This is the last of four swashbucklers from France I've scheduled for viewing during this Christmas season: the others (in order of viewing) were the uninspired THE BLACK TULIP (1964; from the same director as this one but not nearly as good), the surprisingly effective LADY Oscar (1979; which had originated as a Japanese manga!) and the splendid CARTOUCHE (1962). Actually, I had watched this one not too long ago on late-night Italian TV and recall not being especially bowled over by it, so that I was genuinely surprised by how much I enjoyed it this time around (also bearing in mind the baffling lack of enthusiasm shown towards the film here and elsewhere when it was first announced as an upcoming DVD release from Criterion).Incidentally, FANFAN LA TULIPE has quite a bit in common with the afore-mentioned CARTOUCHE: not just cast and crew members (producers Georges Dancigers and Alexandre Mnouchkine, cinematographer Christian Matras, actor Noel Roquevert) but plot-wise as well  in fact, the hero is a womanizing soldier (Jean-Paul Belmondo's Cartouche had also had a brief military spell) who's loved by a fiery girl (in this case, gypsy Gina Lollobrigida) while he's himself obsessed by an impossible love (here, it's none other than the king's daughter)! As in the later film, too, Fanfan (an ideally cast Gerard Philipe who, ironically, is so full of life here that one finds it hard to believe that he would be stricken down by cancer within 7 years' time) is flanked by two fun-loving yet cowardly men (one of them is actually his superior officer and the heroine's own father) and opposed by an unscrupulous figure within his own ranks (the ageing Roquevert, with whom the hero eventually engages in a rooftop duel since he too has amorous designs on the gypsy girl)!; for the record, Lollobrigida will rejoin Philippe in her next film, Rene Clair's delightful romantic fantasy LES BELLES DE NUIT (1952).FANFAN proved to be a big box-office hit on its home-ground and even copped a surprising (but well-deserved) Best Direction award at Cannes over more renowned films like AN American IN Paris (1951), DETECTIVE STORY (1951), OTHELLO, UMBERTO D. and VIVA ZAPATA! In fact, its popularity ensured its re-release in a computer-colored version (presumably for the benefit of viewers who wouldn't touch a black-and-white product with a ten-foot pole) and the Criterion DVD itself contains a sample from this variant; being obviously a foreign-language title, there's also the dubious choice of an English-dubbed soundtrack but, even if these proved not especially painful to sit through considering, when all is said and done, there's simply no substitute for the original! FANFAN LA TULIPE (a nickname given the hero by a young Genevieve Page as the celebrated Madame De Pompadour) contains about as much comedy as (the expected) action and romance; while some may find this overwhelming, I don't agree myself as I enjoyed the sharply satirical narration and, on the whole, this combination is comparable with Jerzy Skolimowski's equally droll THE ADVENTURES OF GERARD (1970). That said, the swordfights here are remarkably forceful for an essentially lighthearted enterprise (particularly a scuffle in the woods and the ambush at a convent) and the film itself rather adult at times (with numerous allusions to sexuality as well as coarse language adopted throughout) when viewed back-to-back with vintage Hollywood fare as I did now; the climax, then is quite ingenious: the enemy forces (who, amusingly, are made to speak in speeded-up gibberish!) are depleted by our heroic trio alone, much to the king's amazement who, as portrayed by Marcel Herrand  best-known for his role of leader of the Parisian underworld in Marcel Carne''s CHILDREN OF PARADISE (1945)  is himself something of a lecher.P.S. An Italian TV channel has been threatening to screen Christian-Jaque's promising CHAMPAGNE FOR SAVAGES (1964) for months now but, despite programming it three times already (with a tentative fourth one slated for next week), they have yet to show it; even so, I do have three more films of his in my unwatched VHS pile (equally culled from late-night Italian TV screenings): the three-hour epic LA CHARTREUSE DE PARME (1948; also starring Gerard Philippe), THE SECOND TWIN (1967) and THE LEGEND OF FRENCHIE KING (1971; with Brigitte Bardot and Claudia Cardinale).


This movie can be interpreted on many different levels. Don't listen to the other comments bashing the movie and saying that it is a played again story or w/e and that it is just about drugs. It has very overt superficial metaphors about drugs; however, the rest of the movie (and why I think it was personally made) is really not about that at all. It is really mocking psychology and the conditioning of society. It shows, for a split second, that the main character's brother is watching those sick videos online. Why? My interpretation is that it is to demonstrate that all of this gruesomeness that we are exposed to makes it easier for us to be mechanical in our professions instead of seeing people as people. As far as the scene about logic, it is also reaching out to the people who were in the federally mandated 1% smart classes who are confused and frustrated because life isn't as predictable and mathematical and logical as it seems on a macroscopic level. You have to apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (along with all the other laws and principles of uncertainty) not just to physics but to life and leave room to change your plans and adjust along the way. One of the best movies I have ever seen. It just might go way above your head; it isn't for you it is for those people who are are having trouble coping with life not working out like a math problem. When you are critically analyzing a movie or writing your critical review's try not reading the back cover first (written by marketers and parapsychologists)


I sometimes enjoy really lousy movies....those that occasionally result when people (even talented people) get together with good intentions to produce a movie and for whatever reason it turns out to be a disaster. Movies like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Manos-Hands of Fate", and "Heavens Gate", etc.So, when I heard that this movie, "Rachel's Attic", was considered by many people to be the single worst film of the decade, naturally I just HAD to see it.Boy, do I regret that decision. This movie is beyond bad....it is SO bad that it is not even as enjoyable as the usual bad movie. The acting, filming, script, etc. are even worse than a low budget porno film: the sound is utterly horrible, the "plot" is completely incomprehensible, the "acting" is laughable....it is a complete waste of everyone's time and money. At least the porno film has porno to break up the monotony, while this ridiculous nightmare has a guy squeezing a rotten apple, and a "mad hatter's" tea party.The lighting is non-existent...many "scenes" take place in semi or complete darkness, which is probably just as well. The "writer-director" (I use the terms loosely), David Tybor, tries to get kinky with bondage scenes...but the results would be laughable, if they weren't so pathetic. There is some nudity, but it is of such abysmal quality that it actually acts as a sexual suppressant. I could go on forever and not do justice to all the flaws and shortcomings of this truly awful waste of film.For the love of god, avoid this train wreck. I know that despite (or perhaps because of) my negative comments, you may still be tempted to see if this piece of trash is really as bad as I claim it to be....but trust me on this....it's even worse than I have said, and you will absolutely, positively regret the experience (and expense, if you waste your money on a purchase or rental).


If it wasn't for the performances of Barry Diamond and Art Evans as the clueless stoners, I would have no reason to recommend this to anyone.The plot centers around a 10 year high school reunion, which takes place in a supposed abandon high school(looks more like a prop from a 1950s low budget horror flick), and the deranged student the class pulled a very traumatizing prank on. This student desires to kill off the entire class for revenge.John Hughes falls in love with his characters too much, as only one student is killed as well as the lunch lady(Goonies' Anne Ramsey). We're led to believe that the horny coupled gets killed, but never see a blasted thing! This is a horrible movie that continued National Lampoon's downward spiral throughout the 80s and 90s.


So it starts with a beautiful old house in the country. You have a group of people who get asked to come to this house and (not surprisingly) the caretakers always lock the gates at night for no apparent reason. Anywhoo, the people laugh, joke etc. This Dr tells them a spooky story of this woman and some kids. They get scared, they start to feel stuff. Oh no, a girl see's s ghost. Some more talking then this huge ghost comes and etc etc. This girl finds out that this ghost killed little kids and that she must free their souls, yeah yeah, blah blah. She does but, oh no, she dies as she does. And goes to heaven whilst this evil ghost goes to hell. Two people survive and escape the house. The script is terrible because a guy gets his head chopped off and Elanor (the one who dies saving the kids) says "oh no". The acting is wooden, the effects are crap and the set is a couple off rooms used over and over again. Basically if you like laughing at badly made films watch it, but if your looking for a scare then definitely give this film a miss. I was extremely disappointed when I watched this. A very big let down. My sister (who gets sacred very easily) got bored in this film it is appalling.


Very bad but watchable science fiction film that suffers from abominable special effects, poor acting, and a ridiculous story. The film opens with a spaceship returning from exploration on Mars with a woman and a man with green slime on his arm. She, through some hokey plot contrivances, begins to tell what happened on this fateful trip as almost all the tapes seemed to be magnetically wiped off. Four astronauts take on this journey: a military type played by Gerald Mohr, a poor man's Humphrey Bogart who enjoys saying the word "Irish" and has the acting savvy of a codfish, then there is Naura Hayden, a beautiful redhead and only female crew member on flight with three men wearing the most formfitting suits possible to accentuate all her curves, next, Les Tremaine, a wonderful character actor from cheap sci-fi films like this as the egghead, and last, Jack Kruschen as Sammy - the guy from Brooklyn with jokes and doesn't seem too bright although chosen for his expertise in electronics. None of these performers are really any good, and all of them say their dialog with little conviction. Watch Tremaine as he utters that scientific nonsense! Really, the best out of the four is Kruschen - and that really says a lot about this film. But bad acting aside, the movie just falls apart when they land on Mars via flashback. The Angry Red Planet had a real cheap budget because Mars is really the American Southwest with a heavy red tint over it. When the story calls for something that might look Martian, there are drawings placed with a heavy red tint over them. You can tell they are drawings The monsters are perhaps even worse as we get a Bat-rat-spider with a size upwards of 40 feet that looks like some kids got together piecing dead animals together. The other significant creature is a giant amoeba with an oscillating eye. Whew! These are bad. There is a nice drawing of a Martian city, but there just was not enough of this in the film. Despite all these big problems, The Angry Red Planet is a fun bad film. It is really fascinating to see how far we have come as a civilization. Most of the stuff they used in the movie is so outdated. One guy is using an electric razor with a cord and I thought they can get to Mars but they are still using cords. Director Ib Melchior gives an interesting look to much of the film even with the budgetary constraints, but the story by him and Sid Pink doesn't fly. And how bout that ending with the music and the psychedelic colors? Groovy man!


I must pat myself on the back for watching this movie all the way through because it truly was painful. An incapable painter becomes a fully capable hit-man? This movie was rife with absurdities of which if I mentioned them all I would be giving away the movie. Norm Peterson aka George Wendt must really be in a rut to have agreed to do this movie. The acting was deplorable and the story was even worse. As a sane minded and rational individual, I could not understand where the writer came from nor where he was going with this movie. There was ineptness on the part of every main character, there was a string of hapless and ridiculous events, then the movie ended. One absurd act after another with dialogue doesn't make a movie, it only makes a talkative train wreck.


Red Rock West is a perfect example of how good a film can be with practically no budget. All you need is a smart script, good actors and loads of atmosphere. RRW delivers all these and more.Nic Cage plays an ex-marine, injured in Lebanon, who is down to his last 5 dollars after being refused a job on an oilfield because of his bad knee. He roles into Red Rock and is mistaken by bartender Wayne (JT Walsh, not quite as his most menacing-but still evil) for a hit-man from Texas.He pays him to kill his wife and make it look like burglary. Only when he gets there, just to check her out. She offers him double to kill Wayne. Cage just wants to get the hell out of town with his free money and leave the sparring lovers be. But a series of mishaps and setbacks results in him yo-yoing in and out of Red Rock, back and forth. Eventually this leads to a run-in with Lyle from Dallas (a cheeky and somehow sympathetic Dennis Hopper), the REAL hit-man from Texas who offers to help without knowing he's making the plot more complicated.RRW never had a big release, thus most of it's audience discovered it on video or on cable TV showings. Viewing it in such a way might make it seem like a TV movie but it's bigger than that. The slick, slowly-timed direction, moody score and howling desert wind would have all made for a great movie in theatres but the best you can do these days is watch the DVD on a big HDTV.The only weak point of the movie I can think of is Lara Flynn Boyle's boring femme fatale with the nasty dyke-ish hairdo. I certainly wouldn't fall for her but if you assume that Nic Cage's character is in to militant lesbians then you'll accept it nonetheless.


I have no idea what on earth, or beyond, could have possibly made Sam Mraovich believe that this would have been a worthy project to undertake. Ben & Arthur is one of the worst movies ever made. In fact, I see no reason why it should not be at #1 on the Bottom 100. For although I have not seen, for example, SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (#5 at the time of this publication), I would venture to guess that that film is considerably better than this oozing wound, because even in its vapid dismalness at least Baby Geniuses 2 was professionally made. By contrast, everything, and I do mean everything, in this film is completely unprofessional.The movie is intended to be an attack on the Christian Right's supposed bigotry and hatred toward gays. And I do emphasize "intended." Not only does it completely and utterly fail at its purpose, it also leaves an ugly scar. Instead of creating a compelling and realistic portrait of a gay couple's struggle against a society that largely opposes them, it creates tired, crass stereotypes of each party involved. Ben and Arthur, the namesake couple, are portrayed as two crude, sex-starved, and hopelessly romantic cardboard cutouts who marry when the laws change to allow them to do so. This meets with the opposition of Ben's brother Victor, a Christian minister who, like all Christians (as this movie would have us believe), is loud, prying, stupid, and violent. He tries to kill Ben and Arthur after his associations with them get him kicked out of the ministry. Just like in real life. And if you think that's dreadful (it is), you haven't seen it all.The actors (?) here manage to completely destroy any vestige of credibility in this movie by saying their lines as if they were narrating a YouTube home comedy video. But not even Daniel Day-Lewis and Marlon Brando as the title characters could have saved this clunker, for there would still be the matter of the completely inane and laugh-inducing dialogue that fills every minute of the movie. Every scene has at least one awkward or misplaced quote. For example, in one scene, Victor tries to complain about not being able to have nieces or nephews because of his brother's homosexuality. But instead of portraying this idea clearly, he spits out the stupid, utterly confusing, whiny-sounding line, "You know what, I'm never going to have any nieces or nephews, okay, because you're so F***ED UP!"Even more glaring is the complete lack of production values. Yes, I know this ain't The Dark Knight, but even amateur film makers should know some basics about special effects and editing. For example, six dots of red cake dye do not suffice for realistic bullet wounds. People do not teleport across a room between takes. And objects do not fall FORWARD when shot! Do not waste your money on Ben & Arthur. I don't care if you're 7, 17, or 107. I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi, or undecided. I don't care if you're "just curious." I don't care what pathetic reason you may have to be tempted to buy this dung-heap. Stay away, far away. This movie's only redeeming quality is its ability to be used as a Frisbee.


"John Hughes' son wrote a high school drama! Wow!" I thought as I checked the flick's info here on IMDb, late on a Saturday night, having found myself watching the opening credits on BBC2.I've just finished watching it, and sadly it was downhill from there on. Arguably you can't spoil a film this poor, but I'll leave the spoilers out of this review... There's an awful lot of style over very little substance: unfortunately the style hasn't dated too well in the eight years since its release. As for the substance, the film tries to pose an interesting look at the nature of control in society through the microcosm of school-life; but beneath the shiny veneer, a remotely meaningful or relevant argument fails to materialise. Characters are painted in childishly broad strokes, falling into the kind of generic stereotypes the writer's father sought to question in Breakfast Club. Director Kyle Cooper does a decent job keeping the pace up (perhaps relying a little too much on montages of information, which soon becomes a tiresome device, but at least pushes the story along), but his efforts don't sufficiently detract from the poor script and bizarre casting (how anyone is supposed to side with 'Maddox', when Blake Shields gurns and glowers his way through the part, I just can't understand), not to mention the numerous gaping plot holes (I'm all for creative license, but when the "bad guys" know the identities of the "good guys" making their lives a misery, but fail to act in any way to stop them, you really have to wonder why this script didn't undergo another few re-drafts before production - did Daddy even read it?).I'm sure a younger audience might get some enjoyment from this film (and all power to them), but they're really better off sticking with Hughes Sr.'s high school output, and if the idea of school-time rebellion is what really appeals, the 1968 classic "If..." is a much more satisfying examination of the subject.


I have to start by telling you how I came across this movie.It was winter time in Alaska around the year 1990.A friend of mine from Australia was staying with me and my girl friend in a shoe box of an apartment.Winters in Alaska can be a bit brutal and most people stay indoors,drink heavily and watch anything that comes on the television.I had found this movie outside of a thrift store laying in a snowbank and right away new it was a treasure.It is quite possibly the best worst movie ever.We spent the next two weeks watching this movie and drinking like fish.We watched it so many times in fact that we would sometimes turn the television on its side or upside down for a more full filling effect.It is a true gem.The laughs will come nonstop and the memories last forever.If you see this movie for rent in a video store,steal it.You won't regret it!


The film "Cross Eyed" by Adam Jones propels the viewer on a ride of redemption as the main character takes back control of the wheel and sets his life in order. Adam Jones has found an imaginative and refreshing way to empower his character and actualize what matters most. These truths become apparent to both the characters and viewers as you laugh and gag to the credits with them. The simple yet attractive settings\costumes keep you guessing about what you will see next. You can't help but smile and laugh at the antics that take place in this movie. I can't wait for his sophomore effort. It is only a matter of time before Jones strikes again. Bravo!


I'm studying Catalan, and was delighted to find El Mar, a movie with mostly Catalan dialogue, at my art-house video store.Hmmm... not so delighted to have seen it.Yes, as other reviewers have said, it's well-made, and beautifully photographed. Although the opening sequence of the children is shockingly violent, it's well-acted and convincing. (For the most part, that is... Would the Mallorquins strip a corpse in preparation for burial right in the middle of the town square, in full view of the dead man's 10-year-old boy?) Oh, well... minor detail. Up to this point, it had something of the feel of a non-magical Pan's Labyrinth, also set in the Spanish Civil War.Fast-forward, and the three children who survived the opening incident have come of age. Francisca is a nun working at a tuberculosis sanatorium and the two boys, Manuel and Ramallo, both are patients. I know, but hey, coincidences happen.The problem, as with so many Spanish movies (apologies to Almodovar fans), is that with one exception (Francisca) the characters are just so dang *weird*. Their motivations, personalities, and dialogue are often simply incoherent.What's more, it descends into some horrific wretched excess. Be prepared for LOTS of pain and LOTS of blood. The reviewer who called it a "potboiler" is quite on track. If it had been made 40 years ago, the poster would've said: SEE FORBIDDEN LOVE!! RAPE!! MURDER!! MUTILATION!! FANATICISM!! ANIMAL CRUELTY!! BETRAYAL!! The opening sequence is not nearly enough to make the personalities and relationships of the characters believable. To work, this should have had multiple flashbacks to flesh out the characters. As it is, it seems a bizarre and depressing cross between "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" and "Pulp Fiction." If that sounds like something you've got to see, by all means, enjoy. I think I go with something that doesn't make me feel I need to take a shower to wash off the gore and gloom.As for the Catalan, it's the Mallorqui dialect, fairly different than the Barcelona dialect, though I was surprised by the comment that said that even Barcelonans apparently needed Catalan subtitles to understand it.


Having watched this after receiving the DVD for Christmas 2005, I came here to pan it -- but after reading the other comments, I haven't the heart. Clearly this is a film that has worked very well for children of a certain age. Well, let me not be a complete Grinch; it might still work for some children -- if they are not too media-saturated and have not become visually over-sophisticated, e.g. from watching all of LOTR and Harry Potter. But if you are an adult, stay miles away; you will not enjoy it.The good bits: Barbara Kellerman as the Witch, especially in her early scenes with Edmund, creates just the right blend of charismatic evil and restrained madness. (At the Stone Table she goes a bit over the top.) Michael Aldridge in the minor role of the Professor and Jeffrey S. Perry as Mr. Tumnus also have the kind of polished, skillful acting we'd expect from the very best BBC dramas. And the Aslan costume works very well, amazingly well considering. They got the eyes just right.The bad bits: almost everything else, but two areas in particular. One, the casting. England is crammed with good actors and contains tens of thousands of attractive British school kids. How could they possibly have ended up with these four stiffs? They move like wooden soldiers and speak about as well. Peter has no gravitas or charisma (and is visibly shorter than his supposedly younger siblings); Edmund is just whiny; and Lucy... Sophie Wilcox as Lucy is so dramatically, visibly, drastically wrong for this part that I can't imagine how she got the job.Two, the animal costumes. Again, it appears that they worked for some kids. If the kids are still at a level where Big Bird and Elmo are exciting, believable characters, they might be entranced by this film. But to a viewer with the sophistication of, say, a 12-year-old who's seen Prisoner Of Azkaban? When Mister Beaver comes out from behind that tree, there will be hoots of cruel, derisive laughter. The costumes just do not work -- I could not, and I think any adult or modern teen could not, suspend disbelief when looking at Mister Beaver. The drawn animation later (gryphons, etc.) works better, is easier to take.So: ten stars for the very young and tender of soul; everyone else read, or re-read the book and watch the far better film that unrolls in your imagination.


It makes one wonder how this show is still on the air. There's been one couple that has stayed together, married, and has children, but everyone else has broken up. What's the point of continuing this? The show can be entertaining at the beginning. You see all the girls swooning over one man, that almost all of them like instantly. It's just like in real life! The girls start to take sides, bitch one another out, and show their true selves (or so we think). But that one man is left to decide who to pick that he thinks he can marry and live happily ever after.What is true love exactly? How can you fall for someone when you're forced to pick them? This show is unbelievable. You thought dating online was bad, but people have to go on TV to find love? It's not realistic. How could a girl be with a man when he is going out with several others, making out with them? None of these questions are answered, and finally when the show ends, you know there won't be a happy ending in the future. For all we know, everything is scripted.


Amy Poehler and Rachel Dratch are among the funnier women to have been on "Saturday Night Live". It's unfortunate that they, along with Tina Fey and Maya Rudolph, were on SNL during the longest stretch of unfunny writing and sketch-making (circa 2002-2006) the show has ever had. Still, these two women most especially know what's funny, and they know how to write a funny movie.You'll notice in the credits of this movie that Dratch and director Ryan Shiraki wrote the story for "Spring Breakdown", but who wrote the actual screenplay, consisting of dialogue and all the important fill-in-the-blank material that makes a story into a multidimensional movie? Yep, just Shiraki. Just one guy wrote the dialogue for this movie, and no women apparently wrote the script with him. The result is a pretty cliché spring break movie that doesn't so much spoof the faux holiday as much as exploit it equally as much as MTV does every year.If Dratch, Poehler, and even co-star Parker Posey could have contributed their handwriting to the screenplay, it would have been far less cliché. The premise is original, being about three thirty-something women who were unpopular in high school (and apparently college, too) who never had the fun spring break trip they allegedly dreamed about. I say "allegedly" because you never quite know what fun is to these characters. They entered talent shows in the past where they sing stale pro-woman anthems like "True Colors", and spend their nights together holding make-your-own-pizza parties. Even though none of them are especially unattractive, the outside world appears to treat them like they are. There's a scene where a blind student of Poehler's (played by Poehler's real life husband Will Arnett) asks her out on a date, only to touch her face and immediately change his mind. If Poehler's character is supposed to be unattractive, they obviously hired the wrong actress.The movie continues to show promise, even though we have our doubts about the main characters, when Posey's boss, Texas Senator 'Kay Bee' Hartmann (Jane Lynch, funny as always) hires Posey to watch over her unpopular college-age daughter (Amber Tamblyn, playing yet another woman who's attractive in real life, but not in the eyes of any characters in this movie) while she goes to a Laguna Beach-like vacation spot for Spring Break. Poehler and Dratch come along, they reluctantly get boozed up, party like they apparently should have when they were in college, and then comes the ultimate showdown with the sorority bitches lead by Sophie Monk.Sophie Monk is an incredibly attractive woman who has a body both women and men would kill to have for different reasons. Unfortunately, her movie career is off to a rough start with the abominably unfunny "Date Movie" (2006) and the disappointing "Click" (2006). Here, she plays a Southern belle, although her voice sounds like she stole Delta Burke's voice box. She hams it up a little too much, trying too hard to play a conniving bitch that she comes off as much like a caricature of spoiled college kids as the rest of the extras."Spring Breakdown" was released straight to DVD despite the star power of Amy Poehler, but rightly so because the story is way too cliché. It may as well have been called "National Lampoon's Spring Breakdown", and the magazine probably wouldn't have sued for trademark infringement because of the free publicity. If director Shiraki had given at least one woman the creative input, especially Rachel Dratch, this movie would have been great and not nearly as run-of-the-mill as frat-house comedies we've seen before. I know Dratch will come up with another funny concept, and hopefully be allowed to fill in the rest of the screenplay herself. She's funny enough, and she deserves better than this half-baked comedy that would accept Stiffler's brother with open arms.


Not as bad a film as i thought it would be.It has a good cast.Nice to see Roger Moore back on screen as well as the use of other British actors.Would like to see more of Olivia D`Abo in future projects.Maybe starring opposite her cousin the sexy Maryam D`Abo.Also a good use of unseen locations such as Luxembourg.Hopefully we will see more UK-European co-productions like this.


I thought the movie was extremely funny and actually very interesting. It was raw and honest and felt as if I was really watching the "real people" not actors. It's great entertainment, it also painted the people as human on our level not below us. It is a very good film.


This is a cute little horror spoof/comedy featuring Cassandra Peterson aka Elvira: Mistress of the Dark, the most infamous horror hostess of all time. This was meant to be the pilot vehicle for Elvira and was so successful that it was picked up by the NBC Network. They filmed a pilot for a television series to feature the busty babe in black but unfortunately the sit-com never made it past the pilot stage due to it's sexual references. This film however, is very amusing. Elvira is the modern-day Chesty Morgan and the queen of the one-liners. This film was followed up a few years later by the abysmal "Elvira's Haunted Hills" which was meant to be a take-off of the old Roger Corman movies but falls flat on it's face. Watch this movie instead for a much more entertaining experience!


I watch bad movies.This movie is not good enough to be a bad movie. Not an ounce of humor, not an ounce of talent throughout.I am LAZY.Usually, I see a bad movie and curse. This was so bad, I actually made a review to try and save others from the completely boring mess I fell victim to.I am smashing my copy of this movie.It's too lame even to use clear a room. So boring. Watch 'Bloodsucking Freaks' or 'Shock, shock, shock' for absolute crap that has some merit as entertainment. This sludge looks awful, is awful, and whoever made it should feel awful.


This 1947 film stars and was directed and written by Orson Welles (with a funky Irish accent) and also stars the gorgeous Rita Hayworth with less appealing short blonde hair. So, I've hung out with Orson before in Touch of Evil and Citizen Kane and the Third Man etc. but this was my first Rita Hayworth interaction. Our first meeting went well, she does a superb job playing the frightened/cagey Elsa, married to a crippled millionaire lawyer. Mike (Welles) and Elsa fall for each other. He wants to run away with her, she doesn't know if she can live without the things money can buy. Elsa, her husband, and his partner bicker and bite, just like the sharks Mike describes attacking each other and his foretelling proves just too true. Several twists and turns follow in this murder mystery as we come to the climax in the fun house. (Think the ending shootout in The Man with the Golden Gun, which borrowed heavily from this scene). I wasn't sure who the murderer was until the end.This movie is like shrimp in garlic and lemon. The dish centers on the sea, it is subtle, sour, and pungent, all to great effect. These might not be the best, fresh shrimp, but good quality frozen shrimp from Costco. The flavorful sauce adds to the naturalness of the pink shrimp as you fill up on a healthy, but filling alternative to more mundane, common fare. 7/10 http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies


This is probably my favorite movie of all time. It is perfection in its storytelling. It will break your heart not because it's over sentimental but because you will truly feel every emotion these characters go through. You feel for Doggie because of the hopeless situation that existed for young girls in China at that time.


Hollow Man starts as brilliant but flawed scientist Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) finally works out how to make things visible again after having been turned invisible by his own serum. They test the serum on an already invisible Gorilla & it works perfectly, Caine & his team of assistant's celebrate but while he should report the breakthrough to his military backers Caine wants to be the first invisible human. He manages to persuade his team to help him & the procedure works well & Caine becomes invisible, however when they try to bring him back the serum fails & he remain invisible. The team desperately search for an antidote but nothing works, Caine slowly starts to lose his grip on reality as he realises what power he has but is unable to use it being trapped in a laboratory. But then again he's invisible right, he can do anything he wants...Directed by Paul Verhoeven I rather liked Hollow Man. You know it's just after Christmas, I saw this a few hours ago on late night/early morning cable TV & worst of all I feel sick, not because of the film but because of the chocolates & fizzy pop I've had over the past week so I'll keep this one brief. The script by Andrew W. Marlowe has a decent pace about but it does drag a little during the middle & has a good central premise, it takes he basic idea that being invisible will make you insane just like in the original The Invisible Man (1933) film which Hollow Man obviously owes a fair bit. It manages to have a petty successful blend of horror, sci-fi & action & provide good entertainment value for 110 odd minutes. I thought the character's were OK, I thought some of the ideas in the film were good although I think it's generally known that Verhoeven doesn't deal in subtlety, the first thing he has the invisible Caine do is sexually molest one of his team & then when he gets into the outside world he has Caine rape a woman with the justification 'who's going to know' that Caine says to himself. Then of course there's the gore, he shows a rat being torn apart & that's just the opening scene after the credits, to be fair to him the violence is a bit more sparse this time around but still has a quite nasty & sadistic tone about it. Having said that I love horror/gore/exploitation films so Hollow Man delivers for me, it's just that it might not be everyone's cup of tea.Director Verhoeven does a great job, or should that be the special effects boys make him look good. The special effects in Hollow Man really are spectacular & more-or-less flawless, their brilliant & it's as simple & straight forward as that. There's some good horror & action set-pieces here as well even if the climatic fight is a little over-the-top. I love the effect where Kevin Bacon disappears one layer at a time complete with veins, organs & bones on full show or when the reverse happens with the Gorilla. There's a few gory moments including a rat being eaten, someone is impaled on a spike & someone has their head busted open with blood splattering results.With a staggering budget of about $95,000,000 Hollow Man is technically faultless, I can imagine the interviews on the DVD where some special effects boffin says they mapped Bacon's entire body out right down to he last vein which they actually did because you know everyone watching would notice if one of his veins were missing or in the wrong position wouldn't they? The acting was OK, Bacon made for a good mad scientist anti-hero type guy.Hollow Man is one of hose big budget Hollwood extravaganzas where the effects & action take center stage over any sort of meaningful story or character's but to be brutally honest sometimes we all like that in a film, well I know I do. Good solid big budget entertainment with a slightly nastier & darker streak than the usual Hollywood product, definitely worth a watch.


As a kid I did think the weapon the murderer wielded was cool, however I was a kid and so I was a bit dumb. Even as a dumb kid though the movies plot was stupid and a bit boring when the killer was not using his light knife to kill people. What amazes me is that the movie has a really solid cast in it. What script did they read when agreeing to be in this movie as it is most assuredly boring and only a means to show off a light saber on a very small scale. The plot at times is incomprehensible and the end is totally chaotic. The whole film seems to rotate around aliens and the one weapon. The plot has two kids and some dude having an alien encounter, flash years later and there seems to be a return as it were in the mix. Dead animals and such to be explored and for some reason the one dude gets the weapon of the aliens and proceeds to use it to go on a very light killing spree. Seriously, you just have to wonder why this movie was made, if you are going to have a killer have some good death scenes, if you are going to have alien encounters show more than a weird light vortex thing, and if you are going to have light sabers then call yourself star wars.


The best film about marriage and family. This is a very interesting reflections to the couples that will be come to the dangerous and paradoxical fascinating world of marriage and family. This decision could be the better or the worst in our lives and the life of our kids. The real intrusion or help of 'friends' -or executioner if we leave-. The real role of families: they can help or they can destroy us. The mad priest who possibly is not much mad telling what could happen according the statistics and the reality. A couple who thinks in a 'special' marriage, live a painful story in their future own history.Who likes contract marriage? Nobody, after the priest tells their own history
 if they leave the future in another hands, if they don't know WHAT is the marriage. That the problems are true, that the life demand a real engage, guaranties, from each one. That the real victims of the divorce are kids, with real name Andrea in the film- or names. That the abortion is only an easy exit: sadness, regrets and unhappiness will be there after abortion. That the state and social security thinks every time less in a real problems of the families. The gossip of the 'friends', the infidelity because of weakness and desperation of Steffania because Tomasso lives his life as if he were alone.Maybe someone could think that this film is a pessimistic film, but not. Steffania and Tomasso, in the deep of their hearts, they like a beautiful marriage and family, if not, Why they like marriage? A truly and beautiful marriage depends only of the couple: of each one of their decisions, of each one actions in their lives. The family could be a place where each one feel loved because being his or her, only by existing. The screenplay is wonderful. The performances are great: Steffania and Tomasso, ¡the almost cynical priest! An excellent direction and script. The colors and the management of the cameras, superb.


Okay, first off, Seagal's voice is dubbed over for like 50% of the film... Why? Because apparently there were rewriting the script and story as they were shooting and they need to change his dialogue for story continuity as they have multiple versions. From the very beginning, you just scratch your head because the overdubs are not only distracting, but they make no sense.That said, the story still sucked and doesn't make any sense at all. When I got the the end, I was just scratching my head cause the movie was so pointless and the ending didn't even make sense.Avoid like the plague. This movie made me stop watching Seagal straight to video movies cause they just get worse and worse.


Let me be really clear about this movie. I didn't watch this movie because of the plot, I watch it for the saucy sex scenes. That being said, this movie is so god damn awful I flip between pure joy of seeing a godly body of Traci (Mandy Schaffer) and cringing my eyeballs out for the disaster of a plot.Spoiler Alert The first scene of the movie already had me cringing.. you see a woman painting something by the lakeside, in pure bliss and serene, then a beautiful girl approach and ask if she could paint beside her. When they both finished, they show each other what they had done... and the woman painted A VINEYARD WHEN SHE IS FACING INFRONT OF THE LAKE. What kind of screwball director would make this kind of mistake?? And in another scene, Traci gets to kill her teacher's lover by smash him with the sail pole, and then she swims away, and none of the town's police suspected her once. I mean HELLOOOOO? MANDY DID NOT WEAR A GLOVE DID SHE? HER FINGER PRINTS ARE ALL OVER THE GOD DAMN BOAT!! After that, it gets worst, whenever Mandy is around, there is the "chilling" sound effect played which sounds like a cat in hissy fit. It's also a real pity Rosanna Arquette's is in this movie. I feel real sorry for her to have to star in this super low budget soft-porn no brainer. Same goes for Jürgen Prochnow, who also has the misfortune to star in this movie. All in all, 2/10.


This is a sad movie about this woman who thought her ex who she loved so much was probably dead, but really his scientist dad had just put a spell on him to turn him into this really cute shark-guy. Kind of like in Beauty and the Beast. It could probably use a ballroom dance scene and maybe some singing candlesticks, but there are some pretty gross plants instead. They make this one girl really itchy, so she lets herself get eaten by the shark-guy instead of scratching through the whole movie. The scientist guy is a good dad who tries to reunite his fishy shark son with the woman he was engaged to, he even arranges for them to have private time for s-e-x, but the woman in this is a really shallow snob and thinks the shark-guy is an ugly, icky monster and wants nothing to do with him. She gave up on love! Just because he was a shark! I thought it was pretty sad how all she had to do was kiss him and he'd turn back to normal and they'd live happily ever after, but it's not that kind of movie.


This highly underrated film is (to me) what good writing in a movie should be all about. Kasdan takes the search for meaning in our lives and lays it out for all to see and wonder at. The movie is about the divides people create to insulate themselves from the violence and hatred and bigotry of everyday life.  Along the way we are asked question after question about life. Davis (Steve Martin with a great beard) asks himself 'Is my making a violent movie (and by extension our enjoyment of it) causing the violence in society?' Claire asks "What kind of world throws away something as precious as a human life?' Mack is not immune as he asks 'Is it possible to pass beyond the bounds of race and (an even harder step) finance? These are of course not quoted from the film, but generalities. Others ask their questions too, and to be honest it raises more than it answers. But that is the nature of life. We strive all our lives to find answers to questions we will never totally answer, and in certain cases have to make answers fit to our own needs and desires. As humans we thrive on questions we cannot answer. Some answers are real. Claire and Mack come to realize that even though they could take the easy road and let the state take the baby, their finding it placed the responsibility for her life in their hands. Some answers are not. Davis `Sees the Light' and decides not to make violent films, but the next day turns around and dismisses his epiphany as subordinate to his art. We all seek answers. This movie does not answer them for; it simply reminds you to keep looking for the answers.


Starts really well, nice intro and build up for the main characters but after about 5 minutes, the charm is lost.The character is in the same mould as the main protagonist from American Pie and Loser without the supporting cast or innovative storyline that made the Pie movies more of a commercial success.Let's be honest - Heder's acting was pretty poor. Keaton, Daniels and Faris did their best but had no substantial plot or script to get their teeth into The movie just plods on without any pace or clear logical storyline justifying its length.The ending is about as predictable as they come - so predictable I've ticked the spoilers box for this one line.My advice: avoid at all costs unless you really really have nothing else to do/listen to or watch and even then you'll feel the producers just cheated you out of an hour and a half of your life.


Probably the first Portuguese film I have seen in my life, and I enjoyed it. The plot is related of how the young army officers took the power in Portugal in 1974, to finally defeat the fascist government of Caetano and to also finalize the wars in the colonies, i.e. Mozambique, Angola, and Guinea (Bissau)- Cape Vert. Most of the events shown in the film reflect with exactitude the behavior of the army officers and soldiers to conduct the coup, of the oppressed people, who were very happy with this new development and the liberty, the resistance of Caetano's men, and also in a subtle way of most conservative officials, including Spinola, who took over as the new president. The Portuguese revolution can be remembered because of the action of several young officers, but for me the most interesting part of the film was when the young captain expressed that Portugal should develop itself democratically, and this is what the country achieved some years after this coup or revolution. The film also shows that the army officers and soldiers never wanted to kill anyone; even the most serious enemies were respected at the end.


I am a fan of the Nightmare series but this one is horrible. The deaths are so trendy. If you were to watch this 20 years later the whole nintendo scene is outdated. I did like the flashbacks. I think they should have just made a prequel about when he was still alive. That would have been more interesting. This is a movie you can take or leave. Depends on how much spare time you have.


The opening scene of this film sets the pace for the entirety of its ninety minutes. The shots are generic, conventional, and of television movie quality. The snow drenched scenery is gorgeous, yet the characters held with in it have a similar quality to that of looking at a photograph of such scenery, the overwhelming feeling being that of distance. Some of the editing is fairly high quality and the work of an veteran professional, the dialogue however is clunky and artificial, having little bearing on 'real' conversations at all seemingly. Any emotional insight is displaced in favour of swearing, which is of course the way in which everyone shows their true feelings. The action is slow and underwhelming, the overall feeling being one of someone trickling cold water over your head, but so slowly that you barely notice, yet eventually you feel pathetic and slightly sorry for yourself for being caught in such a incomprehensible situation.The mixture of genres that the Fessenden has seemingly tried to use; psychological thriller, horror and family drama, although commendable suffers from a serious lack of tension and interesting dialogue. The way in which the husband, wife and child trio interact is particularly unrealistic. The themes of family relationships being played out in haunting setting have been covered countless times before by far superior films, an instant example being that of The Shining (1980). The family unit here are torn by innocuous troubles which are hard to understand or sympathise with considering the relative ambiguity of the script.The family unit is hardly stalked throughout the film, Fessenden playing down the thriller possibilities of the narrative in favour of a slow family drama for the majority of the running time. The 'stalker' figure Otis has few apparent motives for his behaviour and despite being perhaps the most interesting and well acted character is still very underdeveloped. The main characters are empty husks of people who it was extremely hard to relate to, their relationships with each other being particularly void of any sentiment or feeling. Although the ignorance of the Erik per Sullivan's young character by his parents is presumably part of the story, surely any reasonable person would question their son if he allegedly spoke to someone who seemingly doesn't exist? People can accept this film as intelligent because of its relative lack of conventional aspects regarding creature based horror movies but this film fails in respect of whichever genre you wished to pigeonhole it in. You can read deep psychological meanings into every single minute detail of anything if you should so wish to but I think people would be better off over analysing their carpet for some deep emotional meaning, rather than these vacuous sub-human creations.


First,I'll give my rating for the series overall; ******* 7 out of ten stars. I've taken away three for the downhill slide this series suffered after John Amos departed. Don't get me wrong there were hard hitting episodes later but only after Esther Rolle left for a season and returned.In February of 1974,a really great sit-com (with dramatic overtones)premiered on CBS. It was a TV first,a show about an African-American family living in the Chicago Projects in the 1970s. Created by Norman Lear as a spin-off of "Maude",he once again struck the right chord with viewers. Not since this show have I seen a situation comedy directly talk about the struggles of inner-city families. (Well,there was Fox's "South Central" in '94 but was not renewed.) John Amos as James Evans Sr. was the ultimate father figure for this family and acted as any father should to keep his family together and his kids from going down the wrong paths in life.Esther Rolle was a wonderful no non-sense mother figure who was on the same page as her husband when it came to their kids upbringing. Ralph Carter as Michael a young but very bright young man for his age but stuck in a school system that doesn't meet his academic needs. His character's name is the same as the show's founder Mike Evans who was Lionel Jefferson on "The Jeffersons". (Mike Evans passed away Dec. 2006).Thelma is a young girl of 16 or 17 and has to deal with the dangers of being a young woman in the streets of the ghetto. Jimmie Walker as J.J. Evans Jr. is the typical young wise-cracking,jiving kind of young man who does not take life seriously enough.Simply put,all my favorite episodes are with John Amos,with the exception of the Penny Gordon/Janet Jackson story lines.After the demise of the James Evans character,the show lost it's stability and viewers departed. Esther Rolle left for an entire year,not wanting to play second fiddle to JJ's smart-aleck "Dyno-mite's"! She returned the next season,after securing a guarantee that the writer's would even things out. Florida's neighbor Wilona Woods was a divorced woman who ended up adopting an abused little girl Penny Gordon (played by a then 10 year old Janet Jackson). Penny's abusive mother was played by Totie Fields,Kim Fields' Mother.In August of 1979 the show came to an end,with all leaving the projects for a better life. JJ the artist had sold an idea to a comic-book company,Michael went off to live on campus at college. Wilona & Penny,Thelma & football player husband Keith + Florida all moved into the same building in uptown Chicago. Not the most realistic ending but by that time it didn't matter.


I really enjoyed this movie. I am a single dad with a 17 year old daughter who is smart, athletic and talented. I WISH my girl applied herself so well to solving crimes and helping others! So for me, perhaps this is PG level Fantasyland. I read many Nancy Drew books in my teen years, long, long ago. Sure THIS character was ably played by Emma Roberts but did NOT resemble the Nancy Drew I recall from the books. That is due to script, not the acting.Emma is an adorable teen, playing a self-confident, industrious and proud character with good manners and good taste. She is not caught up in the trendy competitiveness around her. There are some weaknesses in the Plot, aside from not resembling the Nancy Drew of the Books, and trying to figure out what decade we're in. (like, what is that CAR, Anyway?) I read the IMDb overview before seeing the film, as I was researching Rachael Leigh Cook from other movies. This is not one of Her best roles, but I will continue looking for more of her films. Rachael was too old to play this lead, but does a fine job as the grown-up orphan central to the mystery.I am very disappointed in other reviews written here. Some expect perfect connection with the books, some expect more credible situations or adult action film. I got what I expected! Good entertainment well targeted to young teen girls, And their Fathers who want good kids with high standards of conduct and achievement. This is a Teen PG Movie, not James Bond! Which would YOU Want for a Role Model for YOUR Teenaged Daughter?


Really bad movie, the story is too simple and predictable and poor acting as a complement.This vampire's hunter story is the worst that i have seen so far, Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi), travels to Mexico in search for some blood suckers!, he use some interesting weapons (but nothing compared to Blade), and is part of some Van Helsig vampire's hunters net?, OK, but he work alone. He's assigned to the pursuit of a powerful vampire queen that is searching some black crucifix to perform a ritual which will enable her to be invulnerable to sunlight (is almost a sequel of Vampires (1998) directed by John Carpenter and starred by James Woods), Derek start his quest in the search of the queen with some new friends: Sancho (Diego Luna, really bad acting also) a teenager without experience, Father Rodrigo (Cristian De la Fuente) a catholic priest, Zoey (Natasha Wagner) a particular vampire and Ray Collins (Darius McCrary) another expert vampire hunter. So obviously in this adventure he isn't alone.You can start feeling how this movie would be just looking at his lead actor (Jon Bon Jovi); is a huge difference in the acting quality compared to James Woods, and then, if you watch the film (i don't recommend this part), you will get involved in one of the more simplest stories, totally predictable, with terrible acting performances, really bad special effects and incoherent events!.I deeply recommend not to see this film!, rent another movie, see another channel, go out with your friends, etc.3/10


Corky Romano has to be one of the most jaw dropping and horrific "comedy's" ever made.While the sometimes amusing Chris Kattan who pulled off a very funny performance in the hilarious 'Undercover Brother' his character in Corky is so stupid and so unfunny-which is a shame since the premise is a wonderful idea. To bad they ran out of them when they got to page 3 on the script.


You wouldn't expect a movie like this to be good, and it isn't. It's a no budget, ultra violent zombie movie filmed with a bad looking hand-held camera...and it's hilarious. The actors obviously have never acted before and it shows in their terrible hilarious readings. There is no plot to be seen. The little plot I could find seemed to be that a government experiment escaped and a group of zombie seems to be terrorizing a couple families. The gore effects are actually some of the most sickening I've ever seen. It seems the gore effects people raided a butcher shop for all the body parts, and many scenes involve zombies dismembering people and eating their organs. It's a funny and sickening film, and it's about as bad as you can get in terms of any movie.My rating: BOMB/****. 90 mins.


This is such a fantastic movie, a Western about a self-concerned man (Jimmy Stewart) going up to the Klondike for gold. On the way, he gets hassled by a local sheriff in Alaska (John McIntire, giving a wonderfully evil performance), whom he hassles back. McIntire threatens that he'll be a dead man if he ever comes back through his town, which is, unfortunately, the only way back to the States. The main chunk of the story is about the peaceful Klondike town of Dawson being turned upside down by new residents from McIntire's town. Ruth Roman, for instance, who has come with Stewart and his two companions (Jay C. Flippen and Walter Brennen, who plays Stewart's best friend), builds a saloon (a Hollywood front for a whorehouse) and tries to run the town's restaurant and hang-out place out of business. She paves the way for McIntire and his goons to come up, too. In 1953, Jimmy Stewart and director Anthony Mann made one of the peaks of the Western genre, The Naked Spur. The Far Country is just the tiniest bit less, and it contains 99.9% of what made that film so special without, of course, feeling like a cheap copy. Like The Naked Spur, The Far Country boasts beautiful, on-location cinematography. The landscape is gorgeous. Stewart gives one of his best performances (nearly equal to his biggest success of 1954, Rear Window). I suppose it could be considered cliche, as he starts out a selfish loner and learns how that kind of existence plays out in the end. Still, Stewart plays it so damn well, he makes this character very human. And the supporting performances are universally fantastic. In addition to those I've mentioned, the adorable French actress Corinne Calvet is very good. And I ought to single out Walter Brennen, as well. He seems to have specialized in playing best friends. His relationship with Stewart is very touching, since he is, at first, the only character who is able to bring out any humanity in the cynical man. The screenplay is very well written, and Mann's direction is impeccable. A masterpiece. 10/10.


That movie was awesome! I can't get over it's songs. I think I'm a little too old for musicals, but that movie deserves some credit here, guys! My especial favorite was Jack Wild. Me, being a British actor lover, you can't restrain me from all those nice-looking fresh faced, young men. I never knew that when Jack was doing that movie he was sixteen! He looks like an eleven- year old. He's short, that's what helps. Try posting up your replies, fellow posters, so I can relate to your experiences. Oh, and about Oliver Reed, that guy, Bill Sikes, I think that drone look is really familiar. Any idea where he's starred in before? If so, post it up, I'd really like to know.


I could never remember the name of this show. I use to watch it when I was 8. I remember staying up late when I wasn't suppose to just so I could watch this show. It was the best show to me. From what I remember of it, it is still great. This showed starred Lucas Black making him the first boy I ever had a crush on. I am from the country, therefore boys with an accent have no appeal to me, but for him I would definitely make an exception. Which after seeing Crazy in Alabama, Friday Night Lights, and Tokyo Drift you should see why. He is a great actor and has been since he was a kid. I miss this show and wish it would come back out. If anyone ever sees where they are selling the season please email me. kywildflower16@hotmail.com


This movie is about a female rape victim/comic book writer from New York that decides to get away from all that awful big city glamor and move to a dirty, run down small town where she finds refuge in a single-wide trailer on a dirt lot in the middle of 12th and nowhere. The townspeople are mentally ill, yet so is she for inviting crazy men into her trailer. Annoying is the fact that she has the ability to do exactly the right thing to place herself in dangerous circumstance after dangerous circumstance. DB Sweeney's performance was high school at best. He's one of those kinda-cute young actors with a sweet grin. Unfortunately career has not been kind and mother nature has been right in tow. To the previous commentator stating that the acting was "so real", well I agree. Actually it wasn't acting. The two main characters really are pathetic, weak and incapable of making mature, healthy decisions. In brief, this movie sucks like no other, rent it to laugh at it. The real crime scene? The atrocious Wood paneling in the trailer - enough to make ME commit murder. And lastly, she's a artist/writer, so couldn't she afford a double-wide trailer and something other than a sun-yellow Chevy Chevette for love of god!


Hey if you have a little over an hour to kill and find paint to be too exciting I'd suggest it. If thou you happen to like cheap b-movies like me it's good for a giggle! Other than that I wouldn't suggest that you rent it, I'd wait till it comes on the tube say round 4 am on the free access channel of your cable/satellite supplier. The band that did this sound track by the way was on the road after for about two years after this flick, and no they sounded just as bad live according to the two small town reviews I could find on them. So once again good if you find grass growing to much fun but good to watch if you like to see how NOT to shoot a low budget movie.


I really can't understand how could someone give this disgusting film more than 1 star... How can you like such a retarded film, where all the animal abuse scenes are real? I don't even want to imagine the excruciating pain those innocent and defenseless living beings felt in those horrific moments... Jesus... What kind of ''human'' would torture them like that for no reason, or just for money? I tell you, that director is either mentally retarded, or he's just a monster with a ''heart'' of stone. Or both. He truly deserves to get his hands cut off and burn alive.It contains various horribly barbaric scenes that may cause shock, especially to sensitive persons and children: a real frog is skinned alive, fish are sadistically mutilated and thrown back into the water, a dog is beaten, birds are thrown into the water...This movie is more than awful; it has to be the worst and most retarded film ever made, along with another one, called ''Cannibal Holocaust'' or something like that. I'll never watch or buy any film directed by this heartless monster. No one should waste their time watching it, especially when there are a lot of TRULY great movies out there, in which all the animal abuse scenes are staged.Fortunately, only a few people liked this - which is natural, since it's the worst film ever -, so it wasn't successful. I hope this will make the retarded director realize that such unjustified barbaric acts of extreme cruelty and violence to REAL animals will NEVER be praised, and that he will stage all the animal abuse scenes in his following films. I truly believe that everyone receives but what they give! There will be a day when all the retarded and cruel ''humans'' will feel the same pain they once inflicted to others.This, however, is probably my only ''negative'' review. I usually don't comment on a movie if I dislike it, but this time I just couldn't shut up. I had to speak the truth, because animal abuse must stop!


This was the first PPV in a new era for the WWE as Hulk Hogan, The Ultimate Warrior, Ric Flair and Sherri Martel had all left. A new crop of talent needed to be pushed. And this all started with Lex Luger, a former NWA World Heavyweight Champion being given a title shot against Yokozuna. Lex travelled all over the US in a bus called the Lex Express to inspire Americans into rallying behind him in his bid to beat the Japanese monster (who was actually Samoan) and get the WWE Championship back into American hands. As such there was much anticipation for this match.But every good PPV needs an undercard and this had some good stuff.The night started off with Razor Ramon defeating Ted DiBiase in a good match. The story going into this was that DiBiase had picked on Ramon and even offered him a job as a slave after his shock loss to the 1-2-3 Kid on RAW in July. Ramon, angry, had then teamed with the 1-2-3 Kid against the Money Inc tag team of Ted DiBiase and Irwin R Shyster. To settle their differences they were both given one on one matches DiBiase vs Ramon and Shyster vs The Kid. Razor was able to settle his side of the deal after hitting a Razor's Edge.Next up came the Steiner Brothers putting the WWE Tag Team Titles on the line against The Heavenly Bodies. Depsite the interference of "The Bodies" Manager Jim Cornette, who hit Scott Steiner in the throat with a tennis racket, they were able to pull out the win in a decent match.Shawn Michaels and Mr Perfect had been feuding since Wrestlemania IX when Shawn Michaels confronted Perfect after his loss to Lex Luger. Perfect had then cost Michaels the Intercontinental Championship when he distracted him in a title match against Marty Janetty. Michaels had won the title back and was putting it on the line against Mr Perfect, but Michaels now had a powerful ally in his corner in his 7 foot bodyguard Diesel. Micheals and Perfect had an excellent match here, but it was Diesel who proved the difference maker, pulling Perfect out of the ring and throwing him into the steel steps for Shawn to win by count out.Irwin R Shyster avenged the loss of his tag team partner earlier in the night, easily accounting for the 1-2-3 Kid.Next came one of the big matches of the night as Bret Hart prepared to battle Jerry Lawler for the title of undisputed King of the WWE. But Lawler came out with crutches, saying he'd been injured in a car accident earlier that day and that he'd arranged another opponent for Hart: Doink the Clown. Hart and Doink had a passable match which Hart won with a sharpshooter. He was then jumped from behind by Lawler. This bought WWE President Jack Tunney to the ring who told Lawler that he would receive a lifetime ban if he didn't wrestle Hart. Hart then destroyed Lawler, winning with the sharpshooter, but Hart refused to let go of the hold and the referee reversed his decision. So after all that Lawler was named the undisputed King of the WWE. This match was followed by Ludvig Borda destroying Marty Janetty in a short match.The Undertaker finished his long rivalry with Harvey Wippleman, which had started in 1992 when the Undertaker had defeated Wippleman's client Kamala at Summerslam and continued when Wippleman's latest monster The Giant Gonzales had destroyed Taker at the Rumble and then again at Wrestlemania, with a decisive victory over Gonzales here. Gonzales then turned on Wippleman, chokeslamming him after a poor match.Next it was time for six man tag action as the Smoking Gunns (Bart and BIlly) and Tatanka defeated The Headshrinkers (Samu and Fatu) and Bam Bam Bigelow with Tatanka pinning Samu.This brings us to the main event with Yokozuna, flanked by Jim Cornette and Mr Fuji, putting the WWE Title on the line against Lex Luger and it was all on board the Lex Express. Lex came out attacking, but Yokozuna took control. Lex came back though as he was able to avoid a banzai drop and then body slam Yokozuna before knocking him out of the ring. Luger then attacked Cornette and Fuji as Yokozuna was counted out. Luger had won a fine match!!!!! Balloons fell from the ceiling. The heroes all came out to congratulate him on his win. Yokozuna may have retained the title, but Luger had proved he could be beaten. The only question was, who could beat him in the ring and get that title off him?


I saw this movie by luck, just because I was going through a phase where I had a new found admiration for Bill Pullman and wanted to see all of his recent movies and thank God I did! This Movie has stuck with me ever since and remain one of my favorites! The story revolves around two girls who embark on a dramatic journey in a foreign country where they'll learn the true meaning of freedom.Alice and Darlene were just trying to spend a vacation together before going to college but their trip ended up a much more complicated story. The struggle they go through as they are arrested in Thailand and became prisoners is very moving and intense. The acting is amazing, the images extraordinary, the soundtrack is fantastic and so right for the movie and the message transmitted definitely powerful. I actually can't even find the right words to describe how this movie makes me feel every time I watch it. I know some people haven't appreciated as much as me by the rating the movie has but I swear, this one, you have to see!!! I promise it will stick with you!


Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow is a typical 1950's teens in turmoil movie. It is not a horror or science fiction movie. Plot concerns a group of teens who are about to get kicked out of their "hot rod" club because they cannot meet the rent. Once kicked out, they decide to try an old Haunted House. The only saving grace for the film is that the "ghost" (Paul Blaisdell in the She Creature suit) turns out to be an out of work movie monster played by Blaisdell.


Before watching this movie I thought this movie will be great as Flashpoint because before watching this movie Flashpoint was the last Jenna Jameson and Brad Armstrong movie I previously watched. As far as sexual scenes are concerned I was disappointed, I thought sexual scenes of Dreamquest will be great as Flashpoint sexual scenes but I was disappointed. Except Asia Carrera's sexual scene, any sexual scene in this movie doesn't make me feel great (you know what I mean). The great Jenna Jameson doesn't do those kind of sexual scenes of what she is capable of. Felecia and Stephanie Swift both of those lovely girls disappoint me as well as far as sexual scenes are concerned.Although its a adult movie but if you aside that sexual scenes factor, this movie is very good. If typical adult movie standards are concerned this movie definitely raised the standards of adult movies. Story, acting, direction, sets, makeups and other technical stuff of this movie are really great. The actors of this movie done really good acting, they all done a great job. Dreamquest is definitely raised the bar of quality of adult movies.


This long winded film turns out to be less about Berkowitz and his effect on NYC, but more about painting caricatures of a certain group of Italian-Americans, known locally as "Guidos." The problem is that "Guidos" are uninteresting, no matter what kind of story or setting they are immersed in. They are already living caricatures, so Lee only amplifies them, rather than simply portraying them.When someone has a caricature done of themselves, they don't go home and say, "Hey, let's make the ears and nose even bigger!" That's what Lee has done in this film. The most interesting characters in the film are the two (Adrian Brody and Jennifer Esposito) who wish to escape the "Guido" lifestyle. Top it off with an uninteresting storyline for the characters, particularly John Leguizamo's, and you get a nice film to fall asleep by. Especially considering it's lengthy run time.One more strike against it: For someone proclaiming to be a Yankees fan, and has grown up in New York, Spike Lee should know how to spell Phil Rizzuto, which is spelled incorrectly in the closing credits.


Kolchak is sheer entertainment. Great stories and a great cast and nothing else to weigh it down. Darren McGavin gives an energetic performance that pulls the audience along with him. Simon Oakland, Jack Grinnage and Ruth McDevitt give McGavin the kind of solid support that most leading actors can only dream of having. Some excellent guest stars add colour and verve to individual episodes - Erik Estrada in Legacy of Terror, Phil Silvers in Horror in the Heights, Antonio Fargas in The Zombie. It's easy to see how a boyhood spent watching Kolchak drove Chris Carter to create The X Files. Darren - RIP. Simon - RIP. Ruth - RIP.


One piece of trivia that is often forgotten about this family film is one of business.At the time, in 1994, this movie held the record for the biggest movie premiere in motion picture history (and may continue to hold). It was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - no doubt in honor of the original film's "Angels" who "haunted" the Pittsburgh Pirates. In this remake they "haunt" the California Angels.Anyway, the premiere was held at the long gone Three Rivers Stadium which was the home of the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Pittsburgh Steelers at the time (the Pirates are now housed in PNC Park and the Steelers at Heinz Field). The premiere was held on a movie screen that was five stories in height inside the stadium and held (and may even continue to hold) the record for the largest movie premiere in history, shown to 60,000 fans. Danny Glover, Tony Danza and Christopher Lloyd were all in attendance to the admiration of thousands of sports fans.


A clever, undeniably entertaining romp starring Peter Ustinov as a career embezzler with his sights set on a US conglomerate in London. He's abetted by foxy (and deceptively sharp) Maggie Smith and threatened with exposure by jealous company man Bob Newhart. This is a heist film with a lot of brains. Ustinov is exceptional as is Smith and Newhart is quite funny. The real surprise is Karl Malden, as the pill popping "executive vice-president." Malden has seldom been so loose. Cesar Romero and Robert Morley pop up in some funny cameos. The excellent music score is by Laurie Johnson. Eric Till's direction is brisk and the script by Ustinov and Ira Wallach is first-rate & very smart. A swinging good time!


Loretta Castorini (Cher)is a woman in her late thirties, a widow, who lives with her parents in a duplex apartment in Brooklyn. She is engaged to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello), a bland man, more out of a resigned duty than actual love. Before their wedding Johnny takes a trip out to visit his mother who is sick and leaves Loretta the function of playing the olive leaf with his brother Ronny by notifying him of their impending wedding. Ronny (Nicholas Cage) hasn't forgiven Johnny for being the cause of his accident which caused him the loss of his hand (and subsequently, his then-bride-to-be), but he does fall for Loretta, and hard. After a heated affair Loretta out of respect for Johnny tries to avoid Ronny, but his dark looks and overpowering masculinity win her over. Meanwhile, Loretta's mother Rose Castorini (Olympia Dukakis) is not only suspecting her husband Cosmo (Vincent Gardenia) is seeing another woman, but is also herself the subject of admiration from a college professor and wonders why do men chase women. Things get complicated when Johnny returns from Sicily to tell Loretta they can't be married.The setup is pure sitcom, but the story, written by John Patrick Shanley with a deep understanding for Italian-Americans living in New York, is genuine: he gets the idiosyncrasies of these people and their day-to-day foibles and quirks, and all of the characters have a deep romanticism that comes through in key moments throughout the story. Loretta, a character hardened by the loss of her husband and knowing her chances of happiness are slim, slowly emerges as a woman who is so swept by the sudden recognition of love she becomes the heroine of La Boheme -- the one who acknowledges the love of the man with the wooden hand (in a clever gender reversal), and Cher inhabits the role and makes it hers and in her own style subtly trades her frumpiness to a deep, dark beauty. Ronny is pure fire and Nicholas Cage exudes masculine power as if he were channeling Marlon Brando. The Castorini's and the Cappomaggi's, counterbalancing the central couple, both express their love for each other in two very crucial moments: the latter couple, on the night of the full moon when Loretta and Ronny consummate their affair -- a rare scene depicting love and intimacy among the elderly --, and the former at a tense moment over breakfast when Rose bluntly reveals, in touching words, that she wants Cosmo to stop seeing his mistress Mona (Anita Gillette).MOONSTRUCK is not only the romantic comedy and date movie of choice, but also a beautiful examination of love and passion among regular people. The ending is a tour de force of emotional impact, the family situation going beyond the momentary complications to cement it in tradition going back to the days of immigrants, and is one that elevates this movie from being just another feel-good movie to a classic. MOONSTRUCK deservedly got its Oscars for Best Writing, Actress, and Supporting Actress, and has proved to grow beyond its time.


What's that there in the skies? Is it a plane? Is it Superman?? Errr, no
 It's a TURTLE!?! See, that's what becomes of the Cold War! Nothing but bad news and other issues! The Americans shoot down a Russian combat plane somewhere over Artic territory and the subsequent explosion defrosts & literally awakens the giant prehistoric turtle-creature named Gammera. He/she is not a very friendly critter as it promptly ensues to destroy everything and everyone on its path. The arguing governments finally decide to kill the ugly bastard with a brand new and super-sophisticated ice-bomb, but Gammera has another surprise in store
 The damn turtle can fly! The first time this happens results in a tremendously grotesque and hilarious sequence! Gammera lies on his back looking defeated when suddenly fire blows from his armpits and he skyrockets himself up in the air. How can you not love that? Then there's also a dire sub plot about an annoying kid who's able to telepathically communicate with the monster, but that's just not interesting enough. Flying turtle, people!! There's very little else to write about this Japanese (and American re-edited) Sci-Fi effort, apart from that it's an obvious and totally shameless rip-off of such classics like the original Godzilla and The Beast from 20.000 Fathoms. The effects and monster designs are extremely hokey and, unlike the aforementioned films, it never succeeds in creating an apocalyptic ambiance. Respectable actors like Brian Donlevy ("The Quatermass Experiment") and Dick O'Neill ("Wolfen") seem unaware of what film set they're on and even the original Japanese mayhem-scenes aren't very convincing. Gammera's very own and personalized theme-song is rather cool, though, so it gets one extra point for that.


Hooper is Not Funny, Not Fasted paced, Not romantic and Non informative. There is no real drama. You would think that a movie about the world's greatest stuntman would have some drama, there was an attempt but it didn't seem real. No Character study, no lessons learned, it did not even look like the actors were having any real fun, they were just trying to act like they were having fun. There is no reason to watch unless you like to look at Burt and want get an occasional glimpse of Sally. Prancer the horse was beautiful and did what he was supposed to do. In fact Prancer was the best actor in this movie. Smoky and the Bandit was such a fun movie that I was ready to like Hooper. This movie turned out to be a real disappointment and waste of time


This was the first televised episode of the Columbo series (although it was filmed after "Death Lends a Hand")and it heralded one of the most successful TV series in history.Jack Cassidy (who played the murderer in the series three times) enthuses smugness, arrogance and self-assuredness in equal measure here, as Ken Franklin, one half of a mystery writing team who hatches an elaborate plot to kill off his partner, Jim Ferris (played by Martin Milner) who decides to terminate their professional relationship, leaving Franklin exposed as merely a good publicist rather than a prolific writer.The initial murder set-up is fantastic and Cassidy's performance facilitates an arguable accolade that he was the best Columbo murderer in the series.Peter Falk is wonderfully understated in his role as Columbo and the character's inherent traits and oddities, which are underlined by a seeming slowness and absent-mindedness, contrast particularly well with Cassidy's character's extreme smugness: one of their early scenes together where Ken Franklin fabricates a motive for the killing through Jim Ferris's non-existent expo-see of identifying hit-men operating in the underworld exemplifies this very well. Franklin hints to Columbo this potential motive and Columbo (purposely or ignorantly) fails to latch on, forcing Franklin to express his disappointment in a markedly patronising manner and compare him unfavourably with the detective in the books, Mrs. Melville.Also, noteworthy is the early directorial contribution of 24 year old Steven Spielberg. Notwithstanding, some elementary inclusions of cameras shadowing the actors and actresses, he adds some stylish and elaborate touches to uphold the general professionalism of the episode. One particularly stark image is of Jim Feriss's dead body lying on the settee, almost dark in the foreground, as Ken Franklin raises a glass to him in the background after he finishes answering a phone call to Ferris's distraught wife. I have no doubt that working to a restrictive 10-14 day schedule, Spieberg's efforts should not be underestimated.Unfortunately, the event of the second murder, necessitated by a blackmailing scheme which is plotted by a female friend of Franklin's (and ironically referred to as "sloppy" by Columbo in his climatic summing up) takes the steam out of the whole thing. The cutting edge of the plot is compromised and the screen-time between Falk and Cassidy inexcusably lessens at this point to perhaps help the script-writer (Stephen Bocho) out of a tight corner, since he cannot singularly develop the story without another murder.The climax is the most disappointing aspect of this episode. The initial banter and exchange of words between Falk and Cassidy is strongly and effectively executed, but it merely advertises the fact that it should have happened more in the episode. The main aggravation lies with the sealing clue (if it can be called a clue): Cassidy's character's hitherto smugness and arrogance is amazingly expelled by a clue that really does little to imply his guilt; and once this is mentioned, he capitulates in a rather unspectacular and uncharacteristic fashion.All in all, a bold opening to the series, which inevitably advertises and foretells all that is good about Columbo, and, conversely, the problems associated with such ingenuity, i.e maintaining the high standards and particularly, creating a credible and suitably intelligent ending.


'Soapdish' is one of the best, yet least well remembered comedies of the 1990's. The film revolves around the various off-camera drama's that occur behind the scenes of a cheaply produced Daytime Soap Opera. The first of the film's various impressive strengths is it's fantastic A-List cast. 'Soapdish' features some of the greatest actors and actresses of it's era.The film is superbly led by Sally Field, as the neurotic ageing actress Celeste Talbert (She famously throws a tantrum when put in a costume that makes her look like "Gloria F*CKING Swanson!"). Her supporting cast reads like a who's-who of 90's Movie Greats! Whoopi Goldberg, Robert Downey Jr, Teri Hatcher, Kevin Kline and Kathy Najimy all elevate the film greatly. Goldberg is predictably excellent, whilst Downey Jr.'s and Hatcher's performances hint at the comedic excellence they would later achieve.In terms of writing, the film is outstanding. There is a really modern edge to the script, which strays into the wonderfully bizarre on several occasions. There also several visual gags that are quite ahead of their time. In some ways, the film is reminiscent of Mel Brooks at his best and frequently reminded this reviewer of 'High Anxiety' (1977). Much of the film's humour hinges on it's often scathing, but pretty accurate, representations of daytime television and of neurotic and pretentious actors. For example, The extras casting session featuring the exploitative executive played by Carrie Fisher, is both hilarious and honest.'Soapdish' is, for my money, one of the very best comedies Hollywood produced during the 1990's. It's excellent script and A-Class cast make it a must-see. It's hard not to love this film after it's kept you laughing for 90 minutes.


I chose to see this movie because it got a good score here on IMDb. But a lot of people either have really poor taste or someone's been fixing the score.Either way it was a real disappointment. The movie is exactly as stupid and far fetched as the title would suggest. There really is no reason to give a summary of the plot - but here goes: it felt like someone had been thinking: "Wouldn't it be cool to make a movie where there were snakes on a plane? And then the snakes for some reason would go crazy and start biting and stuff?!?" And that's about it! The plot is thin and unoriginal. The snakes are bad CGI (but it makes sense to cut corners on a movie that no one in their right mind will recommend to anyone!). The acting is poor, and all people are unbelievable stereo types.To sum it up: It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen - stay away!


Sometimes I just want to laugh. Don't you? No analyzing, no critiquing and no looking for deeper meaning. Rent this movie, watch it all and laugh your ass off. Don't want to admit you liked it? Fine. But don't trash it here when you and I both know you liked it. It's Damn funny!


When I was a kid we always used to be babysat, and we always used to rent a film or see a film at the cinema. This is one of the films we watched. This is one of the stupidest films I've ever seen, I think it might even be a Walt Disney Pictures film! A martian is dropped on earth, turns into a human, befriends a human, and is trying everything he can to get back home. But he is distracted by the wonders of the Earth. The only good comment I can give is the choice of actors, Back to the Future's Christopher Lloyd as the martian, Uncle Martin, Dumb and Dumber's Jeff Daniels as Tim O'Hara, Elizabeth Hurley as Brace Channing and Daryl Hannah as Lizzie. But apart from that it's complete crap. Poor!


Wow, I love and respect pretty much anything that David Lynch has done. However, this movie is akin to a first filmmaker's attempt at making a pseudo art video. To give you a couple of examples: 1. David Lynch is typically a visual filmmaker, however, this had little visual artistic content (blank walls, "up shots" with ceiling in the background) 2. David Lynch typically takes great pride in audio, however, in this you could even hear the video camera's hum. In fact, it is very hard to swallow the idea that he had anything to do with this movie. unless......this is a joke, on David's part, to force fans search his website (for hours) only to find this drivel. I hope so, because at least that idea is funny.


You know what kind of movie you're getting into when the serial killer main character is being transported to the electric chair (in what seems to be a bakery truck), only to have the prison vehicle collide with (and I'm not making this up) a genetic engineering tanker truck. The goo which spurts forth melts him, and fuses his DNA with the snow, creating our protagonist, the killer snowman.My favorite portion of the movie, however, is an over-the-shoulder shot of the snowman thrashing some poor schmuck, in which his hands look suspiciously like a couple of white oven-potholder gloves.Mmmmm, schlock...


I can not believe I wasted my money to rent this movie. I thought it was a porn flick when it started and it never got any better. The acting, the music drowning out the actors. Horrible. Save your money! You have to read the movie all the way through b\c they knew the music would drowned out the speaking lines. I never got the part about the slaughterhouse or the need to continue to show cows and pigs being butchered. What did that have to do with the "real" BTK killer? I understand why there were no famous actors\actresses in this movie. The script would have turned me away within the first page of reading. You would be better off watching paint dry.


Jim Carrey is back to much the same role that he played in The Mask, a timid guy who is trying to get ahead in the world but who seems to be plagued with bad luck. Even when he tries to help a homeless guy from being harassed by a bunch of hoodlums (and of course they have to be Mexican, obviously), his good will towards his fellow man backfires. In that case, it wasn't too hard to predict that he was about to have a handful of angry hoodlums, but I like that the movie suggests that things like that shouldn't be ignored. I'm reminded of the episode of Michael Moore's brilliant The Awful Truth, when they had a man lay down on the sidewalk and pretend to be dead and see who would actually stop and make sure he was okay. The results were not very promising, so it's nice to see someone in the movies setting a good example.Jim Carrey plays the part of Bruce Nolan, the nice guy mentioned above whose entire life seems to be falling apart. Or even better, it seems to be breaking up by the blows of bad luck like an asteroid entering the atmosphere (a little metaphor that comes up when Bruce miraculously finds himself a gigantic news story later in the film). Bruce is nearly 40 years old and all he has to show for it is a position as a news reporter of the sort that reports on such exciting news as the local bakery that's seeking to bake the world's biggest cookie. He's desperate to obtain the job of head anchor at the TV station, but he loses his cool on live TV when he hears that the job went to his rival colleague. You have to love how they time the revelation of this news to him seconds before his first live report. Needless to say, he loses his temper on live TV in one of the funniest scenes of the entire film.Morgan Freeman delivers a fantastic performance as the Man himself, displaying a God whose infinite wisdom is somewhat reflected through Freeman's massive talent as an actor. He is the kind of God who takes his job very seriously, but in such a way as to advise his followers (as well as the viewers of this movie) that there are times when you need to slow down and do some manual labor in life. I love his line that some of the happiest people in the world come home smelling to high heaven at the end of the day. There are a lot of people in the world (maybe more than our share in America) who are so absorbed by their money and their possessions and their jobs and everything that they completely lost touch with the natural side of themselves as humans.One of the biggest strengths is that the movie is able to provide great advice to people in general about improving their lives, and this message is clear and acceptable regardless of the viewer's religion. I, for example, tend to reject organized religion in all forms and I see God and Satan to be metaphors for different aspects of nature and human psychology rather than actual figures who ever lived or continue to live. But despite the fact that I don't believe that God exists as an entity overseeing the universe or as a janitor dressed all in white who mops the floors of his downtown office in his spare time, I was able to appreciate the messages that were delivered in this movie.Jim Carrey's movies display this fantastic evolution that ties them all together and makes the newer ones look even better just because you can see how far he's come. If you compare Bruce Almighty with movies like Ace Ventura (both of which I loved, by the way) or a lot of what he did before he got into film, it's amazing how far he's come. He has moved from cheesy TV comedy to cheesy comedic films to comedies that are truly intelligent and meaningful like this film as well as others like The Truman Show, Man on the Moon, and The Majestic (easily one of his greatest films ever). Jim Carrey has unmistakably moved from the cheesy comedy of his past to become one of the most important comic actors working today.Jennifer Aniston also once again provides an excellent addition to the movie (as she did in the side-splitting Office Space) as Bruce's girlfriend, who becomes increasingly exasperated by Bruce's growing stress about his life as well as his negligence to ask her to marry him. There is definitely some low-brow comedy in the film that doesn't really fit with the importance of the film's meaning or the quality of the delivery, such as the dog reading the newspaper on the toilet and the whole monkey scene, but it was definitely pretty nice to see Ace Ventura's friend Spike make a cameo appearance. As Stephen King very well knows, it's always nice to see familiar characters. It's almost like seeing family again.Bruce is endowed with the powers of God for a given period of time so that he can understand life a bit better, and he says a lot about himself when he uses the powers only for his own purposes rather than to help all of the people who pray to him. The thing I love about this is that, like I said before, religion is absent from my life, but I was able to watch this and learn a lot about myself as well by thinking about what kinds of things I would have done had I been endowed with such powers. The movie allows us to learn vicariously this way, which empowers the message even more.The scenes that involve the news station are easily the funniest in the entire film, such as the scene when Bruce loses his temper about the anchor position, the Jimmy Hoffa scene (who was conveniently buried with an original birth certificate and a complete set of dental records), the scene where Bruce's rival colleague is made to go nuts on camera, and my favorites, the ones at the beginning and the end involving the local bakery's cooking. The movie has plenty of time for Carrey to deliver some excellent jokes, such as when he says to God (who reveals that he's the janitor, the proprietor, the electrician, etc) that his Christmas parties must be real bashes, and to be careful about drinking, because on of him might need a ride home! I also loved the end when he says that behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes. A little too true, and as Gallagher would add, behind every great man is also an amazed mother-in-law.Bruce Almighty is one of the more memorable comedies to have come out for quite a while, and is probably the only directly religious that I can remember seeing that I am anxious to buy on DVD to add to my personal collection. It is a comedy written and performed in good taste, but with enough relatively low-brow humor to keep the kids entertained. This is a meaningful comedy for the whole family, which is becoming rarer and rarer these days. In a world that is about to be flogged with yet another American Pie film AND another Scary Movie (which are only scary because of their sheer barbarous idiocy), it's nice to see that there are still people making comedies worth watching. Don't miss this one.


I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for

. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The "ear piercing " part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate.