong from "Boy Meets World" gets bitten on the hand by some kid who only says "Pancakes" and likes to do karate kicks on those who sit next to him. If you can figure out the reason for why the "Pancakes" kid was included, I'd love to know. Anyway, Rider pets a wild dog and goes off to wash his bitten hand in a most likely contaminated creek. Another kid likes to drop F-bombs in reacting to everything around him and shoot squirrels. Why? Your guess is as good as mine!Rider Strong is the ONLY kid with any recognition in this movie. He tries to calm people down in-between the yelling and screaming and F*** Y**! bombs that people are throwing around. When the kids aren't yelling, they are having or talking about sex or talking nonsense to the other adult characters who are EVEN MORE (if that is possible)idiotic than the kids! The idiot cop with an IQ of 60 at best may be one of the WORST acting jobs I have ever seen in a movie. You talk about people not playing with a full deck, this dork doesn't even know how to find the cards! LOL! I was like, "Will you PLEASE shut up already?!" He makes the kid actors look like geniuses! The only part that I sort of liked was Rider's scary story (although gory) about the deranged bowling alley guy. In interviews, Rider said that he had a great deal of respect for director Eli Roth. But the problem is that Mr. Roth appears to be going for little more than shock and gore. There are far too many bad things about this movie for Mr. Roth to get any credit. I wish I could agree with Rider and find something likable about this movie. Maybe the fall scenery in the beginning? Actually, Rider Strong JUST saves this movie from being a 1! Hopefully, he was compensated for this junk!


In my opinion, A GUY THING is a hilarious, witty, sexy, romantic, and totally beautiful chick flick that guys will also enjoy. I thought that Jason Lee and Julia Stiles dazzled as a bewildered groom-to-be and his soon-to-be sexy cousin-in-law. If you ask me, they lit up the screen like magic. You can also feel their chemistry between them. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that the performances were top grade, the direction was flawless, the production design was nice, the casting was perfect, and the costumes were perfectly designed. In conclusion, to anyone who's a fan of Jason Lee or Julia Stiles, I recommend this movie. You're in for lots of laughs and thrills, so, go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it.


Do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the "idealistic youths" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up.


In 1692 Salem, a devious child's lies about a slave's involvement in witchcraft sends an entire community into an uproar. Costume drama starring Claudette Colbert and Fred MacMurray isn't stuffy, though neither is it a vivid depiction of contagious hysteria. Worked on by three writers (Walter Ferris, Durward Grimstead, and Bradley King), the story elements are rather interesting (especially coming out of Hollywood in 1937), though to anyone who has since read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", the hoked-up melodrama on display here won't be tolerated for very long. Biggest problem with the picture may lie in the casting: Colbert and MacMurray are an ill-matched pair of lovers hindered by the witch-hunt, MacMurray being far too contemporary a presence for these surroundings. *1/2 from ****


....because if I was, I may have wished it was me being crucified on a wooden cross! I'm still trying to determine the plot of this movie - and I'm being "generous" that there was even a plot to begin with. As previously mentioned, it's a misnomer on the cover of the DVD that Richard Dreyfuss is actually the star. He was barely in the movie. And if he was indeed "frustrated" as the back cover indicated he was, well, that's probably because he said YES to be in this disaster of a movie and couldn't get out of it! The movie really seemed to focus on Jared Martin, and what his role in the movie was supposed to be, other than the extreme close -ups, was not as big of a mystery as to what Gene Barry's role actually was - or wasn't. And speaking of "big"...whomever had the bright idea to fit Gene Barry in the Humpty Dumpty attire, which showcased his trousers literally pulled up to his chin, should be sentenced to hard time by watching this movie stoned sober. I could go on and on about how horrendous this movie was, from the dialogue not matching the "actors'" mouths (think Clutch Cargo), to the erratic jumping from scene to scene (again, being generous even calling the frames of pictures "scenes"), to the lack of a plot.... However, if you're into bad early 70s genre and if you're in a cottage in Michigan with nothing but this movie and a box of kid & cat pictures, I recommend having a good bottle of wine before you embark on this weird ride of a movie because you'll be thankful that you may not remember it the next day!


There is one good thing in this movie: Lola Glaudini's ass! Sorry to be so blunt but it's the truth. Too bad she didn't do a nude. It would at least have made this mess tolerable. We see another chick's boobs but she's nowhere near Lola. And man, is Armand Assante old or what? The man looks like crap! "Consequence" is the usual B-Movie you would expect. The story had potential. It's like they had good ideas but didn't know how to execute them. The cinematography is just plain awful. Ugly! The directing is uninspired and the end result is a bland thriller with lame twists and washed up actors. Lola Gaudini is great as the vixen in a cheap, slutty way but not even she saves "Consequence" from being trash and not funny trash, just plain old stinking trash.


I like my Ronald Colman dashing and debonair, the fellow you see in such films as If I Were King and Kismet. I like him as the epitome of civilization as in The Lost Horrizon and Random Harvest. A brooding Colman isn't a favorite of mine.But in A Double Life precisely because his part as actor Anthony John is so offbeat for him, Colman was recognized with a Best Actor Oscar for 1947. It became his best known part.Colman is an actor who really does take the Method quite seriously. He's just finished a successful run in a comedy of manners and he's quite the jovial fellow. For a change of pace now that that play has concluded its Broadway run, Colman is bringing a revival of Othello to New York. About as opposite a part as you can get.His leading lady in both is his former wife Signe Hasso who loves him dearly, but can't take his change of moods when he's at work. Colman loves her dearly as well and wants her back. But he's heading for a mental breakdown when he starts confusing himself with the jealous Moor Othello and Hasso with her role as Desdemona.Unfortunately Shelley Winters as a poor waitress who a depressed Colman picks up gets in the way of his madness and she winds up like poor Desdemona in the play. Killed in the same manner and now it's a matter for homicide cop Joe Sawyer.Colman's performance is so good that one does kind of wonder is this an occupational hazard with actors? I'd shudder to think so, were there any unsolved homicides in or around Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles then they essayed Othello. I could never quite buy the story for that reason, but I certainly do applaud Ronald Colman and what he did with the part. I'm sure there was a tinge of regret in him winning the Oscar though because one of the other nominees was his good friend William Powell for Life With Father. Others in the running that year were Gregory Peck for Gentlemen's Agreement, John Garfield for Body and Soul, and Michael Redgrave for Mourning Becomes Electra.Colman gets able support from the rest of the cast including Edmond O'Brien who finds himself in the unwanted part of Cassio in Colman's jealous fantasy. Still you will find no Iago equivalent in A Double Life, no one prodding the jealousy, it's all in his own mind.And that from one of the most cultivated and civilized minds of the last century.


If you fast forward through the horrible singing, you will find a classic fairy tale underneath. Christopher Walken is very humorous and surprisingly good in the role. His trademark style of acting works well for the sly Puss in Boots. The other actors are well for their parts. I did not find any of the acting terribly fake or awkward. The king in particular appears a real dunce though, and I wonder if he is supposed to be. I can not remember the original tale. The special effects are typical of the eighties, but at least they are not overly fake like some of the computer generated fare that we see today. Overall, I recommend this movie for children and adults who are a child at heart.


I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you.


I remember watching this movie several times as a very young kid, and there were parts of it (many in fact) that I did not understand. I think I have seen it once as an adult, and I then understood those parts. The only problem with viewing it as an adult was that it was not entertaining to me at all. So what kind of movie is this? Is it a "kids movie"? Not hardly. It contains language and subject matter not suitable for kids. Is it a hyperbole of what every parent feels like they are going through with their own children? Maybe, but then why wouldn't it focus more on John Ritter's character instead of Junior? When a film has a 7-year-old as its main character, in order to do well with it's audience, it should be a movie for the seven and under crowd, otherwise people older than that will have no way to relate (even 8-year-olds wouldn't want to see a movie about a kid who is whole year younger than them). I'm pretty sure this film did not do well in the box office, and the reason has to be because it was unable to find a niche in the market.


This show was absolutely terrible. For one George isn't funny, and his kids are snobby little brats. He also treats his mother with no respect. As a Hispanic, I am highly offended by this show and the way the characters are portrayed.Plus the dysfunctional family thing's been done to death. For once, I want to see something original. What makes this show funny when other shows have done it millions of times? I thought ABC would come to its senses and pull this piece of garbage off the air, but sadly, we're going to have to stomach this until they "jump the shark".In my opinion, they already did.


I enjoy all the versions of this story but this one is my all time favorite. George C.Scott gives a depth to the Scrooge character that the others do not give. The movie shows more about why he becomes so bitter. The changes in Scrooge appear gradually as he encounters the different ghosts and the incidents that they show him. This movie has the best Tiny Tim by far. He is the right age rather than being played by someone who is almost a teenager as in the other films. Anthony Walters still has all or most of his baby teeth. David Warner is wonderful as Bob Cratchit. He is such a versatile actor. He portrays a man who clearly loves his family. He plays the role with dignity neither as a wimpy man cowering under Scrooges'thumb but as a man who gracefully puts up with it because he has a family to provide for. Susannah York and the other actors do a fine job of bringing the characters to life. Edward Woodward is the best Ghost of Christmas Present I've ever seen. Most often he is played as a jolly Santa type character. In this he shows anger at Scrooges attitudes and really makes Scrooge reconsider. The costumes and the sets really bring the London of Dickens time to life. A wonderful movie.


It seems a lot of IMDB comments on this film are biased, in the sense that they try to compare it to an older version. True, "HOLLOW MAN" is a remake of sorts of "THE INVISIBLE MAN", but that's where the similarities end. "HOLLOW MAN" is an entertaining movie,period. If you watch a movie with the intention of finding as many flaws as possible, then you shouldn't watch movies in the first place. True, some movies are plain horrendous and unbearable, but "HOLLOW MAN" manages to entertain and make you think what YOU would do if you were invisible and if you had your ex getting laid with one of your friends. Kevin Bacon stars as a eccentric scientist who, along with a team of collaborators, discover the way to make animals invisible. Now his mission is to make them visible again. When this team of young scientists (working, as you might guess, for the Pentagon)think they have the formula for making animals visible again, Kevin bacon volunteers to be the first to try the new experimental drug. After that, of course, things go wrong, as Kevin Bacon remains invisible for the rest of the movie and is obliged to wear a latex mask, so his collaborators know where he is. Feelings of paranoia and desperation begin to take over Kevin's character, and when he finds out that his ex girlfriend AND collaborator (Elisabeth Shue) is having a torrid affair with another of the young scientists in the team, he finally snaps. The movie then turns into a hybrid of "ALIEN" and a slasher flick, but that's not saying it's a bad turn. There are scares and chills and the movie moves at a nice pace. The special effects are top notch (a quality always prevalent in ALL of Paul Verhoeven's films)as we get to see some "body reconstitution" sequences never seen on a movie before. If there's anything to complain about, perhaps, is the predictability of the situations herein; by the first hour of the movie you KNOW Kevin bacon will make the jump from being weird and eccentric to being a homicidal lunatic in the end. And the ending is a bit abrupt, but despite this, HOLLOW MAN is still worth watching. If you want to know what a TRULY bad movie is, then waste your money on "FEAR DOT COM" (With Stephen Dorf) or the even worse THE UNTOLD (or "Sasquatsh", with Land Henriksen). Now THAT is "hollow"! 8* out of 10*!


A Chinese scholar who criticizes harshly the arrogant nationalist, warmongering policies of the ruling clique around the emperor in pre-war Japan, is accused of being a 'communist' and jailed for life. His loving wife, who supports totally her husband and his ideas, is left alone to save her family from starvation. This movie is a huge statue erected in praise of the role of the mother in the history of mankind. Sayuri Yoshinaga is not less than sublime in the title role and it was a monumental scandal that she didn't get an Asian Oscar for the best female role in 2009. It went to a young girl with very limited acting potential.This deeply moving and most 'human' feature is a must see for all 'true children' on earth.


This movie could have been 15 minutes long if it weren't for all the bickering between son and father. Very predictable. Both Male "stars" need a good slap in the face! Would you like some cheese with that "whine?" Two chuckles...and a headache. I can understand why the mother left her hubby after 47 years...I don't know how she lasted that long! The first 5 minutes made me want to turn the movie off wishing I had never paid the $3.99 to watch it! The movie didn't flow well and was painfully long. I kept watching my watch hoping time would fly faster...It didn't. The script had so much repetition that it had to be easy for the writer to fill space. On a positive note...the scenery was pretty, fall being my favorite season. The car, the 40 Ford was also quite nice. This movie gets an D- rating approaching an F


** HERE BE SPOILERS **The government has continued to develop the UniversalSoldier program, now called UniSol. The soldiers are now stronger and are able to take more damage than before. However the government is downsizing, the project endangered and the supercomputer that is in the middle of all feel threatened, so he takes steps to ensure his own safety. He activates and controls the UniSols and start to run mayhem. The only one who can stop them is Deveraux (Van Damme). This movie is about one thing. Choreographed fighting. The story is bad, and is soon drowned in all fights. Whatever happens, and wherever they go, they fight. Unfortunately for this movie, it is no fun watching a fight where you know one part of it is indestructible. Normally you're pretty sure the hero will win, but you still want to feel the fights are between two somewhat equal combatants. Not where one is indestructible and can't lose. Then the fights just become a tool to stretch time. You wait until the final fight when Deveraux miraculously finds a way to beat his unbeatable foes. To further lower my opinion, a desperate and sure sign of a bad movie is how much scantily clad women there are. Well, there aren't really that lot of them, because the characters are most men (there are at least one woman UniSol though), but almost every woman is needlessly shown with at least just a bra once. The female leads get by with this, but we also pass through a strip-club (to use a computer no less) with much more undressed women. These moments do not give anything to the story and is just there to try to please the adolescent-minded male audience.So, in conclusion, boring fights. No more, no less. Well, maybe less...2/10


I'm a big fan of 50s sci-fi, but this is not one of my favorites. While the concept behind the movie was a natural vehicle for a classic teeny bopper sci-fi flick, the director counted too heavily on it to carry the movie. It's clear he was working with no money, because the entire movie is loaded with bloated dialogue that goes on and on forever. I have *never* seen so much time-killing in a movie.There are probably less than 60 seconds of "blob footage" in the entire movie, and most of the rest of it is people engaging in a lot of poorly-written, run-on dialogue. It was fun to see Steve M. and Anita C. together, but good heavens...how could casting have thought anyone in their right mind would believe them as teenagers?


Let's go straight to the point: this is The Movie I would take with me on a desert island (with dvd player). It's just perfect. If a reason for you to see a movie is that you love the actors, you like to see them free to involve in the space and feelings, this movie is for you. See the scene when Myrtle (Rowlands) come on stage drunk and Maurice(Cassavetes) has to improvise because she doesn't follow the script anymore. If you're sensitive to the camera's movements, you'll be fascinated by the way the camera moves on stage, the particular flow, that give you the impression camera follow the actors as if it was lead by the theatrical principle of "private space"... amazing. And the story is just a brilliant mix of tale and realistic drama. Cassavetes is again arguing with Hollywood and the majors' politics, but this time, he do it through Broadway, making one of the most exciting movie about theater. Well, this movie is a bliss.


A bunch of kids set up a theatre to have an all-night horror movie marathon. However, as the night goes on, there's somebody among them killing them off one by one. Who is it...and why? I saw this in a theatre way back in 1991. I was looking forward to it--but boy! It did not work at all. The premise is a good one, they have a very appealing young cast and some pros like Dee Wallace Stone on board...but it doesn't work. The story stops making sense halfway through (that could be because of some huge editing before the film was released), the killings are relatively bloodless (how this got an R rating is beyond me) and the unmasking of the killer at the end was boring and stupid.It's really too bad--this movie had potential. With a better script this could have become a great horror film. As it stands though it's mostly forgotten and the cast itself seems embarrassed by it (I heard Stone won't talk about this one). I give it a 3 and that's just for the cast.


Some people have made a point of dissing this movie because they question the plausibility of black people in the Old West, Asian people in the Old West or women with guns in the Old West period. Get a grip and read a book. There were quite a few Asians (Chinese), there were quite a few blacks (freedmen) and everybody outside of the gentile class had ready access to guns; it is the second amendment you know. And as far as the use of modern language goes, none of those Westerns people have waxed nostalgic about actually used language that was consistent with the era depicted. Americans had different accents, used different inflections, spoke at a very different pace and used plenty of words and phrases that would be unrecognizable today. Don't blame historical inaccuracy for the fact that you just didn't dig it. Be honest. Maybe you're just uncomfortable with what you're seeing.


I am a big fan of cinema verite and saw this movie because I heard how interesting it was. I can honestly say it was very interesting indeed. The two lead actors are awesome, the film isn't ever boring, and the concept behind it (though obviously inspired by the Columbine killings and the home movies of the killers) is really interesting. There are some weaknesses, such as the final 20 minutes which really detracts from the realism seen in the first hour or so and the ending really doesn't make any sense at all. The shaky camera sometimes can be a distraction, but in cinema verite that is a given. But I still think the movie is very well done and the director Ben Coccio deserves some credit.


As a single woman over 40, I found this film extremely insulting and demeaning to single women over 40, not to mention every other woman, of any age. It was a sad, pathetic attempt by a man to write and direct a "chick flick", and it failed miserably. Andy McDowell isn't much of an actress to begin with, but given the non-existent "plot" (I hate to even refer to it as a plot) in this, she didn't have a chance. There was no character development, no reason to feel sympathy/empathy for any of the characters, and no attempt to make the film in any way realistic or believable. And then there's the obligatory male-fantasy of an attractive straight woman suddenly deciding to give lesbianism a try -- PLEASE.Not only do I wish I could get my money back for the DVD rental, I also want those 112 minutes of my life back. What a ripoff.


This superb film draws on a variety of talented actors and musicians at the top of their form - Levant, Crosby, Martin, Rathbone, Manone are completely at home in the story that apparently was supplied by Billy Wilder. One would love to know more about how much he had to do with it, because it's an exceptionally clever variation on the sterile master/fertile servant tale - nearly an allegory of the entertainment industry, run by dried-up numskulls, but made into a vibrant world of art and play by an exploited underclass of nobodies and non-WASPs. Looking at the last six decades of music, TV, and film in the US, it's hard not to see the underlying insights of this film as prophetic.


Believe it or not, Inspector Gadget's Last Case is what got me hooked on the whole Gadget thing.My name is Miriam and I am twelve years old, so obviously I wasn't around when Inspector Gadget was at the top of his career. Sure, I'd heard of him, but I didn't really know him.While reading, note that I NEVER SAW THE ORIGINAL SERIES (I would if it came on!). This is just about the only Gadget thing I've ever watched (even though I am now obsessed) and I will be focusing on what I liked about it since everyone else is so negative. For all you pessimists, I've got some cons down there, too. =P First off, for a childish sense of humor, you could deem this movie pretty funny. I thought it was, so sue me. I also thought the animation and character designs were good, and I'm also happy there was more Gadget in it, since he's my favorite character. (I do NOT like Penny.) Then there was Claw (his voice was awful, though) and the Madcat; I thought they were done fairly good too. Gadget's idiocy seemed pretty well in place, if not a bit exaggerated (i.e. sucking his hat-hand thing's thumb. Would make a good screen shot, though. =P) Oh, and I liked the song that ran in the credits. Yes, I am strange.And, like all movies, there are some negatives, too.Talking cars? What's up with that? You can tell this was aimed at younger boys. That wouldn't bother me quite so much if there wasn't the fact that the cars basically saved the day. I would have much preferred if Penny and Brain had taken their place. And, apparently, Gadget loved his car more than would be called natural. A bit weird, to say the least.Oh, and the Chief was downright mean to Gadget. I mean, sheesh, yeah, he wasn't always the most cheerful of people, but he didn't HATE Gadget, from what I've read. Like the Inspector, his personality was exaggerated.Well, that's pretty much all I have to say about this movie. I thought the animation made up for the car-centered plot and that it was overall pretty decent; more so than the live-action Gadget films (butchered, butchered, BUTCHERED!) at least. Maybe I'm just biased because this is what got me into Gadget in the first place, or maybe my mind is twisted, or maybe I'm just odd, but I really liked this movie, even if I'm the oldest it's recommended for.


Michael Stearns plays Mike, a sexually frustrated individual with an interesting moral attitude towards sexuality. He has no problem ogling naked dancers but when women start having sex with men that's when he loses it. He believes that when women actually have sex that's when they lose any sense of "innocence" and/or "beauty". So he strolls through the Hollywood Hills stalking lovemaking couples at a distance, ultimately shooting the men dead with a high-powered rifle with a scope.The seeming primary reason for this movie's existence is to indulge in sexual activity over and over again. The "story" comes off as more of an afterthought. This is bound to make many a happily heterosexual male quite pleased as we're treated to enough protracted scenes of nudity (the ladies here look awfully good sans clothes) and sex to serve as a major dose of titillation. Of course, seeing a fair deal of it through a scope ups the creepiness factor considerably and illustrates the compulsion towards voyeurism. (For one thing, Mike eyes the couples through the scope for minutes at a time before finally pulling the trigger.) This is all underscored by awfully intrusive if somewhat atmospheric music on the soundtrack.Those with a penchant for lurid trash are bound to enjoy this to one degree or another. It even includes one lesbian tryst that confounds Mike and renders him uncertain *how* to react. It unfolds at a very slow pace, but wraps up with a most amusing ironic twist. It's a kinky and twisted rarity that if nothing else is going to definitely keep some viewers glued to the screen.7/10


The story and the show were good, but it was really depressing and I hate depressing movies. Ri'Chard is great. He really put on a top notch performance, and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. Seriously, I thought she was Carmen Electra until I saw the IMDb profile. I can't say anything bad about Peter Galleghar. He's one of my favorite actors. I love Anne Rice. I'm currently reading the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm glad I saw the movie before reading the book. This is a little too"real" for me. I prefer Lestat and Louis's witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. Eartha Kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did The movie was ruined for me; I could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity, but I don't want to give anything away) Sorry, but it's just not my type of show.


I saw this movie years ago in a group tradition of Fast Forward Film Festivals, where we would set out to rent a bunch of B-movies and vote for who picked the worst.The night we watched this, it was voted the best, due to semblance of plot and fun costuming.This is certainly a silly, kitschy, movie, to be watched under the full understanding that you are watching low-budget fluff. Personally, however, I wouldn't recommend additional substances ... this movie will leave it's own mark on you.It made enough of an impression on me that I've actually been trying to get my hands on a copy for a few years.A good choice if you are setting out to watch bad movies. This one is fun, and I remember bouncy music ...


"Don't Drink the Water" is an unbelievably bad film. It's based on a 1966 Broadway play by Woody Allen. It stars Jackie Gleason, the comic genius behind "The Honeymooners". The director, Howard Morris, has appeared in several Mel Brooks comedies (Life Stinks, High Anxiety, Silent Movie)and has made a mark in animation (characters he has voiced include Gopher from "Pooh", Jughead (Archie)and Beetle Bailey) What went wrong?I think the problem is that the premise is played out too seriously to work effectively. Allen's original play was tongue-in-cheek, which is why it worked on Broadway and in Allen's 1994 remake. The screenplay by R.S. Allen and Harvey Bullock beats the premise to death and makes too many changes from the original play. Making Gleason's wife an airhead in this version when she was a headstrong woman in the original is just one example of why this doesn't work.The acting isn't much better. Gleason does the best he can with the material, but he can't save this. Gleason was a comic genius , but also a fine actor as he demonstrated in "The Hustler" and "Soldier in the Rain". His abrasive personality could have worked here, but the lousy script doesn't even give him a chance. Too bad. Estelle Parsons' airhead wife will drive you nuts after 20 minutes. See how soon it'll take for YOU to want to strangle her. That is also a shame because she is also a fine actress, having turned in two exceptional performances in "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Rachel, Rachel" None of the other actors do particularly well either.Woody Allen hated this film so much that he remade the film in 1994 with himself and Julie Kavner (Marge Simpson) in the leads. They manage to hit all the right notes and the film itself is a comic masterpiece. It's finally on video after a long battle over rights. Do go out and find that version. All the 1969 original is good for is clearing out unwanted guests who overstay their welcome.1/2* out of 4 stars


this movie is outrageous. by outrageous, i mean awful. i had more fun watching the paint dry at my local hardware store on an august day while suffering from a migraine and heat stroke. the acting got progressively worse as the "movie" advanced, and the directors use of euphoric drugs became apparent as the final scenes approached. when misty was shot to death she decided that it would be prudent to blink post mordem. that was not intelligent. truthfully, stevie wonder could have caught that with his eyes closed. if you are deciding between playing with a nail gun while intoxicated and watching this movie, bear in mind that the nail gun will probably give you a better story to tell your friends.


Do not waste your time or your money on this movie. My roommate rented it because she thought it was the other movie called Descent (the flick about some travelers who get trapped in a cave). so, we decided to watch it anyways thinking it couldn't be that bad. It was. I can't believe this movie was actually produced and put out to the public. It was so horrible it was almost like an accident scene where you want to look away but you just can't make yourself. I honestly feel emotionally scarred. It went from being a semi-low budget movie in which a college girl gets assaulted by a boy she's dating to an all out porno flick. And really not a good one. I went from hating the woman's rapist to almost feeling bad for him. Almost. All in all, an awful movie that was definitely rated NC-17 for a reason. Don't waste your money. And don't let your kids watch it.