Being half-portuguese doesn't render me half-blind (nor half-prejudiced) when discussing portuguese films. Not that I get to do that very often anyway. But this film was such a rush of adrenaline! Yes, that's right - it was mostly accurate as far as history went/goes - but it pulled no punches on venturing beyond usual portuguese-film territory: things like using real locations in the middle of traffic-congested Lisbon and recruiting a real crowd to stand in for the real crowd of almost 30 years ago. And by God did they get it right! OK, to sum it up: very emotional if you've lived through it, but you'll spot minor improvements that could have been made as well as plot necessities that were. If you're just watching it randomly, you're in for a good historical romp, only of the very recent History kind and a bit more thought-proving than usual. Even by European standards, yes.


Such a film of beauty that it's hard to describe. Maybe it's the absence of superfluous dialogue, or maybe it's the absolutely stellar soundtrack, or maybe it's just Meena Mumari's feet, but it's a joy to watch this movie again and again. I've never seen another Indian movie that comes close to it, and few from any country rival its perfection.


The cover art (which features a man holding a scary pellet gun) would make it seem as if it's a martial arts film. (Hardly.)I find it interesting that the film's real title is Trojan Warrior. (Trojan is a brand of condoms in the US) This movie is loaded with homoeroticism. If you like that stuff, then this film isn't that bad really. However, consider these points:There are numerous close-ups of actors' groins & butts, (One scene even features every actor with an erection bulging in his pants.) the film is also bathed in gaudy colors like lime, peach, and red. From a cinematographer's standpoint, this movie's a drag queen! Several scenes feature characters standing EXTREMELY close to one another, occasionally touching as they converse. Also, the cousin of the hero likes women, and every other guy in the movie is trying to kill him. Is there a message here the filmmakers want to convey? Shall I go into the fight scenes? (Yes, someone's private parts get grabbed in one fight.) The martial arts scenes are brief and unimaginative. No fancy stuff here, just your standard moves you'd see in an old Chuck Norris flick. There's also a car chase scene which may be the first ever LOW-speed chase put on film.


I was adopted at birth and certainly did NOT have the problems Antwone fisher had in the movie, but I still share some of the emotions and this movie really helped to bring them out and force me to deal with them. It even caused me to realize that I do have a "missing piece" and I am going to seek out my birthparents now.I cried for almost a day after I saw this the first time. Antwone's confrontation with his birthmother juxtaposed with his father's family's reaction to his sudden appearance are powerful for those of us who don't know what will happen if we find our birth parents. And his self-confidence and self affirmations to his mother and against the abusers of his past were so powerful. I could really identify with this and my need to tell people "yeah, I was put aside by my parents when I was born. BUT another set of parents picked me up and loved me. And now I am a success!"It also helped my wife understand me and our adopted children, who did go through tragic experiences before they came to our home. And it helped me to realize just how messed up our social system is. If you remember reading the story last year about the foster kid in Florida who was "lost" AND then the "Miranda & Ashley" story in Oregon City where SCF ignored multiple sexual abuse complaints about the man who ultimately killed them AND the week this movie was released, yet another story in New Jersey of three kids who were ignored by the system. One died. The state apparently thought the home they were in was ok because the guardian was employed (as a stripper) and "only occasionally" used heroin!There are just so many issues that are brought out in this movie - and they are dealt with so well by the script and by the acting that Antwone Fisher should be a "Best Picture" nominee for sure. No matter if you are adopted or not, it is a heart-tugger that can't be ignored by anyone concerned about children in our society.


Those engaging the movie camera so early in the century must have figured out some of its potential very early on. This is a good story of a playboy type who needs money and inadvertently sells his soul to Satan for a lot of money. Unfortunately, the soul is his double and he must confront him frequently, tearing his life apart. There are some wonderful scenes with people fading out and, of course, the scenes when the two are on the stage at the same time. The middle part is a bit dull, but the Faustian story is always in the minds of the viewer. One thing I have to mention is the general unattractiveness of the people in the movie. Also, they pretty much shied away from much action which would have at least given some life to the thing. I first was made aware of this movie about 25 years ago and have finally been able to see it. I was not disappointed.


For most younger viewers out there, they probably have no idea who Buster Keaton was. So, because of this, they probably won't feel nearly as sad when watching this film as I did. I happen to be a silent comedy freak--having see just about every Keaton film still in existence. My being a huge fan made this film very painful from start to finish. This is because during his silent days, Keaton was a very vibrant and creative comedian. He was amazing in his physicality and his films were almost never dull. However, in a move that movie historians still are baffled by, at the end of the silent era, Keaton gave up his independence and became a stock MGM actor. Instead of being a great creative force, MGM now saw Keaton solely as an actor--and they wrote scripts for him that had no respect for what made him great. At first, these films with MGM were not that bad (such as THE CAMERAMAN) but with talkies, the studio really blew it--putting him in several films with Jimmy Durante. Durante's humor was based on his gift for gab and was abrasive. Keaton, in contrast, was quiet and based on action. Two more unlike and incompatible actors would have been hard to find. As a result of this deadly combination, Keaton made some truly dreadful films.Now this isn't to say that SPEAK EASILY is a terrible film. No, instead it's just more of a time-passer and an amazingly unfunny one at that. In fact, if you go into the movie assuming it's a comedy, it will probably make the film harder to enjoy. Instead, it's sort of like a drama with a few comedic elements. It is NOT a film that will produce belly laughs--especially for Keaton fans.The film begins in an odd setting. Keaton is cast as a college professor whose entire life is teaching. He knows nothing of the world and has his nose stuck in his books. In a bizarre move, Keaton's servant tricks him into believing Keaton has received $750,000 from a dead relative--hoping that this would spur Keaton to get out and enjoy life. This is amazingly contrived but somehow it manages to work. Not terribly well, but it works.Keaton immediately leaves school and goes on a journey to New York to have some fun. On the way there, he meets up with an incredibly untalented theater troop. Because he knows nothing of the world, he doesn't seem to realize they stink. And, because he thinks he's rich, Keaton decides to take them all to New York to perform on Broadway. However, just before the show opens, his friends find out that Keaton is NOT rich. So, they decide not to tell Keaton and try to keep him away from process servers that want to close the show. They assume that if the show is a hit, then they can pay off the debts and everyone will be happy. However, they forget that the show itself stinks. What are they to do? And, will Keaton get the nice girl, get roped by a gold digger (Thelma Todd) or be flat broke and alone? If you care, see the film.As for Keaton, he has few stunts in the film, though there are some dandy ones near the end. Instead, Keaton just kind of walks through the part in a very subdued manner. There's really little to love about this film or hate. It's just blah....when it SHOULD have been a heck of a lot better.


I really wanted to like this movie because the critics have been unkindto it (to say the least)... but it was terrible. Really terrible. Badlyacted, a witless script, cack handed direction... Watching this film waslike watching a car crash- you want to look away but you keep staringbecause you want to see how messy it's going to get. Well, the car iswrecked and there are no survivors. On the plus side, the cinematographywas nice, made me want to go on holiday, if only to cleanse myself fromthis unholy


I'm 14 years old and I love this cartoon. Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise make a great pair. This movie is really funny and I love the songs. My favorite songs are "You can't keep a good dog down" and that song about sharing, I think it's called "What's mine is yours". This was the last movie with Judith Barsi, who played the voice of Anne-Marie. My favorite character is Charlie but I find Itchy's voice is so fun to hear. Although some scenes I actually found scary, I still have a hard time watching the scene with Charlie's dream, and Carface scares the crap out of me. Other characters like King Gator I found really funny. The ending was adorable and was actually sad, made me cry a little. I give this movie 7/10.


a friend of mine bought this (very cheaply) and decided to give it to me as a birthday present. i thought i'd never watch it 'cause i knew it was a joke and the cover of the DVD looked pathetic, but then my friends and i got really bored and watched it. from start till finish! i know quite an accomplishment but it really is a masterpiece. it's hard to describe. you should see it, it's a real lesson on what people are capable of when they believe they're creative and smart and really aren't. The "acting" is sous-terrain (you can actually see the "leading lady" laugh on some occasions, she's definitely the worst). the "story" is to stupid to be summed up and really everything in this film sucked. please, pay special attention to "the sheriff". the guy is an adult and therefor has absolutely no excuse to be involved in this. he's extremely bad as well. whatever it did have some hilarious moments. check it out, haha


The special effects of this movie are, especially for its time, laughable and used in such an over-emphasized way that you can't deny their terrible existance.The acting redefines the term "terrible overacting" at the hands of Meg Foster and Richard Joseph Paul, where julie Newman and Andrew Divoff just redefine "bad".***spoilers***The charm in this movie can be found in two things: First is the excellent casting of Carel "Lurch" Struycken as the mysterious psychic Gaunt, who can sense where and when people will die and is always there.The second are original finds, the combination SF-Western is obviously original, if terrible, but other finds are more original, like the gunman Zack Stone being able to sense the pain of the people he shoots (though his acting falls short here).Overal...don't see this movie, except if you love that ol' hunk-o-brutal Carel Struycken, as any self-respecting Dutchman should.


I saw this movie with my dad. I must have been pretty young, around 15. It was on Star Movies one afternoon.The movie started a bit vaguely, but you could tell those robbers were gathering up for a score. It really caught pace after the first half hour.All the actors are great, especially Blades and Lou Diamond. I Guess it's the ensemble, they just play so well together. I can watch this film anytime.I think it is the relative stupidity of the plot and the characters trying to deal with a very weird score. The jokes are not corny but they are subtle and extreme at the same time that make them so hilarious.A perfect comedy for a lazy afternoon.


The basic storyline here is, Aditiya (Kumar) is the spoilt son of a millionaire, Ishwar (Bachan) who owns a toy industry, in Ishwar's eyes his son Aditya can do nothing wrong, Aditya's mother Sumitra (Shefali Shah) warns Ishwar to bring his son to the responsible path before it is too late, for Ishwar is a patient of lung cancer and has only 9 months to live, when his son elopes and marries Mitali (Chopra), Ishwar readily forgives Aditya, but when the happy couple Aditya and Mitali come back from a honeymoon, Mitali is pregnant, and this forces Ishwar to kick Aditya out of the house to make him more responsible, Aditya doesn't know his father is suffering from lung cancer, and he also doesn't know that his father has kicked him out of the hose to make him more responsible, Ishwar cannot bring himself to tall Aditya that he is about to die, with a hungry and pregnant wife. it is a race against time so Aditya does all he can to prove himself to his father, and the climax comes when Aditya gets his big break in the movie industry and his father tells him that he is about to die.This movie is absolutely brilliant, this is the breakthrough in Indian cinema that was needed for the Bollywood industry, Shah's directing is almost flawless, but which movie doesn't have flaws? The best part if this movie is the father son relationship which is a tearjerker. the song interludes is just placed at the right time, the scenery is good, the only part where this movie fails is where the jokes between Boman Irani and Rajpal Yadav the jokes are too long and after a bit they are annoying, but overall this is a brilliant movie, i advise anybody Reading this review to go and watch it regardless of other reviews. 9/10


Quite possibly the nicest woman in show business, and the sexiest, Debbie gives another fine performance here. Although her work in American Nightmare was far superior, she is still worth watching in this film.The cast is filled with your typical Melrose Place types, chiseled features and seductive curves, that I had never seen before. Other than Debbie, Laura Nativo was the only actress I had seen before, in the similar Delta Delta Die.The plot centers around a group of California arrogants who initiate poor naive Debbie Rochon into their clique. They tell her that they have a murder club, and that she must kill someone to be accepted. Debbie wants nothing more but to be accepted by these cool people, so she quickly kills a person, and now the group must decide what to do with her, after she fell for their joke.VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Plentiful! Debbie Rochon occasionally has blood splattered all over her and all of the murder scenes are done in your face. Gore hounds will surely enjoy!)NUDITY: $$$$$ (Plentiful as well! Debbie Rochon has several nude scenes as do many of the no-name actresses and actors. The pool party seems as just an excuse to get everyone naked; man and woman alike. Julie Strain also has a topless cameo but her character is gone after the first five minutes).STORY: $$ (Could have received a higher vote because the plot was very interesting and unique but the plot serves as filler between nude scenes. I understand that B-Rate films use nudity often, but this is borderline excessive).ACTING: $ (The acting is sub standard to say the least. Rochon is always a treat, easily the best B-Rate actress in the business today, but her character in American Nightmare was superior. Danny Wolske does a fine job as Debbie's object of lust but the other actors were nothing to write about).


This three stooges flick is at a tie with my other favorite flick "Disorder in the Court". This is an uproar of laughter for any Three Stooges fan to enjoy.The boys are janitors at a recording studio when they hear the lovely Christine McIntyre sings a great version of "Voices of Spring". She is going to be offered a record deal, but she is scarred to be honest with her father about her choice of a career and prove herself as a real singer. When she and the others leave the studio, the stooges decide to have a little fun and play her record and dress Curly up as Christine. The contract lady who can make Christine's career, sees Curly and mistakes him for Christine and invites Curly to sing for her party. Of course there is a man that they have upset that is at the party and they destroy his solo in front of the crowd, so he'll find a way to get back at them.What a great stooge flick, this should not be missed! 10/10


This is one of the silliest movies I have ever had the misfortune to watch! I should have expected it, after seeing the first two, but I keep getting suckered into these types of movies with the idea of "Maybe they did it right this time". Nope - not even close.Where do I begin? How about with the special effects... To give you an idea of what passes for SFX in this movie, at one point a soldier is shooting at a "Raptor" as it runs down a hallway. Even with less than a second of screen time, the viewer can easily see that it is just a man with a tail apparently taped to him running around. Bad bad bad bad.How about the acting? If that's what you can call it. There is one character who, I suppose, is supposed to be from the south. However, after living in the south for six years now, I have never heard this way of talking. Perhaps he has some sort of weird disability - the inability to talk normally. I find it fascinating that the character does nothing that requires him to have that accent - therefore there was no reason for the actor to try to do one.How about the plot? It's pretty basic - Raptors escape, people with guns must hunt them down. I'm starting to wonder why the dinosaurs in these movies always seem to run into the nearest system of tunnels... wouldn't they stay outside to hunt prey? Oh well, at least they have the good sense to appear very very little in the movie which supposedly revolves around them.Other things - Let's say you are in a building and you know that there are man eating raptors running around in it. Would you decide to take time out to have an argument about who is better - Army or Marine? And then decide to have an arm wrestling contest to settle it? How about the idiotic idea that they have to track down the raptors - Split up into groups of two. Didn't they ever watch any horror movies (Or at least an episode of Scooby Doo)? In short, this is one of the dumber movies out there. Miss it unless you want to groan your way through a movie.


"Lies" tells about an affair between an 18 year old bucktoothed female student and a scrawny 38 year old married man with the pair of protags spending about half the screen time engaged in naked sex and hokey whipping and the other half meandering through the pathetically naive storyline which seems little more than an excuse for the sex scenes. With very poor production value including obvious sanitary appliances and phony softcore sex to a story which is a messy mix of comedy and drama, "Lies" quickly becomes redundant ad nauseam. With an almost 2 hour run, subtitles, and so little substance, "Lies" is simply not recommendable. (C-)


'The Student of Prague' is an early feature-length horror drama or, rather, it is an "autorenfilm" (i.e. an author's film). This film is a member of a movement of many movements that tried to lend respectability to cinéma, or just make a profit, by adapting literature or theatre onto the screen. Fortunately, the story of this book with moving pictures is good. Using Alfred de Musset's poem and a story by Edgar Allen Poe, it centres on the doppelgänger theme.Unfortunately, the most cinematic this film gets is the double exposure effects to make Paul Wegener appear twice within scenes. Guido Seeber was a special effects wizard for his day, but he's not very good at positioning the camera or moving it. Film scholar Leon Hunt (printed in "Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative"), however, has made an interesting analysis on this film using framing to amplify the doubles theme: characters being split by left/right, near/far and frontal/diagonal framing of characters and shots. Regardless, the film mostly consists of extended long shots from a fixed position, which is noticeably primitive. Worse is the lack of editing; there's very little scene dissection and scenes linger. None of this is unusual for 1913, but there were more advanced films in this respect around the same time, including the better parts of 'Atlantis' (August Blom, 1913), 'Twilight of a Woman's Soul' (Yevgeni Bauer, 1913) and the short films of D.W. Griffith.An expanded universal film vocabulary by 1926 would allow for a vastly superior remake. Furthermore, the remake has a reason for the Lyduschka character, other than being an occasional troublemaker and spectator surrogate. Here, the obtrusively acted gypsy lurks around, seemingly, with a cloak of invisibility. I know their world is silent to me, but I assume, with their lips moving and such, that their world would not be silent to them, so how can Lyduschka leer over others' shoulders and not be noticed?Nevertheless, this is one of the most interesting early films conceptually. Wegener, who seems to have been the primary mind behind this film, in addition to playing the lead, would later play the title role and co-direct 'The Golem' in 1920--helping to further inaugurate the supernatural thread in German silent cinéma.(Note: The first version I viewed was about an hour long (surely not quite complete) and was in poor condition, with faces bleached at times and such. I'm not sure who was the distributor. I've also since seen the Alpha DVD, which, at 41 minutes, is missing footage present in the aforementioned print and also has fewer and very different title cards, but is visually not as bad. The repetitive score is best muted, though.)


An absolute steaming pile of cow dung. It's mind-blowing to me that this film was even made. Hip-Hop and old westerns just don't seem to mix. What target audience were these people thinking of when planning this trainwreck.Not only is the concept and plot a joke, but the acting is atrocious and the fact that some decent actors were even in this nightmare of a film makes their entire careers a laughing stock. The chick from clueless should never be forgiven and she is stripped of any remaining dignity she had. After reading the first ten pages of dialogue she should have been asking which one of her friends was playing this sick joke. After some research, I actually found a list of some other actors who passed on this film: Jada Pinkett-Smith, Denzel Washington, Brandy, Monique, Kim Kardasian, Jenna Jameson, Oprah, and finally Marge Simpson.Simply put, I would rather stare at a blank TV than watch this movie again.


Personally, I disdain The Jerry Springer Show, however, I found "Ringmaster" to be the funniest movie I've seen this year. The never-ending satire of Jerry Springer "guests" starting in the opening scene keeps you laughing throughout the movie. Despite a brief scene in which Jerry Springer makes a feeble attempt at justifying his existence, I definitely recommend this movie for sheer entertainment value.


This is yet another tell-it-as-it-is Madhur Bhandarkar film. I am not sure why he has this obsession to show Child moles***ion and g*y concepts to the Indian filmy audience, but I find some of those scenes really disgusting! What's new? It is a nice piece put together by Bhandarkar, where he shows the story of an entertainment reporter played by leading lady in the famous film, Mr & Mrs Iyer. What makes this movie different is, that it also covers the stories of people that this reporter interacts with or is friends with, such as her roomies, her colleagues, film stars, models, rich people and others featured in the Entertainment Page#3 in her newspaper.Noticeable: It is another good performance from Mrs Iyer. She is likely to be noticed for this role. She does selective roles but shines in them. She is noticeably de-glamorized and less beautiful in this film. But then, entertainment reporters are not supposed to outshine the people they cover, right? Verdict: Madhur has come up with another good movie, that brings social issues to the limelight very nicely. However, this movie loses focus and one is not sure what the director is trying to convey.Is he trying to show us the glitz and glamor of the rich people? or is he trying to show us the life of an entertainment reporter and contrasting that with the life of the REAL crime reporter? Is he trying to tell us how the government and rich folks rule the press? or is he trying to illustrate the issues with child abuse and g*y folk. The other concepts brought forth include the unwritten rule that young women have to sleep with directors or co-stars, if they wish to enter Bollywood.In addition, he talks about how flight assistants get sick and tired of their jobs after a while and resort to extreme measures by marrying much elder people, etc. He also talks about unhappy women and spoilt kids in rich families.This was all okay for me.. but might be too complex for an average movie-goer, who just wants to relieve some stress from day to day work


I bought the video rather late in my collecting and probably would have saved a lot of money if I bought it earlier. It invariably supersedes anything else on those "Cosmo's moon" nights. Cher and Olympia certainly deserve their awards but this is really a flawless ensemble performance of a superb screenplay. What? You don't know what a "Cosmo's moon" is?


Bill Paxton, of Aliens, Near Dark, and Terminator fame, surprises me with his debut as director for Frailty. He hits on all cylinders, but there is one implausibility near the end that involves the FBI agent (Powers Booth) which deducts a point from this otherwise chilling and thought provoking thriller. Other than that, this movie was just fine.Bill Paxton plays Dad. He's never given a first name, but that is not a weakness of the film. It in fact strengthens the film, allowing the viewer to see him as a sort of symbol of some kind. He has a vision one day which he says was sent from god telling him that the world is coming to an end and both he and his two sons Fenton Meiks(Matt OLeary) and Adam Meiks (Jeremy Sumpter) must fine the demons and kill them. The demons look like normal people which they kill, and this makes the viewer wonder if Dad has just lost his mind, or is he really doing god's work. There are scenes that reflect both points which adds to the confusion and gives the film more suspense.The story is told in flashback by one of the sons who is now grown up (Matthew McConaughey) and is speaking with FBI agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Booth) who is very skeptical and rightfully so. After all it's not everyday that someone comes in to your office to tell you that he knows who the killer is.The film has many twists, and Bill Paxton directs splendidly by keeping us guessing without losing interest. The acting is incredible. The two young leads and Paxton work great together, looking like a normal family even though they are all involved in murder. Like I said there is the one implausibility involving Powers Booth's character, but it really isn't a big thing. This was an extremely well made film involving faith and family.


The only reason I don't give this movie fewer than 3 stars is because it isn't quite on par with a movie like Manos: The Hands of Fate. This movie's greatest crime is the fact that it is head-meltingly boring & terribly, unforgivably British. The premise of this movie sounds potentially promising, the whole teleporting concept, but the direction they went with it was completely uninteresting. It was more a movie about research funding and bowties than projecting lasers. The actors were wooden, unemotional, and aloof. As was the love affair between the two scientists-- which was anything but intriguing. I never was able to tell what the attraction was between them as the chemistry was non-existent. Nor did I really understand why the melty-faced main guy decided to slaughter everyone he met. At least now I know that I should always give someone a fair hearing before I cut off their research grants, else they go rampaging about, killing wantonly with goofy hand gestures.


This movie is incredible.With great characters,specially the old swordsman that can fly in the shape of fireball and jump across the trees,this film tells a classic story of battle between good and forces of evil.The final showdown is specially breathtaking and the music score is kinda cool.Very,very recommendable.Not for the smallest children though.This one deserves a 10.


Rating: 4 out of 10As this mini-series approached, and we were well aware of it for the last six months as Sci-Fi Channel continued to pepper their shows with BG ads, I confess that I felt a growing unease as I learned more.As with any work of cinematic art which has stood up to some test of time, different people go to it to see different things. In this regard, when people think of Battlestar Galactica, they remember different things. For some it is the chromium warriors with the oscillating red light in their visor. For others, it is the fondness that they held for special effects that were quite evolutionary for their time. Many forget the state of special effects during the late 70s, especially those on television. For some the memories resolve around the story arc. Others still remember the relationships how how the relationships themselves helped overcome the challenges that they faced.Frankly, I come from the latter group. The core of Battlestar Galactica was the people that pulled together to save one another from an evil empire. Yes, evil. The Cylons had nothing to gain but the extermination of the human race yet they did it. While base stars were swirling around, men and women came together to face an enemy with virtually unlimited resources, and somehow they managed to survive until the next show. They didn't survive because they had better technology, or more fire power. They survived because they cared for and trusted each other to get through to the next show.The show had its flaws, and at times was sappy, but they were people you could care about.The writers of this current rendition seemed to never understand this. In some ways he took the least significant part of the original show, the character's names and a take on the story arc and crafted what they called nothing less than a reinvention of television science fiction. Since that was their goal, they can be judged on how well they accomplished it: failure. It was far from a reinvention. In fact it was in many ways one of the most derivitive of science fiction endeavors in a long time. It borrows liberally from ST:TNG, ST:DS9, Babylon 5, and even Battlefield Earth. I find that unfortunate.Ronald D. Moore has been a contributor to popular science fiction for more than a decade, and has made contribution to some of the most popular television Science Fiction that you could hope to see. One of the difficulties that he appears to have had was that there could be no conflict in the bridge crew of the Enterprise D & E. That was the inviolable rule of Roddenberry's ST:TNG. Like many who have lived under that rules of others who then take every opportunity to break the rules when they are no longer under that authority, Ron Moore seems to have forgotten some of the lessons he learned under the acknowledged science fiction master: Gene Roddenberry. Here, instead of writing the best story possible, he has created a dysfuntional cast as I have ever seen with the intent of creating as much cast conflict as he could. Besides being dysfunctional, some of it was not the least bit believable. Anyone who has ever been in the military knows that someone unprovokedly striking a superior officer would not get just a couple of days "in hack," they could have gotten execution, and they never would have gotten out the next day. It wouldn't have happened, period, especially in time of war.The thing that I remembered most of Ron Moore's earlier work was that he was the one who penned the death of Capt. James Kirk. He killed Capt. Kirk, and, alas for me, he has killed Battlestar Galactica.


Clocking in at an interminable three hours and twenty minutes, "Salaam-e-Ishq" is a pretty but superficial comic soap opera from India that regales us with six interwoven tales of romantic love (which is at least four tales too many in my estimation).Filmed like a cross between an MTV music video and a Super Bowl beer commercial, the movie is a sprawling mishmash of exotic settings, dazzling colors, sexy showgirls, high-stepping song-and-dance numbers, dream and fantasy sequences, winking character asides, corny dialogue and way-over-the-top comical performances - all pretty much standard-issue stuff when it comes to Bollywood happenings these days. It's an exhausting chore just trying to keep all the characters straight as they dance, prance and preen their way through the incomprehensible storyline.There's plenty for the viewer to feast his eyes on here - not least of all all the drop dead gorgeous women - but he'll need the patience of Job to get him all the way through it.


Five-year-old Michael sees his mother getting axed to death by his serial killer father "The Highwayman," who later commits suicide. "20 years later" grown Mike (Gordon Currie, from PUPPET MASTER 4 and 5) invites seven of his friends to his secluded grandparents home to "master their own fears" at a Halloween night costume party. Morty, a life-size wooden doll kept in the attic by the Indian handyman, becomes possessed by the dead father's spirit and kills them off using their phobias. Characters are thrown out a window, drowned in a toilet, eaten by rats, blown up, etc. Morty morphs into the dad and a tree, walks around and makes stupid wisecracks. After finding a girl chopped up and stuffed in a cardboard box, the characters remain in the house, act cheerful, crack jokes and have sex.The Morty design is good and Betsy Palmer (Mrs. Voorhees from the original Friday THE 13TH) is surprisingly delightful as the grandmother, but this thing is even more senseless and confusing than the original and is full of false scares, bad acting, brain-dead characters, repeat flashback footage and annoying distorted camera-work. Plus the only two minority characters (the Indian and a half-black girl) are the first to die. BLAH!


The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of "Use the Force Luke" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go "TinTin, I am your Uncle" with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH???? And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards.


This is easily the most disappointing, least gratifying movie of the entire so-called blacksploitation genre, which, by the way, are films we generally enjoy a great deal in our home. Rather than being "exploitation" or demeaning, these films actually provide a priceless insight into an era. Well, not Bucktown.In this story, Duke returns to Bucktown to operate the night club left to him by his recently deceased brother. He quickly learns that the city is entirely controlled by a corrupt police force, bleeding protection money out of all the local businesses. Duke resists, and determines that he will rescue the city from the corrupt police. Unfortunately, he does so by calling in a posse of his friends (these people are vaguely explained as some former black-militants who have worked with Duke on "jobs" in the past) and they simply murder the entire police department in cold blood. And literally in the presence of hundreds of witnesses who do nothing to stop it. Ignorance is not a justification for murder, and it would have been much more entertaining to see the Cracker Police suffer for their actions as opposed to merely getting whacked in the street. While revenge is a ubiquitous and generally satisfying theme in films of this genre, it is a far cry from seeing Pam Grier track down the thugs who off'ed her family, cuss them out, give them a jujitsu ass-kickin' and set their 'fro on fire. That has art (and a reason for existing) and merits a level of respect that is quite undeserved by simply shooting someone in the back. Of course, in this bizarre tale, she is playing a woman completely under The Man's thumb, afraid of the Crackers who run her town and oppress her people. Indeed, her advice to Duke is, "Run, man, they gonna kill you!"Following the sickening and gratuitous violence, we are expected to believe that the town's mayor wholeheartedly condones the actions of Duke and his friends, congratulating them and offering to throw a parade in their honor, as opposed to, say, calling the district attorney to press capital murder charges against them and have them taken into custody. Duke's posse declines the parade and instead opts to fill the numerous vacancies on the police force created by their recent killing spree. They immediately prove to be even more corrupt than their Cracker Police predecessors (to quote the mayor, "They are ten times worse than what we had before!"). Now Duke finds he must again rescue the citizens of Bucktown from corrupt, protection-racket law enforcement officials and again make it safe for decent folk to operate a prostitution business in the streets. Unfortunately, Duke has already lost all moral high ground and sympathy due a hero, as he was a willing participant in the murder of the original police force. I wouldn't have cared one way or the other if he had rescued Bucktown or gotten plugged himself at this point. I suppose we are to be entertained by the clever way Duke has to outsmart the new Police Goons, but in reality the film has now just become an opera of gratuitous violence, Duke murders all of his former friends and allies in cold blood with the same absence of compassion he had when gunning down the Cracker Police. Duke is a pig.Finally, when everyone in town but Duke, Aretha, and the employees of the local brothel are dead and bleedin' in the street, our hero and heroine walk off into the night as though they had some admirable qualities or redeeming values; they don't. Duke is merely a murderous thug and Aretha his enabling misogynist accomplice. If you are interested in this genre of film, by all means, I highly recommend them, see Coffy, Foxy Brown, Truck Turner, Blacula, Sheba Baby
but if in the process you should run across this DVD, throw it as far away as you possibly can! Drop it like it's hot! It should be treated as one would treat a glowing puddle of nuclear waste! There is no single film in the entire Blacksploitation era that is not dramatically more entertaining, satisfying and populated with more sympathetic and admirable characters than this piece of slime, obviously written by and targeted at some hormonally imbalanced high school sophomores.


I'm a true fan of the original Cracker series, and own all of them on DVD. Cracker had a tendency to be over-the-top on occasion, but Robbie Coltrane and the other cast members, as well as the writers, always seemed to carry it off despite themselves. I count the original Cracker among the great Brit TV crime series of that time, and there's some stiff competition: Prime Suspect, Inspector Frost, Inspector Morse, Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Homes, and a host of others. Cracker, along with Prime Suspect, was on the top of my list.Which makes "A New Terror" all the more sad...Ultimately, this was a very pale imitation of Cracker's former glory. I forced myself to sit through the whole thing, convinced that it couldn't actually be this bad, and that some spark would eventually ignite. I was wrong, it was bad from beginning to end.A few criticisms: First, just to get any potential bias up-front right off: I was offended by the anti-American, anti-war screed that droned on and on throughout most of the show. The topper: the murder of two American's innocent of any crime and a British Junkie is, in Fitz's words, "understandable, but not justified". I thought "I waded through two hours of crap just to hear this disgusting bit of drivel?" So I had a negative reaction to the anti-war/American tone brought on by my beliefs... Beyond the politics, I had the distinct sense that this Cracker was merely a prop for the propaganda, and it actually helped to undermine an already terribly weak script.Second, just how much air-time did Robbie Coltrane get? Fitz was almost a bit player in this one, as if he was an afterthought plugged into some story originally written without any thought of Fitz's role. Coltrane could have carried the show on his own broad and still suitably flabby shoulders, but the writer was apparently thinking of other things, and missed the chance, and by a wide margin.Third: WHAT AN ABYSMAL SCRIPT! There was some sparkle, and a couple of bits of actual character development (Fitz's son ranting that Fitz couldn't stay at his house if he missed his plane to Australia, the Detective that liked to beat his poor-performers over the backs of their heads, and some of the old sparks between Fitz and his Missus) but not nearly enough to carry the tedious storyline. Fourth, where the hell was Panhallagan? Now that would have been interesting... It was Manchester after all, and 10 years on she'd be up in the ranks. Another wasted opportunity (or perhaps the actress wasn't interested?) Well, there's much more (that's bad) to say , but I'll close with a curiosity: at the end of the show (as it aired on BBCA), when the advertisement announced that the "Director's Cut" was available on BBC On-Demand, I thought AH-HA! The Director's cut, which, presumably, one has to pay for, might have all of the goodies I expected to see tonight but never did, like a coherent, interesting storyline. Unfortunately, after convincing myself to sit through the horrible free version of "A New Terror" with the hope of seeing something, anything, worth watching, only to be disappointed, I have no hope left to motivate me to actually pay for a second, potentially longer and more tedious version. Besides, it angered me to think that BBCA sliced and diced, and sacrificed show time to accommodate the endless (every ten minutes or so) stream of commercials, and then turned around and asked me to pay for what probably should have been version aired tonight.To close, I quote the first paragraph of Variety's review of "A New Terror": it really says it all: "Initial excitement about Robbie Coltrane reprising his role as the BBC's flawed, boozing, womanizing criminal psychologist is snowed under by the heavy-handed political statement writer Jimmy McGovern is determined to deliver within this revival vidpic. Jolting at first in its message -- namely, that Americans are a bunch of whiny namby-pambies who didn't care a whit about terrorism before it came crashing onto our doorstep -- McGovern's chest-clearing rant overwhelms the narrative and mutes the pleasure of seeing Fitz back on the case."


I just watched the 30th Anniversary edition of Blazing Saddles, one of my all time Favorites!! The TV Pilot for Black Bart stunk. The plot was non-existent and the acting was not good. It was obviously an attempt to profit off of the success of Blazing Saddles and there have been TV shows that have succeeded in doing take-offs of big movies, but this one would never have worked. Considering that for so many years TV would not even play the farting noises when they televised the movie, it is inconceivable that they thought they could put a show on TV with the "N" word thrown around. On the other hand, I enjoyed seeing a lot of familiar faces!!! There were quite a few actors/actresses that I recognized from other shows over the years. I had to write down all the names and do a few searches. That was fun. I was arguing with my mother if Steve Landesberg was from Barney Miller or Mash. I won! :)


Think "stage play". This is worth seeing once for the performances of Lionel Atwill and Dwight Frye. COmpare the Melvyn DOuglas in "Ghost Story" with the Melvyn DOuglas of this film. Are there vampires at loose in this 'Bavarian' village, or is there a more natural, albeit equally sinister, explanation? Dwight Frye is Herman, a red herring, who is cast as an especially moronic character. It's fun to look at his different facial expressions in what is really a stock character. NOt much happens for a long time, but then we discover that Atwill's pipe smoking doctor is the real murderer. There is too much 'comic relief' but that is par for the course for this era. Fay Wray looks really good.


OK, plain and simple, if you are a fan of the other Tomb Raider games (yes, even AOD) KEEP AWAY FROM LEGEND.It is, without doubt, the most disappointing TR game yet. It looks very nice, it sounds very nice, but it is totally unplayable and I've given up. I feel like I've been robbed by Eidos.It's very simple. TR was a PC game before anything else. You control Lara using the keyboard. In 6 Tomb Raider games the controls were standard. In AOD they were 'tacky', but still the same general control sequences. In Legend they have changed her movement and control methods completely and she is totally uncontrollable.I have seen comments elsewhere from people who say 'Use the mouse'. No, why should I? Others say 'Use a gamepad'. No, why should I? Others say 'But this has been the standard for 3rd person controls for years' Well, I don't care, it is not the standard for any other TR game so why mess with it. Oh, I know, because they couldn't care less about their original, loyal fan base, they want to cash in on the new kids who hadn't even heard of the series until the movies came out and make lots more money. Pathetic.My advice to any serious TR fan is keep away from this game, and if you do buy it complain to Eidos. I have seen masses of other posts, mainly on the Eidos forums, from people telling them how rubbish it is, perhaps they will listen.


Note: I will reveal a key part of the plot, but if you've looked at the DVD cover or any promotional material, you'll already know it.This movie seems to have been written by an eleven-year-old who isn't very bright and was probably very tired when he wrote it. The writer doesn't know the difference between a chemical and an organism.Forget the fact the the UN and the NSA seem to be running the show in Hungary. Forget the fact that when these master intelligence agents go chasing after someone whose mere touch will kill you in about a minute they don't wear protective gear (not even gloves). These are quibbles in the context of this movie. In the scientific world within this story, 2+2=6.34 and gravity goes sideways.The fact is that the people in this movie do not (with a few exceptions) behave the way human beings behave. Almost every time a character responds to something it is inappropriate. The love story (of course there is one) makes soap opera scripts seem like Shakespeare.I can't believe we wasted a free movie rental on this thing.


OK where do i begin?... This movie changed my life! The plot was seamless. James Cahill has out done himself. Initially after a first viewing i was disappointed that i hadn't seen it on the silver screen. However this was before exploring the DVD's many features!!!! Oh my god Jakes Cahill's commentary of the film was almost as flawless as his acting. he told of industry secrets used in the film that you only get with experience.I was so impressed by the other actors. The scene where the security guard is talking to the girl in the hallway, reminded me of some of my favorite blue (pornographic) movies. I am certainly with Gangsta when he expresses his disappointment with no sequel.I am still blown away with each viewing of the martial arts skills involved, matched only by the sign indicating the location of the library at the school... and possibly the guy playing a retard! All in all a timeless classic and the best film to come out of Europe in years! where my Oscars at dawn!!!!!!!!!!!


The subsequent two seasons of this original series was less than lacklustre. The latter seasons disastrous reshuffle contributed to its three season short life span. Maybe if the plug was pulled after the first season it would've gained a cult following.Aside from that, the first season was truly hilarious! Witty, clever with superb writing it was promising. The first season's excellent brew had the right ingredients - characters/actors, storyline and so forth. Plus a comedy about a paparazzi reporter was original to boot. Nora and her fellow "photographers" on the prowl, night after night, day after day for the exclusives.A lot of things don't make sense to me. Like how this show, and another fav of mine - Gross Pointe never "made it". If only the first seasons of the Naked Truth, and Grosse Pointe were released on DVD, please anyone out there?!


This isn't one of Arbuckle's or Keaton's better films, that's for sure. Fatty's wife is tired of all his heavy drinking, so she takes him to a sanitarium where a psychiatrist (Keaton) claims to have a guaranteed cure! Well, once there, Arbuckle accidentally eats a thermometer and is taken to surgery. Then, he escapes and is chased about the place where he meets a cute girl who also wants to escape. Finally, despite staff chasing them about, they escape at which point it becomes apparent that the girl is crazy and Arbuckle is soon recaptured. However, he awakens and everything AFTER the surgery has all been a dream--there was no sexy crazy girl and Dr. Keaton isn't as big an incompetent as he seemed in the dream.A lack of humor is the biggest problem with the film. Sure, making fun of mentally ill people is pretty low, but in its day it was guaranteed laughs. I'd laugh, too, if there was just something funny to respond to! A lot of energy and that's all.FYI--during one of the chase sequences, Fatty wonders into a race for men over 200 pounds (wow, what are the odds of that?). And, shortly after this, he backs into a post on which the number 5 was just freshly painted. As a result, the five is now on the back of Fatty's shirt and he looks like a regular participant. HOWEVER, the number SHOULD have appeared backwards on Fatty's shirt but came out front-ways--a mistake, as they should have realized the mirror image would have been a backwards 5.


This episode is certainly different than all the other Columbos, though some of the details are still there, the setup is completely different. That makes this Columbo unique, and interesting to watch, even though at times you might wish for the old Columbo. I liked it a lot, but then, I like almost any Columbo.


Clara Lago is wonderful as the title character of the film, essentially a film about a Spanish/American girl who moves to Spain with her mom at the time of the Spanish Civil War. It turns out, the mother goes home to die, and she is left with her grandfather. She also makes friends and experiences much in a short time. Tomiche (Juan Jose Ballestra) is at first a nuisance to her then they become close. The film is shot beautifully, bathed in soft colors mostly. Carol yearns for her dad, who is a pilot in the war, and you can feel the love sher has for him. While the war itself is kind of taken a back seat in this film, it envelops the character's lives. I think you'll like it. See it especially for Clara Lago, who does a great job as Carol. She is definitely one to watch.


A good picture is worth all the words. This film has the most poetic scene ever dreamed of about people with Down's syndrome. And I won't spoil it by telling you. You'll want to see it yourself.Pasqual Duquenne is an amazing actor. I did not need to understand a single word he said to understand his meaning.The film has a magic of it's own. After watching it I understood better that we put too much value on achievement and not enough on the people we love. Passion and simplicity is all we need.


The movie has one nude scene: A man sitting on the edge of the bed, with his exposed genitals smack dab in the middle of the screen. It is quite a long scene. What was the point? I almost think it was meant to be funny but we were watching it with my mother and it wasn't funny to have THAT staring at us for what seemed like a full minute.The movie is cold. None of the characters are even likeable. Audrey Tatou is cute, of course, but her character is an unhappy girl.I really would not recommend this movie. I had expected it to be charming and fresh but it was depressing. I wondered if the director was from a very upper crust, educated French family and he looks down on these characters.


When George C. Scott played the title role in "Patton," you saw him directing tanks with pumps of his fist, shooting at German dive bombers with a revolver, and spewing profanity at superiors and subordinates alike. The most action we get from Gregory Peck as "MacArthur," a figure from the same war of debatably greater accomplishment, is when he taps mapboards with his finger and raises that famous eyebrow of his.Comparing Peck's performance with Scott's may be unfair. Yet the fact "MacArthur" was made by the same producer and scored by the same composer begs parallels, as does the fact both films open with the generals addressing cadets at West Point. It's clear to me the filmmakers were looking to mimic that Oscar-winning film of a few years before. But while Peck looks the part more than Scott ever did, he comes off as mostly bland in a story that feels less like drama than a Wikipedia walkthrough of MacArthur's later career."To this day there are those who think he was a dangerous demagogue and others who say he was one of the greatest men who ever lived," an opening title crawl tells us. It's a typical dishwater bit of post-Vietnam sophistry about those who led America's military, very much of its time, but what we get here is neither view. MacArthur as presented here doesn't anger or inspire the way he did in life.Director Joseph Sargent, who went on to helm the famous turkey "Jaws The Revenge," does a paint-by-numbers job with bland battle montages and some obvious set use (as when the Chinese attack U.S. forces in Korea), while the script by Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins trots out a MacArthur who comes across as good-natured to the point of blandness, a bit too caught up in his public image, but never less than decent.Here you see him stepping off the landing craft making his return to the Phillipines. There you see him addressing Congress in his "Old Soldiers Never Die" speech. For a long stretch of time he sits in a movie theater in Toyko, waiting for the North Koreans to cross the 38th parallel so we can get on with the story while newsreel footage details Japan's rise from the ashes under his enlightened rule. Peck's co-actors, Marj Dusay as his devoted wife ("you're my finest soldier") and Nicolas Coaster as a loyal aide, burnish teary eyes in the direction of their companion's magnificence but garner no interest on their own.Even when he argues with others, Peck never raises his voice and for the most part wins his arguments with thunderous eloquence. When Admiral Nimitz suggests delaying the recapture of the Philippines, a point of personal pride as well as tactical concern for MacArthur, MacArthur comes back with the comment: "Just now, as I listened to his plan, I thought I saw our flag going down." Doubtless the real Nimitz would have had something to say about that, but the character in the movie just bows his head and meekly accepts the insult in the presence of President Roosevelt.The only person in the movie who MacArthur seriously disagrees with is Harry S Truman, who Ed Flanders does a fine job with despite a prosthetic nose that makes him resemble Toucan Sam. Truman's firing of MacArthur should be a dramatic high point, but here it takes place in a quiet dinner conversation, in which Peck plays MacArthur as nothing less than a genial martyr.I've never been sold by Peck's standing at the upper pantheon of screen stars; he delivers great presence but lacks complexity even in many of his best-known roles. But it's unfair to dock him so much here, as he gets little help defining MacArthur as anything other than a speechifying bore. Except for two scenes, one where he rails against the surrender of the Philippines ("He struck Old Glory and ran up a bedsheet!") and another where he has a mini-breakdown while awaiting the U.S. invasion of Inchon, inveighing against Communists undermining him at the White House, Peck really plays Peck here, not the complex character who inspired the famous sobriquet "American Caesar." The real MacArthur might have been worthy of such a comparison. What you get here is less worthy of Shakespeare than Shakes the Clown.


Horrible film with bits of the Ramones strewn about. Your worse than average 1970's/80's comedy format of the cool kids taking over the school with some whimsical plan. This movie is terrible. The plot consists of a girl who enjoys the Ramones and a school bent on fighting against their oppressive administration. Forget this movie and watch something like Wild Zero starring Guitar Wolf if you want an entertaining B movie. Terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible plot with the stamp of approval of the Ramones who probably needed some money quick so they said yes to this movie. That is the only logical thing I can think of because this movie blows.


I disagree strongly with anyone who might dismiss this film as "just" entertainment. Set right after the carefree, roaring 20s, during the early days of the Great Depression, Dance, Fools, Dance is at its heart an earnest cautionary tale, with a clear message about how best to endure these hard times. Yet this fast-paced and tightly-plotted film is far from being a dreary morality tale.In the 30s, Hollywood had a knack for churning out one entertaining *and* enlightening audience-pleaser after another, all without wasting a frame of film. Dance, Fools, Dance -- one of *four* films that Harry Beaumont directed in 1931 -- is barely 80 minutes long, yet its characters are well developed, its story never seems rushed, and despite its many twists in plot, the audience is never left behind.With the lone exception of Lester Vail as flaccid love interest Bob Townsend, the supporting cast is uniformly strong. Worthy of note are William Bakewell as Crawford's brother, Cliff Edwards (best known as the voice of Jiminy Cricket) as reporter Bert Scranton, and Clark Gable in an early supporting role as gangster Jake Luva.But this is Joan Crawford's film, and she absolutely shines in it. Made when she was just 27, this lesser-known version of Crawford will probably be unrecognizable to those more familiar with her later work. However, here is proof that long before she took home an Oscar for Mildred Pierce, Crawford was a star in the true sense of the word, a terrific actress with the charisma to carry a picture all by herself.Score: EIGHT out of TEN


I've read one comment which labeled this film "trash" and "a wasteof time." I think this person got their political undies tugged a bittoo much.I just rented the new Criterion DVD's of both Yellow and Blue.These films--although hardly great--have at least become ofhistorical interest as to the so-called "radical studentpolitical-social movement"of the late '60s.I hadn't seen either picture and from their notorious reputation, Iwas expecting some real porn (there isn't any.) There is frontalnudity (including the still verboten frontal male nudity (automaticNC-17--the Orwellian-X) in the U.S. But I wasn't expecting the filmsin-your-face democratic socialist message. Though it tends to the simplistic , I thought it occassionally madeits points well. Both films occassionally had me laughing out loudand the director's commentary made it clear there was plenty ofparody in the film. Especially the supposedly "pornographic" sexscenes. The first such scene is very realistic. The lead couple isclumsy, inept, funny and endearing in their first copulation scene.The second--which caused the most complaints--has fakedcunnilingus and fellatio. And the last is the end of an angry fight,that is believable.The extras include an informative introduction to the film, aninterview with the original American distributor and his attorney,excerpts from trial testimony in the U.S. and a "diary" commentaryby the director on some scenes.This is the film that "blue noses" wouldn't let alone and led to thepivotal "prurient interest with no social redeeming value" standardthat, thankfully, still stands.Those with an interest in the quirks of history will find this a mustsee.


"Voodoo Academy" features an "Academy" like no other, one that houses only six male students in one bedroom. These teenage guys are instructed in religion by a sinister young priest, who enjoys tormenting and comforting them simultaneously. The sole administrator of this "Academy" is a young and seductive headmistress, and she retains her handsome charges on a short leash, so to speak.Sexual overtones abound, and the director obviously has high regard for young male bodies. These young actors occasionally strip down to their designer underwear to sneak about the "Academy," and their sexuality is the entire focus of the movie. If you're not interested in the male form -- stay away!Burdened by weak and awkward dialogue, this low-budget exploitation piece just stumbles along with a few laughable special effects tossed in between the yawns. The mood is claustrophobic, with tediously long takes, a handful of cheap sets and few costume changes. These visual elements come interspersed with seemingly unending sequences of banal dialogue, intended as character and plot development. It gives one the feeling it was filmed in three days...


I will admit, I thought this movie wasn't going to be any good but I soon changed my mind. The movie was keep you guessing as which direction it's going. Pierce Broson is amazing in his role as a hit man, who suddenly becomes burned out & asks a man he met at a Mexican bar for help. Greg Kinnear is an awesome straight man, as his role as a mild mannered man from Denver, who starts a innocent conversation with Pierce at a Mexican bar. The movie will have you laughing as Pierce delivers hilarious one liners (mostly about sex).The imaginary in this movie is very well done, especially at the bullfight scene & when Pierce sees himself when trying to finish his last jobs.


I watched the Pie-lette last night and the word that comes to mind is "original." It is a word not used much in TV as they all tend to copy whatever the other network is doing and you end up with seven nights of crime shows, unfunny comedies, and reality crap.The first thing that hit me like a brick was the presence of Jim Dale. Those not familiar with the British "Carry On ..." series or those who have not listened to a Harry Potter book, may not be familiar with Dale. I am not sure whether his presence as narrator adds or distracts. I will have to tune in more, but it does give the show a "Harry Potter" atmosphere. Maybe that's a good thing.Lee Pace (Infamous, The White Countess) has a gift. It never explains where he got it, but he can bring someone back from the dead for a minute. He teams with Chi McBride ("Boston Public," Roll Bounce) to solve murders using this talent. Everything is fine and funny until he comes across a childhood love, Anna Friel (Goal! The Dream Begins, Timeline) and things really get complicated. He can't send her back and he can never touch her. Boy, would that make a relationship difficult.I will be tuning in to see where this series goes in the expectation that it will continue to entertain.


I grew up watching Inspector Gadget. It was, and still is, one of my favorite cartoons, if not my absolute favorite. I learned a lot of geography and history from the spin-off Inspector Gadget's Field Trip. I wanted to slip on a banana peel and become the greatest detective ever.But the film has ruined the reputation of the wonderful cartoon.Matthew Broderick, an actor with potential, was definitely NOT the role for Inspector Gadget. First thing- in the film, Inspector Gadget is smart. Not so in the cartoon. In the film, Gadget solves the mystery mostly by himself. In the cartoon, it was almost always Penny, Brain, and the awesome book (I still want her book!). If Gadget solved the mystery, it was by accident. Gadget in the film seems to be a competent detective, but in the cartoon was pretty dumb, which was where the humor came from.Another thing is that it's too much "Good Guy v. Bad Guy" in the film. It's not just meant to be a silly Saturday morning cartoon. Also, Gadget never should have a love story, but Disney Corporation is filled with idiots.Also I miss the true gadgets that Gadget had, and especially the Gadget car. In the movie it was a chic convertible. In the cartoon it was a sedan police car and could turn into a van. It also barely had any gadgets and was mainly there to get him from place to place.But if anything, the one thing that was terrible about the movie was that it was a feature movie. Inspector Gadget was a silly Saturday morning cartoon. The movie was too serious, too overdone, had too much of a plot and wasn't even remotely as funny.Tip for those who haven't seen it: NEVER see it. EVER. Watch the cartoon, it's a true classic.


I have only recently been able to catch up with the films of Marilyn Miller since they are not shown on TCM in the UK.I have been much intrigued over the years because this was one of the superstars of the 20s.What was she really like.To some stars of this era like Jolson some of the magic still shines through,but alas not for Miller.Her dancing seems awkward and poorly choreographed,her singing somewhat limited and as an actress she makes Ruby Keeler seem like Hepburn.Even worse in this film as the public had grown tired of musicals virtually all of the musical numbers have been deleted.So we are left with a comedy of that period with little real appeal.She was being paid $500000 for this!So i have only two conclusion.Either she was poorly served by the cinema or she had no talent at all.I think that the truth is nearer the later than the former.


Those individuals familiar with Asian cinema, as a whole, are aware that Japan is renowned, or notorious, for it's hyper-violent films and Korea is now garnering a reputation for viciously brutal films. Dog Bites Dog, while not necessarily getting as hyper-violent as the craziest Miike film, nor is it as unapologetically brutal as some Koreas more ambitious efforts, it is a perfect in between with its own brand of brutality all it's own. The greatest strength this film has though, like the greatest of the Japanese or Korean efforts, is that the brutality, rather than detracting from the film, actually develops the characters, if not, pushing the story forward. The two main characters are both incredibly vicious individuals with their own motivations and emotional underpinning for being as such. Sam Lee's character, for instance, is on the edge from the very start and slowly and surely, amidst various encounters with Chang's character, it is revealed why he is. Without spoiling this part of the story too much, it involves the morally ambiguous nature of his father. Chang's character, on the other hand, has his most primal instincts honed to, if not perfection, brutal efficiency. Surprisingly, Chang's story arch, while not necessarily revealing a more human side, actually reveals a side to our animal nature which many forget about which is the natural ability to recognize a fellow broken animal (and no I am not talking about Sam Lee, rather Pei Pei's garbage dump girl character). Ultimately however, for the first 80 minutes or so, it is a, more or less, straight forward cat and mouse, or Dog chase Dog, film in which every encounter ends in at least one death (seriously, once Sam Lee and Chang Square off, some one will die) and the fun part of movie is you never know who hands will commit the act. Which brings us to the film's one weakness. Unforunatley to delve into it would be yet another spoiler but, to put it simply, it is guilty of pushing one of the main points of the film since, rather then letting the point be made as is 80 minutes into the film, the film goes on for another 20 minutes or so to further emphasize it. Don't get me wrong, if transitioned better from the 80 minute mark to the climax and if the final act wasn't filled with sweet music (in fact if it, like the majority of the film, kept the music to the barest minimum and let the disturbing sound effects do their job), it still could have worked and not detract from the film. As it is though, despite the third act having the most vicious and bloody of the encounters, the way it was handled made it feel tacked on, and almost, insults the viewers intelligence since it felt it had to go this far to get it across. Nevertheless, it is still a breath of fresh air from Hong Kong cinema since even the most bloody of the martial arts films never reaches the level of viciousness and brutality while keeping the the character archs in tact.


An occasionally surrealistic thriller that will push most people's buttons., the 4th Man is sure to offend anyone with a taste for the politically correct. The story's protagonist is a bisexual alcoholic Catholic writer, Gerard (Krabbe), with a seriously twisted sense of imagination. Verhoeven offers upGerard has an example of everything wrong with the modern man. He's shiftless, delusional, unable to control his urges, afraid to commit tomeaningful relationships, and utterly apathetic about life in general. As the character himself states at one point, he is a professional liar, unable to recall the truth.The movie opens with Gerard dreaming of spiders consuming Christ, and then waking to begin the long march to his own destruction. He chases offone man (a boyfriend presumably), then chases another at a train station. Later, at a lecture, he meets a woman who seems to want to help him, orperhaps she has more nefarious plans.. She quickly captures Gerard in her web, enticing him with sex and money, having plenty of both. She's also gotsecrets, like three dead husbands. Is she lonely, and genuinely looking for someone to nurture - or is she a deadly black widow, luring Gerard to hisdeath? Will Garard be the 4th man she kills? The woman is Christine (Soutendijk), and Verhoeven does his best to keep you guessing what she's up to.This is an interesting movie, with a lot of sex and intrigue. It's similar to Verhoeven'sBasic instinct, but has a lot more depth, and is certainly more shocking. There's a lot of very strong gay content, which may make some viewers squirm. Highly recommended for fans of intelligentpsychological thrillers, or anyone looking for something entirely new.


STAR RATING: ***** Unmissable **** Very Good *** Okay ** You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead * Avoid At All Costs Stuck-up career bitch Kate (Franka Potente) heads to the London underground to catch a train to take her to meet George Clooney. However, after a hectic working day, she dozes off and awakens to find herself alone in a deserted platform. As she races off on a situation taking her from one daunting encounter to the next, however, she learns of something far more malign and evil waiting for her out there.In a lot of ways, the British Film Industry is really becoming one on it's own, especially in the horror thriller department, with films such as Creep and the successful 28 Days Later (which this has strong echoes of in parts.) In terms of succeeding in what it set out to do, Creep does cleverly create (especially at the beginning) a scary sense of isolation and tense fear. At it's clever running time, it also (though inadvertently, I suspect) manages to pay homage to some of those pioneer high-concept horror films from the 70s that rely on shocks and fear through-out without really focusing too much on character development and such.Of it's weaknesses, some scenes are a little predictable, but these don't really succeed in making it less scary or effective in any way. I'm not sure if the ending was meant to make it come off as some sort of morality play and it's not exactly perfect, but it's certainly very effective and serves it's basic function very well. ***


One is tempted to define the genre of Gert de Graaff's movie as `event of the thought' following the example of Merab Mamardashvili. The nominal storyline is a certain Bart Klever's torturous quest for that ephemeral substance which constitutes the essence of personality. The script for his new movie is taking shape simultaneously on his computer and in his own imagination. This film-monologue originated as a response to Fellini's `8 ½' and cost Gert de Graaff 13 years of work. Excitedly playing with real and fictional characters as well as with the audience, it reveals the whimsical interconnection of the real and imaginary, the paradoxical co-existence in two different galaxies: that of Guttenberg and that of MacLhuen. For some time we are apt to side with the script writer, who believes that the cause of all misfortune is the damned stereotypes of mass mentality (`man', `catholic', `window washer'). And together with him we fall into a trap when the author-creator is finally faced with the insoluble dilemma: how can one eliminate from the future movie. Bart Klever? Just five minutes before the finale thanks to the common petty reproaches of the wife of the creator, who is deeply immersed in work, we realize that together with the main character we have again been `framed'. Really, what is the price of the art for the sake of which it is acceptable to renounce one's own name and the day-to-day care for the young daughter?So who is he, this Bart Klever? Is he a brilliant prophet or someone possessed like Frenhoffer from Balzac's masterpiece (just like the latter the script writer in the end erases from the computer memory everything has written)? Gert de Graaff suggests that we answer this question ourselves.


I don't hand out ten star ratings easily. A movie really has to impress me, and The Bourne Ultimatum has gone far beyond that. Furthermore, this trilogy has come together so nicely, that I believe it to be one of the greatest motion picture trilogies of our time. Though all three films could not be any more different from the Ludlum novels, they still stand as a powerful landmark in cinematic achievement. The Bourne Ultimatum made me want to cry that the series was complete, yet I could not even attempt to stop smiling for hours.From the moment that the opening title appeared, I knew we were in for a ride. Paul Greengrass has done it again. Everything we love from the previous Bourne films is here once again: the action, the dialogue, and of course the shaky camera. However for me, that last one was never a problem. I think it adds to the suspense.I will be back to see this film several times before it is released on DVD, simply because it is genius. It is a perfectly satisfying conclusion, and should stand the test of time as a fantastic movie, and altogether, an unforgettable trilogy.


I didn't know what to except so I think it was a lot better not having excepted much. Don't get my wrong its not a bad short film. Tess Nanavati is a relatively new directer and writer so I think she deserves a lot of kudos for making this film. You can tell that it has been an act of love for her. The acting (outside of Dominic) is a little cheesy and the quality of film is not great either but for a really low budget film its good. There was times when the story line gets convoluted and there are parts that drag on, though I don't feel it greatly detracts for one's ability to understand the film. If you love Dominic Monaghan as much as I do, I say go for it. The gag reel was fun, I won't spoil it but there is a particular scene that makes buying the DVD worth it just so you can watch it over and over. If you like the film then check out The Pink Mirror, a film also done by Jagged Edge. I know fans of Dominic will enjoy this little piece of heaven.


OK let's get right to the point. We have five recent college grads (must have majored in the F word) going out on a weekend camping trip. They run into someone who is in need of help, but instead of trying to assist him, they decide to set him on fire instead. Nice bunch of people. Next some of them start go get sick - must be something in the water at the cabin they are staying at. However the neighbors seem to be OK. Oh well, when things start getting really bad, they lock up one their companions instead of getting help (try the neighbor by the way). Some locals don't take a liking to them. They chase one on a high speed romp through the woods for many miles, until the truck breaks down. Somehow ten minutes later he shows up at the cabin (how he could find it and how he could travel at the speed of light to get there is a mystery). Another of the brain surgeon type at the cabin realizes something is amiss so he hides out in a cave to let this blow over. He then decides the next day to return to the cabin believing it must be some type of shrine. He is giddy with relief that he survived (he must have thought it was a 24 hour bug). Unfortuneatley he is met by some not so friendly police officers. Another couple decide to have sex while the flesh eating bug is working its magic, and then the women realizes she needs to shave her legs (taking a lot of the diseased skin with shaving cream). Anyway you get the idea. Nothing makes sense here. These are five people I would not want to be friends with. I was rooting for the flesh eating bacteria. Other characters were introduced who were also somewhat amusing but utterly unlikeable as well. Ninety minutes of good life wasted here.


You talking' to Me? (1987) is a pretty bad movie starring some dude who I have never seen before or since starring as a guy from the neighborhood who tries to become an actor. He has a heavy jones for Taxi Driver as tries to use that shtick to make it big. When he learns the hard facts of life, he does what everyone else does, changes his image! He goes from good fella to a surf's up dude over night. His friend can't believe the change (but he scores with Faith Ford and get's a cool paying gig). Can this young punk keep his street cred whilst making it big?This is a real lame movie that tries too hard to incorporate too many things at once. An interesting idea that falls apart due to poor execution. Who knows, maybe somebody will pick up the ball and run because the film makers fumbled the ball this time.Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you want to see a hot Faith Ford and a young Bubba from Forest Gump.xx


I have been an admirer of Edward Burtynsky's work for years, and it was such a pleasure to be able to see the man at work, thanks to Jennifer Baichwal's documentary. The severe beauty of the ship-breaking yard in Bangladesh, the stone quarry in Vermont, the enormous assembly plant in China, the beleaguered old neighbourhoods in Shanghai that are just waiting to be torn down: these landscapes are captured so well by the photographer and the filmmaker.At times I thought of old TV documentaries on abandoned coal mines and plastic-mold factories; the sort of stuff I grew up watching. Burtynsky's work has the great value of pointing out how the industrial activity has only shifted to Asia, it has not stopped. The strangest scene for me was the computer scrap-yard somewhere in China--the waste had a threatening air about it, while the workers were very jovial.


WARNING! SMALL PLOT DETAILS REVEALED!I can find virtually nothing positive to say about this film. It is written so badly that every character is a caricature, yet it seems to take itself seriously. It is poorly cast, especially Ralph Macchio (all baby-faced, 5-foot-nothing of him) as a streetwise tough. Plot elements are all drawn in black and white, with every situation almost immediately escalating to some extreme climax.Most egregious of all (PLOT ELEMENT ABOUT TO BE REVEALED) it has perhaps the most gratuitous and contrived nude scene in the history of semi-serious film. One can just imagine the filmmakers saying, "We need JoBeth to shed her top...hmmm...I've got it!...early in the film, let's give Nick some ridiculous dialogue about baring yourself in the hallways...then JoBeth can use that line on him later and REALLY bare herself in the hallway...yeah, that's the ticket!"I will give the producers credit for tackling a weighty subject in 1984, one that proved all too weighty in the late 90's with events like Columbine. However, the execution is dreadful. This film could have been a dark comedy in the vein of "Heathers", a campy political statement like "Network" or a serious examination like "Brubaker". Instead, it tries to be all of these things -- and ends up being none of these things. "Teachers" get an F.


What the ........... is this ? This must, without a doubt, be the biggest waste of film, settings and camera ever. I know you can't set your expectations for an 80's slasher high, but this is too stupid to be true. I baught this film for 0.89$ and I still feel the urge to go claim my money back. Can you imagine who hard it STINKS ?Who is the violent killer in this film and what are his motivations??? Well actually, you couldn't possible care less. And why should you? The makers of this piece of garbage sure didn't care. They didn't try to create a tiny bit of tension. The director ( Stephen Carpenter -- I guess it's much easier to find money with a name like that ) also made the Kindred (1986) wich was rather enjoyable and recently he did Soul Survivors. Complete crap as well, but at least that one had Eliza Dushku. This junk has the debut of Daphne Zuniga !!! ( Who ?? ) Yeah that's right, the Melrose Place chick. Her very memorable character dies about 15 min. after the opening credits. She's the second person to die. The first victim dies directly in the first minute, but nobody seems to mention or miss him afterwards so who cares ? The rest of the actors...they don't deserve the term actors actually, are completely uninteresting. You're hoping they die a quick and painful death...and not only their charactersMy humble opinion = 0 / 10


Like TALK RADIO, THE BOOTH is actually kinda predictable (TALK RADIO because we know the truth of what happened going in, THE BOOTH because of- let's face it- the genre and the basic set-up). That's not necessarily a bad thing, in this case. It means, in essence, that the filmmakers don't punk out in the end the way they might've in, say, an American version of this story. THE BOOTH moves inexorably toward its (foregone) conclusion, but is so beautifully crafted on every level that one can enjoy the ride the way one might a familiar cruise along a well-travelled stretch of (very scenic) road. It reminds me of Harlan Ellison's spooky short story, FLOP SWEAT. The claustrophobia is, at times, almost palpable. Worth a nice long look.


It's hard to put your finger on this one. Basically I suppose it's a comedy about an idle rich drunk who falls in love with a (comparatively) poor girl, whom he wants to marry at the risk of being disowned by his family.It has funny moments, romantic moments, and touching moments. Dudley Moore is funny and somehow makes his self-centred character endearing, Liza Minelli is a convincing foil as the the feisty opposite he attracts, but John Gielgud steals the show as Arthur's wonderfully sarcastic butler.It's corny but great fun with a memorable soundtrack, and ran for nearly 3 months at our local fleapit.


Some very interesting camera work and a story with much potential. But it never comes together as anything more than a student's graduate thesis in film school.There are two primary reasons for this. Fist, there is not a single likable character, not even a villain we might admire for his/her chutzpah. Secondly, all the acting is awful - even from veteran Willem DaFoe. The ham is so plentiful here, you feel like you're at a picnic - but one of those wretched company employee picnics where you drink too much cheap beer and get your hangover before you even stop drinking. Then you eat an underdone hotdog and throw up.All right, I'm being a little rough on a young director who might still go places - as I said, the camera work is quite good.But I feel cheated - the blurb for this film suggests we will get to watch a "Modern western", and the DVD packaging has pictures on it that suggest this as well - but nobody actually connected to the film's making seems to know that this is the kind of film they're supposed to be making.That betrayal is what hurts; but even without it, the fact remains that we don't like these characters, we feel embarrassed for the actors, the story is hopelessly muddled, and in the last analysis, we just don't care.I took it out of the DVD player about half way through. but the rental store wouldn't give me my money back.Now, that really hurts.


This is the best and most original show seen in years. The more I watch it the more I fall in love with it. The cast is excellent, the writing is great. I personally like every character. However, there is a favorite character for everyone as there is a good mix of personalities and backgrounds just like in real life. I believe ABC has done a disservice to the writers, actors and to the potential audience of this show, to cancel so quickly and not advertise it enough nor give it a real chance to gain a following. There are so few shows I watch anymore as most TV is awful . This show in my opinion was right up there with my favorites Greys Anatomy and Brothers and Sisters. In fact I think the same audience for Brothers and Sisters would love this show if they even knew about it. Why is it always the loser shows that get so much extra time and the winning shows with great potential always get dumped right away. I am so sick of reality shows I do not watch any of them. It was so refreshing to have a new idea for a show and then to hire excellent actors, this show had so much promise. The recent episode was the best one yet as everyone has started to really get into their parts and make the show so real. Please watch this show on ABC's video and let ABC know you wish to have this show back. PLEASE SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION TO ABC: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gh1215/petition.html


Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of the show 'South Park' , return with something entirely different.They create a new sport that combines baseball and basketball.This sport is known as baseketball.It's like basketball except that the rules of baseball are involved and there's another letter e in the title.Here's how you play: you just shoot the ball while these two guys try to distract you from making the shot.Sounds simple.In fact, I might try it one day.After the game hits the streets, it soon becomes a huge success.Who would've known that 2 immature friends could invent a sport that became so successful?My opinion'Baseketball' is a very crude and silly spoof filled with lots of slapstick violence, yet it actually delivers some laughs and plenty of entertainment.A definite recommendation for those of you who like slapstick and rude humor.


The movie is about Anton Newcombe. The music and careers of the two bands are simply backdrop. It's only fair that Newcombe have the last word about the film, which at this writing you can find in the "news" section at the brianjonestownmassacre website. I'd link it here but IMDb won't permit it.Documentarians are limited by what the camera captures, as well as by the need to assemble a cohesive narrative from the somewhat-random occasions when chance has put the camera lens on a sight-line with relevant happenstance. In Dig!, fortune smiled on the Dandy Warhols, capturing their rise to the status of pop-idol candidates, as they formed slickly-produced pop confections for mass consumption, most notably "Bohemian Like You," a song that made them global darlings thanks to a Euro cell phone ad. No such luck for Brian Jonestown Massacre. The film captures little of what made the original BJM lineup great, with the sole exception of a single montage, lasting a minute or so, showing Newcombe creating/recording a number of brief instrumental parts, unremarkable in themselves, and concluding the sequence with a playback of the lush, shimmering sounds that had to have been in Newcombe's mind and soul before they could enter the world.Three commentaries accompany the film; one by the filmmakers, and two by the members of the bands (the BJM track is solely former members, and without Newcombe). Both the Warhols and BJM alumni point up this montage sequence as the "best" bit in the film, and I'd agree that, given the film's focus on Anton Newcombe, it is the only part of the film that sheds proper light on his gift, and seems too brief to lend proper balance to this attempted portrait of the "tortured artist."Interesting thing about commentaries is that, unlike film, they are recorded in real time -- one long take -- which can be more honestly revelatory than a documentary that takes shape primarily through editing.The Dandies do not come off well in their comments. If the rock and roll world extends the experience of high school life for its denizens -- as I believe it does -- the Dandies are the popularity-obsessed preppy types, the ones who listen to rock because it's what their peers do, while the BJM crew come off as the half-rejected, half-self-exiled outsiders (to insiders like the Dandies, "losers") that are the real rock spirit. BJM's Joel Gion, who talks a LOT, nails the film's message for me when he says (paraphrasing): "You can't forget that Anton has been able to do the only thing he ever said he wanted to do. Make a lot of great music."The Dandies, meanwhile, laugh too easily at every outrageous display in the course of Newcombe's meltdown (all the BJM footage here ends at 1997, before Newcombe quit heroin). Courtney Taylor-Taylor's discounting of Newcombe's commitment to his vision is summed up as follows: "He's 37 and still living in his car. You can download all his work at his website. He was so tired of being ripped off by everyone else, he's giving it all away. He could be making a mint." You can practically hear him shaking his head in disbelief.The film's shortcomings can't be blamed on the filmmakers; rather it's the difficulties of the documentary form, and the loss of cooperation by the film's subject, that makes this portrait of Newcombe so fragmentary. But it's likely the best we will get, outside of his music.I only rented disc one, which has the feature. Most of the extras are on disc two. Not renting that, as I've put in my order to buy the set.


From the filmmakers who brought us The March of the Penguins, I guess that came with plenty of expectations for The Fox and the Child. From the harsh winters of the South Pole to the lush wilderness in France, the narrative now becomes part documentary and part fairy tale, which tells of the friendship between the two titular characters, Renard the fox and its friendship with the child who christened it, played by Bertille Noel-Beuneau.The story's frankly quite simple, and at times this movie would have looked like the many Japanese movies which children-miscellaneous animals striking a friendship after the development of trust, and how they go about hanging around each other, dealing with respective adversaries and the likes. Here, the child meets the elegant fox near her home up in the mountains, which provide for plenty of beautiful picture-postcard perfect shots that a cinematographer will have to go into overdrive to capture.But while we indulge in wistful scenery, the characters don't get to establish that level of trust from the onset, and we have to wait a few seasons to past, and 45 minutes into the film, before they find a leveler in food. The child persistently attempts at striking a bond with the objective of taming the creature for her own amusement, but the fox, well, as other notions of course. While I thought the narrative was pretty weak, unlike March of the Penguins which has that human narrative interpretation of what's happening on screen, what excelled here were the documentary elements of the movie, tracing the life and times of the fox as both a predator, and a prey.Between the two, more tension and drama was given to the latter, especially when dealing with traditional foes like wolves, and granted, those sequences were fairly intense especially when the child got embroiled in it. Otherwise, it was plain sailing and quite a bore as the two of them go about their playing with each other, in shots that you know have undergone some movie magic editing. There were surprisingly dark moments in the movie that weren't really quite suitable for children, as those in the same hall attested to it by bawling their eyes out suddenly, so parents, you might want to take note and not let your toddler disturb the rest of the movie goers.As a film, I would've preferred this to be a complete documentary ala The March of the Penguins, but I guess the way it was resented, probably had the objective of warning us not to meddle with nature, and that some things are just not meant to be, and should stay as such. Decent movie that leaned on the strength of the chemistry between Bertille Noel- Bruneau, and the multiple foxes that played Renard.


Being an Austrian myself this has been a straight knock in my face. Fortunately I don't live nowhere near the place where this movie takes place but unfortunately it portrays everything that the rest of Austria hates about Viennese people (or people close to that region). And it is very easy to read that this is exactly the directors intention: to let your head sink into your hands and say "Oh my god, how can THAT be possible!". No, not with me, the (in my opinion) totally exaggerated uncensored swinger club scene is not necessary, I watch porn, sure, but in this context I was rather disgusted than put in the right context.This movie tells a story about how misled people who suffer from lack of education or bad company try to survive and live in a world of redundancy and boring horizons. A girl who is treated like a whore by her super-jealous boyfriend (and still keeps coming back), a female teacher who discovers her masochism by putting the life of her super-cruel "lover" on the line, an old couple who has an almost mathematical daily cycle (she is the "official replacement" of his ex wife), a couple that has just divorced and has the ex husband suffer under the acts of his former wife obviously having a relationship with her masseuse and finally a crazy hitchhiker who asks her drivers the most unusual questions and stretches their nerves by just being super-annoying.After having seen it you feel almost nothing. You're not even shocked, sad, depressed or feel like doing anything... Maybe that's why I gave it 7 points, it made me react in a way I never reacted before. If that's good or bad is up to you!


This is Peter Falk's film. Period.I was 10 years old when this film came out; I was already a film maven at the time. Of course neither my parents nor I saw this film when it came out, but I was in love with the typeface of its ads & the aura that this was An Important Film. Okay, 34 years later I've finally seen the film--having never seen any Cassavetes-directed film previously. He's a hack, overall. Zero sense of timing, editing. Gena's performance reminds me too much of Dustin Hoffman's stint in "Rain Man": technically on par but entirely one-note. As Tom Cruise stole "Rain Man," Falk takes the cake for this film.I was annoyed with Gena's performance, really throughout--it seemed better suited for "Awakenings" (blecch!). It's not all her fault: she's a basket case from first scene to last. We never find out why?? But Falk's character seems real & is performed WONDERFULLY by Falk as a seriously flawed man.Shave off at least an hour (an editor needed!), and this would have been an arresting portrait not of a woman under the influence but of a simple, Cro-Magnon, man coming to grips with a wife who doesn't work & yet cannot deal with her three kids & her husband's long hours of work.I'd rather remember Cassavetes for "The Dirty Dozen" or "Rosemary's Baby." He would have been a better director had he snipped his own tendency for excess--as he amply demonstrates with this film.Bob