This is one of the funniest movies I have seen. I watched it on DVD, and the disc does not have any special features, or even a menu, but that is not necessarily what I care about. I tend to judge movies on a case by case basis, depending on, among other things, if it is a big studio production or a smaller film. This is a smaller film and I am willing to forgive minor things. That said, I believe it has one of the most imaginative and original title sequences that I have seen.I enjoyed the acting of all of the major players. I especially enjoyed Til Schweiger and Alan Arkin. Alan Arkin has most of the funniest lines. The character portrayed by Claire Forlani might come across as unrealistic to some people, but I have personally known real people with emotional problems that very readily look at life's decisions as her character does. That helped me pick up the nuances where her hurts could come out through the veneer of her humor.This is not a movie for children, obviously, but it does NOT engage in gratuitous sex and nudity. There is quite a bit of adult language, though, but it can sometimes be very funny. (In particular, Alan Arkin's character, who can't even swear correctly.)Also watch for the cameos from known character actors.


Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed "La Casa" in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl / woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.This is my truth - what is yours?


You know all those letters to "Father Christmas" and "Jesus" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is "Dead Letter Office". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company."Dead Letter Office" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film "Committed" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.Despite that, "Dead Letter Office" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there.


This movie makes me want to fall in love all over again!I am naming my next daughter "Adelaide". Just so that someone who sings like Ol Blue eyes can swoon her one day, and feel the butterflies I felt hearing it sung, and it wasn't even to me! I give it a 9/10


Surprisingly well made little movie. Short in length at about 90 minutes. For a low budget movie, very well made. Plot is slow to unravel. Cast is excellent especially Elizabeth Van Meter as the girlfriend with Tourette's Syndrome.


This film is really unbelievable. I've seen so much cheap trash-movies, especially a lot 'Full Moon'-Pictures, but 'Dollman' is really hard. So much comes together: the laughable story, the actors always at the edge of parody and the special effects! How long I could talk about them! It is a really bad movie, but also one of the funniest ones. If you're a fan of bad movies to laugh about, you have to see it. And don't miss 'Dollman vs. Demonic Toys'. It really funnier and worse.


Arthur Bach is decidedly unhappy in his life as a multi-millionaire and is attracted to people 'below him' in social standing - he pays for a hooker in the opening scenes and then is enormously attracted to a shoplifter.He drinks quite a lot too, and sometimes he is driving while drinking, too, which of course is not funny, ever. The movie is great but behind the comedy is some reality, too. John Gielgud wipes the floor with everyone else on screen and created a character for the ages. Talk about deserving an Oscar. Moore and Minnelli have their moments, but its Gielgud as "Hobson" you'll remember the most.


Don't waste your time on this film. It could have been good, but the ending was one of the lamest I've ever seen. I seriously have to wonder how the people involved with the making of this film could've looked at that final scene and thought, "yeah! now there's an ending!" and patted themselves on the back about it. To me it seemed more like they just ran out of ideas! They built up the final scenes to have a cool twist, but instead just let the whole build-up fall flat on it's face. When the last shot faded to black and I heard the credit music starting I was in shock - I could not believe what I was seeing and that someone could even call that an ending. The best thing anyone could do with this film is rewrite the end and give it some substance. Seriously, I'd really love to get whoever came up with that one in a room, look them in the face and say - WTF??!!!!


I remember watching this on prime time when I was about 7 years old. I was a huge comic book reader at the time, and anything relating to superheroes was anticipated heavily. The end result, however, was underwhelming.I was aware of the "Emma Peel" Diana Prince stories, as they had only recently come to an end and Diana was returned to her Amazonian form. However, there was so little action that I was bored throughout most of the movie. The final costume was an interesting idea, but looked more like a cheerleader than a superhero.I saw the movie again in my late teen years. It hadn't improved much. Cathy Lee Crosby was more familiar, thanks to That's Incredible, but her acting was no better. The script had a few good ideas, like the rogue Amazon, and a decent villain in Ricardo Montalban, but it just didn't come together and was still boring.I think they should have built the back story better, and built the show into a more epic climax. It was too much like a bland spy film, crossed with a superhero story written by someone who had never seen a comic book. The Amazon elements were intriguing, but needed to be expanded.The film did succeed in forcing producers to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more faithful, if a bit too camp and low budget. The budget was also pretty low here, and superheroes don't come cheap.It would be nice to have the movie available on DVD, if only as a comparison and historical document. Even Superman 4 is available, and it has nothing over this film (except Chris Reeve and Gene Hackman). It's worth seeing for curiosity sake and for a bit of inspiration and caution for future versions.


This is the sort of thing that only now thrills the film eggheads. After all, Feierstein's Flex Crush will have you know that Real Men don't watch anything by Truffaut. It might have been interesting if Truffaut had anything to -say- here. The camera-as-voyeur motif was nothing new. Have we all forgotten De Sica's "Bicycle Thief"? Or anything by Hitchcock?So all we get is the extended metaphor of the juvenile as Truffaut, who spends all his free time 'screwing up his eyes' at the movies, who wrecks schoolroom discipline, gets accused of plagiarism(the many petty thefts), and ultimately escapes societal confines to make 'his own movie'. Sorry...been there, done that too many times for this to matter.


With all the "Adult" innuendos in todays family movies its nice to see one where you don't have to worry about that and can just sit back and enjoy a family with your kids. Yes, this movie might have a few swear-words (there's that time where Knox swears, but they don't let you hear the full words), but for the most part this movie is truly as clean as they come (and that's including movies from back in the day). Not only that, its very enjoyable, one of my favorites, and just a great clean and fun movie to watch with the family.The only thing I have against this movie is that it is too short and I wish there could be more of some of the memorable parts that are in it, I'm not going to mention them because I don't want any spoilers here.All in all nicely done and a great movie to watch; so go out and get the kids, make some cookies, and watch this movie!


This did for crime what "Not Another Teen Movie" did for school. I laughed all the way through as 2 inept gangs warred with each other and among themselves. An unsubtle comedy using overt jokes and gags that kept me rolling all the way. I suppose the biggest gag in the entire film was that time never seemed to go forward leaving the characters trapped in the 30's.


I love this movie. It was one of my favorite movies. The action never stops. The whole movie was done very well. The ending is really good. Ontop of it being action filled, they even have a surprised put in there for you. When i saw what the movie was about on the internet i was kind of not sure if i wanted to see this movie, but sense i am such a big Luke perry fan i decided to give it a chance. I am glad that i did give it a chance because this was a very well though out movie. It was very original. Whoever thought up this movie gets a standing ovation from me. The acting was great. Luke Perry did an excellent job once again. I give this movie the highest rating.


Macy, Ullman and Sutherland were as great as usual. Ritter wasn't bad either. What's her name was as pretty as usual. It could have been a good movie. To bad the plot was atrocious. It was completely predictable, trite and boring.From the first 15 minutes, the rest of the movie was laid out like a child's paint by numbers routine. The characters were stock pieces of cut out cardboard. There was nothing new or interesting to say and that completely outweighed the acting, which was a pity.Finally, too bad the script writer wasn't the victim. Especially with the "precocious" lines from the child, which were completely unbelievable.Again, it's only the acting that prevented a much lower score.


Now, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas. It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist.


Shortly after seeing this film I questioned the mental competence of every actor and actress that accepted a role. Elizabeth Shue is a commendable actress, why would she embrace such an overrated opportunity? I must give credit where credit is due, though. Some moments in the movie were unpredictable and rather transfixing, but they hardly made up for the scathing perverse tendencies of Kevin Bacon's character, Sebastian Caine. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, man or woman, that has any form of self-respect to account for.


if you like gangster type of movies, then this is the first one you should buy or at least rent, Al Pacino his performance is top notch. and the story is classic!! 10 / 10 !!!! Why isn't this movie in the TOP 250 list??


This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen in the cinema!! Could not wait for it to end. To make matters worse it is given a 12A certificate so you do not see anyone getting shot, just bodies slumping to the ground, even Babban getting killed was cut out!!! Too many scenes were cut to bring in the younger viewers as I think the makers knew it would flop disastrously!! Amitabhs acting was great but that 'Basanti' wannabe and the other idiot who plays Devgans mate can't even act. Devgan was wasted!!I would not watch this for free again and I advise all others who read this to do just the same YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!


I saw this movie when it was released, and my distaste for it has stuck with me all these years. Here's why: Greenaway's goal seems to be to take every literary image in the Tempest and make it literal. If a character were to say, "my heart takes flight," we'd be shown an actual human heart, with pigeon wings attached, flapping across the screen. This process makes for some lush tableaux, but ultimately it's a facile exercise. And it becomes deadly boring.I don't begrudge the pleasure other viewers found in this movie, but it's worth knowing that not everyone in the audience was enraptured.


Little Edie and Big Edie are characters that anyone can feel compassion for. Even though their house was filthy, this is somehow understandable considering their mental illness. On the message board a poster wrote that "Little Edie has the coping skills of an eight year old." This reminded me of when in the dramatized 2009 version, Big Edie says to Little Edie, "If you're stuck, it's only with yourself!" These women had everything; beauty, talent, intelligence, firm belief in their opinions and actions. Perhaps if Little Edie wasn't so hard on herself the first time things didn't work out, losing her hair, her job, and the love of her life, she would have made it. This somehow ties into what I believe is her mental illness: her inability to pick herself up when times are hard and see that good times lie ahead. The world will never know what have happened if she didn't listen to her mom's plea, "Come home, Edie! Let me take care of you!"Yet these understandably insecure women somehow manage to be brilliant, heartbreaking, and lovable, even in their extremely filthy home. These women were extraordinary, and their interaction with each other bring humor and sadness. When Edie had one of her emotional breakdowns, dwelling about what could have been, or about how she wants to get out of her home because she feels like a little girl, one gets the intense urge to hug her and tell her that "everything will be okay!" Great documentary!!9/10


Kudos to Cesar Montano for reviving the Cebuano movie! Panaghoy sa Suba is very good -- it has the drama, the action, the romance, and scene that will make you laugh.While the story is not that original (a love triangle -- or make a four-cornered-love, Japanese occupation, rebellion, American as lord), its presentation is something cool, especially it uses it original language -- bisaya for the Filipino, nipongo for the Japanese and English for the American.This movie will go as one of this year's best Pinoy movies.Go watch this!


CQ was the worst film I saw this year. Nearly every film I choose to see in the theater is at least entertaining or has something to say. This film looked like like it was directed by a film student for his Intro. to Filmmaking class. His father makes great films. His sister made a good one. But brother Roman? NO! One critic had the audacity to compare this film to Godard's Le Mépris (Contempt). While Coppola, Jr. did take the same idea, a film about film, he tried too hard to make himself seem European, artsy, and witty, when it's all really just kitsch. The lead actor carries the same expression through the whole film, like he's either in awe or in shock of this film being made around him. Schwartzman somehow manages to pull off his role as a flamboyant director. Depardieu is alright. The one scene that has any real film spoof humor at all is, surprisingly, not the B-movie scenes, but rather one which takes place in Italy; a montage of shots of several various characters inside a very small car, driving around picking up and dropping off random people. This was the only thing that reminded me of the cinema I am guessing he was trying to spoof. Or rip-off. Or both. The documentary with the lead talking into the camera and filming various objects has been played out, the ending was tagged on for the sake of a "twist" or artistic value... I suppose the funniest thing about this film was the film itself, and not in the way it intended. No wonder this film was sent back after a festival screening to be re-edited or re-shot or whatever, which makes me curious as to just how bad it was before. I can't believe it could have been worse than this. If you want to see a good parody of film check out the Austin Powers films. Any of them. The opening to the third is more entertaining and more genius than this entire film. Lil' Romy, for the sake of cinema, PLEASE go back to directing your cousin's music videos. Leave The Godfathers to daddy.


In the opening scene, the eye patch wearing desperado named Hawkeye has a smooth forehead, but when he follows Johnny into the pueblo, he's shown with a scar over his patched eye. That's just one of the many continuity lapses in this edgy 'spaghetti' Western, but rather than detract from the picture, it adds a special flavor to the proceedings.Another occurs when Sanchez turns in his three dead bodies, they have to be examined for their identities - "You just can't imagine how many false cadavers we have in our town". Immediately after, Carradine (Lawrence Dobkin) shows up to collect his bounty with no more than a wanted poster in hand.As for the film's principal Johnny Yuma (Mark Damon), he's shown with his holster alternately on his right and left hip throughout the movie after exchanging gun belts with Carradine following the barroom brawl. Johnny's bound for San Margo at his uncle's request, but will have to avenge his death at the hands of deceitful wife Samantha (Rosalba Neri) and her conniving brother Pedro (Louis Vanner). It takes some time getting there, but it's a fun ride with one of the best music scores on record. As for that saloon fight, I got a kick out of the kung fu sound effects every time a punch connected.Care for some more story exaggerations? Following the duel with Pedro the first time, Johnny wipes a small amount of blood from his lip which he manages to smear Pedro's entire face with. Similarly, when Pedro smacks around little Pepe later in the film he doesn't cut him, but by the time Johnny arrives, Pepe's face is covered with blood."Johnny Yuma" is probably one of the best of the genre that doesn't have Clint Eastwood in it. As Johnny, Mark Damon is a reasonably suitable stand in but without the seething exterior. Carradine seemed to be a replacement for the obligatory Lee Van Cleef character, without being a total bad guy. At first the identity exchange between Carradine and Johnny didn't seem to make sense, but it all tied together by the time the film ended. You knew each henchman would wind up getting his due; marking time for each was part of the anticipation.In case you're wondering, the title hero has nothing to do with the Nick Adams character from the classic TV Western "The Rebel". In this film, Johnny got his name from a gunfight he had in Yuma once.Perhaps the most unique element of the story had to do with the way it tied things up with the evil Samantha who pulled the strings behind the scenes throughout. After shooting Carradine she beats a hasty retreat before Johnny can get his revenge. Still alive, it looks like Carradine tries to shoot her and misses, but it doesn't take long for Johnny and Sanchez to track her into the dessert where she perished without water - Carradine aimed for her canteen.


If I were to create a movie thermometer, this movie would be absolute zero. Out of ten stars, I would rate it as follows:Plot: zero stars Video quality: zero stars Sound Quality: zero stars Acting: zero starsIt is as though high school students got together one afternoon with a camera, made up a plot and shot a movie. It is so lacking in any artistic value that I'd rather watch kids walking around a high school than watch this movie.HOWEVER, something is to be said for the abysymal depths. The "shootout" in the staircase is one of the most train-wreck funny scenes ever. First of all, the combatants simply wave plastic guns at each other, jerking their arms back and forth to simulate recoil. The pair actually "duck" each other's non-existent bullets. No squibs, no sparks, no blanks, just waving spraypainted squirtguns around. If you want to see two grown men play "actor", give it a spin someday... after you have cleaned the fridge, combed the carpet, polished all of the doorknobs, raked the gravel, straightened the books on the shelf, etc.


An independent feature can now be seen as both a work of film art and a video resume. Enter Broken, and aggressively promoted, twenty minute short with style and enthusiams to spare. But is it any good as a film, or does it only work as a demo piece? Ah, there in lies the rub.Broken is the story of Bonnie Clayton who is abducted after awakening from a reoccurring nightmare one night by "a sadistic stranger and his colorful entourage" (quote from the video box). As she's held captive, it becomes obvious that her abductors know things about her that even she didn't know about herself. While they question her, a black-clad soldier guns his way into their hideout in an attempt to rescue her. Mayhem ensues.Fortunately for us, director Alex Ferrari seems to know what he's doing, or at least he's very good at faking it. Broken does not suffer from any lack of visual flair, which is especially commendable considering its budget and the inexperience of all involved. What it does suffer from is weak and kind of derivative writing. Think Long Kiss Goodnight meets The Matrix, written ten minutes after reading Fight Club. The good news for Ferrari and producer/writer Jorge Rodriguez is that the story elements are easily ignored for the oodles of eye candy on display. Does the plot really matter that much in a twenty minute short meant to show off the technical skills of its creators? No, not really.Though it would be unfair of me to overlook any negative aspects in light of the films budget and length. Broken is no genre classic. The biggest problem was that it actually would have worked better as a full-length feature. The final "twist" doesn't get enough build up time to be shocking. If Ferrari were allowed the time to slow burn the feature as needed, plot elements would seem less random, and the film more complete. Here's to knowing he's getting the chance.Audio Broken's Dolby Digital 5.1 presentation is second to none in the indie world. I've never heard such aggressive surround from such a small feature. The Matrix inspired soundtrack is very rich and deep, gunshots have punch, and even the dialogue gets in on the surround effects. Of everything presented on this disc, it is the audio that speaks the praise for modern independent DVD production. Also included is an equally impressive Dolby 2.0 surround track, which is the menu default.Extras There are literally hours of making of features to be found on this disc. There are so many extras, in fact, that I find it unrealistic to list and describe each of them here, while still expecting my readers to continue reading. Whatever shortcomings the actual short may have, the DVD is unprecedented in its informational resources. People who enjoyed the film can learn all there is to know about its production, including everything from the conceptual art to the promotional campaign. Those with plans to make an indie film of their own can learn just about everything they need to know from these features.The extras are broken down into categorical menus. These include: pre-production, production, post-production, after the short, and cast and crew bios. From a critical standpoint, I found that some of the sections were quite short. Had they been edited into one featurette per menu option, they would've been less frustrating to navigate, as the curser defaults to the top selection with every return to the main section menu. This is, of course, just nitpicking, but perhaps for future DVD releases the filmmakers will take my advice to heart.It has six audio commentaries and hours of interview footage and talented people, and despite the consonant salesmanship, their true colours do shine through.The willingness to share their film-making secrets with anyone who picks up this DVD is quite generous. From the extras I learned what editing and effects software is most reliable and effective, what brand of camera creates the most professional look for the lowest price, even where to get cheap air soft weaponry. On top of this, I was given several alternate options, in case I found myself unable to locate any products used on this particular production. Wannabe filmmakers unwilling to read a book on the subject would do well to watch this DVD.Overall I've scored the actual short as a 6 out of 10, but wish there was an option for feature length potential and effort, because I'd have scored it an 8 or 9 in these fields. I recommend the DVD for its features and as a perfect example of what can be done with a mere eight thousand American dollars. Those who purchase the DVD can think of themselves as ghost producers for a larger project, as the more attention these guys get, the more funding the feature-length version will get.


First off, if you're planning on watching this, make sure to watch the UNCUT version (although it is very interesting to go back and then watch the scenes that were tampered with due to censorship), it makes a HUGE difference. This film is about a young woman, played by Barbara Stanwyck, who since the age of 14 has been forced into prostitution by her own father. When her father suddenly passes away, she is able to go out into the world on her own. After reading about Nietzsche's philosophies on life, she uses her sexuality to manipulate men into giving her what she wants and leaves them in ruins and desperate for her love. Throughout the movie she becomes increasingly materialistic and manipulative and the audience begins to wonder is she has any sense of morality left at all. Overall, Baby Face is a very shocking movie with blatant scenes of sexuality that most people would not expect to see in a black and white film. While no sexual acts are explicitly shown on screen, it is very obvious what is happening off camera.I enjoyed watching this film very much and I believe most modern audiences will get at least some enjoyment out if it, especially with the films shock value. I did think while watching it that the pacing seemed a bit slow at parts, but I think that about most movies the first time is see them. Actually, I think that almost all movies I've seen made from the early 30's had some minor pacing problems or certain parts just didn't quite "flow" right. This was probably just the craft of film-making wasn't quite perfected yet  it would take just a few more years. Compare a film from 1939 and compare it with an early 30's film and I think you'll see what I mean.Once again, I'm very glad I was able to watch the original cut; it really does make a big difference. Also any John Wayne fans will be surprised to see him in this movie before he was famous in an uncharacteristic role.


City Hall takes on the politics of a city rather than country, state or any sort of major political table. Granted it shines on New York City which is a huge political arena, especially nowadays, but it still goes for a smaller scale and puts the microscope on a few key players in a city wide scandal stumbled on by the mayor's right hand. Director Harold Becker is a director very familiar with elements of the thriller having done Mercury Rising, Malice, and Domestic Disturbance and I think in many ways he incorporates so many of the formulaic thriller genre that its almost to a fault. I mean City Hall is meant to be a political drama, not a thriller but instead when all is said and done and once you get to the meat and potatoes of the film it feels and looks like a thriller but a decent one at that with very important part of the recipe that immediately makes it stand out...what else...or rather who else...Al Pacino. The film begins by giving you a really good look at life in the mayoral office and the inner workings of the city. As the film continues it broadens its political spectrum to include a democratic boss, and his connections and then we are introduced to some of the goings on within the city. As events unfold a mystery begins and the political aspect is kind of left in the background but it still has a brilliant set up.I absolutely hate talking about Al Pacino. I mean even if ONCE he didn't give a good performance how could I ever say it? The man is acting royalty. There is just something brilliant about his entire demeanor. In City Hall Pacino plays the New York City mayor. He has a sense of duty and honor and immediately appears to be a very upstanding politician. He also delivers one of the most powerful and outright engaging speeches I've ever seen at the 'James Bone' Funeral. I re-watched that speech four times and the first time I watched Pacino give it, my mouth gaped open and I almost wanted to stand up and applaud. Its brilliantly written and brilliantly delivered by Pacino. John Cusack, who I really do enjoy as an actor, turns in a mediocre and overdone performance as the deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun. He is kind of the focus of the film and him and Pacino have good chemistry together when they are on screen but there is just something in this performance...he seems like he's trying too hard. His accent is just bizarre, and although he is supposed to be cutthroat and intimidating he doesn't get seem to pull it off. Maybe he was having an off film. Bridget Fonda, on her way out of her high point stardom does an okay job as attorney for police widows Marybeth Cogan. Her performance is very similar to Cusack's in that she just doesn't seem to find her groove with this character. Danny Aiello is terrific although his character is a little under explored as democratic boss with ties to the mafia Frank Anselmo. Martin Landau makes a decent cameo as Judge under scrutiny Walter Stern.The problem with City Hall is evident in my review of the characters and actors. Everyone is...okay. There is a lot of back story that they try to bring out without actually showing it and it unfortunately leaves you just a little bit confused about the whole conspiracy. And of course you have Al Pacino in a rather small supporting role but he's absolutely brilliant at it and outshines and overshadows every other actor in the film. It almost feels like maybe they are intimidated by him being on screen with them. So City Hall could have been this huge political epic drama/thriller but it felt cut and toned down to an average run of the mill one BUT it still has to be seen for Pacino and a different spin on the inner working of politics. If you just won't see this movie than find Pacino's speech at James Bone funeral because the word electrifying doesn't seem to give it justice but you can see what makes Al Pacino so incredible because in a mediocre film he pulls out this wallop of a speech and makes you feel it. If you're a John Cusack fan which I am...he's definitely done better but he is the main character and all in all he does get his justice. A decent movie but unfortunately potential loss. 7.5/10


Without wishing to be a killjoy, Brad Sykes is responsible for at least two of the most dull and clichéd films i've ever seen - this being one of them, and Camp Blood being another. The acting is terrible, the print is shoddy, and everything about this film screams "seriously, you could do better yourself". Maybe this is a challenge to everyone to saturate youtube with our own zombie related crap?I bought this for £1, but remember, you can't put a price on 71 minutes of your life. You'd do well to avoid this turkey, even at a bargain basement price.


Here's an excellent Barbara Stanwyck double bill on one disc. The first movie - and believe me the lesser of the two - is MGM's "To Please A Lady" (1950) in which she is paired with Clark Gable. It is essentially a star vehicle with Gable as usual dominating the film with his screen presence. Here he plays a macho racing driver who gets some bad press from feminist reporter Stanwyck and the battle of the sexes begins. Of course after much ado they eventually end up in each others arms and it all comes to a predictable and pleasing close. A bit of a fluff of a move really but Gable and Stanwyck - two icons of the Golden Age - make it watchable!But the real meat on this DVD is the second feature - a marvellous and quite unknown little thriller called JEOPARDY. Produced by MGM in 1953 this is a wonderful little gem of a movie that hasn't dated one iota! Here Stanwyck plays the wife of Barry Sullivan and mother to their young son Lee Aaker on vacation on a deserted and remote Mexican beach when suddenly tragedy strikes. A dilapidated wooden pier collapses trapping Sullivan under a heavy pylon and guess what? Yes,the tide is coming in. With not a soul in sight and unable to free him herself Stanwyck sets off by car for assistance. After driving some distance the only aid she can muster comes from an unscrupulous escaped convict (Ralph Meeker) who - in return for his help - wants more from her than money or a change of clothes ("I'll do anything to save my husband"). Does she or doesn't she??. Meeker runs away with the picture! He turns in quite a brilliant performance! Once he comes into the film you simply cannot take your eyes off him! An actor in the smouldering Brando style he surprisingly never made much of his career in films. Although he gave splendid performances as the unsavoury, disgraced cavalry officer in the outstanding Mann/Stewart western "Naked Spur" (1953) and as one of the doomed sacrificial french troopers in Stanley Kubrick's powerful WW1 drama "Paths Of Glory" (1957) his only real claim to fame was as Mike Hammer in Mickey Spillane's "Kiss Me Deadly" in 1955. His performance in "Jeopardy" should have done wonders for him but he had only a so-so career in films. He died in 1988.Because of this release "Jeopardy" can now proudly take its rightful place as a classic noir. A memorable, taut and exciting thriller thanks to fine performances, tight direction by John Sturges, the crisp Monochrome Cinematography of Victor Milner and an atmospheric score by Dimitri Tiomkin. Extras, however are no great shakes except for a radio version of "Jeopardy" and trailers for both movies.This disc is also part of a Barbara Stanwyck box set celebrating her centenary. Hard to believe that the lady would be over 100 years old if she was still around!JEOPARDY - an MGM winner!


Absolutely fantastic. Now, before a legion of cinema purists choke on their lattés, allow me to elaborate. Much as I enjoyed it, this is quite simply one of the worst films I have ever seen and is certainly the worst film I've seen at the cinema (an impressive claim, as I remember seeing Daredevil on the big screen). The two leads (Daniel Gillies and Elisha Cuthbert) were unconvincing at best and downright awful at worst. Of course, they weren't helped by a script that had as much emotional depth as a Daphne & Celeste single and characterisation that was about as convincing as the OJ defence. The plot (to stretch the term slightly) was thin to non-existent and the 'gore' scenes, whilst undoubtedly brutal, were irrelevant and laughably formulaic. What plot there is revolves around a twenty-something model (Cuthbert) who is abducted, imprisoned and subjected to various visceral tortures, both psychological and physical. The torture scenes feel like disconnected set pieces and the emphasis was laid squarely upon shocking rather than scaring the audience. Whilst there really are very, very few positives to draw from this film, its redeeming features are the very flaws that make it such a dreadful film. I have never heard a more vocal audience in a cinema. Within twenty minutes, the entire cinema was in stitches and remained that way throughout. For my part I came out flushed with laughter, buoyed by a film that had ascended to the pinnacle of appalling film-making. Whichever way you look at it, this is truly a cinematic achievement and a blueprint for future directorial wannabes detailing minutely how not to make a film.P.S. I omitted to mention that I managed to get in to the film free...so I can afford to laugh about it. I was still tempted to ask for my money back...it really was THAT bad.


Who actually created this piece of crap this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my life it is such a waste of time and money. I hate it how they create low budget sequels featuring D-Lister actors and a storyline so similar to the 1st one.I found this movie in the bargain bin sitting right next to Wild Things 2 and Death To The Supermodels for $2.99 what a fool i was to actually think that this could be good instead i watched in disgust as poor acting stereotypes ripped of the storyline and script from the 1st one.Whoever thought that this straight-to-video production was actually even a half decent film you must be on crackd or something because I think what pretty much most of the people who've seen this film thinks WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!


I rented this by mistake. I thought, after a cursory examination of the box, that this was a time-travel/sci-fi story. Instead, it's a "Christian" story, and I suppose is fairly typical example. If you are sold on the message you probably will overlook the awkwardness of the plot/acting/etc., but I found it rather painful. I have to admit that I'm bothered by the rewriting of history in this story. It paints the 1890's as some sort of paradise of family values and morality (a character is aghast that 5% of marriages end in divorce!), but it overlooks very unsavory sides of this "highly moral" society (rigid racial, sexual, and social discrimination were widespread, for instance). And at one point the hero complains to a clothing store owner about things that sound not all that different than the complaints of some Iranian leaders about women's clothing styles (as reported in a recent WSJ).Overall, thought, I suppose that it's the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing, and it's certainly wholesome...


I have seen this movie many times. At least a Dozen. But unfortunatly not recently. However, Etched in my memory never to leave me is a scene in which Mickey Rooney, -"Killer Mears" knows that he is to be executed and it's getting close to the moment of truth, He dances, and cries, and laughs, he vacillates from hesteria to euphoria and runs the gambit of ever emotion. Never have I seen such a brilliant performance by any actor living or dead, past or present. It was then I know for sure that Mickey Rooney, yes, "Andy Hardy" was and is a actor of great genius. However I kept it, my opinion to myself for years thinking, surely I must be alone in this viewpoint. About 15 years or so after I saw this film for the last time on television, I chanced to read the old Q & A section of the Los Angeles Times. The question was posed to Lawrence Olivier, and the question was: "Mr. Olivier You are considered one of the greatest actors of all time, whom then do YOU consider to be among the greatest actors?" His answer was, "Peter Finch and Mickey Rooney" I was stunned, but not surprised. I immediatly flashed back to his "Killer Mears" And I felt very good for having seen this great ability in him, and now having my view supported by another whos work I admired.. Later of course there was "Bill" and many other great moments with Mikey Rooney. This film, "The Last Mile" should be seen by all acting students. I Frankly cannot remember a great deal about the film after all these years but Mr. Rooney in it, will never leave me. If anyone out there remembers this film the same as I do? I would be interested in hearing from you. For this picture etched in my heart alone I gave it a 10 just on the face of his performance.


I thought it was a pretty good movie and should have been released in theaters first. It wouldn't have been a big Blockbuster but it would have made some pretty good money. The movie has suspense and makes you wonder just how much of this is going on in the real world. Justin Timberlake did a good job. I wasn't expecting Justin Timberlake to do that good a job. Considering it is his first movie he did a good job. This is a movie that is good to pick up and watch when you just don't know what you want to rent that night. It should go pretty well. The cast was great. So I highly recommend that everyone checks this movie out!


Love it, love it, love it! This is another absolutely superb performance from the Divine Miss M. From the beginning to the end, this is one big treat! Don't rent it- buy it now!


I'm guessing the writers have never read a book of any kind, much less a Dickens novel, and certainly not David Copperfield, and that they based their screenplay on another poorly written screenplay, possibly an adaptation of Copperfield, though just as likely anything else, from which they randomly discarded about a third of the pages and then shuffled the rest, along with some random pages from a screenplay that someone's eighth grade nephew had written for an English class, and for which he had received a failing grade. If the casting was a bad joke - e.g., Richards as Kramer playing Micawber - which it was, then the direction and acting were the poorly- delivered punch lines. Getting beyond Kramer as Micawber, if possible, Ham was such a complete ogre, hunch-back and all, that I was half expecting at some point to see him being pursued by an angry pitch-fork and torch wielding mob of villagers. Uriah was almost as much of a clown figure as Micawber. Mr. Murdstone evoked about as much terror as that Muppet vampire from Sesame street. The actor playing older David was, I believe, actually a woman. In any case, looking perpetually as if he wished he could find a mirror to see how pretty he looked, and fancied that he looked quite pretty indeed, he could scarcely convince us that he was writing with a quill pen. And while we're on that subject, in one of the many gross inaccuracies perpetrated by the half-wit producers of this embarrassment, in the unnecessary shots of David writing his story he appears to be somewhere between 18 and 21 years old, when he should be in his forties. Perhaps the greatest transgression, although it's difficult to choose, was the invented showdown between David and Murdstone as he courted a third wife in Switzerland, preceded of course by the invented death of Murdstone's second wife. While they were at it it is a wonder they didn't send Heep to the guillotine, and have him deliver Sidney Carton's famous last words. It couldn't have made things much worse really. It might have been far far better.There are literally thousands of small and large sins against literature throughout this miscarriage of art, and anyone who watches it runs the risk of severe and permanent damage to all aspects of their sensibility.


This movie is more Lupin then most, especially coming from Funimation. Other then the bad dub, it isn't bad.The first hour is a lot like the Comic (which is what all Lupin the 3rd stuff is based on). Lupin's trying to get a huge treasure. Fujiko's using Lupin's weakness to women to try to get something out of it. The last bit isn't that bad, he's with another women, but of course Fujiko's still him number one.A lot of the other Lupin movies are more Family with cuss words then Lupin. Any good Lupin fan I think will be pleasantly surprised (I know I was after hearing so many bad things about this movie). It might be a bit better without the little animations rolling during the credits (they make it a little mushy) but overall, it isn't a bad film. Good enough to be one of the few I'd watch again of the Lupin III movies.


Born Again the Limerick: If a man could come back from the dead And live in a little girl's head Revenge he would get For the murder he metBy the guy that's now in his wife's bed.For me Born Again is a highly under-rated, classic episode that makes up a part of what defined The X-Files for me before I started watching it. I saw a few segments before when the show first came on and I was much too young to watch it such as parts of The Jersey Devil, but I very specifically remember watching this episode as an 11 year old and being absolutely creeped out by the scene where they guy gets choked to death by the bus and then the hypnosis scene with the little girl. I tell you I couldn't sleep for weeks! For this reason the episode has a special aura about it now of the creepiness factor that I have since grown to enjoy. Its enough to let me look past some of the obvious flaws in the plot such as why the girl had to wait until she was 9 before her previous life spirit really began to exact his revenge. Or what she was doing just randomly sitting on a bus in the middle of the night. You'd think her parents would have been worried. And maybe they were we just don't really see that part of the story. And was was with the telekinesis? Other than adding the really cool Carrie factor to the already creepy story, there really wasn't any kind of good explanation for it. But even with its little flaws, in my mind this is a classic episode and has little to no reason for me to not like it. 10 out of 10.


I didn't see They Call Me Trinity, but this sequel is really unfunny at all. It has many gags that are supposed to make people laugh. I guess the filmmaker just don't have the talent to do it right. Wonder why it was so popular in the 70s.


Misty Ayers had a smoking body, and that's all this movie was about. Pure exploitation flick. I started playing a game with myself, counting the number of times they looped the stock orchestral music. And of course the music is completely unrelated to the scenes. Case in point: casually walking into a room and saying "Hello" was scored with chase music from a roman epic. I'd like to know why this film sat on the shelf for 11 years before being released. What I learned from this movie: that women's low-rise panties existed in 1954. I'm talking Sigourney Weaver in the original Alien movie panties. At least 20 of the first 30 minutes is Misty leisurely taking off and putting on her clothing (except for bra and panties, sadly). Also includes horrendous dubbing, leading to a "Look out! Godzirra!" effect.


I seems in the beginning a interesting film, a Spanish thriller in a interesting nowadays Madrid, but it isn`t none of that, is actually a film only interesting for future films directors learning about what not to do making a film, it can`t be worse in others words, even the presence of a oscar winner ( Mira Sorvino ) isn`t enough to justify the $ 3.00 dollars expended to see this film , the acting is horrendous and it seems the actors were just waiting to finish the daily shots to go home, it lead to nowhere and is boring, weak and bad, don`t expend time or money on this film.


A drifter looking for a job is mistaken for a hit man in a small Wyoming town, leading to all kinds of complications. Cage is perfectly cast as the unlucky schmuck hoping to make a quick buck and get out of town but finding he can't escape the title town. Hopper does what he does best, playing a psycho known as "Lyle from Dallas," the real hit man. Walsh as a crooked sheriff and Boyle as a femme fatale round out the fine cast. The script by brothers John and Rick Dahl contains delicious twists and turns, and John's direction creates a terrific "neo noir" atmosphere. Witty and very entertaining, it sucks the viewer in from the start and never lets up.


A very ordinary made-for-tv product, "Tyson" attempts to be a serious biopic while stretching the moments of angst for effect, fast forwarding through the esoterics of the corrupt sport of boxing, and muddling the sensationalistic stuff which is the only thing which makes Tyson even remotely interesting. A lukewarm watch at best which more likely to appeal to the general public than to boxing fans.


When this was released, I thought this was one of the most profane films ever made. However, thanks to Martin Scorcese and a few other filmmakers like him, there have been mainline films worse, language-wise, than this....but this is a pretty brutal assault on one's ears. Hey, I can take a lot of it, but this got ridiculous. In the first six minutes alone, I heard a half-dozen usage's of the Lord's name in vain plus an untold number of f-words. I wonder how many people walked out of the theater watching this in 1990? I couldn't have been the only one.Not surprisingly, some of the feature actors included Jennifer Jason-Leigh, Burt Young, Jerry Orbach and Rikki Lake. Since this film, Stephen Lang seems to have improved his image, at least playing the Godly "Stonewall" Jackson in "Gods and Generals." Lang's role here is just the opposite: perhaps the worst trashy person in the film and a character who falls in love with a transvestite by the end of the film.Depressing, gloomy, semi-pornographic, repulsive: these are just a few of the adjectives people used - even some Liberal critics - in describing this story, which is painted even worse in the novel. Of course, some of the better-known critics, all extreme Libs, praised the movie. However, they were the only ones. Most critics were disgusted, as well almost all of the paying public. It's unbelievable that anyone could praise filth and garbage like this.Trust me on this: there are no good, likable characters in this entire movie. This is a mean, sick film: one of the worst of the "modern era." That is, unless you enjoy seeing child abuse, drug abuse, teen prostitutes, on and on - two straight hours of nothing but atrocities and just plain evil people. No thanks.


"Emma" was a product of what might be called by the First Great Jane Austen Cycle of the mid-nineties, and it was recently shown on British television, doubtless because of the interest in the author created by the Second Great Jane Austen Cycle which started with "Pride and Prejudice" two years ago. We currently have in the cinemas the Austen biopic "Becoming Jane", and ITV have recently produced three TV movies based on Austen novels. These include "Northanger Abbey", the only one of the six major novels not to have been filmed previously, so the cycle should now be complete. No doubt, however, there will be more to come in the near future. (There is, after all, her juvenile "Love and Freindship" (sic), the short novella "Lady Susan", and someone, somewhere, has doubtless supplied endings to her two unfinished fragments "The Watsons" and "Sanditon". Then there are all those Austen sequels churned out by modern writers

).The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from an aristocratic family in Regency England. (Not, as some reviewers have assumed, Victorian England- Austen died before Queen Victoria was even born). Emma is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.Emma always insists that she will not marry without affection, and when she does find a partner, the handsome Mr Knightley, we feel that this will indeed be an affectionate marriage. It does not, however, seem likely to be a very passionate one (unlike, say, that of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy). Knightley, who is sixteen years older than Emma (she is 21, he 37), and related to her by marriage, is more like a father-figure than a lover. Much more of a father-figure, in fact, than her actual father, a querulous and selfish old hypochondriac who seems more like her grandfather. When Emma is rude to her unbearably garrulous and tedious friend Miss Bates, it is Knightley who chides her for her lack of manners. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam play their parts very well, but this is not really one of the great screen romances.Of the other characters, I liked Juliet Stephenson's vulgar Mrs Elton and Toni Collette's Harriet. I know that in the novel Harriet was a naïve young teenager, whereas here she is more like the character Collette played in "Muriel's Wedding"- a gauche, slightly overweight twentysomething, fretting about her chances of finding a man. Nevertheless, I felt that this characterisation worked well in the context of the film and did not detract from Austen's themes."Emma" is one of Austen's more light-hearted works, without the darker overtones of "Mansfield Park" or even "Pride and Prejudice", and this is reflected on screen. We see a world of beauty and grace, full of stately homes and elegant costumes and fine manners. Apart from the ruffianly gypsies, who make a very brief appearance, the only "poor" people we see are Mrs Bates and her daughter, and, as they live in the sort of picturesque rose-strewn thatched cottage which today would change hands for over £500,000, we can be sure that their poverty is relative, not absolute. In Emma's world, poverty is defined as not having your own stately home. This is, of course, not a comprehensive picture of early nineteenth-century life, but nobody has ever claimed Austen as the Regency equivalent of a kitchen-sink realist. Sophisticated romantic comedy, combined with a keen eye for analysing human character, was more in her line.I would not rate this film quite as highly as the 1994 "Sense and Sensibility" or the recent "Pride and Prejudice"- it tends to drag a bit in the middle, although it has a strong beginning and strong ending- but it is, in the main, a highly enjoyable Austen adaptation. 7/10


What is happening to ITV Drama. First, "Losing Gemma" quite simply the worst TV drama I have seen in years, and now "Perfect Parents" a complete shambles from start to finish. Whoever is responsible for commissioning this drivel should be receiving there P45 by special delivery.In most Drama/Thrillers, a requirement to suspend certain levels of belief is necessary so that the the plot line can develop, but "Perfect Parents" took this to a new level,I suspended so much belief by the end of this nonsense I felt I had been force fed on a lorry load of "Magic mushrooms", it was like the scriptwriters had decided to try and create a "Drama by numbers" involving some serious issues - Religion, Education,Greed,Fear,Murder,Paedophillia the only trouble was as The great Eric Morecambe once said when playing a piano, "I'm playing all the right Notes, just not necessarily in the correct order". For your next Script guys, I suggest you try reading a few more books on script development than "Script writing For Dummies".Due to the ridiculous Script and the utter lack of Tension in the Direction, the acting was suitably low key, not the fault of the actors as the cast was top notch. But I suggest that all of the actors involved in this sorry piece of drama should instruct their agents the next time the Postman attempts to deliver a script from ITV drama Department, make sure the letterbox is firmly nailed shut!!


Thanks to Warner Archive, I can once again see this mammoth variety show which throws in everything but the kitchen sink. (The bathtub, however is present.) This film gives screen time to every person who was under contract to Warners at the time. If some of the artists seem unfamiliar to some, it is because they were big in the silent days, and most faded with the popularity of the talkies. There are some truly remarkable artists from the vaudeville era as well. You will be most impressed with Winnie Lightner, who performs two numbers. Also there is that French star, Irene Bordoni who croons a love song in a sexy manner. Perhaps one of the biggest highlights is the two-strip Technicolor "Chinese Fantasy," which has been restored for this version. It is truly beautiful and it stars Myrna Loy and Nick Lucas. Finally, there is the massive "Lady Luck" finale which goes on for nearly a quarter of an hour. This is truly an epic of the early-talkie era. Any old-movie buff will love this.


Geez! This is one of those movies that you think you previously reviewed but you didn't. I mean, you didn't give a crap about it but somehow it came to your mind.To be honest and brief; this is one of the worst, boring, and stupid slashers ever made. I can't say anything good about this piece of crap because there are barely decent sequences that could tell it's made by professional film makers.The death scenes are horrible, bloodless, stupid. The plot is somehow good taking in account that it copied "Popcorn" from 1991.To make things even worse, this isn't a movie so bad that it's good. It's just plain bad.Molly Ringwald tried to do her best but it wasn't enough.


Well no, I tell a lie, this is in fact not the best movie of all time, but it is a really enjoyable movie that nobody I know has seen.It's a buddy cop movie starring Jay Leno and Pat Morita(Mr Miyagi) with some fluff story about a missing car engine prototype or something, but that doesn't matter. the reason this movie is fun is because of the interaction between the two leads, who initially dislike and distrust each other but in a shocking twist of fate end up becoming friends. The whole culture difference thing is done quite well,in that it's fun to watch, it's completely ridiculous but in a cheesy and enjoyable kind of way. The soundtrack is cool,once again in a cheesy 80's kind of way, it suits the movie, I've been trying to find one of the songs for ages, but as I'm working from memory of what I think a few of the words were i can't seem to find it.Another thing this movie has is the most fantastic pay off of any movie ever, but I won't give that one away, oh no! In conclusion I'd take this movie over 48 Hours\most of Eddie Murphys output including Beverly Hills cop, and whatever buddy junk Jackie Chan or Martin Lawrence have to their names. If you're looking for a buddy cop movie and are getting fed up with "straight white cop meets zany streetwise black cop" give this a shot. You might be pleasantly surprised cos this turns the whole formula upside down with "straight Japanese cop meets zany streetwise white cop".I'm giving this 7. to be honest I like it more than that. I'd rather watch this than a lot of stuff I'd give 8. But I guess I know deep down that it's some sort of insanity that makes me like this movie.


Let me say first that this show was top tier when John Ritter was there. Upon his death, the show did drop off a bit, but the producers didn't give up on the show, adding James Garner and David Spade to the regular cast from 2003 to 2005.The show centers around the Hennessy family, Paul (John Ritter, may he rest in peace), his wife Cate (Katey Sagal), their daughters Bridget (Kaley Cuoco), Kerry (Amy Davidson), and their son, Rory (Martin Spanjers). When Ritter was on the show, I would shriek in laughter (and proud to admit it, I am), but now that he's gone, I'll only laugh a little with the occasional hearty laugh. I'm very glad that I fell for this show's trance after Ritter's untimely death, because it made the eps with Ritter so much better.Ritter's character is just so well acted and well rounded, that you can't help but love him. He is always bossing the girls around about dating, but he really wants them to be happy. It's the ultimate daddy hates boyfriend entertainment.Katey Sagal is great as well, and she too is a likable character. After Ritter's death, her character provides such good influence and strength for not only her kids, but I believe Sagal has shaped the lives of Cuoco, Davidson, and Spanjers, because she and Ritter had been friends for a long time.The funniest person on the show would have to be Bridget Hennessy, played by Kaley Cuoco. She is the ultimate blonde: gorgeous, slow, dim-witted, yet she is a smart person. She is off the wall hilarious with her innocent 'blonde' humor and how conceited she is.Amy Davidson can get a tad annoying as Kerry, but that's the purpose of her character. The only fault of the show is that the show never really gives Kerry anything to be happy about. She's always after Bridget, and her character feels like it's just thrown in there.Martin Spanjers as the lone Hennessy son is hysterical, and when Ritter is on the show, he's mostly comic material. Upon the death of Ritter, the show does provide some story lines for Rory.David Spade and James Garner are all nothing but laughs, with the occasional side story for C.J., Spade's character. Garner plays Cate's father, as a bit of background information.All in all, I give this show a great review because it is a great show that had a tragic event happen that crippled it. You'll enjoy it.9/10 --spy


Corbin Bernsen gives a terrifically intense and riveting performance as Dr. Alan Feinstone, a wealthy and successful Beverly Hills dentist who's obsessed with perfection. When he discovers that his lovely blonde babe trophy wife has been cheating on him and the IRS start hounding him about tax problems, Feinstone cracks under the pressure and goes violently around the bend. Director Brian Yuzna, working from a suitably dark, witty and demented script by Stuart Gordon, Dennis Paoli, and Charles Finch, exposes the seething neurosis and psychosis bubbling underneath the squeaky clean well-manicured surface of respectable affluent rich America with deliciously malicious glee. Moreover, Yuzna further spices up the grisly goings on with a wickedly twisted sense of pitch black gallows humor. Bernsen positively shines as Dr. Feinstone; he expertly projects a truly unnerving underlying creepiness that's right beneath Feinstone's deceptively calm and assured veneer. The supporting cast are likewise excellent: Linda Hoffman as Feinstone's bitchy, unfaithful wife Brooke, Earl Boen as smarmy, meddlesome IRS agent Marvin Goldblum, Molly Hagan as feisty assistant Jessica, Patty Toy as perky assistant Karen, Jan Hoag as jolly office manager Candy, Virginya Keehne as sweet, gawky teenager Sarah, Ken Foree as thorough, no-nonsense Detective Gibbs, Tony Noakes as Gibbs' equally shrewd partner Detective Sunshine, Michael Stadvec as womanizing stud muffin pool cleaner Matt, and Mark Ruffalo as on the make sleazeball Steve Landers. The first-rate make-up f/x are every bit as gory, gross and upsetting as they ought to be. The polished cinematography by Levie Isaaks boasts lots of great crazy tilted camera angles and a few tasty zoom-in close-ups. Alan Howarth's spirited shuddery score also hits the flesh-crawling spot. An enjoyably warped treat.


This movie portrays Ruth as a womanizing, hard drinking, gambling, overeating sports figure with a little baseball thrown in. Babe Ruths early life was quite interesting and this was for all intents and purposes was omitted in this film. Also, Lou Gehrig was barely covered and this was a well know relationship, good bad or indifferent, it should have been covered better than it was. His life was more than all bad. He was an American hero, an icon that a lot of baseball greats patterned their lives after. I feel that I am being fair to the memory of a great baseball player that this film completely ignored. Shame on the makers of this film for capitalizing on his faults and not his greatness.


i just finished watching Dressed to Kill,which is written and directed by Brian De Palma.the DVD had both the"R" rated version and the unrated version.i chose the unrated version.since i have yet to view the "R" rated version,i can't be completely sure of the difference.there is however a very graphic graphic female nudity including a scene of explicit expression of self gratification in this version.i guess you could call this scene soft core porn.if this sort of thing may offend you,i would suggest you view the "R" rated version.but i digress.Any comment from here on refers to the unrated version.this is a murder mystery/ psychological horror/suspense movie.there is very little violence and blood.there is however one death sequence of note.the act of the killing itself is fairly graphic.however the blood it self does not look real.it is reminiscent of how a 70's slasher film would look.i believe this is done deliberately to offset the violence of the act itself,to give the scene a low budget feel.most of the violence,or rather possibility of such,is implied.the film is very well paced.as far as i can tell every scene had a purpose,which i find very rare when compared to many of today's films. anyway,i also thought the acting was good,especially Angie Dickinson.and Micheal Cane turns in a quietly understated performance in his role,which works brilliantly in this case.the movie also has one great twist in it,in my mind,although some people might find it predictable.the only complaint(and it's really more of an observation)i have is that i thought the character played by Nancy Allen could have been fleshed out more,especially considering she has a fair amount of screen time.but i think she does a good job with what she is given.and this doesn't really take away from the quality of the film.the film also has a strong moral to it,which is even more relevant today.but the movie doesn't hit you over the head with it.i also really liked the musical score,composed by Pino Dinaggioi felt it was very similar to the music in the original Psycho.to me,this music really elevated the movie.i thought this movie was brilliant.for me,Dressed to Kill(1980)is 10/10


I came home late one night and turned on the TV, to see Siskel and Ebert summarizing their picks of the week. I didn't hear anything about "Red Rock West", except two thumbs up and see it before it went away. It wouldn't stay in theaters very long because of the distributor's money problems and lack of promotion, but they said it deserved better.The next afternoon, I followed their advice. They were right, it was some of the most fun I have ever had at the movies. As some readers point out, there are a few plot holes and the last 10 minutes don't ever seem to end. But it's well worth it, for the fine craftwork that went into the first hour. It's the best role that I have ever seen for Nicholas Cage, but almost everybody seems perfectly cast. Dennis Hopper goes almost over the top, which gets silly but reinforces how well everything else works. The sets and the music contribute a great deal to almost every scene.When I rented it later for my family, it didn't work as well. The long scenes that built the tension in the theater were difficult to appreciate, with the distractions at home. It deserves your full attention; turn off the phone, make sure you won't be disturbed, watch and listen to every scene, especially in the beginning.


First let me be honest. I did not watch all this movie. I watched the first five minutes and when i realized that I had nearly fallen to sleep i decided that I may as well fast forward and see if it got any more interesting later on... It didn't. This film is just a collection of lame attempts to make a story which is already uninteresting and badly told into something that it would never become: a decent horror movie. Because I feel it is important to say that even a movie with poor special effects can still be good if it is well made. This film isn't and will only put you into a deep sleep if you attempt to watch it. Lastly I feel it is important to say that I think this movie is in the publicdomain so if you feel that you must absolutely watch it than a littlesearch on the internet will surely show you a place where you won't need to pay to watch this pile of cinematographic dung.


Meryl Streep is such a genius. Well, at least as an actress. I know she's been made fun of for doing a lot of roles with accents, but she nails the accent every time. Her performance as Lindy Chamberlain was inspiring. Mrs. Chamberlain, as portrayed here, was not particularly likable, nor all that smart. But that just makes Streep's work all the more remarkable. I think she is worth all 10 or so of her Oscar nominations. About the film, well, there were a couple of interesting things. I don't know much about Australia, but the theme of religious bigotry among the general public played a big part in the story. I had largely missed this when I first saw the film some years ago, but it came through loud and clear yesterday. And it seems the Australian press is just as accomplished at misery-inducing pursuit and overkill as their American colleagues. A pretty good film. A bit different. Grade: B


From the nepotism capitol of the world comes another junk flick in a fancy wrapper. "CQ" tells a lame, disjointed mess of a story which is little more than a bunch of silly caricatures, a babe, and straight man Davies running around trying to make a stupid sci-fi flick. I can't think of any reason anyone would want to spend time with this ridiculous attempt at film making. (D)


This must be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was actually expecting a bad movie but I was caught by surprise believe it or not. The storyline is the traditional, all clichées are included.The dialogue is so poorly written that you actually laugh when the otherwise half-descent actors are trying to make it sound real. The photo is not too good, the music is so malplacée it actually made me angry, the actors are not even trying, altho the script makes it almost impossible you could expect more from people that have been acting for 30 years and the so called action scenes actually manage to lack the "action" itself.I dont understand why these types of bad movies keep on coming, who is financing this shit? Where is the screening ? And why on earth do actors take on this mission impossible script?There are a million hollywood-movies in this genre without even aspiration of reaching the theaters, but even them Straight To Video things actually manages to look professional in comparison.I can not say anything positive about this except the title which explains it all, I feel robbed of 2 hours of my life.


a friend gave it to me saying it was another classic like "Debbie does Dallas". Nowhere close. I think my main complaint is about the most unattractive lead actress in porn industry ever. Even more terrible is that she is on screen virtually all the time. But I read somewhere that back in those days, porn had to have some "artistic" value. I was unable to find it though. See it only if you are interested in history of development of porn into mainstream, or can appreciate art in porn movies. I know I am not. But the director of the movie appears to be a talented person. He even tried to get Simon & Garfunkel to give him permissions to use his songs. Of course, they rejected.


"Die Sieger" was highly recommended to be one of the few good action movies made in Germany. I watched it last night and I must admit, that I am deeply disappointed. If that is supposed to be "the last best hope" for entertaining and challenging German action cinema, well then there is not much left."Die Sieger" tries to be sexy, daring and furious but it is nothing of that kind. The characters are wooden and stereotype and whenever they do something unexpected (which doesn't happen too much) the act against their nature. That makes it hard - for me almost impossible - to follow them or even identify with them.Most of all I think the film is very bad cast. There is not one character in whom I believe. Maybe the superior officer at the SWAT unit - but that's about it. Those people that try to look like or act like special units, like elite cops - I don't believe them. Not for a second.The story is not so bad after all. But I think it's badly told. You don't get to know the bad guy at all - for example. And when after a "very dark" show down Karl Simon (the good guy) asks his already dead opponent "why? ... what for?" I did ask myself that very same question, knowing, that Dominik Graf wouldn't have the answer.I sincerely hope - no - I believe that Germany can do better, even with action films.


Lillian Hellman, one of America's most famous women playwrights, was a woman with a mission. Her leftist views were not well regarded at the time in the country. In her memoir, she recounts her trip to the then, Soviet Union, as she was intrigued with the so called successes achieved by that system. "Watch on the Rhine" must have come as a result of those years. The left wing in America, as all over the world had an issue with the rise of fascism, not only in Europe, but in Japan as well."Watch on the Rhine" was a play produced on Broadway eight months before the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese. In it Ms. Hellman was heralding America's entrance in World War II. The adaptation is credited to Ms. Hellman and Dashiell Hammett, her long time companion. As directed for the screen by Herman Shumlin, the film was well received when it premiered in 1943.We are introduced to the Muller family, when the film opens. They are crossing the border to the United States from Mexico. They are to continue toward Mrs. Muller's home in Washington, D.C., where her mother, Fanny Farrelly, is a minor celebrity hostess. The Mullers, we realize are fleeing Europe because of the persecution there against the opponents of the advancing totalitarian regime in Germany. In fact, we thought, in a way, the Mullers could have been better justified if they were Jewish, fleeing from a sure extermination.We find out that Mr. Muller has had a terrible time in his native land, as well as in other places because his outspokenness in denouncing Fascim. Little does he know that he is coming to his mother-in-law's house that is housing one of the worst exponents of that philosophy.The film offers excellent acting all around. It is a curiosity piece because of Bette Davis' supporting role. Paul Lukas, repeating his Broadway role, is quite convincing as Kurt Muller, the upright man that wants to make a better world for himself and his family. Mr. Lukas does a great job portraying Kurt Muller, repeating the role that made him a stage luminary on Broadway.The other best performance is by Lucile Watson, who plays Fanny Farrelly, the matriarch of this family. Geraldine Fitzgerald is seen as Marthe de Brancovis, a guest of the Farrellys, married to the contemptible Teck de Brancovis, a Nazi sympathizer, played by George Coulouris. Beulah Bondi, Donald Woods, and the rest of the supporting cast give good performances guided by Mr. Shumlin.The film should serve as a reminder about the evils of totalitarian rule, no matter where.


In 1996's "101 Dalmatians," Cruella De Vil was arrested by the London Metropolitain Police (God bless them) for attempting to steal and murder 101 puppies - dalmatians. All covered in mud and hay, she spent the next 4 years in the "tin can." Now, 4 years later, she, unfortunately, was released from the jail. I say, that's about 28 years - in dog years!!!!!So, in 2000, Disney decided to release a sequel to the successful live-action version of the classic film and it is hereby dubbed "102 Dalmatians." In it, there is a 102nd dalmatian added to the family (Oddball is the name, I think; I should know this since this was just shown on TV recently), and the puppy had no spots!!!!! Also, while Cruella (again played by Glenn Close) has escaped again, she wanted a bigger, better coat - made once again out of the puppies!!!!!I especially liked the theme song - I'm sure everybody loves the "Atomic Dog" song from the 70s or so. And now, we hear a bit of it in this movie!!!!!"102 Dalmatians" is such a great film that I keep on wondering - WHEN WILL THERE BE A "103 DALMATIANS?????" LOL10 stars


Arthur Askey's great skill as a comic was in the way he communicated with his public. His juvenile jokes, silly songs and daft dances went down well because he was able to engage folk and draw them into his off the wall world. A lack of a live audience was a distinct disadvantage to him, and he was never completely comfortable in films. He has his moments in The Ghost Train, and his character, Tommy Gander, has been tailored to make the most of his talents, but Askey the performer needed to be seen to be appreciated.Askey's support in the film is not strong, it includes regular co-star Richard Murdoch; Betty Jardine and Stuart Latham as a dopey honeymoon couple; Linden Travers going over the top as a 'mad woman'. Also on board are Peter Murray-Hill, who off-screen married Phyllis Calvert, as the nominal leading man, giving a totally bland reading of the part, and leading lady Carol Lynne, who turns in an equally insipid performance. It is left to character actress Kathleen Harrison to effortlessly steal the film as a parrot loving single woman who gets smashed on Dr Morland Graham's brandy.


This film is amazing and I would recommend to child and adult alike. The animation is beautiful, the characters are rich and interesting, and the story is captivating; far better than anything the American studios were producing at the time. However, there is a couple of caveats to this statement. It's a shame that Disney bought the Studio Ghibli back-catalogue and then proceeded to butcher it. My main point being, Disney re-dubbed the film, despite the original English version being very impressive. The new cast with Van Der Beek et al ruined it and took away much of the attractiveness of the characters e.g. Pazu and Sheeta went from adventurous companions to whiny teenagers. The Original music score is also far better than the Disney remix. It begs the question why did Disney make such changes? It seems to me is that by having Van Der Beek et al being cast then Disney can draw in more money, which is fair enough, but in the process they tainted they film. It is still a beautiful film and I would still recommend it to anyone. My main beef is that Disney ruined a film from childhood which I loved and still love. I am lucky enough to have an original Japanese import with the original English dub which I am now going to guard with my life!


I can only assume that the other reviewers of this "film" are stockholders in the production company, as this was quite possibly the worst movie I've seen in the last five years. From the opening shot of a Rabbi laughing uncontrollably for no apparent reason, it was clear that the actors in this film would kill to be considered "B-Level." Both my wife and I were in a great mood before starting this film, and we were genuinely looking forward to a funny popcorn movie. We knew we hadn't rented Citizen Kane, and we weren't expecting to see the most amazing movie ever. However, after 40 minutes of enduring the most painfully unfunny bit of garbage I've ever seen, we shut it off instead of wasting another minutes of our lives.If a "comedy" with no laughs, terrible acting, thin plot and annoying characters are your thing, then this film is for you. Honestly, Troll 2 is better--at least I laughed at the popcorn sex scene.I cannot justify writing a longer review of this picture because I've already wasted almost an hour trying to find one joke.


At last - I've finally got round to it and managed to see a "clean" copy of Pakeezah! Up until now I've only had a mangled scratchy jerky version taped off Dubai TV sometime in the '90's, with quirky English subtitles, dizzying widescreen coverage and a fluid colour with a mind of its own. Having thought the world of such a poor (and short) copy I find the decent one was well worth the wait and the full 140 minutes even more of a pleasure than I thought possible.This was the lovely Meena Kumari's film from start to finish, and I believe was planned by her from 1958 on, finally realising it in 1971. What a shame it was that chronic alcoholism finally killed her soon afterwards, and in fact that she was too ill to perform in some of the scenes in Pakeezah, necessitating a body double. In some scenes the strain definitely shows in her face.The story of Purity versus Adversity I can only treat as fiction having no experience of anything remotely close to it, but I'm led to understand that it faithfully depicts a world now gone that must have been common at one time in India. It's a sparkling and colourful film with a simple relentless epic message, an intense romantic tragedy which is somehow simultaneously feelgood too. But to me it's the peerless golden music by Ghulam Mohammed as sung by the incomparable Lata Mangeshkar - especially Thare Rahiyo - and its part in the unfolding of the story that makes this film so outstanding. I've seldom heard such serious, beautiful, poetic, wondrously sung and played songs on any movie soundtrack. Singin' In The Rain may be my favourite musical film but Pakeezah has my favourite music - yet Lata said that the songs themselves meant nothing special to her. The only pity is that the also unique Mohammed Rafi only had the one song in here, albeit a classic duet with Lata. Because of all this but not blind to its faults, Pakeezah is my favourite Indian movie, filmed at a time when the Westernisation of India was gathering pace and watched now when Western values seem to be state sponsored and de rigueur. At the very least watch Pakeezah for a taste of what Indian "pop" music had to offer the world before it was all jettisoned for drum machines, the Bollywood Beat and bhangra.


Dr. K(David H Hickey)has been trying to master a formula that would end all disease and handicaps, but needs live donors to complete his work. His doctor brother Richard(Dennis O'Neill)has a son named Eddie(Derek Philips)who is accepted to medical school. Eddie has a girlfriend named Sarah(Lizabeth Cardenas)who is pre-law and plans to attend law school herself the coming fall. She and Eddie resume their relationship when Sarah calls things off with her current boyfriend who is also shagging the lady of Walt(Bill Sebastian;Eddie's best friend who recently paid for his cheating girlfriend's boob job). Eddie accidentally gets hit by a car and appears on the throes of death when Dr. K makes a suggestion to Richard..let him "recuperate" Eddie using his secret, illegal methods. When Dr. K applies his serum to Eddie horrifying results occur. Eddie's face bulges massive warts while he has also acquired a taste for human flesh. Many will die so that Eddie can feed this uncontrollable appetite he can't quench. Soon he may even pose a threat to his father and girlfriend..Eddie Monster must be stopped.Typically awful direct-to-video horror flick suffers from a severe lack of budget, acting, and overall talent. The premise, which seems like an interesting fright-fest, fails to deliver even as a zombie flick. The gore is limited with a few munching scenes but most of the violence occurs off-camera. The use of time to move the story along can really get annoying.


In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.


What an extraordinary crime thriller!! My wife and I saw this at the Toronto International Film Festival last week and it was far and away the best movie in an exceptionally strong festival. It's already my second favourite film of all-time after DR. STRANGELOVE and I was definitely on an emotional high as I walked home and discussed the film with my wife.I don't want to spoil the plot because thrillers of this calibre are best enjoyed without preconceptions. A synopsis that I'd feel comfortable sharing is that two brothers, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke, are planning to rob a jewellery store in Westchester, New York. The film bounces back and forth in time over approximately a two week period of time (before, during and after the robbery), and one key scene is repeated at least three times. Ordinarily, that could disrupt the momentum of a film but that never happens during this masterpiece. The excitement, the tension, and even the quality of the acting only seemed to get better as the film progressed. By the end, I was on the edge of my seat breathlessly waiting to see how it would all wrap up. I know that I've used a few clichés in this post, but I literally was on the edge of my seat. I should mention that the non-linear storyline is quite easy to follow. This isn't the sort of movie where you'll overhear audience members asking their friend to explain the plot during the movie.The acting is absolutely brilliant all-around, and I doubt I would have the same admiration for the film if the casting hadn't been so perfect. A tiny complaint is that Hoffman and Hawke don't look like brothers, but that's a minor quibble that I can easily overlook. Hoffman was at his very best and some of his scenes with Hawke were positively electric. Marisa Tomei (as Hoffman's wife) and Albert Finney (as the father of Hoffman & Hawke) are also very good in supporting roles. Even some cameo performances were so impressive that I can still remember every remark, gesture and facial expression by Brian O'Byrne and Michael Shannon  absolute perfection. The robbery scene felt more authentic than any other cinematic robbery scene I've ever watched, and I had the same feeling of authenticity in most scenes, especially the ones with Hoffman. The music helped to build up the tension throughout the movie, often the same notes played over very effectively. I had the music playing in my head the following day, even as I sat through other films. In addition to my minor complaint at the beginning of this paragraph, there was one plot twist that felt a bit unbelievable (major spoiler, so I can't describe the scene). Otherwise, this film is pretty darn close to perfect.There were about a dozen great films at the festival that I would enjoy watching a second time but BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD stands in a league of its own. As an aside, the director Sidney Lumet spoke before the film and he introduced Marisa Tomei and Ethan Hawke onto the stage. Tomei didn't speak and she acted a bit shy so Lumet asked "Can you believe that someone so beautiful could be so camera-shy?" That comment is quite ironic considering the graphic opening scene!!


Esther Kahn is a young Jewish woman living in an overcrowded, Jewish Ghetto in 19th century England. She is surrounded by looming, oppressive, dreary, featureless, worn brick architecture, narrow sidewalks and streets, blacked out windows, and hordes of black-and-brown jacketed crowds.She lives in a tiny apartment with her large family whom operate a clothes shop within the apartment. As child, she worked, had no privacy, wore colourless clothing, shared a bed, and remained silent to avert the mockery of her mother and siblings who ridiculed her for mimicking them out of boredom.As a young woman, her life remains the same - she has no privacy, lives in a state of mental and physical hebetude and lethargy and inertia, exudes a blank, featureless expression, is clothed in plain, unremarkable clothing, and is continuously oppressed and dwarfed by the grey, mundane, massively imposing buildings, and narrow streets, and narrow hallways, and narrow doorways, and her loud-mouthed mother and siblings, and the prosaic, banal lifestyle of her family.Her only form of mental escape is the Yiddish theatre. Sitting in the balcony, front row, leaning over the rail, there is a vast space between her mind and the stage, a space that enables her to breathe, think, feel, and yearn.Yet despite the freedom of thought the open stage provides for Esther, her face and body remain torpidly somnolent, impassive, dispassionate.The plain and common looking Summer Phoenix brilliantly conveys Esther's emotionless demeanour - Summer/Esther does not convey any desire to want anything or anticipate anything.After an unusual explosive confrontation with her mother, Esther finally decides to break free from the bleak life she is trapped in.She is eventually cast in minor parts in a few stage plays, and meets Nathan Quellen, portrayed by quintessential British actor Ian Holm, who commences to teach Esther the technical skill of acting.From this point forward, Esther begins a grueling dual journey of learning how to act and learning how to feel.She begins experiencing emotions she never felt before, and she begins gaining the experience she needs to fully comprehend and wield the technical aspects of acting.Nathan walks her across the stage through the physical and emotional steps of surprise, hesitancy, anger, disgust, self-loathing, etc; she then begins walking through those emotions in her personal life.There are three truths, Nathan tells her - the truth of how a character reacts, the truth of how the actor would react, and the truth that a character and actor are not the same person.These technical steps and three truths slowly deconstruct Esther's defenses and lead her to two edifying experiences in the denouement of the film which mark the beginning of her freedom of thought, movement, and emotion.Esther Kahn is a technically challenging film to watch because of its odd and narrow camera shots, lackluster photo direction which conveys the realistic lackluster setting of the Ghetto, and Summer Phoenix's characterless and insipid and unappealing portrayal which brilliantly conveys Kahn's mental and physical hebetude and lethargy and lackluster nature.A must-see film for people who want to learn the technical craft of acting, and for people who appreciate minimalistic films and character studies.