I just saw this delightful Japanese feature film at the 5th Annual Roger Ebert Overlooked Film Festival in the historic Virginia Theatre in Champaign, Illinois.Although this film, subtitled in English, has ballroom dancing as its heart, the film actually shows the world outside of Japan how the rigid structures of family, employment (salaryman), and recreation still exist in Modern day Japan.Writer/director Suo Masauki [I follow Japanese custom of presenting the family name (last name) first and the given name (last)] uses the not so very popular theme of ballroom dancing to show the societal structure of Japan. [Also, I shall not use the movie character names when world readers may not be familiar with Japanese formal names which may confuse. I will refer to theactors by their professional acting name as listed in the Internet Data Movie Base.] He enlists the aid of his real-life wife, professional ballet dancer Kusakari Tamiyo in her first and, so far, only motion picture. She is a dance teacher at her father's dance studio. Yet, her real ambition is to compete once more in an International Dance Competition which she was disqualified from in the past. No, I won't say "why." See the movie.Salaryman Yakusyo Koji is the main star of the film. A veteran of about 25 films since 1979, he gives a sterling performance of a 40's something companymanwho has a lovely wife, teenage daughter, and just purchased the house of hislonging.And, yet, something is missing from his own inner happiness. See this film to learn how he becomes "involved" with ballroom dancing and secretly goes tolessons. Most of the dancing characters are liberated from the traditionalJapanese hierarchy of social structure. They are friendly and warm and inviting. Of course, this is in sharp contrast to how Japanese society is structured with it's "place for everyone and everyone in its place" philosophy.The movie has so many funny moments. The almost 1,500 theater goers brokeinto spontaneous laughter during many of the comedic moments. This provesthat comedy has no foreign language. Veteran actor Takenaka Naoto is funny and brilliant as well as Watanabe Eriko. They are two funny character actors.One could purchase and read a college text book regarding the structure of life in Japan, or, you could watch this fine film and begin to understand how thepeople of Japan grow up in a fairly rigid societal structure. Watching the movie "Shall we Dansu?" is a quick immersion into further study and viewing otherJapanese films. I recommend this film to all. It's funny, it's charming, it will make you cry a little, and it will warm your heart.


I don't have much to say about this movie. It could have been a wonderful tour-de-force for Peter Sellers, but it is one of the most tragic misfires in movie history. That it was Sellers final movie makes it all the more painful.The terrible screenplay, direction and shockingly wooden performances all come dreadfully together to make this one of the most unwatchably awful movies ever made.I wish so much that I could find even a snicker or a chuckle buried somewhere in this pile of putrid blubber, but it's a lifeless, humorless disaster. The truth hurts.Peter, why couldn't you have stopped at BEING THERE?


For starters, it's a very funny movie with a few crazy characters running around that are bound to make laugh (check out the two Russian bugs).A Bug's Life has a classical Disney storyline, but that's one of the good things about the movie. Family values are praised and the main characters of the film undergo some evolution in order to stand up against the grasshoppers in the end. And it also has a couple of great voice-overs by Dave Foley, Julia-Louise Dreyfus, Kevin Spacey (of course),... But actually, the most amazing thing about this movie is the animation. It's just wonderful. All the details, great colors, every ant looks different, beautiful backgrounds... And the guys and girls at Pixar made it all look so realistic. All in all, a very nice piece of work. This is the best animation by Disney since Aladdin.


I agree that the movie is a little slow at spots having many scenes of mundane everyday life and no dialog. And I wasn't impressed right after I watched it. However, after a few days, I realized that the movie stays with me and it evokes a melancholy mood which lingers in my mind. My appreciation of this movie increases. It certainly merits a higher consideration than those movies that are instantly forgettable.As many have commented, the movie is non-linear and that's a hallmark of European film-making as opposed to the linear narrative form that Hollywood favors. I don't really know whether it's true or not. Many also dislike its confusing structure and lack of clear explanations. To those viewers, I don't think there is much I can say to change their opinions. However, for others who have yet to see the film, DO expect to be challenged and DON'T expect the film to supply all the answers and you might come away enjoying it more than you would otherwise.The movie skips around a bit but really chronicles just 3 time periods. Pay attention to the hair style and you can easily separate out 2 of the 3 periods. It is also not as confusing as suggested; just enjoy and it'll all be clear at the end.Yes, lots of things are left unsaid or not shown, and lots of situations are left unexplored. But isn't that what life is like? A lot of time you're not sure of the motives of your friends/loved ones unless you confront them and even then, you can never be 100% sure if they told you the whole truth. This type of movies forces us to interpret the reasons behind the actions. The movie does, however, leave enough hints for you to make some reasonable assumptions. For example, Mathieu is manic depressive, to the point of suicidal. Why? I don't know, maybe his life is not turning out exactly as he expects it; maybe he misses his family but hasn't forgiven his father for abandoning his sick mother at her hours of need; maybe after all he sacrifices for Cedric, rearranging and indeed, shattering his life to be with him, he realizes that it is all "coming undone". I think the director meant to show us that he has always been a little off, mentality fragile by that scene w/ the dead bird. Maybe he has a very sensitive psyche and all these stresses are taking a toll on him. But we're also shown that he is not some animal torturing psycho by his loving interaction w/ the stray cat. Also, there is one conversation between the doctor and Cedric that sheds light on the reason behind the breakup and maybe the suicide attempt. The doctor asks him if everything is okay, and Cedric thinks so even though he cheated on Mathieu once, but that's nothing, according to Cedric. Is that the only reason, we don't know, there are probably others, all mixed up together. Is it paramount that we know exactly what they are? I don't think so, for this movie. Another telltale sign that they are ultimately not compatible is the historical ruins scene. Mathieu is interested in studying the ruins, Cedric is not. He is the one w/ the raging hormone who focuses only on the physical side without an intellectual side that Mathieu obviously needs.Finally, the ending is really rather hopeful and sweet. I was pleasantly surprised by the turn of events after the bleak tone that edges toward the end.I have two complaints for the DVD. One is the sound. It's very soft. I had to crank up the volume to hear the dialog and then when it switched to a bar or outdoor crowd scene, it became too loud. The other is that the subtitles can't be turn off; they stay on the screen. Most foreign movie DVDs not released by a major studio are shoddy this way unfortunately.


I tried to like this program; I really did. I even bought the pilot film, first on VHS and later on DVD. However, I couldn't get into this story because its two main characters: "David" (Bruce Willis) and "Maddie" (Cybill Shepherd) just seemed to in love with themselves, for one thing. I admit was some clever dialog in the shows, which was a key part of the success of the TV program, and I did appreciate of lot of that dialog. Basically, this was almost like the old screwball comedy movies of the '30s and '40s with male versus female. You get lots of arguing, accusations, yelling and screaming. A lot of people apparently love that sort of bickering, but I hate it, so I never got on the Moonlighting bandwagon. Only Allyce Beasley as the hapless aide "Agnes," was entertaining. It's too bad she had such little air time. Shepherd was nice on the eyes and I suppose women would say the same for Willis, but too much arguing between the two finally turned me off.


This was a terrible film. There was no story line whatsoever. To top it all off, when they couldn't explain the blood and gore (the only good part) ... they threw in a few aliens! I hate when directors (or whatever) run out of ideas and then blame the aliens! Watch this film if you like. But don't say I didn't warn you. Two things: How could Vinny say "welcome" when he didn't have a tongue? Its a pity Mr Jones didn't have a bigger role. Second thing that bugged me, why were we shown Vinny Jones' boils and him cutting them off and putting them into blue liquid, then these have no further role. Why not? I don't like to be shown something and that has nothing to do with the story line whatsoever. In short. Bad story. I wouldn't waste my time - wish I'd have watched Mirrors instead.


Some time in the late 19th century, somewhere in the American West, several cowboys in need of money go on a buffalo hunt. The group's leader believes that buffaloes are too numerous for the hunting to have any impact, but the more experienced hunter has seen how quickly the population can collapse, and he isn't so sure. Featuring buffalo herds living in South Dakota and showing film of actual hunting (the movie's introduction explains it as necessary thinning of the herd), the movie does an excellent job of presenting us with the plight of the buffalo and its effect on Native Americans without ever getting preachy about it.The real story, however, is about the dysfunctional family which is created by the small group formed to do the hunting. The father figure is Charlie, a violent man with a short fuse. Sandy, his "brother", is the experienced hunter who is tired of killing but needs the job after losing his cattle. A half-Indian boy, who hates the fact that he looks entirely Caucasian, takes the role of adopted son. The grandfather (and moral compass) is an alcoholic buffalo skinner; Charlie's "wife" is an Indian woman whose companions he killed after they stole his horses.Charlie is clearly the most interesting figure. He is mean and insulting towards everyone around him, yet at the same time he knows that they are the only family and friends that he has. He expects the abducted Indian women to hate him, then accept him, but he doesn't know how to react when she refuses to do either. He's the one who put the family together in the first place, but he's also the one who is fated to ultimately destroy it.This is all very similar to the classic "Red River", which also features a family of sorts being torn apart by the increasingly violent and alienated father figure. As one might expect, this movie suffers by comparison. The plot is not as focused on developing the characters and family dynamics, and the direction fails to keep all of the scenes working towards this common goal. Charlie is so thoroughly unlikable from the very beginning that we never have any reason to care about what happens to him or his family. On the positive side, however, the message surrounding the buffalo slaughter adds an extra dimension to the film and its conclusion is far superior to the Hollywood ending which was tacked on to the end of "Red River". As a result, "The Last Hunt" is an interesting and entertaining film, very well made, but falling short of what would be needed to consider it a classic.


If you like films that are totally bizarre, then this one is for you! Abdullah is one mean mother, with a passion for strangling people and eating ham. You should check this film out, just for a laugh. It is a low budget sci-fi, musical, comedy, cannibalistic, classic. If you get bored of the film half way through you should persevere, just for the sake of seeing the aliens, which are nothing more than little toy robots, but in my opinion are the films highlight. "I'm the Big Meat Eater, pass me


i've seen a movie thats sort of like this, were a transsexual drugs woman and he then picks there nose with a knife and rips there nose to peaces. he then slices there tongue and eats it.the most gruesome part of the movie is were he cuts there left eye out and starts dancing with it. he then starts to eat the woman naked.(i'm not sure what the movies called but i know it's a cult movie and that it was made in Germany).anyway THE NOSE PICKER is fairly crap.its a crap movie and the picture and volume quality is very rubbish.please don't waste you're time buying and watching this movie its totally crap.i prefer DAY OF THE WOMAN also known as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (its one of the best cult movies ever) check out this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077713/


Madhur Bhandarkar has given it all raw. But the best part is he hasn't forgotten to give the ingredients. It has come short and crisp to the viewer and it is the audience to make the choice now. Page 3 is a revelation of the naked truth irrespective of the crudeness attached to it.Madhavi (Konkan Sharma) is a journalist and enjoys her work. A simple and peaceful life adores her with a caring boyfriend and a nice roommate Pearl. She covers the Page 3 (Celebrity Page) of Nation Today, where she has a very supportive editor Deepak Suri (Boman Irani.) But life takes turn for her as she hits the first bump and takes herself away from Page 3 and goes into Crime bit. Omigosh! a whole new world was waiting for her there. She is shocked, excited, stunned with the revelation. Her reaction has resulted in losing the job. At the end she is back to Page 3. Now when she meets any celebrity in a party, she knows the actual looks of each, hidden under the illusive face.The movie has a message and it is crude. The audience needs to get it in their own color. The theme and the screenplay was fantastic. There are some very good thoughts applied to prepare the audiences. Like the foreplay-club is shown before the pedophiliac exhibition, the short suspense before gay-actions in bathroom. The dialogs are strong and the actors are really good at delivering it. Charu Mohanty's 2 words speaks volumes and he is very successful in uttering those two words with such ingenuity, it leaves an impact. The set selections could have been better. The songs don't stand anywhere; but they were needed in the background. Atul Kulkarni has a small role with high-impact. There were a few flaws visible. Atul Kulkarni explaining Konkan Sharma that honesty should be tagged along with intelligence. There could have been a better dialog as this sounds like a preach. The meeting between Thapar and his daughter doesn't call for acting. That scene looks very unprofessional.Overall it is a must-watch movie with selective options before the pedophilia incident. That may spoil your mood.


A trio of buddies, sergeants all in the British Army, carouse & brawl their way across Imperial India. Intensely loyal to each other, they meet their greatest & most deadly challenge when they encounter the resurgence of a hideous cult & its demented, implacable guru. Now they must rely on the lowliest servant of the regiment, the water carrier GUNGA DIN, to save scores of the Queen's soldiers from certain massacre.Based more on The Three Musketeers than Kipling's classic poem, this is a wonderful adventure epic - a worthy entry in Hollywood's Golden Year of 1939. Filled with suspense & humor, while keeping the romantic interludes to the barest minimum, it grips the interest of the viewer and holds it right up to the (sentimental) conclusion.It is practically fruitless to discuss the performance nuances of the three stars, Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen & Douglas Fairbanks Jr., as they are really all thirds of a single organism - inseparable and, to all intents & purposes, indistinguishable. However, this diminishes nothing of the great fun in simply watching them have a glorious time.(It's interesting to note, parenthetically, that McLaglen boasted of a distinguished World War One military career; Fairbanks would have a sterling record in World War Two - mostly in clandestine affairs & earning himself no fewer than 4 honorary knighthoods after the conflict; while Grant reportedly worked undercover for British Intelligence, keeping an eye on Hollywood Nazi sympathizers.)The real acting laurels here should go to Sam Jaffe, heartbreaking in the title role. He infuses the humble man with radiant dignity & enormous courage, making the last line of Kipling's poem ring true. He is unforgettable.Montague Love is properly stalwart as the regimental major, whilst Eduardo Ciannelli is Evil Incarnate as the Thuggee guru. The rest of the cast, Joan Fontaine, Robert Coote, Lumsden Hare, are effective but have little to do. Movie mavens will recognize Cecil Kellaway in the tiny role of Miss Fontaine's father.The film picks its villains well. The demonic Thuggee cult, worshipers of the hideous, blood-soaked Kali, Hindu goddess of destruction, was the bane of Indian life for 6 centuries, ritualistically strangling up to 30,000 victims a year. In 1840 the British military, in cooperation with a number of princely states, succeeded in ultimately suppressing the religion. Henceforth it would remain the stuff of novels & nightmares.


How can you gather this respectable cast of young British actors and come up with such a pile of filmic manure? Horrible script, annoyingly hectic camera, awfully edited, gruesomely badly acted. Only Rhys Ifans tries to fill his role with life. Another painful proof that "different" sometimes equals "dreck". Why do the money people fail to read the scripts beforehand? Do yourself a favour: spare yourself and do something else - like hitting a mallet onto your knees. It's less painful and more fun than this movie!


Don't think of this movies as just another kids movie - the whole family can enjoy it. Its a strange mix of a movie, as its seems to have a movie within it, but at least it does make sense at the end (unlike modern films!) It does give you all the elements of a film (decent plot, good characters - well it does star the Muppets, a list of lesser celebs* which films would clamour for) What is surprising, is the fact that it can be a roller coaster of emotions, some sad, some heartwarming, some funny and some serious - it all makes an enjoyable family film that everyone can watch together.* The celebs in the film are actually top stars of the day but there is only one true star of the film and no one dare outshine Miss Piggy!!!!


One of the most heart-warming foreign films I've ever seen.The young girl is an amazing talent. Stellar performances by her (Doggie), the old man (the king of masks), and Liang (the Living Boddhisatva).(SPOILER) The deplorable treatment of children, especially females is disturbing.Loved the music. The original Chinese dialog heightens the emotional intensity of the performances and the story.This is a MUST SEE -- enjoyable family film, although not for very young children. Would have rated the DVD release even higher if the soundtrack had been transferred better onto the DVD and the transfer had included the widescreen version.


I came at this film with high expectations. I was aware of Greenaway's work and 'The Tempest' and was interested in an adaptation. I first wanted to switch off after ten minutes, but felt that it would be unfair. There was a representation of a storm, but where in your mind do you conceive a small boy peeing over a toy boat? It is symbolic of what? I continued another ten minutes my finger twitching over the 'off' button, somewhere something would capture my interest. This is not Shakespeare, it is not cinema. There is a time and place for it, but I will not waste my time and there is no place for it in my studies of Shakespeare. After twenty five minutes I gave up and that was the end. I then read all the comments on this website and the pretentiousness of the film is only matched by its defendants. 'Its a painting.....then put it in a gallery', 'it's a ballet.....keep it on the stage then'. Shakespeare can be done intelligently, and the plays were performed to mass audiences, they were accessible, and this version helps put a wedge between Shakespeare and the general population at large - and I do not think that the Bard would be happy with that.


Rarely do I see a film that I am totally engrossed with; this was one of them. It had good acting, dialogue, plot, and the scenery was beautiful. I laughed out loud many times, especially the scene dealing with the kitchen raid. The slapstick comedy performed by the lunkhead hired hand had me one the floor, but I admit that I am a sucker for slapstick. The story dealt with a group of people in their 30's coming back to a summer camp that they had attended 20 years previously. It was a farewell week of camping, as the place would be closed down permanently at the end of the season. As adults the camp looked different, and they felt differently about it and each other. I recommend this funny, moving movie to all.


The movie confuses religious ethics and ideals so much that it fails to create coherent argument against the death penalty on any level. By presenting the lawful execution of a convicted murder as the catalyst for the apocalyptic end of mankind the movie elevates a parent killer to the status of martyr for Christ. Somehow, according to the plot, god is outraged that society has chosen to rid it's self of a fanatic who killed his own parents by starting them on fire while they slept defenselessly in their beds. Yet this same god has no indignation for the acts of the killer. The lead character, an nonreligious pregnant suicidal woman, ultimately gives her own life in a defiant but implausible attempt to unsuccessfully save this convicted killer. In other threads of the underdeveloped plot Jesus comes back as a powerless and frustrated vagabond to symbolically unleash the wrath of God. The modern lackluster incarnation of Christ not just dehumanizes him but mocks the messianic ideal of all religions as well. He is unable to affect humanity for good and unemotionally skates the edges of life waiting for mankind to destroy it's self. Meanwhile, with little help from Jesus the mentally unstable pregnant woman finds herself with the ability to reincarnate herself into her newly born soulless child which somehow saves all of mankind from the wrath of the almighty. I also interpreted that as a statement in support of abortion on some levels. This movie which attempts to weave many religious themes into a thriller fails to make any religious point that I could clearly interpret except to mock people's beliefs. It raises many questions that it never even attempts to answer. It disregards the religious values of its audience while attempting to portray an asinine version of their fulfillment. Silly


All Dogs Go to Heaven is, in my opinion, the best animated film ever made. I'm not really a big fan of animated films, but there's something about this one that makes it better than any other animated film I've seen. The music is wonderful as is the performances of Burt Reynolds, Dom Deluise, and especially Ken Page as the King Gator. "Let's Make Music Together" is perhaps one of my favorite songs from any movie musical I've seen. This is definitely a must see for people of all ages.


Lifetime did it again. Can we say stupid? I couldn't wait for it to end. The plot was senseless. The acting was terrible! Especially by the teenagers. The story has been played a thousand times! Are we just desperate to give actors a job? The previews were attractive and I was really looking for a good thriller.Once in awhile lifetime comes up with a good movie, this isn't one of them. Unless one has nothing else to do I would avoid this one at all cost. This was a waste of two hours of my life. Can I get them back? I would have rather scraped my face against a brick wall for two hours then soaked it in peroxide. That would have been more entertaining.


When I saw the trailers I just HAD to see the film. And when I had, I kinda had a feeling that felt like unsatisfied. It was a great movie, don't get me wrong, but I think the great parts where already in the trailers, if you catch my drift. It went very fast and it rolled on, so I was never bored, and I enjoyed watching it. The humor was absolutely great. My first contact with a sloth (..or something like it).


"Yes, Georgio" is a light-hearted and enjoyable movie/comedy that contains beautiful settings and beautiful music. It's not my favorite movie but it is a movie I have enjoyed seeing more than once. Some reviewers suggested if one wished to enjoy Pavarotti, they would likely be better served by picking up an opera DVD. Although, a full opera might be a better representation of Pavarotti's operatic talents, oftentimes, an opera requires costumes and has story lines that completely hide the appearance and nature of the person. "Yes, Georgio" permits Pavarotti to use his speaking voice and to exhibit a personality and character in ways an opera would not.Many reviewers seemed to find the story unbelievable; I don't agree. Enormously talented people can be both self-centered and charming - charming enough to captivate intelligent and beautiful people. Additionally, people who are very different from one other often gain insights about themselves and grow in positive ways from interacting with people who stretch them or take them in directions they might not have chosen on their own. Both Georgio and Pamela become more open to unexplored parts of themselves in relationship with the other.Relax and let yourself go into a visually and aurally rewarding film with Pavarotti at the peak of his vocal abilities. The ending scenes from Puccini's Turandot alone are worth the time to get there.


I love it when they actually do a sports story well. So many in the past have been so hokey it was embarrassing to watch. Not this one. It's just a genuinely nice movie, an old-fashioned type of story - and based on a real-life guy to did exactly what Dennis Quaid did in this film. He plays a high school coach who is talked into trying out, late in life athletically-speaking, to become a pitcher in professional baseball. Eventually, he reaches his goal of making it to the Major Leagues, even if it was a very brief stint.All the characters in here are nice people, the kind you root for, from Quaid to the players on his high school team, to his little boy (Angus T. Jones, now somewhat of a star on television.)Quaid is believable in playing Jim Morris because, unlike actors in the past in sports films, he knows how to throw a baseball. He looks like a pitcher, a guy who could fire it 90-plus miles per hour. And, most of this film is true, as testified by the real-life pitcher in one the documentaries on the DVD.So, if you're looking for a nice, inspirational true life sports film, you can't wrong with this one.


The Cowboys could leave you a little sore in the saddle. Definitely not one of Johns best movies. Don't get me wrong, with any John Wayne move there is always some good spots. And this one has it's fair share. But over all the picture moves slow and just doesn't live up to the aspirations it could have been. Bruce Dern again does an outstanding job as the villain. Roscoe Lee Brown is another bright spot in the movie. The kids in the movie were average but could have been cast better. This would be a good movie for the eight to fifteen year old movie goers.This would be a good family move to watch with your children. Just be aware, there is a couple of scenes that you may want to take a look at before you let the young ones see it. But most kids that I know who have seen the movie like it. Maybe it's because they get to see kids their age do all the grown up work.


After some difficulty, Johnny Yuma arrives at his ailing uncle's ranch to take over day to day operations, only to find out that the old man has been murdered by his beautiful gold-digger wife and the woman's vicious brother.Good production values, a likable performance by Mark Damon, and a breezy action packed script combine to make this an entertaining, if not exceptionally deep, above average addition to the spaghetti western genre.Co-star Rosalba Neri is one of the hottest European babes ever to grace the screen. Here she's absolutely perfect as the cold-hearted user (and abuser) of weak men.Damon and Neri appeared together in at least one other picture, The Devil's Wedding Night, a pretty good horror movie that's of particular interest for those of you that want to see what's underneath Rosalba's dresses.


Like "My Sassy Girl", this movie is based on a true story posted from the internet, but that's where the similarities end. The story is generally about this rebellious guy named Ji-Hoon (Kwon Sang Woo) who is still trying to finish high school, whose parents hire a tutor named Su-Wan (Kim Ha Neul), a woman who comes from a poor background, but happens to be the same age as him. Add to that some obstacles, martial arts (thugs are always after Ji-Hoon for revenge), a scorned, thuggish love-sick girl who is after him, his proclivity for ditching the lessons, and you generally can guess the whole story. Did I mention it's a romantic comedy? This movie has some good fight scenes, great visual humor and a lot of spunk, thanks to the good chemistry between Kim Ha Nuel and Kwon Sang Woo, that bring a lot of energy to the story. The romantic elements also work because of that reason. And, I must say, I'd want a girlfriend more like Kim Ha Nuel than that girl from "My Sassy Girl" (personality-wise, at least). She has some spunk, but it's more on the cute, sweet, good-hearted way. Characters are already mostly likable (so one might say it had less of a hill to climb than "My Sassy Girl"--an obstacle that worked for that movie to its credit), and the movie is quite clever and interesting most of the way. The story kind of sags, though, about 2/3 of the way (where it sort of treads on familiar, standard fare, where nothing really interesting happens), but near the end, it picks up a bit again. Overall, a fun, cute movie. 8/10


Is this the movie??? Is this what Indians are trying to show?? I think this is one more effort from a sick-minded director to turn down Pakistani soldiers and in fact country....but what we Pakistani's know that we are always ahead of India in every part of our lives...not only in armed counters.Well...this is bad filmed as that of Border in early 1997...and director and writer just tried to overcome a shame of defeat in Kargil by Pakistani armed forces, by creating films like these..One thing is very clear...Whenever there will be an encounter between Pakistan and India....we will win....!!! So Mr. Dutta try to make some good movies instead of Nonsense movies like this


I originally reviewed this film on Amazon about 6 or 7 years ago, and blasted it. I believe I called it "wretched" and a "turkey." Okay, well, by most standards, it's still a turkey. It's got almost no production values, what little plot there is makes almost no sense, and the acting is on the level of a third-grade play. That said, this has really grown on me over the years as a sort of camp classic. In fact, all of director Todd Sheets' films have had this effect. They're almost like Ed Wood in that regard: Watch them over and over and pick out the flubbed lines, continuity errors (same zombie, two different locations!), and other flaws.I'll say this: Sheets is a very nice guy, and while this, one of his first productions, isn't that great, he has gotten better. And I must add that the only really decent actor/actress in the film is Kasey Rousch, though I may be biased, as I attended school with her.


Working-class romantic drama from director Martin Ritt is as unbelievable as they come, yet there are moments of pleasure due mostly to the charisma of stars Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro (both terrific). She's a widow who can't move on, he's illiterate and a closet-inventor--you can probably guess the rest. Adaptation of Pat Barker's novel "Union Street" (a better title!) is so laid-back it verges on bland, and the film's editing is a mess, but it's still pleasant; a rosy-hued blue-collar fantasy. There are no overtures to serious issues (even the illiteracy angle is just a plot-tool for the ensuing love story) and no real fireworks, though the characters are intentionally a bit colorless and the leads are toned down to an interesting degree. The finale is pure fluff--and cynics will find it difficult to swallow--though these two characters deserve a happy ending and the picture wouldn't really be satisfying any other way. *** from ****


I can understand those who dislike this movie cause of a lack of knowledge.First of all, those girls are not Geisha, but brothel tenants, and one that don't know the difference will not understand half of the movie, and certainly not the end. This is a complete art work about the women's life and needs in this era. Everything is important, and certainly the way they dress, all over the movie means more than words. To those who thought it was a boring geisha movie, I'll suggest you to read a bit about this society before making a conclusion that is so out of the reality. This is Kurosawa's work of is life, and I'm sure that the director understood the silent meaning of Kurosawa's piece to the right intellectual range.


The Egyptian Movies has A Lot Of Filmes With High Level Of Drama Or Romance Or Comedy Or Action Even Sports... "Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam" Was banned In Egypt Because It Content Nudity (Full Frontal Female Nudity) And This Kind Of Nudity Is Prohibited In The Egyptian Movies.. When I Saw this Movies I Felt Down... Fool Story.. Nude Actress.. Bad Action.. Some Horror & Awful Colors.. Dear Friend.. If You Wanna See A great Egyptian Movie...Simply: Stay Away Form "Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam".. We Have Great Movies In Egypt... We Have A Great Actors Who Won A Global Wins Like: Omar El Sheriff Or Gameel Rateb.. We Have Great Directors Like "Yousef Shahin" So Believe Me Pall.. You Don't Need To See This Movie..


I had a video of the thing. And I think it was my fourth attempt that I managed to watch the whole film without drifting off to sleep. It's slow-moving, and the idea of a mid-Atlantic platform, which may have been revolutionary at the time, is now just a great big yawnaroony. Apart from Conrad Veidt, the rest of the cast are pretty forgettable, and it is only in the action towards the end that things get really interesting. When the water started to spill big-time it even, on one occasion, woke me up.But give the man his due. No one could hold a cigarette like Conrad Veidt. He doesn't wedge it between his index and middle fingers like the lesser mortals. He holds it in his fingers, while showing us the old pearly-browns. There are a few scenes in this film where the smoke drifts up to heaven against a dark background,and looks very artistically done. But it does not say much about this film if all that impresses you is the tobacco smoke.


This movie makes Canadians and Brits out to be asinine, moronic idiots. The men get stoned/drunk, and then they yell/beat each other up in almost every scene. The women are superfluous to the story  I do not understand what they are there for  they spend every scene causing a ruckus, or worse, milling around like mesmerized cattle. Apparently, Canadian women are either quarrelsome vulgar tramps or hulking hippie chicks. It's the standard knocked-up girlfriend, her loser boyfriend and his wicked mother ludicrousness that we have seen in countless movies before.Every character here is a carping, infantile stereotype. Not to mention that they all looked like they need a shower! And the idea of any kind of scene implying sex with George Wendt  shudder  is enough to make anyone gag! I watched the movie because Samuel West was in it  but I cannot understand why he would have accepted a role like this. Maybe he needed the money. Ian Tracey is a superb actor - the only one with a vague redeeming moment, but his talent is wasted here.As for the rest of the plot  the three imbeciles trying to get their dope back  yawn - or Karl  who is dead, but who is actually a character very much alive in the minds of those left behind (almost like Rebecca in Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece  although I am ashamed to even have thought to compare these two films), why even bother? Karl is so galling that you find the circumstances of his death gratifying.By the end of this wretched movie, I thought they would all have been better off going down with him on that boat!


This film is one giant pant load. Paul Schrader is utterly lost in his own bad screenplay. And his directing is about as comatose as it can be without his actually having been sleepwalking during the process. The worst though is Woody Harrelson, whom I ordinarily like when he's properly cast. He plays "the walker", a homosexual man in D.C. who plays social companion to the bored wives of the Washington elite. He couldn't have been more one dimensional if he had been cut out of a magazine and bounced around in front of the camera on a popsicle stick. His "southern accent" is that "off the rack" version that decrescendos from the beginning to the end of every line he delivers, as though the heat and humidity of the South is still draining him of every ounce of energy he has. It is monotonous. But, his is not the worst accent in the movie. His "boyfriend", played by Moritz Bleibtreau, attempts to affect some kind of a Mid East accent that is so clumsy he can barely deliver the bad lines written for him. He is incapable of rolling his r's in spite of the fact that in real life he is German, and speaks several languages - one of them being Italian! That's kind of a good reason to cast someone else don't ya think? From the story, to the screenplay, to the directing, to the camera work, to the performances by the leads, this movie is bad from beginning to end. The only tolerable moments in this film came from three supporting actresses: Lily Tomlin, Lauren Bacall, and Kristin Scott Thomas. Only these three managed to make it through this movie with their dignity in tact. In fact, all three are excellent, in spite of being trapped in a really bad film. Ufortunately, no one could ever be good enough to redeem this endless series of flaws. If you like these three actresses, watch them in something else. This movie is not worth your time.


I haven't seen this movie in a while, so I'm afraid I can't be very specific about details... It did have some interesting points. Ralph Bakshi's attempt at an animated adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien's masterpiece was a very ambitious project, so ambitious in fact that it went bankrupt at some point during the production. Therefore, not only does it stop abruptly somewhere around the middle of the second book of the trilogy (with sort of a shade of a hint of a sequel that was never made), the film itself seems less than finished. It seems that some characters were animated while others were filmed, but whether or not it's intentional is hard to say. The whole thing seems shabbily made and undone, especially the Orcs and the Nazgul. Another problem, of course, is the huge gaps in the plot. Bakshi was in a rush to finish this movie, and he somehow hoped to cram a book and a half in little more than two hours (the new trilogy by Peter Jackson does it in about twice that time.) Far too many important bits were left out (and I don't refer only to Tom Bombadil, which, I think, was lovely in the book but would look silly in a movie.) And of course, the ending, which is completely sudden and out of place. I'm not even sure if Bakshi originally intended to end the film there, or if he even had any idea where he's going to end it.The characters... well, most of them were okay. The hobbits don't look so bad (except for the gay Sam. Did you know that the producers of the new trilogy originally wanted to make Sam a woman so there would be a feminine lead character?) If you're a Tolkien fanatic (like me), watch this movie (though I'm not too sure about buying it. What special features does the DVD version have, anyway?) But know in advance that you're not going to watch a real 'Lord Of The Rings Movie' but not much more than a historical curiosity, which probably looks not much better than the 60s version would have had the Beatles carried on with their plan (I actually think a psychedelic LOTR could have been quite cool. The idea was to cast George as Gandalf, Paul as Frodo, Ringo as Sam and John as Gollum.) If you didn't read the book or didn't like it much or don't like animation films or don't want to see a half-finished movie... stay away.


BORN TO BOOGIE is a real 'find'--though a rock fan for nearly thirty years, I only first saw the film a few days ago, and rank it among the top rock films of all time; the music's terrific (the cream of T. Rex) and the visuals consistently exciting and unusual, leaving this viewer craving any more past directorial efforts of Ringo Starr, who did a fine job here. If you love the music, you'll be in T. Rextasy throughout, as Marc Bolan really is the star of the piece, front and center. Even the fact that some songs are repeated doesn't matter a bit: different venues, costuming, musical arrangements, and bizarre visual concepts are all used to lend different textures and a great deal of upbeat humor to what could have ended up as 'only' a concert film in other hands. As rich and full packed as BORN TO BOOGIE is, the film's only about an hour long, but what is there is totally satisfying. Therein lies my only criticism--the video package states something like 71 minutes, and at least one online source claims the film to be 67 minutes, but apparently it's more like 61 minutes of rocking fun.


- A Mexican priest becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage or something -I went to see this movie because it was about non-WWF wrestling and so I thought it might be funny. It wasn't. It is excruciating to watch. Embarrassing. Any and every opportunity for comedy is mercilessly squandered. I admit I don't like Jack Black anyway. After this I have been racking my brain to think of one good role that he has performed. The only thing I can come up with where he was o.k. was as a necessary foil to the John Cusack character in 'High Fidelity'. Jack Black is one of those awful relentless flat-out ham-it-up knockabout guys (like the little fat one in Abbot & Costello or Jerry Lewis) who should be told that being overbearingly idiotic is not the same thing as being funny. It is not even slapstick. It's just irritating. It's not even stoopid, it's just stupid.I heard good things about Napoleon Dynamite too, but if this is anything to go by I wont be rushing out to find it on DVD.


I remember stumbling upon this special while channel-surfing in 1965. I had never heard of Barbra before. When the show was over, I thought "This is probably the best thing on TV I will ever see in my life." 42 years later, that has held true. There is still nothing so amazing, so honestly astonishing as the talent that was displayed here. You can talk about all the super-stars you want to, this is the most superlative of them all!You name it, she can do it. Comedy, pathos, sultry seduction, ballads, Barbra is truly a story-teller. Her ability to pull off anything she attempts is legendary. But this special was made in the beginning, and helped to create the legend that she quickly became. In spite of rising so far in such a short time, she has fulfilled the promise, revealing more of her talents as she went along. But they are all here from the very beginning. You will not be disappointed in viewing this.


with this ABC family attempt of the hit blockbuster "cheaper by the dozen" comes an obnoxious amount of corny dialogue, shallow plot lines, and cheesy comebacks. With about two good actors among many wanna-be's, this movie was a major disappointment. Its a Hollywood-wannabe ditto of an already bad plot. Then, because they needed a lot of actors, that meant that they'd probably be more lenient. So the acting wasn't five-star. The plot moved fairly fast, and the twists were bad and had horrible timing. The junction of characters and the "end relationships" were also too mushy and clichéd for me. Spare yourself and rent something better.


This is the kind of picture John Lassiter would be making today, if it weren't for advances in CGI. And that's just to say that he'd be forgotten, too, if technology hadn't made things sexy and kewl since 1983. _Twice..._ has got the same wit, imagination, and sense of real excitement that you'd find in a Pixar flick, only executed under the restrictions of the medium c. 1983. Innovative animation techniques combine with a great script and excellent voicing to produce a movie that appeals on lots of levels. It should be spoken of in the same breath with _Spiritited Away_ and _Toy Story_.


It's obvious that the people who made 'Dead At The Box Office' love B-movie horror. Overt references to the genre are peppered throughout, from stock characters (the authority figure who doesn't believe the monstrous invasion is really happening) to Kevin Smith style discussions to reenacting Duane Jones' last moments from 'Night of the Living Dead' not once but twice.Unfortunately it takes more than love to make a good movie.The staging and shot choice are unexciting and unimaginative. While a common admonition in film school is to avoid 'Mastershot Theatre,' telling the story completely in a wide master shot, here we find the obverse as in several sequences it's hard to figure out the spatial relationships between characters as the story is told in a series of medium shots with no establishing shot to tie it together. Editing is drab and basic and at times there are unmotivated cuts. The lighting is flat and sometimes muddy, making the scenes in the darkened theatre hard to make out (was there lighting, or was this shot with available light only?). Some shots are out of focus. The dialogue is trite, and the performances, for the most part, one-note (Isaiah Robinson shows some energy and screen presence as Curtis, and the fellow playing the projectionist has some pleasantly dickish line readings; Michael Allen Williams as the theater manager and Casey Kirkpatrick as enthusiastic film geek Eric have some nice moments). The premise is silly, even for a B horror flick (Also, it's too bad Dr Eisner was unaware of Project Paperclip - he could've saved himself a lot of trouble!). The 'zombies' are non-threatening, and their makeup is unconvincing (although the chunky zombie trying to get a gumball out of the machine raised a smile). For a zombie fan film, there is very little blood or violence, although what there is, is handled pretty well. The incidental music, while stylistically uneven, is kind of nice at times, and there are some good foley effects. The 'Time Warp' parody was a fun listen, although the images going along with it were less fun to watch. Unfortunately, the looped dialogue sounds flat. Was this shot non-sync (doubtful, it looks like video through and through)? I watched the special introduction by Troma Films' Lloyd Kaufman before the main feature - although it consisted essentially of Kaufman plugging his own stuff and admitting that he hadn't seen the movie while someone mugged in a Toxie mask, its production and entertainment values were higher than 'Dead...' itself (quick aside to whoever put the DVD together - the countdown on film leader beeps only on the flash-frame 2, not on every number plus one more after). For that matter, the vampire film theatregoers are seen watching early in 'Dead...' looked a lot more entertaining than this. Recommendation to avoid, unless you know someone involved in the production or are an ardent Lloyd Kaufman completist (he plays 'Kaufman the Minion' in the film-within-a-film).(Full disclosure: my girlfriend is an extra in this movie. I swear this did not color my review.)


This movie should be number one on the bottom 100. The acting is so horrible that when my son and I watched it we nearly got physically ill. And the story is worse. I could go on and on about how bad it is but all I really wanted to do was add a warning to frankbob's review as I see no one else has gone to the trouble of doing so yet. Don't waste your time, money, energy or anything else on this movie. Thank goodness we saw it on TV so we didn't spend anything on it. Had we, I would have been forced to write the people responsible for this abomination and be forced to hurl an execration in their general direction. In conclusion, I would like to say that I have always enjoyed watching Carrie Fisher act. But I am sad to say that she is not worth watching in this particular film. Don't spoil your opinion of Carrie by viewing it.


Since this picture is classified a "pure entertainment" work and since there are already many comments on it, I'd like hereby to address something relevant to the abuse of humour. We can see that Marlon Wayans is playing the joker role in this film. Certainly as long as he has been involved in the casting job, he has always been acting as a little man-an actor can change his customary dress but can hardly change his physical appearance-and the latter one can be an advantage when necessary. However far away from what I expected, I saw an image very disguising, pretending to expose different aspects of the baby life by mistake of a forty-year- old criminal. And with a ridiculous happy ending. So what is the point? Many elements are mixed up, some principal ones are violence, sex and criminal activities, amongst which the story is badly composed and to some extent, lack common sense: where is Vanessa when the peace of her house is violated and her husband's life being pursued? In addition the diamond is even bigger than the world's No.1 Cullinan! But the most sickening facet is the continuous attempt to make up the little man as a superman by showing his physical weak points. And they call it humour. A diamond is precious, hard and fragile; it cannot be cut by any other material but only be conquered by the hot blood of a male goat. Hence it's no more a diamond but pieces of debris.


Isn't anyone else tired of that old cliché' where a nearly dead person shows up in a horror film, gives us some informations, and then blasts his head off for no apparent reason? I know I am.The sad thing is that it's use in this film is worthless. If you have seen the first film (the first remake I should say) then the information given is completely worthless, because you would have already known it. I guess, you can that it isn't worthless to the main characters..but then why does the idiot shoot himself in the head? Wouldn't he want to live? Sure, he would have died anyway..This is the second film to be titled "The Hills Have Eyes II." The first being the sequel to the original 70's film. This is where it gets a little complicated for someone like me. See, I'm probably part of minority of people my age that even knew there was a HHE2 to begin with, much less an original HHE1. And now that we have a sequel to a remake and the fact that this sequel is named exactly as the sequel to the original HHE1...it just makes it worse! But anyways..Wes Craven's original Hills Have Eyes was decent. In the end, though, the idea was better than the presentation, but he most likely had a low budget. To be quite honest, Wes Craven isn't that good of a horror director. He's only made a few good horror movies (Nightmare on Elm St., New Nightmare), a few alright ones (Scream) and a bunch of horrible ones (Cursed, Shocker, Vampire in Brooklyn). Oh yeah, and he made Swamp Thing, as well...but the original HHE2 falls under the latter category. I've only seen a few minutes, but it was terrible.Now he has co-written the new HHE2..and it's such a disappointment! Last year's HHE remake was even better than the original film. It was tense. I guess it had to do with the fact that the main characters were a family, and not a bunch of beer and pot and sex crazy teenagers. It made us feel dirty. For the first hour, we were in hell, and finally in the last few moments, the good guys got revenge on the bad guys and it felt good..This new film has no tension. No suspense whatsoever. Just violent things happening to mostly stupid people. There is hardly any menacing presence here. Just ugly hobos hiding under rocks.I'm getting tired of horror movies where people die because of the stupid mistakes they keep making. It was just the other day that I watching "Deep Blue Sea" where Samuel L. Jackson kept on walking around the water, while giving the speech, and then he gets eaten by a shark, only because the idiot stayed to close to the water..something that nobody would do in the given situation! Here is the exact same thing. People go off by themselves to take a leak even though they know people are dying..seriously, couldn't a potty break wait? And then when you think people would have learned, someone else goes of by themselves! Seriously, isn't more scary when the characters are bringing their A-game and still losing? I would think so...It even under delivers. It should have made the first remake look like "The Fog" remake (which was less menacing than an episode of "Becker"). More bad guys. More time in the caves. More tension. More of everything.But it actually downgrades. Less bad guys. No tension. Sure we have more time in the caves, but not a whole lot happens there. In the end, it only seems like there is two or three bad guys. The last film made it seem like a whole tribe of people. Where is this tribe? Who keeps on watching them through binoculars? Seriously, these are the things this film should have brought us, but it ends with the exact same promise that the last film gave us, with that exact same "being watched" scene. Come on! I'll give the devil it's due. The look of the film is good..but thats it.I don't even think fans of gore will like this..though I'm probably wrong! There is gore (though most of it is sped-up while in the dark), but without the tension, and characters you even care about..the gore does nothing in my book! In the end, you're not frightened. You;re not shocked (unless you're an 8 year old girl). You don't even feel like you have seen anything new.


in this movie, joe pesci slams dunks a basketball. joe pesci...and being consistent, the rest of the script is equally not believable.pesci is a funny guy, which saves this film from sinking int the absolute back of the cellar, but the other roles were pretty bad. the father was a greedy businessman who valued money more than people, which wasn't even well-played. instead of the man being an archetypal villain, he seemed more like an amoral android programmed to make money at all costs. then there's the token piece that is assigned to pesci as a girlfriend or something...i don't even remember...she was that forgettable.anyone who rates this movie above a 5 or 6 is a paid member of some sort of film studio trying to up the reputation of this sunken film, or at least one of those millions of media minions who can't critique efficiently (you know, the people who feel bad if they give anything a mark below 6).stay away...far away. and shame on comedy central, where i saw this film. they usually pick better.


Interesting mix of comments that it would be hard to add anything constructive to. However, i'll try. This was a very good action film with some great set pieces. You'll note I specified the genre. I didn't snipe about the lack of characterisation, and I didn't berate the acting. Enjoy if for what it is people, a well above average action film. I could go on but I've made my comment.


While the overall idea of Escape from Atlantis was intriguing, I found the film to be far less than what I had hoped for upon reading the plot summery. Perhaps I am too much of a child in the technological age: the movie was made, as it is now 2002, an official five years ago --after viewing fantasy epics such as Lord of the Rings, and science fiction feats like Star Wars, as a whole it could not compare to other movies of similar line such as Dinotopia or Homer's The Odyssey.My beef, basically, is that I couldn't relate --I am just about the same age of the children (a young adult), and have no trouble putting myself in the place of a middle-aged man if that is the character available. But the picture did not take me to a different mental plain of existence. I didn't find myself saying 'ACK! I would have done the SAME thing!'. It did not open the doors to my imagination. Even without comparing it to high-budget films or other TV movies, standing alone, certain aspects of the feature I found to be cliche: The character development in the children occurred too rapidly for my liking, seeing too much of the stereotypical selfish-teenager-bitter-after-divorce image changing into the we're-a-big-happy-family-let's-never-separate-again feel that can ultimately make or break a picture in the long run. Even the characters themselves could have undergone improvement: a typical set of one or the other stereotypes. There was the ever-present selfish beauty looking to be rebellious, accompanied by Mr. Perfect image of combining athletics, good looks and intelligence yet a brooding attitude, and lastly the smart-aleck little brother we find to be so common these days. While I know the personalities pushed the story along, I think that adding more individuality as far as nuances and more unique differences would have made it a more enjoyable --and believable (as far as character)-- movie.I do have to raise my glass to the costume and set design --that made it worth finishing to the end for me. Don't get me wrong: all movies are worth seeing for yourself, and the opinion of one could never account for the opinion of many, but I think that with a little more depth to the script, and a little more (I cannot believe I am saying this) realness I dare say Escape from Atlantis could have been magical.


Well, I just discovered that there is a show more disgusting and shocking than "Little Britain" and I like it! "The League of Gentlemen" is a sick British comedy that is about the most awful, insane and disgusting small town in all the UK. This place makes Dibley and Craggy Island (from "The Vicar of Dibley" and "Father Ted") seem pretty normal!! The format of the show is a lot like LITTLE Britain except that all of it centers around the townspeople of this one hellish town. Both shows feature the same skits again and again every episode and some obviously inspired "Little Britain" (particularly the job seeking class skit). But the show differs because although it is crude like "Little Britain" (hence not a show for kids), the show has a sick and sadistic quality that sets it apart from all these shows. In particular, animal cruelty and serial killing are recurring themes throughout the show.Now if you haven't guessed, this is NOT a show for kids, the easily offended or normal people and that's probably why I liked it. However, you really do need very thick skin and a love of the awful to enjoy this to the max. Funny and incredibly irreverent beyond belief--you have to see it to believe it.


I wouldn't say this totally sucked, but if it wasn't for Netflix I wouldn't even have this in my house. Steve Martin's eccentric president of a chain of health food stores falls flat. He's just not funny. He's another in a LONG slew of SNL rejects that can only find work whoring themselves to the next SNL movie. The birthing coach with the Elmer Fudd lisp is about as funny as it is original. Amy Poehler simply goes through the same motions she would for a 7 minute SNL skit which is about as funny as SNL lately. The only thing going for this movie is that Tina Fey is easy on the eyes. The ending was predictable as soon as you heard her character couldn't get pregnant. The subject matter could have opened up to other comedic attempts, but it seems to simple simmer along, not really entertaining or creating laughs.


This movie is not a kung fu movie. This is a comedy about kung fu. And if, before making this film, Sammo Hung hadn't spent some time watching films by the great French comic filmmaker Jaques Tati (i.ie., e.g., esp. Jour de fête), he is certainly on the same wave length.Personally, I think Tati's films are hilarious; but they're not to all tastes. Some have told me that they loathe his work. I've never figured out why, but I think it's because the character that Tati usually plays himself is so totally dead pan, so unaffected by the events around him (which he is usually causing) that many miss the more subtle comic bits happening around him.At any rate, Tati's main shtick - or at least his best known - is to take a pretentiously upright petite bourgeoisie with 19th century sensibilities and drop him into 20th century France where he must confront a society that is largely defined by the gradual eroding of those sensibilities. He usually has serious difficulties with little things like record players or radios. He's a hazard in a car, but the world's no safer when he rides a bicycle. But through it all, he never loses his aplomb, which is derived from his inner recognition that the nineteenth century was more interesting than the 20th overall.In a similar fashion, the character Sammo Hung himself plays is a country boy come to the big city of Hong Kong, utterly convinced that what makes the city interesting is that Bruce Lee made kung fu movies there. This gets him into trouble in small ways, since he takes in stride happenstance which would never be noticed in a small town but which are deemed inappropriate in a big city - such as the moment when he appears to be urinating in the street, A cop stops him, only to discover that Hung is actually just squeezing water out of his shirt, soaked during an accidental dip in the bay. What's interesting about this gag is why it is Hung doesn't understand what the cop's fuss is all about - in a country town, as long as no one's looking, if you gotta go you gotta go. In other words, Hung is not really urinating in the street - but he certainly would - and what's the problem officer? Of course Hung's obsession with Bruce Lee also gets him into big troubles as well. He beats a gang of thugs who have refused to pay his restaurant-owner uncle. Of course, in a Bruce Lee movie, the thugs would be considered trounced, and they would have learned their lesson. But in Hung's Hong Kong, reality unfortunately prevails, and the thugs return when he's not around, to trounce his uncle.Of course, Hung finally triumphs in the end, just as Tati always did. Characters like this must always triumph (at least in comedy) because they are completely innocent, and as such, despite their comic missteps and misunderstandings, they really represent what is best in the humans we admire and wish to be. We don't really want to be Bruce Lee (who has to experience the loss of all of his friends before he gets a chance to beat the bad-guy), we, in our own innocence, really want a world where Lee's heroics are possible.Unfortunately, that world only exists on film."Ah, but what if...?" - and in that question we find Sammo Hung at his comic best.


I should have known when I looked at the box in the video store and saw Lisa Raye - to me, she's the female Ernie Hudson A.K.A. "Le Kiss of Death" for *ANY* movie. Its almost *guaranteed* the movie will be bad (e.g. Congo)if Hudson is in it (with the exception of the Ghostbusters films, which were intentionally campy and bad). Despite my instincts, and the fact that I just saw Civil Brand, yet another cinematic "tour de force" starring Lisa Raye, I rented it anyway. After all, I ignored my "Hudson instinct" on OZ and ended up watching a very quality series so I figured I'd give this movie a chance.If you are a lover of bad movies, this is a definite must see! This has got to be the most unintentionally funny movie I've seen in a loooong time. The plot is fairly straightforward: Racheal's (Monica Calhoun) sister is killed by a band of brigands (Led by Bobby Brown!) and, like many an action movie before this, she straps on her guns ONE LAST TIME and vows to avenge her sisters death. To do this, she reassembles the titular Gang of Roses (supposedly based on a true story of a female gang) and they go out and exact revenge and, along the way, there's some subplot or something or other about some gold that might be buried in the town. One nice thing I will say about this movie is that from what I could tell, the stars did their own riding and they looked GREAT galloping.The funniest (albiet unintentionally funny) scenes? Look for when they introduce Stacy Dash's character or when Calhoun's character rescinds her vow not to strap on her guns (replete with a clenched fisted cry to the heavens) or Lil' Kim's character joking with Lisa Raye's character or Stacy Dash's character being killed or Lil' Kim's character convincing Lisa Raye's character to rejoin the gang or the Asian Chick or Macy Grey's character talking bout "The debt is paid", etc. With the exception of Calhoun's Racheal and Bobby Brown's Left-Eye, I can't even remember the names of the other characters cuz I was laughing so hard when they were introduced.If the director had gone for parody and broad comedy this would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, he tries to take it seriously seemingly without first taking exposition, sound design (in his defense, Hip-Hop is notoriously difficult to work into a period piece), set design, script writing nor period historical research (was it me,or were these the cleanest people with the whitest teeth in the old west?) seriously. Usually when I see a movie that's not so good, I ask myself "Could you have done any better?" This is the first time in a long time where the answer is an unequivocal "YES!"


I don't know why the critics trashed this movie. I hardly ever agree with them anyway.The movie could have been a little scarier - I don't usually go to Horror movies! I even had to psych myself up to see it in the daytime. I needn't have bothered! ;) (The Cinema was full of kids too, heh! ;) ... Liam was great as always. I also liked Catharine Zeta Jones (Theo) and Lili Taylor (Eleanor-Nell)The house was very Gothic and beautiful in a spooky way. The special and sound effects were awesome. I also loved the music score, particularly the gentle tunes for Eleanor and her journey to save the children, how she grew out of her stagnant routine and life and finally gain her power, peace and freedom.


While the acting and directing could be argued as having some merit - the storyline is a very poor wannabe Vietnam movie with the country name simply changed.At the very least, for a movie to hold some credibility, try and have some semblance of accuracy in equipment, weapons and tactics. Nevermind the gross misrepresentation of the behaviour of the troops as a norm.Aside for the limited use as silly propaganda about the South African Defence Force, it serves little purpose - definitely no entertainment value.Aspiring movie makers - this is how not to make a war movie. Do some research, and have some pride in your product.


A have a female friend who is currently being drawn into a relationship with an SOB who has a long term girlfriend. Of course the SOB is very good-looking, charming, etc and my friend is a very intelligent woman. Watching Jean Pierre Leaud's character at work is exactly like watching what goes on in real life when guys like that destroy the lives of our female friends. It's tragic, and you know she's going to end up very hurt, but there's nothing you can do. Leaud is brilliant. Totally empty. A blank throughout, he pulls the faces and tells the stories he thinks will get the reaction he wants.The scene two hours in when Leaud and Lebrun have made love, and the next morning he puts on a record and, very sweetly and charmingly, sings along to amuse her is brilliant. The "What the hell am I doing here with this idiot" expression that flickers back and forth across her face will be in my memory for a long time to come.It's a long film, but see it in one go, preferably in a cinema. Takes a while to get into, but then the time just disappears.


I have loved this movie all of my life. It's such an intelligent story also, with plenty of classical allusions. eg. The ship that went missing decades earlier was called the Bellerophon. Well, in classical mythology this was the man who slew the Chimera, a legendary beast composed of two or more other creatures. In FP, Walter Pidgeon is clearly the chimera- himself and his Id monster. I like movies where the writers have clearly credited their audiences with a modicum of intelligence, unlike most modern blockbusters which spend $150m on special effects, but about $1.50 on a screenplay.Cheers


This was an absolutely spellbinding series and was sorry that I was only able to catch a few shows way back when it aired late night in the UK. The style of it was so different from others of its kind and the whole thing had an unnerving air of stylish dread to it. All you have to do is read all the positive comments (not a single negative that I can see) to realise what a really innovative series this was and how it caught at the imagination. I now understand from reading the comments it got CANCELLED that's just so unbelievable. What a bunch of 'headless overpaid suited turkeys' there must have been (or just maybe still are) running around to do that.


As a low budget enterprise in which the filmmakers themselves are manufacturing and distributing the DVDs themselves, we perhaps shouldn't expect too much from Broken in disc form. And yet what's most remarkable about this whole achievement is the fact that this release comes with enough extras to shame a James Cameron DVD and a decidedly fine presentation.With regards to the latter, the only major flaw is that Broken comes with a non-anamorphic transfer. Otherwise we get the film in its original 1.85:1 ratio, demonstrating no technical flaws and looking pretty much as should be expected. Indeed, given Ferrari's hands on approach in putting this disc together you can pretty much guarantee such a fact.The same is also true of the soundtrack. Here we are offered both DD2.0 and DD5.1 mixes and whilst I'm uncertain as to which should be deemed the "original", the fact that Ferrari had an involvement in both means neither should be considered as inferior. Indeed, though the DD5.1 may offer a more atmosphere viewing experience owing to the manner in which it utilises the score, both are equally fine and free of technical flaws.As for extras the disc is positively overwhelmed by them. Take a look at the sidebar on the right of the screen and you'll notice numerous commentaries, loads of featurettes and various galleries. Indeed, given the manner in which everything has been broken down into minute chunks rather than compiled into a lengthy documentary, there really is little to discuss. The 'Anatomy of a Stunt' featurette, for example, is exactly what it claims to be, and the same goes for the rest of pieces. As such we get coverage on pretty much ever aspect of Broken's pre-production, production and post-production. And whilst it may have been preferable to find them in a more easily digestible overall 'making of', in this manner we do get easy access to whatever special feature we may wish to view.Of the various pieces, then, it is perhaps only the commentaries which need any kind of discussion. Then again, there's also a predictable air to each of the chat tracks. The one involving the actors is overly jokey and doesn't take the film too seriously. Ferrari's pieces are incredibly enthusiastic about the whole thing. And the technical ones are, well, extremely technical. Of course, we also get some crossover with what's been covered elsewhere on the discs, but at only 19 minutes none of these pieces outstay their welcome. Indeed, all in all, a fine extras package.


First of all my heartfelt commiserations to anyone who bought a cinema ticket in the hope of seeing a film in the same mould as the fantastic Gregory's Girl and Local Hero but ended up leaving the theatre feeling disappointed and vaguely cheated. While it's true that sequels are usually, bar a few notable exceptions, a mistake and exist merely to provide studio executives with an opportunity to cash in on the success of a previous film by offering us either a thinly disguised retread of the original story or a plot line so far removed from the intentions of the original that the resulting film makes no sense. In the case of Gregory's Two Girls, Bill Forsyth has the dubious honour of managing to commit both sins - on the one hand revisiting the plot of Gregory's Girl, while at the same time serving up a frankly incredible and moronic storyline involving Scottish arms dealers. Schoolboy Gregory is now a teacher at the same school where at the tender age of sixteen, he harboured a hopeless passion for the football playing Dorothy. Although now thirty five, Gregory still harbours a hopeless passion but now for the football playing Frances, also sixteen, despite the fact that music teacher, Bel has made it clear that she is attracted to him. His passion for Frances and his desire to impress her lead to his involvement in a scheme to expose a local arms dealer who also happens to be an old schoolfriend. There's no point in going any further as the rest of the story is forgettable and the ending makes no real sense at all. The main problem lies with the character of Gregory himself, in that there is no sign of the endearing and charming sixteen year old Gregory who actively and comically pursues Dorothy convinced that he would eventually win her over. At thirty five, Gregory is presented to us as a rather sad and friendless creature whose life is neither active nor comic. Outside of work his time is spent watching videos of Noam Chomsky and reading magazines about international injustices. As his friends and family from the previous film have seemingly vanished, save two pointless scenes with his younger sister, who no longer offers him advice or seems at all interested in his life, we are left confused about what it is Gregory really wants, who he is and why he is the way he is. Why for example is he friendless? Why does he never see his father, who is clearly still alive? Why has he returned to teach at the school he once attended? Why is he so interested in Noam Chomsky and injustice? Why has he become so apathetic? Why is he attracted to Frances? Why isn't he attracted to Bel until the last twenty minutes of the film? What in heaven's name do Bel or Frances see in him as he is neither drop dead gorgeous or even interesting? Why does he continue to try and impress Frances even after he and Bel have become an item and when their association threatens to completely disrupt his life? Are we really to believe that a Scottish arms dealer openly selling weapons of torture to oppressive regimes could manage to evade media scrutiny but fall foul of a couple of school-kids? Does Gregory really think that dumping a handful of computers into the sea will change anything? To make matters worse, actor John Gordon Sinclair attempts to rehash his performance as the adolescent Gregory right down to the facial expressions and awkward body language. Unfortunately on a thirty five year old it just comes across as odd and vaguely creepy. On top of that, it's hard to feel any sympathy for, or empathy with a teacher who has erotic dreams involving sex with one of their uniform wearing pupils while they both lie on a pile of gym mats. Rather than being amusing it simply smacks of paedophilia. It's hard to know what was going through Bill Forsyth's head when he wrote this script or why he thought fans of the original film would embrace a story so completely lacking in the charm, wit and warmth that turned the first movie into a classic. I can only assume that the plan was to craft a film about a man who was refusing to grow up and commit to adult life and perhaps whose happiest memory was of being sixteen and pursuing the best looking girl in the school but who by degrees is forced to accept that a life lived in the past is no life at all.That at least could have been the basis of a film which was thematically interesting and intelligent. As it is Gregory's Two Girls adds up 116 wasted and pointless minutes saying nothing and signifying even less. Gregory's Girl was responsible for launching Bill Forsyth's career, here's hoping that Gregory's Two Girls won't be responsible for sinking it.


to communicate in film essential things of life - like what is life, does it have a meaning? - is sheer impossible. Of course possible answers to these questions are demonstrated in every film (story), but communication needs a direct appeal to consciousness. This happens if the input from the senses overrules the "input" from our mind, i.e. our thoughts. Few directors know how to communicate essential things. Tarkovsky, is one. His "Stalker" shows images of existence, communicates life as it shows itself and yet escapes your mind. I think De Zee and De Graaff do the same.


This thrown together piece of fecal matter adds together so many ludicrous scenarios that in the end it's a laugh riot of absolute hilarity. Too bad as the premise is promising (as it so often is in Duhllywood), but in the hands of this scriptwriter it segues off into la la land. Lowe is in Prison serving time for a DUI that killed off his mistress. We get to see him having nightmares just so that we know he feels real BAD about this. Then his cell mate neighbor hangs himself. Or does he? Lowe has some suspicions but drops them quickly. His suspicions are so weak that the bad guys have nothing to worry about. So why do they then set him up to be killed? Ah, that's where this story could get interesting. That's where it falls off the rails, and once off the rails it decides it can get away with insulting the viewers attention for the next numbing hour.****************SPOILERS****************************I won't bore with an endless recounting of the irrationality of what follows, but contemplate this ending. Lowe has been trapped by the bad guys on a train. They want a tape he has, because that tape will screw their boss, and them. So on to the train come 3 cops, guns drawn, ready to rescue Lowe. The bad guys kill the cops, in front of half the passengers and then....continue chasing Lowe to get the tape. HELLO!!!! killing 3 cops in public will get you into deep doodo, to hell with the tape. Yet off they go through a mall shooting up the place, as if the public did not exist as witnesses, and in the end Lowe is grabbed and the bad guy still wants the tape!!!


*SPOILERS*I'm sure back when this was released in 1958 it was much appropriate for its time. Back then films were slower paced to allow audiences to follow and analyze the story. Here a man moves into a house owned by his last wife that died mysteriously with his new wife. The gardener Mickey (played by Alex Nicol, who also directed he film) really is an underappreciated character. He gets a skull to indirectly warn Jenni that she is in trouble, since he knew that there was foul play in the first wife's death. He can't tell Jenni directly what happened, so he tries to scare her off with the skull. Jenni, we also find out, saw her parents die, thus causing a lifetime of mental anguish that lead to institutionalization. Like many audiences today, I found the pacing to be a little too slow for my tastes. But if you like slow-paced horror without a lot of gore, this film is for you.


An actor asks, "What's my motivation?," to understand his or her character. After viewing this this "docudrama," this vague and haphazard farce, a viewer wonders what anyone's motivation was.This inept offspring of daytime T.V. (the Oprah show) missed by a mile a great opportunity to explore weighty issues.Its characters were all shallow and superficial, its story line far less socially redeeming than a "Simpsons" episode. It gratuitously portrayed investigating police as unprofessional and incompetent. It failed to offer why the court might treat the main character, a female child molester, so differently than it would have a male perp.Why did this unrepentant woman begin "grooming" her second grade student, beginning an affair with him when he returned to her sixth grade class? Why did the boy's mother testify in her behalf? The simple answer is overwhelming narcissism, plus generational rationalization and greed. The movie gave no hint of that.Why wasn't the viewer informed that the victim's mother sold interview rights to print and television tabloids, parading her adolescent son on "The Today Show"? That Mary Kay's lawyer cashed in, she herself appealing a "Son of Sam" statute so she could benefit from her crime by selling her story to the highest bidder?Why wasn't it explained that LeTourneau's father was a former right wing Republican congressman, the 1972 American Independent Presidential candidate, the John Birch Society President? In 1983 John Schmitz's political career ended when he was found to have had children by his own community college student, exposed only when that mistress sexually mutilated their infant son? Yet Letourneau's dad had removed his many kids from "too liberal" Catholic schools, fighting to keep all schoolchildren from receiving any sex education?A month after her conditional release, again pregnant with the now 14-year-old's second daughter, Mary Kay received 7 1/2 years in prison for numerous probation violations. A prophetic editorial regarding the sad affair then appeared in the Seattle Times: "At the end of two wretched hours, LeTourneau was led off to jail, and this salacious melange of made-for-TV seaminess was over, until casting begins."Sure enough, 18 months later, filming of this travesty was underway.


I own Ralph Bakshis forgotten masterpiece Fire & Ice on an old OOP rental videotape. Well for one thing, this is better than any other Conan-esque film you'll ever see. Sure, it's cheesy, but who cares? It stood the test of time, and the only way it started to look cheesy is in comparisons to modern fantasy epics like LOTR:FOTR (though I love that film.) The plot goes like this: After a battle between Fire & Ice, a kings daughter is kidnapped by Jarols (Ice) subhuman creatures, while a sole survivor of a victimized village rescues her. Yeah it doesn't sound as a original as Nurse Betty, but that's not the point. It is really to bring to life an interesting idea of a world of two enemies: Fire & Ice. And it succeeds. As for the action scenes: superb. They are well handled, have terrific suspence, and have plenty of loud noises. Just check out the climatic battle, now THAT'S an ending! The acting and dialogue: competent. Really. They aren't gonna be nominated for an Oscar, but they are OK and don't get on your nerves. The animation is quite good. Shot on 3D and rotoscoped (I THINK), it looks pretty good. A lot of the backgrounds look really detailed and well drawn, and although the character designs feel a little 1-dimentional, they are OK. Overall, this is a fine neglected little gem and will entertain you more than any of the superfical "entertainment". 10/10


I found this film to funny from the start. John Waters use of characters reminded of some of the down to earth characters from Fellini films. Christina Ricci has once again expanded her abilities in this film. If you are looking for a fun movie without preaching, I recommend this film.


Sure, it was cheesy and nonsensical and at times corny, but at least the filmmakers didn't try. While most TV movies border on the brink of mediocrity, this film actually has some redeeming qualities to it. The cinematography was pretty good for a TV film, and Viggo Mortensen displays shades of Aragorn in a film about a man who played by his own rules. Most of the flashback sequences were kind of cheesy, but the scene with the mountain lion was intense. I was kind of annoyed by Jason Priestly's role in the film as a rebellious shock-jock, but then again, it's a TV MOVIE! Despite all of the good things, the soundtrack was atrocious. However, it was nice to see Tucson, Arizona prominently featured in the film.


This film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow
 Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel.


To sat how awful The Shield is, you'd have to write pages and pages, so suffice it to say that it is a monument to bad directing."When Directors Go Awry" should have been the title of this production. Indeed, directors are supposed to infuse their work with a sense of visual style and story-telling that propels the story forward.How is constantly shaking the camera and playing with the zoom lens a "style"? How is it propelling the story forward? Of course there's also the "editing by random numbers" nonsense. Apparently it's become hip to just cut randomly.I guess it's too much work to do good editing.Well, that made it too much work for most people to watch The Shield which languished as one of the most over-hyped and unwatched shows of all time.


I was searching through Hollywood video last night with a friend trying to find a good-looking horror movie to watch over the New Year's weekend. As I was looking through the shelves, "Severed" spotted my eye, and I grabbed it off the shelf and it looked like it might be a decent B-grade horror movie. The cover looked fairly good. The plot sounded semi-interesting. So I rented it. What a mistake. Don't be fooled by the cover, which actually looks decent. I'm thinking that more money was spent on the cover artwork than the movie itself. The film follows two police detectives who are tracking down a voodoo-inspired, ritualistic serial killer called "The Head Hunter", who is decapitating victims left and right in some unnamed city (probably Los Angeles), and they become drawn into his world of ritualized murder.Story sound somewhat good? Well, it is, and this movie could've been halfway decent. But good God, it was bad! Almost everything about it was laughable. The opening scene features some redheaded actress in a car trying to talk on this huge, outdated cell phone, and for whatever reason, she goes outside and talks to some guy. Then, a shadow comes up behind them, hacks off his head, and the girl drops to the ground and starts crawling (for absolutely no reason) while trying to dial 911. Sound ridiculous? Yep, you bet it is. The entire movie looks like it was filmed on a VHS-quality camera, and I'm assuming it was. The acting was mostly awful, and the special effects were far from believable. And the scenes with the policemen on the phone were awful - the voice on the other line was echoing and it sounded like it was being recorded in someone's bathroom. Everything about this movie was simply amateurish and tedious, and it didn't hold my interest for very long, and I often found myself bored and tired, mostly because of the bad acting and the horrible cinematography. The pacing was bad. Everything was just bad.Overall, "Severed" is a failed attempt at what could have been a decent B-movie. The plot was good and I think if this film had been handled better and had a higher budget, it could've been alright. But this movie fell flat on it's face. If you're expecting something semi-decent, you'll be sorely disappointed. Only recommended if you can tolerate D-grade horror flicks. Otherwise, you'll probably want to stay away from this straight-to-video garbage. It had a little potential, but it was beyond a mess. 1/10.


This movie was excellent, a bit scary, but excellent at that. For those of you that have heard of columbine and know the story, it gives you a idea of what and why these kids did what they did. In the back of your mind you know that people think of this stuff, but you never realize just how bad it is, and this movie makes you realize. It's seriously that good. It also makes you think twice before you make fun of someone that's for sure. I read a book on the columbine massacre and it made me think, this movie makes me worry and scares me to death. On the downside it's like a how to kill someone guide for serial killers. I recently received a threat, and I blew it off thinking nothing of it, but after this movie I think you should take everything seriously. Some people are crazy and you never truly know which they are, so take it seriously and don't under estimate someone.


I second the motion to make this into a movie, it would be great!! I was also amazed at the storyline and character build in this game. I have played it again and again (over 20 times) just to try something different and it gets more interesting every time. Final Fantasy eat your heart out!! THIS SHOULD BE MADE INTO A MOVIE!!!!! If anyone out there wants some help to start a petition to have this made into a movie, please contact me. I would love to help with that project any day. The graphics are great for PS1 and even make you forget it is PS1 most of the time. The multitude of side quests makes it different every time you play.


Izzard was both hysterical and insightful in his humor. He definitely represents his own little niche in the comedic world.It's a pity more Americans won't see this stand-up routine due to its PAL-only availability.


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, the little slave girl, Alice and Jared Harris imitating Christopher Walken is what makes this movie entertaining. Alice's smoking, drinking and uncanny way of showing up when her name is called is strange and interesting. I have to applaud Jared for his Christopher Walken imitation, and Christopher Walken for allowing this to be in the movie.


Michael Cacoyannis has had a relatively long career but has surprisingly few credits to his name, including some real duds such as the unfunny cold war satire The Day the Fish Came Out. Iphigenia, however, is a highlight. Adapted by Cacoyannis from the play by Euripides, it's a superior rendering of the classic tragedy and recently made its first television appearance in many years in the United States courtesy the Flix Channel. The film is shot on an epic scale but is decidedly not a 'big' film, with the emphasis placed on the simple story: in supplication to the gods, King Agamemnon (Kostas Kazakos)is compelled to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia (Tatiana Papamoschou), much to the consternation of Queen Clytemnastrae (Irene Papas). Kazakos and Papas are both outstanding, but it is the stunning Papamoschou who brings the most interesting elements to the screen, blending the innocence of childhood with the dawning realization that she is the pawn in a political game. Strongly recommended for fans of international cinema.


Okay, like many other such films, spawned out of a SNL skit. But Tim Meadows does a fairly fantastic job of making a 3 minute one-dimensional character into a moderately viable comedic movie character. He drops amusingly consistently-threated one-liners with fair frequency, Billy Dee Williams is in it though his Lando days are long gone, and the entire thing is shot pretty well. True, it's not great art, but if you went into Wayne's World looking for the Gone With The Wind, you did something wrong. Enjoyable for what it is.......


I do agree that though this story by Melville just might be unfilmable, this isn't even a credible try. To move the story into the 20th century just outrages the original story's intent and nature; possibly you might have been able to move it over to England, but it must be a period piece. Even our story narrator--the proprietor--tells it in a flashback, going back even further, somewhere around 1800. Towards the end of the 19th century, a strangely disobedient worker would be discarded without a thought. And the 20th century? Come on! Give me an expletive deleted break!!! Even around 1800, such behavior didn't work very well, in view of the ending. And the movie's ending? I don't know what it was, because I didn't watch the entire travesty--I had to stop. This was like setting "Streetcar Named Desire" in Elizabethan England.


A killer, wearing a plastic white mask and black overcoat, is killing the friends of Hollywood producer Shawn Banning(Danny Wolske)who inherited his position when someone sliced open his former employer from crotch to chest. Perhaps the psychopath is newly hired Maddy(Dabbie Rochon), an attractive, raven haired beauty with a troubled family past, plagued with nightmares. Shawn and his friends play a practical joke on Maddy, concerning a supposed Murder Club they started where each member randomly selected a victim to kill. When Maddy accidentally murders a woman in a parking garage because of a dent put into her car by this person, she finds that Shawn's pals were jerking her chain. But, Shawn and his comrades are concerned about Maddy's admittance towards committing the murder and contemplate turning her into the proper authorities. Deciding to wait on a definite decision, each member fall prey to the white-masked psycho with Maddy a suspect considering the fact that she already has killed before. Or, is someone else behind these murders? Low budget slasher, executive produced by Charles Band, with gore murders that fail to convince. Plenty of tits on display and Allen Nabors goofy character Chris might entertain those with low expectations. The murders include a stomach being opened with intestines showing, a neck sliced, an electrical cord thrown into a pool frying a female victim who had all day to escape, an ax buried into the back of a male victim, and, to top it all, a couple are strangled by a rope during their sexual climax(..for added effect, the killer uses the breaker bar of a socket wrench as extra leverage to twist the rope as tight as possible snapping their necks). There are enough plot holes to drive a truck through, such as why Maddy has nightmares of murders she didn't commit, how she could murder someone so violently(..with blood all over her)winding up waking in her bed without leaving something at the scene of the crime that would easily implicate her, and how Shawn could go so long, allowing her to continue working at the company despite what she told regarding the murder she committed, and a continual desire to join the supposed club that doesn't exist.What bothered me the most was the film's desire for having us somehow sympathizing with this female protagonist who wanted to join a club after killing someone, later proclaiming it to be an accident. The film builds Maddy as the potential psycho throughout because of her past. Her family disowned her for an abortion. She has black-outs and always appropriately winds up at the scenes of crimes after the fact. In a lot of slashers, the one who seems the most likely killer is often the red herring, but this film goes out of it's way to point the finger at Maddy. When the twist occurs, we're left rooting for Maddy, yet we know she's not right in the head. It's a tough sell caring for this chick. She does look great in a man's Army shirt, though. And, Rochon isn't afraid to let her puppies breathe, either. Low budget horror fans will get a kick out of seeing cult favorite Brinke Stevens as a religious fanatical mother who preaches against what Maddy did, calling her a murderer as beloved Troma producer Lloyd Kaufman is the aloof father who can not get in a word edge-wise to protect the daughter he truly cares about. Cult siren Julie Strain has a minor cameo, showing her tits(of course)as the opening murdered male's girlfriend getting her head crushed by a hammer. Oh, and check out the office for which Shawn works, you'll see a lot of Full Moon posters and art-work spread throughout the walls.