Claire Denis's movies seem to fall into one of two categories: the violent and bloody or the quiet and intimate. "L'Intrus" definitely falls into the first category, but it's not so awful as "Trouble Every Day" or "J'ai pas sommeil."Now, ever since I saw "Chocolat," I've made it a point to see every new movie Denis makes. And I have always been disappointed. "L'Intrus" was no exception. She has yet to make a movie as personal and as moving as her first one. You get a lot of the Denis regulars: an older but still magnificent Béatrice Dalle who seems to be in the movie only to show off her full lips, the gap between her teeth, her ample cleavage, and a couple of nice coats; the black guy from "Trouble Every Day" and "J'ai pas sommeil," Grégoire Colin, and that Lithuanian or Russian girl. Michel Subor's character was interesting enough, but the camera lingered on him at such length that I got annoyed by that curly forelock of hair hanging over his forehead and was relieved when, somewhere in Korea, I think, he finally got it cut. There was certainly some action--gruesome murders, a man's search for a son--and there may even have been a plot, but one viewing wasn't enough to figure it out, and two viewings are, I fear, out of the question. For one thing, the score was jarring and obtrusive (as in "Beau Travail"). For another, the seasons changed too abruptly, leaving you even more confused about what was going on. Oh, there were a few pretty shots, and if you liked "Friday Evening" with its shots of the folds in heavy drapes and bedsheets, you might appreciate the aesthetics of "L'Intrus." Otherwise, steer clear. I saw this movie in French and it's possible I missed something crucial. But the dialogue in a Denis movie rarely amounts to more than five pages, double spaced and with ample margins. In "Chocolat" the silence is sublime; in "L'Intrus," it's just dull.


Perhaps not my genre but plot was horrible as was acting by Nancy Allen and Linda Farentino. C. Thomas also seemed uncomfortable in role of being seduced here (while on marijuana? why did this need to be included? this weakened plot considerably). Also Farentino's charac. would have been better had she had more respect for a relationship. Would does movie try to say? not much.


I signed in just to comment on how awfully stupid this movie is. Besides being a rip-off of Executive Decision or Air Force One or any other kind of terrorist story, this is the kind of movie that makes you appreciate seeing a movie that can take the same basic ideas and do it well. It's hard to blame the actors when they are given such a stupid, cliché-ridden script to work with. It's bad enough if you groan once in a movie when you encounter an insult to your intelligence, but when you find yourself groaning over and over again, you have to conclude that the director also isn't the brightest bulb in the movie business, nor are the producers for deciding to bring this story to the screen in the first place. The mostly low-rent actors you can excuse for taking on this assignment, because they most likely showed up to get the money and exposure, not that being a part of this joke-of-a-movie is going to earn them any awards or recognition. It may end up embarrassing them for having such poor judgment as to get involved in such a loser. I see no point in summarizing the plot or even in giving any examples to prove my case, for, to do so, would be cruel and unusual punishment that no one involved in this debacle could withstand. Just as studying well-made movies can inspire you how to make a good, skillfully put-together work of art and beauty, the only thing that you can learn from watching this monstrosity is what NOT to do and what does NOT work! Be warned.


I hand't seen the restored, or any version for that matter, of "Baby Face" with Barbara Stanwyck till I caught it on TCM. What a great movie! In a nutshell Lily lives in a speakeasy, she's been pimped out by her own Father since she was 14! Then his still blows up and he's killed leaving Lily (Stanwyck) alone cept for her black maid Chico, played very nicely by Theresa Harris. Lily leaves for the big city ( New York) deciding to use her sex to get to the top. She does this in great style!She seduces a pudgy clerk to get in on the ground floor and proceeds to go through men like disposable candy! One dumps his fiancée and kills his near father-in-law, also Lily's sugar-daddy, then commits suicide! Lily barely blinks! STanwyck is terrific as a girl who really doesn't know what love is.Then in Paris, she falls for Courtland, played by George Brent, they marry, but when he's in deep financial straights, she bolts. Nearly free with Chico and a half-million, she realizes she loved Court! Lily races to find him, but will she be too late? This is pre-code Hollywood at its best. Stanwyck is tremendous and the look and music in the film are perfect. This reminded me of "Original Sin" with Angelina Jolie, another unfairly ignored flick with an amoral woman, those who disliked that films ultra-romantic leanings, will not like Baby FAce any better, those with belief in sex, love and power, will love it. Highly recommended! See it!


This film is fantastic. Finally well-written characters you can love for all their good and bad. Pierce Brosnan is flat-out hysterical in this self-effacing role. I think its the best thing he's ever done. He's done other roles that exhibited shades of being capable of this kind of fully-fledged work, but this role finally gave him the room to run with it. I almost died when he walked across the hotel lobby in his underwear and boots. And Greg Kinnear and Hope Davis are a couple to aspire too, as well as actors to aspire too. Kinnear is so goofy likable that his turn in the end is truly gratifying. You give good actors good work to play with and they give us something more back.


I enjoyed Longstreet, which followed in the steps of Raymond Burr's successful Ironside TV series and was intended to give it competition. But this show was canceled after one season because it was decided--I believe wrongly--that Longstreet was not able to compete with Mr. Burr's Ironside.I may add that the pilot for this show was especially well done and very memorable. I hope that a box set of Longstreet will appear.Writers should note that this story idea was only briefly explored here and that much more could and should be done to show the play and interplay of disabilities on TV.


Of all the British imperialist movies like Four Feathers, Charge of the Light Brigade for example, this movie stands out as the cream of the crop. It reflects a time when "the sun never set on the British Empire." Get over it. I won't go into why because so many others have expressed the many reasons that makes this film great. I have visited the Alabama Hills and have photographed the pass through which the British marched and it remains as it was, unchanged by time and encroachment by man and vandals. And even though I know it's coming, seeing Din lying dead on a stretcher and when these lines are read "Yes, Din! Din! Din!You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!Though I've belted you and flayed you,By the livin' Gawd that made you,You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din" I still, at 54 years of age, get misty eyed and anyone who says they don't is a liar. The range of emotions within it is the mark of a great movie. Like the ending of another great film, Of Mice and Men.


So many wonderful actresses in one film serve as a practical invitation to the local movie house so I duly responded. Here are some remarks..Vanessa Redgrave is great even while lying in bed. She also looks very old and I don't think this is achieved with much make-up which is a good thing for the film but a sad thing for us cinema-goers. I think her aging got a bit harsh in recent years. Claire Danes continues her welcome return to the movies and exudes a definite warmth. Mamie Gummer's resemblance to her mother Merly Streep both in terms of physical appearance and acting style is so striking that I lost my concentration to the film for a couple of minutes after her entrance. She is surprisingly good; however such a resemblance has the danger of working against her favor. I agree with a previous comment: Natasha Richardson definitely had some plastic job done to her face. She certainly does not look like how I remember her from previous films ("Nell" for example.) Both she and Toni Collette sadly do not make much impression partly because they do not look convincing as sisters. Their interplay is weak. Toni Collette additionally is way too old for her character. Glenn Close and Meryl Streep had to have more screen time. Streep's performance actually is little more than a cameo. Her scenes on the other hand have bigger emotional resonance than the rest of the film. Eileen Atkins provides some welcome dry wit, especially in her second role as an imaginary nighttime companion to Redgrave's character. As for the men; Hugh Dancy enlivenes the film considerably even though he gives a broader performance than needed. As a matter of fact as soon as he exits the story it starts to drag. It is also to his credit that he manages to create the exact necessary sense of boyish charm in the viewer. Patrick Wilson on the other hand is a complete void at the center of the film. He also has the misfortune that the script is insufficient in explaining why three people (one of them a man) are so much smitten by this man. The backstory to this should have been developed more.The cinematography is excellent as expected. However the main summer house set failed to convince me. It does not look natural on the top of that rocky hill, particularly with its grass patch in the front. A bit too cardboard like.Overall, the film is a classy production, but a seen-it-all-before, cried-at-it-all-before feeling took over me during most of its duration and consequently it failed to make the kind of impact on me that I expected from a tearjerker. However, it still managed to make me thoughtful about the passing of time, about one's expectations from life and the extent to which these are fulfilled or not. Worth trying at least on DVD if not at the movies...


What a sad sight these TV stalwarts make, running out the clock on their careers stumbling about a little rusting hulk of a ship - boat might be more appropriate. The whole production feels cheap and shabby, and it's not helped by a "big name" star who is barely capable of spitting out the few lines that he's given in a credible fashion.At no time do the supporting cast rise above the material; they're clearly watching the clock here. Bang out the scenes, get the pay cheque, go home, and try to forget all about it.It's not particularly badly scripted or filmed; there are no real clangers, it's just utterly anodyne, and shot in a very limited number of cramped sets with a small cast of extras. The pacing is a little bizarre; an embarrassingly tentative romantic sub-plot is only begun after the main action starts, which makes it feel irrelevant.Maiden Voyage scores a couple of points for being competently scored, and for being a fun game of "spot the Kiwi bit parters"; most of the cast are graduates of Shortland Street or Xena: Warrior Princess. The saddest thing about this production is that this film probably constitutes their big break.


Second movie in the boxset. Originally titled Bloodsuckers, This movie was pretty average. It is kinda boring in some parts but there is some good gore effects, but they're not great though. The movie takes place in the year 2210. Vampires have pretty much taken over the whole world. The V-SAN (Vampire Sanitation) Squad, which also has their own spaceship and is lead by Churchill, who is captured by the vampires, receives a message from an Earth and the team, formed by Quintana (Played by the very hot Natassia Malthe), the rookie officer Damian and the rebels Rosa and Roman (Roman being played by Aaron Pearl from Wrongfully Accused.) V-SAN later meets up with the leader of the vampires Muco, played by Michael Ironside from Total Recall. He has no plans of living peacefully with humans, as he is bent on world domination. While this movie was not a waste of time, I doubt I'll be putting back in the DVD player anytime soon.


I read the negative comments before viewing this film and undeterred, went ahead and started watching. I admit that I had to rewind quite a few times as the film is incredibly complex, involved and full of detail. That is a good thing but also, quite unexpected in this culture of car chases, explosions, gratuitous sex and general violence that substitute for plot and character development. In fact, what a welcome departure, however, I am so used to not paying a lot of attention to what I watch. This film is chock full of character development and plot line; the kind that we used to analyze when I was in high school. It requires actual mental participation on the part of the viewer. What a nice change. I would compare it to 'All The President's Men' in terms of generic subject matter. That is, it is a mystery about intense misconduct on the part of elected officials and those with enough influence upon officials to essentially 'own' them. Unlike 'All The President's Men', this film makes an effort to give a couple of the characters actual personality. In this sense the movie is a character study like 'The Negotiatior' with Samuel Jackson and Kevin Spacey. In that movie, their characters are both city employees and the plot is extremely intense. Yet, the plot is dependent on the ability of their characters to cooperate with each other, trust each, and ultimately unite together against the corrupt Police Department. There is more gun fire in this film and the specific plot is different but generically, there are many similarities. I WILL say that City Hall requires a whole lot more concentration. In fact, I was struck how parallel it was to past and present political scandals I've seen in my life going back to Watergate. The thing is, the public knows that something is wrong, for sure! but following the details is hard to do. This movie is not even close to being as complex as real life but it actually is realistic to life in its complexity. I think that is one of the reasons that previous posters have criticized the film: unrealistic expectations.If one watches this knowing what they are about to see and are up to the experience, it really is excellent! I watched it 3 times in a row! The acting is superb and the directing is flawless. The weakest link is John Cusak's accent.


Lee Chang-dong's exceptional "Secret Sunshine" is the single most emotionally ravaging experience of the year. It is an instantly sobering, brutally honest character piece on the reverberations of loss and a graceful memento mori that resonates with a striking density of thought, yet remains as inscrutable as the emotions it observes. Through its layered naturalism and stunningly trenchant view of small-town dynamics, Lee implicitly deconstructs the traditional Korean melodrama by pulling apart the cinematics of excess and ripping to shreds the arcs that shape its characters and grounds the proceedings into a crushing grind of stoic realism."Secret Sunshine" remains an immensely compelling, fluid work throughout its 142-minute runtime. Its bravura first hour is filled to the brim with subtextual insinuations, remarkable foreshadowing and adroit reversals of tone brought about by humanistic capriciousness. Adapted from a short story, Lee infuses the film with his sensitivity for the sublime paradoxes of life, last seen in his transgressively comic and irreverent "Oasis". Understanding how personal revolutions are forged when views of our universe are changed, Lee not only sees the emotional cataclysm of a widow's sorrow through an inquiring scope but also feels the tumultuous existential currents that underpin the film when religion becomes a narrative scapegoat in comprehending the heinousness of the human experience.Do-yeon Jeon's ("You Are My Sunshine") Best Actress accolade at Cannes in 2007 is well deserved. Her performance as the widow Shin-ae remains an unrelenting enigma. As a character pulled apart by forces beyond her control, the sheer magnificence of this performance is central to the film's turbulent nature. With Jeon essaying one cyclonic upheaval after another, there's a tremulous sense of collapse that the film, to its credit, never approaches. Instead it finds a delicate balance that saps the charged theatricality and subsequent banality from ordinary tragedies and its fallouts. She becomes the centre of the film's universe as well as ours. Filmed in glorious hand-held CinemaScope, the film demolishes the cinematicism of frames and compositions by becoming visually acute just as it is quietly harrowing when the camera never relinquishes its gaze from Shin-ae through times of happiness, guilt and remorse.Lee captures the details of life in the small, suspicious town of Miryang  the awkwardness of communal situations, its uncomfortable silences and its devastations spun out of personal dramas. Shin-ae's interactions with the townsfolk rarely inspires dividends, especially when they are merely done out of obligation to fit in for the sake of her son, Jun (Seon Jung-yeop). The one recurring acquaintance is Jong-chan (Song Kang-ho), a bachelor mechanic of uncertain intentions who helps her en route to Miryang in the film's enchanting open sequence set to a captivating stream of sunlight. Song has situated himself as a comedic anti-hero in South Korea's biggest films but his nuanced, low-key delivery here purports the director's thought process of never having to reveal more than plainly necessary.If pain is ephemeral, then grief can never truly dissipate. And Lee finds complexity in subsistence. When Shin-ae attempts to head down the path of reconciliation only to be faced again with unimaginable heartbreak, she unsuccessfully employs the fellowship of evangelical Christianity as a foil to her sorrow. But Lee knows better than that when he understands that religion, in the context of the human canvas of strife and misery, is never a simple solution. But Lee never rebukes the essence of religion as he realises the value of salvation for some through a higher power even if it serves a form of denial in others. The scenes in its latter half which deal with religion doesn't allow itself to become aggressively scornful, which is a feat in itself considering how many filmmakers let the momentum of the material take over from what they need to say to be true to its story and characters.Lee's first film since his call to office as his country's Minister of Culture and Tourism is an uncompromising dissertation on human suffering. In a film so artless and genuine, it arduously reveals that there's nothing as simple as emotional catharsis, just the suppression and abatement of agony. "Secret Sunshine" leaves us with tender mercies pulled out of evanescence, and points towards a profound understanding of despair and faith.


Still love it 17 or so years after the first time I saw it, in fact I discovered that I had lost my copy of this and was very upset. Despite it's non-association with the original (which as a kid I never noticed and as an adult I don't care about), this is what cartoons *should* be like. Just dark enough to be interesting and light enough to be enjoyed by everyone. I'm more than glad that my parents raised me on this kind of thing rather than the cartoons we see today that teach our kids nothing. The music is great, and gets stuck in your head forever...I have downloaded the entire soundtrack at one point or another.


I will admit that I have seen maybe five minutes of "Jerry Springer". I don't consider myself a snob, but I really think that I am above watching what's on his show. You should try to elevate yourself above that too.I saw this movie as part of a social studies event I was conducting. I was told that this movie really had little to do with Springer himself, rather it centered on the lives of those who would appear on "Springer." Handled better, this movie might have actually been a fascinating look at how pathetic these people's lives actually are. I will admit, I felt a twinge of empathy for Connie (Molly Hagan). This is all she has in life. How sad that she feels she must go on Jerry's show in order to resolve this.I really feel sorry for Molly Hagan appearing in this. Have you noticed that after this movie, she has mainly been relegated to "B" roles on TV? I will say this about Hagan. She is an extremely beautiful and intelligent woman. I have no doubt that she is very earnest in her acting and she tries to play her roles with a lot of empathy. The problem is that Hagan can't carry a scene on her own. She just doesn't have what it takes to do a lead role. Her best work will always be Angel on "Herman's Head" (a show that was not great, but its heart was in the right place) and when she guested on "Seinfeld" as Sister Roberta.


Much underrated camp movie on the level of Cobra Woman, etc. Photographic stills resemble Rembrandt prints. Sometimes subtle dialog and hidden literate touches found throughout.


An utterly beautiful film, one of a handful of I saw when young that entranced me then and still do, in Thief's case the impression actually seems to get better with the passing of time. By the '90's my daughter and I had seen it many times on TV but still went to the pictures when it came to the local art-house cinema  when it had finished we came out starry eyed with heads full of poetry and Miklos Rozsa's stirring music wishing it could have lasted a couple of hours longer and thinking what a beautiful world it suddenly was again.Idealistic Prince Ahmad wants to slum it amongst his people for a while to check things out, but evil Vizier Jaffar takes his chance to imprison him and seize the throne. After escaping with a little thief played by Sabu, Ahmad spots a Princess and they fall blindingly in love  along the way they have many adventures (although apparently not enough for Sabu!) and Love not only conquers but annihilates everything. The special effects must have been mesmerising in 1940, but Time has taken its toll and lessened their impact especially since digital cartoonery has taken over even live action  but they still hold up well compared against films like Superman from 40 years later. Anyway, if I'm requested to suspend disbelief in gargantuan guffawing genies, flying horses and carpets I also suspend disbelief in perfect special effects! Favourite bits: the dreamy scene in the sunlit garden when Ahmad reveals himself and Adelaide Hall's suitably romantic song; the stunning colours in the tent in the Land Of Legend  in fact, the stunning colours throughout; Sabu and Rozsa's triumphant but still wistful finale. Conrad Veidt played the baddie in two of the most incredible movie romances ever, this and Casablanca, and then died. John Justin and June Duprez were great in the leading roles of lovers, both of them slightly and refreshingly stilted, but the parts didn't call for a huge range of emotions: only pure love mattered.There's a couple of mildly violent images in it, but rest assured this is a glorious feelgood experience with a 100% positive message, it's only a pity that nowadays little kids don't watch this instead of the porn they prefer. One of my Top 10 film favourites, I can't recommend this too much  may it be shown to the end of Time.


It is pretty surreal what these flies can do... eh well... this is a cartoon, so anything can happen in it.At first I must tell you that I love animated movies. Unfortunately this year's repertoire is very weak. This cartoon is nothing but a list of flaws:1) I quoted the tag line. It suggests that this movie has great 3D effects. Well, I did not see any, at least not something special I never saw before.2) The "flies" in this movie look nothing like real flies. At least they could've make them black. But cyan flies, seriously? With giant heads and slim torsos?3) The story. I guess it was written for 6 year old kids. I could tell it in two sentences it is so over simplified.4) Excessive patriotism. For example: "They are American files after all!" Oh, give me a break.


A police officer (Robert Forster) in a crime ridden city has his wife attacked and young son killed after she dares to stand up to a thug at a petrol station. After the murderers get off scot-free thanks to a corrupt judge and he himself is jailed for 30 days for contempt of court, he decides to take matters into his own hands by joining a group of vigilantes led by a grizzled looking Fred Williamson. These Robin Hood types sort out any criminal that the law is unwilling to prosecute, and with their help he attempts to track down those that wronged him..This film is nothing but a big bag o'clichés. The only thing out of the ordinary is the on-screen slaying of a two year old boy, which was pretty sick. Otherwise it's business as usual for this genre e.g involves lots of car chases, beatings and shootings mixed in with plenty of male posturing. I could have done without the prison fight in the shower involving all those bare-a**ed inmates, though. Also, did they run out of money before filming the last scenes? I mention this because it ends very abruptly with little closure. If anyone knows, give me a bell.. actually, don't bother.To conclude: File under "Forgettable Nonsense". Next..


This is the most disturbing film I have ever seen. It makes "Requiem for a Dream" look like a Disney film. Although, technically, it is reasonably well made, acting, cinematography, music, directing, etc., are good. However, the concluding gang rape scene is the most appalling and violent thing I have ever seen and I really wish I had not seen it. I am afraid that it will haunt me for the rest of my life. Although I think anyone would find the film extremely disturbing, my wife and some of her friends were victimized in a very similar manner and I really didn't need an explicit reminder of the horror that they experienced. I saw the film at the SXSW film festival in Austin, TX and none of the cast or crew were in attendance. I would have liked for them to have had the opportunity to defend the violence in their film, which I felt was excessive, gratuitous and unnecessary. An earlier scene successfully conveyed the mood they were apparently striving for, but without rubbing your face in the extreme and explicit sexual violence. This film should have a big WARNING label on it. For these reasons I would not recommend anyone seeing it. You've been warned.


Muscular man-ape in the jungles of Africa is hunted by an opportunistic expedition team; the comely daughter of the team's leader finds him first. Much-ballyhooed version of the Tarzan tale has an OK production, but is crippled by the single-handedly worst direction of a film I have ever seen. John Derek is bereft of inspiration beyond cheesy slow-motion action shots and peek-a-boo glimpses of wife Bo Derek's unclothed body; he has about as much talent behind the camera as Ed Wood. Trying for tongue-in-cheek sexuality, the Dereks lack finesse, snappy timing, and taste. They have a sense of self-parody and bravura abandonment (they do throw caution to the winds), but after a promising opening it all goes to hell. Miles O'Keeffe (who possibly had marbles in his mouth the entire time) has the title role, but plays third fiddle to John Derek's ego and Bo Derek's sense of self-importance. * from ****


Leonard Maltin compared this film to a Mel Brooks comedy. He was far too kind to Ms. Rivers, and far too cruel to Mr. Brooks. Not even the raunchiest Mel Brooks films are this tasteless, and at least they're genuinely funny. This picture deserves a place on the hundred-worst list.


The fact that this film was put out on DVD still formatted-to TV and with a fuzzy picture really annoyed a lot of film purists......and rightly so. This deserves a lot better treatment.The story is about a street performer who needs a son to pass on his craft (the rules of the day) and winds up with a little girl instead (not the conventional way) ....and the problems that ensue afterward. The old man had bought the kid at a slave auction and soon discovers the kid is not a boy, which he obviously thought was the case.The old man "Bianlian Wang (Xu Zhu)is kind of funny-looking with a missing front tooth and an infectious grin. The little girl "Doggie" (Zhou Renying) is a cutie. The rest of the story is how the two manage after that. I usually like a nice sentimental ending but this gets a bit carried away in the final 15 minutes.Overall, it's involving story complete with drama, suspense, humor and sadness. Just don't expect a good quality picture for the money you are spending on the DVD. Until it comes out on widescreen, rent it.


This movie should have never been made.What a shame of the budget.Please hire convincing actors, and make a proper movie. Very thin plot, and unconvincing lines. Almost hilarious, and that is a shame for an action movie.... Definitely not worth watching.They keep replaying the same "shots" of an Stealth airplane flying away. You have seen it ones, and that was not worth re-running 3 or 4 times.It is time for Steven Seagal to retire from movie-making.His movies are getting worser every time.Black Dawn, and Submerged were already bad, but this movie is even worse.


Cinematography--Compared to 'The Wrestler,' a degree of verite and cinematic skill that disarms the viewer, and then hypnotizes as well.Acting--The dialogue is minimal, but the pauses and silence poignant.Story--The conflict in a 'balkanized' Denmark is volatile, as we saw recently jihad murders in the Netherlands and riots in France. While I harbor no love for Islam, the departure from the West from Christian values holds no cause for celebration.The director of this film managed to mirror the two societies in a way that belabored neither, emphasizing the development of Aicha as an individual who became a champion, not so much in the ring, but to all those around her. Even her worst . . . I will stop here to avoid the spoiler.


Geniuses William Cameron Menzies and Herbert George Wells craft this extraordinary anticipation film, with ambition and scope hard to find today. They predict World War II and the way Great Britain was attacked, and also the fact that the war would be followed by a space race. They change the timing; in the film the war and the space exploration are much longer, but there are so many qualitatively correct things that it's amazing. We even see an helicopter (the film is older than them).Unforgettable giant planes and a futuristic meritocracy of scientists that seem Romans with bubble-helmets: if you can see through those funny costumes you may appreciate the state of the art architecture by masters from the 30s, Well's vision of a rationalistic society, interesting reflections on the nature of power, and John Cabal as archetype of the adventurous and inventive human being, the one that chooses to shape reality and not to be shaped by it.9 1/2 out of 10. Inspiring like that final monologue by John Cabal.


Peter Sellers plays Dick Scratcher (ha,ha), a cook for a pirate ship who takes over as captain after he murders the previous one. Although he's witnessed a treasure being buried, he begins losing his memory and the treasure map he obtains becomes blank. Thus, Dick is forced to find someone who can see and communicate with ghosts (do you place an ad for that?) and help lead a path to the treasure. It's mind boggling how anyone could have bankrolled this pointless film. Former Goon Spike Milligan replaced Medak as director, and given Medak's talents in the film The Ruling Class, you can probably guess which of the grainy, poorly lit scenes had Milligan in the director's chair. Peter Boyle makes a brief appearance in the film's first 10 minutes as the doomed pirate captain. He's probably quite thankful that Young Frankenstein was released the same year this was filmed and canned, so that he can keep this off his resume. Franciosa looks dashing as the handsome power-behind-Scratcher but he and Seller both look pretty desperate, with even Sellers' makeup and hair looking quite terrible. They had to know this movie was bombing even as they were filming it. With lines like these, I can understand any possible unease:PIERRE: (about to be hanged) You'll pay for this.SCRATCHER: No, I won't. I'll do it for free.And that's one of the GOOD jokes. It's amazing to me that much of Sellers prolific material is still in the vaults, but this was made available on VHS more than 15 years ago! How about someone stepping up to the plate and releasing in the US the well-received British TV program "A Show Called Fred" starring Sellers, Milligan, and directed by the great Richard Lester?


I have always said that some plays by their very nature just can't be translated to film, and this one is a prime example.As a play, this is a very funny farcical satire of the Catholic church, with a razor wit and a central character who is so shockingly unreal we have to root for her even when she starts murdering her parishioners (one of whom made the fatal mistake of admitting he had not sinned since his last confession, so she feels she is sending him straight to heaven).That's just one example of how far outside of reality the play goes, and in the make believe world of the theater, it works. However, that kind of heightened reality rarely works on film, and it certainly doesn't here.Director Marshall Brickman has assembled a fine cast who do great work, but by presenting all this absurdity in a realistic fashion the comedy becomes tragedy and you are left with an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach.Seek out a production of the stage play instead, you won't be disappointed.


The story is a little slow and a little stupid. Greta Garbo doesn't look very good and I couldn't understand half the things she said because of her accent, which was exaggerated for this role. Melvyn Douglas, meanwhile, plays his normal unlikeable role and Constance Bennett is just so-so except for a couple of her screams, which were funny. On the plus side, Roland Young had the best role in the film. I wish he had more lines, as he disappeared in the second half of the story. Also, it was interesting to see Ruth Gordon look so young. I had only seen her in those crazy roles she played from the late '60s to the '80s and a whacked out old woman. Story-wise, the best part might have been the final few minutes when we see a stunt man doing amazing things on skis, pretending to be Douglas falling down the slopes. That was amazing and humorous footage.Overall, I can see where this film - Garbo's last - was not a box-office success. It just drags too much, going on and on about deceptions. It's an annoying story. Garbo knew it, too, and called it quits.


Just after I saw the movie, the true magic feeling of the Walt Disney movies came up in me and I realized me that it was a long time ago that I saw the 'real' magic in a movie.The combination of the right music, speeches and magical effects brings the Disney feeling again into your body. Very special things I saw where the not-knowing effects in the movie, started with the disney logo transforming into the Cinderella castle and ended as an old-story telling fairytale with your grandparents.The magic has returned in me. I rate this movie 8 out of 10.


"Once in the life" is a very good movie. However it's not good for everybody, due to the extensive use of vulgar language and the violence of some of the situations. The movie manages to represent in an anecdotic, believable way the "life" in NYC neighborhoods where drug problems are important. This depiction is in turn used as the decor for a most thoughtful and suspenseful drama backed up by powerful dialogs (however I had a hard time understanding some of them because english is not my mother tongue. On video it's OK). There is a little overplay sometimes, but I think it fits quite well to the general orientation Fishburne gave to the movie, which gives matter for reflexion more than just being a good style exercise, notably in the time/action management. The characters, even though not simple, are easy to relate to and actors do a fine job at impersonating them. By the way I much enjoyed the soundtrack (B. Marsalis). If you're not too prude, you should enjoy seeing that movie once, twice, three times. I rated the movie 9/10.


This is why I still have nightmares.This terrifying film (a musical) was considered appropriate for children in the 1970s.A boy leaves on a magical journey to an island. The mayor of the island, Pufnstuf, allegedly a dragon, looking more like a newt with conjunctivitis to me, and a magic talking flute are targeted by a witch (Billie Halliday, who was considered 'a bit of alright' at the time).The flute is recovered at an 'interesting' witches convention, with the witches having a gay old time. The boy dresses in drag then as a 'fairy' to recover the flute.Not suitable for children.


Utterly predictable silly show about a man who has killed his wife by mowing her down when driving and claimed he had blacked out. Why was he still driving a car? Why did he still feel able to drive a car having killed his wife with one? This question has not occurred to the writers. The story then witters on about a psychologist and her failing marriage which is tied into the failing marriage of wife-killing blackout driver. An omniscient mother and one dimensional child are thrown in for good measure, and the whole builds up to a predictable denouement and crashing finale. Are police psychologists so easily taken in? Deadful writing that the actors do their best with, but they are doomed to failure. This is on a par with a Harlequin Romance. Don't waste your time watching this one unless that's what you are aiming for.


Popular radio storyteller Gabriel No one(Robin Williams,scraggy and speaking in hushed,hypnotic tones) becomes acquainted and friends with a fourteen-year-old boy from Wisconsin named Pete Logand(Rory Culkin),who has written a book detailing sexual abuse from his parents. To boot,Pete has AIDS and this compels Gabriel further still,since his partner Jess(Bobby Cannavale,good)happens to be a survivor of HIV himself. He also acquaints himself with Pete's guardian,a woman named Donna(Toni Collette,brilliant!)and when Gabriel decides he wants to meet and talk to the two of them in person and goes to Wisconsin,he discovers some secrets he was(naturally)not prepared to find.Based on real events that happened to Armistead Maupin(who co-wrote the screenplay with Terry Anderson)and directed by Patrick Stetner,this film moves a lot faster(90 min.,maybe a few minutes longer)than one might think a movie of this genre would run. That's good in that it keeps the action and storyline lean and clear. It's bad in that it leaves various holes in the plot and doesn't sew-up any of the plot openings or back-story. I'd rather not go into any great detail except to say that,if you are not familiar with Mr.Maupin's works or his personal story,you feel a little bit out of the loop here. Still,the performances by Williams( I would've loved to heard more of his narration,personally),Collette,Cannavale,Culkin and much of the supporting cast(the Waitress at the restaurant Collete's Donna frequents does a great job with what small part she has!)are top-notch and the mood established here--namely,the chilly,lonely dark exteriors of Wisconsin and New York--give a terrific framing for this story. It may have ends that don't tie together particularly well,but it's still a compelling enough story to stick with.


Four great stories from master Robert Bloch, adapted to the screen by the best actors in the field in the early Seventies, are the base of this excellent Amicus' production. This was a kind of movie very popular in the Sixties till the mid-Seventies and it's one of my favorite type of horror movies. This one in particular shines for the episode Sweets to the Sweet, where Christopher Lee is stalked by his evil little girl child, heiress to her mother tradition. Great fun from start to finish, and good to very good are also the other three episodes (with the last one a bit on the comic side, but with the great addition of Ingrid Pitt, the most famous vampress of the English cinema.


I saw this movie on the film festival of Rotterdam (jan '06) and followed the discussion between director and public afterwards. Many people reacted shocked and protesting. He will get a lot of negative critics. But: the world is cruel like this, and it's not funny. People don't like it. That itself doesn't mean that the movie is bad. I can see that difference. Don't shoot the messenger that shows us the world outside our 'hubble'! Nevertheless I think this a bad movie. Film-technically it's a good one. Nice shots and script, most good fitting music, great actors. The director pretends to make a psychological movie, - the psychology however is of poor quality. Describing such a powerful violence itself is not the art. The art would be a powerful description of the psychological process behind that violence. How does a shy boy come to such a cruelty? The director pretends to describe that, - but is not good in that.The director used several times the word the 'selfishness' of people, mentioning for instance the teacher. Only: this teacher wasn't selfish,- just someone in several roles, caring for his pupils, ánd worried about his script. I think it's a simplification to call him selfish. The atmosphere in the village is creepy, and the mother made awful mistakes ('you terribly let me down
') but it doesn't become believable for me, that there is caused súch a lot of pain, that the shyest boy comes to such terrible things. In fact, reality is far more complex than the way, this film describes  and it needs far better descriptions. The interesting thing would be: how does it work? Describe that process for me please, so that we understand.With the written phrase on the end, the director said to point to an alternative way of life. It was the other extreme, and confirmed for me that director and scriptwriter are bad psychologists, promoting black/white-thinking. The connection between violence in films and in society has been proved. Use such a violence gives the responsibility to use it right. There are enough black/white-thinkers in the world, causing lots of war and misery. I hope, this movie won't be successful.


I've seen a lot of Seagal movies, and while most aren't great, or even good, this steamy pile lowered the bar for bad movies.The plot: not sure really. Something about a drug that makes you all crazy and strong or something. Who are the good guys and bad guys? Hard to tell. Most of the movie is cut scenes going back and forth between people in darkly lit rooms complaining about how good Seagals character "Mashall" is.Acting: Blows.Voice Dubbing ,,,,,, What was with the horrible voice overdubbing?! Could they of found anyone who sounded any less like Seagal? May as well had Cheech or Chong doing the voice overs, might of at least been entertaining then.This movie is boring, and completely stupid. Avoid it at all costs!!!!


I saw 'Descent' last night at the Stockholm Film Festival and it was one huge disappointment. Disappointment because the storyline was potentially powerful, the prospect of seeing Rosario Dawson in a smaller intimate movie was exciting and, being a fan (sounds pervy, I'm not!) of 'rape/revenge' flicks of the 70's, I was needless to say very curious to check this movie out. My conclusion: let's stick to the classics! Yes, the storyline has potential but the dialogs are flat, the actors unconvincing. Even Dawson is empty. Some would say that it's a right depiction of the college world in the US, that the emptiness of the characters serve a purpose and all that jazz but it just makes the whole movie unsubstantial. Just like the scene where Dawson gets raped: it seriously lacks intensity! I wasn't expecting anything 'Irreversible'-style but still, aren't we suppose to feel compassion for her? I didn't. Not for a minute, she was so lame all the way ;-) And I read that the photography was impressive. Well, it is good indeed but nothing ground-breaking either. I must admit that the screening at the festival wasn't so good so maybe I missed out something here but at the end of the movie, I couldn't help thinking 'I feel like watching Argento's 'Inferno' again. lol. More seriously, the first scene in the club is beautifully shot and all but I had the bitter sensation of watching a longer and more boring version of the scene in the filthy bar near the American-Canadian border in Lynch's 'Twin Peaks - Fire Walk with Me'... the crude red and blue lighting, the heavy bass music, the general lascivious/decadent atmosphere... No, I just couldn't get into this movie. Too bad.


Whoever made this nonsense completely missed the point. Jane is a silly comic strip to titillate without being sleazy.This giant mess tries to be funny and exciting but is just a shambles. There is not one decent performance in it..even the usually reliable Jasper Carrott is painfully unfunny.The American bloke whose name escapes me is just as rubbiush as he was in flash gordon.Maud Adams tries as a villianess but she is a bit long in the tooth for this type of thing. All of these things would not matter if the girl was sexy or funny or likable.She is not. Kirsten Holmes faded into obscurity after this and so much the better.I've flushed more entertaining things than this down the toilet. Avoid


This is a very memorable spaghetti western. It has a great storyline, interesting characters, and some very good acting, especially from Rosalba Neri. Her role as the evil villainess in this film is truly classic. She steals every scene she is in, and expresses so much with her face and eyes, even when she's not speaking. Her performance is very believable. She manages to be quite mesmerizing without being over the top (not that there's anything wrong with being over the top). Mark Damon is surprisingly good in this movie too.The music score is excellent, and the theme song is the kind that will be playing in your head constantly for days after seeing the movie, whether you want it to or not. There are a couple of parts that are very amusing. I especially like the part where Rosalba Neri undresses in front of the parrot. There's also lots of slick gun-play that's very well done.I would probably have given this movie 8 or 9 stars if it wasn't for two things. The first being a silly bar room brawl that occurs about 25 minutes into the film. This is one of the most ridiculous looking fights I have ever seen in a movie. It is very poorly choreographed, and looks more like a dance number from a bad musical than any kind of a real fight. One might be able to overlook this if it were a Terence Hill/Bud Spencer comedy, but this is a more serious western, and the brawl really needed to be more realistic. The other thing that annoyed me about this movie was Yuma's cowardly Mexican sidekick. I guess he was supposed to be comic relief or something, but the character was just plain stupid and unnecessary in a movie like this, and he wasn't at all funny. All I can say is where is Tuco when you need him? All that having been said, let me assure everyone reading this that Johnny Yuma is a classic spaghetti western despite the faults I have mentioned, and all fans of the genre need to see this movie.


This is an absolute great show. Jessica Alba, besides being the most beautiful women in the world, is a great actress. She does a great job of portraying Max, and I could never see anyone else doing that role. She is definitely one of a kind and absolutely gorgeous.


For a long time, 'The Menagerie' was my favorite 'Star Trek' episode though in recent years it has been eclipsed by 'City on the Edge of Forever.' What I used to prefer about 'Menagerie' was that it's more hard-core Star Trek with this fascinating back-story to the then-current Trek storyline. I still think it's fairly ingenious the way Gene Roddenberry incorporated the original pilot into a two-part episode. Though the 'new' part of the story is largely an excuse for Kirk and a few others (and us) to watch the pilot, the idea of Spock being court-martialed is a clever one. You can poke holes in the plot if you want. For instance, given the Talosians' mind-control abilities and Captain Pike's condition, why is it even necessary to physically bring Pike back to their planet? And there are other confusing questions about Pike and Commodore Mendez... best to not think too hard about the details and just enjoy ST's only two-parter.


not your typical vamp story, not bram stoker or anne rice here. a truly original vampyre story. these vampyres are genetic mutants who the sunlight don't bother. they are pure evil to. the film is not perfect. many of the actors are clearly amateurs. the two leads who play van helsing and rally the vampyre chick are pretty good though. the film is intensely violent which may disturb some people. also it is loaded with scientific detail that many will find hard to understand and may get bored with. i was sold on the clever storyline and the couple good performances. no telling how successful this film could be if they had a bigger budget and it got mass distribution


#1 Vampires vs. Humans#2 Military-reject roughneck squad as first responders to dangerous, unknown Vampire incursions.#3 Sexy female Vampire on the side of the "good guys".#4 Plenty of gore and action.There are four (4) major plot devices that may help you decide if you want to watch this movie. If you want all four, then the next plot device may not deter you...#5 In outer space.That last one almost got me too, but I'm glad I watched. In a pile of terrible direct-to-video horror that is the Sci-Fi channel Halloween marathon... this movie is a breath of fresh air. It will stand-up against any of the other Sci-Fi channel offerings, and even against the other Vampire movie Natassia starred in (who keeps giving Uwe Boll money?).


The direction had clearly stated that this film's idea and plot is totally original....however, as to those who have read 'slam dunk' comic, we can clearly see that the characters are very similar and even some jokes...Another note is Jay Chow himself DO NOT know Kung Fu, it just won't impress anyone if he tries to act like he can, many people today can see the differences.. Luckily the movie do not contain much of KunG Fu fighting and much are enchanced by stunners and visual effects...I think that Jay's acting is still a pain to watch, especially when almost everyone else in the film is so much better. The only reason I think why Jay is the main actor is simply is for his popularity.Despite how hard I wish to stop anyone from watching this thus making this "orginal" movie getting what it shouldn't have, it has became one of the best budget films in China for this year.


This movie was so very badly written. The characters had no depth. They should have never made a movie of this. My 11 yr old son could write a better screenplay then Hyung-rae Shim.The only actor that didn't suck was the zoo guard. He was the only funny and believable one of the lot.I love movies and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this one was up there on my lame list at number 2. Number 1 being Demonicus.For those of you who actually thought this was a good movie, you are in serious need of brain surgery.Most of the creatures in the movie weren't even dragons...so why did they call D-war?


*spoliers* do not read any further if you haven't seen this moviePicking up after the depressing "Phantasm II" ended; The Tall Man kidnaps Mike, while Reggie and new kid Tim spend most of the rest of the movie trying to get him back, and not end up as slaves on the Tall Man's "Red Planet". This one gets really silly: the trio of thieves in the bright pink hearse were only there for comic relief, and the black karate chick (can't remember her name) was so irritating I couldn't wait to see if the Tall Man killed her character. This one sets it up to almost look like it was going to be Tim's character, who comes in late and ultimately is the hero, but ... it doesn't quite work out that way. By the very end of this story Liz is beheaded by the killer midgets, Mike gets a silver sphere implanted into his skull, the spheres get Reggie and the dwarfs get Tim, and there's no one left to stop The Tall Man. The bad guy wins - now how's that for a surprise twist at the end?This was filmed in 1993 and unreleased until '95, and the ending of this one was at the time final, and although it's disappointing and anticlimactic it was also a fitting and appropriate ending for this weird little series. But the fourth one changes this ending and adds nothing new but more bad jokes, and an even worse and more nonsensical ending ...*1/2 out of ****


This comedy with much underlying pain and sadness succeeds where most others fail. There have been many films of this genre with more notable actors attempting to achieve this elusive mixture which haven't come anywhere near the depth and deftness of this one. This is surely because the exceptional cast with outstanding performances by Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy seem so spontaneous that the reality of their characters rapidly grip your interest and emotions and hold them throughout the film. At first, the action seems rather off-the-wall and harebrained but one gradually learns that these two rather pathetic damaged people are desperately and unwillingly trying to heal themselves, even if grudgingly, through each other. Rogers' heartrending facial expressions of numb hurt and Sheedy's angry outbursts are so eloquent that one feels them as one observes them. You will care about these two likable but deeply suffering people and hope that they will succeed because it's in doubt and all hangs on a tenuous emotional thread. Hopefully audiences will get to see more of Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy as this film proves their merit as very accomplished actors beyond doubt.


This film is very creepy indeed. Unfortunately, not for the reasons the film makers would hope.There's a mastermind serial killer too, but he's not what's creepy either. He's just your standard comic book villain, a cross between Hannibal Lecter and Freddie Kruger, though with nothing particularly fresh to add to either. Incidentally, for even the vilest and most reprehensible of criminals, can they be detained chained in a stress position, on their feet, arms outstretched 24 hours a day week in week out? I suppose in the world that gave us Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, anything's possible.No, what's really creepy about this film is the central character, Danny. This unappealing young man, aided and abetted it's true by some ludicrously lax security arrangements and a doctor entirely careless of any notion of professional ethics or patient confidentiality, wanders into the hospital room occupied by what can only be described as a highly vulnerable and defenceless young woman, and on the basis of nothing whatsoever (her chronic sleeping precludes from being able to give anything like informed consent) imagines himself to have some sort of special relationship with her.Seemingly within days, he has arrogated to himself the right to abduct her, believing (completely falsely, as we discover) that he is better able to care for her than anyone else, and within minutes of getting her back to his apartment, is sexually molesting her though she is (again due to her sleepiness) entirely unable to consent or resist.Our suspicions as to why he would feel this connection are pretty soon confirmed. He is of course more or less unable to form any mature adult friendships, let alone sexual relationships, so instead falls back on this essentially infantilised woman, who because of her permanent sleeping has a mental age corresponding to a lived experience of only a few years. The scene where she discovers ice cream is particularly cringe-making, and the coyly knowing look she gives him when he gloatingly says he'll have to clean her up again causes a particular shudder of horror. But again, I'm afraid, not that shudder of horror the film makers were hoping for, but a much more straightforward spasm of revulsion. We can all see clearly what's on the end of our forks here - it's the paedophile's perfect dream of innocence, sexual compliance and utter dependence. Horrible, horrible, horrible.What else have we got in this mish mash? Twisted dreamscapes not quite as good as del Toro. The compulsory "You need to go to the police" argument, where the lead character always has a reason for not doing so even though it's the only sensible course of action. The automaton sequence, much praised in the comments here, though completely and utterly pointless ("It serves no function!", as Sigourney Weaver memorably protested in Galaxy Quest) and looking to me just like the Abominable Doctor Phibes rehashed in one of the Saw derivatives.Jeffrey Combs does his best though, so a star for that, and a couple more because you have to keep lower rankings for films that are even worse than this, and in general this is well-shot and competently performed.


OK me and a friend rented this a few days ago because we like to keep track of b-movies since we do them ourselves. Anyway, the cover contained blood and weird looking naked girls with fangs and stuff... and Tom Savini! There is just no way this movie can fail! Right? wrong!! It just seems like such a waste! There was really no story, the dialog was terrible (is anyone there? x 1000!!!), the characters were.. well, they really lacked any kind of personality... The effects were terrible.. and whats up with these long artsy shots of scared people running around doing nothing.. with extreme closeups of eyes and stuff? We were sitting the whole movie waiting for something... anything to happen... but no... "oh, here comes the nymphs! great! oh.. they're kissing... again... and now for the violence! OK... nothing really happens... again... oh, now they run around... and the closeups of eyes... again... oh, heres Tom Savini! Oh... he died... right... OK, maybe now something cool or even interesting will happen.. no.. oh! Cool! a severed head! the end... oh crap.." And finally, since i'm so full of myself.. i'll tell you this! Give me a van, six actors, a weird looking house, Tom Savini, a couple of naked girls with fangs and buckets of blood and i could make the coolest movie you've ever seen... I've made movies with zero budget in two days that has better effects, better acting and a better script than this... what is this Johannes guy doing?? Making cool movies is easy!It could have been so great... I'm really upset!!


**Possible Spoilers Ahead**	Jason (a.k.a. Herb) Evers is a brilliant brain surgeon who, along with wife Virginia Leith, is involved in the most lackluster onscreen car crash ever. Leith is decapitated and the doctor takes her severed noggin back to his mansion and rejuvenates the head in his lab. The mansion's exterior was allegedly filmed at Tarrytown's Lyndhurst estate; the lab scenes were apparently shot in somebody's basement. The bandaged head is kept alive on "lab equipment" that's almost cheap-looking enough for Ed Wood. Some of the library musicthe movie's high pointlater turned up in Andy Milligan's THE BODY BENEATH. Leith's head has some heavy metaphysical discourses with another of Ever's misfires, a mutant chained in the closet. Meanwhile, the good doc prowls strip joints looking for a body worthy of his wife's gabby noodle. The ending, in uncut prints, features some ahead-of-its-time splatter and dismemberment when the zucchini-headed monster comes out of the closet to bring the movie to a welcome close. This thing took three years to be released and then, audiences gave it the bad reception it richly deserved. Between this, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and a few others, 1959 should have been declared The Year Of The Turkey.


My favorite movie genre is the western, it's really the only movie genre that is of American origin. And despite Sergio Leone, no one does them quite like Americans.Right at the top of my list of ten favorites westerns is Winchester 73. It was the first pairing and only black and white film of the partnership of director Anthony Mann and actor James Stewart. It was also a landmark film in which Stewart opted for a percentage of the profits instead of a straight salary from Universal. Many such deals followed for players, making them as rich as the moguls who employed them.Anthony Mann up to this point had done mostly B pictures, noir type stuff with no real budgets. Just before Winchester 73 Mann had done a fine western with Robert Taylor, Devil's Doorway, that never gets enough praise. I'm sure James Stewart must have seen it and decided Mann was the person he decided to partner with.In this film Mann also developed a mini stock company the way John Ford was legendary for. Besides Stewart others in the cast like Millard Mitchell, Steve Brodie, Dan Duryea, John McIntire, Jay C. Flippen and Rock Hudson would appear in future Mann films.It's a simple plot, James Stewart is obsessed with finding a man named Dutch Henry Brown and killing him. Why I won't say, but up to this point we had never seen such cold fury out of James Stewart on screen. Anthony Mann reached into Jimmy Stewart's soul and dragged out some demons all of us are afraid we have.The hate is aptly demonstrated in a great moment towards the beginning of the film. After Stewart and sidekick Millard Mitchell are disarmed by Wyatt Earp played by Will Geer because guns aren't carried in Earp's Dodge City. There's a shooting contest for a Winchester rifle in Dodge City and the betting favorite is Dutch Henry Brown, played with menace by Stephen McNally. Stewart, Mitchell and Geer go into the saloon and Stewart and McNally spot each other at the same instant and reach to draw for weapons that aren't there. Look at the closeups of Stewart and McNally, they say more than 10 pages of dialog.Another character Stewart runs into in the film is Waco Johnny Dean played by Dan Duryea who almost steals the film. This may have been Duryea's finest moment on screen. He's a psychopathic outlaw killer who's deadly as a left handed draw even though he sports two six guns. Another person Stewart meets is Shelley Winters who's fiancé is goaded into a showdown by Duryea and killed. Her best scenes are with Duryea who's taken a fancy to her. She plays for time until she can safely get away from him. Guess who she ultimately winds up with?There are some wonderful performances in some small roles, there ain't a sour note in the cast. John McIntire as a shifty Indian trader, Jay C. Flippen as the grizzled army sergeant and Rock Hudson got his first real notice as a young Indian chief. Even John Alexander, best known as 'Theodore Roosevelt' in Arsenic and Old Lace has a brief, but impressive role as the owner of a trading post where both McNally and Stewart stop at different times.Mann and Stewart did eight films together, five of them westerns, and were ready to do a sixth western, Night Passage when they quarreled and Mann walked off the set. The end of a beautiful partnership that produced some quality films.


Well, maybe not immediately before the Rodney King riots, but even a few months before was timely enough. My parents said that they saw it and the next thing you know, the police got acquitted and LA got burned to the ground. It just goes to show the state of race relations in America. The plot has white Mack (Kevin Kline) and African-American Simon (Danny Glover) becoming friends after Simon saves Mack's life in the black ghetto. Meanwhile, movie producer Davis (Steve Martin in a serious role) thinks that gratuitous violence is really cool...until he gets shot. There's also some existentialism in the movie: Mack and his family come to realize that they aren't living as they really want.It seems that "Crash" has somewhat renewed people's interest in race relations, but this one came out much earlier. Maybe we'll never be able to have stable race relations in this country. But either way, "Grand Canyon" is a great movie. It affirms Kevin Kline as my favorite actor. Also starring Mary McDonnell, Mary-Louise Parker and Alfre Woodard.


(some spoilers) - as if you wouldn't know how it'll endMy expectations for HOLLOW MAN were high. A very good commercial, a director like Paul Verhoeven and actors like Kevin Bacon and Elisabeth Shue, plus a very interesting theme - invisibility. Every premise for a great movie was accomplished. Unfortunately these things didn't matter at all. The movie was very very week, without suspense and awfully predictable. It's all about a bunch of scientists who discovered invisibility. After the tests on animals succeeded, Kevin Bacon decides to test it on himself. Once he's invisible, he changes completely, realizing the advantages of not being seen. From this to murder there's a very thin line.Hollow Man is an ill movie. It suffers of the disease that many new movies have: the special effects. From a challenging theme that could have lead the producers to a great tensed psychological thriller, Verhoeven ruins everything focusing only on special effects, without giving a damn about the real value of the movie. I must admit, the fx are awesome, probably the best i have seen since Matrix, but that's not enough to make a movie good. Actually that's the problem with the movies today. Just like Verhoeven, most directors care only about spectacular scenes - and nothing more. The exceptions are very few, and probably the Matrix is the only movie that combines perfectly fabulous special effects and great plot.After Starship Troopers, Verhoeven disappoints again. In stead of a great film, HM is cr*p. There are only 2 reasons why you could watch this movie: 1. the special effects 2. the joke with Superman and Wonder Woman (i won't spoil this moment for you...)Okay, so what went wrong with the movie? Everything. Let's see what i can remember.--- It's not tensed at all. It should've been, but it's not.--- It's too predictable . You know from the beginning who will die and who will live.--- In stead of focusing on the psychological part, Verhoeven cares only about the effects.--- Very many cliches. --- Of course the bad guy wakes up a few times before dying.--- Just like in every low quality horror, the first rule is to let the characters separate as much as possible. Every time there is somebody alone in the lab, perfect victim for Bacon.--- Some holes in the plot. Example: at the beginning, Bacon has to scan his finger to enter the lab. After he's invisible, how can he do that?--- The ending: absolutely horrible.--- After Shue hits Bacon in the head, Bacon falls down to the ground. Then Shue and Brolin leave quietly and slowly, without looking back. Is that normal? Then Bacon gets up, attacks them, they "kill" him again. And then Shue screams "I heard an explosion" (happened minutes ago), and they suddenly run inside. Didn't she hear that explosion some time before?--- There's a scene in which you can see the microphones hanging above the actors. Come on, Mr Verhoeven , i expected much more from you!So that's about Hollow Man. What was supposed to be a great movie turned into a scam. Vote: 4 out of 10 (for the special effects)


And I am a Nicole Kidman fanatic. I would pay to see and hear her read the Moscow phone book, which, for all I know, she may have been doing when she was speaking Russian in this movie. All four of the principals are excellent, but the movie itself is a number of good images and better scenes held together by nothing.While one is always ready to suspend disbelief while watching a movie, this one asks too much of the viewer. It could have been very funny (which it is in parts) or quite frightening (which it is in one scene) but the director didn't seem to know which way to go.


Having seen men Behind the Sun I guess I hoped for an evolution in style & technique to match the larger scale of this movie. I was also quite interested to see someone make a hard-hitting fact-based fictionalised account of what happened during this most notorious of Japanese atrocities, but this is not it. This plays like a bottom-to-mid tier European Nazi exploitation movie from the 70s - e.g. SS Experiment Camp etc (perhaps more like Deported Women of the Special Section actually). Granted it has a greater scope and more people running around, but it resorts to the same cheap and cheerless device of lots of hapless non-actors limply falling over to the sound of ridiculously fake gunshots, spiced up with the occasional poorly executed 'shock' sequence. The admittedly horrible documentary footage is roughly spliced in between scenes so hackneyed that even these real images are robbed of much of their power. Watch channel 4's 'The Holocaust' (aired recently (still running?), as of 1 No 2006) for a genuinely disturbing documentary on the evils of war (featuring excellent in-context use of actual footage). This is the type of treatment the horror of Nanjing deserves, not this hackneyed exploitation garbage (a better executed exploitation movie minus the disrespectful use of stock footage would have been fine, but again this is not even a very good exploitation movie). Rating: 3 (5 as exploitation, 1 as a treatment of the subject).


Bizarre Tobe Hooper exercise regarding an unfortunate young man(Brad Dourif)with the ability to set people on fire. This ability stems from parents who partook in atomic experiments in the 50's. They die of Spontaneous Human Combustion and it seems that what Sam is beginning to suffer from derives by these pills his girlfriend, Lisa(Cynthia Bain)gives him to take for rough migraines. In actuality, Lisa was told to manipulate Sam into taking the pills by Lew Orlander(William Prince), pretty much the young man's father who raised him from a child. Lew has benevolent plans..he sees Sam as the first "Atomic Man", a pure killing machine in human form. Sam never wanted this and will do whatever it takes to silence those responsible for his condition. As the film goes, Sam's blood is slowly growing toxic, green in color instead of red. It seems that water and other substances which often put out fire react right the opposite when Sam's uncontrollable outbursts of flame ignite. Come to find out, Lisa has Sam's condition whose parents also dies from SHC. Dr. Marsh(Jon Cypher), someone who Sam has known for quite some time as his physician, is to insert toxic green fluid into their bodies, I'm guessing to increase their levels of flame. Nina(Melinda Dillon, sporting an accent that fades in and out)was Sam's parents' friend and associate on the experiments in the 50's who tries to talk things over with him regarding what is happening. And, Rachel(Dey Young)is Sam's ex-wife who may be working against her former husband with Lew and Marsh to harm him and Lisa.Quite a strange little horror flick, filled with some pretty awful flame-effects. Dourif tries to bring a tragic element and intensity to his character whose plight we continue to watch as his body slowly becomes toxic waste with fire often igniting from his orifices. There's this large hole in his arm that spits out flame like a volcano and a massive burn spot on his hand which increases in size over time. Best scene is probably when director John Landis, who portrays a rude electrical engineer trying to inform Sam to hang up because the radio program he's calling has sounded off for the night, becomes a victim of SHC. The flick never quite works because it's so wildly uneven with an abrupt, ridiculous finale where Sam offers to free Lisa of her fire by taking it from her.


(SPOILERS included) This film surely is the best Amicus production I've seen so far (even though I still have quite a few to check out). The House that Dripped Blood is a horror-omnibus
an anthology that contains four uncanny stories involving the tenants of a vicious, hellish house in the British countryside. A common mistake in productions like this is wasting too much energy on the wraparound story that connects the separate tales
Peter Duffel's film wisely doesn't pay too much attention to that. It simply handles about a Scotland Yard inspector who comes to the house to investigate the disappearance of the last tenant and like that, he learns about the bizarre events that took place there before. All four stories in this film are of high quality-level and together, they make a perfect wholesome. High expectations are allowed for this film, since it was entirely written by Robert Bloch! Yes, the same Bloch who wrote the novel that resulted in the brilliant horror milestone `Psycho'
 We're also marking Peter Duffel's solid and very professional debut as a director. The four stories  chapters if you will  in the House that Dripped Blood contain a good diversity in topics, but they're (almost) equally chilling and eerie. Number one handles about a horror-author who comes to the house, along with his wife, in order to find inspiration for his new book. This starts out real well, but after a short while, his haunted and stalked by the villain of his own imagination. The idea in this tale isn't exactly original
but it's very suspenseful and the climax is rather surprising. The second story stars (Hammer) horror-legend Peter Cushing as a retired stockbroker. Still haunted by the image of an unreachable and long-lost love, he bumps into a wax statue that looks exactly like her. Cushing is a joy to observe as always and  even though the topic of Wax Museums isn't new  this story looks overall fresh and innovating. This chapter also contains a couple of delightful shock-moments and there's a constant tense atmosphere. It's a terrific warm-up for what is arguably the BEST story: number 3. Another legendary actor in this one, as Christopher Lee gives away a flawless portrayal of a terrified father. He's very severe and strict regarding his young daughter and he keeps her in isolation for the outside world. Not without reason, since the little girl shows a bizarre fascination for witchcraft and voodoo. Besides great acting by Lee and the remarkable performance of Chloe Franks as the spooky kid, this story also has a terrific gothic atmosphere! The devilish undertones in this story, along with the creepy sound effects of thunder, make this story a must for fans of authentic horror. The fourth and final story, in which a vain horror actor gets controlled by the vampire-cloak he wears, is slightly weaker then the others when it comes to tension and credibility, but that the overload of subtle humor more or less compensates that. There's even a little room for parody in this story as the protagonist refers to co-star Christopher Lee in the Dracula series! Most memorable element in this last chapter is the presence of the gorgeous Ingrid Pitt! The cult-queen from `The Vampire Lovers' certainly is one of the many highlights in the film
her cleavage in particular. No doubt about it
The House that Dripped Blood will be greatly appreciated by classic horror fans. I truly believe that, with a bit of mood-settling preparations, this could actually be one of the few movies that'll terrify you and leave a big impression. Intelligent and compelling horror like it should be! Highly recommended. One extra little remark, though: this film may not
repeat MAY NOT under any circumstances be confused with `The Dorm that Dripped Blood'. This latter one is a very irritating and lousy underground 80's slasher that has got nothing in common with this film, except for the title it stole.


La Maman et la Putain has to be watched as a movie that is both related to the time it was released (post-68) and eternal in many respects. True, the actors don't "act" ... True, they talk a lot... But what they talk about is just what makes life worth living... or dying. The very long monologue spoken by Françoise Lebrun is perhaps the most accurate and moving text that was ever written about womanhood, manhood and love. Not easy to translate accurately, though. This movie is a statement about the difficulty of being a man and a woman (or two women in this case). And IMHO, Jean Pierre Léaud is one of the greatest French actors.


Okay... it seems like so far, only the Barman fans have commented on this film - time for a counterpoint. Beware, this writeup is *LONG*.For those not in the knowing (mostly the non-Belgians) : Tom Barman, director of this film, is the frontman of dEUS, one of the better known rock bands of the late 90's here in Belgium. Basically, they made a couple of very adventurous and innovative albums and quickly rose to fame on the national scale. Then, egos started hurting and the band basically fell apart, with Barman and a couple of others remaining to go on making albums under the dEUS-monicker. The way it always happens in such cases, the post-breakdown dEUS was a lot tamer and less interesting than the original. They tried to go for an international breakthrough with their album "The Ideal Crash" in 1999, presenting a much diluted form of their earlier style of songwriting. They didn't quite make it. However, egos were still pretty big it seems : big enough for Barman to consider himself enough of an artist to try on movies.More often than not this sort of thing is a VERY big mistake, and this film does not make the exception. And Barman clearly went for *art* on this one, another very big mistake. For one thing, he's a musician, not a movie director. For another, dEUS at it's best made fun and provoking music, but never anything close to what I would consider *art*. It shows.So, what's this movie about? Basically, it tells the story of a bunch of completely uninteresting people, doing equally uninteresting things over the course of a totally uninteresting friday in Antwerp, as even more uninteresting stuff happens to them in the act of being uninteresting. The characters are shallow, the plot totally pointless and the film just doesn't have any other redeeming qualities to make up for these shortcomings. Humor? The whole film made me smile (slightly) about 3 times, and actually managed to provoke a single 5-second laugh (not quite loud). Mood? The film just doesn't seem to show any kind of emotion or feeling at all. Mystery? Well, (*MINOR SPOILER*)the idea of the "wind-man", inspiring the name of the film, is as enthralling as a banana pepper pizza - not very, and has been done a thousand times before (anyone remember Johny Destiny - one of Tarantino's worst appearances on film to date)(*END MINOR SPOILER*). And well, its *artistic*, so don't expect any kind of real action to make up for all the previous. In other words, except for the few smiles, it bored me out of my shorts.So what remains? Well, the soundtrack is pretty good, though it suffers from some of the same problems that other OST's have shown lately : first, it makes the movie seem like nothing more than a commercial for the CD. Second, it gives the impression that Barman is trying to hide the weaknesses and lack of emotional content in the film behind the content quality of the songs, which simply doesn't work. In the end, it makes the film look like nothing more than an illustration to the songs. And sadly, it's Barmans own contribution to the soundtrack which gets the most attention, though it is the weakest part of the whole soundtrack as far as I'm concerned. All in all, it just stands to show that Barman knows more about music than movies. Camera work is okay as well, though not anything that would make you scream out with joy.The only thing about this movie that kept me watching was the sight-seeing factor. Since I originate from Antwerp, it was fun to play a kind of "guess-the-location" game. I would hardly consider this as a quality though.All in all, another chance lost for Flemmish film. I keep on noticing that lately, the best Belgian movies have been coming from the French part of the country. This is mostly because at least, they have something to tell and manage to tell it in way that is both sharp and emotional (the brothers Daerden come to mind). Maybe the Flemmish art-house filmmakers should try that too.


I found it a real task to sit through this film. The sound track was not the best and some of the accents made it difficult to understand what was being said. There was little to move the plot along and often the action simply stopped and there was a prolonged period of conversations which seemed extraneous to the movie. These conversations switched between family groups and the observer was left to try and piece together what the common thread was that tied them together. It is rare that I rate a film this low and do so in this case as the entire viewing experience left me thinking "so what" and "why did I waste my time watching this."


This is the worst sequel on the face of the world of movies. Once again it doesn't make since. The killer still kills for fun. But this time he is killing people that are making a movie about what happened in the first movie. Which means that it is the stupidest movie ever.Don't watch this. If you value the one precious hour during this movie then don't watch it. You'll want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it. Because it just doesn't combine the original makes of horror, action, and crime.Don't let your children watch this. Teenager, young child or young adult, this movie has that sorta impact upon people.


Jane Austen would definitely approve of this one!Gwyneth Paltrow does an awesome job capturing the attitude of Emma. She is funny without being excessively silly, yet elegant. She puts on a very convincing British accent (not being British myself, maybe I'm not the best judge, but she fooled me...she was also excellent in "Sliding Doors"...I sometimes forget she's American ~!). Also brilliant are Jeremy Northam and Sophie Thompson and Phyllida Law (Emma Thompson's sister and mother) as the Bates women. They nearly steal the show...and Ms. Law doesn't even have any lines!Highly recommended.


Watching Cliffhanger makes me nostalgic for the early '90s, a time when virtually every new action movie could be described as "Die Hard in a /on a." Cliffhanger is "Die Hard on a mountain," and pretty good, for what it is.But unlike Passenger 57 and Under Siege, which are decent Die Hard clones on their own terms, Cliffhanger dispenses with the enclosed feeling of many action movies and embraces breathtaking landscapes that, in their immensity, threaten to overwhelm and trivialize the conflicts of the people fighting and dying among the peaks.Years before other movies like A Simple Plan and Fargo dramatized crime and murder on snowbound locations, Cliffhanger director Renny Harlin recognized the visual impact of juxtaposing brutal violence and grim struggles to survive against cold and indifferent natural surroundings.The opening sequence has already received substantial praise, all of which it deserves: its intensity allows us to forget the artifice of the camera and the actors and simply believe that what we are seeing is actually happening. Not even Harlin's shot of the falling stuffed animal, which is powerfully effective but still threatens to become too much of a joke (and which he repeated in Deep Blue Sea), or the ridiculous expression on Ralph Waite's face, can dim the sequence's power.The next impressive set-piece is the gunfight and heist aboard the jet. As written by Stallone and Michael France and directed by Harlin, the audience is plunged into the action by not initially knowing which agents are involved in the theft and which are not: the bloody double-crosses are completely unexpected. As Roger Ebert has observed, the stuntman who made the mid-air transfer between the planes deserves some special recognition.Later, during the avalanche sequence, one of the terrorists/thieves appears to be actually falling as the wall of snow carries him down the mountain. So far as I know, no one was killed in the making of this movie (a small miracle, considering the extreme nature of some of the stunts), so obviously a dummy was used for the shot. But the shot itself remains impressive because we're left wondering how Harlin (or more likely one of the second-unit directors) knew exactly where to place the camera.I'll take Sly Stallone as my action hero any day of the week, because he's one of the few movie stars I've ever seen who's completely convincing as someone who can withstand a lot of physical and emotional pain, and at the same time actually feels that pain. The role of Gabe Walker really complements Stallone's acting strengths: he plays an older, more vulnerable kind of action hero, giving an impressively low-key performance as a mountain rescuer who must redeem himself.In contrast to many of today's post-Matrix, comic book-inspired action heroes, Stallone's Walker is an ordinary man who becomes a hero without any paranormal or computer-enhanced abilities. In Cliffhanger, the hero almost freezes to death, and his clothes start to show big tears as he barely escapes one dangerous situation after another. He winces when he's hit and bleeds when he's cut, particularly in the cavern sequence when he takes a Rocky-style pummeling from one of the mad-dog villains.It should be noted that the utterly despicable villains really contribute to the movie's effectiveness: when I first saw this movie as a teenager, I was rooting for the good guys every step of the way and anticipating when another bad guy would bite the dust (or rather, the ice); at one point I actually cheered as one of the most cold-blooded characters in the movie deservedly suffered a violent demise.Lithgow's British accent is as unconvincing as the movie's occasional model plane or model helicopter, but he's fundamentally a good actor, and one of the few who can perfectly recite silly dialogue: in one scene, looking at his hostages Stallone and Rooker, trying to decide which tasks to give them, he actually says "You, stay! You, fetch!" Even a better actor, such as Anthony Hopkins, might have had trouble with that line.Even if Cliffhanger occasionally tosses credibility aside, it does so only for the sake of a more entertaining show.Early in the movie, for example, Lithgow openly says to one of his men "Retire [Stallone] when he comes down." No real criminal mastermind would have made this mistake even unconsciously: his carelessness allows Rooker to shout a warning up to Sly on the rock face, and this precipitates a gripping tug-of-war between Stallone and the bad guys trying to pull him down by the rope tied to his leg.Lithgow could have given his order by a more subtle means, but the sequence might not have been as much fun to watch if it hadn't given Rooker an opportunity to openly defy the arrogance of his captor.Done very much in the style of a Saturday matinee serial or (at times) a Western, Cliffhanger is built on such a solid foundation that it survives some weak elements that would have undermined a lesser film.Besides the painfully obvious aircraft models mentioned before, the weak moments include a couple of scenes shot on cheap indoor sets with REALLY fake snow, as well as two other scenes involving bats and wolves that seem unnecessary in an already action-packed narrative. Finally, Harlin's decision to film some of the death scenes in slow motion seems pointless, since the technique contributes nothing to the scenes.It's a shame that Stallone is now too old for action movies, because his character in this movie seems so credible that inevitably I wonder what he would be like years later. But perhaps it's best that Cliffhanger stands on its own for all time, without a sequel: there are enough tired and obsolete movie franchises already. There was an unofficial sequel that called itself Vertical Limit: compared to that clinker, Cliffhanger belongs on the IMDb's Top 250 list.Rating: 8 (Very good, especially considering most of Stallone's other movies.)


Believe me, I wanted to like "Spirit". The idiotic comments people made at the time of its release about how quaint it was to see old-fashioned, hand-drawn animation again, as if the last pencil-animated cartoon had been released twenty years ago, and the even more idiotic comments about how computers had now made the old techniques obsolete, had got my blood up ... but then, the insulting, flavourless banality I had to endure in the first ten minutes of "Spirit" got my blood up even more.The character designs are generic, the animation (partly as a result) merely competent, the art direction as a whole so utterly, boringly lacklustre that you wonder how it could have come about (we know, from "The Prince of Egypt" and "The Road to El-Dorado", that there are talented artists at Dreamworks), and the sophisticated use of CGI is in every single instance ill-judged. (Why do they bother?) There's not a single thing worth LOOKING at. In an animated cartoon, this is fatal.But it gets worse...The horses can't talk, but they're far more anthropomorphised and unconvincing than the deer in "Bambi", which can. And it seems that, in a way, the horses CAN talk. Spirit himself delivers the prologue (sounding for all the world like a 21st-Century actor picked out of a shopping mall in California), and from then on his laid-back, decidedly unhorselike narration is scarcely absent from the soundtrack, although it never once tells us anything that we didn't already know, or expresses a feeling which the artwork, poor though it is, wasn't capable of expressing twice as well. That prologue, by the way: (a) contains information which Spirit, we later discover, had know way of knowing; (b) expresses ideas which Spirit would lack the power to express even if he COULD talk; (c) includes new age rubbish like, "This story may not be true, but it's what I remember"; and (d) will give countless children (the production is pitched, I presume, at six-year-olds) the impression that horses are native to North America, which is sort of true, in that the common ancestor of domestic horses, zebras etc. WAS native to North America - but all horse species on the continent had gone extinct long before the first humans arrived, and the mustangs of Spirit's herd (which allegedly "belong here like the buffalo grass") were descended from horses introduced by Europeans.So the prologue rather annoyed me.As often as Spirit talks, Bryan Adams sings, sounding as usual as though he's got a bad throat infection - and it's not THAT he sings or even HOW he sings, it's WHAT he sings: maudlin narrative ballads which contribute even less, if possible, than Spirit's spoken narrative, and which sound as though they all have exactly the same tune (although I was paying close attention, and was able to discern that they probably didn't). If only Bryan Adams and the guy-pretending-to-be-a-horse could have SHUT UP for a minute or two, the movie might have been allowed to take its true form: mediocre and derivative, rather than jaw-droppingly bad.


I watched 'Ice Age'in the movie theater and I liked the movie. Spite of the fact that 'Ice Age'has many flaws and scientific errors,like humans,sabers,dinosaurs and mammoths living at the same period, and even the location of where the story passes(looks North America,but has some characteristics from Iceland for example) we can have fun even so.(unless you are very severe!) The planet is entering an ICE AGE, and many animals are immigrating to the south where is warmer. Sid is a stupid Sloth that is left behind by his own family, that can't stand him any longer.Walking in his way, he meets Manfred,or how he calls '' Manny'' a moody mammoth who does not care about extinction or immigration and is going to the north. Worried that he can easily be captured, Sid decides to follow Manfred, and in the middle of their journey, they found a human mother with her baby. The mother dies but Manfred and Sid decides to take him and return the baby for the humans. Diego, one of the sabers, decides to follow and help them to go to a shortcut to the human's camp. What Manfred and Sid does not know, is that Diego is from a saber clan who hates humans and wants to kill the baby, and also pretend to betray they both to make they become saber's food. What will happen, will depend of Diego's behavior and conscience...aka "A Era do Gelo" - Brazil


I watched to movie today and it just blew my mind away. It is a real masterpiece of art and I don't understand why most of the people think it's garbage. The main idea of the movie - take your ego away and then you will have true power! This was the main battle at the end of the movie and Guy Ritchie has shown that in a magnificent way. "The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you will ever look" - do you remember this from the movie? Because our true enemy is in us - it is our ego... That voice that always tells us that we are important, that gives us our pride, that tells us not to give, but only to take, that creates our aggression, that wants to be in control, that creates all the negative feelings and thoughts. GR expressed this idea in an astonishing way and has shown that the only way to gain true control is when you loose control and you just let go of your personal importance. A superb movie!


Ronald Colman gives a terrific performance as a stage actor who really gets into his work. When he plays Othello on the stage he takes on the persona with dire results. Good film with a great supporting cast. Well worth watching.


The plot of 'Edison' was decent, but one actor in particular ruined the entire film. Justin Timberlake ruined the film with every line he uttered during the movie. He is by far one of the worst actors I have ever seen, and should face the same fate as the entire F.R.A.T. squad. Whether it was an emotional scene, an action scene, or even a silent scene, Justin Timberlake managed to ruin it. Do not waste your time watching this film. Don't even bother downloading it, midget porn would be a much better choice.And Justin, if you're reading this, stick to music. Even though you're no good at that, you've done a wonderful job tricking people into thinking you can actually sing.


You've heard it said to live every moment as if it's your last? Whether it's your last day or not, I beg you not to waste any part of it watching this! Nichole Hiltz provides some nice moments of eye candy (that alas, stays wrapped) and David DeLuise shows why he should stick to the small screen or dog food commercials. A shallow, unrealistic plot with dreadful dialogue means there is no "Art" in the "Art of Revenge".


I was lucky enough to get a DVD copy of this movie recently and have now seen it for the 2nd time. The 1st time was on late night TV in Australia more than 20 years ago but I could never forget this strange and bleak film..Not many people like this film at all because it is so unconventional - the fact that there is hardly any spoken dialogue in this move - we just hear the thoughts of characters - is only one unconventional aspect of it.Searching for a copy of this film I found out that the producer was dead, the main actor was dead, it was not kept in any British TV or film archives, that it was never released on video or DVD, that television networks around the world trashed it after their copyright ran out in the 80's. When it was first shown on TV in Australia there were no recordable devices for consumers.On the second viewing recently, I could see why it was unforgettable. At times it is very tense and unbearably claustrophobic very like a Harold Pinter stage play.Again, if anyone wants a DVD copy of this please email me and I'm sure we can work something out Regards Adam (whiteflokati@hotmail.com)


Enjoyable movie although I think it had the potential to be even better if it had more depth to it. It is a mystery halfway through the film as to knowing why Elly is such a recluse. Then, when we are finally given an explanation going back to her childhood there still isn't much detail. Perhaps had they shown flashbacks or something.Anyway, it is still a good movie that I'd watch again. 7/10


yeah, it's a bit of a silly film, so if you are looking for an oscar performance, forget this one......but, if you love John Candy's humor, this is a must-see. We lost John Candy before he made enough of his great brand of comedy, and he is only better in one movie: Planes, Trains, & Automobiles (with Steve Martin). Excellent supporting performance by Eugene Levy, perhaps his best work ever as the hot-headed Sal DiPasquale. Also good acting by Richard Libertini, Alley Mills & Pat Hingle. You must see this obscure and out-of-print film if you are a John Candy or Eugene Levy fan.