I enjoyed watching Brigham Young and found it to be a positive and largely true portrayal of the LDS faith. I think that a remake of this epic journey across the plains would be beneficial, since many people today are not familiar with the trials and persecutions faced by the early Mormon church. It is an incredible story of a strong and devoted people.As a member of the church, the single most disturbing aspect of the film (most of the historical inaccuracies did not bother me much) was the portrayal of Brigham Young as one that had "knowingly deceived" church members into believing he had been called to be Joseph's successor as the prophet. Although I understand the dramatic reasons for this plot line, it creates the impression that his doubts in this regard are historical fact, when in reality, both Brigham and the bulk of the church members understood and believed firmly that he had been called to lead the church. Brigham did not knowingly deceive the saints; rather he led them confidently by inspiration. The point is important for Mormons because on it hinges an important aspect of our faith: that God truly speaks to prophets today, and that Brigham Young, like Joseph Smith, was an inspired prophet of God.Whether or not you believe this statement or not, just know that the film does not accurately portray what Brigham himself believed.


Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a César award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poiré and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and déjà-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a brainless moment'! 2/10


This is an hilarious movie. One of the very best things about it is the quality of the performance by each actor. From the largest role to the smallest, each character is vivid, unforgettable and so understandable. It can also make you laugh so hard your health will improve.


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


I'm going to write about this movie and about "Irreversible" (the (in)famous scene in it). So you are warned, if you haven't seen the movie yet. This are just my thoughts, why I think the movie fails (in the end - pun intended).Acting wise, Rosario Dawson is really good and almost conveys portraying someone almost a decade younger (a teenager in other words). The villain guy is good, but loses his "evil" touch right before the end. If he really never changes, then why would he let a woman tie him up? He wouldn't, period. Then we also have the bartender/2nd rape Dude. Actually I don't think you would need him. At least not for the 2nd rape, but more about that later on.Let's reprise the story. Rosarios character is sexually insecure, might even have lesbian tendencies (see her scene with a female friend). This wasn't intentional, as Rosario states herself, but there is sexual tension between them. Rosario's character meets a guy, who is a sexual Predator, in all the bad senses. But he makes an impression on her.Rosario commented that her character had a boyfriend before. I beg to differ. Because she acts, as if it is her first boyfriend, which also underlines her phone conversation with her mother. Talking about her mother, here's another problem. After the first rape takes place, Rosarios character doesn't tell anyone what happened. Seiing that her relationship with her mother is a very close one, nothing of that gets explored after that. If Rosarios character wouldn't call her mother anymore or would behave strangely, the mother would be worried like crazy. There was so much potential here. Also her female friend: We see her at the party, it's obvious there is something going on and "boom" she is gone.The first rape is almost unbearable to watch. But feels like a pinch, when you compare it to the ending (rape), which feels like you're getting hit with a sledge hammer! After rape no. 1 we get too stretched out scenes. Threads are opened (such as her construction work is an indication that she might be lesbian, as one guy states who tried to hit on her ...), but left in the open. No real social contact is established, if you leave the bartender guy out, who is involved in the 2nd and last rape scene. It's apparent that he isn't a "nice" guy and his character get's fleshed out a bit. But when Rosarios character meets her rapist in class again, his being in the movie seems pointless. We get the point that Rosarios character isn't the same anymore, that she went "bad" and is able to hurt people. (Too) Many scenes show exactly that, her being without emotion just doing drugs and other stuff. Back to Rapist #1 who cheats on a test, gets caught by Rosarios character and they decide to hang out together again (really?). As absurd as that sounds, the guy meets up with her, not without us having seen him beforehand, with another girl (very likely that he raped her too, although we never see anything of that, fortunately) and his football career. Well career is a stretch and he is bullied. This is an attempt to give his character some depth and it almost works, but then again is too cliché to stay with you. So Rapist #1 submits to Rosarios character ... why exactly? Because he promised her, it was her day? Again, really? A guy like that never loses control, especially with a woman he raped before ... I guess this is supposed to show us how stupid he is. The bartender guy would have worked as someone who could have hit him over the head or something, but letting him submit like that, just feels wrong. Another possibility would have a drug in his drink.So rapist #1 undresses and get's blindfolded and let's Rosarios character tie him on a bed .... seriously, that's just crazy! But what comes next, is even crazier. First she talks to him, then she "shuts" him up and forces an object into him. This is as difficult to watch as rape scene number one. This isn't about what this guy deserves or not, it's just intense. And of course that was what they were aiming for. Now after she is "done" the bartender guy comes in and rapes ... rapist #1. If this really should work as a revenge movie, it would have been better if Rosarios character herself would have been doing all the "revenge". Having a henchman doing the job, takes away everything that was built up.This isn't supposed to be entertaining/enjoyable, it's a hard watch & it is Art-house. But the 10 minute (I didn't count ) rape scene at the end, just smashes everything. Rosarios character is more or less, only watching what happens. Which brings me to the biggest disappointment.Irreversible comparison: "Irreversible" had the rape scene, but the movie went on (even if it was back into time). Rosario is looking into the camera in the end and says something about having to get over this. First, that comes a bit too late, that should see her say that after the initial rape. And secondly and most importantly, this is where the Art-house movie should've come in. It is more interesting seeing were Rosarios character would go after the second rape scene and how she would cope, with what she had done. But then again, she didn't actually physically do that much (see above) ... a broken character that the movie cuts off ...Good intentions (Talia and Rosario had worked before), but failing to convey most of the things, they set out to do (even if you can see what they meant, it has to be convincing, otherwise it doesn't work) ... not to mention the overlong rape scenes as they are ...


SPOILERS This is a gripping movie about grifters. But who is conning who here? When does the hunter turn into the prey? This gritty, dark movie is slow moving and seductive. It pulls you in and drags you down the proverbial garden path, only to waylay you just as you think you are safe.It has a riveting script, with good acting (at least from the leads). I didn't notice the background music, but it was never jarring, so it must have been done right.I was very surprised that I liked this movie, because I don't usually go for this genre but this one sucked me in and kept he hooked until the end.


Jake's Closet has the emotional power of Kramer vs. Kramer combined with the imagination of Pan's Labyrinth. Even the beginning special effect seems to give a nod to Pan's Labyrinth. But this is a story that takes place in modern times, not in a war sixty years ago and in that way it has even more resonance today. Jake's Closet is about a boy, an only child, practically alone on summer vacation, dealing with his family falling apart. It's a horror movie like The Others and The Sixth Sense, a horror movie for the thinking person. If you're looking for a slasher movie, this won't be your cup of tea but if you're looking for a story that is both touching and suspenseful with good acting, this is the movie for you. At the screening I saw, I swear there was one moment where the entire audience screamed. I highly recommend catching this film.


It WAS supposed to be the last Freddy movie (and it was for over 10 years)--you would think they would have tried to get a good movie done. But they turned out giving us the worst of the series (and that's saying a lot). The plot made no sense (I seriously can't remember it), all the main characters were idiots (you REALLY wanted them dead) and Freddy's wisecracks were even worse than usual. The only remotely good bit about this was a brief (and funny) cameo by Johnny Depp (the first "Nightmare" movie was his first).Also I originally saw it in a theatre were the last section (reaccounting Freddy's childhood) was in 3-D. Well--the 3-D was lousy--faded colors and the image going in and out of focus. Also the three flying skulls which were supposed to be scary (I think) had the opposite reaction from my audience. EVERYBODY broke down laughing. Looks even worse on TV in 2-D. Pointless and stupid--very dull also. Skip this one and see "Freddy vs. Jason" again.


'The Vampire Bat' is definitely of interest, being one of the early genre-setting horror films of the 1930's, but taken in isolation everything is a bit too creaky for any genuine praise.The film is set in a European village sometime in the 19th Century, where a series of murders are being attributed to vampirism by the suspicious locals. There is a very similar feel to James Whale's 'Frankenstein' and this is compounded by the introduction of Lionel Atwill's Dr Niemann character, complete with his misguided ideas for scientific advancement.The vampire theme is arbitrary and only used as a red-herring by having suspicion fall on bat-loving village simpleton Herman (Dwight Frye), thus providing the excuse for a torch-wielding mob to go on the rampage - as if they needed one.This is one of a trio of early horror films in which Lional Atwill and Fay Wray co-starred (also 'Doctor X' and 'The Mystery of the Wax Museum') and like their other collaborations the film suffers from ill-advised comic relief and a tendency to stray from horror to mainstream thriller elements. Taken in context though, 'The Vampire Bat' is still weak and derivative.All we are left with is a poor-quality Frankenstein imitation, with the vampire elements purely a device to hoodwink Dracula fans. But for the title the film would struggle to even be considered as a horror and it is worth noting that director Frank Strayer was doing the 'Blondie' films a few years later.


Red Rock West is one of those tight noir thrillers we rarely see anymore. It's well paced, well acted and doesn't leave us with loose ends or unanswered questions so typical in this genre.Nicolas Cage stars as Michael, an unemployed Texas roughneck, desperate enough for a job to drive all the way to Wyoming for potential employment. He is honest to a fault, but always on the dark side of fate.After failing to obtain gainful employment, Michael stumbles into the Red Rock bar where the owner Wayne (J.T.Walsh) mistakes him for a contract killer he summoned from Dallas, hired to do in his lovely but lethal wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle).Wayne gives Michael the necessary details and a down payment for the hit on the adulterous Suzie. With no intent on following through, Michael accepts the money and then sets out to warn Suzanne of her impending demise. He also mails a letter to the local sheriff exposing the plot and splits.As fate would dictate, Michael is not going to be rid of the situation that easy. While leaving in a violent rainstorm, he runs down Suzannes lover. Of course Michael being Michael, he takes him to the local hospital where it's discovered that he's also been shot.The sheriff is summoned and as luck would have it, Wayne is also the local law. Michael manages to escape while being taken on that last ride and is subsequently picked up by the real "Lyle from Dallas" played with murderous glee by the quirky Dennis Hopper. After discovering that they're fellow marines, Lyle insists that Michael join him for a drink at, where else, the Red Rock bar. There Wayne realizes his mistake and soon he and Lyle are in hot pursuit of Michael who falls willingly into Suzannes waiting arms.As the pace picks up we learn that Wayne and Suzanne are really wanted armed robbers, on the lam for a multi million dollar theft. Getting the money now becomes the films central focus with a series of betrayals, double crosses and murders.The film was very well cast. Nicolas Cage was typically low key, Dennis Hopper and Lara Flynn Bolye assumed their respective roles with more than ample ability. The best performance was by the late J.T. Walsh who was menacing without appearing to be. Walsh was a great character actor who left us much too soon.Marc Reshoskys photography utilized many unique angles which added to the suspense and plot development. The film was further enhanced by John Dahl's tight directorial style and Morris Chestnut's rapid fire editing.


Amongst the standard one liner type action films, where acting and logic are checked at the door, this movie is at the top of the class. If the person in charge of casting were to have put "good" actors in this flick, it would have been worse(excepting Richard Dawson who actually did act well, if you can call playing yourself "acting"). I love this movie! The Running Man is in all likelihood God's gift to man(okay maybe just men). Definitely the most quotable movie of our time so I'll part you with my favorite line: "It's all part of life's rich pattern Brenda, and you better F*****g get used to it." Ahh, more people have been called "Brenda" for the sake of quoting this film than I can possibly imagine.


"Party Girl" capitalizes on the tremendous charm of Parker Posey. In fact, at times, the movie seems to be a vehicle in which Ms. Posey is allow to play herself, as she normally is in real life.The film, directed by Daisy Von Scherler Mayer, is a treat for Ms. Posey's fans. Ms. Von Scherler Mayer takes us on a wild trip into lower Manhattan to show us this aimless soul whose life is dedicated to have fun in the different clubs she constantly frequents. This is an era that still was more naive than what that area and the adjacent Meat Market districts became. At least, there are no pretensions in the films and we see down to earth people going about their lives in a normal way, if we can call it that way.Parker Posey makes an amazing Mary. It's because of Parker Posey we enjoy the movie more than if another actress would have played Mary. She is the whole picture. The rest of the cast is good.


Most italian horror lovers seem to hate this movie since because it has no connection to the first two Demons films. And with the "Demons III" in the title, one would assume it would. The problem is that this film was never intended to be part of the Demons series. The distributors only a "Demons III" above its original title "The Ogre" to cash in on the other films popularity. The new American DVD release of this picture has the title "Demons III: The Ogre" on the box art but the film itself only says "The Ogre". I don't know if past releases had the title "Demons III" on the actual film itself, but this new release just seems to be a little white lie. If you can get past the "Demons III" in the title, you might some enjoyment in "The Ogre". It starts out with a creep intro, and stays pretty creep throughout. There's no gore and the film movies slowly, but I still dug it. Just don't expect it to be like the other Demons films. I give "The Ogre" 7 out of 10. Italian fans should try it out.


One of the most important artistic movements in the history of cinema was without a doubt German expressionism, the highly atmospheric style of film-making developed during the 20s in Berlin. Classic movies like "Das Cabinet Des Dr. Caligari." (1920) and "Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens" (1922) were the most famous direct results of this movement, and while the movement didn't have a long life, its enormous influence over cinema can still be felt today, specially in the horror genre. One of the key figures of this style would be director Paul Wegener, director of 1920's "Der Golem, Wie Er in die Welt Kam", as in his debut as a filmmaker, seven years before the making of that classic, he was already making experiments with expressionism in film. That early prototype of German expressionism was incidentally, another horror film: "Der Student Von Prag"."Der Student Von Prag" ("The Student of Prague"), is the story of Balduin (Paul Wegener), a student with the reputation of being the best fencer in Prague, but who always find himself with financial troubles. One day, Balduin rescues the beautiful countess Margit (Grete Berger) from drowning in a lake after her horse drop her by accident. Balduin falls immediately in love with her and tries to see her again, but soon he discovers that he'll have to compete with her rich cousin, Graf Von Schwarzenberg (Lothar Körner), who also wants to marry her. Knowing that he can't offer her much, Balduin wishes to be wealthy, and this is where a sorcerer named Scapinelli (John Gottowt) enters the scene. Scapinelli offers Balduin infinite wealth in exchange of whatever he finds in his room. Balduin accepts the proposal, only to discover in horror that what Scapinelli wants is his reflection in the mirror.Loosely inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's short story "William Wilson" and the classic legend of "Faust", the story of "Der Student Von Prag" was conceived by German writer Hanns Heinz Ewers, a master of horror literature and one of the first writers to consider scriptwriting as valid as any other form of literature. Written at a time where cinema in Germany was still being developed as an art form, "Der Student Von Prag" shows a real willingness to actually use cinema to tell a fully developed story beyond a camera trick or a series of scenes. Like most of the scriptwriters of his time, Ewers screenplay is still very influenced by theater, although "Der Student Von Prag" begins to move away from that style. While a bit poor on its character development (specially on the supporting characters), Ewers manages to create an interesting and complex protagonist in the person of Balduin.While "Der Student Von Prag" was Paul Wegener's directorial debut and Stellan Rye's second film as a filmmaker, it's very clear that these two pioneers had a very good idea of what cinema could do when done properly. Giving great use to Guido Seeber's cinematography, the two young filmmakers create a powerful Gothic atmosphere that forecasts what the German filmmakers of the following decade would do. Wegener would learn many of the techniques he would employ in his "Golem" series from Seeber and Rye. Despite having very limited resources, Rye and Wegener manage to create an amazing and very convincing (for its time) visual effect for the scenes with Balduin's reflection (played by Wegener too). Already an experienced stage actor at the time of making this film, Wegener directs the cast with great talent and also attempts to move away from the stagy style of previous filmmakers.As Balduin, Paul Wegener is very effective and probably the best in the movie. It certainly helps that his character is the only one fully developed by the writer, but one can't deny that Wegener was very good in his role as the poor student who loses more than his mirror reflection in that contract. John Gottowt plays the sinister Scapinelli with mysterious aura that suits the character like a glove. Few is said about Scapinelli in the film, but Gottowt makes sure to let us know that he is a force to be feared. The rest of the main cast is less lucky, with Grete Berger being pretty much average as countess Margit, and Lothar Körner making a poor Graf Von Schwarzenberg. However, it must be said that Lyda Salmonova was pretty good in her expressive character and Fritz Weidemann made an excellent Baron Waldis-Schwarzenberg, showing the dignity that Lörner's character should have had.Considering the movies that were being done in those years in other countries and the fact that its remake (made 13 years after this film) is superior in every possible way, it's not difficult to understand why "Der Student Von Prag" hasn't stood the test of time as well as other early films. The movie's main problem is definitely its extremely low budget, as it resulted in the film being considerably shorter than what Ewers' story needed to be fully developed. This makes the plot feel a bit too vague at times, or even incomplete, as if there was something missing in the narrative (of course, there's also the possibility that the existing print is really incomplete). However, "Der Student Von Prag" is a very interesting early attempt at a complex tale of horror and suspense in film that, while inferior to what other filmmakers were doing at the time, left a powerful impression in history.As the direct predecessor of the German expressionist movement, it's hard to deny the enormous importance that "Der Student Von Prag" has in the history of German cinema, probably in the history of cinema in general. It may look dated even for its time, but considering the limited resources its director had, it's truly better than most films from that era. As the movie that started Paul Wegener's career, and with that German expressionism, "Der Student Von Prag" is a must see for everyone interested in this slice of film history. 7/10


Jean Claude Van Damme tries to rescue his career by making the sequel of Universal Soldier. But, did that movie saved him? I think he goes to hell, after he dies. In the first minute, we see the inside of a facility, where you can see the bad guy of the film. Scary, huh? But not as scary as the acting (details are following). Then, we see Van Damme with a black girl (do not remember the name....well it doesn't matter anyway), trying to escape from some muscle-men. Of course they are the new Universal-Soldiers. More muscels, less brain (just like the movie). After a while, Van Damme fights Goldberg but then the "mission" gets aborted. It was just a test (Is this movie a test for our nerves?). It turns out that Van Damme works for the government on the new Universal Soldier project (Who has seen the first movie may think that this is the most unlogical thing, that yould Van Dammes character could do). But it is a sequel. And a "story" has to come up. Ah, I forgot. He has a daughter. Very important for the "story".Well, after about 20 minutes, a super computer hears a conversation about shutting it down and quitting he project. Of course the cube gets angry and activates all soldiers to kill everyone. Van Damme escapes from the facility BUT the computer sends some soldiers hunting him (It wants Van Damme as a soldier - because he is the best (really?)). And guess what, Goldberg is one of the hunters, who was always a silly sentence for the audience before he gets asskicked. Funny? Yes, just like the rest of the film. After some "story", Van Damme tries to rescue his daughter (of his wife - the reporter in the first movie). It comes to a final show down where Van Damme fights the Bad Guy and you can see the most expensive scene of the whole movie (please see for yourself. It is just too funny to tell).You'll see that this movie is a waste of time.So do not watch it. But if you do, keep a sixpack with you!


The Matador is a witty, dark humored and suspenseful melodrama that rises way above mediocrity thanks to two very engaging and earnest performances from Pierce Brosnan, who has never ever been better than here, and the always reliable Greg Kinnear who has his best role here since playing Jack Nicholson's gay neighbor in As Good As It Gets. A big plus goes to the writing as well. Clever and occasionally very nasty dialog is delivered with gusto by Brosnan and the slow building friendship between these two different individuals is completely convincing all the way. The story takes a few unexpected turns and keeps the viewer constantly guessing where it's gonna go next.Nice artistic touches from the director such as good use of music, clever editing and somewhat unorthodox cinematography at times set a nice tone for the film and for a long period of time you don't quite know how to label the film. But that's also thanks to a very well written script which keeps the viewer (me anyway) on the edge of his seat.


The 3rd and in my view the best of the Blackadder series.The only downside is that there is no Lord Percy who was the funniest character from the previous series but Hugh Laurie's Prince Regent is suitably madcap laugh a line.As a package it's quality through and through with convincing regency sets, superb cutting sarcasm and little bits of the wacky, the 'macbeth' actors standing out and Prince Georges 'lucky us' chicken impression, and the missing words from Dr Johnson's dictionary.Few comedies have been quite as both clever as they are funny, okay the odd lame observation or line gets in but mostly it's a scream.


His first movie after longtime friend John Belushi's death, Aykroyd shows much fatigue trying to pull off a character that would have been a snap for Belushi.Instead, "Doctor Detroit" gives us bookish professor Aykroyd masquerading as a weird, violent pimp to ward off a rival known only as Mom. That's bad enough, but he also has classes to teach, a school dinner to host, four ladies of the evening to protect and a Pimp's Dinner (or something like that) to attend. No wonder Aykroyd seems stupefied most of the time. Why should the viewer be alone?It was on this film that Aykroyd met future wife Donna Dixon. At least some good came out of this chaotic mess.One and a half stars. You want good Aykroyd, see "The Blues Brothers". You want bad, see "Doctor Detroit".


Outside of the fact that George Lopez is a pretentious jerk, his show is terrible.Nothing about Lopez has ever been funny. I have watched his stand-up and have never uttered any resemblance to a laugh.His stuff comes across as vindictive and his animosity towards white people oozes out of every single pore of his body.I have laughed at white people jokes from many a comedian and love many of them.This guy has a grudge that won't end.I feel bad for Hispanics who have only this show to represent themselves.The shows plots are always cookie cutter with an Hispanic accent.Canned laugh at the dumbest comments and scenes.Might be why this show is always on at 2AM in replay.


"Fever Pitch" is a sweet and charming addition to the small genre of sports romances as date movies or movies a son could be willing to go to with his mother (though the guys in the audience got noticeably restless during the romantic scenes).I have lived through a milder version of such a story, as my first exposure to baseball was dating my husband the spring after the Mets first World Series win and then I watched the Mets clinch their next one because I was the one still up in the wee hours with our two little sons, who have grown up to teach me more about baseball through our local neighborhood National League team's other heartbreaking failures to win it again (and it was me who took our older son to his only Fenway Park game as I caught a bit of Red Sox fever as a graduate student in Boston).So compared to reality, the script believably creates two people with actual jobs. It is particularly impressive that Drew Barrymore's character is a substantive workaholic who has anti-Barbie skills, though she pretty much only visits with her three bland girlfriends during gym workouts that allow for much jiggling and the minor side stories with her parents don't completely work.It is even set up credibly how she meets Jimmy Fallon's math teacher and how she falls for his "winter guy" -- though it's surprising that his Red Sox paraphernalia filled apartment didn't tip her off to his Jekyll-and-Hyde "summer guy." Their relationship crisis during the baseball season is also played out in a refreshingly grown-up way, from efforts at compromise to her frank challenges to him, centered around that they are both facing thirty and single. Fallon surprisingly rises to his character's gradual emotional maturity.While the ending borrows heavily from O. Henry, the script writers did a yeoman job of quickly incorporating the Sox's incredible 2004 season into a revised story line (with lots of cooperation from the Red Sox organization for filming at the stadium).The script goes out of its way to explain why Fallon doesn't have a Boston accent, as an immigrant from New Jersey, but that doesn't explain why his motley friends don't. The most authentic sounding Boston sounds come from most of his "summer family" of other season ticket holders, who kindly kibitz the basics of Sox lore to neophyte Barrymore (and any such audience members).The song selection includes many Red Sox fans' favorites, from the opening notes of the classic "Dirty Water," though most are held to be heard over the closing credits as if you are listening to local radio and are worth sitting through to hear.


I am an avid B-Rate horror film buff and have viewed my fair share of slasher pictures, so I have a substantial gauge to judge this film by. It easily ranks in the upper echelon of the worst horror films the 1980's has to offer. It isn't as scary as Night of the Demons, it isn't as gory as Re-Animator and lacks the camp value of There's Nothing Out There. That being said, this film has no value. Keep in mind, the movie artwork is for a completely different film. The stills shots on the back of the DVD box aren't taken from this film.VIOLENCE: $$$ (There is plenty of violence but we've seen it all before. A murderer kills nubile students and the occasional facility member by slitting throats and all the other tired methods of murder that horror films utilize).NUDITY: None STORY: $$ (The story focuses on Francine Forbes - who wisely changed her name to Forbes Riley after this film was made - who accepts a job teaching at a university. People start to die and Forbes believes the killer is targeting her. Is it her new heartthrob with a checkered past or the libido-crazed student? To be honest, it is impossible to care because the script doesn't flesh out any character outside Forbes).ACTING: $ (Terrible on all levels. This slasher has the feel of a school production -high school that is because college students could make a better flick than this. Forbes showcases a modicum of talent as does Seminara as one of the students, but everyone else is of the "extras" caliber of acting).


Ettore Scola, one of the most refined and grand directors we worldly citizens have, is not yet available on DVD... (it's summer 2001 right now....) Mysteries to goggle the mind. This grand classic returned to the theaters in my home-town thanks to a Sophia Loren - summer-retrospective, and to see it again on the big screen after all these years of viewing it on a video-tape ... it is a true gift. To avoid a critique but nonetheless try to prove a point: i took my reluctant younger brother with me to see this film. He never saw the film before and "doesn't like those Italian Oldies..." Like all the others in the theater he was intrigued by this wonder. Even during the end-titles the theater remained completely silent. This SPECIAL DAY is truly special. A wonder of refinement. And a big loss if you haven't seen it (yet)...


I wasn't expecting a lot from a film directed by Sidney J. Furie and starring Dolph Lundgren but I was surely expecting more than a got. A one-liner user comment - 2nd rate action movie - didn't seem too depreciative to me for a Lundgren film. On the other hand, I wouldn't have bothered to watch this film if its rating was below 5.0 but hey, the movie had a 5.9 out of 10 score, which seemed pretty acceptable to me for this kind of production.Now I understand that the 37.5% of people who rated this film a 10 (excellent) was clearly a publicity stunt because DETENTION is the regular Nu Image garbage you have seen before, over and over.Lundgren does not convince as an ex-military turned a history teacher assigned to a rough school. His acting is just plain terrible, emotionless and contrived. Lundgren's inability to act becomes more visible in the scenes with the juvenile delinquent kids. Either they are great actors or, compared to Lundgren, they seem great actors - just because they seem natural and believable.DETENTION has some elements that could have been potentially interesting for this low budget movie - a closed-for-weekend high-security high school, four teens in detention with a war-veteran teacher and a group of ruthless criminals trying to get in - but the story (something like THE BREAKFAST CLUB meets DIE HARD, or is it PANIC ROOM?) is full of unbelievable situations, lots of clichés and stereotypical characters. And let's not forget Dolph Lundgren is the main actor.Alex Karzis and Kata Dobó play a Bonnie and Clyde couple in love and they deliver the most acceptable performances of the movie, even if he seems a low-budget version of Sam Rockwell and she, a Milla Jovovich wanna-be. In a movie where everything fails, their craziness and style supplied enough fresh air to prevent my interest from dropping to ground zero.


I first saw this movie when it came out in 1994 and just watched it recently and it is STILL funny. I don't know if you have to understand hiphop in the 90's, but it helps if you do. In the 90's when NWA and Public Enemy were at the top, there were internal strife within the groups and members when their separated ways (Ice Cube, Easy E, etc). Also there were the wanna b's, accessible rappers that start making the scene (Vanilla Ice, Freedom Williams from C&C Music Factory, etc). This movie makes fun of all of that in a way that seems like it's an actually documentary. Kasi Lemmons plays an interviewer that spends a year in the life of a fictitious rap group name N.W.H. The members of the group are Ice Code (Rusty Condieff/director), Tasty Taste (Larry B Scott/Revenge of the Nerds, and Tone Def (Mark Christopher Lawrence). They are an up and coming rap group whose politics makes them controversial. Whats good about this film is that it is so thourough in its portrayal of the hiphop industry of the 80s and they way it pokes fun at it. But, if you know 80's/90's rap, you know how much of this stuff is true. Still, on it's own, without hip hop knowledge, it is still a funny funny movie. And for all of those who ask, yes Spinal Tap came first, but Spinal Tap is not the first spoof movie either. This, in my opinion is equally as funny and in some ways, better than Spinal Tap. As Spinal Tap is to heavy metal, Fear of A Black Planet is to Rap. And the songs are off the hook also. The DVD is chalk full of extras to include music videos of NWH as a group and as solo artists. Brilliant performances by Rusty Condieff and Larry B Scott.


This movie started out good, i felt like i was watching an adult version of Seinfeld. Much to quickly i started questioning the situations and actions of the main characters, and found no answers to why they were doing what they were doing. All the acting was superb but only a few scenes had brief moments where they were actually funny. Dan Cortese was amazing. I loved him in this role. His agent should show this movie to casting agents. Watch the first few scenes and then find something better, or else you will find yourself totally lost in this mess. I found this in a bin at a video store. It cost me two dollars and due to the rareness of this movie i feel like it was a good price.


As someone who has both read the novel and seen the film, I have a different take on why the film was such a flop. First, any comparisons between novel and film are purely superficial. They are two different animals.The novel is probably intended as a satire, but it arrives as a cross between tragedy and polemic instead. Any comedic elements such as those which later formed the stylistic basis of the film version are merely incidental to the author's uniformly cynical thrust. And lest the omnipresent white suit of the author fool you into thinking this is another Mark Twain, think again. A more apt literary precedent would be the spectre of Ambrose Bierce in a top hat and tails. Tom Wolfe is equal parts clown and hack, more celebrity than author, always looking for new grist for his self-absorbed mill. It is therefore no wonder that the excellent production skills and direction lavished on the making of the film were doomed from the start. Unlike true satire, which translates very well into film, polemics are grounded not in universally accessible observations on some form or other of human behavior, but in a single-minded attack on specific people -- whether real or fictional straw men -- who have somehow earned the wrath of the writer. Any effort to create a successful filmed story or narrative from such a beginning must have a clean start, free of the writer's influence or interference.Having said that, I too find fault with the casting. It is not merely that incompetents like Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith fail to measure up, but that real talents like Tom Hanks, F. Murray Abraham, and Morgan Freeman are either totally wasted or given roles that are mere caricatures.There is enough topical material here for a truly great film satire, but it fails to come even close.


The Straight Story is a multilevel exploration of the goodness and beauty of America. At one level a slow walk through the heartland, it's kind inhabitants, and amber grain, at another level about growing old and remembering what is important(and actively forgetting what isn't). David Lynch gives us time in this movie and helps me to remember that so much can be said with silence. A remarkable movie that will rest gently with me for some time to come.


The Honey, I Shrunk the Kids franchise was a huge deal and not to mention very famous. I loved Honey, I shrunk the Kids when I was little. It was an original story and had such an exciting plot! The sets were so amazing and the cast seemed like they enjoyed each other's company. Now Honey, I blew up the kid was pretty stupid, so I think they wanted to go back to the story that everyone loved.Basically, Adam is a little more grown up now and the mom's are going on vacation to leave their husbands with their children. But when Wayne's favorite item is threatened for the garbage, he wants to shrink it and keep it, but he and his brother get in the way. But when the wives come back after forgetting to give some meds to their son, they get caught in the machine as well, leaving the kids in the house alone!The plot is silly, but like I said, it was just a family film that I think some might get a kick out of. The original Honey, I Shrunk the Kids is the best, I think everyone could agree. The third one wasn't so bad, I would recommend this one at least over Honey, I Blew Up the Kid movie, it was at least a little more fun.4/10


I believe this is the most powerful film HBO Pictures has made to date. This film should have been released in theaters for the public to view on the big screen. It is available on video so make sure you look for it and check it out. Chris Gerolmo did a great job with the direction and the screenplay. The performances from Stephen Rea, Donald Sutherland and Jeffery DeMunn are flawless. A masterpiece of the genre.


If utterly facile, regressive, self-indulgent, anti-establishment, anti-civilisation juvenilia appeals to you, then this is the ideal film. Very poorly scripted, with often inaudible dialogue and infuriatingly tiresome hand-held camera throughout, this is a film that presents the world in appealingly simplistic, Manichean terms: all adults (especially teachers, parents, priests and doctors) are insensitive and bumbling at best, and predatory monsters at worst. The only escape from the horrors of civilisation as a whole is plenty of primal screaming (yawn) and infantile regression (literally) in a primitive cave-like space in the woods, with utopia taking the form of a rave party - again, in the woods (naturally...). Displays all the weaknesses of a first film, and plenty more besides.


I was able to hang in for only the first twenty minutes of this low-budget movie. The most glaring absurdity was that while the American inmates in a North Korean POW camp are all supposedly suffering from severe deprivation of food and medicine, going without bathing, shivering in flimsy and filthy parkas, and sleeping on bare floors, and - let's not forget enduring torture - they always manage to sport impeccably coiffed hair. With the exception of a suitably austere-looking Harry Morgan as an army Major, the casting and acting are simply awful. Ronald Regan cannot seem to stick to portraying a single character and instead creates a rather schizophrenic amalgam of past roles. A mostly Caucasian cast portraying the North Korean camp officers might have been forgivable, but when supposedly Russian officers acting as advisors to the Koreans strut around wearing re-badged Nazi uniforms complete with jodhpurs and jackboots (obvious costume-department recycles from WWII flicks) and speaking with accents like General Burkhalter from Hogan's Heroes, well, that's just six kinds of silly. Don't waste your time on this one.


Diagnosis Murder has been shown on most Weekday afternoons on BBC1 since I used to watch it while ill from School a good 10 years ago - I know I shouldn't really enjoy it, in the same way I shouldn't enjoy 'Murder she Wrote' but I'm totally addicted to both and even have the DVD box-sets....OK I know that's sad!Dick Van Dyke carries the show as he stars as Dr.Mark Sloan a Doctor at Community General Hospital in L.A who is also a Police consultant for the L.A.P.D. - his son Steve (Barry van Dyke - Dick's real life son) is a Police Officer, who needs his father's help on very many Suspicious deaths. Along for the ride is Dr.Amanda Bentley (Victoria Bentley) the resident Pathologist at Community General and for the first couple of seasons you had Scott Baio playing Dr.Jack Stewart, who upped and left the series in 1995 hoping to go on to bigger and better things...he should have stayed where he was, he hasn't done anything of note since....and his only theatrical appearance for many years was in Baby Geniuses 2:Superbabies....Oh Dear!!!anyhow Dr.Jack Stewart was replaced by the younger Dr.Jesse Travis played by Charlie Schlatter who stepped into Baio's shoes pretty comfortably.The series is highly implausible but what Whodunit series isn't? (Murder she wrote - everywhere Jessica goes, someone ends up dead, or The underrated Father Dowling Mysteries about a Murder solving Priest with nun sidekick)The series was much lighter up until 1997 this is because it had a supporting cast that included the bumbling Hospital Manager Norman Briggs played by Michael Tucci along with Nurse & Mark's secretary Dolores played by Delores Hall, After 1997 both these characters were no longer included and the series became a grittier affair with a bigger looking budget, some episodes included far more action, one episode the entire Hospital is blown up.This was a family show For the Van Dyke's because as well as Dick's Son Barry, you also had Dick's Daughter And all his Grandchildren making an appearance in various episodes. As the series went on it got a bit silly, one episode I remember Dick van Dike plays his entire family, which was a bit out of the ordinary, but on the Whole 'Diagnosis Murder' was a really good TV show which had numerous good Guest Stars.Since this show finished in 2001, Dick & Barry have appeared together again in the 'MURDER 101' series of TV Movies made by The Hallmark Channel, pretty much following the same path, and still enjoyable. Dick who's now in his mid 80's doesn't seem to change a great deal, and looks as if he'll be working till the bitter end.TV SHOW **** OUT OF *****


I found it hard to like anyone in this film. The central characters, Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, whose daughter disappears during a night out in the Australian outback, are not bad people, but then surely not all, or even most, of the scores of people we see throughout this movie would be bad if we knew them better. But though we are as sure as the film wants us to be of the guilt or innocence of the Chamberlains from the start of their life's tragic disarray, the film takes on a more or less sociological perspective pertaining to gossip, news media, crowds, mobs and assumptions. It's not a movie about the degenerate society of Australia in particular; it's merely an account of a true story that happened there. Society en masse is much less evolved than the individual feels ensured that we are.When a warden insists upon killing all of an aborigine's dogs because of the unverified action of a single wild dog, when a randomly ruined life spins even further out of control owing to the majority of magazines, newspapers and TV programs distorts the tragic truth to a level of drama that provokes its consumers into a frenzy, there is no sign of empathy or even any kind of looking outside of one's own unaware perceptions, influenced left and right by the vigorous hearsay and vibes of those who surround one's life. The reason I appreciate the film is because it turns the focus inside out, from the victims to the masses.The evidence against Lindy Chamberlain aside, suspicion was jet-fueled mostly by a virtue of hers. To the public eye, she did not seem sufficiently distraught by the death of her baby daughter. Why was she able to keep her cool, even a sort of aloofness let alone holding her head up, for TV and the press? How much of the downward spiral could've been prevented had she behaved more to the public's liking in the media? Meryl Streep, one of, if not the, greatest actress working today, may not give a performance that particularly stands out, and frankly neither does any other actor, or department of film-making. But she, and the screenwriters, do understand Lindy. What is infuriating is that it's not that difficult. Apparently, she was not naturally prone to showing emotion in public in any case. Whether or not she is approachable as a lovable character in the immediate sense, we are naturally prone to sympathize with her situation.Whether or not her performance is as immediately gratifying as Sophie's Choice, The Devil Wears Prada, Angels In America or other such work, it is a triumph. It is difficult enrapture an audience when you purposely deny them insights into yourself. She frustrates us because we don't know what she's thinking or feeling. It took me awhile to feel endeared toward her, but this is the movie's way of suggesting the reaction of the public's attention.She is married to a pastor, and they both practice a religion that is in a small minority and thus misinterpreted by most. Initially, they react to their loss as if to be reconciling themselves to God's will, kick-starting a rumor mill generating the notion that their daughter's death was some sort of ritual killing on their part. Whatever happened to the little girl, her parents were part of a margin with whom most of the media's intake didn't immediately identify, so the first inclination was to go after them like a pack of hungry...well...Meryl Streep and Sam Neill are constantly on screen, but the Australian public plays the real leads here. Like punctuation for each plot advance, director Fred Schepisi cuts away from restaurant to tennis court to dinner party to saloon to office, where the public tries Lindy and gets carried away into their own passionate projections.This Golan-Globus docudrama is not particularly memorable. The setting's atmosphere doesn't give a pleasurable enough compensation for the fact that no performance or facet of production stands out. But it is very successful as an indictment of the collective conscious of the public.


The only film I've ever walked out on. Amazing, since I paid for myself and my date and I'm really cheap. But my brain couldn't stand any more of the dreck being piled on, particularly since I could have written funnier material while tie up and gagged.From the beginning to the end this film offends. Worse, it ain't funny. It wasn't funny then, and it sure ain't funny now. But even worse, is that this film represents the beginning of the end of really smart, sophisticated comedy. It's juvenile, really sophomoric script and ideas began an era (which continues to this day) where cheap laughs, and sexual innuendo dominate the culture of comedy in film.Sexual Olympics? What High School kid hasn't thought of that? The beginning of the end.


What do you do with a 14-inch cocked porn star who was involved in drugs and murder, and then died of AIDS? You make a movie, of course. The probable reason why it wasn't made earlier is the fact that Eddie Nash would have been in the way of its production. So it's no coincidence that the film was made just a little while after Nash was sent to prison.The best thing about the movie is its quick pace. There is no time wasted on unnecessary crap. And why would it be? There is too much good material here to require dull filler scenes.The cast is good. Kilmer has been mediocre in a string of movies, so here was finally a role quite suitable for him. Bosworth is cute so it's irrelevant how she acts (she's solid), and McDermott, who is otherwise quite annoying, is rather good, to a large extent because he is wearing so much facial hair that I didn't recognize him at first. (I wish they did that to Cruise in every movie so I wouldn't have to watch his dumb face.) I utterly failed to recognize Christina Applegate, and wouldn't have known she was in it, had I not seen her name in the end-credits. Kudrow is charming as ever, a bit unusual to see her in a dramatic role. (Btw, "Friends" is the worst TV sitcom of all time.) The only casting choices that were questionable were an early near-cameo by Carrie Fischer and the totally absurd inclusion of the 90s moron Janeane Garofalo. You thought I'd include Paris Hilton, too, didn't you? No, I think Hilton is the ideal choice in her 10-second appearance as a dumb whore. Because the film is about decadence, among other things  and about a porn actor  she fits in perfectly.


After leaving TV's popular "The Andy Griffith Show", Don Knotts gave movie stardom a valiant try with a series of inane but matinée-pleasing comedy vehicles. Unfortunately, "The Reluctant Astronaut", filmed on the cheap (as were most of Knotts' movies), is much worse than his others. Don plays a small town schnook who gets accepted to Astronaut Training camp...but not as a candidate for space travel--they want him as their new janitor! Some may say the weak satire capitalizes on Americans' then-fresh fever for the new age of technology, but the flick is really just a dim excuse to keep restless children occupied. It gets off to a good start, with an OK set-up and nostalgic locations, but it becomes increasingly more spiritless and idiotic. * from ****


Michelle Rodriguez plays Diana, a high school girl with an insolent scowl and 2 x 4 on her shoulder. She's ready to battle anyone, especially her father who is paying for her brother's boxing lessons. Diana decides boxing would be a good way of focusing her anger.I liked the relationship between Diana and Adrian. Santiago Douglas as Adrian is excellent. Watch how their emotions towards each other are shaped by the squared circle.


Indian Directors have it tough, They have to compete with movies like "Laggan" where 11 henpecked,Castrated males defend their village and half of them are certifiable idiots. "Devdas", a hapless, fedar- festooned foreign return drinking to oblivion, with characters running in endless corridors oblivious to any one's feelings or sentiments-alas they live in an ornate squalor of red tapestry and pageantry. But to make a good movie, you have to tight-rope walk to appease the frontbenchers who are the quentessential gapers who are mesmerized with Split skirts and Dishum-Dishum fights preferably involving a nitwit "Bollywood" leading actor who is marginally handsome. So you can connect with a director who wants to tell a tale of Leonine village head who in own words "defending his Village" this is considered a violent movie or too masculine for a male audience. There are very few actors who can convey the anger and pathos like Nana Patekar (Narasimhan). Nana Patekar lets you in his courtyard and watch him beret and mock the Politician when his loyal admirers burst in laughter with every word of satire thrown at him, meanwhile his daughter is bathing his Grandson.This is as authentic a scene you can get in rural India. Nana Patekar is the essential actor who belongs to the old school of acting which is a disappearing breed in Hindi Films. The violence depicted is an intricate part of storytelling with Song&Dances thrown in for the gawkers without whom movies won't sell, a sad but true state of affairs. Faster this changes better for "Bollywood". All said and done this is one good Movie.


My girlfriend picked this one; as a southern born and raised African American I found this movie's plot and premise totally without credibility. To believe that class and racial biases would be so easily and comfortably suspended would only come from someone totally unfamiliar with the ante-bellum south. Totally absurd !!! I wonder how they got a good actor like Harvey Keitel and a good actress like Andie McDowell (who being southern knows better) to participate in this crap


This is the page for "House of Exorcism", but most people have confused this film with the Mario Bava masterpiece, "Lisa & the Devil", which explains the ridiculously high rating for this, "House of exorcism." When "Lisa & the Devil" was shown at film festivals in the early 70's, it was a critical success. Audiences responded well to that gorgeous, Gothic horror film. Unfortunately it was a bit ahead of it's time, and was considered too unusual, and not commercial enough for mass consumption. No distributor would buy it. So producer Alfredo Leone decided to edit 'Lisa', seemingly with a chainsaw, by removing just about half of the original film, and adding new scenes, which he filmed two years after the original product! It is important to note that Bava had little to do with these new, hideous additions, so technically "House of Exorcism" is not a Bava film. The original product is a slow, dreamy, classy production. A few minutes into the film, the viewer is jarred out of this dream world, as suddenly we see Lisa, (two years older, and with a very different haircut), begin to writhe on the ground, making guttural sounds and croaking epitaphs like "suck my co@k", etc. Subtle, huh? And the film continues like this, jumping back and forth between a beautiful, visual film, and a grade Z "Exorcist" rip-off. Leone was trying to incorporate these shock scenes, while keeping some semblance of a story intact. He failed miserably. When the choice was made to basically destroy "Lisa and the devil", Bava himself refused, saying that his film was too beautiful to cut. He was right, and it must have been quite sad for this artist to see all his work destroyed and flushed down the toilet. It was many years before the original "Lisa and the Devil" was seen again, re-surfacing on late night television. I had seen "lisa" long before i saw this new version, and it was downright disturbing to witness one of my favorite films "vandalised" in this way. Worth seeing only for curiosity sake. Otherwise avoid this insidious disaster like the plague.


If you like bad movies, this is the one to see. It's incredibly low-budget special effects (you'll see what I mean) and use of non-actors was what gave this film it's charm. If you're bored with a group of friends, I highly recommend renting this B movie gem. It's mulletrific!


I can't remember many films where a bumbling idiot of a hero was so funny throughout. Leslie Cheung is such the antithesis of a hero that he's too dense to be seduced by a gorgeous vampire... I had the good luck to see it on a big screen, and to find a video to watch again and again. 9/10


Definitely one of the most witty and twisted who-dunnit I ever seen. Christopher Reeve and Micheal Caine were brilliant and kept me going through the whole affair. Very classy set pieces and the props really lend a sense of atmosphere to the proceedings. The minimalist feel works for the whole picture.My only complain isn't with the film itself but the lack of a decent widescreen edition of the movie on DVD. I own the fullscreen version (which proves I love the film enough to endure fullscreen presentation) but a awesome Deluxe or 'special' edition would most surely get my cash.


This is one of the more adorable episodes of the Twilight Zone, with some fun dialog and amusing characters to break the tension of some creepy moments. There's the usual blond vamp "dancer" (what is up with Serling's fondness for that kind of character, such that she keeps showing up in various episodes?) and other assorted characters, but it's Jack Elam's "old man" who totally steals the show. I consider this the funny, light-hearted version of "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" -- or, perhaps, a 20-minute Twilight Zone parody of "The Thing." On another note: I thought the young lover of the episode might be someone who eventually went on to other things -- he looked familiar -- but it seems that "Ron Kipling" disappeared after just two TV credits to his name.


Crude, some times crass - to me that's the summation of Madhur Bhandarkar's latest work - Page 3. He has no point of view - just shallow, funny digs at stereotypes. What is the movie about?? Is it about reporting a clan of people (so called Page 3 types) who are so busy socializing and progressing their profiles in life - that they have no time for anything else. And you are either in it or out of it. Is it that there is no press at all to report everyday incidents. Madhur Bhandarkar forgets that there is a main newspaper and Page 3 is just a supplement; perhaps an entertainer for checking out who's who and what's what. Don't mix the two. And then there is power play - that would happen in every walk of life. So what have you told at the end of it all - nothing - just a few crude jokes strung together in an otherwise direction less movie.


Well - when the cameo appearance of Jason Miller (looking even more eroded than he did in Exorcist IV) is the high point of a picture, what've you got?It's a little bit country, a little bit rock n' roll: mix two drunks with money who drag their kid all over the place with a bog-dried mummy (have you figured that one out yet - DRIED in a bog?) in the basement, Christopher Walken with a bad dye job, and a little girl who might have been an interesting character if they'd developed her.I understand - sort of - that they're going back to visit her relatives. After that....Problem: There are several interesting flashbacks to what I must assume is her mother being killed in a car bombing (I think). This is never connected to anything. Problem: What do we need the grandmother for? Now, the grandmother could be interesting. She speaks Gaelic, or Celtic, or something. Maybe you can make something of her. The best they can do is that she 's got a tobacco habit. That's all.Problem: They cast a real shifty character as the husband. Is he type-cast (will he sell his wife to the devil? Maybe he can look forward to the trust fund he manages for her)or is he cast against type (after all, he has a good haircut and nice clothes)? He drinks, he hesitates. He's not a bad guy. Not a good one. But dislikable. Why didn't they DO something with him?No problem: an old boyfriend shows up. The husband knocks him down. He comes back to knock down the husband. (It gets pretty stupid, but at least THAT character has motivation.) NOW - she's an alcoholic, he's an alcoholic; he might only have married her for her money. The grandmother is locked in the bedroom. The blind uncle takes our heroine to the basement to show her the mummy of a witch (are you following this?) who may come to life. In fact, you KNOW she'll come to life, the music swells. A little girl lives in the house, takes tea to the grandmother (unlocks the door to do so) and provides granny with cigarettes. Periodically, granny gets out. But nothing happens. Husband and wife lose the kid in the house, subsequently lose their bedroom. Uncle gets his throat cut in the basement. The leading lady has nose-bleeds. The husband drinks. They both drink. In the face of all of this, the awful truth alluded to in the first over-voice is - omigod - an abortion when the leading lady was twelve years old.In spite of all these dangling-thread ingredients, nobody managed to get a story on the screen. No bridge between situations, no graduation from mild disturbance to awful horror, just long slow scenes that go nowhere.;nbody, really, to care about - and they had places to go with that aspect - the innocent kid in the charge of drunks,the grandmother who might be locked up because she's a monster, but no, her worst fault is smoking. She's got great hair, good makeup. In short, no plot. Just a little random (predictable)violence in a dark library, with the rain gushing in, and the sound track cuing us in. You need more than a few drunks and Christopher Walken to make a movie.The production values were good. Oh. Nice scenery, good wardrobe. The cameraman, at least, knew what he was doing.I bought it. Poor me.


This has got to be one of my very favorite Twilight Zone episodes, primarily for the portrayal of two lonely souls in a post-apocalyptic environment.The cobweb-strewn shops and rubble-laden streets are eerie in that particular way the Twilight Zone does best.While the parable can be a bit heavy-handed by today's drama standards, it is an excellent one - using the setting to make a statement relevant to the human experience, as well as geopolitics, in a way that is timeless. The entire drama rests solely on the shoulders of Mr. Bronson and Ms. Montgomery, who do not disappoint. (May they both rest in peace.)A true classic.


This comedy is bound to be good from the get-go. East meets west and east doesn't want to lose...west doesn't know what losing is like. It starts a little slow but it grabs you very soon and it doesn't let go. This is definitely worth seeing.


Boy this movie had me fooled. I honestly thought it would be a campy horror film with absolutely no humor in it whatsoever, boy I got the cold shoulder that time. This movie was, and I'm truthful, pretty damn good. It was not scary at all but the campiness and the sly humor really mad this movie interesting. Some to the horrible acting and cliché killings were so painful to watch, I almost laughed at how bad it was, but to some extent I enjoyed it. The killings all vaguely relate to snow sports and Christmas, which made things more intriguing. The POV camera angles were awesome.The movie is about a viscous killer who dies in a car accident collision with a chemical truck while being transported to prison. He is later resurrected in that very same chemical with snow spliced into the mixture. These were the ingredients chosen to make the perfect killer snowman. He than takes his revenge, as the snowman, on the police officer who convicted him.This movie had such bad acting, with the exception of Christopher Allport, that is was funny. I will say that I am also pretty disappointed that this movie was not a horror, but in fact a dark sitcom. They had a great story with a good plot but it wasn't executed right. All in all I like the movie at first but now it is really annoying. But this movie is way better and darker than the sequel.


Film version of Sandra Bernhard's one-woman off-Broadway show is gaspingly pretentious. Sandra spoofs lounge acts and superstars, but her sense of irony is only fitfully interesting, and fitfully funny. Her fans will say she's scathingly honest, and that may be true. But she's also shrill, with an unapologetic, in-your-face bravado that isn't well-suited to a film in this genre. She doesn't want to make nice--and she's certainly not out to make friends--and that's always going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. But even if you meet her halfway, her material here is seriously lacking. Filmmaker Nicolas Roeg served as executive producer and, though not directed by him, the film does have his chilly, detached signature style all over it. Bernhard co-wrote the show with director John Boskovich; their oddest touch was in having all of Sandra's in-house audiences looking completely bored--a feeling many real viewers will most likely share. *1/2 from ****


I anticipated this movie to be decent and possibly cliché, but I was completely wrong! Charlie Cox (I had never heard of him until now) played an incredibly good leading man; he was so earnest and romantic, me and my friend that saw the movie with me totally fell in love with him.Claire Danes, who I did like before (LOVED her in Romeo and Juliet), made me enjoy her even more. Her acting was fantastic, I couldn't even tell that she was American. The chemistry between her and Charlie Cox was extremely good, the casting was quite perfect.Robert DeNiro and Michelle Pfeiffer were equally well-casted; DeNiro as that gay pirate...priceless, priceless. I laughed so hard at that one scene where Septimus comes on the ship...oh my god, wow. Pfeiffer played a decent villain, I liked her as the snippy mother in Hairspray. But she had the right amount of melodrama and snide comments throughout the movie. Overall, it was funny (but not slap-stick at all!), romantic, the special effects weren't totally frequent but when they were, they were great; the cameos from Ricky Gervais and Peter O'Toole were also well-placed. I totally recommend this movie to anyone who likes fantasy movies like the Princess Bride or even Lord of the Rings. It kept my interest the entire time and I will be buying the DVD when it comes out!


I think James Cameron might be becoming my favorite director because this is my second review of his movies. Anyway, everyone remembers the RMS Titanic. It was big, fast, and "unsinkable"... until April 1912. It was all over the news and one of the biggest tragedies ever. Well James Cameron decided to make a movie out of it but star two fictional characters to be in the spotlight instead of the ship. Well, onto the main review but let me remind you that this is all opinion and zero fact and the only fact that will be present is an event from the film.So our two main characters are Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslet). They're not annoying too much but watch this and you'll find out why they could become annoying ( http://tinyurl.com/ojhoyn ). The main villain I guess is bad luck, fate, hand of God (no blasphemy intended), or just plain Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane). Combine all of the above and what do you get?! Oh yes! We get a love story on a sinking boat. The supporting characters are the following: My personal favorite, Mr. Andrews (Victor Garber)(idk he was so nice), Lovejoy(David Warner), Murdoch(Ewan Stewart), Lightoller (Jonathan Phillips), Captain Smith(Bernard Hill), Molly Brown(Kathy Bates), and many more. We also got the present day treasure hunter, Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton). They add something to the story, something good. The action in here is awesome, especially in the second half, the drama as also good. In the end you can have your eyes dropping rainstorms or silent tears. The story is simple and it works. A treasure hunter seeks the Heart of the Ocean and instead finds a drawing of a woman wearing the said diamond. She calls and tells her tale on the RMS Titanic. Two lovers separated by social class and ultimately, the fate of the ship. Everything about the story works and there are very few flaws. I give Titanic, an 86% awesome


I have grown up with Scooby doo all my life, My dad grew up with scooby doo. We have just watched the first episode of the travesty that calls itself Shaggy and Scooby get a clue. What planet are Warner Bros on allowing this shambles to air. The characters could have been drawn better by my younger sister. The story could have been better written by my 3 year old twin cousins (who are Scooby Doo fans too). Scooby and Shaggy just aren't!!!!! if anyone but Casey Kasem does the voice of Shaggy it just isn't gonna work folks!!!! trust me.This program was disgraceful. What's New Scooby Doo is much better. Why change a winning format. Bin this piece of garbage and go back to the true Scooby


This film is about the life of Queen Victoria during her youth and her first few years as the monarch of Great Britain."The Young Victoria" has amazing production. Every scene is designed and decorated to immaculate detail. The extravagant costumes, lavish locations and beautifully landscaped gardens all make "The Young Victoria" very impressive. I was the most amazed by the thoughtful cinematography. How every person is placed in relation to the background or foreground is well thought out, every scene is well composed. The scene that strikes me the most was when Victoria talks to Melbourne. Melbourne was positioned in the middle of the door frame from Victoria's angle, while from Melbourne's angle Victoria was situated between the space where Melbourne held his arm on his hips.Story wise, it is far too compressed to be followed and understood by a person without historical knowledge of Queen Victoria. Many events are rushed through or not even explained. I expected a grand scene of the coronation, and disappointingly it only lasted for a few seconds.Overall, "The Young Victoria" is a good film, and it would have been even better if it was longer, so that events could be properly explained without rush.


This Movie has great fight scenes. Now its true that the acting is a little rough. But If I wanted to see a movie based on acting skills I would watch a Cheesy movie Like American Beauty. But If you want to see a movie with true martial arts in it and with Amazing stunts WITHOUT the use of wires and flying threw the air like so many movies around now which are over killing the matrix. Then Watch this. Now it's true the two main stars in the show where in the kid show the power rangers and another cast member of that show has a bit part in this movie. But hey the fight scenes are enough to make Jet Li p**s his pants. And the stunts are worthy enough for Jackie Chan to sit threw and admire.


Bravo to Czechs, their once-powerful movie industry seems to awaken from post-Communist slumber.The Loners is a comedy done with all the elements you would expect to see in a modern "hollywood" production minus the garbage that seems to get attached to the genre over the past several years. Superb soundtrack, excellent visual editing, beautiful Prague cityscape, to mention but a few.The story is actually comprised of several sub-stories that frequently intertwain and overlap, an is in essence a collage of destinies, fates, desires... It follows a group of urban youth-to-mid-thirties people through a variety of situations ranging from daily life and leisure activities to careers and obsessions. And it IS hillarious. There's actually a point in the movie where the entire theatre I was in (about a 100 people in a small art gallery) laughed non-stop for about 40-50 seconds. How often do you experience that with modern hollywood productions?Although the entire main cast is excellent (especially the upcoming Macedonian star Labina Mitevska in the role of an immigrant facing the all-too-familiar hardships) I have to single out Jiri Machacek for his superbly believeable portrayal of Jakub, a constantly stoned bohemian whose brain is severely affected by the stuff he smokes landing him in a plethora of funny situations.Conclusion: don't miss this one! It's got a lot to offer.


This ludicrous film offers the standard 1970's "hippie mentality" in a nut shell and bores us in the process. Its an attempt to rationalize absurd marriages of young, innocent women with old age sex fiends and wash ups. A naive young hippy played by the waif-like ( Kay Lenz ) hitch hikes and sleeps with all the wrong guys, and then one day she meets the ridiculous (Holden), already in old age, hard liquor drinking and washed up as an actor, and she decides that she is in "love" with him. If you think that is superficial, the whole film encapsulates such scenes. She keeps saying how much she "loves" him and she only met him, it wears thin and really quick. I couldn't help but laugh throughout the film. Its obvious she's just using him as a meal ticket but the director is immature enough to think we are going to buy that there is actually any love taking place. A disgusting scene is where the two are naked and having sex, I had to fast forward it because it almost inspired me to vomit. A corny offering of music from the 70's is also spread through the film. Avoid this if you can. Grade D.


In order to hold the public's attention for three hours, we were treated not so much to a family's romp through four generations and 120 years of Hungarian history, as to sexual liaisons with a sister, a sister-in-law and other adulteries. Oh yes, there was also a totally gratuitous rape. Having said all this, the first story of the relationship among the children of the patriarch was fresh and sensual - thanks to Jennifer Ehle.


"A death at a college campus appears to be a suicide but is actually a cover for murder. The dead man's roommate finds himself embroiled in a mystery as he tries to uncover the truth behind the young man's murder. Twists and turns, as well as some false leads, makes this a tough case for our collegiate hero to solve, let alone (keep) out of the clutches of the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.The stars may be bigger than the movie. Handsome Charles Starrett (as Ken Harris), who has a small "lingerie" scene, became one of the top western stars of the forties, peaking in "The Return of the Durango Kid" (1945). The man playing his father, Robert Warwick (as Joseph Harris), was one of the most respected actors of the teens, beginning with his performance in "Alias Jimmy Valentine" (1915). Watch out for red herrings. **** A Shot in the Dark (2/1/35) Charles Lamont ~ Charles Starrett, Robert Warwick, James Bush


In the many films I have seen Warren Oates, I have come to a definite conclusion, here is one talented individual. I first saw Mr. Oates back in the 1960's television series called Stoney Burke. From then on, I followed his career closely and felt he was destined for great roles. That happened in 1974, when Sam Peckinpah gave him top billing in a film called 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.' Of course, his biggest claim to fame was his magnificent role in 'The Wild Bunch'. I have always thought he was quite able to bring any character a certain magic, that is until I saw him in this flop. The movie is called " Chandler ", a tribute to the iron fisted detectives of the 1950's created by Raymond Chandler. Because, the synopsis said it was about a hard nose Private Eye, I was immediately interested. However, I sat patiently through the entire film and found it to be a dull, dis-interesting, slow pace, twisted, confusing saga which if it had a theme or plot must have been left on some dark back room self. Collectively and with some of Hollywood's best supporting stars, such as Alex Dreier, Mitch Ryan, Gordon Pinsent, Charles McGraw, Richard Loo and Scatman Crothers, this movie had enough power to reach Mach five, however, it fizzled on the launchpad and went no where. As a result, one of my favorite actor's got stuck in a poorly made vehicle which never got off the ground. **


I suppose all the inside jokes is what made Munchies a cult classic. I thought it was awful, though given the ridiculous story and the nature of the characters, it probably could've been a much better (and funnier) movie. Maybe all they needed was a real budget.Munchies, as many viewers have pointed out already, is something of a Gremlins parody. Hence, all the references to the movie. The movie begins somewhere in Peru during an archeological dig. An annoying dufus named Paul, aspiring stand up comedian who offers no sarcasm or witty jokes during the movie despite his career plans, is holed up with his dad in the caves. His dad is an unconventional kind of archeologist, searching the caves not for artificats or mummies or anything, but proof of U.F.O.'s. And that's where the Munchies come into the picture. Hidden in the crevice of a rock is an ugly little mutant that looks like a gyrating rubber doll with a Gizmo voice. They name him Arnold, stash him in a bag, and bring him home so Paul's dad can finally show proof of extra terrestrial life.Paul, the idiot that he is, breaks his promise to his dad to watch Arnold (a wager he made with his dad, if he loses, it's off to community college to get a 'real' career). The creepy next door neighbor with the bad rug, Cecil (television veteran Harvey Korman), wonders what his neighbors are up to. So, he and his lazy son, some airhead hippie type (who looks more like they should've made his character a biker or heavy metal enthusiast) to go and snatch Arnold. Why? A get rich quick scheme of course. And of course, even Cecil's son is too dumb to look after Arnold. And after a few pokes and prods at Arnold, he multiplies into more Munchies.This wasn't even a movie that was so bad it was good. It was just plain awful. I was hoping that the Munchies would've mutated and killed the morons that were always after them, even Paul and his girlfriend. At least it would be one way to get rid of all the bad acting in this movie that really hams up the movie. Not to mention poor special effects that look like hand puppets. And really bad writing all around--it wasn't even funny--not even that young cop who can really give you the homicidal twitch in your eye. Like I said, Munchies, if they had been given an actual budget and better actors, they might've been able to pull off a good parody. Pass.


Very heart warming and uplifting movie. Outstanding performance by Alisan Porter (Curly Sue). I saw this movie when it was first released and enjoyed it immensely. I just caught it again on the Mplex channel, and Curly Sue touched my heart again.


This movie was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. Well there's nothing wrong with that, except it looks like it was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. 90 percent of the cast are white males about same age. It's almost like watching a bunch of guys at boys camp who turned the camera on themselves. The movie has no plot. It simply repeats the same action of blood bath after blood bath. There are some funny scenes and comedic bits. But they don't redeem the flat monotony.The graphic cartoon scenes are used to cover the stuff that was obviously beyond their budget or resources to do, and not done very well at that. Anything that can't be done with white guys running around on the beach covered in blood is done with cheap animation.I went to see this film after seeing the trailer, which makes it look like a Tarrentino piece. Well, the trailer scenes are as good as they ever get. Ther rest of it just repeats the same kind of mundane, inane comedy. It works at times, but it gets boring after the same stuff comes at you over and over. It's more like a string of Satuday Night Live skits than a movie. It's a hit-you-over-the-head-with-it kind of comedy. I can see where the story idea is intriguing. But, in this film post apocalyptic America is much like Medevil England. In fact Wheatlry says the story ideas came from that era. He plans to make a Part 2. I guess he thinks he's Tarrentino or maybe doing a parody thing.At the opening in LA, Wheatley mentioned he will bring back pretty much the same cast in part 2. He was asked if he might consider a more diverse cast in the next one, to which he replied, well yea, sure.


Generally I like horror movies, but unfortunately this fell out of the one pound bargain bin into my friends hand. We sat down to watch it, ready to be scared and ended up spraying food everywhere we were laughing so much. The concept isn't that bad, but why they decided number ten in the series would be lucky I don't know. The worst thing about the movie is the actors. The camera work was poor, the special effects are actually not bad if I am being generous, but overall the story failed to connect on any levels because the actors were as effective as a small lump of badly charred elm. They were wooden beyond measure, especially a foppish young actor who was fifteen years too young to be taken seriously as any kind of government agent. He looked more like a public school boy in fact. There was a really amusing sex scene where he looked like he was bobbing for apples as a busty lady rode on top of him and later his nappy sized underpants were hysterical, but then I remembered it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. I'm desperately wracking my brain to find something positive to say about this movie apart from the occasional flash of breasts, but there simply isn't. Let's hope ten was the lucky number and they don't do another one, I'm not sure my ribs could take it.


I think Micheal Ironsides acting career must be over, if he has to star in this sort of low budge crap. Surely he could do better than waste his time in this rubbish.This movie could be far better, if it had a good budget, but it shows repeatedly through-out the movie. There is one scene at a outpost, which looks like, its outside the front of a railway station, and i bet it was.There is one scene which made give this movie a 3, and it shows the space craft landing and taking off over a lake, surrounded by forests. This was well done, but the rest of the movie, forget it.There is another scene, which looks like a engineering plant, which i bet it, and does not look like a space outpost as the character say it is.This movie is stupid, has a serious low budget, makes no sense and God Help Micheal Ironsides.


If I'm going to watch a porn movie, I prefer it to have some sort of plot, and a descent dialogue. Behind Bedroom Doors is one of the few I've come across with those attributes.The new girl next door scams on the neighbor's human nature and weaknesses where seduction and sex concerned. Chelsea Blue,(I mean Brooke LaVelle) is the choice actress to play the part of the blackmailing seductress, and plays the part magnificently. Chelsea Blue is a very talented and extremely beautiful actress. The movie get's an overall 10 just because she is in it. Her partner in the movie, Monique Alexander is a definite cutie. The two should do more work together. In this movie, though, Monique, who plays Gigi, doesn't have a whole lot to do or say. That's too bad. She seems like she has more talent to be shared. I like the girl who was the (possible) DA's wife next. I forget her name, but she's pretty good looking, and not a bad actress. Nicole Sheridan...I'm still trying to figure out what some people are so excited about. It's obvious there are parts of her bought an paid for. Which is okay, but is she finished? Sorry, but come on! I'm afraid her performance here would have dropped the rating some, except Chelsea's talent and beauty overrides any negatives. Overall, This movie is a good one.


Set in South Africa, a young black guy tries to land a part in a 'gangsta' movie. But with no knowledge of street life, he's told to find out what that life is really like or he won't get the part. He manages to work his way into a gang led by an old friend of his from school and his chances of appearing in the film decline as he commits crimes to be accepted. But for the gang's leader, the burgeoning disaster of his new friend's life suggests a golden opportunity to do something better with his own.While that may sound relatively interesting, it's anything but. The first half of it is incredibly meandering and tedious, while the "hijacking" only takes place towards the end with some very poorly executed low speed car chases. In those "chases", only two police cars are used, both of which are early 90's Nissan Sunny's. Not only would these be rather cheap to pick up (and I find it rather hard to believe they'd be using such mundane old cars in South Africa in the year 2000), but as far as I can remember, there's only 2 involved and none of them get a scratch once. The car chases are very badly shot, with distant and badly timed camera angles and minimal traffic on the roads, and they're all over in around 2 minutes at maximum as you're supposed to believe that a very small kid is actually a highly skilled driver who can easily evade the police despite the driving being pedestrian and utterly unexciting. This now leads me onto the characters and the acting, which are equally bad. The aforementioned kid who drives the car, looks about 13 years old and supposedly is extremely skilled at losing the incredibly inept police. Everybody else is equally unconvincing, so much that they even look bored at times themselves.At the closing scene of the movie, our main character ("Sox Moraka") is asked by the gang leader to steal a car from a car park. While having trouble opening it, the Police arrive and ask him what he's doing and he replies by telling him it's their car. After a brief argument they try to arrest him and he then holds the Police at gunpoint and jumps back in their car. After he's in, the Police return fire and in turn he gets wounded. After another pathetic chase sequence, they decide to abandon the car and set it alight to destroy any evidence. What follows here is one of the most downright laughable and hideously awful special effects I've ever seen. When the car "explodes", superimposed flames suddenly appear from every window with awful sound effects that aren't even in time. It's so badly done and so phony looking that it's hard to even put it into words, and really needs to be seen to be believed. If you watch it in slow motion it looks even funnier. I've seen better effects than this in murder reconstruction documentaries. The car is a Volkswagen Golf MK2 GTi. Something that wouldn't be worth a huge amount at all, and they seriously couldn't afford to destroy it with a real explosion? I'd love to know how large the budget for this movie was. It feels so cheap that I'm surprised it made it outside of South Africa, and even more surprised it made it to a DVD release.I know it's not a big budget Hollywood production. I know it's meant to depict gangs in impoverished townships of South Africa who steal cars from the middle class in and sell the parts on the black market, but with the laughable effects, poorly executed car chases, awful acting and ludicrous characters, any sense of reality is completely lost.Overall, I most certainly do NOT advise you to watch this. If you want to have a laugh and see one of the most poorly done, low budget messes of amovie ever created, then I'd recommend it for that, and only that.It is a wretched, poorly made, poorly edited, poorly paced and tedious piece of low budget drivel that fails on all counts. I've seen many South African movies, including lots of cheap NuImage/Nu-World action pictures, and despite their cheesiness, they're far better than this on all counts.


Taken in the context of the time it was made, I found this a worthwhile movie. While the details may be 'dramatized', the overall history was a nice primer. In addition, I found spotting actors I knew a real pleasure. Who would imagine Ben Cartwright as a dastardly cad? I'll leave the rest of the star spotting to you. As to the secondary casting, this movie (as one would expect from a movie made in the late thirties) has many an enjoyable character actor, but top kudos' to Andrew Jackson's right hand man Peavey. The perfect touch of comedy. Well shot, with beautiful ships, and competent acting throughout out, I recommend this for anyone with a taste for the slightly camp, or an eye for a double-period piece, set at the dawn of America, and made in a period when great names, and top notch character actors, were a real pleasure to enjoy.


Perhaps Disney was hoping for another Mary Poppins but this is a very different story and while Angela is delightful she was a very different performer to the great Julie Andrews. Having said that Lansbury is perfectly cast and delivers a magical performance. There is something deliciously dotty about her character and she is given wonderful support by David Tomlinson. Tomilinson can carry a tune but he is certainly not much chop as a singer. It does not matter he was such a gifted actor you hardly notice. There are some great cameos from much loved stars of another time like Roddy McDowel who gives a winning performance and the much loved Tessie OShea who does very little but its nice to see the old gal again. Its also lovely to see Sam Jaffe and the king of English television Bruce Forsythe in small roles. The score has a couple of beautiful songs especially The briny sea and The age of Not Believing. The big number Portabello Road is stretched to the limit but it has plenty of theatricality. The effects look a bit cliché today but the scene with the German invaders being attacked by the wildest army in film is pretty impressive. The kids are not as annoying as other movies but one does struggle to understand what the youngest boy is saying. I loved the marching song of the home army. The home guard were very important to Britain and this is a warm tribute. The animation is delightful, much better than Pixar which I find grotesque. A warm happy film and its a wonder its not done on stage.


Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids!


This series was CBS networks answer to the success of the Big Valley. It was a 90 minute Western just like the ABC program was. While it was an answer, it did not have the stuff to make it past season 2.The problem really became reality got lost on this show. For example- in one episode, Johnny gets his eye poked out by a stick. Amazingly, by the end of the show, Johnny had healed entirely. Along with that, the stories on this were no where near as strong as The Big Valley.This is a show that I would not want DVDs of, & frankly hope they are never released. Think since CBS was running out of lots, they re-used many familiar settings. This was one the last western series CBS produced as westerns were not real popular in the 1970's.


Some guys think that sniper is not good because of the action part of it was not good enough. Well, if you regard it as an action movie, this view point could be quite true as the action part of this movive is not actually exciting. However, I think this is a psychological drama rather than an action one.The movie mainly told us about the inside of two snipers who definitely had different personalities and different experiences. Tomas Beccket , who was a veteran and had 74 confirmed kills, looked as if he was cold-hearted. However, after Beccket showed his day dream of Montana, we can clearly see his softness inside. It was the cruel war and his partners' sacrifice that made Beccket become so called cold-hearted.Millar, on the contrary, was a new comer, a green hand, and was even not qualified as a sniper. Billy Zane did quite well to show millar's hesitation and fear when he first tried to "put a bullet through one's heart"(as what Beccket said). What he thought about the actuall suicide mission was that it could be easily accomplished and then he could safely get back and receive the award.These two guys were quite different in their personalities and I think that the movie had successfully showed the difference and the impact they had to each other due to the difference in their personalities. These two snipers quarreled, suspected each other and finally come to an understanding by the communication and by what they had done to help even to save the other.Sniper isn't a good action movie but a good psychological one.


"Så som in himmelen" was probably one of the 3 most beautiful films I have seen in my life. That it did not win the Oscar, I will not shed a tear. This movie is in a kind of class of its own, that an Oscar win would possibly have detracted from it!!! My dearest friend Anders (Nyberg), you have done true magnificence with your pen here! Kay Pollak, with your creation, and everyone contributing, you all have given a gift of Love to our world. Between the points of entering this world of ours, then exiting it - you really can say that you made it better! A special personal thank you from my soul to all of you, that you brought back some precious memories from the second decade of my life. I grew up in Sweden, and my young mind and present Beingness was formed and shaped by many beautiful Swedish influences, individuals, traditions, music and nature. My blessings with gratitude to you all. With Love and Light, George-Gabriel Berkovits Soulhealer, Johannesburg, South Africa