The premise for Circle of Two is an intriguing one. A forbidden love between a sixty year old painter Ashleigh (Richard Burton) and a fifteen year old girl Sarah Norton (Tatum O'Neill); and the question of whether such a relationship is acceptable given society's standards. The problem with Circle of Two, however, is that it fails to live up to its promise. Director Jules Dassin and Hedley should have put more thought into the screenplay. When I watched this film, I expected to learn something new about love and sexuality. Instead, I got boring dialogue, a pointless lecture on art, outings where Sarah seemed to have more fun away from Ashleigh, and a closing scene so artificial that its emotional impact was lost. This script makes good actors look bad. So one can imagine how the film's problems were compounded even further with the largely amateurish cast that Jules Dassin assembled. Tatum O'Neill was not in her element. I did not believe for a second that her character Sarah was in love with Ashleigh. Her performance seemed superficial, like a contestant at a beauty pageant. It was as though she forced herself to be happy, when the script required her to be happy, and to be sad, when the script asked her to be sad. The only scene I liked with her in was at the very end when she said nothing at all. That was probably the closest Tatum's Sarah Norton ever came to being real. But Tatum was not the only one at fault. Richard Burton's Ashleigh lacked the charm, the charisma and the complexity to attract even women of his own age, let alone a fifteen year old. The rest of the cast was also dismal. Even their arguing was unconvincing, because they waited to take turns. Who does that? Michael Wincott as the jealous ex-boyfriend Paul was probably the best thing in this film, but his role was small. To be fair to the actors, Dassin's direction let everyone down; but it is also true that a great movie goes beyond the script. Kubrick's Lolita did that with James Mason and Sue Lyon; Konchalovsky's Runaway Train went beyond the script with Jon Voight and Eric Roberts playing convicts. The directors of these films also knew how to use music to dramatize their films and reveal something about the characters in them. In spite of its own score (a combination of Antonio Vivaldi, Carl Off and Bernard Hoffer), Circle of Two never succeeds in doing that.In conclusion, the idea of a forbidden love story between an elder painter and a teenage girl is a good one, but its execution in Circle of Two is terrible. In many ways, it is a shame that a controversial, Lolita-type story  which most film directors for understandable reasons would prefer to avoid  did not have receive more intelligent treatment; that a script which actors would have gladly rehearsed was not written; that actors, who were committed to their part or had the talent to make their characters real, could not be found; and that the director Jules Dassin (who did so much better with films like Rififi and Topkapi) did not have to will to put his foot down and say, "Before we do any filming, we must rethink the love story and revamp the script." The only silver lining is that one day an intelligent film about an elder painter and a teenager girl falling in love may one day be made. If such a film ever appears, this it will be surely spark controversy, debate and questions for many years to come.


this was a very good movie i wished i could find it in vhs to buy,i really enjoyed this movie i would definaetly recommend this movie to watch i would like to see it again but can never find it in tv, it would be well worth the time to watch it again


With all the excessive violence in this film, it could've been NC-17. But the gore could've been pg-13 and there were quite a lot of swears when the mum had the original jackass bad-hairdewed boy friend. There was a lot of character development which made the film better to watch, then after the kid came back to life as the scarecrow, there was a mindless hour and ten minutes of him killing people. The violence was overly excessive and i think the bodycount was higher than twelve which is a large number for movies like this. ALmost every character in the film is stabbed or gets their head chopped off, but the teacher who called him "white trash" and "hoodlum" (though the character lester is anything but a hoodlum, not even close, i know hoods and am part hood, they don't draw in class, they sit there and throw stuff at the teacher). The teacher deserved a more gruesome death than anyone of the characters, but was just stabbed in the back. There were two suspenseful scenes in the film, but didn't last long enough to be scary at all. As i said, the killings were excessive and sometimes people who have nothing to do with the story line get their heads chopped off. If the gore was actually fun to see, then it would've been nc-17. Two kids describe a body they find in the cornfields, they describe it as a lot gorier than it actually was, they explained to the cop that there were maggots crawling around in the guys intestines. His stomach had not even been cut open so there was no way maggots were in his stomach, though i would've liked to see that. The acting was pathetic, characters were losers, and the scarecrow could do a lot of gymnastix stunts. I suggest renting this movie for the death scenes, i wont see it again anytime soon, but i enjoyed the excessive violence. Also, don't bother with the sequel, i watched five minutes of it and was bored to death, it sounds good but isn't. The original scarecrow actually kept me interested.


How to lose friends and Alienate people came out in 2008. It bombed at U.S. Box offices. It's an absolutely hilarious film with a great cast. Simon Pegg is great playing Sidney Young, who wrote the book "How to lose friends and Alienate people. I know it's not a true story. The only way I know that is because Sidney wants to go out with an actress named Sophie Maes. Sophie Maes doesn't exist, but other than that, the film could be real. How to lose friends and Alienate people is probably the funniest film of 2008, and I think you definitely should see it. As I said earlier, the film has a fantastic cast including: Kirsten Dunst(Spider-Man, The Virgin Suicides) Danny Huston(The Number 23, 30 days of night) Gillian Anderson(The X-Files) Megan Fox(Transformers, Confessions of a teenage drama Queen) Jeff Bridges(The Big Lebowski, The Vanishing) Overall, How to lose friends and Alienate people is hilarious. I think Simon Pegg and Kirsten Dunst do work well together, and I think you should see it. Though there is some odd nudity including Trans-sexuals, it's a hilarious and awesome comedy. One of Simon Pegg's best.The Plot:Sidney Young, a journalist from England, travels down to New York to work at Sharp magazines. While there, he meets an actress named Sophie Maes and tries to sleep with her before his boss does.


Godard once said a way to criticize a movie is to just make one, and probably the strongest kind that could be made about Ralph Bakshi's take on Tolkien's magnum opus the Lord of the Rings, has actually been made by Peter Jackson. The recent trilogy, to me, aren't even total masterpieces, but they are given enough room with each book to breath in all the post-modern techniques crossed with classical storytelling to make them very good, sweeping entertainments. But as one who has not read the books, I end up now looking upon the two versions, live-action (albeit partly animated in its big visual effects way) and animated (albeit partly done with actual live action as the framework) in relation to just the basic story, not even complete faithfulness to the books. And with Bakshi's version, it's almost not fair in a way, as what we do see is really not the complete vision, not what Jackson really had (probably final cut). Robbed of Return of the King's big climactic rush of the story, and with the other two parts becoming rushed, I ended up liking it more for what it did within its limitations, though as such those same limitations make it disappointing.What's interesting too, after seeing the Jackson films first- which I also slightly regret being that I might've reacted to this differently when I was younger and prior to five years ago- is that the basic elements of the story never get messed up with. Everything that is really needed to tell the Fellowship of the Ring story is actually pretty much intact, and if anything what was probably even more gigantic and epic in Tolkien's book is given some clarity in this section. The actors playing the parts of the hobbits and the other heroes, are more or less adequate for the parts, with a few parts standing out (John Hurt as Aragorn and William Squire as Gandalf). The lack of extra characterization does end up making things seem a little face-value for those who've not even seen the other films or read the books and can't put them into context. But there is some level of interest always with the characters, and here there's a more old-fashioned sensibility amid the large aura of it being more. This is not a garden variety Disney adaptation- warts and all, this is a Bakshi film, with his underground animation roots colliding with the mythical world of Middle Earth.And what Bakshi and his animation team bring to the film is one that ends up giving what is on screen, in all its abbreviated form, its hit or miss appeal. Along with being not totally complete as a film, or as stories, the form of the film is an experiment, to see if something can be entirely rotoscoped. The results end up bringing what seems now to be retro, but at the time of course was something that was a rough, crazy inspiration on the part of the filmmakers. Might it have been better with more traditional drawn animation? In some parts, yeah; it does become a little noticeable, as was also the case in Bakshi's American Pop, that the main characters move in such ways that are a little shaky, like some kind of comic-book form done in a different way. Still, there's much I admired in what was done. The orcs, for example, I found to be really amazing in they're surreal surroundings. They're maybe the best part of the combination of the animation on top of the live-action, especially during parts where there isn't battle footage (that's really the real hit-or-miss section, as there isn't continuity from the good and bad rotoscoping), and the chiaroscuro comes through with big shapes on top of horseback. It's creepy in a good way. And the backgrounds, while also very rough and sometimes too sketchy, are beautiful with the mixtures and blasts of colors together. It's almost something for art-film buffs as much as for the ring-nuts.So, how would I recommend this animated take on the Lord of the Rings? I don't know, to tell the truth. It's certainly a good notch above the other Tolkien animated film I've seen, the Hobbit (and I've yet to see the animated ROTK), and there is some real artistry going on. There's also some stilted dialog, an all-too-rushed Two Towers segment with the most intriguing character Gollum being reduced to maybe two scenes in all. And seeing something as fragmented like this ends up only reinforcing the completeness of the more recent films. If you're a fan of the books contemplating checking this out, I would say it's worth a chance, even if it's one of those chances where you watch for forty minutes and then decide whether to stop it or not. As for it fitting into Bakshi's other films I've seen it's an impressive ambitious and spotty achievement, where as with Lynch's Dune it's bound to draw a dark, mordor-like line in the sand between those who hate it passionately and those who don't. I don't.


Not worth the video rental or the time or the occasional efforts.*Makeup that a child can do. *Acting was over done...poor directing. *Editing was very choppy...many things made no sense or just seemed gratuitous. *Sound was badly dubbed. *Music was highly inappropriate. *Casting was extremely off...must have been on crack. *Zombies that talk let alone...drive, dance, work...just pisses me off. *And the bad guy...Holy Crap! As horribly casted as he was...he was the best looking zombie of all. Which doesn't say much.The Cover Art was good but very deceiving...as was the Main Menu of the DVD...great artwork and music.DON"T BOTHER!


What do you get if you cross The Matrix with The Truman Show?I'm sure you've all seen The Matrix by now. The creators of The Matrix say that it is 'anime inspired'. Just from watching the trailer to this classic, you can see where they took the plot from.The film is sort of set in 1980s Japan, and it really shows. The costumes, music and words(in the recent English Language version by AD Vision) are all like they've been directly lifted from the era. I believe it was made in that time also, but due to certain plot points, this doesn't date the film!As you probably guessed by my referencing to The Matrix, the world isn't real. It's not really the 1980's. In fact, it's something more like the 2480's. After a nuclear war, the Earth(or "Biosphere Prime")'s ecosystem was destroyed. The survivors we're forced to escape into space, where the conflict continued. Once the planets(or "Biospheres") were all abandoned, people began to live in MegaZones - cities inside of spaceships, where, via hypnotism techniques and Truman Show-esque illusion, they were made to believe they we're back on earth, in the most peaceful time in recent memory... The 1980s. When young Shogo obtains a mysterious advanced looking motorcycle, it leads him to find out more than he's supposed to know... The Garland(a bike which becomes a mech), a weapon from the 2400's, aids Shogo in his escape from the pursuing military. As more and more is discovered about the MegaZone, the war comes closer to home, and due to conflicts between the military and the computer, the war comes to the MegaZone too... I apologise if those points are seen as spoilers, but the plot is outlined basically that way on the synopsis.Emotions run high in this movie, moreso than The Matrix. You really do believe the war is going on, and Shogo really does become quite scarred by what he's discovering. What starts off as an uber-happy cool 80's flick becomes a tragic tale of war and unreality. These characters are real people, not the cardboard cutouts we saw flipping around in bullet-time in The Matrix. There really is the sense of the suffering people can go through after being caught up in such a conspiracy, and a war. It may just choke you up towards the end... I know it did me.Animation is pretty impressive for it's day, and the picture quality on the ADVision DVD is unbelievable for it's age. The artwork style is beautiful and reminiscent of traditional anime, very cultural. Be prepared for quite a lot of violence and blood, there's also an erotic sex scene.The ending can be seen as a 'there can be no ending', similar to the Matrix, or, supposedly can be followed by the sequel, which I haven't yet had the pleasure of watching.I have to say that this is one of the best animes I've seen, in fact, one of the best movies I've seen, and considered by many to be one of the greatest animes of all time.I must recommend the ADVision DVD, as their take on the English Language is incredible, and does the movie justice, and can be purchased with an artbox for holding the two sequels when they are released, which will have the same vocal cast.All in all, MegaZone 23 is an incredible movie, and deserves to be held highly, and should be an essential in any anime fan's collection. Heck, even my mother enjoyed it.


I had high expectations following "My Beautiful Laundrette", "Bend it like Beckham" and (less so) "East is East". The histories of British Asians fitting into their adopted home has had many good runs on the big screen, as well as a number of excellent TV and radio series (Goodness gracious me, etc). This one falls flat. Inspite of a good start it rapidly went down hill.Ultimately this was a horribly typical BBC effort, complete with strong regional accents, whacky over-acting characters, a "those were the days" soundtrack, and lots of "issues" in an attempt to be worthy.I found myself cringing at many points during this film. The writing is predictable. Every possible cliche was dragged out and aired. In fact, I have trouble thinking of any cross-cultural/cross-generational devices that could have been used that weren't. The characters were thin and cliched: the eccentric non-conformist minister; the well meaning but ultimately racist old woman; the over weight, overbearing aunt; the pushy Indian parents; the working class neighbour; the 'wise' profound grandmother; the motorbike riding thug. The script was weak, with every chance to shock the audience with overt racist dialogue from the two dimentional racist white characters taken. And why it had to be set in the 70's (apart from needing an excuse for a 70's soundtrack) is a mystery. Possibly it make unbelievable characters slightly more believable to people born after 1979. I don't know.Even these things aside, good acting could have carried this into respectable obscurity. Instead, the usual "BBC comedy" suspects were wheeled out to ham it up. "Bend it like Beckham" had far better comic acting (and serious acting, in fact) than this, with a virtually unknown cast.In summary, a lazy cliched script, over acted, in a dull predictable story. Give it a miss.


THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT, like I'M ALL RIGHT JACK, takes a dim view of both labor and capital. Alec Guinness is a scientific genius - but an eccentric one (he has never gotten his university degree due to an...err...accident in a college laboratory). He manages to push himself into various industrial labs in the textile industry. When the film begins he is in Michael Gough's company, and Gough (in a memorable moment) is trying to impress his would-be father-in-law (Cecil Parker) by showing him the ship-shape firm he runs. While having lunch with Parker and Parker's daughter (Joan Greenwood), Gough gets a message regarding some problems about the lab's unexpectedly large budget problems. He reads the huge expenditures (due to Guinness's experiments), and chokes on his coffee.Guinness goes on to work at Parker's firm, and repeats the same tricks he did with Gough - but Parker discovers it too. Greenwood has discovered what Guinness is working on, and convinces Parker to continue the experiments (but now legally). The result: Guinness and his assistant has apparently figured out how to make an artificial fiber that can constantly change the electronic bonds within it's molecular structure so that (for all intents and purposes) the fiber will remain in tact for good. Any textile made from it will never fade, get dirty, or wear out - it will last forever.Guinness has support from a female shop steward, but not her chief. He sees Guinness as selling out to the rich. But when he explains to them what he's done, they turn against him. If everyone has clothes that will last forever then they will not need new clothes! Soon Parkers' fellow textile tycoons (led by Gough, Ernest Theisinger - in a wonderful performance, and Howard Marion-Crawford) are equally panic stricken by what may end their businesses. They seek to suppress the invention. With only Greenwood in his corner (although Parker sort of sympathizes with him), Guinness tries to get the news of his discovery to the public.In the end, Guinness is defeated by science as well as greed. But he ends the film seeing the error in his calculations, and we guess that one day he may still pull off his discovery after all.It's a brilliant comedy. But is the argument for suppression valid? At one point the difficulties of making the textile are shown (you have to heat the threads to a high temperature to actually enable the ends of the material to be united. There is nothing that shows the cloth will stretch if the owner gets fat (or contract if the owner gets thin). Are we to believe that people only would want one set of clothing for ever? What happened to fashion changes and new styles? And the cloth is only made in the color white (making Guinness look like a white knight). We are told that color dye would have to be added earlier in the process. Wouldn't that have an effect on the chemical reactions that maintain the structure of the textile? Alas this is not a science paper, but a film about the hypocrisies of labor and capital in modern industry. As such it is brilliant. But those questions I mention keep bothering me about the validity of suppressing Guinness' invention


Don't get me wrong, this is a terrible, clichéd film, but it is a delight for fans of Olivia Hussey - quite possibly the most intoxicating beauty ever to grace the silver screen. One poster stated that she was unpleasant to look at - I wonder what his ideal woman looks like - Paris Hil-slut? Blockbuster should really establish a sub-genre to this type of film, as the Fatal Attraction plot has become a genre unto itself. When will Blockbuster adopt the "Adultry" section? It will fit in quite nicely between the drama and action sections, right? This film revolves around Olivia Hussey, who spends a night of passion with an unstable yacht owner who may have murdered his ex-wife, who looks remarkably like Ms. Hussey. This ne'er-do-well proceeds to stalk Olivia and thus make her life a living-hell. I like Olivia Hussey, but I have no sympathy for characters in movies that cheat on their spouses, so I really wasn't rooting for Olivia to make it out o this stinker alive.VIOLENCE: $$ (There is a smattering of violence in the film. Don Murray and Anthony John Denison get involved in a fisticuffs when Denison says that he will not stop seeing Olivia, Murray's wife, because she is just too good in bed. Olivia also gets to handle a shooter and might get to squeeze off a round - I'll let you watch).NUDITY: $$ (Olivia is the queen of brief nudity and supplies a little here. She has a love scene with Anthony John Denison and also has a shower scene - shot at a distance).STORY: $ (We've seen this plot before - a hundred times over, and oftentimes done much better. The true culprit, when trying to decipher why this film was a dud, is William Riead. The man's dialogue is sophomoric and moronic. The man has no story-telling abilities and fails to build believable human reactions to the plot. These people, of the upper strata of society, talk like middle school kids - with a habit of sleeping during English class. I have placed Riead on the Never-to-be-Viewed-Again list).ACTING: $$$ (The acting wasn't "phoned-in" as the insiders say, but was hindered a great deal by Riead's juvenile script. Olivia Hussey resorts to calling Anthony Jonh Denison "weird" and "crazy" to his face when he begins to stalk her. Hussey, who is still beautiful, delivers the best performance here but Denison was equal to the task of portraying a demented, love-crazed stalker. Don Murray was basically just there - his character not fleshed out, and Edward Asner, a terrific actor when given something with substance, is ill-used in this film).


Kurt Russell is so believable and the action so non-stop that it takes thinking about it afterward to realize that there were honest-to-goodness important themes [overcoming fear of The Stranger, learning to rise above early conditioning, the strength that love and friendship can bring, etc.] in the storyline. This is so very rare for a 'guy's action flick' that even I [who thinks most A/A is violent pap] liked the film and have recommended it to every guy I know.....it's a shame this one was overlooked because by rights it should have been one of the biggest action-adventure box office hits -- it has something for everyone without straining credulity or losing the nearly non-stop action moments. I'm afraid the answer to it not becoming a hit lies in the fact that adults did not go to see it. Anyone under 20 probably has not only seen more violent action in their video games but probably would either not catch the multi-layered, multi-themed beauty or not care about it. This film could convert anyone who avoids A/A as mindless violence. If a guy takes his lady [or rents it or sees it in a cable listing] to see this film he'll be much more likely to get her to go with him to other action flicks.


On the surface, "Written on the Wind" is a lurid, glossy soap opera about the sexual dysfunctions of a Texas oil family. But underneath it all is a deep, social commentary on 1950's life. Director Douglas Sirk scores again with another Univeral sudser. Robert Stack falls in love with Lauren Bacall. The problem is that Stack's best pal, Rock Hudson, loves her too. When Stack finds out he's sterile and Bacall ends up pregnant, the fireworks fly. And, the all-too-good Dorothy Malone won an Oscar for her portrayl of Texas' biggest nympho who is shunned by Hudson. Good epic soap opera.


I went to a small advance screening of this movie on July 19th, knowing no more than the names of a few of the actors and that it was a fantasy/adventure quest of some sort.The plot line really is nothing like I have seen, and a unique story is certainly appreciated with everything else that is currently in or coming soon to theaters. In spite of what first impressions may give, it isn't cheesy, corny, tacky, or ridiculous, and is actually highly entertaining and funny. The flow is quite well done, nothing seems rushed or dragged out. The soundtrack, for lack of better words, is magical and adds much to the film, as opposed to simply filling the silence as often happens in movies or TV. And even though I might have known what was coming at points, I still couldn't bear to stop watching the screen; to my knowledge, not a single person left the theater during the entire movie.My one gripe is that there seems to be almost no marketing for this film, and as brilliant as it is I can't figure out why.


I am amazed at the amount of praise that is heaped on this movie by other commentators. To me it was rather a disappointment, especially the combination of historical facts, fantasy and the main character's internal turmoil does not work at all (in Vonnegut's book Slaughterhouse Five and even in George Roy Hill's adaptation for the screen it does). Credibility is often overstretched. Too many questions are left open. Did I miss some central points? Or did I fail to spot the lines that supposedly connect the dots? A boy called Campbell, Jr., grows up in upstate New York. At home his father has many technical trade papers and one book. It has photographs of heaps of dead bodies in it. The boy leafs through the book, his dad doesn't like his doing that. What should this tell me? The family moves away from upstate New York to Berlin. BANG. It is 1938, the boy is a married man in Berlin and a theater playwright. What kind of plays does he write? In what language? Is he successful? His wife is an actress and looks glamorous. The parents move back to the USA and invite their son to do the same. He does not. Why? Because having grown up in Germany he feels more German than American? Because he is successful? Because his wife is? Because he likes his life there? Because he likes the Nazis? Because he is just plain lazy and doesn't like change? Don't ask me.Possibly, the man just does not care, is not interested in politics, is a kind of an existentialist. He states that he is deeply in love with his wife. He speaks of his Republic of Two (meaning he and his wife). There is little to no evidence proving his love for his wife in the movie, it much more seems a Republic of One.On the request of an American agent Campbell, Jr., agrees to broadcast anti Semitic Nazi hate propaganda to American listeners as a device for transmitting encrypted messages to American authorities who read between the lines. The crucial meeting with the agent on a Berlin park bench is short, unexciting and anti climactic, the decision to play along comes pretty easily with no explanation, the rise up to broadcaster seems to be uneventful and apparently fast.So now we have Campbell, Jr., presenting himself over the air as the Last Free American. The scheme for transmitting secret messages is fairly realistic and exciting - although one wonders what happened when Campbell, Jr., really and honestly had to cough, hiccup etc. (must have scrambled the messages terribly). Anyway, the Nazis lose, the wife dies (touring in the Crimean for German troops - I never heard such tours really happened on German front lines in WW II), Campbell, Jr., says he goes to the Russian front but does not go, is captured by an American soldier who recognizes his mug (how come?), is dragged to a sight-seeing tour in Auschwitz, is then released and resettled with the help of the Crucial Agent somewhere in the City of New York.AND THIS IS WHERE THE STORY REALLY STARTS BANG. From now on it is like a short story by Paul Auster. It is 1961, Campbell, Jr., lives in New York tenement as a has-been and mourns the loss of his wife. Nobody really cares - or do they? Yes, somehow they do, and his neighbors offer some sort of distraction. Auschwitz survivors. A painter. Some American supremacists discover" him and want him to be their figurehead. They even find his presumed dead wife for him, or is she his wife? Anyway, in the end Campbell, Jr., calls in at the Israeli consulate, and they obligingly give him the Big War Criminal treatment, placing him in the cell adjacent to Adolf Eichmann's. He writes his life story and, once this task finished, hangs himself on the typewriter's ribbons without getting sooty the least bit.While I can see that there must be an issue of guilt and of loss, I just had the impression that the main character is a person who at all times is pretty indifferent to everything and hardly capable of love for anyone. So I found it difficult to sympathize for this looser who mourns his loss. Amazingly, many reviewers focus on his status as a potential war hero, having put his reputation at stake for playing the Last Free American. I assume according to them this took a lot of courage. As a matter of fact, however, the movie suggests that by accepting the assignment Campbell created for himself a win-win situation, as he would have been politically on the safe side no matter who had won the war. The danger of his being uncovered never comes up during the first part of the story.One might argue, that the whole story is a dreamlike fantasy and that nobody should bother with historical accuracy or a logical development of the story which explains everything. But even then it fails to make a point, primarily, I suspect, because the love affair in the Republic of Two falls completely flat. This is a pity, especially if you consider that the wife was played by Sheryl Lee, a talented, versatile and sensuous actress. She has much too little screen time and is forced to use a ridiculous German accent. Another somehow neglected aspect are the different texts (confession, broadcast and hidden messages), but I guess this is largely unfilmable. Maybe I should give the book a chance.


Punctuating the opening credits sequence is a swarthy man having a strange, all-too-real nightmare. Closing in on its dystopic 2054 Paris, the film begins to follow a woman into a grungy club, where she and a Slavic bartender convene outside on the deck. They toss exclamations at each other to the effect that she owes him more money although she believes she's paid it all. Another woman obstructs the budding violence, only to have a bitter fight with the woman herself. The initial woman storms out, and she is kidnapped. Christian Volckman's Renaissance appears to be another one in an assembly line of recent motion-capture-animated sci-fi noir pictures, but in spite of whether or not that is essentially true, it tells a neatly arranged, classically unraveling detective story that keeps us in the dark in its opening minutes, even whilst introducing Karas, the hard-boiled cop we recognize from the beginning as the man awakening from a terrible dream.The rudiments of classic film noir are all hit upon without any anachronistic changes, for all intents and purposes. It is in the harshness of its monochrome that Volckman's French thriller has followed no example. For the film's animators, unfettered by the challenges of physical lighting that would normally be faced, have been able to begin with a totally black frame, and to affix utter pitch-white according to the action on screen. As they scrupulously imitate the effects of real light sources throughout the frame, the distinction of black and white here is full-blown without even any of the slightest shades of gray to tone with the characters' less starkly definite moral codes, and the outcome is a harsh and judgmental vision of the direction in which commercial civilization is going, sporadically caused to undergo the most blaring and ruthless of illumination. It is the artistic study of film noir taken to their visual boundary of its philosophy, and nothing before has ever shared quite the same execution of this visual concept.All the characters in this decent cyberpunk film seem as if to have been walk off with purely from a Gothic comic book in black ink, but all together their physical responses, their motions and the nuances of their facial expressions look ashore within a clear humanity. Normally, films that try out new developments in animation allow their technical advances upstage all other facets of production. Sin City, for example, left substance and overall good screen adaptation from its source material to be desired.It may not be mind-blowing, it may have its narrative conventions and its voice-over cast may simply be adequate, but Renaissance, made for $19 million over six years, not only feels like actual noir instead of a rashly penned appropriation, but also is not secondary to all the visual innovation, which is played as if to be incidental. One leaves thinking not so much about how cool it is when Karas is evading bullets shot through a crowded glass Parisian street, but more about its ponderance of life and death, how life's tragedies, such as death, make life meaningful.


I have never read the Bradbury novel that this movie is based on but from what I've gathered, it will be interesting (when I finally do read it and I will). My comments will be based purely on the film. As soon as I saw the trailer I knew I had to see it and was so excited but when I finally did, I was so disappointed it hurt. This is because the movie itself felt so amateurish. The actors were not well cast (though Robards and Pryce are both good actors - just not here). The kid actors, it seemed, were merely asked to show up, get in the characters' clothes, say the lines and make the faces. The set and props were cheap and unrealistic. The direction was surprisingly bad. I was so surprised at the awfulness of it that I had to go online and check who directed it, just to see the kind of work he had done. The editing was cut and paste and the plot (screenplay) was just that as well (even though the author had been involved himself, irony?). The building up of the tension, fear and suspense was so mild it was ineffective when the climax finally came.I've read some of the comments on this movie and find it hard to believe people actually like it. What hurts the most is that the content is interesting and fun and intriguing. It had so much potential. Unfortunately, the film was so technically bad it takes away from the brilliance of the story.


I LOVED GOOD TIMES with the rest of many of you. I love reading INTELLIGENT and INSIGHTFUL commentary. The writers on THIS show were fantastic and the Actors were beyond TALENTED. To answer Strawberry22 (the neatest commentary to the other superior and positive commentary)...What happened was that James was killed in an accident (I believe I remember that it was a trucking accident or car accident) and it was the saddest episode (when it first aired and I was a tiny thing...it was so sad to me..).Florida and the Children actually get out of the projects and EVEN become neighbors with Willona (Wilnona) and that is how the very last show ended.ALL of the children achieved their dreams and found opportunity in each of their dreams. It was a wonderful ending and I cried because I was happy for them and the show seemed so realistic that I actually believed in their fate. I hope that this kind of ending rings true in actually for many.A great show and many other great shows followed including Benson and The Jeffersons. This was an awesome period for African-American television and the best writers were awesome at that time. TV LAND is Awesome for the memories and I just LOVE it because I cannot STAND the junk that we are watching today. SOMEBODY...bring back the 1970s and 1980s quickly...your intelligent viewers are a dying breed out here and we need better material.Love, a TV LAND original sitcom junkie of the 70s and 80s (as they sing in "ALL in the Family"...those were the days......


My 7-year-old daughter loved it, as Disney execs crassly calculated that she would. That's the problem with "Air Buddies." It's a strictly by-the-numbers children's film filled with carefully calculated cuteness, a couple politically correct morals, and enough potty humor to avoid the dreaded G rating. As a parent, or even as a 10-year-old, you've seen it all before, and done better before. Think "101 Dalmatians Meets Home Alone" and you get the general idea. I'm of the opinion that a good children's story is a good story, period. "Air Buddies," which is about as original as recycled paper, fails to meet that standard. It isn't the worst video your child could watch, but there are megatons of better ones.


Follows the same path as most sequels. First one was great. Second was average and this one, full of bad acting and some stupid dialog and well as a lot of suspension of disbelief, this movie was weak.Too predictable and I just couldn't stand that Henry Wrinkler-like boss with that stupid eye, there was so much more they could have done with this. I liked the first one a lot. I wish they would have went more down those lines, rather than what they did here.There was too much unexplained that needed to be explained, what time period this was in and why why why is there an old fashioned phone in that room?I understand there is another one in the works. Blah!


This movie makes a statement about Joseph Smith, what he stood for, and what the LDS church believes. With all the current media coverage of a certain fugitive people have confused the LDS church with the FLDS church and criminal fugitive Warren Jeffs. Jeffs is Not associated with the LDS church yet media groups internationally have asked for comments about Jeffs from The LDS church. Jeffs is not mentioned in the movie at all but I think that it is ironic that this movie with all it's points about Joseph also point away from the fews of the FLDS church and their leader at this time in the media world. This is a movie about Joseph Smith and a great one at that. Some of the most obvious differences between Jeffs and Joseph is portrayed in Joseph's humanity, acceptance and love. Jeffs views and opinions differ greatly from Joseph Smith and the LDS Church and it is seen in this movie. Jeffs thinks of the "Negro" as devils. Joseph Smith knew they were children of god and gave up his wife's favorite horse to a African American (former slave) to buy his son's freedom. Joseph is shown doing housework for his wife Emma and is criticized by a member until Joseph tells him that a man may lose his wife in the next life if she chooses not to stay with her husband and that doing chores is a way to help and cherish your wife. Jeffs brought one of his polygamist wives to her knees in front of a class full of students by grabbing her braid and twisting it painfully till she came to her knees. Lastly Joseph participated with law enforcement and sought aid from the government at all times. Jeffs thumbs his nose at government and flees at all times.I loved this movie and if you don't know much about Joseph Smith and what the LDS church believes, then this is the movie to see. And if you had confused the LDS Church with the FLDS church then you really need to get your act together. We are not much different from anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, the Sanctity of marriage and the family, as well a patriotic to our homeland and country. We are all different as well just like you can find different protestants, Presbyterians, methodist, baptist and Catholics. What's important is our message and what we stand for. This movie trys to portray that but there is so much of Joseph's life that can't be covered in a mere 2 hour movie. This was a really great show.


Watching Floored by Love one thought comes almost immediately to mind, "My god this looks like a really bad sitcom." Sure enough, it turns out that FBL is a pilot for a series that may start this fall in Canada, poor poor Canada.Cara (Shirley Ng) and Janet (Natalie Sky) are a lesbian couple living in Vancouver. Janet has come out to her mother already but Cara's parents are still in the dark about their daughter's homosexuality. The pressure is on to out herself though when the parents come from Malaysia for her younger brother's wedding. That same week British Columbia legalizes gay marriage. With Janet wanting to wed, Cara has to decide whether or not to tell her conservative Chinese parents that's she's gay. Will she? Would she? Could she? Cara's situation is contrasted with that of Jesse (Trent Millar). Jesse has just declared his homosexuality to the world at the age of fourteen. His biological father Daniel (Andrew McIlroy) is coming for a visit soon. His stepfather Norman (Michael Robinson) fears that his chances of finally being fully accepted by Jesse are harmed by the fact that Daniel is gay and he is not. Will dialing 1-800-Makeover help?The dialogue and delivery come straight out of a lesser 1950's program along with the overdone physical emoting. The Full House-style melodrama is enough to make you wince from time to time and the attempts at comedy largely fail. McIlroy, Millar & Sky are the only performers that approach competency in this miscalculation but given the material they have to work with, it's no surprise that none impress. It's possible that the campiness was purposeful. It often seems like there is no way the performers are really that bad, that they must be trying to mimic the inferior sitcoms of days yore. If this is indeed the case than this review should probably be rewritten. The rewrite would focus on Floored by Love being a poor and ineffective send-up of old sitcoms.Writer/director Desiree Lim has put together a by-the-numbers bland-fest that's entirely forgettable. There was a time when merely having an openly homosexual protagonist was enough to make a mark on the screen. That time is gone. In this day we need quality as well.


This is probably the first entry in the "Lance O'Leary/Nurse Keat" detective series; in subsequent O'Leary films, he was played by much younger actors than Guy Kibbee.A group of relatives (all played by well-known character actors) gathers in an old house (on a rainy nite, of course!) to speak to a wealthy relative, who goes into a coma.While they wait for him to recover, all sorts of mysterious goings-on happen, including a couple of murders.A creepy film; worth seeing!


The opening 5 minutes gave me hope. Then Meyers proved he only had one good idea for the rest of the movie. Absolute lowest common denominator humor. Painful viewing. A complete chore. Written no doubt in less than a week, just like the first one. Give Meyers the hook and lock him in a cell with Adam Sandler and Will Farrell. And don't let him out until he's developed a decent script for something, anything. He has it in him. These Austin Powers things are just embarrassing. Let Goldmember sink without trace.


A group of forest rangers and scientists go into the woods to find fossils.They stumble on a Bigfoot burial ground eventually (the didn't notice it in the dark), The scenes of the CGI Bigfoot are horrid, but better than the endless scenes of talking that they rarely punctuate. I used to think that there just might be a good Bigfoot movie to be made. But now after so many sad sad movies about the legend, I'm having serious doubts. To pour salt in the wound of watching this film, the ONE good-looking girl just doesn't get naked once. And while this one MAY be better than "Boggy Creek 2" (no mean feat there), it's still sad that the best non-documentary film on Bigfoot remains "Harry and the Henriksons" My Grade: D


I am a student of film, and have been for several years. And the concept of a cyber, kung-fu, satirical chimpanzee had me wondering, "Is this the film that's going to break the mold?" Let's face it, America has never been let down by any piece of cinema that features a simian costar. After such great classics as "Monkey Trouble" and "Dunston Checks In", I thought that the best ideas were already taken. But then comes "Funky Monkey". I laughed, I cried, I contemplated suicide.Now I've read about demon possession in the Bible, but that still doesn't explain why someone would create such a product of evil. First off, having at least a shred of intelligence, I realized that a chimpanzee was in fact an ape, not a monkey at all. However, I was sure that the filmmakers would clear this problem up further into the film. They didn't. Let me sum up this work of art: A company by the name of Z.I.T. has decided to train chimpanzees as soldiers. Why? I think they mention something about the soldiers working for bananas, but when it would cost about an estimated 13 million dollars of government money to train one chimp, this doesn't seem cost-effective. Well anyways, Z.I.T. brings in a CIA specialist (Matthew Modine) to train Clemens (The Chimp). Clemens is everything Z.I.T. hoped for. He can take out an entire shift of guards, who all appear to have gotten their training skills at the local mall, and yet still manage to remind us that we're watching a kid's movie. As you may have guessed, Modine finds out that Z.I.T.'s intentions may be evil (Gasp!) and decides to break Clemens out. Being a CIA agent and all, Modine knows that best way to make himself disappear is to go to a large city, rent a guest room, regularly make appearances on television while fighting crime, and using checks to pay for everything.Z.I.T. finds out where Modine is staying, and sends two of their finest to retrieve him. These guards are possibly the greatest comedy team up since Martin and Lewis, or was it Turner and Hooch? It doesn't matter anyways, because in the end, for a heck of a twist ending, the good guys win!!! Yay! Hooray for predictability! Throw in a nerdy kid who learns to be himself, a lonely mom who needs a date, and music montages that feature songs that would even be blackballed by Radio Disney and you get "Funky Monkey". The climax to the movie? A football game! Played by thugs, bumblers, a chimp, and the nerd boy. No one seems to care about such substitutions at a high school football game.Funky Monkey never lets up! It's edge of your seat entertainment. Some might even call this the "American Beauty" of monkey-filled features. After finishing this epic, I recalled hearing a story about a railroad worker who lost much of his brain functions when a metal rod pierced his temporal lobe. Funky Monkey is a metal rod among movies.


As a veteran of many, many pretentious French films I thought I'd taken the worst the industry had to offer and was able to stomach anything. But not this. Pointless, relentless, violent, unpleasant, meaningless ... The film has nothing to offer and is random hatred and aggression dressed up as pretentious art. Avoid at all costs.


Quite unimpressive. The 'twists' are all pretty predictable, if you've seen any movies within the last ten years, and the few somewhat interesting parts (wherein someone utilizes context clues to make a decision) are few and lack much punch, since the 'secret' has already been shown before these clues are explained.(spoilers, sorta)The acting is decent enough. The story simply isn't very interesting. The whole 'still awake' premise becomes nullified by the astral projection stuff(not kidding). The surgery scene is initially tense, a bit discomforting, but then becomes utterly banal.Not horrible, but not memorable. Terrence Howard's least interesting role to date, so far as I've seen. Kind of boring, overall.


This very funny British comedy shows what might happen if a section of London, in this case Pimlico, were to declare itself independent from the rest of the UK and its laws, taxes & post-war restrictions. Merry mayhem is what would happen.The explosion of a wartime bomb leads to the discovery of ancient documents which show that Pimlico was ceded to the Duchy of Burgundy centuries ago, a small historical footnote long since forgotten. To the new Burgundians, however, this is an unexpected opportunity to live as they please, free from any interference from Whitehall.Stanley Holloway is excellent as the minor city politician who suddenly finds himself leading one of the world's tiniest nations. Dame Margaret Rutherford is a delight as the history professor who sides with Pimlico. Others in the stand-out cast include Hermione Baddeley, Paul Duplis, Naughton Wayne, Basil Radford & Sir Michael Hordern.Welcome to Burgundy!


The basic premise of "Miami Golem" most definitely deserves a spot in the top, say, fifty of most demented cinematic plots ever scripted down! I know top 50 doesn't sound too impressive, but I've seen a lot of really weird films with lunatic plots. I was prepared from something convoluted, because the film was directed and co-written by Alberto De Martino, who was one of Italy's most ambitious and creative but sadly underrated film makers. De Martino steals multiple ideas from successful blockbusters, like most Italian directors did around that time, but he always adds a lot of stuff to make it even more complex, confusing and overwhelming. Not all of De Martino's films are worthwhile, but some of them are extremely underrated, like "A Special Magnum for Tony Saitta", "Holocaust 2000" and "Formula for a Murder". The concept of "Miami Golem" contains elements from numerous great Sci-Fi and adventure flicks (like "Alien", "Starman" , "Close encounters of the Third Kind", "ET",
) but I wouldn't exactly call it a rip-off. The only thing that is really shamelessly stolen from another film is the opening synthesizer theme song that sounds almost identical to Harold Faltermeyer's Axel F. from "Beverly Hills Cop". The rest of the film is an amusing hodgepodge of fantasy, Sci-Fi, action, horror and superhero-movie gimmicks. It certainly doesn't always make sense (most of the time it doesn't, actually) but "Miami Golem" is undeniably an imaginative and multifaceted film that kept my mate and I fascinated from start to finish.The plot is extremely difficult to briefly summarize but I'll try anyway. Sceptical journalist Craig Milford is reporting the story of a German scientist who allegedly discovered extraterrestrial DNA inside a crashed meteorite and managed to clone it. The DNA cell belongs to an evil alien force that already exterminated another interstellar race in the past and it will unquestionably destroy the whole of mankind as soon as it grows large enough in size. If this isn't problematic enough already, the rich Mr. Anderson ordered to steal the slowly growing evil fetus because he thinks that he can manipulate it and use it to obtain world domination. With the help of some good aliens in an earthly disguise, Craig Milford has the difficult task of safeguarding the planet from the evil fetus. Okay, I know all this sounds grotesque and silly, but I assure that "Miami Golem" is in fact a light-headed and easy digestible flick. The first half of the film may come across as overly hectic and confusing, because Alberto De Martino attempts to keep the plot secret through the use of preposterous red herrings. There are subliminal ghostly appearances, supportive characters behaving exaggeratedly mysterious for no real reason and at a certain point there are even speculations about the lost continent of Atlantis. This is all misleading padding material, however, and as soon as the set-up is more or less clear "Miami Golem" turns into an ordinary early 80's popcorn action movie with bloody massacres, flamboyant chase sequences (in the Florida Everglades!), explosions, gratuitous sleaze and nasty little fetus-monsters in jars.Now, I really don't want to raise the impression that "Miami Golem" is a lost and undeservedly obscure gem of Italian exploitation cinema. Make no mistake, this is a pretty bad movie! The events only become endurable if you accept the stupidity and incoherence of the plot and if you don't succeed in that, well than this is just a non-stop spitfire of negative aspects. The acting performances are painfully awful. Particularly B-movie veteran John Ireland, as the archetypal James Bond villainous character, doesn't seem the least interested in the script. You can tell from his grimaces and by the way he delivers his lines that he also thinks the whole production is retarded and simply signed up for the paycheck. Laura Trotter is probably the least sexy female lust-object ever, and the person who drew the marvelously chaotic VHS cover must have felt exactly the same way, because the ravishing girl on the cover does not appear anywhere in the movie. What an embarrassment this must be for Mrs. Trotter. Still, her completely gratuitous nudity sequences compensate for this, as she's quite hot from the neck down. And, finally, there's the unforgettable scene where David Warbeck takes down a helicopter from a moving school bus with a regular pistol! I don't think even John Rambo can do this, while he's a beefcake Vietnam veteran and Warbeck's character is a simple TV-reporter.


"Laughter is a state of mind" says the tag, and I hesitate to comment on Barry Levinson's. What could he have been thinking during the making of "Toys"? When he watched the rushes, did he see a successful, funny fantasy? If so, then he's working on a different plane than I. This is an excruciating picture, one in which the production design is 90% of the thing (and even the cartoon colors are a disappointment). Robin Williams and (most especially) Joan Cusack are humiliated as brother and sister of a toy mogul who are bypassed as inheritors of the factory when their dad dies. There's nothing remotely funny (satirical or slapstick-wise) on display here. It is uniformly draggy, ugly, and one of the very worst "big" movies ever made. NO STARS from ****


This movie was very enjoyable, though you'll only like it if: - you hate going to the dentist but aren't afraid of a movie where one of them goes beserk - you love horror moviesI particularly liked the fact that some care was given to explaining the brute actions of the main character. The fact that he's totally obsessed by cleanliness (especially in the mouth) and then catches his wives providing some oral pleasure to the mud-covered pool-man is a pretty believable reason to go overboard.Liked it. I give it an 8.


EDDIE MURPHY DELIRIOUS is easily the funniest stand-up concert film I have ever seen. Most stand-up acts usually have lulls at some point, but not this one folks. For 90 min there is not one moment that is not side-splittingly funny. From the moment Eddie does a hilariously dead-on impression of Mr.T, the laughs are non-stop.Sadly, this was done in 1983, and Eddie hasn't done anything nearly as funny. it's unbelievable that the man who wrote this phenomenally brilliant show, wrote a movie called HARLEM NIGHTS which was not very funny at all.Eddie, if you're out there, please go back and do a concert film in the vein of DELIRIOUS. Believe me your fans will love you for it. And I think you know that.


The release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, in 1932, caused a sensation. It may be hard to believe, 70 years later, but the film had much of the same kind of impact as THE MATRIX, or THE LORD OF THE RINGS has achieved, at a time when movies and radio were the major sources of entertainment. Tarzan became an instant pop icon, the 'noble savage' that every woman fantasized about, and every man wished he could be. The only person unhappy about the situation was Edgar Rice Burroughs, who, while he'd agreed to MGM's creative liberties, and enjoyed his hefty royalty checks, felt the 'dumbed down' version of his character (with no plans to allow him to 'grow') was unfaithful to his vision (he would start a production company, and soon be making his own 'Tarzan' films). MGM, realizing the value of it's newest 'star', knew the sequel would have to be even more spectacular than the original...and TARZAN AND HIS MATE delivered!The film had an interesting back story; Cedric Gibbons, MGM's legendary Art Director, had gotten a commitment from the studio to direct the sequel, prior to the release of TARZAN THE APE MAN, despite the fact that he'd NEVER directed before (the studio hadn't anticipated the film's impact, and didn't think a novice director would matter much on a 'novelty' film...and they wanted to keep their Oscar-winning department chief happy). Gibbons, a prodigiously talented and imaginative visual artist, loved the freedom of pre-Code Hollywood, and decided to have TARZAN AND HIS MATE 'push the envelope' to the limit...Tarzan and Jane would frolic in a nude swim, and Jane would appear TOPLESS through most of the film. Maureen O'Sullivan said in an interview shortly before her death, in 1998, that while a double was used for the swim, she trusted the studio, and did 'a couple of days' of filming sans top...but it became too much of a headache trying to strategically place plants and fruit to block her nipples, and the idea was abandoned (the film shot those days would be worth a fortune!) She did do a nude silhouette scene in a tent, flashed her breasts at the conclusion of her 'swim', and donned a revised 'jungle' costume that was extremely provocative, very thin, and open at the sides...and the resulting outcry would help 'create' the Hays Office, and the self-censorship that would soon engulf the entire industry.MGM yanked Gibbons from the production (the 'official' reason given was his workload as Art Director), and veteran Jack Conway was listed as the new director, to appease the critics...although James C. McKay actually directed the film, as Conway was busy on 3 other projects, including VIVA VILLA!The film incorporated the best elements of the original (safaris, murderous tribes, Tarzan fighting jungle beasts to the death to save Jane), and actually improved on the storytelling. Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton), from the first film, returns to Africa for ivory from the 'Elephants' Graveyard', and to try to seduce Jane into returning to England, with gifts of silk dresses, underwear, and perfume. He brings with him Martin Arlington (Paul Cavanagh), a crack shot and inveterate womanizer, who sneers at Holt's chivalrous pursuit of Jane, and stalks her as a potential 'conquest', to be had by any means (including killing Tarzan, if and when he can get away with it without being seen).Tarzan barely tolerates the intrusion into his happy life with Jane, and puts his foot down, refusing to allow the hunters into the Graveyard. Arlington finds his opportunity, catching the Ape Man alone, and shoots him, then returns to the camp with a fabricated story of his demise. Now Jane has no reason to remain in the jungle, and she can direct them to the Graveyard, before her long voyage back to England, comforted by the oh-so-sympathetic Arlington. But a savage tribe and hideous torture await the group...can Tarzan, being nursed back to health by his ape 'family', recover in time to save Jane?While stock footage is again used extensively, the racial stereotypes of the 30s are apparent, and the gorillas are obviously actors in ape suits, TARZAN AND HIS MATE achieves a level of sophistication unsurpassed in any other 'Tarzan' film, as well as a sexiness that even Bo Derek's blatantly erotic TARZAN, THE APE MAN couldn't touch. Johnny Weissmuller was in peak condition, physically, Maureen O'Sullivan was never more beautiful, and 'Africa' never looked more romantic, and dangerous.TARZAN AND HIS MATE was a triumph (although it would be drastically edited for many years), and remains THE classic of the series, to this day!


Alain Resnais films are uncanny in the way that they aren't really edited for continuity, but instead the shot seems to finish right where a memory has edited. Love unto Death is at times a quiet existential drama and a roundly creative magical realist movie, and either way treats the audience to a whole new aspect of the Eros/Thanatos relationship... or perhaps creates a new relationship, that of Agape/Thanatos.The beginning is like a bizarre surrealist horror movie. A woman desperately runs around the house while a man lays dying in his bed--did she kill him, or what happened? Soon that tension is dissolved as a doctor arrives and pronounces him dead, but from there a newer, stranger drama begins: the man wakes up, and after being dead the woman and man fall in love to actually quite tragic consequences. Meanwhile, their friends, who are both priests, watch on and submit their own debate into the nature of love, faith, and devotion.Resnais always seems to have some device to make these sorts of narratives work, and what's so amazing about his films is that those devices always work. In this case, Resnais intercuts the scenes with shots of snow falling to an arousing orchestral score, which fades off and bleeds into the subsequent shots that continue the story. Trapped in this elegiac aside periodically, the film develops a rhythm not too unlike an epic poem, and I got strange flashbacks to Dante's Divine Comedy from this one, despite the lack of direct reference within the movie. Resnais is known as a very poetic filmmaker but this extends past just the cinepoem structure to something that forces a degree of introspection in the viewer, which has the possibility to bring to surface some odd recollections. Memory-narrative, Resnais creates.--PolarisDiB


The only connection this movie has to horror is that it is horribly unentertaining. I would rather prick my finger with a rusty nail than have to sit through it again. Even for a TV movie it is flat. The cast is boring. The screenplay is as exciting as a bowl of sand. How two directors conspired to create such a nothing movie will remain one of the great mysteries of the 20th Century. There is only one scene even vaguely worthy of inclusion in the Omen franchise, and it is shot in slo-mo and cut short at the anticipated pay-off. If you are tempted to see this, pop it in, set your alarm clock for 90 minutes and get comfy. With any luck you'll doze off quickly, and the alarm will wake you once the worst is over. Namely, this movie.


Simple story... why say more? It nails it's premise. World War 3 kills all or most of the human race and we're viewing 2 of the survivors. The message is that the 2 warring sides should not have been at odds in the first place. Distilled down to representatives from each side, we see they have everything to come together for:Security... Finding resources... food, shelter, etc... Survival... Love...At the end they've decided to pool their resources, (she finally does), so they will survive. Simple story, expressed in the limited budget of the early 60s television landscape. We see it in 2009 as somewhat old and maybe predictable. In the early 60s, no one had seen such stuff... I give it a 10...


I'm never much for classic films. Movies like Patton, Going My Way, How Green was My Valley, The Godfather, Casablanca, Annie Hall, Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and Citizen Kane bore me. However, I would much rather watch any one of those films 3,469 times while being tied up on a chair than watch An American in Paris once in the most luxurious suite ever. If I did the latter, I'd probably be sleeping the entire time.The color art direction and the music didn't interest me, Gershwin or non-Gershwin. The dancing and the singing could help an insomniac fall to sleep. The dialogue doesn't match up to Singin' in the Rain. Basically, this movie is boring. The only other film that I fell asleep while watching was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But you can't blame me. I only slept 5 minutes the night before.1 star/10 (Too bad we can't give zeroes.)


Having listened to and enjoyed Harvey Bernhard's Omen II commentary I was shocked to discover he was also behind this absolute piece of rubbish. It's like a really bad TV movie you might glimpse in the middle of the day when you have the flu and are too ill to reach the remote. I think at the bit where Michael Lerner is confronted by what I can only describe as a high school cast of Les Miserables my mouth hung open in disbelief. And then my mouth was going up and down because I was laughing so much. Dire. I don't know why I have to write a minimum of ten lines, I have made my point succinctly, there's nothing clever about all this modern verbiage.


I can not quite understand why any of the "reviewers" gave this documentary "0" other than for political reasons. No, the film did not investigate both "sides" of the story, but then surely one film in favour of Chavez against the tides of propaganda against him should be seen as an attempt to balance out the narrative overall (especially given A. the history of CIA involvement in Latin America in fermenting civil unrest - google National Security Archive and B. the coverage in that country and elsewhere of the clearly faked scenes of Chavez supporters shooting non-existent opponents). What is most amazing about this film is the fact that the film makers stayed in the presidential palace all of the way though the coup - surely a first in documentary making - images of a coup from both sides!!!


This review comes nearly 30 years late. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that I chanced by a copy of this movie sometime in early 2008 and watched it repeatedly for 4 months straight! I just had to write about it! I got smitten and forgot anything else existed once I saw this movie. How ironic it is to see Literature's ugliest male protagonist portrayed by the handsomest man! yet, what a welcome irony! It suited me perfectly and more so because Timothy Dalton did full justice to his role. He delivered an astounding and triumphant performance! I have never seen anything like it! All the other actors are very good too. The whole movie was put together beautifully. I don't care what anyone says about this movie. I just love it and love it! It made me happy and satisfied. It crushes me a bit to say this but I prefer Jane Eyre 1983 to A&E's P&J, which I believe is the ultimate mini-series. The excerpts from Jane Eyre spooked me a little back in school. I never got around to reading the book seriously knowing the story line so well. Seeing this particular production made the story come to life for me and drove me to a near frenzy. The scenes and Mr. Dalton's voice haunted me endlessly and finally led me to read the book seriously, which, of course is a masterpiece. Bravo to the whole team and especially to Mr.Dalton!! This movie is now a part of me.I give it 10/10 rating.


The dudes at MST3K should see this dog of a film. It's basically about a dopey hack actor in Hollywood who can't land any acting gigs. And he has this strange obsession with the movie Taxi Driver. So what does this dumb actor do? He dyes his hair blonde and starts acting like a L.A. surfer dude in the naive hope this will get him acting roles. You'll laugh yer head off at so many of this movie's inadvertently funny scenes. Like when the actor dude's girlfriend is heart broken and sobbing and saying lines like, "How could you do this to me?" And why is she crying? Cos he dyed his hair blonde and became a surfer dude to get acting gigs. This movie makes no sense at ALL! The actor who played the governor on Benson is in this too and he plays a stereotypical right wing politician with lotsa dumb funny dialog. This movie will crack you up, trust me. You talking' to me?!


Great CGI effects & a truly Oscar-worthy performance by Gary Sinise as Lt. Dan. Tom Hanks is a one-trick pony in this movie, how he got the Best Actor Oscar that year over Morgan Freeman was a crime. This movie is a pandering treacly love letter to the baby boom generation, with a barely concealed right-wing prejudice, beginning from Forrest's service in Vietnam all the way through to the "resolution" with Jenny at the end.With that said, though, it is hugely entertaining and an American movie through and through. I found certain parts of this film exceedingly offensive, Zemeckis dumbs down this movie almost to the level of Gump himself . . .maybe that was the point he was trying to make.Watch this film and ask yourself "What is Robert Zemeckis saying about what makes a good American?" Forrest seems to have made the "right" choices and been at the "right place at the right time" for the last 45 years. Those who are wrong according to the director's vision seem to pay a heavy price. So is Zemeckis saying that idiocy disguised as innocence and naivety is a patriotic, even AMERICAN quality?


Okay, this film is about Bedknobs and Broomsticks, it's one of the most charming, delightful movies you'll ever see as a kid. It's the unforgettable movie about two adults and two spunky kids on an adventure for fun. It may be a little deniable to watch, but try it, I neither my mother didn't think it was bad, I was very enthused with the movie and the animation, they were all quite good.It is a delightfully wondrous comedy for the whole family to enjoy; even the kids. Ages 7 years and up will enjoy this wonderful, musical comedy with you and your family especially the animation. The animation movements and layouts are really nice and deserve a thumbs up. It's a terrifically good musical for the whole family so what are you waiting for? Go to the video store and rent Bedknobs and Broomsticks NOW.


Maya is a woman without any interests. She just dreams her life away and wonders, why she does not feel fulfilled. This could be an interesting topic. That would need a good story, a nice setting and good dialogues. It doesn't have any of these. This movie is totally boring. There are only lengths and no climaxes.The only climax is Shahrukh Khan. But although I am a huge fan of his, I couldn't stand this movie. Even he can't make this movie exiting. The movie is not as bad as "King Uncle" and if you're an Art-house fan or like it slow, you might maybe like it. It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not catching. My recommendation: Don't watch it.


Oh what a condescending movie! Set in Los Angeles, the center of the universe from the POV of Hollywood filmmakers, this movie tries to be a deep social commentary on contemporary American angst.Stereotyped, smarmy characters of widely varying socio-economic backgrounds cross paths in their everyday, humdrum lives. The plot is disjointed and desultory. Numerous unimaginative plot contrivances keep the film going, like: a drive-by shooting, an abandoned baby left in the weeds, a gang of thugs intimidating a lawyer, a guy flying through the night sky over the city, a kid at summer camp.And through all these events, the one constant is the generous helping of sociological "insights" imparted through the dialogue, as characters compare notes on their life experiences. One character tells another: "When you sit on the edge of that thing (the Grand Canyon), you realize what a joke we people are; ... those rocks are laughing at me, I could tell, me and my worries; it's real humorous to that Grand Canyon".And another character pontificates about the meaning of it all: "There's a gulf in this country, an ever widening abyss between the people who have stuff and the people who don't have ... it's like this big hole has opened up in the ground, as big as the ... Grand Canyon, and what's come pouring out ... is an eruption of rage, and the rage creates violence ...".Aside from the horribly unnatural and forced dialogue, aside from the shallow, smarmy characters, aside from the dumb plot, the story's pace is agonizingly slow. Acting is uninspired and perfunctory. The film's tone is smug and self-satisfied, in the script's contempt for viewers.This was a film project approved by Hollywood suits who fancy themselves as omnipotent gurus, looking down from on high. They think their film will be a startling revelation to us lowly, unknowing movie goers, eager to learn about the real meaning of American social change.


Tenants Two writers struggle to complete their books in an all but empty apartment house. They at first help each other and then slowly the tension between them begins to build.This is based upon a Bernard Malamud novel and unfortunately everyone speaks as though they are in that novel. Very little of the dialog is natural, its purple and brimming with shades of meaning. Its as if a college English major with a head full of pretensions wrote the script. It's awful and I found myself instantly immune to anything the film had to say, which is a shame since the film is populated with great performances from top to bottom. Snoop Dog on down are fine form, unfortunately none of them can over come the falseness of the words and the premise.I can't really recommend this movie. While not really bad, its very preachy and pretentious to the point of making you want to walk away. I lost interest less then a third of the way in and had to struggle to get to the end. If you're interested I'd try it on cable, but I wouldn't lay out good money to see it.


Drew Latham(Ben Affleck)is determined not to be lonely this Christmas. Not only is Drew a millionaire; but also obnoxious and guilty of being very grandiose. Drew goes back to the home he grew up in and offers the family living there, the Valco's, $250,000 to be his "family" through the Christmas season. Tom Valco(James Gandolfini)is reluctant, but is greedy enough to take Drew's offer. Christine Valco(Catherine O'Hara)has little to say in the matter, but learns to like having Drew around...not exactly the same sentiment with daughter Alicia(Christina Applegate), but that too has room for change. Drew's girlfriend Missy(Jennifer Morrison)tracks down Drew and wants her folks to meet his family. Genuine fun is in store as a happy Noel becomes a hilarious dysfunctional nightmare. Other members of the cast: Josh Zuckerman, Bill Macy, David Selby and Stephanie Faracy. Affleck is comedic, albeit strange.


This movie took my breath away at some points, I simply loved it! I admit that the character dialogs and storyline could have been done a bit better, but hey, this is just a simple (short) story of a couple of guys trying to slain a dragon, there's nothing more to it!The overall design, atmosphere, the beautiful landscapes... it's all just magical! They've put a lot of love in this movie. Character designs were great and funny. A bit Tim Burton-ish if you like. I can recommend this movie to anyone interested in great design, displayed in a simple small, but lovely story.


This movie is a should-be classic. It's not perfect, certainly. The pacing, while perfect for the stage, is in movie form slow as a tortoise with arthritic knees. Jean Seberg is misdirected to be too sweet and too gentle. She fully shows enough acting talent, skill, and craft to convincingly play the clever, passionate, and confident Joan, but, unfortunately, the director missed the point of the character. George Bernard Shaw is my favorite playwright. In no other play has his dialog been more sharp, nor the lines more musical. However, processing this film requires that you look at it as a lawyer. This movie is a case, and the viewer is the judge. That is how this picture is to be enjoyed. 7/10.


There's a good reason that Walter Pidgeon is warning off Leslie Nielson and his crew from the relief ship, stuff he dare not dream about.As Doctor Edward Morbius, Pidgeon is the last survivor of an expedition that came to this planet 20 years earlier. Since that time he married another member of the expedition and had a daughter, Anne Francis. They are the only humans left on this planet which was once the home world of an ancient civilization known as the Krell.The records as deciphered by Pidgeon indicate the Krell came to a cataclysmic ending of unknown origin. The machinery they left behind is still functioning.Maybe functioning too well as members of the relief party start dying and in a particular gruesome fashion. I see all kinds of speculation about a remake and this is one film not to remake because it's as fresh as it was in 1956. The terms would change, we would now say warp speed instead of hyper drive, courtesy of the enduring popularity of Star Trek.We might not see the men in the relief expedition in a flying saucer like space ship. It might look a lot more like the Starship Enterprise or the Ship from 2001 A Space Odyssey. It's interesting to look at science fiction films from different generations and see how are conceptions of the future do change.The story behind Forbidden Planet is a timeless one, about mortal beings trying to play God.You can't write about Forbidden Planet without commenting on Robby the Robot. This mechanical marvel, put together by Pidgeon with the knowledge he gained from studying the Krell was quite the hit back in the day. He got a new lease on life in the sixties with the character of the Robot from Lost In Space. His scenes with Earl Holliman who plays the cook on the space ship and his complying with Earl's request for some home spirits are very funny.Robby and the other special effects were nominated for an Oscar, but lost to The Ten Commandments and the parting of the Red Sea. Forbidden Planet's bad luck to run up against a Hollywood founder like Cecil B. DeMille.Classicists among you will recognize Forbidden Planet as a futuristic reworking of The Tempest which when you think about it could have been Shakespeare's one venture into science fiction. My favorite among the cast is Warren Stevens who's sacrifice enables Leslie Nielsen to learn exactly what he's dealing with.Never miss this one whenever it's broadcast.


I saw it at the Legacy Theater in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building in Salt Lake City this morning. I'm going to assume that one's level of enjoyment during this movie will largely be based on one's level of acceptance of Joseph's story.However, that aside it was very well made, well acted, and had a nice score. If you get to Salt Lake City, it is a must to see it in the Legacy Theater. I have never been in a nicer theater as far as picture quality, sound quality and ambiance in my entire life...I wonder if the Church would let me watch Batman Begins there! Being that I'm LDS and regard Joseph as a prophet, I was touched in several places and was brought to tears quite a few times...which I presume is expected since they handed out tissues BEFORE the movie started! Anyway, I'm told that this film is available in several LDS Visitor Centers around the globe, if you have 70 minutes check it out because whether you believe Joseph Smith or not, he tells a fascinating story.


Yet again, early morning television proves an invaluable resource for films that I otherwise would never have been able to track down. At four o'clock in the morning, I stumbled out of bed to begin recording 'The Informer (1935),' my fourth film from prolific American director John Ford, and an excellent one at that. Set during the Irish Civil War in 1922, the screenplay was adapted by Dudley Nichols from the novel of the same name by Liam O'Flaherty. Though he was born in the United States, and is most renowned for his "Americana" pictures, both of Ford's parents were Irish, which explains the director's decision to direct the film. Victor McLaglen plays Gypo Nolan, a brutish but well-meaning ruffian who informs on an old friend, Frankie McPhillip (Wallace Ford), in order to claim the £20 reward for his girlfriend, Katie (Margot Grahame). When Frankie is killed during his attempted arrest, the Irish Republican Army, of which both Frankie and Gypo were members, begins to investigate the traitor behind the incident, every clue bringing them closer and closer to the real culprit.Meanwhile, Gypo is plagued with guilt for his friend's untimely death, and descends into a bout of heavy-drinking that rivals Don Birnam in 'The Lost Weekend (1945)' in its excessiveness. As Gypo drowns his sorrows in copious volumes of alcohol, trapped in a vicious little circle of depression, his extravagant spending captures the attention of the investigating IRA members. For the one time in his life, Gypo finds himself surrounded by admirers (including an amusing J.M. Kerrigan), who enthusiastically clap him on the back and christen him "King Gypo" for his physical might. However, it's obvious that these people feel no affection for the man, and are simple showing him attention to exploit him for money. The additional £20 brought by Frankie's death could never buy Gypo an assembly of friends  indeed, in a bitter twist of irony, the money was only made possible by the betrayal and loss of one of his only good companions. A relatively simple fellow, Gypo could not possibly have fully considered the consequences of his actions, and is eventually offered forgiveness on account of his "not knowing what he was doing," but his foolishness must not go unpunished.Criticism is occasionally levelled at Ford's film for its allegedly propagandistic support of a "terrorist" organisation. Though this stance obviously depends on one's personal views {I certainly don't know enough Irish history to pass judgement}, there's no doubt that the film portrays the Irish Republican Army as selfless, dedicated and impartial, a proud piece of Irish patriotism if I ever saw it. However, the main theme of the story is that of betrayal; driven by intense poverty, one ordinary man betrays the confidence of his good friend, and comes to deeply regret his actions. The tormented Gypo is played mainly for pity, and Victor McLaglen gives a powerful performance that betrays a lifetime of unsatisfying existence, culminating in one terrible decision that condemns him to an uneasy death. 'The Informer' was John Ford's first major Oscar success, winning a total of four awards (from six nominations), including Best Actor for McLaglen {who snatched the statue from the three-way favourites of 'Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)'}, Best Director and Best Screenplay for Dudley Nichols {who declined the award due to Union disagreements}.


Veteran sleazeball Bruno Mattei is at it again with this erotic thriller that clearly echoes Joel Schumacher's 8MM. But, as expected, Mattei does his movie on a minuscule budget - so that it already looks obscure when it's newly released.After her daughter gets abducted, a mother enters the dark world of underground pornography, because the kidnappers belong to an international organization that direct snuff films as long as the exclusive clients pay well. The search for her daughter does not only lead the mother across Europe, but also into prostitution. She goes to bed with some guys to get her clues. When she finally reaches contact with the snuff organization lead by the mysterious Doctor Hades, she's getting into great danger herself.There is not much good to say about this one, even though it starts promising. Problem is that the movie is by far not as sleazy or explicit as one might expect from the director who made films like BLADE VIOLENT. SNUFF TRAP (which was first released in Russia!) is neither gory enough nor does it contain the amount of nudity and sex to really keep the viewer's attention. The plot isn't that special either, except maybe for the surprisingly many different locations throughout Europe. The ending is hugely disappointing. The acting isn't really remarkable either, except for Anita Auer who plays Doctor Hades: She looks and acts extremely creepy. You don't want to meet her like this in a dark alley (or Your bedroom, for that matter).All in all, SNUFF TRAP only appeals to collectors of Bruno Mattei's films. But it's good to see the man back on the helm again: It was his first thriller since 1994's giallo GLI OCCHI DENTRO.


I loved it! Fred MacMurray is wonderful as Skid Johnson, a somewhat conceited, proud yet at the same time very vulnerable saxophone player who is in love with Maggie (Carole Lombard), who's always there for him. They meet in Panama after Maggie comes off a ship and end up in a bar with Anthony Quinn. Tony gets punched in the nose after her insults Maggie by thinking her a loose woman - all because she took off her hat in public. Big brawl and Maggie ends up stuck in Panama. Romance. Carole and Arthur are great together. Maggie is always there for him whenever he needs her. She urges him to go to NY where (well watch the movie and find out). They have these wonderful scenes together where she sings in his arms while he plays the saxophone. I definitely recommend it.


and laugh out loud funny in many scenes.The movie's basic plot is well chronicled, a story of opposites trying to find a way to survive each other in close proximity.This is unquestionably Lemmon and Matheau's best film as co-stars, and the interaction between the sloppy Oscar and the OCD Felix are classic.The scene where Oscar lines up a double date, leaves the room briefly, and comes back to find Felix and the two girls all crying is pricelessly funny.For any fan of intelligent comedies, The Odd Couple is a "go out of your way to see it" film.


There is a lot of talk of torture these days. That's all this movie is. It's about a good person who makes a bad decision. Because of his kindness, he becomes vulnerable to two psychotic women. From then on its a just-for-kicks assault on him. I don't know at what point you do something about it. There is a wife and child out there somewhere; he has great feelings of guilt and fear. But there should have been some times when he could have acted. The movie seems to be somebody's joke. I suppose in the wake of the Manson murders, we had a bit of a fixation on the likes of these two. Nevertheless, why would someone make a film like this? What appeals does it have except for sadism. The conclusion is totally unsatisfying, but that could have been remedied with an obvious plot twist. Oh, well. Another hour and a half of my life.


To be as honest as I possibly can, The Devil's Plaything (or Veil of Blood or Vampire Ecstasy or The Curse of the Black Sisters or

) is a complete bore. The movie has a good premise behind it  the resurrection of a long dead vampire through the body of a descendant through the aid and assistance of a group of women dressed in black  but the execution is horrible. There are great, long moments of screen time when literally nothing happens. Characters just stand around with nothing to do. There's no mystery, no suspense, and no plot points to care about. The acting is simply abysmal. Most of the acting involves a group of below average looking women dancing naked while staring at the camera. They do this repeatedly. And what little plot there is seems to be designed to get more of these less than attractive women naked so they can join in the dancing. While it's not as bad or pointless as the dancing or the plot in something like Orgy of the Dead, it comes close.


The first part of Grease with John Travolta and Olivia Newton John is one of the best movie for teens, This one is a very bad copy. The change is only in the sex. In the first one the good one was Sandy, here it's Michael. I prefer to watch the first Grease.


in one of Neil Simon's best plays. Creaky, cranky ex-Vaudeville stars played by Walter Matthau and George Burns are teaming up for a TV comedy special. The problem is they haven't even SEEN each other in over a decade. Full of zippy one liners and inside showbiz jokes, this story flies along with a steady stream of humor. Good work also by Richard Benjamin as the harried nephew, Rosetta LeNoire as the nurse, and Howard Hesseman as the TV commercial director. Steve Allen and Phyllis Diller appear as themselves. Trivia note: The opening montage contains footage from Hollywood Revue of 1929 and shows Marie Dressler, Bessie Love, Polly Moran, Cliff Edwards, Charles King, Gus Edwards, and the singing Brox Sisters.


Eric Valette is obviously a talented film-maker, and so are the two guys who wrote the script. Therefore Maléfique is a great flick, made with just a few bucks but also tons of imagination. Well, I'm a bit exaggerating, but nevertheless I'm sincere. So, if you like dark, gory movies, go and see this one. It's really worth it.


A great film this, and a shame that it will receive little attention outside of arthouse circles and students who stay up until two in the morning to watch it on Channel Four.The plot is a simple one but works very effectively, the blurring between child-like fantasy and hard-hitting nightmare is very well blurred. The budget looks pretty low, but to the credit of those involved it doesn't show too often. It also hasn't dated that much either.I was lucky enough to tape this off the telly when it was on a few years ago, and it has withstood half-a-dozen viewings. It's one of those films that won't appeal to all; though as usual, those with a more thoughtful approach to cinema would get a lot out of this.Charlotte Buerke puts in a good performance as Anna, the spoilt brat and it is a shame she seems to have gone from the acting scene. Cross is also very good, carrying the stature of his character very well within the context of the picture.There are some genuinely (and I don't say that lightly) disturbing moments in this film, both half-second shockers and more drawn-out tensions. Watch it with the lights out!Highly recommended.9/10


13 days to Glory tells the traditional tale with sympathy toward the Mexican viewpoint. The major problem in this movie was that while cowboy actor James Arness played the part of Jim Bowie persuasively, the rest of the name actors in the cast Brian Keith (Davy Crocket) and Lorne Greene (Sam Houston) were too old.Raul Julia played General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna with grace and dignity owed to the professional soldier who after all won the battle. The scene where he upbraids his officers for failing to mount a guard and prevent a sortee is one the scriptwriters did not understand. Failing to keep watch is a major remiss in the military. Santa Anna was within his prerogatives to be angry. Raul Julia magnificently carried poor writing through the scene.Kathleen York was an impressive Susannah Dickinson, a woman who deserves to be remembered for her courage. However, Kathleen York might have been reminded that as Dickinsons hailed from Pennsylvania they probable dis not sound very Southron.


Even for a tired movie model as the nature vs. man cycle that prevailed so predominantly in the 1970s, ants falls miserably short of being even somewhat effective(though entertaining for reasons it was not intending). It is sooooo preposterous. Apparently these ants that are bulldozed near an inn have been eating poisonous waste for decades and have now adapted by emitting poisonous bites - hundreds of these bites being fatal. Watching actors of some notoriety clumsily fall amidst tiny black specks is painfully funny in a not-so-good-but very-bad way. So many scenes just look ludicrous: a boy trying to fall in a dumpster whilst being attacked, Suzanne Sommers crying out in horror while lounging in bed, Robert Foxworth and Lynda George breathing through pieces of wallpaper, Bernie Casey faking a gam leg, and the list goes on and on. The peril shown ranges from ants crawling from a drain to black lines of ants all over the walls. The cast for the film is not bad on paper, but none of these actors seem to believe in the material. Poor Myrna Loy has to sit in a wheelchair through this horror. I hope she found a good use for the money, for it is obvious that was the ONLY reason a woman of her pedigree would be in this nonsense. Although it is quite a bad film, it is watchable - once for me, and does have many of those seventies bad film qualities - start-studded actors embarrassing themselves, that made-for-TV feel, and the dreaded creatures of nature reeking vengeance on man. This time man must push his hand into a pile of ants to be affected. Really quite dreadful.


Let me confess. I found this video used and bought it because Guttenberg looked so sexy in his underwear on the jacket. But inside was another story. Besides the fact that the movie was basically a parody of "invisible-man" genre special effects (highly visible strings and other such paraphernalia), the script wasted no chance -- in fact it went out of its way -- in insulting all non-WASP races and real-or-imagined homosexuals. Every insult aimed at a person in the script was either homophobic or racist or both. It starts to grate on your nerves, along with the shaky sound, candid- camera style photography and melodramatic story. However, the end is somewhat of a surprise. But by the time you get there, you hardly care less. Too bad, it could been a reasonably good movie.


Follow-up to 1973's "Walking Tall" continues the real-life drama surrounding Tennessee sheriff Buford Pusser, but this installment plays like a lame TV-movie. Bo Svenson takes over the lead role from Joe Don Baker, but he's much too mild for the part; he comes off like an ambling country singer with a bat instead of a guitar. Good supporting actors like Richard Jaekel, Luke Askew and Robert DoQui end up with very little to do. I would give the film one-star strictly on its good intentions, but the screenplay is a transparent and lazy mass of routine predicaments and the production is cheapjack. Followed in 1977 by "Final Chapter-Walking Tall" and in 1978 by the television film "A Real American Hero".


The 14 year-old in me is immensely happy that they're now able to make really good looking fantasy movies, and that they're all the rage, what with Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia making loads of cash at the box office. This year will see (and already has seen) several more, most notably The Golden Compass, which has the most exciting trailer I've seen this year. Stardust, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, showed up in theaters this week with little more than a peep. I saw no previews for it, only a couple of commercials. The critical reaction is kind of blah. I wouldn't even have seen it if not for the fact that I have to wait on a friend to see The Bourne Ultimatum, and that nothing else interesting opened this weekend. Well, if you'll forgive the horrible pun, the stars must have been rightly aligned, because I went to see Stardust, and I loved it. It's not a huge movie like Lord of the Rings. The plot line is your very basic fantasy quest (the hero sets out to look for a fallen star) filled with obstacles. But within that basic outline, the story is lively and imaginative. It's simply aiming to be a lot of fun, and a charming little romance. And it succeeds wonderfully. There were a lot of big films this summer, but none of them were nearly as fun as this one. There's a lot going on, but the story is told well and is almost entirely coherent. It isn't a masterpiece, but it definitely can occupy the same kind of ground that something like The Princess Bride has (though I don't like it quite as much as the earlier film). A lot of fun to be had here if you're a fan of the genre.


Noll's comfortable way of rolling out blunt comments, often with expletives, to describe things that he is more knowledgeable about than most is quite refreshing. There is one other character in the film that constantly tries to verbalize complicated issues, using more language than necessary. This guy should never have been given a Thesaurus. Cut to Noll and you know you're in for a treat!The way the pioneers of big wave surfing are portrayed is very evocative of a "lost era". Nevermind the fact that no one knows how these guys made a living, much less took care of issues like medical care. The use of old film clips throughout was masterfully done.


As a WWII naval history buff, and someone who is not proud of this country's history of race relations, I was looking forward to seeing this movie. What a disappointing piece of schlock. I made it about 3/4 of the way through, but I should have turned it off at the sub attack scene. The idea that a U-boat would fire a torpedo at a DDE, as if there was a hope of hitting it, and then be able to "run away" from the DDE while submerged, is preposterous. And that's just a small detail. The whole movie was poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly acted. I agree with others on this board that this could have been a good movie. It's as if they decided that, since all those crappy WWII propaganda films were made with all-white casts, they needed to make one with black people. And as bad as those old movies were, this is actually worse. And it almost smacks of false advertising to headline Ossie Davis and Stephen Rea. It turns out they had very minor roles. I have to believe those two fine actors were embarrassed to be associated with this film. I'm done. I've given way too much of my life this crap movie.