As you may have gathered from the title, I wholeheartedly believe this movie to be the worst zombie movie of all time. The acting, camera-work, writing, special effects and anything else remotely related to this movie sucked. People have argued that while this movie is terribly-acted and terribly-produced but it comes through with a witty intelligent script. Wow. The plot has more holes than I or anyone else could possibly count. For starters, why would the government tell everyone to go back to work when it's not safe? I know the government's supposed to be evil but they don't gain anything by killing the entire population of the country. There wouldn't be anyone to govern! Another thing that I was wondering about, even if the government told everyone to go to work, why would people go if the streets were swarming with zombies? Were the zombies going to hide in the bushes and ambush the unsuspecting people in order to aid the government in their plot to kill everyone on the planet? And how about the ending? That stupid Torch guy sacrifices his life in order to get a few close up shots of the zombies. He probably forgot that every camera made in the last 35 years has a zoom feature. And another thing, why does he say Hindenburg before he dies. The Hindenburg was a rare event seen by a very few people. The zombie menace will been seen by everyone in the country, possibly the world. He doesn't think anyone else will get a few snapshots? They also managed to ruin the only semi-interesting scene in the film when the soldier is watching the exotic dancer. Why did the zombie hide behind a curtain for five minutes before attacking the girl? Especially when the zombie could have come through the DOOR. It's probably just something an unintelligent zombie movie fan such as myself wouldn't understand. Every day I pray that God with increase my brain capacity long enough for me to figure out all the subtle nuances in Feeding the Masses.Anywho, I think it's interesting that this is the first movie that gave me the desire to physically hurt the people involved in the production. Hey Trent Haaga, I'm calling you out!


I realize it's not supposed to be BSG and I can handle slow-paced shows if they're interesting but I find myself completely uninterested and bored with this series.The formula for BSG seemed to be: Action + Adventure + SciFi + Suspense + Mystery + Dramathe formula for Caprica seems to be: Bland Drama + Moderate ScifiMaybe it will get more interesting but as of episode 3 I can barely watch it. In fact, it's at the bottom of my to-watch list for the week. This is a sad state of affairs. The Syfi channel really destroyed their Friday night lineup. Whatever happened to the glory days of SG1, Stargate Atlantis, and BSG on Friday nights? They had a good thing there.


First time I saw this movie was in the eighties, but reviewed now this thriller is still actual. Some newer movies focus on similar topics, but they do not match this french milestone.A president - obviously JF Kennedy - gets shot in an open car during a public appearance. The resulting huge investigation finds the "Lee Harvey Oswald" figure of this movie guilty, but one member of the jury insists in further inquiry. He reveals some surprising evidence ...Unlike Oliver Stone's JFK - a movie with the same plot - this one does not play with emotions, but concentrates in a exciting description of a conspiracy and how everything fits together, drawing a new picture of the assassination. Even a real psychological experiment is used for this explanation of the crime scene. Compared to JFK this movie is more reasonable, intelligent and thrilling. Parts of the plot can be found in a lot of newer movies, I had a kind of deja vu sometimes sitting in the cinema."I... comme Icare" is a "must see". Its unique and brilliant, and the music by Ennio Morricone is wonderful. This movie deserves a very good ranking, if it was a Hollywood production it would be famous for sure.


The key to the joy and beauty, the pain and sadness of life is our ability to accept that life basically is what it is so we don't constantly struggle against that single compelling truth. In so doing, we find peace. Elegant in its simplicity but so hard for most of us to grasp.In this film, the director shows us this truth but allows us to discover it in our own way. This is a beautiful yet simple story, more of a fable, which is played very well. Watching the actors is more like being in a room with real people than it is just watching actors.I struggled with how to write a review of this fine film so others would be motivated to see it. I'm at a loss. The story is about men in a bath house. Sounds like a real turn off, right? But, nothing could be farther from the truth. The American title for this film is The Shower but that is almost an antithesis to a major thematic element in this film, which is the bath. I'm still at a loss. Talking about the story or the characters will not do them justice.So, I'll just tell you how much I enjoyed watching this movie and how touching and moving the experience was. I was also quite entertained. I cared deeply for the characters and I cared deeply about what happened to them. For any story, that is the highest form of praise.If you were moved by movies like The King Of Masks or Not One Less, then make sure you see The Shower. Netflix has it and the DVD video and sound quality are excellent. I watched it in the original lanquage with well done and well placed English subs.


Wow it's ironic since this movie has been out for awhile I think that someone else JUST reviewed it a couple days ago.Anyways, I watched this movie simply because it has Nick Stahl, for the record.The movie was ridiculous. The characters drove me INSANE, they were SO Cliché and STEREOTYPED. This movie had some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. It had way too many plot twists too.There is ONE scene in the movie worth seeing however, the scene: "Warm heart, cold gun" where Nick Stahl kills the obnoxious girl in the shower. (Well, actually they were all obnoxious.) But his acting in that scene was excellent. The look on his face, it reminded my of American Psycho (a good movie). The scene is worth seeing but not worth seeing the rest of the movie for, do yourself a favor and don't watch it.


Man, this gets a lot of good reviews in the review books. Frankly, I found it too slow and unappealing right from the start. I kept waiting for it to pick up a little steam but that never happened. This movie is vastly overrated.Shakespeare, with the King James English, has never appealed to me, anyway, so it may just be me. There is a fair share of the latter in the first half of the film as they show Ronald Colman playing the role of Othello.The good points of the film include - thanks to a restored print - some decent cinematography and a young, slim and attractive Shelly Winters.Overall, this is simply too boring, too much repetition in some of the scenes to watch again. Besides, we all know that most actors are nut-cases, anyway, but kudos to Hollywood for demonstrating it here in this story.


If you want Scream or anything like the big-studio horror product that we get forced on us these days don't bother. This well-written film kept me up thinking about all it had to say. Importance of myth in our lives to make it make sense, how children interpret the world (and the violence in it), our ransacking of the environment and ignorance of its history and legends.. all here, but not flatly on the surface. You could technically call it a "monster movie" even though the Wendigo does not take physical form until the end, and then it's even up to you and your beliefs as to what's happening with the legendary spirit/beast. Some standard thriller elements for those looking just for the basics and the film never bores, though in fact the less you see of the creature, the better. Fessenden successfully continues George Romero's tradition of using the genre as parable and as a discussion forum while still keeping us creeped out.


I watched the movie while recovering from major surgery. While I knew it was only a "B" film, a space western, I loved it. It may have lacked the flash of high dollar productions it non-the-less held my imagination and provided great escapism. Sadly our society has so much available, discounting small attempts is too easy. In the same way that I can enjoy a even a grade school performance of Shakespeare, I can appreciate many levels of achievement for the art sake. I am a cop and found affinity with the retired LAPD. Dreams like his haunt me that I will be unable in the moment of crisis be able to respond to save another's life (or my own). while it was a romantic ending where Farnsworth did take out the bad guy (predictable) I needed a little happy romance where good can triumph. My world is really too cynical.


I first saw this film when it aired on the now defunct Trio Channel a few years ago, and recently watched it again--sans commercials--on Sundance. I was impressed the first time, and found it even more engaging on second viewing. Yes, some of the segments are far from perfect--Amos Gitai's hysterical commentary stands out like a sore thumb--but taken collectively, 11 09 01 is a total success. Best of show: Shohei Imamura's amazing final segment, which contemporary critics such as the thick-witted Mick LaSalle somehow misinterpreted as an attack on 'the terrorists', but now stands revealed as a masterful anti-war polemic; Samira Makhmalbaf's opening piece that manages to blend deep empathy for the victims of 9/11 with a prescient concern for the children of Afghanistan; and Idrissa Ouedraogo's amusing children's crusade for Osama Bin Laden--a hunt almost as serious and successful an undertaking as the one for the REAL Osama. Youssef Chahine's segment is a noble if failed experiment which at least has the guts to remind the audience that Bin Laden and al'Qaeda are basically creations of American foreign policy and the CIA, and though Sean Penn's character study seems out of place, it's still an effectively bittersweet piece of film-making. All in all, essential viewing, and a darn sight better than Oliver Stone's reactionary World Trade Center.


I first saw this film over 25 years ago on British TV and have only just caught up with it again last week on a DVD copy bought off ebay. I had remembered the musical sequences, the colour and the gorgeous fashion plate poses and clothes but the plot is weaker than the earlier Anna Neagle/Michael Wilding film Spring in Park Lane and Maytime doesn't stand up so well to the passage of the years. But Michael Wilding is a joy in the film, charming, funny, debonair, appears to be having great fun and on top of his form. Worth watching for him alone. Anna Neagle appears a little matronly beside him, and a little too old for the part she plays but by the end of the 1940's their film partnership was well established with the cinema going public. Spring in Park Lane had been a top hit for 1947 and a big money maker. In his autobiography Wilding wrote at length of his great regard for Herbert Wilcox the director and instigator of this London series of films.


When I saw this movie first, it was long ago on VHS-Video. I did like this movie, because it was funny and excitingly. Some years ago I saw another movie, called: *Andy Colby's Incredible Adventure* In this movie were parts of *Wizards of the lost kingdom* used in. They called this movie "KOR the conquerer". I began to search for the "KOR"-Movie many years, because I wanted to see the complete movie, not only the parts which were used in the *Andy Colby*-Movie. No shop had this Kor-Movie to rent and no shop did know this movie. Many years I watched my old VHS-tapes I had at home, and what a wonder... I had this movie since many years still at home, but the movie had a different title, because in Germany it has 3 or 4 titles. So I was happy to find this tape at home and this time I had much more time in watching *KOR the Conquerer again. The music is great during the hole movie, but the best part of filming in combination with the music is this moment, when KOR is walking drunken through the green forrest. The music in the background had some kind of magic. I like Bo Svenson, and also the boy, who played Simon in the movie. Both of them did their job very good. Manfred Kraatz, Germany, 26.10.2004. Thanks to all for reading my comment.


Demi Moore's character in the movie was selected for the SEALs because of her looks. That was a bad start and the movie went down from there. The plot was totally unbelievable. The will to make it in a tough military unit is not enough. This movie did not convince me of a woman's physical ability to perform the types of tasks required.Trying to pretend that women and men are basically the same is an insult to everyone's intelligence. The differences between the sexes are what makes life interesting.


Disappointing and undeniably dull true-crime movie that has poorly cast character actor Jeremy Renner languidly mumbling his way through the title role of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was easily one of the last century's most recognizable degenerates/serial killers. Released straight-to-video back in early 2003, "Dahmer" is an overtly talky, boring, badly acted and virtually bloodless snore-fest of a true-crime drama that never truly delves into the monstrous and demented psyche of the late mass murderer like it had the perfectly good potential to do! What it does, however, attempt to do for reasons unknown to me is evoke some sort of sympathy in the viewer for the man by portraying him out to be what is ultimately a lonely, nebbishy and severely socially inept homosexual loser who was simply lookin' for love in all the wrong places as opposed to the cold, calculating and depraved sicko and madman that he was! Overall, 2003's "Dahmer" is one that true-crime buffs everywhere might as well skip because I'm not kidding when I say that it's one of the worst serial-killer biopics ever done! It's even sorrier than other pathetic and exploitive straight-to-video trash like "Gacy", "Bundy", "Ed Gein" and "The Night Stalker"! (Turkey-Zero Stars)


DARK REMAINS is a low budget American horror movie that somehow managed to win 2 awards.The plot seems to involve 2 separate strands. First, a woman commits suicide by slashing her wrists whilst bathing. Second, the young daughter of a technical writer is found with her throat slashed. The grieving couple decide to move to an isolated cabin in the mountains. It later transpires that the cabin and surrounding locations are haunted.As the movie goes on, the 2 separate strands of story eventually converge as one might reasonably expect. However, the execution is haphazard and results in confusion that could perhaps only be resolved by multiple viewings. Unfortunately, the movie is simply not enticing enough to attract most viewers into watching it more than once.Just about everything that could go wrong with this movie goes wrong - and fast! And the low budget cannot be used to justify all of the shortcomings found here.I believe it would be wrong to pass judgement on the actors involved in this production as the material was simply too poor.The characters are uninteresting as pointed out by other reviewers on this site. The badly written script introduces too many people without giving them interesting dialogue, without creating opportunities for character-driven situations and without adding depth to any of them.The direction is uninspired. The inspiration from J-Horror movies such as RINGU, THE GRUDGE and ONE MISSED CALL is evident. Unfortunately, the directors of DARK REMAINS did not pay close attention to the style of J-Horror. J-Horror works so effectively because it plays on fear of the unknown. Tension is created by constant shifts between a bizarre situation (a ghost on a CCTV camera walking towards it for example), and the reaction of a central character who is faced with it without any warning. There is no humour or tongue-in-cheek element in these movies. Everything is played so straight and without remorse or limitations that you can't help but be convinced and captivated by it. The foreboding atmospheres set up the suspense and ensures the horror has psychological impact, very much unlike the "jump scares" used in Hollywood movies.The directors of DARK REMAINS made a brave attempt to avoid Hollywood clichés and also successfully avoided using CGI. The homage to J-Horror could have been well intended. Unfortunately, the lack of inspiration is likely to make the viewer laugh at the supposed "scares" on the screen. The make-up effects of the "ghosts" weren't too bad given the low budget but their actions just defied logic. I was scratching my head quite a few times during this movie.I couldn't give away the ending even if I wanted to. I simply couldn't understand it. All I could deduce was that it was something of an anti-climax.What remains? The answer as a reviewer on a different website has pointed out is boredom. The movie is a chore to sit through. Thankfully, the pain ends after an hour and a half. However, most would probably switch off long before the end.There are only 2 positive things I could find in this movie - the successful avoidance of scare clichés and the absence of the "f-word" in every single sentence like one would normally expect to find. This is what the 2 stars are for.Those who like supernatural or psychological horror relating to ghosts and haunting might do well to stick to movies such as THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING or the J-Horror sub-genre.If you think you have seen too many established movies and want to see an obscure ultra-low budget "R-rated" horror movie about ghosts, watch DEATH OF A GHOST HUNTER. It may not be the greatest horror movie ever made but it is surely a lot better than DARK REMAINS and does have a few genuine surprises in store.I advise everyone to avoid DARK REMAINS like the plague.


When an orphanage manager goes on vacation, his father takes over the details of the center and winds up renting the kids. When a well off, got it made couple with a nice apartment and great life get the notion to adopt this idea was tailor made for them. Why would they want to spoil their elegant existence with a trio of hairbrained carpet creepers? No way would people like these two need kids to make life wonderful. This movie makes it look like the real world works this way, but I am the picture of dubiety.


Like many of you I am a great fan of the real thing - the 1940s noir films - but Red Rock West was a real treat for all of us longing for the past. The term 'neo-noir' has been so often used inappropriately in the last ten years that it has lost its meaning and its impact. John Dahl's film on the other hand, truly deserved to be described as such. The casting is perfect all around and would have felt right at home with Tay Garnett or Jacques Tourneur. The plot is so tight that you are hooked within the first fifteen minutes. James M. Cain would have appreciated it. Many contemporary films leave me wondering why they don't make them like they used to, and I'm not even that old. Movies such as Red Rock West give us hope for the future while paying tribute to the past.


Absolute masterpiece of a film! Goodnight Mr.Tom has swiftly become one of my favourite films of all time. Nobody should miss out on seeing this film, it's just too good! Mr.Tom is perfectly portrayed by John Thaw as the harsh old man who becomes a soft father-figure when William Beech(Nick Robinson) is sent to him for evacuation, almost like 'The town mouse and the country mouse'. A truly heart wrenching film. The director knew exactly how to turn book into film and he has done so extremely well. The film was so excellently shot that the emotions of the characters and what was happening made the audience feel a range of emotions from love to fear, and these emotions could turn on a six-pence. Set in a time of turmoil during World War Two, this film also shows the difference between the cities and the countryside, they are almost like different countries. An absolute must see, those who don't are missing out on a truly amazing and brilliant film.


Yeah, I "get" Pasolini and his milieu, but at the same time, I feel his "Decameron" is largely overrated, and more than a little disturbing. Overrated because the supposed "realism" he introduces (milling crowds, crumbling architecture, etc.) are mooted by the absurd and downright goofy way that the characters behave. In the pursuit of realism, Pasolini utilized many non-actors, but their deer-in-the-headlights stares and painfully awkward line delivery gives the whole a terribly off-kilter and inconsistent feel. And frankly -- many of the toothless, misshapenly-featured people are painful to look at.And Pasolini's "Decameron" is disturbing (to me at least) because of the casual and prevalent homosexual content. Not because I'm prudish or homophobic (I'm neither) but because the emphasis that Pasolini places upon homoerotic images and situations is contrary to the neo-realism he otherwise espouses, so it comes off as gratuitous and forced. One can almost hear him say "Ooh--I've got to stick a cute, naked boy in this scene!" At times it seems that Pasolini is trying to play up the homosexual angle to thumb his nose at critics, and at other times because he enjoys that aspect himself, regardless of what his audience might prefer.The disjointedness of the 9 or 10 different stories in Pasolini's "Decameron" struck me as being a failing of Pasolini as a storyteller, rather than being an aspect of neo-realism. He seems to get bored with each story and so he wraps them up rather unconvincingly and with little conviction. Even the Pasolini's final line of dialog in the film, which some people seem to find pithy ("Why create a work of art when dreaming about it is so much sweeter?") -- to me, it just makes me wonder why Pasolini would bother making a film if he felt this way? In my opinion, a far better-crafted film (and with MORE homosexual content) is Fellini's "Satyricon". It is also full of bizarre-looking people and absurd situations, but it succeeds because of its pacing, direction and strong storytelling whereas "Decameron" fails by those same elements.


I just don't get some of the big premises of this episode - that Miranda is so remarkable, and that there's anything so ugly it would make you insane. Someone here made the remark that maybe it's the frequency of the light waves or something rather than it being ugliness. Miranda is just a jerk. The episode is slow, inconsistent and way too talky. I also don't quite understand why Kolos is an ambassador - why doesn't the Federation just leave the damn Medusans be? There's one part I do like, when Kolos is speaking through Spock about the loneliness of the human experience. Overall, I love TOS and even at its lamest, I'll always tune in. This episode though - mmm, I wouldn't purchase it except for a used copy under $3.


I'm not kidding about that summary and vote! The video distributors have packaged this as just another typical '80s werewolf movie, but it is in fact the greatest parody of the horror genre that you can imagine, having done for the horror movie what "Blazing Saddles" did for the western. I have seen plenty of comedies - good, bad, stupid, weird, etc. (usually walking away unimpressed), and I think that comedy must be the most difficult genre for filmmakers and actors to work in - it takes just the right kind of touch to make things successful, and part of that is having good ideas. "Full Moon High" is bulging with good ideas - so many, in fact, that it can easily put the Zucker/Abrams team of "Airplane" and "Naked Gun" to shame. One of the best of these is the very presence of Ed McMahon in a starring role as a John Birch-style right-wing crackpot. The jokes, non-sequiturs, wisecracks and word-play are literally non-stop and everything, including the kitchen sink, has been thrown in. The ironic tone is very similar to that of "Back to the Future." Some people (i.e. almost every reviewer here) must have been turned off by the spirit of anarchy here, but I almost died of laughter, and this is one of those movies in which you never know what kind of insane situation will transpire next. Since B-movie extraordinaire Larry Cohen had not made a straight comedy before this, one gets the sense that he was making up for lost time by including any joke he or his collaborators could think of. If Mel Brooks had made this, the critics would have labelled it a comic masterpiece, but because it was made by Cohen, it has been dismissed as schlock. Critical reviews have called this movie too "silly." SILLY? What is a comedy supposed to be - serious?! Anyway, I laughed out loud more for this movie than any other I can think of. Cohen makes fun of everyone - himself included, with plenty of references to his usual brand of low-rent film-making; he and the actors must have had a complete blast making this.The humor is very Mel Brooks-ish, and anyone who loves Jewish humor or watches a lot of B-movies (especially horror) will love this. Trust me: the movie isn't too hard to find, and as long as you accept it for what it is - a roller-coaster of belly laughs with no pretense of social value whatsoever - then you'll truly enjoy it!!One sidenote: this movie should somehow go down in history as the one thing Bob Saget ever starred in (albeit briefly) that was actually funny.


As a knowledgeable fan I recommend this film as faithful to the facts and well acted. As an 11 year old living in Istanbul I heard some friends talking about a new music sensation that caused girls to scream. I thought hmmmm, if girls like them, they must be crap. My only records until then were Haley Mills, The Everly Brothers & Ricky Nelson. Soon after while on vacation with the family at a military cafeteria in Ismir I heard a song (which I later learned was 'Love Me Do') and was floored by the difference between it and every song I had ever heard until then. When I heard the 'Meet The Beatles' album of my older brother I was hooked for life. Having read the definitive book of their beginnings (by Davis) I was surprised that this movie followed the facts very well with the exception of leaving out most of the sex and some of the drug use (it did touch on the use of methadrine/dexadrine). >


I liked SOLINO very much. It is a very heart-rending story of an italian family moving to Germany. And it's an story about brotherly love, hope and disappointment. And the film is never boring. Go and see SOLINO!


I'm sorry to say that there isn't really any way, in my opinion, that an Enzo would really be able to keep up with a Saleen S7 Twin Turbo. The power to weight advantage possessed by the S7 would just be too great. The S7 has a power:weight ratio of 3.93 lbs/hp while the Enzo has 4.61 lbs/hp. The S7s low end is much better too. Sorry Ferrari fans but the Saleen just gets it done so much better.As for other parts of this film, I just have to say it's so substandard as to be pathetic. The story is way too weak. The acting in this lemon is worse than daytime soaps.I can say that as far as it being a treatise on negative psychology its kind of a gem. This film is nothing if not a glaring definition as to what narcissism and sociopathy are all about. Its all about these rich punks getting their rocks off while showing only traces of feigned remorse for all the innocent road users they cause injury or death too.I can't give the film a "1 Star" rating because it didn't compel me to actually walk out of the theater. I also think that having an amazingly beautiful brunette with killer blue eyes as the leading female saves it from being completely abysmal....although there is no way her singing would put her on the cover of 'Variety'.ps: the guy who plays Jason is SOOOOO the skid row version of James Vanderbeek.


If you like cars you will love this film!There are some superb actors in the film, especially Vinnie Jones, with his typical no nonsense attitude and hardcase appearance.The others are not bad either....There are only two slight flaws to this film. Firstly, the poor plot, however people don't watch this film for the plot. Secondly, the glorification of grand theft auto (car crime). However if people really believe they can steal a Ferrari and get away with it then good look to them, hope you have a good time in jail!When i first read that Nicolas Cage was to act the main role, i first thought "...sweeet.", but then i thought "...naaaa you suck!" but then finally after watching the film i realised "...yep he suck's!".Only joking he plays the role very well.I'll end this unusual review by saying "If the premature demise of a criminal has in some way enlightened the general cinema going audience as to the grim finish below the glossy veneer of criminal life, and inspired them to change their ways, then this death carries with it an inherent nobility. And a supreme glory. We should all be so fortunate. You can say "Poor Criminal." I say: "Poor us."p.s. - Angelina Jolie Voight looks quite nice!


It was life-changing, IT REALLY WAS!!!The Man In The Moon is a breathtaking experience to watch.The acting was fabulous, the story line was great, and this was a perfect start for Reese Witherspoon's career.I don't see how anyone couldn't love this film.Sure, it's not the best movie ever, even though it was close to it, but it was highly amusing to watch, and I even had a big laugh at one of the jokes, and a lot of other little laughs.Of course, there was some cry your heart out moments too, but this movie was enlightening, and it brightens up your day, although you have to get a little depressed from the story every now and then.I can't believe this movie didn't win at least one award, and I also can't believe that it's been seen by so little people on this site.See this movie if you haven't for it is definitely touching.


This is good little shocker; not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but tight, competent and disturbing. An excellent example of a simple idea developed into a compelling 90 minute script.The set up requires no bells and whistles, no lengthy exposition or wordy back story; Kate (Franka Pontente), a young German business woman living in London, drifts off whilst waiting for the last tube train. She awakens to find the place deserted, but quickly comes to realise that she is far from alone. Someone, or something, is down there with her and it's intentions are wholly malicious.In fact she encounters several other characters in her quest to survive, including a lecherous work colleague, a homeless couple and a caged sewage worker, all of whom add pace and substance to the plot. There is a slightly awkward gear change somewhere in the middle of the film when tension thriller mutates into gore fest, but nothing so clumsy as to slow the hectic pace. For those of you with weak dispositions this is likely to be a harrowing ride; for those of you who relish a bit of well executed carnal mayhem this should press all the right buttons.The climax of the film is perhaps less successful than the main body of the film, but it is punctuated with a nice moment of unexpected social commentary which provides a satisfying conclusion.Some may find themselves feeling somewhat cheated of a clear explanation as to the exact nature and history of the threat encountered by Kate and her confederates, however, for me this was not the case. A horror film writer should not need feel compelled to dot every i and cross every t, in the same way a writer of political thrillers might be expected to. There are enough clues here to give you a very pretty clear idea of what brought this evil into existence, making a detailed and conclusive solution superfluous. The retention of a certain sense of mystery is to be welcomed and reminds us that in this film the ride was always going to be more important than the exact destination.My understanding is that the budget for this film was, to say the least, minimal, in which case our applause for this British horror should be all the louder, for at no point does one have the impression of corners being cut or effects failing to deliver.If this sounds like your kind of film then it probably is. Buy a ticket and climb aboard.


Rarely has such an amazing cast been wasted so badly. Griffin Dunne, Rosanna Arquette, Illeana Douglas, Ethan Hawke, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, and John Turturro, all jumped on board, only to be torpedoed by a script that seems like nothing more than a Hollywood in joke. Attaching Martin Scorsese's name to this was probably the draw, but the end result is way less than the sum of it's parts. Resembling a nightmare gone horribly wrong, each scene seems more contrived than the next. "Search and Destroy" is nothing more than abstract, stylish, self indulgent nonsense, and the entire film is decidedly dull.......... MERK


Not being familiar with US television stations, when I flicked onto this on my in-laws' cable, first I thought it was just a low-budget sci-fi film, then after a couple of minutes I started thinking it might be a clever satire on the worst excesses of Christian fundamentalist, and then it dawned on me - good grief, these people are serious! It's been a while since I saw anything so unintentionally hilarious. I hesitated about writing a review of this for fear of offending believers, but then I saw other reviews and thought, hey, they can take it. Tough philosophical conundrum: how do you make a movie criticizing movies without actually showing what it is you're criticizing? Answer: make it in such a way that the only people who'll appreciate it are people who hate the kind of movies you're criticizing. I suppose some liberals (ugh! spit when you say that!) might be offended at the filmmakers' contempt for those in the audience who aren't obsessed with the J**** C***** myth, but I didn't mind - it was so darn funny!


Canadian filmmaker Mary Harron is a cultural gadfly whose previous films laid bare some the artistic excess of the Sixties and the hollow avaricious Eighties. With "The Notorious Bettie Page" she points her unswerving eye at Fifties America, an era cloaked in the moral righteousness of Joe McCarthy, while experiencing the beginnings of a sexual awakening that would result in the free love of the next decade. Harron and her co-writer Guinevere Turner, are clearly not interested in the standard biopic of a sex symbol. This is a film about the underground icon of an era and how her pure unashamed sexuality revealed both the predatory instincts and impure thoughts of a culture untouched by the beauty of a nude body. If the details of Bettie's life were all the film was concerned about, then why end it before her most tragic period was about to begin. Clearly, Harron is more interested in America's attitudes towards sexual imagery then and now. Together with a fearless lead performance by Gretchen Mol and the stunningly atmospheric cinematography of W.Mott Hupfel III, she accomplishes this goal admirably, holding up a mirror to the past while making the audience examine their own "enlightened" 21st Century attitudes towards so-called pornography. As America suffocates under a new conservatism, this is a film needed more than ever.


CB4 was awful, but it may have given Cundieff the idea to it better. More like Spinal Tap than anything else, the film is clever from the start. Surprising anyone who saw it back in the mid nineties. The performances are played for laughs but not so much so that they are cartoon characters, more like Marx brothers. These guys are real and slightly diverse. They react to situations like any of us might. Well, we may not throw a tantrum when our performance hats are late to the gig, or pull guns and beat down a record company exec, but you get the picture. N(n***as) W(with) H(hats) takes itself seriously enough to reel you in, then you're hooked. rent or get this at all costs, even if you're not really into rap music, this will still leave you gassing out loud. Comparing this to CB4 is like comparing George Lucas' Star Wars to Gil Gerards'Buck Rogers' I think you see my point


Is this your typical women in chains navy transport love story? Maybe, hell, you know how the formula works by now, pretty woman is introduced in to a picture, someone has to fall in love with her.I think this film does follow some typical story lines, but that doesn't say anything about the content. There are great scenes with Crispen Glover, Dennis Hopper, and Gary Busey, although short. Some things didn't make sense, such as the need to get in to random fights, but it is entertaining to watch, the fights were actually well done.This is definitely a comedy foremost, but it does have a lot of good feel to it. The humor is well balanced, you won't hurt your stomach on this, but you will keep a smile.There is a little bit of steamy action, so not one for the kids.


I took this out arbitrarily from the library the other night, having no idea of the film's cult, influence, or that it is currently being staged as a musical.(!) Most of the comments here are on target, it's moving, funny, sad, and yes, a tad exploitive despite the best intentions of the filmmakers. The expanded Chriterion edition is a must for anyone who loved it when it came out. I think you can also see in little Edie the fall of a class that sort of disappeared, you can hear it in old films of Jackie O too; people just don't talk like that anymore. I think as a documentary, it would have been interesting to get more information about how the home fell into disrepute, Old Edie at least still seems aware of what's going on to a certain degree; couldn't She see the once spectacular home disintegrating? Yet the film's subject is the life the two women have constructed for themselves now, a real life Tennesse Williams one act. Well worth your time.


This movie could have been a decent B-movie if 3/4 of the the movie wasn't so much focusing on the sex scenes. I mean, he's a sex addict, and I'm sure that there's a lot more that goes on with sex addicts outside of having sex on a constant basis. Michael Des Barres did a good job considering what all he had to do, which wasn't much. At one point or another, one would have to laugh at him, because his character was so pitiful. Nastassja Kinski was alright in her role as the concerned sex therapist, she could've of done more though and I'm not suggesting her having sex. The person that stood out the most to me in this movie was Rosanna Arquette in her convincing role as the loving and concerned wife. There's something about beautiful inside and out that strongly appeals to me. She played that role and as you watched the movie, you start to feel bad for her."Diary Of A Sex Addict" while not Oscar material or a modern classic to anyone's standards, is quite informative and does a fair job in showing you how one's personal demons can take over and ruin the very things in life you think highly of.


This movie is an extremely funny and heartwarming story about an orphanage that is in financial trouble. When the director goes on vacation, his dad agrees to step in temporarily to run things.This is positively the best work that Leslie Nielson has ever done. His idea in the film to rent out children is immediately innovative, and his sales techniques will definitely make you laugh.The little girl in this movie is so sweet and charming that I know I will never forget her. Just make sure that you don't miss the first five minutes of the movie! Such great family entertainment is so rare these days. If you go for slightly corny pictures with happy endings,go for this one! I could watch this over and over, and I often do! My only complaint about this movie is that it is so difficult to find a copy.


First, let me say that Notorious is an absolutely charming film, very lovingly rendered of its time and subject(s). Gretchen Mol is utterly, painfully convincing, the very soul of the contradictions smoothly reified by Ms. Page herself. Irving and Paula Klaw are richly drawn as the working-class stiffs they were (having met Paula at Movie Star News in 1990 I can say that Lili Taylor's performance is unimpeachable), and Jared Harris as John Willie (Coutts) is an adoringly debauched genius. Anyone with an interest in the recorded history of American attitudes toward sexuality must see this movie, in a theater preferably, where votes made with dollars count more.Second, I will allow that I am a producer of material similar to that for which the Klaws would become famous, which is no way affects my estimation of Ms. Harron's work as the splendid piece that it is, but does condition my view of Notorious as an act of political resistance of the first order. Ms. Harron has crafted a work of subtle subversion. Along with V for Vendetta, it is a movie about another time for our times.Few readers of this site will be aware that the government they will see enacted in Notorious (through transcription of the very words uttered in closed Senate committee hearings) is a very close approximation of the one they live under right now. While Ms. Harron expressly disallows that she has a political agenda appended to this film, her faithfulness to the facts, and the respectful and unsensational way in which she renders them, synchronizes Notorious with the present day. The very acts that Notorious portrays in loving and accurate detail are defined as obscene by the Communications Decency Act, recently brought to the Supreme Court as a First Amendment case and turned back there at the behest of the Bush administration. In other words, the delicate and ineffectual bondage depicted in Notorious is indictable today by Federal prosecutors in whatever (hostile) jurisdiction they choose. Of course, there were no hearings in the Senate or elsewhere on this matter when the CDA was passed. Of course you know nothing about it, because you don't want people in Peoria telling you what you can and cannot look at (likewise, people in Peoria probably don't want me telling them what they're allowed to view). Of course Notorious will never be indicted. It's Hollywood. It's lawyered up. Countless Klaws will, however, continue to be steamrolled by a puritanical bureaucracy that has not advanced its aesthetic, moral or biological composition much in 50+ years.In addition, Notorious posts no 18 USC 2257 compliance statement, which is mandated by the unnoticed "earmark" recently voted into law. If any media contains images of "sadomasochistic restraint" it is required to make available (ex warrant) records of age and circumstance of all performers. Notorious fails in this regard also.In addition to being a splendid piece of entertainment and an (nearly) accurate historical document, Notorious will be the litmus against which the Bush Justice Department is itself judged with respect to the 14th (Equal Protection) Amendment and on perhaps several other Constitutional grounds. In this regard alone, a debt of gratitude is owed Mary Harron. You'll be grateful in any case, Constitutional or otherwise, if you see this film.


Zombie Nation 2004 RHey, I was bored. I looked in my Comcastic little box to find a movie to watch. Zombie Nation? Hey, I love zombie movies. Says the filmmaker has some sort of cult following in the description. Funny how it doesn't warn me not to watch this film. I could've used that advice.Zombie Nation is just like Troll 2 in that it's completely misnamed. It has little (if anything, depending on your point of view) to do with zombies, and takes place all within one city. This film revolves around a crooked cop, who acts as badly as possible (he has to be trying to suck this much), while he arrests women for trivial bullshit and then kills them. Yup, he's a serial killer cop. Not only is this film flawed in thinking that it's a zombie flick, it also gets its serial killer facts completely wrong. Serial killers enjoy killing, they live for it and they get down and personal with it. This guy knocks out the women, and injects them with some poison. He doesn't even have sex with the corpse or dismember it. Talk about boring! Eventually, one of the whopping five women he kills has Voodoo protection done to her and for no apparent reason, all five come back to life and head off to kill this guy. They were all buried or tossed into the ocean, but you wouldn't know it buy the sharp clean clothes they're all wearing. The women then act very poorly and take their revenge. Oh yay.This film was crap in every category. Crap acting, crap writing, crappier sets, and crappier make-up effects. The women don't look zombie-like, unless you count really dark make-up around the eyes to be the de facto definition of what makes a zombie. They can all talk, behave, think, and act perfectly human. The gore is weak compared to even many PG-13 films and the nudity is beyond brief. You see glimpse of breasts in the opening sequence... Then the exact same breasts later! Go figure. Guess only one actress was willing to go topless for this trite. The police station is so badly constructed that you can see where they stopped painting the walls of the warehouse they're obviously filming in. You can see the pipes and the bad lighting and the overly sparse set-up and even, unless you are blind, you can see the director failing. Steer clear, it's a waste of time.1/10


***spoilers***spoilers***spoilers***spoilersThere are bad movies and then there are movies which are so awful that they become affectionately comical in their ineptness. Such is the case with Columbia Pictures' 'The Grudge.' This cinematic atrocity began when an otherwise well intentioned American saw a Japanese made for TV film 'Ju-on' and was inspired to remake the movie in English. This began a virtual tsunami of bad decisions which circumnavigated the globe until it washed ashore in Orlando on October 21, 2004.The premise, and I use the word loosely, involves a house in Tokyo haunted by a skinny Momma ghost who looks like a cross between Margaret Cho and Alanis Morrisette, along with her ghastly sidekick a chubby, rambunctious but evil second grader. Is there anything scarier than a creepy 8 year old Japanese boy? Sure there is! Count Chocula comes to mind. With this whimsical bunch we must add a mysterious black cat who I have affectionately named Chim Chim. (Remember Speed Racer?) As you have already guessed, they were murdered in this domicile of doom and now desire to kill everyone who enters the premises. You see, as explained by a Japanese detective, when someone dies in a rage their ghost seeks revenge on everyone who steps on the property lines as defined by the county commissioner or something like that, I forget. The story begins innocently enough with acclaimed thespian Bill Pullman leaping to his death from a balcony. My guess is Bill Pullman got this job because of his kids begged him for a trip to Tokyo Disneyland. Next we endure the mildly interesting saga of Nurse Yoko, 'oh no don't go in there' screams the audience, but alas she heeds not the dire warnings and is predictably snuffed out like a magic lantern. About 30 minutes into the movie we finally see its American heroine Sarah Michelle Gellar as Karen. Sarah Michelle Gellar might be a competent actress but I could not help thinking of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so much so that it was distracting. It is the equivalent to having Jennifer Anniston star in a movie about the adventures of six friends in New York. Try as you may, you just can't stop thinking about the other project which made her famous. But I digress, Karen, the nurse is hired as a replacement for the original care giver who disappeared at spooks r us. She snoops around, meets the ghosts, coma lady dies, and some other stuff happens. Watching the fair haired vixen searching for clues I half expected her to find the ghost and pull its mask off to reveal it was actually old man Gower who owned the abandoned amusement park! 'I would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids and that dog of yours!' Director Takashi Shimizu, who is vying to be the Ed Wood of Asia, made two unfortunate decisions involving sound. First, he choose to use a soundtrack only when someone is about to be killed. This is an excellent devise for obliterating any suspense because the audience gets a two minute warning to prepare for another miserably predictable murder. Second, he gave the ghosts a bizarre guttural noise that sounds like a gargling gopher. After the movie, I heard several people exiting the theatre making the sound and laughing.Sarah Michelle Gellar ends up being the sole survivor. And of course we learn that the fire she set to burn down the house was extinguished in time for the obligatory next chapter. However, considering the humorous reactions of the audience, they did not want a sequel but an apology. 'The Grudge' could be easily re-edited into a comedy, perhaps then it will be appreciated for its camp value. Baring that, this will go down as the greatest cinematic thriller since 'Godzilla vs. Megalon.' I would suggest waiting until the movie comes to your local discount theatre where it can receive the public ridicule it so richly deserves.


Gender Bender sexes things up a bit for the x-files. This episode has an interesting premise, a good story, but an ending that is wanting. Gender Bender is also the x-files debut for actor Nicholas Lea, better known as Alex Krycek. In this episode he plays Michael, a man attacked by one of "The Kindred". You need to see this episode just to see Nic Lea's less than spectacular beginning. An interesting thing about the Kindred's "power of seduction". When Marty does it to his victims, they become turned onto him/her. However, when Andrew seduces Scully, she only because disoriented and groggy, and does not become attracted to Andrew. Maybe it's because Marty has more experience at it than Andrew. This episode reminds me of why it would sometimes be miserable to film up in British Columbia. Throughout the episode it is so wet, soggy, and muddy, it could not have been that much fun. Despite the disappointing ending, Gender Bender is still a decent episode to view.


To anyone who hasn't seen this film yet, I have a friendly warning: don't watch "La Casa dell'Orco" expecting any demons at all, because you won't find them here. This film is not a third installment to the "Demons" series and it has nothing to do with it whatsoever, except the fact that Lamberto Bava directed them. As a matter of fact, Michele Soavi's "The Church" is also known an unofficial "Demons 3" and it's a deceptive title in that case as well, so go figure. It is obvious that due to the "Demons" films success; they tried to deceive the audience with misleading titles, even though it is obvious that this is a disconnected story. Having said that, I think it's unfair on the other hand, to say that "La Casa dell'Orco" is not worth the look. Honestly, the movie is quite atmospheric and even though there are a few unintentionally hilarious situations, I thought it was genuinely creepy on the whole. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the story somehow tries to emulate Lucio Fulci's "The House by the Cemetery". Of course, that's just a speculation I have, but I think I have my valid evidences. For instance, in both films, Paolo Marco is the man of the family, in both films, there's an irritating little son named Bobby, in both films, the woman of the house is a beautiful thirty-something, who seems to be the only one to see that there's something really wrong in the new house, and in both films, there's something really, really wrong going on in the basement. I'm sorry but I can relate both films very easily and I'm not saying that as an accusation. For the contrary, my point is that those who enjoyed "The House by the Cemetery" are probably going to enjoy this movie as well, keeping in mind of course, that "La Casa dell'Orco" is far less pretentious, less scary, not nearly as atmospheric, but the formula is still there.In "La Casa dell'Orco", Charel, her husband Tom and their little son, Bobby, go on a vacation trip to an old deserted castle, situated in the heart of an Italian villa called Trifiri. Leaving aside the beauty of the place, shortly after their arrival, Charel starts to have the feeling that she has been there before, which is impossible, considering that she had never been to Trifiri before. Sadly, Charel can't get over her déjà vu and the worst part is that her visions, come along with the image of a horrendous creature going after her. Tom, who is not a very patient guy to begin with, advices her to leave the nonsensical hallucinations aside and enjoy the vacation. However, the woman's visions become more and more real and the peace and quiet that they were supposed to enjoy, suddenly turn into a living nightmare. The old nightmare from Charel's childhood becomes real and this time, she won't be able to escape without confronting that menacing ogre first.As it is expected, the plot somehow turns out to be a little bit simplistic and as a consequence, it is hard to fill an hour and a half. This means that "La Casa dell'Orco" offers more than a couple of sequences with nothing but total silence and the image of the main character, walking around the castle for several minutes, reviving the images of her childhood and nothing else. It gets rather tedious from time to time, but overall, it's nothing serious. Like many Italian horror films that came out throughout the late eighties, this movie is pretty stylish and effective, but it also offers a nice variety of unintentionally funny moments, that make the movie unforgettable in a way. For instance, the part in which Charel is brutally slapped by her husband and instead of going to her bedroom crying like I would have expected, she strikes back against him by punching him on the face really hard and running away to the woods like a maniac. The funniest thing however, is the fact that two minutes later, they're a happy couple again, as if punching each other like that, was the most natural thing in the world. I know it's silly, but I myself, found it absolutely hilarious. The ogre (which is obviously the villain of the story) looks creepy and funny at the same time too and let's face it: a villain who can freak us out and make us laugh a little bit, it's twice as welcomed. It reminded me of Michael Jackson in "Thriller", but much more natural and human, of course. But if focusing on the genuinely good aspects that I mentioned before: the music composed by Simon Boswell is one of the high points and even if it pretty much always the same, it fits perfectly and it helps to create a rather dark atmosphere during the moments of tension. So if I have to give my final statement regarding this movie, I'm going to have to say that I can't help loving it, including the small flaws and most people who enjoy these typical Italian horror movies from the late eighties, won't be disappointed by this one. It has all the typical and always well received clichés, like the crazy old man who actually speaks the truth, the foxy local woman who is said to be a witch, a creepy castle, a huge dark basement with a terrible secret and the local folks who try to prevent the tourist with their hostility, to stay away from the infamous lands. I would say that "La Casa dell'Orco" deserves two thumbs up and a punch at your spouse's face, as a way to pay tribute to the heroine of the story. Take this movie for what it is and enjoy it.


...that the Bette Davis version of this film was better than the Kim Novak version.Despite all of the other comments written here, I really prefer the Bette Davis version, even though the Novak version has a more coherent story line.However: Davis' Mildred's raw emotions seem to me to be more apt to a sluttish girl who seems easily to become a prostitute.And it is those raw emotions that constitute *part* of what the poor doctor falls in love with. He has emotions of despair, of failure, of "otherness" - strong emotions that he represses. Davis' Mildred, on the other hand, displays her emotions immediately and without censure. She has no feelings of despair, or of failure, or of "otherness"; rather, she is merely surviving as a poor Cockney woman in the Victorian era.Novak's portrayal was a more vulnerable Mildred than was Davis', almost through the the whole movie. Davis' Mildred was **never** vulnerable until she actually had to go to the doctor and beg for assistance. And when he reviles her - for her method of keeping body and soul together, and for continually taking advantage of his love for her - she unleashes arguably the most passionate repudiation of snobbish holier than thou attitude ever seen on screen: "I wiped my mouth! I WIPED MY MOUTH!!" Novak's vulnerability was excellent. Davis' realism was monumental.IMDb votes concur!


With the releasing of "Farligt förflutet" Swedish film industry has truly hit rock bottom. Stefan (Jens Hultén) has for the past years lived a calm life with his wife Marie (Regina Lund). One day an old friend of Stefan´s arrives with a favor to ask him. Stefan is to do a small courier job. He is supposed to bring a suitcase filled with heroine through the Sweden-Germany customs. Unfortunately things in Germany don´t work out as planned and Stefan is now in big trouble. It is always nice to see a Swedish film that breaks the traditional family-drama pattern. Unfortunately if the people involved in the production have no clue of how a movie is supposed to be written, filmed or cut the result can only be catastrophic. The content can be concluded with: bad acting, an incoherent plot and idiotic dialogs. The only highlight in the movie is the unprovoked sex-scene wit the incredibly beautiful Regina Lund. This lasts for only a few seconds leaving approxamitly 90 minutes of pure, let´s say what it truly is, crap.


Chilling, majestic piece of cinematic fright, this film combines all the great elements of an intellectual thriller, with the grand vision of a director who has the instinctual capacity to pace a moody horror flick within the realm of his filmmaking genius that includes an eye for the original shot, an ice-cold soundtrack and an overall sense of dehumanization. This movie cuts through all the typical horror movies like a red-poker through a human eye, as it allows the viewer to not only feel the violence and psychosis of its protagonist, but appreciate the seed from which the derangement stems. One of the scariest things for people to face is the unknown and this film presents its plotting with just that thought in mind. The setting is perfect, in a desolate winter hideaway. The quietness of the moment is a character in itself, as the fermenting aggressor in Jack Torrance's mind wallows in this idle time, and breeds the devil's new playground. I always felt like the presence of evil was dormant in all of our minds, with only the circumstances of the moment, and the reasons given therein, needed to wake its violent ass and pounce over its unsuspecting victims. This film is a perfect example of this very thought.And it is within this film's subtle touches of the canvas, the clackity-clacks of the young boy's big wheel riding along the empty hallways of the hotel, the labyrinthian garden representing the mind's fine line between sane and insane, Kubrick's purposely transfixed editing inconsistencies, continuity errors and set mis-arrangements, that we discover a world guided by the righteous and tangible, but coaxed away by the powerful and unknown. I have never read the book upon which the film is based, but without that as a comparison point, I am proud to say that this is one of the most terrifying films that I have ever seen. I thought that the runtime of the film could've been cut by a little bit, but then again, I am not one of the most acclaimed directors in the history of film, so maybe I should keep my two-cent criticisms over a superb film, to myself. All in all, this movie captures your attention with its grand form and vision, ropes you in with some terror and eccentric direction, and ties you down and stabs you in the heart with its cold-eyed view of the man's mind gone overboard, creepy atmosphere and the loss of humanity.Rating: 9/10


Claire Denis' debut is both a brave and self-assured one. In this depiction of life towards the end of French colonialist Cameroon, she explores the relationships between men and women, black and white.With the black servant 'Protée' as the film's primary object of desire and oppression, the film enters taboo territory from the beginning. Denis builds a picture of life through a series of character relationships that keep the informed viewer fixed to the screen. The mood of the film is captured perfectly by the camera-work and (lack of) lighting.A great discourse.


THE TEMP (1993) didn't do much theatrical business, but here's the direct-to-video rip-off you didn't want, anyway! Ellen Bradford (Mel Harris) is the new woman at Millennium Investments, a high scale brokerage firm, who starts getting helpful hints from wide-eyed secretary Deidre (Sheila Kelley). Deidre turns out to be an ambitious daddy's girl who will stop at nothing to move up the corporate ladder, including screwing a top broker she can't stand and murdering anyone who gets on her bad side. She digs up skeletons in Ellen's closet, tries to cause problems with her husband (Barry Bostwick), kills while making it look like she is responsible, kidnaps her daughter and tries to get her to embezzle money from the company.Harris and Kelley deliver competent performances, the supporting cast is alright and it's reasonably well put-together, but that doesn't fully compensate for a script that travels down a well-worn path and offers few surprises.


In the autobiographical coming-of-age tale "Romulus, My Father," Eric Bana, of "Munich" fame, plays an impoverished German émigré struggling to raise his son, Raymond (Kodi Smit-McPhee), in rural 1960's Australia. The major obstacle to the family's stability and happiness is his wife, Christina (Franka Potente), who flagrantly violates her wedding vows by shamelessly shacking up with other men. Despite her highly unconventional behavior, Romulus refuses to grant her a divorce, masochistically torturing himself in the vain hope that she will one day return to him. It is, unfortunately, the good-hearted and good-natured Raimond who must bear witness to all this marital turmoil - and it is his memoir that serves as the basis for the movie (Raimond Gaita would later grow up to be an author).Even though I admire "Romulus, My Father" for what it is trying to do, I can't honestly say I enjoyed it, for while the film has some fine performances and serious intentions going for it, these simply aren't enough to counteract the dour storyline and funereal pacing, which leave the audience as despairing and depressed as the people on screen. A serious slice-of-life drama is one thing, but this unremittingly downbeat wallow in adultery, insanity and multiple suicides (let alone attempted suicides) is something else again.


German filmmaker Ulli Lommel has managed a task many horror fans thought was impossible: he's unseated fellow Teuton Uwe Boll for the crown of director of the worst horror film ever made.Lommel is truly the Ed Wood of the new millennium. This film is as shoddy and laughable as the best-worst of EW. I am both proud and embarrassed to say that I watched it in toto, morbidly fascinated to see just low the bar could be set. The answer is: subterranean; Lommel dug a pit and buried it.The fun begins with the cast of international nobodies. Only someone who has lived in Los Angeles, where every auto mechanic, doctor and mailman is an actor or screenwriter waiting to be discovered, could easily understand how Lommel managed to find so many wannabe actors willing to spew his ridiculous dialog with a straight face.The main character, a villainous beat cop, is played by a German actor with a thick German accent. Aside from being a serial killer, he is also the oldest beat cop in LA. Despite the fact that he stops innocent women drivers and takes them into custody, then drags them into his home (which inexplicably is the top floor of a furniture warehouse), and does all this in plain sight of his rookie partners, the LAPD refuses to investigate, going so far as to physically attack one of his accusers in a ninja style raid on his apartment.The sets are excruciatingly bad. The production designer's budget apparently included just enough money for a can of paint; enough to paint "Precinct 707" on a cardboard wall.Since the actors were obviously unpaid non-professionals--a sad assortment of European emigres (possibly deportees if they acted in their native lands), bimbos, mimbos, and desperate middle-aged women--and since little if any money was spent on sets, special efx, locations or other production value, it is only fair to mention that they did spring for a few genuine-looking police uniforms. Sadly, they couldn't afford a police car; the uniformed cops cruise the streets in a shiny new Mercury rental.More than half of the story focuses on the dirty deeds of our deranged German LAPD officer and the futile efforts of two young rookies to stop him. One of these young actors is especially pitiable because he's the only actor in this whole mess with even a vague shot at a real career in the movies. The other fits right in, with a rockabilly hairdo and tortured Brando posing that needs to be seen to be appreciated.The latter part of the film is where the title gets its zombie, as the victims of our killer are resurrected after he murders a girl who had just visited some voodoo priestesses to have a protective spell put on her. Don't ask why a girl from Romania would resort to voodooism in anticipation of being murdered, just accept Lommel's logic and enjoy the absurd ride.After much prolonged hand-clawing out of straw-covered roadside graves, the zombie girls manage to make their appearance. They look exactly as they did before death, maybe even prettier, with black glamor make-up generously airbrushed around their eyes. Looking nothing like zombies, they look more like high fashion models ready for the runway.At this point in the movie Lommel borrows a creative note from his lauded countryman Boll, and injects large doses of cheesy Euro-trash techno into the soundtrack. We're talking prehistoric electronic bumblebee noise. Stuff they might have played in an Ibiza disco when Lommel was still young enough to shake his booty.Unlike other zombies, Lommel's girls speak and function as normal... er, I mean, as they did before becoming zombified. This gives our auteur ample opportunities to shower us with more of his golden dialog. Yes, a golden shower it is.I won't spoil anything by revealing the shock ending. All I can say is it's perfectly in tune with the rest of this masterpiece. The spirit of Ed Wood lives on... or should I say his geist.


I've just finished listening to the director's commentary for this film, and I think the one big thing I got from it that I agree with is that this film, like Mann's The Insider, is completely subjective. It's from Howard's POV. So, any review or attempt at contemplating a set of comments about it, as Ebert did, is really about Nolte's character actually. If you feel, as he did, that the film "does not work", then you're saying, I think, that Howard does not work. And, to be frank, you might be right. Howard's reasoning and personality really wouldn't stand up to professional mental treatments and analysis.But, hey, that's the nature of people.Andrew.


Perspective is a good thing. Since the release of "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace", claims and counter-claims of just how Episode's II and III will eventuate has taken the spotlight off the 'original' Star Wars films, making them part of a cohesive whole, rather than segregating the older and new films into separate trilogies. What the new films have done is allow fresh perspectives to be placed on the older films. This new outlook allows us to greater appreciate what has often been viewed as the weakest of the original trilogy: "Return of the Jedi". Often derided for its overly 'cute' factor, ROTJ is in a sense as strong as the original and only slightly less impressive than the nearly perfect "The Empire Strikes Back". Indeed the 'cute' element of ROTJ, namely the Ewoks, remains a weak link in the entire series. Did George Lucas place the furry midgets in the film purely for the merchandising possibilities? Only he can answer that question.This cute factor aside, the film is a brilliant full circle AND evolution of the saga. Following on from the conclusion of "The Empire Strikes Back", Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) follows his Rebel Alliance friends to Tatooine, his home planet, to rescue Han Solo (Harrison Ford), the space pirate turned Rebel hero who was captured by Jabba the Hutt for overdue debts.Skywalker is a changed man since leaving Tatooine with Ben 'Obi Wan' Kenobi (Alec Guiness) to fight the evil Empire. Now swathed all in black, Luke's discovery of his origins have left him confused and torn. His psychological make up is not as strong as his outward appearance would suggest. While he might aim to always assist his Rebel friends, he yearns for another chance to confront the evil Darth Vader again, despite his unassuredness as to whether he will destroy him or eventually turn to the Dark Side and join Vader at the Emperor's side.Early scenes in Tatooine are impressive, from Jabba's lair, to his floating palace and the 'almighty Sarlac' - an intenstine that lives in the sand. Lucas' CGI enhancements to the film in 1997 actually worsened the overall effect of the Sarlac, making it look fake and overdone.The battle scene on Tatooine is outstanding, and is one of the more memorable of the saga. Luke almost singlehandedly anihiliates Jabba and his cronies, proving his prowess as a Jedi is now almost complete.When Luke returns to the Degobah system to visit the ailing Yoda one more time, the viewer is let down by Yoda's distinct lack of screentime. Undoubtably the star of "The Empire Strikes Back", Yoda is all but erased from the story as the progression of Luke's destiny is played out on screen.ROTJ really is Luke's film, perhaps even more so than the original. His journey carries the movie as he moves closer to his confrontation with Darth Vader and his fate. The other Rebel characters certainly work in his shadow. The romance between Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Solo is all but non-existant, unlike in "Empire". In fact only Leia's character is developed in ROTJ, Solo's character seems to fade as the facets of his personality have become too familiar in the first two films.Their roles are consigned to working alongside the Rebels to destroy an all new Death Star that nears completion. This time the Emperor himself is overseeing the final stages of construction. The Empire intends to crush the Rebellion once and for all, while the Emperor himself schemes to bring the now powerful Skywalker to his side to work alongside (or is that replace?) Darth Vader. The Emperor is a different kind of evil for this film, less cunning than Governor Tarkin (Peter Cushing) from "Star Wars", more deeply psychologically dark than anything else. Played brilliantly by Ian McDiarmid, the Emperor is just one of those characters you love to hate.All the other actors are well entrenched in their roles. Hamill surprises as the more wisened Luke, making his character's progression from whiny teenager, impatient student to enlightened warrior one of the few real character developments of the series. Ford's role is waring thin, as all his charm and charisma was spent in the first two films -- he was the REAL star of the first film after all. Fisher's Leia is more of a prop, at least unti the end of the film where she learns things about herself that she was never sure about... Add in favourites like Alec Guiness as Kenobi, Yoda and the loveable Chewbacca, C-3PO and R2D2 and the series resembles a family more than a cast.Despite the film's corny forest battle involving the Ewoks and the Empire, it ends well and includes a three way battle sequence: on Endor, in space and on the Death Star, each with very impressive special effects. The music, as always, is brilliant and captures the mood perfectly in every instance. Just as the 'Blue Danube' worked perfectly for "2001: A Space Odyssey", John Williams' score is as much a part of "Star Wars" folklore as light sabers and the Force.Lucas left the ending open to interpretation, meaning there could have been more episodes made. Indeed sci-fi fans have created their own versions of Episodes VII, VIII and IX in their heads over and over again. ROTJ works when given a chance, and furry cute animals aside is a good finish to the series.When all six episodes get to be viewed together, this saga could well be the best ever made. Is it already? The addition of Episode I changed the landscape of the series. This is why "Return of the Jedi" can now be viewed in a different light and be given a whole new appreciation nearly 20 years after its release.


This movie is of almost generation-defining importance to some of us born in the early post-war years in that (and especially if you were born between 1946 and 1953 and loved spending Saturday afternoons at your neighborhood movie house) you almost certainly saw it. And the memory of seeing it has probably stayed with you. It's style is the stuff of a brief and somehow gloriously exciting moment in our growing up days. It had a modern, space-age storyboard for the audiences of it's time. The set was any town with a supermarket and a movie theater that would be packed for a Friday midnight show. It has hot rods and rebellious youth, but in the 'why can't they let us have fun' way rather than the disturbed, histrionic rebel-without-a-cause way. All characters were identifiable to us - teens, parents, the old man, the doctor, the nurse, the mechanic, the boy, the puppy, even the cops - were sympathetic to us. We could relate to them allIt had a singularly horrifying monster. It's first victim is heard moaning 'it hurts.....it hurts' and we were convinced and frightened. The menace grows continually throughout the story. There are intense periods of suspense, colourful effects, a fabulous lead in McQueen, and moments of humour, both intended and not. It even had an almost over-the-top sad part to make the more sensitive of us feel like crying.I saw it in summer, age 9 or so, double billed with 'I Married A Monster From Outer Space', and was so thrilled by the experience of this particular double feature that I went back a couple more times before it left. Everyone I knew saw it. Everyone I knew loved it.


For those who think it is strictly potty humor and immaturity, you are in fact the mindless one. While the show does contain its share of potty jokes it also contains a lot of satirical material and pokes fun at social problems, racial barriers, cliché's,stereotypes etc. You just need to read into some of her material a bit more to get it.What I also love is that not everything is a punchline. For those expecting a formulated joke like Friends (I LOVE friends fyi), you won't find it here. Instead Sarah uses situations and other ways to achieve her humour which is more realistic. We don't walk around in this world and have witty punchlines for everything said, which is in most comedies. Instead the Sarah Silverman Program makes it more realistic in this sense. So don't take it as mindless humor because it is so much more than that.


After the opening credits, there's a black screen for about a minute. A minute of nothing, then a girl wakes up and takes a shower.Then her and two college friends are driving to a rock concert, after much padding, they hit something and skid off the road. They awaken in a cabin inhabited by a wheelchair-bound old lady and her offspring.The killings are sadly very tame for a supposed Video Nasty. The twist ending silly and predictable. No one involved in the mess would ever make anything of note again. So there are still happy endings sometimes.Eye Candy: Sara Ansley gets topless, and Laurel Munson has full frontal on display My Grade: D


Oh dear. I was so disappointed that this movie was just a rip-off of Japan's Ringu. Well, I guess the U.S. made their version of it as well, but at least it was an outright remake. So, so sad. I very much enjoy watching Filipino movies and know some great things can come out of such a little country, so I can't believe this had to happen. Claudine and Kris are such big names there, surprised they would be affiliated with plagiarism. To any aspiring movie makers out there in the Philippines: You do not have to stoop this low to make money. There are many movie buffs that are watching the movies Filipinos put out and enjoying them!


Devil Dog sets your heart racing. It's brilliantly paced, the ending comes like a bolt out of the blue and plunges itself into the very centre of your being. You'll never look at your dog the same way again. In fact you'll start thinking of having it put down - BY A PRIEST! FANTASTIC!


"Home Room" like "Zero Day" and "Elephant", was inspired by the recent wave of school shootings. But unlike the other two films, "Home Room" focuses on two survivors (not the shooters or those killed) in the aftermath of a shooting. Making it less exploitive and more useful because little effort is wasted in asking questions for which there are no answers.Don't give up on this little film during the first 20 minutes, it is supposed to set up the real story but plays like a rejected "Hill Street Blues" episode. It is lame but bear with it, at least it pads the running length enough to get the film classified as a feature. I recommend skipping this entirely and just jumping ahead to the hospital scenes-there is nothing here that you can't pick up from the remainder of the film.Like a lot of good little films this was creatively a one-man show as Paul F. Ryan was both the writer and the director. While this arrangement does not guarantee a good film, it is usually a good sign because it will mean a certain unity of construction and execution that is often lacking in big budget dramatic features. Because the script of "Home Room" is its real strength it is fortunate that the writer also executed the production and insured that his vision made it onto the screen.Ryan takes a huge chance with the ending which tests the limits of the average viewer's sentimentality tolerance. He runs it right up to the edge but against all logic leaves you crying instead of cringing. Why the ending works is some combination of the audience need for a reward at the end of this kind of journey, the song (Sarah McLaughlin's "Sweet Surrender") he goes out on, and the amazing editing of the final minute.The other strength of the film is the casting of Busy Phillips (Alicia) and Erika Christensen (Deanna) as the main protagonists. Although Phillips plays her standard alienated surly teen and Christensen her intelligent daughter of a good family, they both bring more intensity to their roles than ever before. The family life of both girls is more than satisfactory and of little interest to Ryan. What is happening here is all about the two of them despite a lame side story about a police detective wondering around town trying to tie Alicia to the lone shooter. If they ever re-cut and trim the film this side story should be condensed.A story about two extremely disparate girls bonding and helping each other is hardly a novel idea and Ryan could have easily steered this film into cliché and predictability. But instead his script has them engaging in a fascinating and convincing sparring match, slowly chipping away at each other and sharing moments of vulnerability, only to retreat back inside themselves. Deanna's "I'm dying inside" line just tears you apart-I can't think of a moment in any other film that I felt as intensely as that one. She desperately needs a connection that Alicia just as desperately resists. Deanna only makes progress when she retreats. The viewer keeps expecting the group hug that never seems to happen.Ultimately this not only generates a lot of suspense but leaves you admiring both characters and the two actresses who brought them to life.Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Depression following almost ruined the American Musical Theater, in fact it was the final death blow to vaudeville. Those behind the curtains were hit as bad as those in front.In an effort to stimulate the show business economy and his own personal economy, out of work theater director James Cagney comes up with a brilliant idea. Stage live relevant prologues to the movies that are being shown at the various movie theaters that are springing up overnight from the old theaters. Some other competitors get wind of it and the competition is on.Footlight Parade is my favorite Busby Berkeley film. It gives James Cagney a chance to display some of his versatility as a dancer as well as a tough guy. In his retirement Cagney said that while he screened his few and far between musicals a lot, he could barely be bothered with some of his straight dramatic films. He wished he'd done a few more musicals in his career and I wish he had.Of course the staging of these Busby Berkeley extravaganzas on the stage of a movie palace defies all logic and reason. But it's so creative and fun to watch. Dick Powell gets to sing three songs in Footlight Parade, Ah the Moon is Here, Honeymoon Hotel, and By a Waterfall, the last two with Ruby Keeler further cementing that screen team. Ruby sings and dances with Powell in the last two and she partners with James Cagney in my favorite number from Footlight Parade, Shanghai Lil. Joan Blondell is Cagney's no nonsense girl Friday at the theater. Like in Blonde Crazy, she's the one with the real brains in that duo and it's her quick thinking that bails him out of some domestic problems he has on top of his theatrical ones. One of Blondell's best screen roles.Look for Dorothy Lamour and Ann Sothern in the chorus as per the IMDb pages for both of them. John Garfield is seen briefly in the Shanghai Lil number. And in a scene at the beginning of the film, producer Guy Kibbee takes Cagney to a movie theater where they are showing a B western starring John Wayne. The Duke's voice is unmistakable. But what's even more unusual is that the brief clip shows him in a scene with Frank McHugh who plays another Cagney assistant in Footlight Parade. I think the brothers Warner were playing a little joke there. I've got to believe that clip was deliberate.Footlight Parade is Busby Berkeley at his surreal best.


My wife, Kate and I absolutely loved the series and can't wait for the next one (hopefully there is a sequel!). I would love to know what the catchy song is called and who wrote it, maybe because I am "old and grey" and still interested in life:-). If anyone has the full lyrics please send them.Of course one big reason why my wife and I liked this series so much was that we are 75 years old and retired but still very active intellectually. It's great to see a show that highlights the contribution to society that can still be made by older people with special skills and experience. The human interest aspect showing the interactions of the characters and the younger people around them is an important part of the show.This series is highly entertaining and very sophisticated, on a par with some of our other favourites, "Spooks" and "Hustle".


Vampires Vs. Zombies starts with the breaking news that the unidentified disease that is spreading across America leaves the sufferer with homicidal & cannibalistic tendencies... Travis Fontaine (C.S. Munro) & his teenage daughter Jenna (Bonny Giroux) listen to the radio as they drive along the isolated backwoods roads to try & escape the disease when Travis runs over a guy who I assume is meant to be a zombie. Slightly further down the road he stops to help Julia (Brinke Stevens) & her teenage daughter Carmilla (Maratama Carlson) who are waving at the side of the road, at this point there is also a third teenage girl named Tessa (Melanie Crystal) sitting in the back of Julia's car bound & gagged. To me this situation would seem strange but Travis, like the trooper he is, takes it all in his stride & agrees to 'take' Carmilla off Julia's hands &, well I don't know actually. So, with a complete stranger, Travis drives off leaving Julia & Tessa. Carmilla seems like a nice girl but she turns out to be a Vampire & she likes to bite people & turn them into Vampires, oh & she's partial to a bit of lesbianism too. Travis, Carmilla & Jenna continue to travel while some guy who calls himself The General (Peter Ruginis) who appears to be some sort of Vampire killer & probably has something to do with it all but the film is such a mess it doesn't really matter & I really don't know how to carry on this plot outline as my head hurts just thinking about it...Co-edited, co-executive produced, written & directed by the supremely untalented Vince D'Amato Vampires Vs. Zombies is one of the worst horror films ever & therefore one of the worst films ever period. The script by D'Amato was apparently based on a classic story entitled 'Carmilla' by Sheridan Le Fanu (he should sue) & is an absolute mess, the holes in the plot & logic are so big you could drive a tank through them! What is the disease that turns people into zombies? Why is Carmilla a Vampire? Who is Julia to her? Who the hell is The General? What does he want? Where are Travis & Jenna going? How can Travis run a man over & yet not have the slightest bit of human emotion over it? What's with the mental ward at the end? There are also some confusing & unnecessary dream sequences just to annoy the viewer even more. There are just so many things wrong with this film, the narrative doesn't make a blind bit of sense, the concept is terrible & never really explained properly plus it's incredibly boring. I have not one positive thing to say about Vampire Vs. Zombies, not one. Forget about any Vampires fighting Zombies because it just doesn't happen, tell me again why is this film called Vampires Vs. Zombies?Director D'Amato has served up one of the most incompetent, rubbishy, badly made, poorly thought out & excruciatingly painful viewing experiences ever made. Vampires Vs. Zombies really has no redeeming qualities at all, there is not one single aspect that I can praise. The gore is really fake looking, there are some blood splats which look like red water, some really cheap staking effects & a half decent climax where the zombies feast on Carmilla's & Jenna's intestines, this fairly gory scene is probably the best part of the whole wretched film but it only lasts for a couple of minutes & in no way makes up for the other turgid 85.The budget on Vampires Vs. Zombies must have been small, in fact did it even have a budget because most of it is set on a road in a couple of cars. This is one of the most badly made horror films it's been my misfortune to watch, the entire thing just sucks. The acting is predictably awful, & I mean awful.There isn't much else left to say, Vampires Vs. Zombies is easily one of the worst films ever made. The (V) next to the title on the IMDb's main page for Vampires Vs. Zoimbies indicates that it went straight to video, well that's far too good for this pile of crap as it deserves to go straight on the nearest fire.


It's funny how your life can change in a second... To attend ''The Waterdance'' for the first time it was an unforgettable experience, the way you need to get used to a new way of life it can seem frightening, and to notice that there are other people going by a similar situation it can help you to go on. Eric Stoltz's performances and mainly of Helen Hunt (oh man!, Helen is the purest and graceful woman in earth...) are wonderful, Wesley Snipes also surprises in one of your last serious roles. A film simple and at the same time deep that doesn't get to leave us indifferent to the message that is transmitted: enjoy each moment of your life...Really to a film as that the any hour is not attended!!! (sorry, it's a Brazilian expression...).


when discussing a movie titled 'snakes on a plane', we should point out early that the snakes are pretty darn important to the plot.what we have here are very bad cgi snakes that neither look nor move like real snakes. snakes are scary because they appear to be slimy, they crawl they slither. these snakes do nothing of the sort. they glide along like they would in a video game. they are cartoon snakes. i would go as far to say that even someone that had a major phobia against real snakes would not find these ones scarywhy on earth then would you want to include extreme close ups of these cgi failures? why not rely on suspense.. the whole 'less is more' ethic. or better still, why not just make them look good in the first place? and then maybe still use them sparinglytake one look at john carpenters 'the thing'. here we have real slime, and gore of eerie proportions. 20 years go by and we get this pile of stinking sfx crap 'snakes on a plane'. when are these people going to wake up and smell the coffee? special effects are going backwards!sure you could say.. but the movie is a joke, get it? sure i'm with that idea, but do it well! in addition to the above, this movie has crap dialogue. and the music and sound effects are not creepy or memorable in any way.i could handle every other actor being part of this movie, except for jackson. what was he doing there? the man who starred in pulp fiction 10 years ago. is this career progression? are you offering people value for money? no. i'd like to know what Tarantino thought when he was half way through this stinker of a moviethe current generation seem to have very low expectations. and Hollywood seems to be offering them just what they want. on leaving the cinema i saw a number of advertisements for some truly horrendous looking future releases including... DOA: dead or alive, (another) cgi animal film called 'flushed away', and another crap looking comedy named 'click'. in addition to that i saw some awful trailers, including one for (another) crap British horror/comedy. i've truly not seen the movie industry in a mess like this for a long timeexpect to see this movie for sale in the DVD bargain section for £1 in 6 months time. and if you're expecting to see a black comedy with tonnes of great looking snakes, and some bad ass cool dialogue coming from samuel l jacksons lips. forget it.


My wife and I just finished watching Bûsu AKA The Booth. She fell asleep during some parts of the movie. I really wish I had taken a snooze with her, but the unfortunate fact is that the main character's voice is so loud and grating that it was impossible for me to sleep. When our protagonist speaks, it makes me want to hear Regis Philbin and William Shatner sing karaoke. He also has no redeeming qualities. I was hoping he'd get hit by a bus five minutes into the film.Don't get me wrong, I love Asian horror cinema, but The Booth is extremely irritating and full of scenes that really make no damned sense at all. If you want some good Asian cinema, check out A Tale of Two Sisters or Into The Mirror. Avoid The Booth like the plague, especially if you suffer from frequent migraines.


.......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot.


Revolt of the Zombies has no redeeming features. I'm tired of people arguing that it's not that bad, and that the effects must have packed more of a punch in 1936. I suspect this isn't true: it's not like IQ's have risen sharply in the last 7 decades. The average viewer in 1936 was probably just as bored by this rubbish as the average viewer today. Why? Just try watching the first scenes, and count the pauses between things happening, the awful choice of when to cut to close-up, the slapdash editing that seems to include an extra two seconds on every shot to pad out the running time. Pay attention to the utterly redundant dialogue: "I'm going to make some tea/go outside/read my book now." "Are you?" "Yes, I am." That sort of exchange happens several times. Normally I would love that, being a HUGE fan of bad movies, but watch the listless actors mumbling their trite and tedious lines, and all desire to laugh at the movie slowly fades away. This sort of disinterested, pot-boiling time-waster is far worse than energetic, imaginative mind-blowers like Plan Nine From Outer Space or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. Those who claim that this is "better" than those more interesting movies have a backwards idea of entertainment. This movie is not bad in the sense that your jaw hangs open in astonishment: it's bad in the sense that your eyes slowly close in boredom. Which is far worse.


Gods, I haven't watched a movie this awful in a long while. Maybe not since 'The New Guy' or various Freddie Prinze Jr. movies. Yes, it is that astoundingly awful. Mira Sorvino's blank and wooden acting surely must've been inspired by Freddie. The movie staging was awkward (like a play, rather, and that feeling of confinement does NOT work well on film). The actors had no idea what they were doing, especially Sorvino. Her accent was awful and her sex appeal non-existent here so it was painful to see her 'seducing' other characters and they 'falling' for it. And what was with the occaisional shots of a live audience in lawn chairs? Nonsensical! I had to turn the dvd player off, it would have been self-inflicted pain to finish this film.


Spirit is a unique and original look at western life from the point of view of a wild horse, and native Americans. The film focuses on the friendships and perils that a wild horse, Spirit, encounters during his life.Very well done in the presentation, using the technology available today to deliver stunning visuals that are breathtaking in their depth and realism.The music is fantastic, with songs by Bryan Adams, and music by Hans Zimmer, who also was responsible for the extremely popular music from the 1994 Disney hit, The Lion King.The story is not very deep but the fact that it isn't quite as in-depth as some movies doesn't in my opinion detract from the film as a whole.An excellent film which I enjoyed immensely, and that is suitable for all the family. Not one to be missed. (10/10)


This film plays in the 60s and is about an Italian family: Romano, his wife Rosa and their two children Gigi and Giancarlo emigrate from Solino in Italy to Duisburg in the Ruhr area. I like this film, because I think it is quite realistic: it shows problems which many foreign families have when they come to another country: they have to get used to a new culture, a new environment and this can be difficult: especially if you don't know the language.... It is difficult for the family but they find a way: they open a restaurant which offers typical Italian food, and it is named "Solino", like their hometown. The film also shows different conflicts - Gigi and Giancarlo fall in love with the same girl, and although Rosa has to work very hard, Romano refuses to pay money to engage more workers, etc. etc. But stop, I don't want to tell you how it goes on. You should watch the film yourself, it's a nice one - I have also made a Referat about it and examined scenes which show different cultural attitudes. And there are a few...