This is Paul F. Ryan's first and only full-length feature. He hasn't done anything since. However, he managed to get an amazing ensemble cast to portray the characters of his story. I don't know when or why the idea emerged in his head, but Ryan wrote a screenplay which later became his own directed movie, "Home room".Busy Philipps carries the movie on her shoulders as Alicia, a troubled girl; the ones we always see in television series. With dark hair and black clothes; a package of cigarettes in the pocket, weird look and disturbing eyes (with makeup, of course). An event has occurred at her school; a shooting. Some students have died, and she saw everything. Now Detective Martin Van Zandt (Victor Garber) is investigating the case, and, as expected, Alicia is a suspect. But the shooting is just the genesis; the movie is not about the shooting.Lying in bed in a hospital room is Deanna Cartwright (Erika Christensen). She is one of the survivors of the hospital. The script establishes a bond between them, by the school Principal (James Pickens Jr). He is helping all the students to recover from the event, but Alicia doesn't seem to care. She's isolated. So the Principal punishes her; she needs to visit Deanna every day until five o' clock. Then the movie starts.I can't even describe how wonderfully written I think the movie is. I can identify with the characters and the situations they live; I like reality. These things could happen to anyone. And the things they say are totally understandable. They're growing up and trying to deal with things they haven't experienced; they're doing their best. Without knowing it, Alicia (when she visits Deanna for the first time) and Deanna (when she sees Alicia standing in front of her) are commencing a journey of that will define their personalities and ideas for the next step in life; after high school.The director leads Christensen and Philipps through their roles very well. Look the contrast between them. Deanna seems naive and with plain thoughts; no complexity inside of her mind. When Alicia enters her room and sees tons of flowers she asks: "Who has brought them?". "Many people", Deanna answers; although some days later we learn they're from her parents, who come every week. The parental figures are all well represented, but are not as important as their sons' characters. Deanna is lonely. Alicia seems mature and violent; smoking cigarettes and talking roughly. But after two days of visiting, she finds herself coming back to the hospital every day; even sleeping in Deanna's room all night. When they both have a fight afterwards, I believe Deanna says: "Why do you keep coming back?". Alicia is lonely too.The ending of the movie, without ruining it, comes a bit disappointing; it's something I wasn't waiting for. It eliminates some of the strength the movie has. The revelation comes totally unnecessary; ruining the logical climax the movie could have had. It was an excellent script anyway; and an excellent direction. A damn fine movie.When it comes to Erika Christensen, this was the role she needed to fly higher. Her role in "Traffic" was impressing, but this was the big step; the main role. Maybe not many had the chance to see her in this film, and that's a pity. She hasn't made one false move since then. She has even come out with good performances in awful movies. On the other hand, Busy Philipps, who proved to be very promising in this movie (what a transformation), hasn't got many opportunities for other roles.The same I say about Paul F. Ryan (in directing, of curse), and I expect he is sitting now in his computer finishing his new script; I'm waiting for his next movie. I'm hoping the best for all of them.


Dynasty Revisited in Hawaii... Full of clichés, highly predictable, unrealistic and sometimes even stupid. If you have nothing better to do however, it does provide 40 minutes of simple, unpretensive entertainment, endless looks at great male and female muscles and very good photography of the spectacular Hawaiian scenery. On the other hand, If you are looking for anything more than that, stay away...Oh, and by the way, if you have ever worked in a Hotel or know anything about running one, you have two options: 1. You will feel sick every two minutes at the sheer stupidity and silliness of how the show presents Hotel Business or, 2. Look at it as science fiction comedy as I did, lie back, relax, and laugh about it!


I'm gonna tip the scales here a bit and say I enjoyed this. However, the cartoon is really only going to appeal to those who have very absurdist tendencies. It's definitely something that most people will not get, as is the nature of absurdism.the animation is horrible, but yes, that's the point. The main character is foul mouthed, violent, and stupid. no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his wife shrieks and wails, apparently just barely capable of the most basic communication skills. most of these stories completely lack any kind of point.but again, that's the point ;)If non sequiters, foul language, and complete and utter randomness are your thing, you're going to love this.It is really short, so I would probably rent instead of buying.


In conception a splendid film, investigating the tensions that occur in family life in the idyllic setting of Galiano Island off the coast of British Columbia, _The Lotus Eaters_ is marred by the fact that it has been packaged as a made-for-TV movie, diminishing itself throughout by the addition of chirpy music over potentially powerful scenes, as if to get ready for the interruption of commercials. A pity, really.


I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it.


Before I start...let me say that I fully believe in God. I believe in Heaven and in Hell. Kay now that thats out of the way, I just wanna say that What in the world do these morons that call themselves "hosts" think they are doing?? The last time I checked a host doesn't discriminate, spew hatred filled rants on TV, or try to shove their own beliefs down every unfortunate soul that ventures onto the channel. ALl of these that crazy, idiotic, conservitive, bible thumping, Fred Phelps lover Pat Robertson does daily. I am all for free speech, but since when does that cover a guy who pretty much says that if you venture off his ideal way of life you are right away sent to hell? This is just a perfect example of why religion is the cause of SOOOO many problems. One day in my class room we had a substitute teacher in so we decided to watch some TV since the teach didn't give us any work. And we (against many of us's will) watched 700's Club, and of course that jerk Pat was on ranting and raving about the bible, and he said Simon along the lines of "God says Homosexuality is a sin" and I actually heard a kid go "Hmm I guess he's right." WTF??? Seriously, if the host is trying to make people think that someone else's sexual orientation is a huge sin, then they seriously need to take that host, duct tape them, and throw them off of a cruise liner in the middle of the arctic.


This really should deserve a "O" rating, or even a negative ten. I watched this show for ages, and the show jumped the shark around series 7. This episode, however, is proof that the show has jumped the shark. It's writing is lazy, absurd, self-indulgent and not even worthy of rubbish like Beavis and Butthead.It is quite possible to be ridiculous and still be fun -- Pirates of the Caribbean, the Mummy, Count of Monte Cristo -- all "fun" movies that are not to be taken seriously. However, there is such thing as ridiculous as in "this is the worst thing I've ever seen." And indeed, this is the worst episode of Stargate I've ever seen. It's absolutely dreadful, and this coming from someone with a stargate in her basement.Makes me want to sell all of my stargate props, most seriously.


"Fraidy Cat", the 4th of these cartoons, is a good one. At least I like it, so I'm surprised that this is getting mixed reviews.This one is more of a macabre story than a funny one, although it has its moments of comedy. The atmosphere is dark and spooky. Suspense is another strong element here. As for humor, it's mostly dark humor.In this short, Tom listens to a creepy radio show at night and is absolutely terrified because it is about ghosts, something he believes. While Tom is scared to death, Jerry is watching everything and can't help but laugh the whole time. In fact, Jerry quickly finds a way to torture him more and more. With the help of a white shirt and a vacuum cleaner he creates a big "ghost".Tom lives the scariest experience of his whole life. Although Jerry scares Tom without a good reason, the way the story is made ends up being funny. Plus, once again, there is no violence here because this is one of Tom & Jerry's oldest cartoons. However, I don't get that joke of Tom's 9 lives nearly sucked into the vacuum cleaner.When Tom finally finds out that it was all a Jerry's scheme and that Jerry made a fool out of him, Jerry is «caught with the hand in the cookie jar» (he deserves to be discovered). Yet, Tom shows an incredible patience before reacting. He angrily looks at Jerry for about a minute. The funny thing is that Jerry invites Tom to laugh with him and takes about half a minute to realize that Tom is looking at him with a very serious face. Jerry tries to be funny, but Tom doesn't laugh.Overall, this is a different, peculiar and remarkable Tom & Jerry experience.


A comedy that worked surprisingly well was the little British effort "The Divorce Of Lady X (1938)" . It marks the first pairing of Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon, before that little film about uncontrollable passion on the 19th century English moors. And while Olivier and Oberon are not particularly well-suited to screwball comedy, it all flows along nicely. Oberon is Leslie, a young woman who ends up in priggish divorce lawyer Logan's (Olivier) hotel suite by way of a nasty English fog preventing travel. She does everything possible to irritate him--but, in the crazy way films go, he falls for her. And she falls for him. But a serious case of mistaken identity occurs when Oberon's "Lady X" (that's all she leaves Oliver in a note) is thought by Olivier to be a married woman. To make matters worse, and more amusing, Lord Mere (Ralph Richardson) goes to Olivier wanting a divorce from his wife whom dear Larry thinks must be Oberon! There is some nice battle-of-the-sexes dialogue, and fun exploration of sexual politics. You can see that Olivier is not too confident with the comedy, but in true Olivier he's a consummate professional, and delivers. And he handles the screwball twists and turns, maybe not with ease, but with gusto. Oberon was no great shakes as an actress, but she was usually competent enough, and despite their reputed off-screen dislike of her, worked well with Olivier. This was filmed in early Technicolour that looks very primitive today (everyone looks even whiter than Michael Jackson), but perhaps the print needs cleaning up.


Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force."Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .Well,you know ," Rope" was so good ....


If I hadn't been forced to watch this for work reasons I never would have made it past the first 10 minutes. And even then I admit I fast forwarded through parts. The '63 film version was vastly superior in all regards. Yes, I've read this one is more faithful to the original play, but what a wise thing it was for the writer to change the script in '63! It's overlong, it drags, the songs that are in this version and not in the film version are boring and unimaginative. The version of "Kids" in the '63 version was very funny and a true classic of sarcastic parent humor. In this version the Kim is way too old, the Conrad is *absolutely horrible* to behold (when someone ripped his shirt off him I shuttered in disgust...the director of this version has no idea what sexy is.). This Conrad can't dance, can't sing (he can't even stay in tune) and is simply repulsive. If Elvis Presley had really been like that his career would have been over before it began. As for the other actors, well I kept waiting for Alexander's toupee to fall off as he danced and Daly was totally over acting as Momma. See Stapleton's performance in the film version to see the same role properly executed by someone who understands comic timing. This TV version is nothing but a total waste of anyone's time.


What's the best way to start a review of a movie like Der Todesking? Let me start by saying I've just come direct from viewing this movie, and the images are still burned deep into my brain - and I don't think they'll be moving any time soon.It's probably fair to say that if you're on this page you have a good idea what sort of film this is even if you haven't seen it. If not, let me forewarn you that this is not a moderate-budget gem that's been lost for a few years a la "Near Dark", nor is it a low budget, schlocky, "fun" B-movie. What it is it low-budget art, put forward in a simple yet poignant way. The idea is a simple one - seven stories revolving around, and ending in, suicides interspersed with footage of a decomposing corpse. Sounds simple right, even boring? It isn't. Words can't really describe how powerful this film becomes by the time you are halfway through; it virtually draws you into it whether you want to go or not.I could go on a ramble here about the technical pros and cons of the direction; maybe point out that the scenes are obviously shot on super-8 cameras and are at sometimes shaky. I could point out that some of the sound effects are out-of-sync in a way to rival any Fulci movie, but at the end of the day this all seems to pale into insignificance.As far as extreme movies go, I've seen the hardest of them, and yet Der Todesking moved me in a way that few others have managed, despite not being particularly gory and having very few scenes that I would consider "gratuitous". In fact, the most disturbing scene I found was the last tale. I won't ruin it, just to say that the character's emotional agony virtually drips from the screen and makes you sympathise, if not yearn for his end. Sure, it's not the best movie ever made, and in a lot of places is seems crude and maybe a little amateurish, but in spite of these flaws Der Todesking is an experience I would recommend to anyone who likes challenging cinema. If you're someone who likes comfortable viewing or "nice" movies, or simply wants to gross out on something brutal and pointless, this is not what you're looking for. Whether you enjoy it or not, It's one you won't forget in a hurry.


For me this movie was powerful. I don't want to be a spoiler, but I had a friend years ago; we were like brothers. This movie brought back some vivid memories.For some reason, I couldn't place my vote for this movie which would have been a 10. I kept getting a message like "No votes have been placed...." And yet I saw in the stats that there were. Will try again tomorrow (Monday).Minor flaws I overlooked. It was the relationships between the characters that got me. Beautifully acted and real situations. I've been in a couple of them.A small gem of a movie. Just like "Spring Forward" is another overlooked gem. I'm very glad movies like these are still being made; about relationships between people, well written, sensitively unfolded with first-class acting and direction. After all, isn't that what it's all about?


I've been reading posts here concerning Wonder Woman's costume for this TV movie. It should be pointed out at the time the movie was made, she wasn't wearing her traditional outfit. The producers were actually sticking to the comic book writer's conception of WW for the early seventies.As for the movie itself, I have to agree with many of the other posters here. Snoozefest! I was a kid when it appeared on ABC in 1974, so I was at the right age to have appreciated a movie about a comic book hero. Yet I was so "engrossed" with the plot, I stopped watching it three quarters into the movie.Of course, I wasn't at the right age to appreciate Cathy Lee! :-)


This film is one that played very well back in 1932 and probably wouldn't work as well today because its style it a bit old fashioned and contrived. However, if you are the sort person, like me, who adores older Hollywood films, you cut the film a bit of slack and can enjoy it for what it is--an interesting soap.The film is set in a ward for problem pregnancies. In this large room are about a half dozen beds in which women are waiting to give birth--but doctors are concerned about possible complications (yikes--such a room would really traumatize the mothers!). And, like an episode of "Love Boat" or "Fantasy Island", each mother has her own special story. With so many rather extreme and crazy stories, you have to suspend disbelief. I could and enjoyed the film quite a bit.Here are a few of the stories: One involves a father. You don't see the mom, but he is a very, very nervous father and it's included for comic relief. However, he was wonderful here--very touching.Loretta Young and Eric Linden are a sad case. Loretta is sent to the hospital from prison--she apparently killed some horrible guy. You don't know exactly what occurred, but you assume he was trying to force himself on her! Yet, she was given a 20 year sentence--and her husband is devoted to her and is by her side as much as he can.Glenda Farrell is an awful person. She has the maternal instincts of a hamster--a really, really bad and alcoholic hamster! She is pretty funny and worth seeing through most of the film. I loved her drinking from a hot water bottle filled with gin as well as becoming upset when she learns she can't make money selling her twins!! Late in the film, she has a typical Hollywood-style change of heart that was supposed to be touching--I found it contrived.There is a woman who has given birth to a still-born baby. Amazingly, afterwords, they put the lady back in the same ward as the women waiting to give birth!!! A crazy woman, who you assumed lost a baby some time ago,wanders down from the psychiatric unit. She insists she's having a baby. Later, she escapes again and actually takes one of the kids!There are most stories than this but the ones I mentioned are the main ones. As I said, it's a soap opera of sorts and is highly entertaining--and quite sad in the case of several of the stories. The ending, in particular, is heart-breaking and exceptionally well done. There were a few particularly good performances--especially Farrell and Aline MacMahon as the head nurse. All in all, a very good film--and I have no idea why they felt they had to remake the film just a few years later (which was typical for Warner Brothers).


the only thing great about the movie is its title. In this case, "Snake On a Plane" is example of not judging the book by its cover, the title says nothing about the movie. When I went to the theater, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting Independence Day, a movie that's pure popcorn fun, but instead, I got that horrible Roy Liotta movie called " Turbulence" Yes, this is how bad SOAP is. The only thing make SOAP better is its title. And it's not even the apporiate title for the movie, the wasn't even a glimpse of "snake" or "plane" 40 minutes into the movie! What a false advertising! If it wasn't for its title, SOAP would be just another unforgettable cheap B-grade summer movie. And the R rating? It has to be the most undeserved R rated movie of all time! The makers of the movie only add a few f word to make this a R, All of the violence are kept pg-13 level. You know what's really R rated? The R rated superstar Edge! See him at Summerslam instead of waste your money on a snake!


Without question, the worst film I've seen for a long while. I endured to the end because surely there must be something here, but no. The plot, when not dealing in clichés, rambles to the point of non-existence; dialogue that is supposed to be street is simply hackneyed; characters never develop beyond sketches; set-pieces are clichéd. Worse, considering its co-director, the photography is only so-so.Comments elsewhere that elevate this alongside Get Carter, Long Good Friday or Kaspar Hauser are way way off the mark; Lives of the Saints lacks their innovation let alone their depth and shading. In short, their craft. A ruthless editor could probably trim it down to a decent 30-minute short, but as it stands it's a 6th form film project realised on a million-pound scale; rambling and bloated with its own pretensions. That it received funding (surely only because of Rankin's name) while other small films struggle for cash is depressing for the British film industry.


If you go to this movie expecting something it isn't, you will be disappointed, as with any movie. This movie contains what Hemmingway described as the "iceberg effect". On the surface, its simply a cache of random movie clips smashed together to make a movie. If this would be written in a book, it would be a short story, because the action in the movie is very fast paced, and unless you actually try to catch it, the reasoning behind the plot (along with some subtle foreshadowing) can very well pass you by. Definitely a movie you will have to see twice in order to fully appreciate. Experimental Cinematography barely describes this movie. The camera-work and post production add much to the overall flavour of the film, making it quite artistic at some points and open to interpretation at others (something to be desired in American movies as of late). Although, at some parts it may get a little raunchy, gruesome and too heavy for some audiences, the movie never becomes completely unrealistic. The only aspect of the movie that I would write off as "needs improvement" is the soundtrack selection. No movie is ever good without a fitting soundtrack, and although the soundtrack is quite fitting, the opening is a little too long, and the other rap songs in the film really could have been replaced with something more appropriate (heavy, grungy rock or psychedelic electronica would have made this film a real trip). The flooding of imagery and dynamic... color palettes adds another "artistic" aspect to it, also combined with the events that happen throughout the film, this is not a movie you can miss any part of and still understand. However, that also makes it much more of a desirable film to watch, and not one you'll quickly get bored of. 8.5/10


I basically found Eden's Curve to be a very poorly constructed that made it difficult to watch. However, there is something I must say about how the director captured something about the atmosphere of the early 70's in the choice of settings and clothing. The "back to the earth" philosophy and the interest in sexual exploration and drugs that was not dramatically decadent, as portrayed in many later versions of the 70's was right on, as was the "don't ask don't tell" pseudo-liberalism of the fraternity made up of east-coast intellectuals, except that I would have thought this was more likely of a New England school rather than one in Virginia, where I imagine the "good ole boy" mentality still dominated even elitist schools like this one. Another thing I appreciated and could relate to is that this was a time when homosexuality was not linked so much to leathermen or drag queens and I appreciated some homosexual roles not related to these terribly overused images. I felt it was very unfortunate that "gay culture" took on certain standard forms in the 80's out of Castro and Christopher Streets and these defined the movement and left out huge numbers of gay men that were more subdued in their lifestyles. I appreciated the film mainly as a way of remembering a more natural way we were about our sexuality and personal relationships without "the scene."


This movie is not only the funniest film ever created, it's the greatest. My hats off to Mr. and Mrs. Zodsworth and the rest of the wacky, wacky cast. Good morning Satan, Want a donut? See it post haste! GO SEE IT NOW!


Kimi wa petto is a cute story about a girl who one day finds a boy inside a box that is outside her apartment one day. She decides to bring him in and fix his cuts. She then leaves a note for him to eats some food she made then go home because she had to go to work. When she gets home however she finds that he is still there. He tells her that he wants to live there with her like a brother or cousin. In desperation to get him to leave she tells him that if he became her pet then he could stay. And as a pet she says that he would have no rights and do whatever she told him. (not in that perverted way!) To her surprise he agrees and from then on he is known as Momo, her pet.


This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality!


...but the actress playing the daughter just doesn't come across as credible.It doesn't work for me when I see an actress of about 25 years playing the role of a 12-year-old... Other commentators have suggested that this is one of the messages of this film, that children may sometimes seem more adult-like than adults, but with the casting as it is in this film, it just doesn't work for me.you might want to check other comments to find out what this film is actually about, because i couldn't bear watching it to the end.i agree that the premise for this film is beautiful though - I wish another director would try to pick up this story again.


All the elements for a bad night at the movies are in place: dialog riddled with biological techno-babble, chintzy sets, balsa-wood acting, a horrific late-'80s Casio score, and an overall look that suggests anything on the Sci-Fi Channel's programming schedule, circa 1993. Though "Metamorphosis" starts off with a lot of promise, the film unravels into bland idiocy and MST3K-style cheese as Clark Kent wannabe 'Doctor' Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock) is pressured into releasing information on his secretive projects. But when he tests his vague experiment on himself, he transforms into a vaguely-defined creature (that bears more than a passing resemblance to 'Dr. Freudstein' from "House by the Cemetery"). The FX work is fairly good for such an obviously low-budget production (though I suspect most of it is kept in shadow for a reason), but overall, "Metamorphosis" leaves a bad retro aftertaste in your guts, in spite of its hopes to sway us otherwise. I can't help but agree with one character's closing remark: "(It was) A nightmare...from the past!"


Another entry in the "holiday horror" category that fills the shelves of your local video store. The *spoiler* "wronged nerdy teen taking revenge on the 'cool' kids who wronged him" plot will of course be familiar to those who've watched it before. And those who've seen it before will probably watch it again; those who are expecting Ingmar Bergman and will subsequently become indignant about their wasted time should just skip it. Marilyn Manson on the soundtrack and David Boreanaz, Denise Richards and Katherine Heigl as eye candy--go with the flow and enjoy it. Oh, and I loved the creepy mask.


This was surely the stupidest, crudest, most repulsive film I have seen in quite some time. I was tempted to turn off the VCR, but, as in the fascination watching a horrible car accident, I literally found it COMPULSIVELY HATEABLE in every conceivable way and slugged it out through to the end. I am by no means a prude who objects to the comedic portrayal of sexual antics on the screen. Animal House, Porky's, There's Something About Mary, both American Pie movies, and even the notorious Freddy Got Fingered I have found highly enjoyable on their own crude terms. Mamie Van Doren's breast-baring sponge bath is the most horrifying appearance by a naked geriatric since The Shining. Ineptly edited and shot, with incredibly annoying performances from Devon Sawa and Jason Schwartzman, the film ended, without the benefit of having made me giggle once. The only useful purpose for the film is as a textbook example of how not to make a gross out picture. Oh, and it would also serve nicely as a lawn fertilizer.


Just picked this up on DVD and watched it again. I love the bright colors vs. dark imagery. Not a big Beatty fan, but this is an excellent popcorn movie. Pacino is astounding, as always, and well, this movie marked the period where Madonna was her absolute sexiest. I wish she had stuck with the "Breathless" look for a while longer. Charlie Korsmo's first really big role, other than "What about bob?". The makeup effects were cutting edge then and still hold up for the most part. Beautiful scenery and mood transport you directly into a comic strip environment. The cars, wardrobe, buildings, and even the streetlights et a great tone, not to mention the perfect lighting, although the scenes with a lot of red can get a tad annoying, as it tends to blur a little. Just wish Beatty had gotten the chance to make a sequel. All in all, a fun few hours.


OK, so obviously ppl thought this was a good movie in 1955.I pity the fools who still think so... Its absolute rubbish.The story is just ... ridiculous. The characters are absurd caricatures - but this film is not meant to satirise, im sure its meant to be a serious drama isn't it?Dean and others, are too old for their parts. People say Dean is great in this film, and well, maybe he did play his part as well as he possibly could've. His character is meant to be 16 or 17 or so. But Dean was a 24 year old man when he made this film. Seeing him agonise and throw little tantrums like a 4 year old boy... its pathetic.Natalie Wood is gorgeous, but the early scenes at the police station where she is crying and whining are very unconvincing. It sets a bad precedent for the film... and for the rest of it, you feel like cringing every time one of these badly acted emotional scenes comes along.It may've been good for its time, but, really, its drivel.It must've just been hype about Dean's death that has over-inflated the reputation of this film.


I am ashamed to have this movie in my collection. The most redeeming factor to owning the DVD is the short film in the bonus features. My vote for this movie is a big fat ZERO. Don't misunderstand, I'm a horror girl. but i want some meat behind the story, not to mention i prefer the evil to happen to humans, not to be tricked in to watching, what seemed like forever, clips of animal snuff. Acts of brutality interrupt achingly long silence and poor acting. If i was forced to make a comparison to another film, the only one that comes to mind is Cannibal Holocaust. Bad, boring, pointless and a wholly uncomfortable watch.


This clunker of a film sets a new standard for bad filmmaking. Jared Rushton gives an adequate performance of a very poorly-created character in an ill-fated movie, thereby creating a net effect of a very bad movie. The film's main thrust is how a boy's temporary excursion into the Canadian wilderness after surviving a plane crash solo allows the disgruntled adolescent to deal with his anguish over discovering his mother's extramarital affair. Unfortunately it turns into a bizarre collage of random "survival events" (including two especially hokey scenes involving fighting a bear) and strange hallucinations that make you wonder if this kid isn't just sitting in an alley somewhere on pot dreaming up this whole movie (and what a nightmare it is!). Furthermore, despite the heralds of some reviewers of the family viewability of the film, there are several scenes not suitable for very young children or family viewing, including a graphic scene of the dead pilot underwater with one of his eyes apparently exploded.All in all, a terrible movie that nobody should be subjected to, much less innocent kids.


I read about this movie in a magazine and I was intrigued. A woman, who one day sees herself drive past in her own car. Well, I thought, this could be interesting......but it isn't. First, the title. The Broken? The Broken...what? What is broken? The...oh, wait...I get it, the title itself is "broken"! WOW, clever! Unfortunately, this is virtually the only thing going for it.The premise is not that bad, but I think Kiefer Suderland did much better in 'Mirrors'. A cross between Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Mirrors, and a rather mediocre one at that. A more suited title would be 'The Boring', since it draws out every single scene for bloody ages. Or maybe 'The Confusing' since it doesn't explain anything at all, not in the narrative nor in the story itself, only some vague idea about evil copies and somesuch, dotted with cheap scares and scenes used to death, but nothing tangible. It's just messed up.On the other hand, the acting and the special effects are quite good, but then again, it's not a difficult role to act.After watching the movie twice, I still feel unsatisfied, a little confused maybe, and not in the E. A. Poe or Stephen King kind of way. Do yourself a favor, and don't watch this one. Simply put, there are better thrillers out there.


Two houses, one street, one phone booth, one car, a girl next door, a boy next door and a zombie. This list of ingredients should suffice for a great horror movie. All you need is some blue light, ambient music and...done. Not in the hands of Dutch director van Rouveroy though! I like to organize "bad movie evenings" from time to time. The concept is really simple: get some booze, get some film-loving friends, and immerse yourself in the worst cinema can offer. For such an evening this peace of filth is one of the best. Laughs guaranteed!The bizarre thing is, van Rouveroy is still defending her film as if it were a great achievement. To be a witness to this you'll have to listen to the DVD's commentary track. Again: disbelieve and laughs guaranteed!


The Western society has been fed ideas about India being a poor country. Movies like these only make those beliefs stronger. Such illustrations make it all the more difficult for Indians to be accepted abroad. Agreed there are poor and homeless in India, but why is there no representation of educated people if not the successful ones.I totally hated the idea of the movie portraying Patrick Swayze as another Mother Teressa. In my opinion this movie has shown India in a very bad light giving wrong notions. It is unjust to discuss only one aspect of the society. Exactly the reason why people ask me, "When we go to India, can we hire an elephant right outside the airport so we do not have to walk on the roads so full of filth and snakes?"Those who want a second opinion on contemporary Indian society should watch "Monsoon Wedding".


This is one of the very few movies out there which are very erotic without being pornographic, despite there being only a very rudimentary plot. There's not much live sound or dialogue; instead, the actors do voice-overs describing their experience, why they participated, etc.It's a document.It's mind-blowing.I can totally understand why nobody else ever tried to do something like this. There already is something like this. This. :-)NB: The producer doesn't have the rights to distribute a DVD version. I've also never seen it being sold anywhere; one may email Mr. Boerner and order a copy on VHS.


French production in which leading film directors from 11 countries were invited to create 11-minute short films conveying their reflections on the events of September 11.The film segments vary widely in content and quality. Two allude to U.S. complicity in terrorist acts (in Chile against Allende, who died on September 11, 1973, depicted in the segment by British director Ken Loach; and in Palestine by U.S.-backed Israelis, shown in the segment from Egyptian director Youssef Chahine). Two more recall other destructive acts (a Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, shot by Israeli director Amos Gitan; the Japanese "holy war" against the west in WW II, by Shohei Imamura).Ironies abound in several stories. Shadows that darken the New York City apartment of a grieving old man suddenly disappear as the World Trade towers telescope to the ground in Sean Penn's piece, bringing the man momentary joy. But in this bright light he can finally see that his wife is really gone. In Mira Nair's film, based on a real incident, a missing young man, also in New York City, the son of a Pakistani family, is first presumed to be a fugitive terrorist, but later he proves to a hero who sacrificed himself trying to save others in the towers.There are poignant moments dotted throughout. Loach has his exiled Chilean man quote St. Augustine, to the effect that hope is built of anger and courage: anger at the way things are, courage to change them. Imamura tells us that there is no such thing as a holy war. Samira Makhmalbaf shows a teacher with her very young Afghan schoolchildren, exiled in Iran, trying to tell them about the events that have just transpired in New York. But they are understandably more impressed with a major event in their refugee camp, where two men have fallen into a deep well, one killed, the other sustaining a broken leg. This is comprehensible tragedy on a grand scale for the 6 year olds. Idrissa Ouedraogo, from Burkina Faso, creates a drama in which the son of an ailing woman spots Osama bin Laden in their village and gathers his buddies to help capture the fugitive terrorist, in order to get the $25 million U. S. reward. He tells his friends not to let any of the adults know their plans, for the older folks would merely waste the money on cars and cigarettes, while he plans to help his mother and others who are sick and destitute.It is Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (maker of "Amores Perros") who provides by far the most powerful and chilling segment, one that, for the most part, shows only a darkened screen with audio tape loops of chanting and voices and occasional thudding sounds. Brief visual flashes gradually permit us to see bodies falling from the high floors of the towers, and it dawns on us that the thuds are these bodies hitting the ground. The sequence ends with elegiac orchestral music and a still shot, bearing a phrase first shown only in Arabic, then with a translation added: "Does God's light guide us or blind us?" (In various languages with English subtitles) Grade: 8/10 (B+). (Seen on 10/31/04). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.


I question its importance to Queer Cinema as it seems to be more about having a homosexual encounter via violent behavior than making any clear statements regarding homosexuality and violence.Three tales are tangled together in a rather sloppy manner. I found myself trying to untangle the messy narrative in the first 15 minutes, that alone didn't sit well with me. Weak plot points were endlessly repeated as though we might not have gotten it the first 10 times.There was a feeling of padded dialog throughout the film. More like a 45 minute Boy's Brief short rather than a fleshed out full-length film. It had a certain erotic flair, male nudity and sex appeal but overall the sum did not equal its parts.The 1st part: Boxer/Stalker storyline was the strongest and yet it too felt like it had been pulled thin. Bob has been following Tim for four years and only now is he confronting him? I felt as though their cat-mouse game was not developed enough to merit its conclusion. We needed more information about them and less Parking Lot/Locker scenes with Tim relentlessly saying "What do you want?" The 2nd part: Danny wants his buddy, Tony, to beat him up while he jacks-off. Tony doesn't seem to mind, but he doesn't even appear interested in exploring the implications of his homo erotic hobby -- not even after they do it in the nude. This tale lacks the all-important transition from "I'm a straight boy smacking my guy friend around for fun" to "I think I might be gay and hitting him because I'd like to spread his ass and do him S/M style." A very important thing to leave out.Clearly these stories each could have conveyed their points in half the time. The 3rd part with the man and woman slapping each other around adds to that thought. Furthermore, it was unnecessary and added nothing to the film. Yes, the actors did a fine job under the circumstances and the four male leads were very sexy. The make-up (bruises and cuts) however was on par with a grammar school talent show.There wasn't enough meat to this story to have any impact on the gay politic. The film made no statement, squandered time, and is not engaging or worthy enough for thoughtful investment. Its fatal flaw is its amateurish approach, that makes it ultimately impossible to take seriously.


This highly derivative film will be entertaining for the many who have not seen some of the more obscure anime films. I enjoyed most of it, especially after the rather flat opening minutes in the museum (although the pre-title sequence is very entertaining and includes some of the better bits of animation). James Garner as the Commander and Leonard Nimoy as the King give impressive performances.


When I watch a low budget film I know what to expect. I expect the acting not to be as good (budget reasons), I expect the lighting not to be as good (budget reasons)I expect the sound not to be as good (budget again). Stop judging these low budget movies like a big budget film!!! I'm a filmmaker myself so I understand the budget constraints on a low budget film. Stealing locations, shots etc... the list goes on and on. I don't want to say all the acting was bad. Jose Rosete, Chris Angelo, Victor Zaragoza are good. Raul Martinez is a natural. Not sold on Carl Washington yet. He has to understand that every line is not important, some are throw away lines. I say if a film makes you want to see what happens next, it's a good film. I liked this movie. I gave it an 8. I wanted to see what was gonna happen next. Great job Quiroz brothers!


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning The American military has just launched a major new stealth fighter plane that can evade detection unlike any other. A renegade pilot (Steve Touissant) steals it and plots to hold the US government to ransom with it. So they are forced to send in their best man John Sands (Seagal, who else?) to stop him, in exchange for his freedom from a detention centre where his mind was to be wiped of all the incriminating information he's learned over the years.I skipped Attack Force because I could tell from the cover and all the post production tampering that had occurred that it would be crap and when all the negative reviews and low user rating came pouring in it just confirmed what I thought. But I decided to give FOF a go because Shadow Man (by the same director) wasn't bad and, what the hell, Seagal was my favourite action star once and maybe, just maybe, he could make a great film again. Oh what a fool I was.Dubbing, horrendous stock footage of aerial stealth fighter jets, awful camera work, cheap production values, risible, unconvincing fight scenes that have become Seagal's trademark and a boring, sleep inducing plot that doesn't go anywhere.Thankfully his next film, Once Upon a Time in the Hood (which I'll be skipping), apparently marks the end of his contract with Sony, meaning no more of these awful European lensed action films and his next film Prince of Pistols might mark a return to theatres. Hell, he's done it before and Stallone will have managed to do it before him (Rocky Balboa.) This isn't a Flight of Fury. It isn't even a flight of fun. It's a flight that fails to even take off the ground. *


I saw this not too long ago, and I must say: This movie is terrible. I watch crappy movies for fun. Scarecreow is not fun. Scarecrow is stupid. You have an incredibly corny villain that enjoys screaming awful puns as he kills his victims(actually worse than the one contained in this sentence). He has his hard luck story that he uses to justify his killings. "Everyone picks on me. The only girl that thinks I'm not trailer-trash likes one of the guys that pick on me. I want to kill everybody. Wah." OK, I'm exaggerating. But the premise to this movie alone is enough to put it near the bottom of the list of crappy movies.Adding to what I just said, the kid's mom is promiscuous, he walks in on his mother and her current boyfriend getting it on, mom's boyfriend tells him to leave, kid refuses, insisting that he isn't going to leave his own house. Boyfriend chases kid into corn field. He kills kid right in front of mom, mom screams in terror, boyfriend is like, "OMG! I didn't mean to!" Then he tells mom not to say anything to the police about it. Kid was killed under a scarecrow, though. So, like any kid who gets murdered under a scarecrow, he comes back as a killer scarecrow with a vengeance. His victims "haven't been stalked like this before..." (Scarecrow's official tag line)To make matters worse, this movie was filmed in a whopping 8 days. That's right, 8 days. I was going to give this movie a 2, because in spite of itself, it has one or two redeeming moments. (They're spoilers, so I won't spoil it for you, if you actually want to see this crap.) I could have somewhat forgiven the bad acting, the horrible special effects, the abysmal script, and the bad camera work, but I simply have no respect for lack of effort on that level.This movie isn't nearly as good as I'm making it out to be. If you want to see an example of how not to make a movie, or if you enjoy watching bad movies, like I do, then watch this at your own risk. Everyone else should stay a safe distance away from this movie at all times.


I don't know who wrote the script for this movie, but from the first moment on, I was irritated. Of all possible decisions they could make up in the mountains, why do they make the decision, which is the most dangerous of all? Why do the criminals act dumb, although they managed to get a huge amount of money out of a bank and get away with it? Why doesn't the main criminal land the helicopter, shoot Stallone, grab the money and fly away with the chick as a hostage? And there are more cases of illogical behavior. I'd give this movie 5 points for nice action and great landscape scenery, but due to the illogical behavior of the characters, I just can give this movie 1 point...


Ming The Merciless does a little Bardwork and a movie most foul!


The Impossible Planet and The Satan Pit together comprise the two best episodes of the 'new' Doctor Who's second season. Having said that, it should be obvious that much of the story basically transposes the plot of Quatermass and the Pit (1967) to an outer space setting, with the history of the universe intertwined with that of the Beast 666. These episodes cement the emotional ties between Rose and the Doctor, whilst also highlighting Rose's increasing self-confidence, establishing her as a not-quite-equal-yet-but-getting-there partner with our beloved Time Lord. Also of note is Matt Jones elegant screenplay, which decreases the occasional over-reliance on one-liners for the Doctor, and the performances of the entire cast, most notably the excellent Shaun Parkes as acting Captain Zachary Cross Flane.


Seriously, Why do American and Frech actors pretending to be Czechs need to speak perfect English with a fake Russian accent? I am a man, so i enjoyed the gratuitous nudity--but a soft porn flick would have more of that, and at least wouldn't pretend it's artistic.All the political statements where painfully didactic- has the director heard of subtlety? The acting was also woody and melodramatic, and the comic relief was never funny. The characters were very shallow, and I just couldn't identify with them at all.The bit where I did laugh was when they cut the actors into archival footage of the demonstrations in Prague - and they were black and white and then sepia to match the footage-just ludicrous.I read many of Kundera's short stories (not The Unbearable Lightness of Being), and there are good things about his style of writing (although his themes are one big male fantasy)-and I have to say, the film did NOT convey any of the goodness of Kunderas style.


Don't spend your money or your time on this pitiful piece of film in the guise of cinematography.When every third word is devoted to foul language and there is no real plot as well as having a cast of old actors who are still giving the same dated performances from the past and have not evolved in their careers, leaves a lot to be said. I was expecting something better from award winning actor Benicio del Toro. The vision that others may have of Puertorricans will be irreversibly distorted by such trash as Maldeamores. A foul word at a given moment in a film may be used to emphasize a given point of view and may even be funny or sad depending on its context (see the movie Elsa and Fred for example) but it should not permeate the plot. The movie is a total embarrassment and there was absolutely nothing funny or even cute about this film.


In all truth, this really isn't a "movie" so much as an extended final episode; by this I mean that, had you NOT followed the TV series (Homicide: Life On The Street) I suspect that you would have a hard time following this made-for-tv movie. Having said that, "Homicide: The Movie" is still a great watch. I think it says a lot about a television production that EVERY single cast member would return, many after years of absence, to once again portray their characters and bring closure to an incredible program. The movie brings out that sense of "family", not only amongst the characters, but amongst the actors, as well. It's all very bitter-sweet knowing that this will be the LAST time we will see them all together again under the title of HOMICIDE. Story-wise, I found this film somewhat lacking. Giardello's mayoral candidacy seems particularly contrived, and I felt his shooting could've been dealt with within the parameters of his regular position, as Leiutenant. Also, Det. Bayliss's extreme plot twist, which was left hanging at series end, is finally resolved, but I, for one, NEVER felt that it needed to be; I enjoyed being left with a mystery (let us recall that the very first episode's first case also went unsolved for the entire series run!). As a DEVOTED fan of the TV series I can love this movie, and the fact that it even got made after H:LOTS had been canceled, but I would not recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the slightest exposure to the series. Now, if they'd just release it on DVD...


Today I found "They All Laughed" on VHS on sale in a rental. It was a really old and very used VHS, I had no information about this movie, but I liked the references listed on its cover: the names of Peter Bogdanovich, Audrey Hepburn, John Ritter and specially Dorothy Stratten attracted me, the price was very low and I decided to risk and buy it. I searched IMDb, and the User Rating of 6.0 was an excellent reference. I looked in "Mick Martin & Marsha Porter Video & DVD Guide 2003" and  wow  four stars! So, I decided that I could not waste more time and immediately see it. Indeed, I have just finished watching "They All Laughed" and I found it a very boring overrated movie. The characters are badly developed, and I spent lots of minutes to understand their roles in the story. The plot is supposed to be funny (private eyes who fall in love for the women they are chasing), but I have not laughed along the whole story. The coincidences, in a huge city like New York, are ridiculous. Ben Gazarra as an attractive and very seductive man, with the women falling for him as if her were a Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas or George Clooney, is quite ridiculous. In the end, the greater attractions certainly are the presence of the Playboy centerfold and playmate of the year Dorothy Stratten, murdered by her husband pretty after the release of this movie, and whose life was showed in "Star 80" and "Death of a Centerfold: The Dorothy Stratten Story"; the amazing beauty of the sexy Patti Hansen, the future Mrs. Keith Richards; the always wonderful, even being fifty-two years old, Audrey Hepburn; and the song "Amigo", from Roberto Carlos. Although I do not like him, Roberto Carlos has been the most popular Brazilian singer since the end of the 60's and is called by his fans as "The King". I will keep this movie in my collection only because of these attractions (manly Dorothy Stratten). My vote is four.Title (Brazil): "Muito Riso e Muita Alegria" ("Many Laughs and Lots of Happiness")


Oh dear god. This was horrible. There is bad, then there was this. This movie makes no sense at all. It runs all over the map and isn't clear about what its saying at all. The music seemed like it was trying to be like Batman. The fact that 'Edison' isn't a real city, takes away. Since I live in Vancouver, watching this movie and recognizing all these places made it unbearable. Why didn't they make it a real city? The only writing that was decent was'Tilman' in which John Heard did a fantastic job. He was the only actor who played his role realistically and not over the top and campy. It was actually a shame to see John Heard play such a great bad guy with a lot of screen time, and the movie be a washout. Too bad. Hopefully someone important will see it, and at least give John Heard credit where credit is due, and hire him as lead bad guy again, which is where he should be. on the A List.


This movie was on the Romance channel, and I thought it might be a goofy 80's movie that would be enjoyable on some level, so my brother and I watched it. Boy did it suck. Boy gets crush on girl--correction, his *dream*-girl (apparently there is a difference; and I'm surprised he realized she was his dream girl--he was smitten with her from over 30 feet away. I guess that just goes to show the power of dream-girls), boy ends up masquerading as a female to be near dream-girl (creative in the sense that it's a far-out plan, but un-creative in the sense that there are probably better solutions one might think up), awkward situations ensue, a match is made (all of which takes seems to take place around late afternoon--either the location was somehow responsible for this odd lighting, or the actors had to wait until they got off of their day-jobs to come to the set; I suspect the latter). Very clumsily done, very pathetic. It's almost never even amusing *accidentally*, so there really is nothing to redeem it. Unless you're interested in seeing Chad Lowe's early days, before he finally got his piece of the pie with his role as the HIV-positive gay guy on the series "Life Goes On", or Gail O'Grady who was on NYPD Blue and probably got to stare at Dennis Franz's buttocks). But those are unlikely motives--I'd say "systematic derangement of the senses" would be a more justified purpose. I'm surprised I watched it all. I guess it's the kind of thing where, halfway through, you find yourself *still* watching due to some morbid, self-flagellistic inner-issue, and think you might as well finish it so you can tell your friends and family that you actually sat through such a horrible movie, on the off-chance that it'll garner you some sympathy for the questionable state of your mental health. Can *You* Take the Challenge?


I'm not going to criticize the movie. There isn't that much to talk about. It has good animal actions scenes which were probably pretty astonishing at the time. Clyde Beatty isn't exactly a matinée idol. He's a little slight and not particularly good looking. But that's OK. He's the man in that lion cage. We know that when he can't take the time away from his lions to tend to his girlfriend, he will end up on an island with her and have to save the day. Someone said earlier that it is a history lesson. The scenes at the circus are of another day, especially the kids who hang around. I didn't realize that even back in the thirties, they sailed on three masted schooners. It looked like something out of 1860. I guess that's the stock footage they had. No wonder the thing got wrecked. They're always talking about fixing her up. There's even a dirigible. It tells us a little about male female relationships at the time, a kind of giggly silliness. But if you don't take it too seriously, you can have fun watching it.


What a great word "re-imagining" is. Isn't that what they call Dawn of the Dead MMIV (2004)? A clever word indeed - it disguises the term that everyone has grown to hate, "remake" that is, and makes it almost sound as if the process of making one was creative and involved the imagination. Well, damn, was I misled. At least I was seduced more by the thought of countless gore and unbridled violence than by the idea of "re-imagining," though it played a role.Still, why make a remake? Directors do it for only a few reasons really: to update a movie for a modern audience, or because they personally love the original and want to make a tribute to it. An homage, if you will. Nonetheless, it all generally (I do admit exceptions) boils down to one thing: stealing someone's idea and reshaping it (or "re-imagining" it) so that those who would never see it or understand it would pay money to see it. It's like Coles'/Cliffs' notes; dump everything in a blender, purify all that is more puzzling and curious and throw in a few artificial flavors. In other words, a great marketing scheme.So what's wrong with this one? Well, I'll start with what I liked. I liked the opening scenes. Thanks to CGI and a bigger budget we could actually get a grasp of the chaos of the zombie holocaust Romero tried to communicate in the original through minimalist means. We see the city in ruins, thousands of zombies: chaos and death. Two words that look beautiful on screen. Then it all falls apart.This set-up leads nowhere. The movie does what almost every remake does. It adds more of everything except character, atmosphere, and story. It's noisier, (in some sense) bloodier, and more full of main characters who appear only to die in nonsensical subplots. The setting, the mall which played a crucial role in the original film's story and theme, is purely coincidental. The idea communicated in Romero's film, the pure ecstatic joy of having "a mall all to yourself as a fortress," is gone here. Further, this "re-imagining" has no moxie, no spirit, no balls. It assumes (probably quite rightly) that the audience has no attention span and doesn't bother to get us interested in the characters or the story. The film is rushed and misses the quieter interactions of the four characters of the original. You actually grew to care about those people in Romero's version because there was a certain realism to their existence despite the insanity outside the mall. Here, you don't care when or who goes: what matters is how they go.What else is their to say? The film is not scary. It has one or two "jump" scenes and it tries to make up for the rest with gore and loud special effects. As a story it's really too choppy to be followed and the conflicts between the characters are too underdeveloped to save it. The humor is also reduced to a few one-liners (and one really good character: Andy). After that, what remains? An ending that is plainly ridiculous and far inferior to the subdued, inevitable ambiguity of the original film. But, despite it being a pretty bad film (though not quite as bad as some other remakes), it should be remembered for one thing: it kicked The Passion of Christ from it's number one spot in the box office. Well done zombies.


This film is brilliant! It touches everyone who sees it in an extraordinary way. It really takes you back to your youth and puts a new perspective on how you view your childhood memories. There are so many layers to this film. It is innovative and absolutely fabulous!


This is a warm, funny film, in much the same vein as the works of Almodovar. Sure it has a 10 year old boy sucking milk from breasts, but the style is so playful that I can't understand at all those readers who found it sick or perverted (but would I be willing to let my 10-year old son play the part? Not so sure!). Spanish cinema is often quite sexual, but in a very open and healthy way that leaves the viewer without any sense of voyeurism or kink. I think that we if we northern European types had the same attitude, we'd be much better off as a result.This liberal attitude is also seen in the hilarious 'Fartman Maurice' character. As his lover says to him: 'Most people are embarrassed about farting. You turn it into an art form.'


This is the first review I've wrote for IMDb so bare with me, but I caught this flick on HBO and was sure glad I watched it. Richard Gere is great in this film as the passionate agent/detective who bends the rules to get the job done. I think the story is great, and there's never a dull scene that slows the pace of the movie down. Some parts of the movie which have to do with demented sex addicts are pretty shocking, but if you've ever seen a crime film like Se7en, you'll be able to stomach the scenes just fine. So all in all, if you're looking for a good detective/suspense movie, ignore the low rating this movie got on IMDb and definitely watch it.


How could 4 out of 16 prior voters give this movie a 10? How could more than half the prior voters give it a 7 or higher? Who is voting here? I can only assume it is primarily kids -- very young kids. The fact is that this is a bad movie in every way. The story is stupid; the acting is hard to even think of as acting; the characters are characterless; and the dialogue is terrible. I saw this one rainy afternoon on the Sci-Fi channel. In the sad event that it is ever rebroadcast, I suggest you read a book instead.


OK. So it's a low-budget "film" (I used the quotes because it was shot in Hi-8 video). The acting is universally horrid, the makeup is laughable (the blood looks like it came from Sherwin-Williams and I've seen more convincing bruises made from halloween ghoul kits), and the lighting generally looks like they used someone's borrowed Toyota pickup to shine headlights on the actors.I might be able to forgive these low-budget traits if there were some actual content, if a movie made an attempt to tell a story. But this collection of video footage can boast of no plot, no real characters, and no momentum. It's a self-indulgent mess.And don't worry -- no spoilers here, 'cause there's absolutely nothing to spoil.


No, I'm not joking around. If you ever, EVER, have the chance to see this movie see it. If you need chop off your arm to see it, see it. It's worth it.Fatty Drives The Bus is unlike any film you've ever seen. It takes trash cinema and elevates it to a work of art. While it contains poor shots, idiotic characters, bad dialogue, strange acting, and cinematography that belongs on public access in Iowa, it actually succeeds in its goal as a film. It strives to be the dumbest, strangest, most inane movie you've ever seen. And boy does it ever succeed.I will lay out the plot for those of you who worry about such things (the filmmakers obviously didn't), but really you needn't pay too much attention because the entire film's plot is presented in a very long piece of text played before the opening credits. In any event, FDTB (as its admirers call it) is the story of a bus tour through Chicago, which is led by Satan. You see, Jesus is in town, and all the passengers on the bus are supposed to die, and all their souls would have gone to hell, except with Jesus in town, a lackey in hell calls off the job, and this angers Satan because, well he doesn't like looking like a fool in front of the guy, so he decides to get the people on the bus to sign over their souls to him directly, but he's a devil, so he needs to disguise himself, otherwise, who'd go on a tour with him right, so he disguises himself as Roger and he gets on the bus, where the driver is never referred to by name, but he is kind of fat, so I guess he's Fatty. The bus (and the riders) are on a collision course with wackiness!Examples of some lunacy: The title repeats on the screen 3 times. I don't know why. A character appears on the bus in mid-trip without explanation or introduction, and occassionally sits next to the others, and they look at her like she doesn't belong. I don't know why. Two characters fall in love and exchange longing glances, that are really the same shots repeated over and over again. I don't know why. After Satan gives a minute long monologue about transforming into human form a title card flashes "Satan is going to transform." I don't know why. One character is a woman who is very obviously a man in drag, and is referred to by other characters as "the glamorous Bridget." I don't know why.If there was one good thing that came out of my internship at Troma last summer it was getting my own copy of Fatty Drives The Bus.


The original "les visiteurs" was original, hilarious, interesting, balanced and near perfect. LV2 must be a candidate for "Worst first sequel to a really good film". In LV2 everyone keeps shouting, when a gag doesn't work first it's repeated another 5 times with some vague hope that it will eventually become funny. LV2 is a horrible parody of LV1, except of course that a parody should be inventive. If you loved LV1 just don't see this film, just see LV1 again!!


This movie is awful. At the end of it you will realize that several hours have been stolen from your life that you can't get back. The "twist" ending is very contrived. The character development leading up to this ending is not consistent with their final actions at the conclusion. Ninety minutes of preparation-- with the premise that the Rob Lowe character will die on Christmas Eve-- is explained away in literally ninety seconds of "No we were just tricking you." Then the Rob Lowe character is not even upset about it! "I will forgive you if you can forgive me," is as upset as he gets. If someone took weeks to convince me I was about to die and then said "No, sorry , just fooling you" I would raise some serious hell. I don't feel bad about giving away the spoiler because I might be able to save some of you out there from watching. Please save yourself and DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE.


I saw the MST3K version of "Deathstalker III" and loved the movie so much -- even "unmystied" -- that I decided to watch the entire series of "Deathstalker" films. I bought I and II and settled down for a laugh.Nothing about "Deathstalker I" was funny on any level and when the credits rolled I was embarrassed and regretful that I had bought it! Too much ugliness and nudity. I guess either "DS 3" was a much cleaner production or MST3K really edited a lot because I expected something similar, i.e. stupid and carefree and simple. I was wrong. Even at $6.99 it seemed a waste of money. I didn't even open "DS 2" as I will return it tomorrow. Now I'll probably just throw away this DVD as I can't return it and no one wants it -- including myself! So really, don't bother with this one. Even the nudity (lots of it, btw) is uninspiring and icky.


Snow White is in my opinion a bad movie on an artistic point of view. The plot is pretty much foreseeable, the characters are stereotypes, the editing too exaggerated. Anyway, the movie seems not to have a lot of artistic ambitions. Instead, I think this is a straight commercial thing. Including a character from the french part of Switzerland (the actor IS the leader of the band he is touring with in the movie - the band's called SENS UNIK) seems to aim to a larger audience. A straight German-swiss movie would not have sold in the french part - and vice versa. What really got on my nerves were the product placements all over the movie. Sometines scenes remembered of advertisement clips! I also think the topic of "young people taking drugs without any other targets in their lives" is a wide spread reality in Zurich. Therefore, it should be elaborated with more care. I hope Samir got enough money with Snow White, in order that his next movie is gonna show his true artistic skills.


Amelia and Michael are a married couple that are cheating on each other. Amelia has a long-time lover in the hospital and Michael hires a prostitute that doesn't satisfy him. The two smolder with their infidelity but manage to connect to each other in the end.There's not a whole lot to this particular short. The direction is straight-forward and dramatic, which is good, the acting is sincere, but the story leaves a little bit to be desired. Why, exactly, do we care about these two people? It's a little hard to see how this story sticks out from any other infidelity story except that it's much more pared down and doesn't search for meaning in it (a welcoming change of pace if anything).I don't know, it's possible I don't connect to these stories because I've never experienced them. But I have noticed that the blocking in these narratives are typically the same, i.e., a couple talking together while avoiding eye-contact by pretending to be immersed in magazines, etc. The nice things about short films is that they provide a bit more room for trying something different, and I'd like to see a different take.--PolarisDiB


Sad story of a downed B-17 pilot. Brady is shot down over occupied territory. The local ranchers extended him kindness and protection at the cost of their own lives. I had never heard of this movie and it snagged me for two hours. After the film is over, I'm glad I took the time. It's an entire story told to explain the look on Brady's face at the start of the film.


This is a must see for anybody who loves thriller's specially political thriller. One scene that stands out is Milgram experiment it is shot to perfection very rarely do we get to see a movie shot and scripted the way this movie is presented.The movie starts with a Kennedy like assassination and a three member team is constituted to investigate the assassination. However one of the member does not agree with the final findings of the committee. As per the terms set that member would initiate a one man investigation into the assassination. This investigation gets him involved in into to deep and dark secrets of high office politics and the way they are controlled.


This movie draws you in and gets you hooked on keeping your eyes on the screen. The writer/director is brilliant with the narrative parts and the use of creative and interesting camera angles and perspectives which all add to the gripping hold it will have on you. Insomniac's Nightmare is original and refreshingly different from any other movie you have seen. Is it a dream or reality? This indie will have you discussing the twists and turns it takes through the conscious and subconscious. It has an eery feel with it's dark interpretations of illusions. Dominic Monaghan really became the insomniac. He is a great actor who is not hard on the eyes either! He really poured his whole being into this role. From the storyline to the way it is shot makes this indie one of my favorites. I recommend it highly and eagerly await to see more from this innovative, creative writer/director/cinematographer!!!


He only gets third billing (behind Arthur Treacher & Virginia Field), but this was effectively David Niven's first starring role and he's charmingly silly as P. G. Wodehouse's dunderheaded Bertie Wooster, master (in name only) to Jeeves, that most unflappable of valets. As an adaptation, it's more like a watered-down THE 39 STEPS than a true Wodehousian outing. And that's too bad since the interplay between Treacher & Niven isn't too far off the mark. Alas, the 'B' movie mystery tropes & forced comedy grow wearisome even at a brief 57 minutes. Next year's follow-up (STEP LIVELY, JEEVES) was even more off the mark, with no Bertie in sight and Jeeves (of all people!) forced to play the goof.


It seemed as though the year 1984 was anything but the Orwellian nightmare it was calculated to be with George Orwell's science fiction novel!! 1984 turned out to be one of the happiest times in American history!! The upsurge in the economy, and a reemergence in basic American values, cultivated an idealistic aura of resumed innocence which was viewed by the American people with a very auspicious disposition!! There have been many ersatz renditions of classic movies in the past, but, the originals are almost always considered superior!! "Purple Rain" is such a movie in this category!! Made in 1984, "Purple Rain" provided a doggerel of eighties, happy-go-lucky quality music, which they incorporated into the making of this excellent film!! Certain artifacts indicative of the eighties are indeed classics!! Screwball comedies, neon accented clothing, and of course, the music!! Eighties music is considered by experts to be the best decade for music in American history!! Set in Minneapolis, "Purple Rain" accommodated the use of naive entertainment with the changing times of the city. When I was a little kid, I lived in Minneapolis for about eight months, back then, the non-white population was under 3%!! By 1984, African Americans had made some in roads into Minneapolis, and, thus, they established a firmly embedded culture of their own as well!! The movie "Purple Rain" evokes an eighties style clothing, and music ensemble, which effortlessly captivated the movie audience!! I loved the music to "Purple Rain", and, the innovative approach this film takes to confrontational success, is indeed, brilliant!! See this movie if you have not seen it already!! Prince became an eighties icon with this masterpiece!! For a short time, he dated Kim Bassinger, he must be doing something right!! "Purple Rain" put Prince on the map!! This film gets my emphatically assertive verdict of THUMBS UP!!!!


The Lives of the Saints starts off with an atmospheric vision of London as a bustling city of busy, quaint streets and sunshine. I was hoping it would maintain this atmosphere, but it gets bogged down in a story that goes pretty much nowhere.Othello works for big, fat Mr. Karva, his crime-boss step-dad (at least I think that is what he is supposed to be because it's never really defined, but he does drop kittens into deep fat friers, so trust me, he's a prick) doing scrappy little errands while his skanky girlfriend gives daddy hand-jobs. One of his colleagues is Runner, a black dude who is always dashing from A to B. Until the day he comes across almost mute homeless child who grants him his wish of being able to stop running. Runner dumps the lost boy in Othello's flat, where he promptly starts granting more wishes. Keen to have some of his own desires fulfilled, Karva has the boy kidnapped. But he isn't sure of what would really bring him happiness. Is it the innocence of being a child again or is it another hand-job? Either way, I don't want to see the little boy grant him the second.It just takes ages to get going and there are loads of repetitive scenes. The ending tries to be shocking but since there's hardly any back-story on investment in any of these characters it only serves as a release for the bored audience.Writer Tony Grisoni, a favourite of Terry Gilliam, tries to blend in some kind of religious allegory which ends up being pretentious as all hell, ironically. If he gave us something more accessible or at least had better explanations for the characters suddenly acting all weird then it would have been a more enjoyable film. As it is, we are introduced to a bunch of annoying loudmouths who then miraculously seem to develop intelligence when confronted by the mysterious boy. Who's origins are never revealed. That's just plain irritating! Aside from sporadic moments of atmosphere and a moody score, this film has little to recommend.


Italian-born Eleonora has inherited from her deceased lover Karl, an ultra-modern and isolated house in the middle of the woods. It's winter and she meets the mysterious caretaker Leslie, who eventually ends up not only just looking after the house, but also that of Eleonora, as she tries to adapt to her new surroundings and a growing attraction between the pair.What was I expecting? A thriller indeed, but it wasn't quite so. That's just the advertising on the package for ya! I'm quite perplex about everything. The title, the story and the motivation. So how to classify it? Well, this wooden character drama is more a enigmatically moody romance bound-story of alienation, possession and dependence twisted into a complicatedly passionate relationship of two masked individuals. Co-writer (along with William Dafoe) and director Giada Colagrande's art-house film is just too clinical, distant and calculated with its mysteriously metaphoric story, which it leaves you questioning what does it all really mean
 although when its sudden conclusion materialises, you'll thinking why should I actually care. What we go through feels aimless with ponderous exposition of dead air that focuses of insignificant details and images. Sterile dialogues can contributed to many awkward developments, but more so make for an leaden experience, as it never delves deep enough. Like it believes it does. The sexually salty activities filtered in just never convince and are far from erotic. They are kind of a bump in the already sluggish flow. The base of the plot makes for something interesting and fresh, but it's never fulfilling and I thought there'll be more to it then all of this dreary lingering. Colagrande's direction is professionally stylish and suitably gloomy to want she imagines, but everything feels like it's in slow motion and can get caught up admiring the same views. Most of the action stays at the one location
 the house. Camera-work is potently taut, but the sullen musical score can get a bit ridiculous when it goes for some dramatically stabbing music cues that served little sense and purpose to the scenes. Giada Colagrande plays it sensually and William Dafoe sleep walks the part. He looks dog tired! While Seymour Cassel, pokes his head in now and then.Just where is it heading, is anyone's guess. Well, that's if you can wait around for it. I think I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, as it's definitely not what I was expecting from this Indie film.


Before we begin, I have a fear of dentists. This movie gives me the creeps and even makes me cringe. That is what I love about this film. The movie is kind of boring. For that, I take 3 stars off!*Spoiler Alert*The movie revolves around Dr. Alan Feinstone who has just found out his wife has been cheating on him. Soon, he begins to have hallucinations and begins torturing his patients, killing co-workers, and he has even tortured his wife to death and killed the man he was having an affair with.*End Spoiler* The movie is very bloody and gory. I would recommend it if you are into gore.I give this film 7 stars out of 10. Dr. Alan Feinstein Is Not Your Normal Everyday Dentist!


The best martial arts movie ever made. This one movie is better than anything Bruce Lee ever did. A classic with a thoroughly entertaining and brutal climax. Jackie Chan is the king of martial arts movies and the true king of kung fu.It's a great pity that whilst Bruce Lee had been so overrated, it took Jackie Chan an eternity to become popular in Europe and America. Jackie rules!!!!


This movie is being shown over and over on cable lately, so..There is no excuse for these 2 attractive women to fight over either Luke Wilson or the equally vapid 'villian' in this movie. The female actresses are very cute, and that's the only reason to watch this movie. I suppose it is 'funny' that Luke's even uglier/dorkier/stupider friend is around, but well, that is what we get.Neither of the female leads would ever, EVER talk to any of the males in this movie for more than 5 minutes. What we get is them sobbing and crying and fighting and so on over 2 guys that were best described in Friday the 13th 4. Dead *@$#


Also known in a different form as "House of Exorcism," this messylittle film takes itself so seriously as to kill any entertainment valuewhatsoever.The spare plot involves European tourist Elke Sommer who has achance run in with Telly Savalas, who looks just like the devil shesaw on a fresco in the square. Sommer is given a ride to amysterious house in the country, where Savalas happens to bebutler. There, she is mistaken for a long dead woman, and the realsoap opera theatrics begin. The house's blind matriarch'shusband had an affair with the dead woman, who was thematriarch's son's fiancee. The couple who gave Sommer the ride?Well, the woman is giving the chauffeur, uh, "back seat drivinglessons," and the husband knows and does not care. Eventually,most of the cast is killed, Sommer is drugged and raped,escapes, and the viewer is taken to a climax on board an emptyairplane...which must have resembled the empty theaters thisthing played in.The alternate version of this, "House of Exorcism," has scenesadded involving a priest.The VHS copy of this, from Elite Entertainment, is crystal clear andletterboxed. There are "extras" after the end credits; deleted sexand gore scenes.Mario Bava's direction is fast and furious, but his screenplay isawful. There are half baked ideas, abandoned plotlines, andstunning conveniences that do nothing more than propel this thingin some sort of forward direction. You have life like dummies forpractice funerals, the blind matriarch does not act all that blind,and Savalas is given the same lollipops he had in "Kojak," (whohaunts ya, baby?).The project seems like they had two name stars, then wrote thescript quickly, something that happens in Hollywood on a dailyoccurrence now. Savalas looks completely lost, delivering hislines haltingly, and wishing his character had not died in "The DirtyDozen." Sommer runs around and screams and gasps a lot, buther character is a blank, I use the term "character" loosely. Theonly thing we know about her is her name.This is a real weird film, and your reaction to it might depend onhow heavily you are into Eurohorror, and Kojak. I for one cannotrecomment "Lisa and the Devil."This is unrated, and including all the extras at the end of the VHScopy, contains strong physical violence, sexual violence, stronggore, strong female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, and adultsituations


Well it was a nice surprise after all. its trailer did not predict a good film at all, it was even a bit misleading. Especially the part of Jeff Bridges was a positive surprise, well written, sardonic and funny. Less real though, I do not think a guy who got where he got would show signs of such irreverence towards everything that his current company stands for. One does not become a top suit just to doubt it all suddenly again. The ending of the film, during the showing of Dolce Vita, was too corny, cliché and quite disappointing. And of course a guy like Pegg's character would not last past his first week in a blitz New York magazine like this. I hope one day I will see a decent role written for Megan Fox, here she looked a poor actress playing a bimbo. And by the way, I do not see why she is the "sex symbol" of the year, I see hotter girls on nearly every cover of every magazine.


What an awful movie! The Idea of robots fighting each other is cool, but the storyline is ridiculous, real human action laughable, acting non-existent and special effects (on which, this type of movie must depend) are archaic. I thought it must have been made around '80-'84 and was amazed to see it was from 1990. That's 5 years after Aliens! OK, lots of people said it was good considering the low budget, but I just think 'what's the point?'. it looks totally unbelievable. I wouldn't mind seeing a remake with modern special effects and a completely re-written story because I still like the idea of huge robots beating crap out of each other.


I did not set very high expectations for this movie, which left me pleasantly surprised. The story is a little strange sometimes but overall I think it has an acceptable credibility. The action scenes are rather nice and the accompanying music is used to induce a a bit of patriotic feelings common to US movies. This may not be the best movie ever but it's uncommon for Sweden and I hope to see more similar ones in the future.


I watched this as part of my course at Aberystwyth University and it baffles me how this does not have a distributor in the UK. Well actually, it doesn't, because this film is everything a Hollywood film isn't - original, creative, quirky and humorous. It seems that today no-one really wants to see this type of movie as, in the simplest terms, it doesn't conform to the generic conventions most young viewers look for in a film.I haven't written a review for the IMDb for ages but felt inclined to give this film a special mention, even if it is during my 30 minute break between classes! Essentially, it is about nothing, as the two main characters are plunged into their own world of nothingness through a hate of the world. The brilliance here is how the director sustains interest through the majority of the run time with only two characters and when the only mise-en-scene consists of half a house and a vast white, empty space. This is due in large part to the stellar performances of the actors, both of whom offer some great laughs while at the same time being able to add significant emotional depth to their roles.I'd love to write some more but am on quite a time limit. However I encourage anyone and everyone to give this film a try. A very unique concept is brought to the screen in a coherent and well-executed fashion, with the combination of good performances, a strong script, nice sound design and (fairly) impressive visuals creating a very entertaining movie.It's just a shame so few people know about Nothing....


A still famous but decadent actor (Morgan Freeman) has not filmed for four years. When he is invited to participate in a new project, he asks the clumsy cousin of the director to drop him in a poor Latin neighborhood in Carlson to research the work of the manager of a small supermarket. He sees the gorgeous Spanish cashier Scarlet (Paz Vega) and he becomes attracted with her ability. His driver never returns to catch him and Scarlet gives a ride to the actor. But first she has a job interview for the position of secretary in a construction company and the actor helps her to be prepared; then they spend the afternoon together having a pleasant time.I am a big fan of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega. However, the pointless "10 Items or Less" is absolutely disappointing. This low-budget movie does not seem to have a storyline, and is supported by the chemistry and improvisations of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega and actually nothing happens along 82 minutes. The ambiguous open conclusion is simply ridiculous, with the character of Morgan Freeman returning to his silver spoon world and telling the simple worker that they would never see each other again. Was he afraid to have a love affair with her and destroy his perfect world with his family? Or was a clash of classes, and he realizes that his fancy neighborhood would not be adequate to a simple worker from the lower classes? My vote is four.Title (Brazil): "Um Astro em Minha Vida" ("A Star in My Life")


Petter Mattei's "Love in the Time of Money" is a visually stunning film to watch. Mr. Mattei offers us a vivid portrait about human relations. This is a movie that seems to be telling us what money, power and success do to people in the different situations we encounter. This being a variation on the Arthur Schnitzler's play about the same theme, the director transfers the action to the present time New York where all these different characters meet and connect. Each one is connected in one way, or another to the next person, but no one seems to know the previous point of contact. Stylishly, the film has a sophisticated luxurious look. We are taken to see how these people live and the world they live in their own habitat.The only thing one gets out of all these souls in the picture is the different stages of loneliness each one inhabits. A big city is not exactly the best place in which human relations find sincere fulfillment, as one discerns is the case with most of the people we encounter.The acting is good under Mr. Mattei's direction. Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, Carol Kane, Michael Imperioli, Adrian Grenier, and the rest of the talented cast, make these characters come alive.We wish Mr. Mattei good luck and await anxiously for his next work.


The "math" aspect to this is merely a gimmick to try to set this TV show apart from the millions of other cop shows. The only redeeming aspect to this show is Rob Morrow, although his career must have been (undeservedly) waning after Northern Exposure if he signed up for this schlock.The lame-ness of the "math" aspect to the show is encapsulated in one episode co-starring Lou Diamond Phillips (which just confirms that this show is the last refuge of the damned.) In order to catch a fugitive, the "mathematician" uses some theory about "bubbles". So, he gives this long explanation that, if we have seen the suspect in places A, B and C, then we can use "bubble theory" to calculate where he might be. He does this all on a chalkboard, or maybe with a stick in the dirt (I cant remember).Anyway, when you look at the finished product, he basically took three spots, and picked a point right in the middle and said "Ok, mathematically, here's where we are most likely to find the fugitive." At which point, one other character points out "Oh, that point also happens to be the cabin where the guy used to live." Is that math? Its not even connect-the-f**k**g-dots!!! This show reminds me of the math major I used to work with in banking who had a mathematical analysis he could do to "support" points that every one else had already agreed on through either less-complex analysis or basic common sense.It just goes to show -- When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I can't wait til they stick the NUMB3RS team on OSAMA... They'll use calculus, call an airstrike in the middle of the mountains, and hit Osama and not even scratch the five children he uses as human shields... cuz hey... its all about the numbers.Totally ludicrous TV show.


I saw this movie about 5 years ago, and the memory of it still haunts me to this day. I was fully aware at how awful it was supposed to be going into it, so I have only myself to blame. But like most, I didn't believe all the negativity. Being a Sandler fan, it just seemed inconceivable one of his movies could really be that bad. I figured it was just Sandler haters. I couldn't have been more wrong.What we have here is a comedy that does not contain even 1 second of anything funny. That is actually quite an accomplish. You'd think in a 90 minute comedy, they might have accidentally stumbled upon something even remotely amusing. But no, it's just horrible. It's not "so bad it's good", its just bad. You cannot laugh at how bad it is, you can only cry. You wait patiently for a joke that will at least make you chuckle, but they never come.Have you seen the movie The Ring? Where the people watch a video tape and die 7 days later? If this movie was on the video tape, people would die instantly, by their own hand, and there would be smile on their face as they realize their agony has ended, and that would be the first smile since they pressed play.You might be inclined to watch it just to see how bad it is, unable to curb your curiosity. Don't. Please don't. Trust me, I'm doing you a favor. There are 2 types of people in the world, those that think Going Overboard is the worst movie ever made, and those that have not yet seen it.


"While traveling in the mountains, a man is attached by a mysterious creature that promptly departs, leaving no trace of its presence. Unbeknownst to the man, he has been attacked by a werewolf and now he's inherited the curse associated with such creatures. Now our hero must race against time to rid himself of this dreadful affliction before the next full moon," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.Horrifically re-produced from the original Spanish, "The Fury of the Wolf Man" loses whatever charms it may have possessed in its original form. Lycanthropic Paul Naschy's werewolf characterization is uneven and ineffectual. Dominatrix scientist Perla Cristal and sexy assistant Verónica Luján never get close enough to truly titillate. The often incoherent storyline isn't even ghoulishly amusing.


getting to work on this film when it was made back in the summer of 1990. Shot partly in the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC and the remaining parts in Winston-Salem. The massive offices of the RJ Reynolds were used in several office scenes and places in around the beautiful city that is know as the tulip capital of the world Winston-Salem! I enjoyed my work although it was exceedingly hard work building all the sets like the Golf of Mexico where Renee Russo and Jim Belushi went on their date. I also had a big hand in decorating the bar where Larry encounters the magical bartender Mr. Destiny. I tacked all those pics on the wall of sports heroes and decorated that phone booth where larry makes a phone call for a cab. I even put my mothers photo at eye level so i could freeze frame it and show it to her when we watched it. I remember dyeing the grass at his old house with green dye because it first had to be sodded(it was a new house in a new development and I guess they leased it for the movie)..then I had to cut that newly laid sod to make it look nice..man that was hard! As far as the movie, when we made it we had no idea what it would be like but after seeing it i fell in love with it because really tells the story of "what if" as good as I ever had seen it, including the great It's a Wonderful Life. I cried so many timesi can't count. I got to meet the wonderful actor Michael Caine while shooting scenes at an old minor league ballpark where Larry's boyhood scenes were played and replayed. I remember after he had done a take an was heading back to his trailer, I ran him down and asked him for a picture and he was quite amiable and said "why not!" He is a good guy and a really natural and forceful actor. I can't say the same for Jim Belushi..he was so full of himself, smoking big cuban cigars and talking loudly soeveryone in earshot could hear his every word. His career never did take off but he has had a decent TV career recently. I would say watch this movie if you ever get the chance. It's wonderful and really heartfelt and real. You can feel Larry's pain after he enters into the new world Mr. Destiny gives him after hitting the homer, and as he wants so badly for people to believe he is not this bad guy everyone thinks he is. They all think he belongs in a nuthouse! But eventually he wins people over but by then he wants his real life back so badly, especially his wonderful wife, played so beautifully by Linda Hamilton..and he wants his dog back! So see it.


I've seen the original English version on video. Disney's choice of voice actors looks very promising. I can't believe I'm saying that. The story is about a young boy who meets a girl with a history that is intertwined with his own. The two are thrown into one of the most fun and intriguing storylines in any animated film. The animation quality is excellent! If you've seen Disney's job of Kiki's delivery service you can see the quality in their production. It almost redeems them for stealing the story of Kimba the white lion. (but not quite!) Finally Miyazaki's films are being released properly! I can't wait to see an uncut English version of Nausicaa!