Honestly, I find this film almost too depressing for my own good. It is VERY depressing until pretty much the very end. There is no way I can justify passing judgement to any character who did things I didn't like (well, except for the disgusting character played by Fredrick Forrest). But it's still so frustrating to see people behaving this way, putting up walls around themselves when just a word or so could break the ice and promote healing.A horrible tragedy strikes a Montana family. They believe they've lost one son, but it turns out they've lost 2. The key is, if they just communicate and face their grief together, they won't end up losing their second son permanently.But they just can't. Something is blocking this family from sharing their sorrows. Some family retreat into silence and resentment while certain others point fingers of blame (and then go ahead and cheat on their poor pregnant wife by seducing the pretty girlfriend of the deceased...that Andy character truly is a snake!) The only member of the family that isn't threatening Arnold in some way is his Grandpa (Wilford Brimley). Grandpa seems to be able to speak to the boy without judgements or even kid gloves. He seems to know what the child is thinking about even though Arnold isn't saying much these days. It is truly a blessing for the poor kid to have that one someone he can turn to. No one else seems to grasp the fact that Arnold might be in shock, in denial, or that his way of grieving may not be the same style, or at the same speed, as they would expect. It's so easy to judge and to be angry and to feel someone is "made of stone" just because they don't grieve in a way we believe they ought.The story is very quiet and naturalistic. You're not going to get some spoon-fed narration or some Hollywood feel-good resolution. I was very concerned by the fact that this child was so burdened with guilt that he felt it necessary to hitchhike several hundred miles to apologize to that piggy Andy's wife, for something he should not blame himself for. Arnold may have accidentally killed his brother, but nobody is responsible for the end of that marriage, which apparently was a lousy one anyway, except for the two people in the marriage. It's only dumb luck Arnold didn't get into the car with a pedophile or a murderer.Robert Duvall and Glenn Close are frustratingly effective as the parents who somehow cannot find it in themselves to communicate with their son, to find out what Arnold is going through. Jason Presson, whom I've not seen anywhere else except for a childhood favorite called EXPLORERS and a creepy ghost story called THE LADY IN WHITE, did an incredible job as Arnold, a great performance from a child actor.Aside from being somewhat slow at times, THE STONE BOY is an excellent, and very depressing movie.


There was nothing of value in the original movie, this one was even lamer. The fact that I even found it to rent was absolutely amazing. Anyone connected to this film has to be high on something! So what was the story line? What was with the girl? Was the viewer supposed to get the story line in the first four minutes of the film. Sadly, I tried several times to watch this. I even borrowed a kid from someone to get some feedback. Kid said it was stupid, and he was four years old. I find that possibly some credit could go to the filming director, as possibly some of the shots made the movie more than a B film. That might be pushing it. I did love the theme song. Good thing it was only a dollar, it was worth it. I suppose you might enjoy the film if you were high as the cast and crew would have to be. Is pot legal in France?


This film tried to be too many things all at once: stinging political satire, Hollywood blockbuster, sappy romantic comedy, family values promo... the list goes on and on. It failed miserably at all of them, but there was enough interest to keep me from turning it off until the end.Although I appreciate the spirit behind WAR, INC., it depresses me to see such a clumsy effort, especially when it will be taken by its targets to reflect the lack of the existence of a serious critique, rather than simply the poor writing, direction, and production of this particular film.There is a critique to be made about the corporatization of war. But poking fun at it in this way diminishes the true atrocity of what is happening. Reminds me a bit of THREE KINGS, which similarly trivializes a genuine cause for concern.


What keeps us going - or at least what I feel the writer wanted us to keep us glued at an early point is our desire to know whether Martinaud has done the dirty deed. Without spoiling so much, of course there is a red herring and a twist. But then we discover that this is the story of Martinaud's imperfections and his difficulty in coping. When there is the revelation - we begin to sympathize and pity him because as the story progresses we are made to think he is the sick, perverted pedophiliac that we're predisposed to have in mind. One of those things he has to cope with is the distant gap he and his wife have even though they live on the same roof. These problems of course are given their denouement in the film's shocking finale.This movie demands your patience and it has certainly tried those of restless teenagers sitting at the rear. They were heckling obviously because they aren't partial to "central location" films. Although there is a bit of travelling, when we get to the woods and the beach. And we realize that Gallien isn't as clever as we are made to think he is.The Inquisitor is 5/5


Saw this movie at the Rotterdam IFF. You may question some decisions of the maker - like choosing a mockumentary form for such a sensitive and horrible subject - but this movie sure hits you in the gut. Especially the last scenes were almost painful to watch. Hope it gets the distribution it deserves.


Must every good story be "improved" with added corny Broadway music? Apparently those who can't come up with their own plots think that classic literature is just there for the plundering. I confess that Oliver Twist and similar stories are not my favorites, as it is certainly true that Dickens often wrote things that leave you considerably bummed out, and this was a great example of just that... So of course, take this serious tale and add nauseating music and camp it up with every character from prancing orphan boys to mincing bobbies and suddenly it's uplifting? Argh. Fetch me a basin.The four stars in my rating come from casting, which I could liken to that of My Fair Lady. Each of these films had a cast that a play version could be proud of, but then they must go and have them sing (see complaint above). Unlike My Fair Lady, those singing here could actually do so and they mercifully spared us the singing voice of Oliver Reed (pardon if I'm mistaken, it's been a while).My biggest complaint I've stated. Why embarrass everyone except the truly shameless by putting silly songs into a perfectly good story? Seldom has this been done to good effect. Generally it ruins the story. It did with this one. Jury's still out on whether this story is worth saving, but with all that gadding about, it's impossible to tell.


With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.


And I'll tell you why: whoever decided to edit this movie to make it suitable for television was very ill-advised. EVERYTHING CONCERNING DRUGS IS CUT OUT AND COVERED UP!!! How do they do it, you might ask? Well, they don't do it very well, that's for sure. Anyway, instead of the marijuana which Cheech and Chong are supposed to have in their possession, they are said to have diamonds! Still, the characters go around in a haze of marijuana smoke stoning others along their way with no explanation whatsoever!


In the unlikely case that some aspiring directors are reading these comments, I'd like to offer some advice (free of charge!), from a viewer's perspective. If you want to make a serious exotic adventure film, do it. If you want to make a spoof of exotic adventure films, go ahead. DO NOT try to make both at the same time, it doesn't work. For example, having a goofy "comic relief" character killed and beheaded and following it up with a monkey shaking a tree and dropping a coconut on a cannibal's head just makes you look like you had NO IDEA what kind of movie you wanted to make. This one is boring, meandering, cheap, racist....you get the picture. A couple of smart moments and a few glimpses of nudity from Kathy Shower (way too prissy here) are hardly worth your trouble. There is a reason everyone has forgotten about this film's existence. (*1/2)


I see where a few people involved in this debacle wrote reviews to share their side of the story, and I thought what they wrote was helpful in understanding it. The fact that they basically came up with excuses -- rewrites, budget constraints, production formats etc -- simply underlines how bad this movie is. And my criticisms in panning it are not personally directed but simply a warning that this one doesn't make the cut.It's watchable, but barely so. There are plot holes in every corner, the dialogue borders on the ridiculous, and the ending is telegraphed a mile away. The modestly interesting feature of a hologram interacting with a recon team get drowned in silly dialogue like who makes a meal in the midst of what is supposed to be a tense and deadly encounter with an unknown enemy. Would ya wrassle us up some Hamburger Helper Sally, between us getting killed by these automated carpet sweepers? Apparently this elite team equipped with the latest gizmos and red plastic tubed wonder armor has no access to MREs. Once they get into the last rooms they treat the place more like a four star motel than a deadly encounter zone.The rationale for the encounter with the fearsome Rook is that it can't be killed single handedly. Yet only one scene ago, the hero making that case abandoned King to do exactly that. Huh? Vivian Woo was attractive and hands down the best acted character in the movie. But that's not saying much.


His choice of films, the basic 'conceit' of the production (which places him in the sets or simulacra of the films he is commenting on ) and his delivery are brilliant! But if you want Freud, be aware that you're getting Zizek's version of Lacan, which should not be confused with Lacan himself. As usual, Zizek delivers complex ideas with gusto and in a convincing manner. The rub is he is also quite mercurial and so there may be more in his gusto than in actual content. Cinematically, it is a gem. Psychologically, this will have people of all persuasions (Freudians, Lacanians and Jungians) scratching their heads but reaching for the popcorn all the same. Zizek is a phenomenon and pop icon unto himself.


Those of you who know the group dEUS, know the lead singer Tom Barman. He directed this movie a bit like he creates music, it's a mix of everything. This is a comedy, though mostly absurd and cynical, a drama, none of the main characters have a happy life to say the least, and it does not really have a goal.The movie starts on a friday morning in Antwerp, Belgium, with scenes of several persons, some of them have nothing in common but they will come in contact with each other during the day and night. There are several main characters: a teacher who writes books nobody reads, a young researcher with a morbid taste of death and his sister, a gallery owner, two young men constantly in touch with the law, a man who works in a movie theater and two young women. Throughout the movie there walks a man who has something to do with wind. All characters have their troubles, with their family or friends or just with life itself.The movie is set in Antwerp and shows several beautiful shots of the city and the port. The events of the day are not easily explained, I advise to simply watch the movie, there is simply too much to tell. But I can say this, Barman has an excellent use of the camera and uses a lot of music (mostly dance music, not really rock) to set a mood, especially the party is filled with excellent music.This movie is an experience on itself, it will not leave you any wiser about life, perhaps only that you have to live it and not waste it, or have any false moral truths.In short, see it, it is definitely worth it!


Oh, CGI. A blessing when used properly. A sin with it's used by people who have no idea what their doing. Sadly, that's not the only thing that's used poorly in this umpteen Jaws rip-off.Ok, anybody who has read any number of my posted reviews has probably noticed 2 things. 1: I like low-budget horror movies. And 2: If there is a cute guy in said low-budget movie, I'll usually point them out. So, let's just get this out of the way right now. This is one low-budget horror movie I didn't like. The acting, for the most part, is horrible, effects laughable, and the script rivals Battlefield Earth as the worst I've witnessed this year. As far as the resident cute boy...Dax Miller (Bog) wins that prize hands down. This boy is hot! And surprisingly, he's not just a toned body with nice eyes and a cute butt...he can actually act (well, as much as he can in this odious film). Now that we have the housekeeping chores out of the way, let's get on with it.In Cliff Notes version, here's the story (don't worry, I'll try not to give anything away)...A film crew travels to a remote island to film a documentary about two surfers (established cute boy and his buddy) who surf with sharks. Unknown to them is a rather large salt water crocodile lurking around the island. Croc shows up, mayhem ensues, and people are eaten. Roll end credits.As I said earlier, this film pretty much blows. It started pretty well, but soon devolved into being silly and stupid. A main character becomes lunch (in a rather humorous way), and our remaining heros utter one-liners at the victims expense. Also, if this croc is at the top of the food chain on both the land and in the water, what's with all the sharks around? If this thing can eat a 40 foot boat, I don't think a few skimpy sharks would stick around. The FX is some of the worst I have ever had the displeasure to see. The CGI is horrendous, and they've even managed to screw up the animatronic crocs. Attention, filmmakers. National Geographic. Discovery Store. The Croc Hunter. They know what crocodiles look like. You obviously didn't reference any of these judging by the monstrosity seen towards the end of the film. And what's with the pirate/drug pusher gang? Did you just need another reason to rip off a woman's top? It's funny how we get little sub-genres in the movie world. With Alligator and it's sequels, Lake Placid, Crocodile, and now Blood Surf, it now looks like "over-sized crocodile/alligator" movies should now get their own category at Blockbuster. Alligator was good. Lake Placid was good. I even thought Tobe Hooper's Crocodile was good. Blood Surf, sucked.My grade: D-


Twelve Monkeys is an insane time-travelling, action packed movie that stars Bruce Willis who plays James Cole, a man who is sent back in time to collect information about the devastating plague that ensues in November of 1996. Unfortunately, he is sent back too far to the year 1990 where everyone believes that he is insane.This movie is thrilling and has great acting performances from Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and Madeleine Stowe. Twelve monkeys is one of the greatest time travelling movies that I believe anybody can enjoy. Terry Gilliam has created a true masterpiece10/10


In the beginning and throughout the movie, it was great. It was suspenseful and thrilling. Yet in the end it gave no answer to what had happened. They mysteriously turned into zombies by a raven or crow? It did not answer the questions that we all had and therefore, was not as good a movie as I thought that it was going to be.


Yes, you guessed it. Another movie where identical twins switch places. I think now that the Olsen twins are getting older they should try and make the plot less predictable and less like re-runs of 'Full House'. If you plan on seeing this film, don't. Watch 'The Parent Trap' instead. It's more entertaining.


In order to stop her homosexual friend Albert (Perry King) from being deported back to Belgium, Stella (Meg Foster) decides to marry him. The only other problem with that is that Stella herself is a lesbian. The two have their separate lives when one night after Albert's birthday party, they fall into bed and then into love. Later in the film after falling in love, Stella suspects Albert of cheating and shows up at his job one night late after closing. What she finds will leave the viewer stunned. This is a great film, very original. Perry King and Meg Foster are so good in their roles that it is amazing that they were not better recognized for their work here. Very controversial upon its release in 1978, the "R" rated film is now "PG" in this much more liberal time.Recently released on DVD, the disc contains a "Making Of" segment on the special features and in it it's stated that the film was based on an actual story so the viewers who say the film is not "real" are mistaken. Everyone is an individual and different people fall in love for different reasons-these are the issues explored in this wonderful film for everyone who has ever loved!


An absolutely brilliant film! Jiri Trnka, the master of puppet animation, confronts totalitarianism in this, his final, film. It would be banned by the Communist Czechoslovakian government (at the time), despite taking the country's highest animation award.In this dark and entertaining short film, an artist attempts to create a new pot for his favourite plant. He happily makes his creations while dreaming that his plant will grow to be a beautiful rose. All of a sudden, he here's a knock at the door, and in comes this giant omnipotent hand, that tries to force the artist to make statues in it's likeness. The artist resists as best he can, but he eventually becomes overwhelmed by the constant attempts, by the hand, to force him to conform. He becomes brainwashed; an intellectual zombie. At this point the hand attaches strings to the artist, puts him in a cage, and uses him to make hand statues. All the while glorifying the artist's work and awarding him with medals and honours.The artist's inner lust to be able to express himself freely is what helps him prevail over his indoctrination, and enables him escape his prison, whether it be literal or in his mind, and return to his home where he now must live in constant fear of the wrath of the omnipotent hand. He shuts himself in, thinking he is out of the reach of the almighty hand, but in the process he puts his plant and pot up high, hoping it is out of the reach of the hand, and it ends up falling on his head, killing him. The artist is inevitabally destroyed by his own creation. All because of the constant fear he had to live with once he escaped the hand's strings. Once dead, the hand paints the artist as a great person, a national hero. Unfortunately not in the circumstances or for the reasons that the artist would like to be remembered.Trnka's condemnation of Totalitarian society, and their lack of right for free expression is dark, damning and an amazingly animated. It is no wonder the government banned it as this is the sort of media that people admire, and would perhaps even listen to. That was obviously not acceptable. An amazing example of an artists civil disobedience and the impact it can have. And still quite relevant today for many parts of the world, from the US to the middle east. A must see and definite 10 out of 10! Talk about going out with a bang!


of the films of the young republic few in number as they are The Buccaneer (1958)stands out as a finely crafted film. Charleton Heston excels in his portrayal of Old Hickory's defence of New Orleans with a thrown together force of militia, regulars and pirates promised a reprieve.after Christmas 1814 peninsula veterans led by sir edward packenham, the duke of wellington's brother in law bore down on the city of new orleans. andy jackson had a day to draw together a scratch force to defend the city behind bales of hay.Charlton Heston projects Jackson's terrifying presence and awe inspiring power of command. Yet there are a few colorful comic relief. With the might of the English lioness about to pounce, a young blond haired voluteer from New Orleans asks: I guess the ruckus is about to start.the battle was about to rage but not for long. true to form the British marched straight into withering American fire. in less than a few minutes an attempt to reconquer lost north American territories had been foiled.the battle scene in this movies lasts slightly longer than the actual battle itself.there are colorful side stories in this film of the young volunteer at his first dance to celebrate the victory.


Vovochka is your everyday hooligan vs authority movie. Vovochka, the main character, is branded early as a bad influence on the children in the neighborhood. With the words of wisdom from a couple of grownups he meets along the way, he finds changing his mischievous ways hard, yet worthy of doing. Personally, I found actor who played Vovochka too annoying to sympathize with, however the change of tone of the movie would allow most to feel the emotional struggle Vovochka has when he wants to be good but bad things still happen. This struggle makes the movie a little different than other movies of the same genre, that's the little flavor I meant. All in all, I did not really care for this movie, although it was most likely aimed for a younger audience.


This deserves a 12 out of 10. An absolutely refreshing show with real characters and real stories. This show needs to come back, I've seen every episode and this is real quality.The show centers around a couple of New Yorkers, plays around with the concept of the six degrees of separation and cleverly intertwines their lives. Bridget Moynahan and Jay Hernandez are stunning and so is the adorable Caseman. The scenery is amazing and wardrobes are exquisite.We need more shows like this that makes viewers feel like they are intelligent individuals not mindless drones.If it never comes back, six degrees will be sorely missed.


If my memory is correct, when this movie was released it came across as something of a comedy - a funny look at the adult entertainment industry. If that's what it's supposed to be, it doesn't really work. It just isn't that funny. Setting that rather significant (since this is called a comedy!) failure aside, since I have no personal knowledge of the subject matter, I'll avoid comment about the authenticity of the story - which deals with the goings on behind the scenes in a Toronto massage parlour, except to say that - if this is true - the life is pretty dull. For over an hour, this movie really doesn't give us much of anything except some background knowledge of the main characters. Conrad is the newly hired manager of the massage parlour whose basic job apparently is to make sure the girls aren't giving "full service" - a euphemism for actual sex. As for the girls themselves, Betty's goal is to buy a parlour of her own so that she can run her own business, Cindy is an illegal immigrant to Canada working to support her family back home and Leah is - well, Leah is a somewhat strange, undefined character with a nipple fetish - true - who seems to be in the business because - well, because she's in it! I have no idea what her character was about. Those three may well fairly reasonable composite characters who accurately represent the motivations of the women who get involved in this business.The movie meanders about and doesn't offer much until the "twist" reveals Conrad to be the bad guy. We should have gotten to that point sooner. The only thing truly interesting here was that part of the story - Conrad's secret plan and the revenge plotted against him by the girls. That plan for revenge was pretty good, and you're grateful when it comes out because basically up to that point you're wondering why you wasted your time with this. Had the story been more focused on the revenge, this might have actually been a fairly funny movie.The performances from the 4 leads were all OK, although I didn't think anyone came across as outstanding. All four characters were a bit shallow. Cindy was a sympathetic character, and so was Conrad for a while, although he turns out to be the bad guy of the movie. Given the subject matter, there's surprisingly little nudity (and what there is is restricted to one scene.) In fact, there even a certain air of innocence around a lot of this. As for the overall quality of the movie, it's a low-budget effort, which shows, although you expect a certain griminess, I suppose, of a movie set in the context of a body rub parlour, so that's forgivable. It certainly says something, though, that this was released 8 years ago now and is still the only credit on writer-director Soo Lyu's resume and - given the normal lack of depth in the Canadian film industry - that it wasn't even deemed worthy of being nominated for any Genie Awards - the Canadian version of the Oscars. 4/10 - and I'm being a bit generous with that.


I doubt this will ever even be a cult film. I loved Gram Parsons to be sure and I did not expect much out of this film and got even less. What could have been clever and moving was campy. It was devoid of the music that made Gram and had more filler than cheap dog food. There was no background on Gram or the colorful people of that era. The characters shown were not familiar to me even as a fan of Gram's and all the versions of his "afterlife adventures" I have heard. Rock and roll is full of tales, good ones too but they should taken with a grain of salt. They can be great stories even though exaggerated. However, this movie took a good story and turned into tripe. Stealing any dead body and the ensuing implications should never be a dull tale but they made it dull, somehow. I am tempted to steal every copy of Grand Theft Parsons, head out to the desert and burn them all.


What's with the murky video in the beginning and sporadically throughout the movie? It's like someone put muddy water on the camera lens.The violence and nudity might turn some people off but, that, along with the mostly bad acting is what makes a good cult movie I suppose.My favorite line is delivered by Tarquin the Vampire, "Alas, your breed is dumb." Okay, no one should ever say "alas" in a movie line unless they're English and living in the 18th century.The acting by the Van Helsing character and bad girl "Rally" isn't bad. I also liked Master Little played by Ron Little. Wicked martial arts! Don't take it too seriously and you'll enjoy it.


Brian Dennehy, Bill Paxton, Joe Pantalino and, best of all, Jeff Fahey, all in one film. Wow is all I can think to say about that. These are four of the most underrated actors in the biz and they work beautifully together. It's like poetry the way they play off each other and ooze the natural ability to seem as though they had been best buddies for eons for even shooting the film.The film itself is fine and one that can be quite intense to view the first time, and the four stars help the re-watch-ability to a great extent. I cannot describe how good it was to see Bill Paxton and Jeff Fahey together on screen, the greatest moment being when they watch a couple from a distance and fill in the vocals themselves, it almost brought a tear to my eyes.A good film, a great cast, go see. Why? Four words, Fahey, Dennehy, Paxton, Pantalino.


In his otherwise excellent book, Lincoln in American Memory, the historian Merrill Peterson calls Young Mr.Lincoln a "boring, dreadful, film". This amazingly wrongheaded analysis simply proves that great historians are rarely fine film critics. I am working on a doctoral dissertation on Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. As part of my preparation for writing the dissertation, I made a careful analysis of this film, and of Tag Gallaghers brilliant interpretation of it in his seminal book on Ford. Young Mr. Lincoln comes out that culminating year of the first phase of Ford's cinematic authorship, 1939.In that greatest of Hollywood years, Ford directed three superb, still not fully appreciated films: Drums Along the Mohawk, Stagecoach,and Young Mr.Lincoln. It might seem odd to say that Stagecoach is not fully appreciated, all but the most purblind of critics must perceive that it is one of of the greatest Westerns, and perhaps even one of the hundred greatest films of all time. However, what is NOT fully appreciated is that these three films work together as a kind of trilogy-a triptych, in fact. Ford is creating a sort of mythic history of America on screen. Drums Along the Mohawk is the Revolutionary War. Young Mr.Lincoln is pre-Civil War America.Finally, Stagecoach is Post Civil War America. What the three films have in common is that they are an extended meditation on the American Adam and his "errand into the Wilderness". What are the Psychic and social costs of American manifest destiny, as America strives to build a new human city in the wilderness?Lincoln symbolizes Americas journey, as he seeks to reconcile the civilizational inmpulse (law), with the freedom of the wilderness.Young Mr.Lincoln is not history, ( It is full of historical "howlers'-as both Ford and Trotti were well aware), but myth. This is Lincoln, the symbol of justice and mercy, Lincoln, the man of the wilderness, striving to found a civilization within himself, and to become the "remarkable lawgiver' of young America. Young Mr. Lincoln is not history-like James Agee's long forgotten teleplay about Lincoln, and like Sandburgs biography, it is an epic poem...a very beautiful epic poem.


First things first, the female lead is too gorgeous to be missed. Now actress Wang Zu Xian, the one who played Xiao Qian in the movie, is 42 years old and well aged. It's always good to review these glorious times when seeing old-school HongKong productions like this.The movie is one of the most influential titles made in 1980s. The art set decoration and other aesthetic facets are all mesmerizing. More fantastically the movie had a total black humorous undertone in it. It feels like a horror movie but ultimately it's not scaring, but only fun.I had the experience of translating the second script of "A Chinese Ghotst Story", and I thought that script was a decent write. However when I saw the movie, I firstly was disappointed in seeing the movie different from the script, like in a smaller scale and involving more comic roles. However, it turned out to be better executed in terms of being entertaining.If you have seen the Lord of the Rings, you will notice the similarities in this movie to LOTR. The climax is like a mirror of Miranda Otto fighting with the Ring Witch. It's definitely a laugh-out-loud. Bravo!


You do not get more dark or tragic than "Othello" and this movie captures the play fairly well, with outstanding performances by Lawrence Fishburne and Irene Jacob. Fishburne's expresses to the viewer Othello's torment as he falls prey to Iago's lies very convincingly, even providing a realistic epileptic episode. Jacob is the loving and loyal wife who becomes either the instrument of Iago's revenge against Othello, or the object of his wrath (it is not clear which since no motive for Iago's behavior is offered). Although Kenneth Brannagh (sp?) displays his usual talent for Shakespeare in this movie, he is somewhat marginalized. The characters of Cassio and Emilia also wander in and out of scenes even though they, like Iago, seem more crucial to the plot. I have not checked the movie against the play to see how many lines were cut out, but I know that Shakespeare tends to develop his characters, even the seemingly unimportant ones, very well.If I had any criticism of the movie it would be that the story unfolds too quickly, and that the relationships between some of the characters are not laid out more. The director had a great cast, and no one offered a bad performance. The relationship between Cassio and Othello and that between Emilia and Desdemona need to be further developed earlier in the film. I have a feeling that they were closer to each other than the movie suggests, although you get a sense of this very late into the movie. Also, Othello and Desdemona need more time together. Although their anguish is convincing, the amount of interaction they have with each other makes it seem like they just met. On the other hand, maybe the did just meet---like Romeo and Juliet.In brief: good performances, too short.


If you want to know the real story of the Wendigo, I suggest you pick up a copy of Algernon Blackwell's original story. This movie was not only bad but had nothing to do with the book.I loved the book when I read it as a kid (In "Campfire Chillers" by E.M. Freeman)and was so excited to see a movie based on it come out. I was so disappointed when I finally saw it. Another thing is that there were too many PC (Politically Correct) undertones throughout the movie that had no place in the film. When the book was written PC didn't even exist.My suggestion is don't waste your time or money!! If you see it on the video store shelf LEAVE IT THERE.


I was about thirteen when this movie came out on television. It is far superior in action than most movies since. Martin Sheen is excellent, and though Nick Nolte has a small part, he too provides excellent support. Vic Morrow as the villain is superb.When Sheen "tests the water" in his '34 Ford (COOL) along the mountainous highway it is spectacular!The ending is grand.I'm disappointed in the low vote this received. I figure the younger generations have more interest in much of the junk that is coming out these days.Good taste eludes the masses!


....this mini does not get better with age. I saw this and it's sequel when originally broadcast, and like so many others was blown away. In early 2002 I borrowed the novels for both WOW and W and R and was even more impressed. I then decided that I had to see both again and invested $200 plus on the DVD sets. I watched both minis again in painful detail and realized I had done things backwards - I should have purchased the novels and borrowed the DVD's.Don't believe it is abysmally miscast? Read the novels and see for yourself. Don't think this is dated? Screen it for somebody not old enough to have seen it originally broadcast and watch the reaction you get (warning - reactions from such people range from looks of horror to belly laughs).According to the trivia section for this mini - Dan Curtis himself chose Ali MacGraw and Robert Mitchum. Yikes!! Production quality, music scoring, dialog - a great story was turned into a late 70's soap opera by an overly ambitious producer/director who was in way over his head. This thing was dated the minute it was completed.These two minis were great when original broadcast and to those of us who saw them then, tug at a nostalgic string that reminds us of younger days. IMO - this mini does not nearly live up to its reputation and severely disappoints.


This film has a special place in my heart as the worst movie I have ever seen. It is about as fun as doing hard manual labor with stomach cramps. The movie starts out bad (I would rate the first few minutes of the film a 1/10) and then it get progressively worse, minute by minute. The only way to rate it at all would be some kind of abyssmal spiraling negative number that grows for ninety, long minutes. Unfunny is not a real word but it best describes the humor in this video. Somehow the video manages even to make cute, scantily clad females and sex look grotesque and distasteful. This movie is amazingly bad. I would say it would be better to be locked up with the TITANIC theme playing over and over and with Buscemi's character from ESCAPE FROM LA droning on in your ear than to watch this movie. The sequels are not nearly as bad. If you have to rent a Troma film, get Tromeo and Juliette or Combat Shock. I would rather watch 5 Tony Little infomercials back to back than to see CLASS of NUKEM HIGH again. Don't get me wrong, it took some kind of criminal genius to make a movie this terrible and if ever a movie deserved an award for being awful, this is it.


CREEP is a straight up serious horror film set in real time that wants nothing more than to just show people get attacked in a empty subway platform by a mutant for 85 minutes. And it does just that. Nothing more, nothing less. Director Christopher Smith draws out the drama a far as he plausibly can by introducing a series of characters that would actually have a reason to be in the subway after it is locked. He also leaves the origins of the titular Creep deliberately vague (unlawful experiments happening in the 60s underground are hinted at) and that little bit of mystery works for the most part. Sadly, he undermines himself toward the end by actually holding back from a twist ending where more genetic malformations would appear (they are hinted at as well). Yes, you heard me right - I wanted a clichéd twist ending! Franka (RUN LOLA RUN) Potente is good as the terrorized female lead and the rest of the cast is fine.


Bridges of madison county is a better made version of this story. I felt the ending of this movie was not handled sensitively as they did in the original English movie. This movie is very indianised, if you are a very sensitive person who cries in a movie when hero dies in the end you'll love this movie, On the other hand if you are a fighter in life and think crying is for wimps you may not like the ending.But on the whole it's pretty good subject is well handled for indian conditions. Tabu was good as a caring wife and mother. Everybody acted well.


I found this movie to be exciting right from the start--like a Spielberg movie is--and found the plot to be intriguing as I tried to figure out what the actual situation was.Right from the start--before the opening credits-- the action starts, bringing with it immediate suspense.The two main characters are very likable. (I have trouble liking any of the Baldwins, due to Alec's extra-curricular, political activities, but William was not too bad in this movie.)There were several highly unexpected twists, which contributed to the enjoyment.There were, unfortunately, many places where there was an annoying high pitch sound in the soundtrack--something like 19K Hz. I suspect the microphone was picking up video monitors on the set.


mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation in his quest for India's freedom struggle ignored his own family and son, this movie is about his son Hiralal who feels neglected because of mahatma Gandhi's service to the society. The movie starts off in South Africa where Mahatma Gandhi works as a barrister and fighting the cause of India's freedom against the British. Hirarala arrives in South Africa to help his dad who is a barrister, since gandhi was involved in the freedom struggle, he wanted his wife and children to join in too as a service to the society and as a result hirarlal does not get a chance to complete his education and fails his exams, he gets married to his love gulab (bhoomika Chawla) against his father's wishes. Hiralal has ambitions to travel to england and become a barrister just like his dad but his own dad refuses to grant him a scholarship offered to his family by a businessman and instead gives it away to another person saying that the scholarship should not be limited to his family and should be open to the most deserving student living in colony. This angers hiralal and the rift between father and son increases, hirarlal hates his father for neglecting him and blames him for being uneducated and unemployed. Hiralal struggles to make ends meet and lands up on the streets through failed business attempts and in huge debt, he loses his wife and children. Akshaye Khanna has give a stellar performance as Hiralal gandhi.. all kudos to him, the direction and the script is fantastic, the picturization is excellent. overall an Excellent movie and a must see. I give it a 10/10


This movie proves that you can't judge a movie by the awesome artwork on the DVD cover. It also goes to show that you should learn more about a movie before you buy it (or get it for someone at Christmas). The beginning of this movie actually looks somewhat promising. Well, until you meet the characters. Pumpkin Jack (the old guy from down the street) brings the college co-eds a book full of witch's spells that he leaves at their annual haunted house (where the movie takes place). After that there is some drinking, fighting, and soft core porn. Then the action of the movie finally takes place after over an hour.Overall, Hallow's End was predictable, unsuspensful, and reminiscent of a soft-core porn. This movie is probably best viewed with a group of friends who have nothing better to do, as it is a good movie to make fun of. And for first-time viewers, it is really fun making predictions of the order of people who die.


After I got done watching this movie I was so upset that I had wasted 2 hours of my life. That's 2 hours I'll never get back. Ugh. When you start this you might think "Wow this is really good!" But rest assured that first impressions mean NOTHING. I was so excited about this movie until the dumbest ending I have ever seen. This movie is simply pathetic. The acting is bland, the story line is anything but original and there's nothing especially unique about this except that it's the WORST MOVIE EVER!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! WARNING!! DUMBEST MOVIE EVER YOU WILL BE SORRY IF YOU WASTE 2 HOURS OF YOUR LIFE ON THIS!!! 1/10


This was a very daring film for it's day. It could even be described as soft-core porn for the silent era. It was a talkie, but dialog was extremely limited, and in German. One did not need it anyway.The young (19) Hedy Lamarr gets trapped in a loveless marriage to an obsessive (stereotype?) German and after a short time in a marriage that was apparently never consummated, returns home to her father.In a famous and funny scene, she decides to go skinny dipping one morning when her horse is distracted by another. She is then forced to run across a field chasing after it, as she left her clothing on the horse. An engineer retrieves her horse and returns her clothing - after getting an eyeful.They sit for a while and, in a zen moment, he presents her with a flower with a bee sitting on top. This is where she thinks back to her honeymoon and the actions of her husband and an insect. She knows this man is different.She returns home and eventually seeks out our young fellow, and finds the ecstasy she was denied. You can use your imagine here, but his head disappears from view and we see her writhing with pleasure. Since he never got undressed, you can imagine... Certainly, an homage to women by the director Gustav Machatý, and a shock to 1933 audiences.The only thing that mars this beautifully filmed movie is the excessive guilt, and a strange ending.


I saw the last five or ten minutes of this film back in 1998 or 1999 one night when I was channel-surfing before going to bed, and really liked what I saw. Since then I've been on the lookout, scouring TV listings, flipping through DVD/VHS racks at stores, but didn't find a copy until recently when I found out some Internet stores sold it. Then, being a world-class procrastinator, I still didn't order it. Finally, I found a DVD copy in a Circuit City while visiting Portland, OR, a few weeks ago. Then it only took me about a month after returning home before sitting down and watching it.So, what do I think about the film? It's good. Not as good as I remembered and hoped for, but still well worth the $9.99 it cost me. After seeing the whole film for the first time I rate it as a 7/10, with potential to become an 8/10. I'll have to be less sleepy then, and have a better sound system to avoid rewinding to catch some dialogue.


Everyone is surely familiar with this most famous of stories  a heartless businessman is visited by the ghost of his dead partner on Christmas Eve and warned that if he continues in his uncaring ways then he will be doomed to an afterlife in chains. So that he can avoid his partner's fate he is visited by three spirits who show him visions of Christmases past, present and yet to come, so that he will hopefully see the error of his ways before it is too late. A rather morbid tale one might think, but it is classic Charles Dickens, and also one of the most famous and popular Christmas stories of all time.To me this is the definitive version of Dickens' timeless story; it's the one I always remember watching in school, and I remember being absolutely terrified by it! The ghost of Jacob Marley, the final scene with the ghost of Christmas present under the bridge, and the ghost of Christmas yet-to-come especially I found very frightening. How on earth did the film gain the 'U' certificate? (For non-UK readers 'U' is the lowest classification, it means family friendly and children welcome, nothing to scare them etc... This is certainly not the case though, as some smaller children will undoubtedly find the final segment positively terrifying with the grim reaper-like spectre of Christmas future.Be that as it may, from the many versions of this classic story I have seen adapted for film, this is possibly the most faithful to the book. Most notably included is a segment rarely seen in film adaptations of the original text - that of the ghost of Christmas present showing Scrooge the two children hidden under his robe (you'd never get away with a scene like that nowadays!). The two children represent Ignorance and Need (although changed to Want in this film).Criticisms for me however become apparent having watched it again with more objective and trained eyes, the main one of which being that George C. Scott's portrayal of Scrooge seems simply not cold enough. He laughs too much. I don't want to use the word jolly because of course Ebeneezer is anything but, but he does seem to be merely a grumpy old man, rather than the positively unkind, cold and uncaring man that he is in the book and other films. Patrick Stewart portrayed him excellently in one of the most recent versions filmed, and Michael Caine, despite acting alongside the Muppets, was positively cold. Further, the development of the character over the course of the film as he learns more about the error of his ways and grows towards redemption is unconvincing and appears inconsistent. He appears to have changed little by the time he reaches the third spirit's final lesson.But ignoring this one (albeit major) quibble, it is still a spellbinding and ultimately heart-warming Christmas tale, as all Christmas films should be. London of course looks like the perfect picturesque quaint snow-covered English town that many Americans probably imagine it still is (the truth is that even then that London was grey and grimy  and any snow would never have been so white!) And everyone is so impeccably dressed too, even the poor people look rather dapper. But of course it's a Christmas film, so why shouldn't everything look nice? Perfect holiday season viewing; coupled with copies of It's a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street and The Snowman and you've got everything you need.


The part where Meg visits the mechanic and he says - "Is the piston firing short?" (implying poor sexual energy on the part of her fiancée) was hilarious. I love Meg Ryan and she is as sweet as ever in this wonderful movie. Very lovable and very intelligent too. Her innocent indignant expressions have you wishing she was yours. The hero handles the garage mechanic to physicist transformation well. Einstein had a romantic side to his psyche? The puzzle round in front of the press and audience was done well. It's awfully underrated and deserves accolades and attempts at a revival. It loses out one vote for including the highly improbable far fetched theory being bought by the US Govt. I don't see why it doesn't figure in the top 20 romantic comedies of the century. Great Movie, it has the presidential seal of approval on it!


This review is based on the dubbed Shock-o-Rama video released on an undeserving world in 2002. How bad is it? It's awful, which is what a '1' represents on the IMDb scale--but it's much worse than that. It's nice to imagine that an original German-language print might improve matters--the comedic English-language dubbing isn't funny at all--but truthfully, this is one of the worst amateur films of any genre you're likely to see. The zombies in the film are as slow and clumsy as ever, and they don't seem to have the ability to speak or think about anything beyond their next meal. However, they're also intelligent enough to operate chainsaws and malicious enough to know that western taboos about genitalia will no doubt enliven their dinner table conversation. George Romero's Land of the Dead posited a zombie nation that retained a shred of social coherence; here, zombies are nothing more than an empty canvas for the perverse imaginings of director Andreas Schnaas. Utterly without redeeming social value, and even worse, entirely lacking as entertainment, Zombie '90 is a bad joke on anyone who wastes money on it.


A truly horrible film that left me feeling sullied by having watched the forty minutes or so I could stand. Not the actors' fault, but the writer/director, producers, financiers, etc., need a very stiff talking to. Maybe it thinks it is profound. It isn't. This rape and ultra-violence, unlike that central to Clockwork Orange, has nothing to say about or add to the sum of human understanding. It's no Straw Dogs, either, to which I have seen it compared. Rather it feels like something Pete Walker might have turned his hand to, yet even in saying that I'm probably being a bit unfair on Pete Walker.Revenge is a powerful human desire, but The Bedroom Window has more to say about that and male emasculation than this pitiful effort.I don't think it's particularly misogynistic, merely too gleeful in its depiction of certain details -- the blood running down GA's leg post rape, par example. It's neither challenging nor confrontational, though I'm sure the film-makers consider themselves very 'daring', just deeply unpleasant.Is this as high as we can aim? Is this why those involved wanted to make films? ( I did write in here the Latin phrase which translates as Oh the Times! Oh the customs! But the new spell-check on IMDb wouldn't let me post until I had removed it. Likewise I had to remove square parentheses. Get it sorted IMDb.)Where is the lofty aspiration? The noble impulse? When you look at British film - the joyful comedies of Ealing or the Boulting Brothers; Carol Reed's work with Graham Greene on Fallen Idol, Our Man in Havana or the sublime The Third Man (a film which has far more to say about evil than a thousand Straightheads); the work of Powell & Pressburger; or if you want to talk about sex, violence and male emasculation look at "The Offence' Dir. Sidney Lumet, from an original play by John Hopkins; check out "Tunes of Glory" for something worth making, that has something to say.Unlike the foregoing, Straightheads is, alas, an altogether hateful waste of celluloid.


Gojoe is part of a new wave of Japanese cinema, taking very creative directors, editors and photographers and working on historic themes, what the Japanese call "period pieces". Gojoe is extremely creative in terms of color, photography, and editing. Brilliant, even. The new wave of Japanese samurai films allows a peek at traditional beliefs in shamanism, demons and occult powers that were certainly a part of their ancient culture, but not really explored in Kurosawa's samurai epics, or the Zaitochi series. Another fine example of this genre is Onmyoji (2001). I would place director Sogo Ichii as one of the most interesting and creative of the new wave Japanese directors. Other recent Japanese period pieces I would highly recommend include Yomada's Twilight Samurai (2002) and Shintaro Katsu's Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman (2003).


King's Solomon's Mines brings us Patrick Swayze (playing Allan Quatermain)who has spent a lot of time in Africa, but decides it is time to return to England and be a father to his son. He finds that his wife's parents have taken custody of his son and that he has very little chance of getting custody of him with lots of money for a law suit. In comes Alison Deedy (playing Elizabeth) whose father is in Africa and being held by an African tribe for ransom of the map Elizabeth's father had sent her. Elizabeth seeks out Quatermain to take her back to Africa to find her father.There is a good cast of supporting characters that go along with Quatermain and Elizabeth and of course there are some enemies (Russians) who want the map also.The movie holds your attention until the end. Patrick once again plays a ruggedly handsome honorable man who comes to the rescue of the damsel in distress. Patrick is a great dramatic actor who can easily portray passion, loss and despair, the rugged silent good man, anger and strength; In King Solomon's Minds his character actually smiles a few times. I would really like to see Patrick Swayze in a relaxed live-loving story again, one in which he doesn't have to clench his jaws and be quite so strong. Maybe a little dancing would help. But this is a good movie for the entire family and worth the time to watch it.


How can't you rate this movie with 10/10? I admit to say that this movie is not very entertaining but the goal is not to tell you a story but History! This is the first `real' movie of cinema history (`le Prince de Galles' was first but it was not technically perfect enough
) and it has an undoubtedly huge international value. These people that you can see finishing their working day in the movie had the chance to participate to a historic moment, becoming the first persons to be able to see themselves moving! And above all the shot is a beautiful shot! And it's very moving when you think about the first persons to have seen that! What a moment! Historic for science first (because the Lumiere brothers first invented the cinematographe for scientific reasons) and for art later. A movie to venerate!


I remembered seeing this movie when i was a kid one day on the wonderful world of Disney. This movie has been in my memory for over 30 years and I have been looking for it. I would have to say that out of all the kids movies I saw back then,, this one stuck out more than all of them and after only seeing it once, I really hoped I would get to see it again. The story and images of this movie have been burned into my memory. To this day, I never did see it after that day back in the 70s, in fact, I never remembered the title until an internet search earlier today disclosed it to me. I loved it and want my kids to see it.Does anybody know where I can find it?


Freeway Killer, Is a Madman who shoots people on the freeway while yelling a bunch of mystical chant on a car phone. The police believe he is a random killer, but Sunny, the blond heroine, played by Darlanne Fluegel detects a pattern. So does the ex-cop, played by James Russo, and they join forces, and bodies, in the search for the villain who has done away with their spouses. Also starring Richard Belzer, this movie has its moments especially if you like car chases, but its really not a good movie for the most part, check it out if you're really bored and have already seen The Hitcher, Joy Ride, or Breakdown, otherwise stay away from the freeway.


It is an almost ideal romantic anime! MUST SEE FOR ALL AGES! But the English dubbed version is not too good. Perhaps the 1999 version will be better.


It is incredible in that it succeeds in being terrible on so many levels. The script, the acting, the directing and the choice of cast are all appalling. The costumes, sets and pseudo-medieval language are also utterly awful. In an odd way I actually enjoyed this film, once I had accepted that it wasn't going to be any good. It seems a shame that people would spend so much time and effort producing something so poor, when really they could have made something pretty decent out of the premise (albeit not very believable!), but instead we are treated to a rather nauseating and cheesy tale of dragons and knights, that lacks any of the charm to be found in other such fantasy films. Let's just hope that The Lord of the Rings is a bit better! Oh, and David Thewlis' haircut makes him look like He-Man. It does!


"Silverlake Life" is a documentary and it was plain and straightforward. Actually, it was more like a home movie, and if you want dramatic illuminations, see something else. And it's by no means a tearjerker. But I mean that in positive ways. It shows two men who love each other and how being afflicted with AIDS is affecting the quality of their every-day lives. It's almost difficult for me to say whether this was a quality film or not, because it was so undressed that I had to look for other ways to respond. It's an admirable film, actually one of the most admirable, sincere documents I've ever seen. These two men have incredible integrity as their lives are reduced to the most basic parts. It makes Hollow-wood productions on AIDS seem hip and heartless. These men made this movie for themselves, which is one of the best reasons to create something. The scene where Tom sings "You are My Sunshine" to Mark and tells him goodbye is the real thing.


This is a very strange HK film in many ways. First, many of the action sequences really aren't that much fun. The very first gun battle the occurs in the film was just silly. Not cool silly, or even funny silly, but just silly. That's not to say there aren't some great action scenes, but most simply don't come up to the level of some of the other films I have seen. The opposite side is that this film actually has CHARACTERS, not just people. All of the main characters are interesting (except for the head bad guy, who is flat as a billiard table) and most are fairly well acted. All the protagonists in this film are just fun to watch. The dialogue is quite witty, and doesn't seem to lose much in translation. This film is worth seeing, but I hope that uninitiated American audiences don't think this is the best HK has to offer.


There is a key aspect of film that Jobson seems to have forgotten - it has the ability to tell a story by showing it to you. You don't need to tell the audience what to think, because they'll see it. The action here is interspersed with some of the most ponderous narration unleashed on the unsuspecting public - the purple prose of the sensitive fifth former. And it should be unnecessary because their is a fine cast here and some beautifully composed and shot visuals. Maybe Jobbo felt that the basic story needed a lit bit of support. And he may have been right, it lacks a basic credibility: 70s Edinburgh wasn't exactly full of beautiful brainy girls with a penchant for the Velvet Underground and a soft spot for a passing sociopath. From the too neat and new looking clothes that character wears to the cod intellectualism that tries to link it all together, it's all too contrived for my taste.


A terrible movie as everyone has said. What made me laugh was the cameo appearance by Scott McNealy, giving an award to one of the murdered programmers in front of a wall of SUN logos. McNealy is the CEO of SUN Microsystem, a company that practically defines itself by its hatred of Microsoft. They have been instrumental in filing antitrust complaints against Microsoft. So, were they silly enough to think this bad movie would add fuel to that fire?There's no public record I see of SUN's involvement, but clearly the makers of this movie know Scott McNealy. An interesting mystery.


Typical formula action film: a good cop gets entangled in a mess of crooked cops and Japanese gangsters.The okay result has decent performances, a few fleeting snicker-inducing moments, and some fair action sequences--plus a chance to check out the gorgeous Danielle Harris--who makes the most of her perpetual typecasting as a rebellious teen daughter.** out of ****.


This movie will confuse you to death. Furthermore, if your a Denise Richards' fan, don't even think of renting this movie. Besides getting top billing by being on the cover and about 10 minutes of air time if that, she has nothing to do with the movie or the many messed up plots.


This Showtime movie really deserves a far better viewer rating than a 4.5; I gave it a 10 based on the story and the acting of the two stars. After reading the viewer comments, I was surprised at how many folks expected this movie to be a comedy. Yeah, I see that IMDb lists it as Comedy/Drama under Genre. That sure is misleading, isn't it? Fortunately, I saw the movie before logging onto this website so I did not have that expectation. In fact, based on the synopsis of what I heard, I fully expected it to simply be a Drama. I'm wondering if disappoint at this not being a funny movie caused so many low votes.Another factor that might have caused low votes is that this movie is very much 'character-driven'. 'Driving Miss Daisy' is an example of another character-driven movie that comes to mind. Someone's previous comment complained about a boring trial. Tom's (Danny Glover) work scenes seemed to distract from the real plot of the movie. That is, how he was engineering the upward social climb of his family - or his personal troops, if you will. However, they served to establish credibility and justification as his right to move to Greenwich and move 'up' in the world.Tom's obsession became a compulsion. He proved that he would stop at nothing to blend into the white neighborhood. His chagrin when another black person moved next door was not due to skin color. It was because of everything the 'interloper' represented; everything that Tom had left behind. In essence, Tom had become an Oreo cookie: Black on the outside but White on the inside.The last 20 minutes of this movie are among the most powerfully written, directed and acted (by Whoopi Goldberg) I have ever had the pleasure to witness. I realized that the climax of the film was not the obvious event that happened next door (don't want to give it away). The climax is verbal and Whoopi delivers it. I am still not clear if it is the conversation when she informs Tom which college Tom -Two is going to or when she releases it, all in the middle of the night and Tom wakes up. Nevertheless, the denouement is great. You know that life on that street will never be the same.My favorite kind of character-driven flick: people go through problems, some pain, do their dance, they grow, they change, and life goes on. As an audience member, I may learn something or be inspired.


Japanese Tomo Akiyama's Keko Mask (1993) is extremely enjoyable trash film and so fun to watch! There are also some sequels, but I haven't seen them since these films are hyper rare. Some kind of re-releases some day would be nice since I think many trash lovers would like these films. The tongue in cheek story is about one extremely strict school in which teachers think that it is okay to torture students in order to attain discipline, which is, according to the teachers, the most important thing in education. The school is lead by incredibly funny looking (just look at the costume!) human wizard/whatever, who is like principal in the school, and it only adds to the campiness that it is never explained why he wears such a costume since all other teachers are perfectly normally clothed. Well, the main thing about the film is its name, Keko Mask, who is some beautiful and masked fairy, who comes always to save the girls and students who are abused and tortured by the teachers! Yes, this superheroine is one effective female as she kicks and fights the evil teachers with totally cheesy soundtrack playing on the background. The most important thing is, of course, that she wears nothing but a cape and a mask with the rest of her body naked! Her identity is never revealed in these films, and also the credits say "Keko Mask: Unknown" while the actor names are listed!The most hilarious thing in this film is how Keko Mask kills her enemies. She has a gorgeous, but lethal vagina! Yes, you read right. She kills her victims by flying in the air in front of them, spreading her legs and letting the enemies become numbly charmed of the view, after which she flies closer and snaps their necks with her legs! The most usual last line the characters say in this film are like: "I've never seen such a beautiful vagina" and "Now I can die in peace." This film is totally fantastic!!There are also some great taunts towards Japanese society for example its attitude towards sex in films (Japanese censors optically fog/blur all the pubic hair in any film) and also about some restrictions among school students (like girls and boys are not allowed to talk in this film etc.) There's one great scene in which one nerd sees girl's bare you-know-what for the first time, and says "Hey there's no fog in it!" I couldn't help but laugh during this scene as I thought what do the Japanese censors think about this. Also, one character says in the end that he will return, if Japan Films allows to make the sequel. I'm glad it allowed as I've heard the sequels are equally outrageous. One sequel should include Blues Brothers (yes, THOSE Blues Brothers!) in it etc.This is trash in its most enjoyable, funniest and also cleverest form and so it is a little shame these films are so hard to find. This would definitely be even greater experience, if it was little more fast moving at times as it becomes little boring at one point, but fortunately those segments are very few. This film has to be seen to be fully believed as there are so many trash elements I don't mention here and it wouldn't be even necessary to tell them all here. If you like trash cinema and films made with tongue in very cheek, I think you'll love this little gem as I do, and the director is definitely a genius in this field! 8/10 Perhaps the only film in which a shining vagina is this lethal?


Easily the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. Direction : none. Story: pathetic. Screenplay : that will be a good idea. There is a lot of gratuitous graphics, all of pathetic quality. Preserve your sanity, dont ever see this movie !


Halloween is one of the best examples of independent film. It's very well made and has more psychological elements to it than you might realize at first glance. It is a simple movie told very well. The music is perfect and is one of the most haunting scores... If you haven't seen this movie yet, you must check it out. The cast is all terrific. I wish they had never made sequel after sequel. The first one was by far the best and should have ended like it did without having a sequel. It was fun to see Jamie Lee Curtis in the movie. She hasn't seemed to age (she's just as gorgeous today, without the hairdo and seventies clothes). The scenes through the mask are one of the scariest things ever!


I started to watch this movie with high expectations. However, after one hour I gave up on this movie as it only instilled lots of unanswered questions upon me. This already started in the opening sequence and only got worse.Why would they bury the Hollander under a statue? Why is there an Italian comediant present? Why did the farmers wife save the Hollander? Why did he, upon being saved, not run for his life instead of starting to make love to the farmers wife? Why did the farmers wife not save the Hollander at a time when the farmer wouldn't be around? Why did these presumably illiterate farmers understand Italian? Why did the Italian comediant know about the Hollanders gold? Why did he hide it in the cesspool in the midst of the evil farmers property? These and many more questions popped up, and none of them seemed to get answered in an acceptable way. So I guess I am totally missing the point of this movie, and I am not connecting to the story in any way....


Jason Bourne sits in a dusty room in with blood on his hands, trying to make sense of what he's just done. Meanwhile, a CIA chief in NYC outlines the agency's response to what's just happened on screen. An American flag stands proudly on the centre of his desk in the foreground of the shot, but as he speaks, it slips out of focus as his plan veers into morally dubious territory, as if it doesn't want to be associated with the course of action the government man decides is necessary in the interests of national security.This shot effectively captures the mood of the film. As well as portraying Bourne's quest to find out how he became Jason Bourne, Ultimatum is also an examination of the human costs of the measures taken to protect us in the interests of stability and security.It is also probably the best film you'll see in the cinema this year. It's just so intense. Bourne says to Simon Ross (Considine) "This isn't some newspaper story, this is real" and in the audience you almost believe him. The camera shakes, but remains steady enough for you to see everything and feel like you're there with Bourne as he tries to elude his pursuers, and the performances are so good that these guys seem as though they are the characters they're portraying, instead of just being actors performing well-written roles. The action scenes are so brutally fast-paced and well choreographed that they seem instinctive instead of planned to the minutest movement; the stunt-work is nothing short of amazing.The pacing is just incredible. It keeps driving forward towards its conclusion, but not so fast that it leaves you struggling to piece together the plot; the script delivers the information you need as quickly and clearly as possible before moving on to the next tense action set-piece. While they're often simple (the Waterloo sequence is essentially just a man on a phone being watched by a man on a phone) they're charged with such dramatic intensity that you can't take your eyes off them. The film is just so focused on powering forwards that you can't help being swept along by it.With its intense action set-pieces, brilliantly paced storyline, and intelligent examination of the decisions made in the name of national security, the Bourne series is one that accurately captures the ambiguities of our age. Ultimatum is its peak.


I didn't have many expectation going into the film, but I thought it was fantastic. Pierce Brosnan is outstanding in a very different role. He has dumped the slick armani suits for a ridiculous look and pays off showing that he is an excellent actor. Pierce and Greg Kinnear play off each other great, and make for one of the better buddy pairings in a long time. The humor is dark, the performances by Brosnan, Kinnear, and Hope Davis are great, mix that with a touching element to the story about friendship, and you have a great film. This is probably one of the better buddy comedies in a long time. This is a film that definitely shows that we can expect great things in the post-Bond era of Brosnan's career.


For the love of god please don't see this movie! Its a waste of time, the plot is predictable, as are the romantic scenes. Trying to build too much with very little, this film and its evil predictable villain is just lame. The characters aren't developed, and most of the film is padded out with shots of Rome, which is much more interesting than the actual film. To top all of that, the acting is a disgrace. I know everyone tries to find their niche, but this is truly a disaster. I can't believe that someone actually paid however many millions of pounds to put this film on screen. Don't waste money or time on this film, go see your grandma or something worthwhile instead.


"I Love New York" is another entry by VH-1 (MTV Networks) showing the entertaining side of dating a shrill, obnoxious, woman. It must have been an easy decision to take the most wildest, Ebonics speaking, craziest contestant - and her mother - and give them a show on this network. Many will argue, "this is a show". True, it's not as bad as it's previous show, "Flavor of Love" - but it's just as bad.It reminds me of a skit from the 90's show "In Living Color" where Keenan Ivory Wayans was imitating the boxer Mike Tyson on "The Love Connection" dating show and he picked "Robin Givens" for a date. Mike talked of how the date was okay, but how the obnoxious mother kept butting in. This show reminds me of that.The men are chosen and given names to degrade themselves and the woman that they are dating more - (I would think an intelligent man looking to date an intelligent woman would NOT allow her - and her mother - to give you a name that is so ghetto, you'll embarrass yourself every time you appear on TV.) but these are professional reality actors, so why bother.It escapes me to discover what is so entertaining about all of this. The fact that this is as fake as her newly implanted additions? 15 Minutes of fame and hundreds of thousands of dollars in ad time for the network? (Well, you can't hate them for trying to make a buck.) Maybe the wonder is - who would want to be with this woman past an hour? Or wonder if she and her mother's next show would be on the WWF! Any way you slice it, it's a train wreck you've seen countless times before so by now the shock value is down to nil.No twist or turn will make this a more interesting train wreck, or any different from any of the others. Appeals to the lowest common denominator and for those calling an "end" to reality shows, this is just another nail in the coffin as to why they should end, immediately.


Okay, so the first few seasons took a while to get going on the special effects way, but from the beginning, Hidden Frontier has given consistently good story lines and performances, and have always been willing to mistakes they've made. They advice people to see newer episodes first, so they can see just how good the show is, and understand how much it has changed since the first episodes. The cast have a fantastic camaraderie and it shows on-screen. The influx of guest actors who make their mark on the show and with fans attests also to the show, as the story lines go from strength to strength. The show has pushed barriers with its various story lines - depression, drug addiction and mainstream homosexuality - and these may have rubbed a few people the wrong way, but that is what Star Trek is and was all about. It portrays those story lines in a smart and emotional way, dealing with them subtly and smoothly. Yes, they have used some characters from Trek history, but they have done them justice - characters like Shelby, Lefler and Necheyev, vastly underused in the show, had a rebirth in the New Frontier books, but they lost their sizzle after a while, when Peter David when more towards wild fantasy versus serious sci-fi, and HF shows those characters in a completely different light, which serves them better. The site also allows fans to interact with chat rooms and forums and they can get to know the people involved. They release bloopers for every episode, so the fans can see what a laugh they have, because they are people doing it in their spare time, with a dedication that would make many professional actors wide-eyed in shock! What this series, now drawing to a close after 7 years, has accomplished on such a limited amount of resources is nothing short of amazing - bringing people together, inspiring others to do the same. HF will live for a long time after it ends, as long as people still enjoy the reason it started in the first place.


This wilfully bizarre adaptation of Borges short story is typical Cox. His strong visual sense is, as usual, undone by the appalling half baked acting of most of the cast. The film is definitely in the surreal tradition of Bunuel's Mexican period, and looks at times like a poor man's take on Lars Von Trier's Elements of Crime. Cox's apparent preference for single takes, jump cuts, and ambient sound recording all work against the film's effectiveness. Worth a look but ultimately disappointing.


This Was One Scary Movie.Brad Pitt Deserved an Oscar for this.A traveling novelist (played by David Duchovny of the X-Files fame) and his girlfriend pick up two hitch-hikers(Juliette Lewis and Brad Pitt) on their way to California. On their way they stop at infamous serial killer murder scenes to photography the scenes for an upcoming book Duchovny's character is working on, little do they know that the most disturbed serial killer in the history of the country is sitting right next to them in the same car.


I saw "Rachel's Attic," thinking that I would be in for an enjoyably visceral, ride. However, it was not to be the case. Visceral, yes, but enjoyable? That would be a big, fat, no! In fact, the only reason that I gave it a "3," is due to the fact that Gunnar Hansen appears (ever so briefly) as one of the film's reprehensible characters. How they ever lured Mr. Hansen into this piece of...work, I'll never know. The story idea is interesting but poorly executed. The direction is pedestrian and the acting is mediocre. The only thing that is worse than that, are the special effects. YIKES!!! I've seen better effects in a grade school play. Give it up, Mr. W, it's time for a career change...I hear they're hiring at Mel's Diner! There are very few, well made, Inde movies coming out of Michigan...and "Rachel's Attic" isn't one of them.


I have always been keen on watching Hong Kong movies, but all of them failed to meet my expectations...until now! BURNING PARADISE doesn't contain the flat humor most HK movies have, nor a second rate story line that has been dragged into the film. The story is not complex, but there are never scenes that are just there to fill some "intelligent" space (the only truely intelligent martial arts film I have seen is CROUCHING TIGER, but since Hollywood is involved it is no true HK movie for me). There are some incredible fight scenes in this movie, from the first one(which is one of the coolest I have ever seen, yet so short) to the last main scenes! But mind, there's also a lot of blood that flows (people cut in half, decapitated, etc). The production is pretty good and the special effects show that the fantasy of the writer can be fulfilled even though some shots must be pretty technical (notice: the sheet of paper that he throws and got pinned into a wall!). Yep, it's not Tsui Hark or John Woo that made my favorite Hong Kong film, it's Ringo Lam! And I'm sure as hell going to check out more from this director! Ace.


I'm fan of ART, I like anything about Art, I like paintings, sculptures, etc. This movie shows it, so I like it a lot, it shows how a woman wants to paint anything about Art, especially naked bodies, but she can't do it because of her strict family (father), at the beginning of the movie she painted herself naked, but she wanted a man for her paintings, but her family didn't let her paint naked men because it's against the moral. Even so Artemisia could paint her boyfriend and her art teacher completely naked. She falls in love with her art teacher, and it seems the art teacher is absolutely in love with her too, so at the ending he sacrifices his freedom for hers by lying. He said that he raped her, but it wasn't true. Artemisia fell in love with him, but if she says that she will suffer a lot, because in the trial in which Artemisia, her father and the Art teacher were, somebody was hurting her artistic hands to say the truth. I think this a great movie about ART, and an artistic love, It's worth watching. Valentina Cervi is great as Artemisia, she acts very well, I also like her performance in "The portrait of a lady" as Pansy Osmond. 8.5/10


I think Dark Angel is great! First season was excellent, and had a good plot. With Max(Jessica Alba) as an escaped X-5, manticore creation, trying to adapt to a normal life, but still "saving the world". And being hunted by manticore throughout the season which gives the series some extra spice.The second season though suddenly became a bit odd compared to the first. The plot kinda disappeared, and the series lost a little of it's charm, mostly because of all the weird "creatures" appearing. Don't get me wrong the second season is good, but with a little bit to much of the "manticores". However, they managed to get back to a new promising plot in the closing episodes of season 2, in which I had a lot of hopes to see more of.So I really wish they could start making new episodes. And with James Cameron behind this it can't go wrong. So as a conclusion I would say it's a great series, however I'm still hoping for a third season!


Basically, take the concept of every Asian horror ghost movie and smash it into one and you get this movie. The story goes like this: a bunch of college kids get voice mails from their own phones that are foretelling their deaths. There's some s*** going on with ghosts, which if you've seen any Asian ghost movie, isn't scary by now. This movie was quite upsetting because it's very clichéd. It's the same bullcrap, different movie.The acting was pretty good. Unfortunately the actors are put into a very Ring-esquire situation, so it's nothing we haven't seen in the past. The two lead acts did a solid job though.As far as gore, there's not much going on. We get a cool sequence that includes an arm twisting a head off (I don't know how else to explain that), but it was cut away so you don't see anything except the final result. You see some blood at times, including decapitated arms and a zombie (that looked really cool I might add), but this movie isn't too bloody.The scares in the movie are few and spread out, and it's really not that scary. You'll get some creepy images at times, but it's not enough for me to consider scary. It's nothing different from Ringu, Ju-On, or Dark Water, and none of those scared me either. That's really the downfall of this (and most Asian horror movies) is that if it doesn't deliver the scares then it's just not that good.As far as directing, Takashi Miike still did a pretty good job. He seemed a little tamed in this movie compared to his past movies, but he still portrays a lot of his messed up style he's become famous for. A lot of images were a lot like Miike (including a scene with a bunch of jars of dead fetuses), and the last 15 - 20 minutes seemed far more Miike then the rest of the movie. Still, the movie is flawed by its unoriginality.I would recommend this only to people who are huge on Asian horror movies (even if you are, I can recommend much better) or big Miike fans. Warning to those who want to get into Miike, this is NOT his best work.I'm giving it a 4 because it's just mediocre. Perhaps if this was released 4 or 5 years ago it might be worth a higher rating.Also, I'd like to b**** about Asian horror movies real quick. How come if it's an Asian horror movie it's automatically suppose to be good over here (US)? A LOT of these movies are the equivalent in Japan to what Scream, Urban Legends, and I Know What You Did Last Summer were over here in the 90's. If you've seen one you've seen them all. And a lot of these movies rely way too much on scares and imagery that if it doesn't deliver the scares they set out to do then they're just not that good, and nothing would change that. More Asian horror films need to be more like Audition and A Tale of Two Sisters, two movies that if they don't frighten or scare you, at least they have great stories, acting, direction, cinematography, and much more to back them up. Two movies that aren't just great horror movies, but great movies in general. More Asian horror movies need to be like these instead of the cliché, "A ghost just wanted to be found so it went around killing people through their phone/video tape/house/electric appliance/water pipes/google search engine/vibrator/groceries/etc."


Okay at first this movie seemed pretty good even though it was moving rather quick and even though they only had a $60,000 budget it was good but if you found your sister dead in a lake and found out who might have killed her why would you go chase him around and pull a gun on him with only one bullet and waste it and end up running from him all retarded and get yourself killed? Plus after you found your sister dead in the lake and found a clue and figured out who the killer was why wouldn't you hand that clue over to the police who think you killed her? And at the end of the movie when she acts like her sister who was a waitress and she is talking to the bad guy she should of met him somewhere and recorded him saying she was dead and what happened for her "proof". I don't know I was not happy with the ending. This movie could of been so much better if it lasted longer and the acting was better and if the ending did not suck so bad! Do not waste your money on this movie because if you do you will be writing a review on here too and will not be happy.


Well it's been a long year and I'm down to reviewing the final film for 2004. Panaghoy Sa Suba (Call of The River) placed second in the recent Metro Manila Film Festival. As expected, it didn't do so well at the box office as it was too artsy for the common moviegoers especially since MMFF is the season where a lot of families go out to see movies.It was quite intriguing to see a movie that was not in Filipino or English play out in the screen. I thought Cesar Montano did a good job both as a star and director. His great vision and creativity really helped this film. He was also very effective as the lead star and was able to express a wide range of emotions that was required for the film. Also performing well was young actress Rebecca Lusterio. She did a great job portraying Bikay, the younger sister of Duroy. I hope to see her in many more film projects in the future perhaps venturing into other genres. I think that the fact that this film was in her local dialect really helped her.Some of the camera shots in the film were done very well. The scenery was made breathtaking even though I feel that if a lesser effort would have looked completely different.In terms of the story I feel that the writers could have delved further into the lives of the lesser characters in the film. I certainly won't be raving about the story of this film.


"Fido" is to be commended for taking a tired genre, zombies, and turning it into a most original film experience. The early 50s atmosphere is stunning, the acting terrific, and the entire production shows a lot of careful planning. Suddenly the viewer is immersed in a world of beautiful classic cars, "Eisenhower era" dress, art deco furniture, and zombie servants. It would be very easy to dismiss "Fido" as cartoon-like fluff, similar to "Tank Girl", but the two movies are vastly different. "Fido has structure, a script that tells a story, and acting that is superior. Make no mistake, this is a daring black comedy that succeeds where so many others have failed. Highly recommended. - MERK


SPOILERSTom and Jerry is a classic cartoon, with a flawless idea, and almost every single short is a gem. While I must say that this is definitely an inferior short compared such other classic Tom and Jerry shorts, there is not way you can hate this cartoon. Sure, it is understandable to say that this is one of the worst of the first Tom and Jerry episodes, and I can say that I agree, but the fact of the matter is that all Tom and Jerry episodes are great, but some are just better than others. Well, this would fit into "others." Here is the plot of Fraidy Cat. Tom is listening to an old scary radio broadcast, and becomes easily frightened. Jerry observes how scared he is, and tries to scare him even more than he already is. He creates scary dilemmas for Tom, and Tom becomes scared out of his wits, and his lives. Jerry then puts a sheet over a vacuum cleaner and controls it, thus making it look like the vacuum is a ghost. Tom finds out that Jerry did all of this, and chases him. Tom then accidentally bites the house maid. However, at the end Jerry ends up the one becoming scared after he sees his reflection in a flour cup.Overall, this is far from the best Tom and Jerry short out there, but this is still a fun and entertaining piece of time. It makes me wish that there was more cartoons like this. The slapstick and gags in this that make Tom and Jerry famous are as good as ever in this short, but it felt like something was missing in this. It felt slower than most Tom and Jerry shorts. Anyway, this is a good short that does not quite live up to some other Tom and Jerry cartoons, but it is still nice.7/10


I came into this movie really wanting to line it. I thought the premise had a lot of potential and was ripe for an interesting movie. Don't get me wrong here, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was taking this for the B movie that it is. That said, it still fell short of the expectation. The historical aspect of the story is glazed over and the ending left me a bit cold. The acting in the movie was very wooden. All in all I give it 4 for a great idea, but the movie could have scored much higher with a bit more attention to movie making fundamentals. Is it worth seeing? I didn't wish for my two hours back, but I don't know that I'd recommend it to others.


I don't know what the rest of you guys watch Steven Seagal movies for, but I watch them because, as silly as they are, they're at least always good for a laugh. Why would you rate this movie a 1 out of 10 based on the dubbing, when that kind of thing is exactly what makes a movie like this into a cult favorite that you can laugh at the silliness of?Attack Force is by no means a great movie, but I felt it was as worthy a Steven Seagal vehicle as many of his other movies; in fact I didn't think it was one of his worst by a long-shot. It had, most of the time, a half-way coherent plot line, and it was, most of the time, fundamentally exciting. The ending really sucked, but even that had some enjoyably trashy elements. In the end the story itself did not deliver what it promised, but I actually thought that the acting, characterization (if I may use such a big word) and the rest of the production values delivered exactly what a true Steven Seagal fan would expect. Seagal himself in particular was exactly the stone-faced, no-nonsense man's man that we've come to expect, and the rest of the cast backed him up pretty well, without ever up-staging him. This, people, is what a Steven Seagal movie does. Deal with it. Or even better: laugh at it.4 out of 10.


One of the ten best comedies ever This seems a comedy so joyous and light that sings. Keaton's comedies are _innerly, harmoniously, intelligently ordered, thought.Wonderfully amusing, deliberately delightful and inventive, THREE AGES should belong to a draft of a comedies top ten if I were to sketch one. A threefold love story will enchant the viewers; I want to bring here this approachKeaton's comedy is like Lang's DESTINY upsidedownor À REBOURS. Again a couple traverses the waters of timeand of epochsin the Stone Age, in Rome and in Keaton's timesin a Mohammedan country, in Renaissance Italy and in China. The same device works in the both moviesone, a grim, eerie melodrama; --the other, a light, virtuouslypaced comedy. At Keaton it's essentially the same couple; and maybe the same is with Lang. The babe desired by both Buster and Beery is nice. I have found THREE AGES well written and smart, without being ostentatiously sophisticated; the plot is basically very POPEYElikethe babe is a piece of furniture, the only protagonists are the two male rivalsKeaton and Beery.Keaton's movie is simply enormously likable, and perhaps one would be tempted to assert this looks like ambitious funyet it's not, but it is grand fun, large fun, ample fun. And Wallace Beery makes a fine nemesis.


If the very thought of Arthur Askey twists your guts, don't worry, you can still watch and love The Ghost Train, like the equally marvellous Back Room Boy, it is a film that is simply too damn good to be sunk by a single performance, even that of the lead actor. Personally, I love Askey, perhaps it's because I go into his world, rather than unreasonably expecting him to come into mine, which is a mistake too many people make. The Ghost Train is so intensely atmospheric that you couldn't conceivably watch it without being amazed at the deep, dark world it transports you to, it is immersive in a way that few cheap and cheerful flag-wavers managed to be during the desperate early '40s and it's a film that I would imagine few people have ever watched just the once. The cast are, without exception, extraordinarily good, perhaps Linden Travers lays it on a bit thick, but against the backdrop of a lonely railway station in wartime, she could hardly play a nutter and not stand out. The sad passing of the lovely Carole Lynne earlier this year broke the last link we had with this incredible film and now it really is in the past, but waiting patiently for us to press play.


Totally forgettable. Specially because of the weak acting. This is the first movie I've seen with Dax Shepard. To my surprise, he's been around since the late 90's. I thought he was a newcomer, since his acting was so bland. I could say the same about Liv Tyler. Although I've seen her do well in other movies, she gave Clare Cooper a strange personality. Liv is not the kind of actress that will give the character a fiery, emotional personality like Diane Keaton would be able to, but it was pretty strange to see her say her lines in whisper mode. It seemed that altogether there simply wasn't a very good chemistry going on between the actors, and I think Diane Keaton sensed that as well. She's a fantastic actress, but seemed just a bit over the top in this movie. It felt like she just wanted to get this movie over as soon as possible. I wouldn't blame her.


Cheesy script, cheesy one-liners. Timothy Hutton's performance a "little" over the top. David Duchovny still seemed to be stuck in his Fox Mulder mode. No chemistry with his large-lipped female co-star.He needs Gillian Anderson to shine. He does not seem to have any talent of his own.


The photography of this bid-budget production is surprisingly bad. Colors are muddy and brownish and the photography has very 80ish look to it. Direction and editing are often quite uninspired and TV-movie like, too. *And* at first the movie only seems to want to torture its viewers with lurid images of sex and violence. Hans Zimmer's score is also a typically simple and bland work of this overrated, untalented composer.But if you are willing to watch the movie further you are rewarded with a very moving family story, a sort of European version of Edna Ferber's family epos Giant. While at first you wonder why Clara married this idiotic man, even his character gets more depth and more background one can judge him by. Clara delivers the movie's spiritual lesson, a great and moving statement set against the terrible happenings in her country. Her daughter, whose lover is a young Antonio Banderas at the beginning of his international career, understands that lesson and ultimately tries to live by it. The way the plot was constructed with the ending mirroring the beginning was great. The actors all do a great job, too. I was wondering "Who is the actress playing Blanca?" all the time, but of course, it was a really young Winona Ryder!All in all, this movie really made me want to read the book.


Casting aside many of the favorable comments that have obviously come from friends and/or relatives that pepper this and many other low budget independents listed on IMDb, one is lost when it comes to using these reviews as an accurate gauge. So eventually you have to go out and rent the flick just to see for yourself. One of the first things you must understand are the catch phrases that camouflage the reality of the movie. In this case the term "dark psychological thriller." Read: "hack writer/director who thinks he's an auteur, who replaces plot, story, and action, with what he believes is a deep insight into the human soul. His great insight? Festering and repressed childhood traumas emerge to wreck havoc when we become adults. Wow, I bet Freud would be really impressed! Too many would be film makers like Kallio, who were raised on low budget horror flicks of the last few decades, fail to dig their own fresh grave. Instead, they fall into the pre-dug graves of the many other directors that came before them. They are content with rehashing old and tired horror clichés that they borrowed from a dozen or more films. The result is an unoriginal, uninspired, unbelievable waste of film stock.


"Hundstage" is seidl's first fiction film (before this he directed great documentaries as "animal love" or "models"). seidl worked on this project for more than 3 years but it only cost around 2 million dollars. the actors are very good especially the non-professional actors who nearly played themselves.the cinematography is good too. the whole film is shocking disturbing and some scenes may be too much for "ordinary" viewers.the film shows a lot of sex and violence but also that people are lonely and not able to communicate with each other. finally i've to say that this is one of the best and most rewarding austrian films in the past years. please excuse my bad english.


A very close and sharp discription of the bubbling and dynamic emotional world of specialy one 18year old guy, that makes his first experiences in his gay love to an other boy, during an vacation with a part of his family.I liked this film because of his extremly clear and surrogated storytelling , with all this "Sound-close-ups" and quiet moments wich had been full of intensive moods.