This flick is a waste of time.I expect from an action movie to have more than 2 explosions and some shooting.Van Damme's acting is awful. He never was much of an actor, but here it is worse.He was definitely better in his earlier movies. His screenplay part for the whole movie was probably not more than one page of stupid nonsense one liners.The whole dialog in the film is a disaster, same as the plot.The title "The Shepherd" makes no sense. Why didn't they just call it "Border patrol"? The fighting scenes could have been better, but either they weren't able to afford it, or the fighting choreographer was suffering from lack of ideas.This is a cheap low type of action cinema.


Ben, (Rupert Grint), is a deeply unhappy adolescent, the son of his unhappily married parents. His father, (Nicholas Farrell), is a vicar and his mother, (Laura Linney), is ... well, let's just say she's a somewhat hypocritical soldier in Jesus' army. It's only when he takes a summer job as an assistant to a foul-mouthed, eccentric, once-famous and now-forgotten actress Evie Walton, (Julie Walters), that he finally finds himself in true 'Harold and Maude' fashion. Of course, Evie is deeply unhappy herself and it's only when these two sad sacks find each other that they can put their mutual misery aside and hit the road to happiness.

Of course it's corny and sentimental and very predictable but it has a hard side to it, too and Walters, who could sleep-walk her way through this sort of thing if she wanted, is excellent. It's when she puts the craziness to one side and finds the pathos in the character, (like hitting the bottle and throwing up in the sink), that she's at her best. The problem is she's the only interesting character in the film (and it's not because of the script which doesn't do anybody any favours). Grint, on the other hand, isn't just unhappy; he's a bit of a bore as well while Linney's starched bitch is completely one-dimensional. (Still, she's got the English accent off pat). The best that can be said for it is that it's mildly enjoyable - with the emphasis on the mildly.


Low budget horror movie. If you don't raise your expectations too high, you'll probably enjoy this little flick. Beginning and end are pretty good, middle drags at times and seems to go nowhere for long periods as we watch the goings on of the insane that add atmosphere but do not advance the plot. Quite a bit of gore. I enjoyed Bill McGhee's performance which he made quite believable for such a low budget picture, he managed to carry the movie at times when nothing much seemed to be happening. Nurse Charlotte Beale, played by Jesse Lee, played her character well so be prepared to want to slap her toward the end! She makes some really stupid mistakes but then, that's what makes these low budget movies so good! I would have been out of that place and five states away long before she even considered that it might be a good idea to leave! If you enjoy this movie, try Committed from 1988 which is basically a rip off of this movie.


An obscure horror show filmed in the Everglades. Two couples stay overnight in a cabin after being made a little uneasy by the unfriendliness of the locals. Who, or what, are the Blood Stalkers? After awhile they find out. Watch for the character of the village idiot who clucks like a chicken, he certainly is weird.


Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed "La Casa" in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.

A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.

The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl / woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.

Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.

This is my truth - what is yours?


There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!

Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture "Witch Light," and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the "Lady in Black."

So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.

On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the "actress" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting.


We brought this film as a joke for a friend, and could of been our worst joke to play. The film is barely watchable, and the acting is dire. The worst child actor ever used and Hasslehoff giving a substandard performance. The plot is disgraceful and at points we was so bored we was wondering what the hell was going on. It tries to be gruesome in places but is just laughable.

Just terrible


I and a friend rented this movie. We both found the movie soundtrack and production techniques to be lagging. The movie's plot appeared to drag on throughout with little surprise in the ending. We both agreed that the movie could have been compressed into roughly an hour giving it more suspense and moving plot.


I caught this on IFC last week and I thought it was typical of the indie short subject film: heavy on style, little on substance and originality. Does it comes as any surprise that a coming out film stars an unusually attractive (and blond to boot) boy with 70s shag hair and too-cool-for-school clothes? Plus, this film wallows in late 1970s chic, which works for some (Sofia Coppola's "The Virgin Suicides" comes to mind) but not for this director.

Another reviewer compared this to Harmony Korine's work and I agree. Yet I don't view this as a positive thing (what has HE done lately, anyway?). "Bobbycrush" is really just a waste of time and energy for all involved. If you happen to see it late night on cable, turn the channel and watch something else instead.


This movie cannot be serious because it has a nerdy looking kid named Curtis killing people. The other two psycho kids are kind of cute but that Curtis kid is just so ugly because he wears these huge, brown, ugly glasses. The actor probably wandered on the wrong set and he was really supposed to go to Revenge of the Nerds.

Another thing that I hate so much about this movie is that Curtis takes his sweet time shooting people. I kept my finger on the fast forward button because he took too long and what was up with his voice? He sounded like he was fourteen and not ten. Another thing I hated was that he kept smiling like an idiot and there was no point to that.

Then they put that annoying kid in the freezer and somehow he found a flashlight in there. That didn't make any sense and neither did the music. The music didn't fit any of the scenes.

This movie is slow, boring and a waste of time. Watch a different movie on your birthday.


There must be an error. This movie belongs with "Plan 9", and a lot others as a quite entertaining, silly diversion. You'll never accept you like it, yet you will watch it whenever it comes out on TV. It's as simple as that.


"Fool for Love" is one of the several now forgotten films Robert Altman directed throughout the 1980s. This one, a screen adaptation of a Sam Shepard play that features Shepard in the lead role, just simply isn't very good. Altman made many not-very-good films over the course of his fascinating career, and many times the fault was his. But here I think the fault lies with Shepard for writing such a flimsy play. Altman's direction is assured, the performances are o.k. given what the actors have to work with, but this inconsequential screenplay goes nowhere, and takes its time getting there.

Shepard is Eddie, a stuntman who has a love/hate relationship with May (Kim Basinger). The two fight endlessly over the course of an evening spent in some dusty motel in the middle of nowhere, while a mysterious man (Harry Dean Stanton) who may be either a figurative or literal father to both Eddie and May quietly observes. Randy Quaid rounds out the four-person cast as a gentleman caller.

The only dramatic hook in the entire plot is the suggestion that Eddie's and May's relationship is incestuous. However, this hook feels more like a gimmick than anything. The screenplay doesn't explore their relationship in any detail, and it doesn't use their relationship to explore any more universal themes. Shepard and Basigner create eccentric, mannered characters who grow irritating within the first five minutes; Stanton and Quaid have little to do but provide reaction shots.

The last half hour or so of the film is especially bad, when Eddie's and May's back stories begin to play out in flashback over monotone, somnolent voice over.

Chalk this up to another of Altman's experiments gone awry.

Grade: C-


A heist film with Jean Reno, Matt Damon and Laurence Fishburne... sounds great on paper? I suspect it must have done when someone green lighted the production of this movie but the end product is terrible!

The story is dull, the action boring, and, for a film that is only 88 minutes it seems to just drag on. I could feel my life slipping away and was sure there was something better I should have been doing... any paint to watch dry somewhere perhaps?

Sigh. I'm a huge fan of Jean Reno, but what on earth was he thinking when he signed up to this? There are so many other great action movies around... go watch one of those and let this movie be best forgotten.


I've heard people compare this movie to Sideways. How this comparison was made, I'll never guess because this movie was in no way comparable to Sideways.

These 2 films were as different as Star Wars and the Thornbirds. The only thing they had in common at all was they both had wine as a subject.

Though the interviews in this documentary were semi-interesting, they were ruined by the absolute worst camera work ever...attempted. I've never seen worse camera work in my life and I'm comparing it to home videos accidentally taken by 5 year olds.

I give this two stars, ONLY for the interesting interviews with French wine types and for showing how pushy and corrupt the American wine companies are (Aren't all companies pushy and corrupt?) I'd give it -10 stars (Yes, that's NEGATIVE 10) for the deplorable, terrible, horrible, awful, VERTIGO-INDUCING, 5-year-old-could-do-better camera mess.


I think I watched a highly edited version because it wasn't nearly as graphic as I expected - based on the other reviews that I have heard.

Other than 1. being written by the same person who wrote the original "Emmanuelle" (1974), Emmanuelle Arsan, 2. the lead character being a sexually free spirit, and 3. being set in the exotic locale of Asia, "Laure" doesn't have the same flair as its predecessor.

I just found this film way too talky with philosophical topics that I'm really not that interested in, i.e. the voyeuristic, open relationship between Laure and Nick, "I'm just happy with whatever brings her pleasure"...something along those lines. I cannot relate to this mentality and the film/characters don't really shed any light.

The second half about finding the Mara tribe just seemed as though it were a completely separate film. One that I didn't care for. By that time, I was just hoping that it would turn into a porn so that at least it would keep my interest.

Maybe I just didn't get it.

I'll leave it at that.


This film fails on every count. For a start it is pretentious, striving to be "significant" and failing miserably. The script was banal in the extreme, nobody at any time said anything remotely interesting. It was impossible to care about any of the characters. Knightly was a self-regarding waste of time whilst Sienna Miller was just a waste of time. The bit about the soldier who went off to war was a cliché even before the film Atonement used it. The use of the Second World War as a backdrop was in itself a cliché...the bombs, the sheltering in tube stations etc...employed to import a bit of much-needed drama. Why anybody thought for a moment that this film was worth making is quite beyond my comprehension. It was yet another case of "let's get the costumes looking authentic, never mind about the story, the script or the acting!"


The (DVD)movie "The Tempest", directed by Jack Bender, was published in 2001. It didn't make its way to German cinemas and neither the director or an actor were able to receive an important award for this movie. The movie refers to the Shakespearean play "The Tempest" which was published at the end of the 16th century. The director tried to create an modern version of this play, but failed. At the beginning of the movie the plantation owner Prosper gets in a conflict with his brother Antonio about the treatment of their slaves. Antonio sets his brother a trip and tries to kill him but with the help of a witch, Prosper is able to escape and flees with his daughter and a slave called Ariel to a small island nearby the Mississippi river. For over twelve years he has lived isolated on this island, till a lucky chance enables him to take revenge on his brother....If Prosper will be lucky you have to find out by yourself.

In my opinion this film is really a bad try to create a modern version of the original play by William Shakespeare. The story of the movie is confusing as well as the characters. Prosper doesn't have the same powers as in the tempest..... END OF PART I


This film is really a big piece of trash trying to make itself look like a Hollywood production.Poor story outline(stupid robot story)...ultra bad acting by untalented pop idols...and they are trying to"FIGHT"!!!My goodness...those miserable actors uses wires to make them look like they are "good fighters"...:(and I hate that arrogant Edison Chen...the worst actor I have ever seen!!!I will never touch his movies again.AVOID this movie at all costs!!!I wanted to give it a negative value out of ten...not even worth a 0/10.


I'M BOUT IT(1997)

Developed & published by No Limit Films

>>Pros: Absolutely none

>>Cons: I don't even know where to begin!

Plot summary: Master P plays a drug dealer that looks, talks, and acts more like a live-action cartoon character. That's all the plot I got out of this movie.

Review: I remember back when I was in the ninth grade during its release and everyone in my class praised this clown called Master P. This movie is so bad, it's not even funny. All the characters in this film are extremely tired stereotypes, the audio is only audible when music plays, and the movie looks like it was videotaped off a public access channel. Luckily, I didn't buy this film like all my other inner-city degenerate classmates.

My rating:1 out of 10

My verdict: Avoid this video like its a sexually-transmitted disease.


Breaking Dawn starts in a Californian college as Professor Simon (associate producer Joe Morton) tells his students that they have to perform an intensive six week study of a mental patient in Cape State Hospital as a crucial part of their education, fail & they will never become qualified Doctors. A bright, young, attractive & intelligent student named Eve (Kelly Overton) is given a particularly difficult patient to study. His name is Don Wake (James Haven) & is a convicted killer, he was found covered in blood besides the dead body of a woman (Diane Verona) & her young daughter (Jenette McCurdy). At first Don won't even look at Eve much less talk to her, but like the trooper she is Eve persists in trying to figure him out. Eventually Don begins to talk but what he says frightens Eve, he says that someone is watching her & mentions the name Malachay. Eve then begins to see a dark shadowy figure at her every turn, as Don churns out the conspiracy theories & bizarre statements Eve slowly begins to lose her mind as the line between fantasy & reality becomes more & more blurred. Is there something more to the supposed nonsense that Don talks other than being the insane ravings of a psychiatric patient...?

Written & directed by Mark Edwin Robinson I have nothing but negative feelings towards Breaking Dawn. Now, we all like a good twist ending, the sort of ending which catches us unawares, surprises us, works well with the rest of the film & stays in our memory like the cool twist endings to The Sixth Sense (1999) & Fight Club (1999) to name just two good examples & to a lesser extent the endings to films such as Scream (1996) where the identity of the killer comes a nice surprise & isn't that obvious. Then, of course, there are films whose endings spoil everything that has gone before & as an example lets take, oh I don't know lets say Breaking Dawn because I have never seen such an awful ending to a film, never. Breaking Dawn starts out as a decent psychological horror thriller with spooky things starting to happen to Eve, it's not the most action packed film ever by any stretch of the imagination but it holds ones interest, it's not the most absorbing film ever either but it is more than watchable & it's not that bad a film until the twist ending, I have to keep mentioning it because everything else up to that point (which was OK to be fair to it) suddenly becomes irrelevant. I am sure there are people out there who think they have this muddled mess of an ending figured out down to the last detail, all I can say is that no one will be able to explain this thing in a satisfactory way to me & as far as I'm concerned it doesn't make a bit of sense & never will. Breaking Dawn is crap & it's a waste of time watching it to be rewarded with the lamest ending in film history, it's as simple & straight forward as that.

Director Robinson doesn't half make a mess of what could have been a decent thriller, maybe he thought what he had shot would play out OK or maybe it was ruined in the editing room but I'd imagine it was more likely down to a rubbish script as he tries to tie all the absurdities together within the space of a few muddled minutes & give us all a happier than happy final shot. He builds the tension quite well during the first 80 odd minutes but it's all for nought at the end of the day.

Technically Breaking Dawn is fine & it is generally well made throughout. The acting is pretty good, Overton is nice & easy on the eyes & puts in a decent performance. Was it just me or did the guy who played Don look like John Morghen star of such Italian sleaze classics as Cannibal Apocalypse (1980), City of the Living Dead (1980), The House on the Edge of the Park (1980), Cannibal Ferox (1981), Stagefright (1987) & The Church (1989)? OK, maybe it was just me...

Breaking Dawn is rubbish, I hated it all because of the final few minutes. Don't get me wrong it wasn't exactly getting me excited up to that point but it was OK. Definitely one to avoid as far as I'm concerned although it seems to have it's fair share of positive comments on the IMDb...


This time The Beastmaster(Marc Singer) returns only to face off a new enemy Arklon(Wings Hauser) however due to an annoying teenager(Kari Wuher) they are transported to the future where they then duke it out. Lots of (lame) fish out of water jokes ensue. You honestly don't get sequels this rotten to the core. Beastmaster 2 is a painful movie to behold. The references and "hipness" date the film badly (This was made in 1991) and really who wants to see The Beastmaster in the present times? Also of note is Wings Hauser who's embarrassing performance is easily the film's best asset. Singer looks awkward, Wuher is irritating and the whole 1991 slang just makes the movie downright unwatchable. This is easily one of the worst movies ever made.

1/2* out of 4-(Awful)


I am so disappointed. After waiting for 3 years for repeats/the DVD of the original masterpiece series "Darkplace" i couldn't wait for this series. The first episode just ended and I am appalled. Everything that was great about Darkplace has been erased here, pretty much. Worst introduction: canned laughter. this takes the original point of it away and just renders it nearly unwatchable. (one joke about Garth's eyes fertilizing the audience was good... the rest i can hardly remember...) it feels like a poor quality "Knowing Me, Knowing You." I hope this improves as the series goes on, otherwise i shall be seriously disappointed. back to "Darkplace..."

"You are the most compassionate man I ever known. And i know God..."


OK by the time you read this I MIGHT have stopped crying. This movie was so horrible as to be quite vexing. The creatures are kinda cute, but the only really good thing about the movie was the growing attachment among the prisoners and their guard after getting marooned on this daffy island. Even seeing Barbara Bach with her hair all riffled was no payoff for buying this sterling bit of poop. She goes about with a whispery I've-never-used-my-voice-before breathiness that just don't wash when one is screaming bloody murder. (Hey the leading man was cute too but I'm still not assuaged.) This is a cry-into-your-beer ripoff of the good ole Island of Dr. Moreau. Poor Richard Johnson, who was surely born for better things, is just unrelievedly bad as the bad guy. I mean, HOW bad can a BAD guy BE? (Ask Richard Johnson). Joseph Cotten tries hard not to look embarrassed as he staggers through his cameo appearance. In the name of all that's holy, don't rent this darned bomb.


We were excited to rent this one after reading a few reviews and seeing that it scored so highly here. Well, we got it home and could not believe what we saw. Its basically comes off as if its written by some hard up perverted old guy who could not help inserting his sexual frustrations and fantasies into an anime film that really lacks in plot and humor. The main character is all over the place... one moment, he is like an immature little kid, the next moment he is mature and intelligent, then heroic, then a perverted stalker.

The worst part is all of the out of place sexual content. I have no problem with sex and dig a movie that has some good sexual energy, but this is just presented in a way that is creepy. Nipple slips, close ups of a girls crotch (many times) in white panties, or a swimsuit. It was totally out of place and it seemed as if the person who wrote it was trying to live out some fantasies through his cartoon characters.

We were expecting something of a mature nature, but we just kept looking at each other and asking what the heck the point of this was... besides jiggling cartoon boobs and poor dialogue. If you want to see some cartoon characters cleavage and crotch's... this is for you. If you are looking for something beyond that, this movie was empty. The characters and dialogue were just plain irritating.


This would have to rate as one of the worst films of all time. The film screened at the Italian Film Festival in Melbourne, Australia. After the screening, not only did I want my money refunded, I wanted the 1.5 wasted hours of my life back too. I have a very broad tolerance level when it comes to the indulgences of some European film-making, but this is one of those films that is selected for festivals based on the reputation of the filmmaker alone. This film is proof that while such selections may satisfy the egos of the film-maker and the selection panel, there is absolutely no joy for the audience. There is no character development whatsoever, the plot is a garbled mess, the style is nonsensical, the shot selection is appalling, and the editing is worse. By the end of the first reel, you'll wonder if you walked into the wrong cinema, and by the end of the third reel, you'll be begging to be put out of your misery. This film is an abomination.


***Possible spoilers***

I've read up on Dahmer a little and saw the new Dahmer film (with the same name) at an earlier time. This movie here concentrates rather much on the victims and killings, too little on Dahmer himself. The film called "Dahmer" had the opposite problem, it was too little about his crimes and too much about himself.

I did not find the acting to my satisfaction, it had a certain amateur feel too it, especially the probation officer. It also seemed as if the Dahmer acting got worse every time he played against the probation officer actor. But I might be wrong about that.

What annoyed me a bit was that some of the scenes were quite disturbing but that the filmmakers seemed to try and show "the real deal" about what he did anyway. That is ok - but what I then don't understand is why the guy who ran away from his flat while Dahmer was out getting beer, was not depicted being naked, since that is also how it happened. It's not a big deal, but it just eats away further on the movies quality that such details are left out. What wasn't shown either or not even really hinted was Dahmers sexual obsession with the dead. Again, I don't mind they didn't SHOW it, but at least they could have mentioned it or built it in to the movie somehow.

Conclusion: I think the really good Dahmer film is still to be made, a movie that incorporates not only Dahmers crimes but also who he was, and why he did what he did. I think that 1.5 or 2 hours are just not enough to grasp the complexity of it all. This movie was just a cutout (excuse the pun) of Dahmers life and personality and does not give you any 'close to good' insight into his life or personality.

4/10


SPOILER!! Terrible camera work, horrible writing, non-existent plot, and numerous plot wholes. Wonderful acting! Except for Julia Roberts. Who poorly plays someone who is impersonating Julia Roberts, poorly. Catherine Zeta Jones is adorable in this movie.

During the movie, we repeatedly zoom in, on each of the twelve (!) characters. Twelve is too many, even for a classic like 12 Angry Men. And the problem is, we tediously zoom in on the characters, when all of them are in the same room, doing the same thing.

Yep, Clooney's eating. Yep, Pitt's eating. Yep, the "Jew" is eating. Yep, the geek is eating. Yep, the bodybuilder's eating. Yep, Mr. Sensitive is eating. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep--Yep. Yep. Phew! This happens at least three other times in the movie. Yep, they're all sitting in cars, bored. Yep, they're all getting arrested, frightened. Yep, they're all being led out of a jail, depressed.

But it wasn't until I was home that I realized how badly they'd "got" me on this one. This is a heist movie, right? That's what I went to see, right? But when I walked in and set my car keys in the change jar, only then I realized: NOTHING WAS ACTUALLY STOLEN IN THIS MOVIE! That's right. It's a heist movie, where nothing gets stolen. Oh, they try. They go to try and steal some boring document or something, from some guy's house (whatever), and it turns out it's already been stolen. 20 minutes of my life, wasted. Then they try to steal some egg from some museum (YAWN!), and they screw that up and get arrested.

Then we see how some fairy french guy stole the egg even before they did, and we get all the joy of "Entrapment", except this time the person inside the tight catsuit dancing around the fake lasers is... an ugly skinny french guy. Um.

But it turns out he didn't actually steal the egg either. Actually, our heroes stole the egg, LOOOONG ago, in another movie entirely, which would have been a GREAT movie to watch, had they made that movie.

Instead we see a 30 second clip in black-and-white about how they robbed some college student of his back-pack. You heard me... the daring caper, the ultimate heist-- the buildup of this 2 and a half hours of utter boring crap-- is them stealing a back-pack from a college student, by creatively getting into a fight over baseball teams and distracting him, and replacing his back-pack with an identical back-pack? What??

Ugh. I'm telling you, this was so bad, I didn't even realize just how bad it was-- just how badly I'd been robbed-- until I got home.


In 1932, Humphrey Bogart was a relative unknown--an unproven actor who was starring in one of his first films. And, because he was an unknown, the movie they gave him was clearly a B-movie--a quick film with relatively low expectations. After seeing it, I could see why it would still take Bogart many more years AND another film studio before he became a household name. While the film isn't terrible, it certainly isn't good--making it more of a curiosity than anything else when seen today.

Bogart is a pilot who has dreams of building his own aircraft engine company. However, when a vacuous rich playgirl comes his way, his dreams all seem to go on hold. As one of the characters in the film said, the combination of the two is like oil and water--they just don't mix.

While Bogart is throwing away his promising career, his sister is going full speed on the Road to Skankville--having met a sleazy guy who convinces her to sleep with rich guys so they can shake them down for tons of cash! Bogey has no idea his sister ISN'T the actress she claims to be and doesn't realize later that the rich woman he loves leaves him for the same guy whose mistress is....Bogart's SISTER!!! All this leads up to a finale that is reasonably enjoyable. However, what follows is one of the dumbest scenes I have watched in a very long time! By now, the rich lady is not going to marry the guy sleeping with Bogey's sister (whew!) but because she's now poor and no good for Bogart, she's about to fly away and kill herself. Bogey finds out, chases the plane on foot, jumps on the plane as it's taking off and crawls up the fuselage to take control of the plane and save her!!! This is so utterly silly and ridiculous, I found myself laughing out loud. Up until then, I might have scored it a 4 or 5--this sunk the movie to a 3 (how one reviewer gave this an 8 is beyond me).

The bottom line is that this was a talking and silly film. On top of that, it's all wrong for Bogart, as the action hero at the end and the simpering lover are horrible matches for his persona that was so wonderfully created in the early 40s. Manly and solid better suits the man--one of America's great actors but clearly out of his element here.

By the way, those who love Pre-Code films and their very adult sensibilities may want to see this one. Practically everyone in the film believes in and practices pre-marital sex and Bogey curses in the film--things you never would have seen after the toughened and more moralistic Production Code was adopted in 1934.


I watched this last nite with an open mind. Sorry to say it is still bad. first, the movie is too noisey and you can't hear what people are saying. The accents are bad especially Richard Masur. What is the French chick doing in this film ??? Miscasting at its worst. Walken's makeup is strange. The Harvard scene is useless and not needed. Kristoferson's character is unlikeable and I wanted him to get killed and go away. Meanwhile, the Walken character gets killed too early and easily ( despite the makeup). The settlers are all stupid. GET ORGANIZED you bunch of hicks, people are coming to kill you !!!!! John Hurts character provides some humor buts thats all.

I have nothing good to say about this excessive piece of crap. The only good thing is it ruined the director's career and killed United Artists.

Still Crap after all these years.


You have to acknowledge Cimino's contribution to cinema. He gave us both the most over-rated film in history (The Deer Hunter) and the worst film in history (Heaven's Gate). And before you start with the 'It's bad but not the worst ever' let me explain.

For 20+ years I listened to the critics and avoided "Heaven's Gate"-actually this was not hard because you are hardly bombarded with opportunities to view this film. Then a few days after seeing the 'Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate' documentary I stumbled on a used $9.99 DVD of the long version. My advice after 229 minutes is to seek out the most negative review ever written about this film (you will find a wide selection), and imagine that the reviewer is Cimino's devoted mother and that she is doing everything she can to put a positive slant on her dear son's movie. Then you will have an idea of just how big a mess Cimino made.

While pretty much everything is wrong with this film, what ultimately tips the scale to make it the worse ever (and a classic 'less than zero' example) is its shameless distortion of history. Although the cattlemen's association did send a group of regulators/gunmen to Johnson County and did have a list of targeted names, the actual facts of an interesting historical event are hopelessly exaggerated. On the morning of April 9, 1892, Nick Ray and Nate Champion were besieged and eventually killed by an army of about 50 cattlemen and Texas hired guns who had come to Johnson County to clean out "rustlers." The citizens of the county then besieged the regulators who finally were arrested (or rescued) by the Army. Women did not actively participate in the fighting and aside from Ray and Champion there were minimal casualties. After all, these were sieges not assaults-and there were not wagons of immigrants riding in circles around the encampment of regulations (early westerns to the contrary this was a film making device and not an actual tactic of the Indians). And weeks prior to the arrival of the regulators a number of Johnson County residents were hanged without trial including Jim Averell, the keeper of a modest road ranch, and his wife Ella Watson (who Cimino resurrects as his two leads and he even shows Averell living to a ripe old age).

There is no movie-making sin greater than fictionalizing history, if you are going to play fast and loose with historical facts, then change the names and locations to protect the unsuspecting audience members who might go away from a film believing what they saw actually happened. Fortunately so few people saw this film that the damage was minimal. Perhaps it is harsh to blame Cimino for his distortion of history. He could probably escape blame anyway with an insanity defense-the film provides plenty of support. If Cimino was insane during the production of Heaven's Gate it would explain a lot of things. But my vote goes to 'lack of directing talent' instead of insanity.

There are some good things about Heaven's Gate. You can actually see on the screen where some of the huge budget went; expensive sets-beautiful epic camera shots-artful dance sequences. Isabelle Huppert (a strange casting choice that actually worked) gives an agreeable and likable performance although most of her scenes are extremely boring (that tends to happen when the director forgets to give the viewer any reason to care about the characters). The dialogue is generally solid if rather ordinary.

But don't fall for the crap that this film experiments with storytelling by intermixing carefully crafted moments of character interaction with textured pageant-like explosions of communal action. This implies that there was a method to Cimino madness. 'Experiments' is another word for when a filmmaker gets so lost in his project that a coherent story is no longer possible. The simple fact is that there is no evidence Cimino storyboarded a single scene or made any attempt at control or organization. What it looks like is that he just turned his DP loose to stage action and to get an endless selection of colorful shots-1.5 million feet of loosely staged scenes. Then he tried (without success) to pare this down and fit everything together in post-production.

The final battle scene is genuinely hilarious as babushka wearing townswomen (perhaps borrowed from a 'Fiddler On The Roof' touring company) throw countless sticks of dynamite at the regulators. Unfortunately each explosive falls just short of the target and explodes harmlessly. After you see this happen 50-60 times you can relate to the woman (the one who looks like something out of 'The Grapes of Wrath') who puts a huge gun in her mouth and pulls the trigger. This is probably what Cimino's mother did after writing that review.

So believe what you have been hearing about this film since 1980. It is a sloppy, disconnected, poorly paced, and historically distorted mess. Of value only as a 'how not to make a film' example for film historians and as a source of amusement to those knowledgeable about the actual history of the American west.


First of all, the genre of this movie isn't comedy, it's more of a drama.

I had low expectations on the movie, and still they didn't come up them. As some of the other reviews point out, there are some nice music in the movie. But if you want to listen to good music I suggest spend the time looking at some concert recording with Bon Jovi, or Mötley Crue, it'll be more quality time.

Last, if you want to watch a GOOD movie in this rock'n'roll genre, I recommend "Almost Famous".


Okul"The School" is a result of a new trend in Turkish cinema. Having used the same stories over and over again new generation directors finally come up with different ideas. Of course, it doesn't mean that they are all grand. I think Okul is one of them. It is supposed to be a scary movie but it is not. It is not successful on being scary either. So what is it? Actors are so average especially Deniz Akkaya is pretty annoying with the teacher role. I am sure it could have been better if it was tried on harder. Maybe concentrating on one topic such as making it scary or vice versa. But directors have missed the target this time. ** out of *****


How can anyone even begin to like this film is really beyond me.

The idea? It has none. "A guy fell apart". That's the idea. Wow. An environment was slowly killing him... now THAT's original and worth watching.

This is the first Fasbinder's film I've seen... I've heard that he's a genius of mise-en-scene, but I've seen student films with more attention, inspiration, idea, and craft than this... this.... this nothing. It has nothing!

Each and every shot is too long. There's so much emptiness in them... The acting's horrible. You can see the actors had no preparation at all, no understanding of their roles, not even an attempt at showing emotions... it's so... superficial... The lines are so explicative that you could removed 90% of them and still have the same crappy film. Tempo? Who cares about it. Atmosphere, dynamics, that's for pussies! One shot per scene, 80% of the time people staring unrealistically, having no idea how to represent emotions and importance of the moment besides hollow staring at the camera or one another... EDiting? All rules of editing have been disregarded with no pa pay-off of any kind... Photography? Half of the shots have reflection in them, and crappy lighting with no stylization of any kind. Shadows, play of shadows... who needs that? We need a guy pissing, drinking, hitting his wife like he's... like he's acting. We need a bunch of close ups of a not-so-beautiful woman... we need an amateurish climax of his capture by an unconvincing arabian torturer... This film has so much wrongs that it isn't worth the no-budget it had.

Frankly, I haven't seen a film this bad since American Pie 5. Yup. That bad.

I've just started watching his "Veronica Foss" movie, which seems much better, based on the first 15 minutes (since it does have a hint of directing and artistic idea, unlike this crap), so I won't argue that Fasbinder's clueless.... but this.... this film SUCKS!


I can't honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of John Landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . I suppose you can't really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in London: An American tourist visits a famous European capital , he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague , he embarks ( Pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession , he turns into a werewolf , he's visited by apparitions of his dead victims , etc etc . and reading the previous line I've just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . The difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the Landis movie is

With this Paris based movie there's no scenes that really stand out . There's no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he's going to get back home with no money or clothes , there's no bizarre dream sequence of Naziwerewolves and there's no spectacular climax . AAWIP does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour ? I'm thinking of the scene where Andy McDermott has to convince someone he's got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms ! Perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there's no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . You really do feel sorry for the protagonist's fate and dilemma in the London movie , here you just feel Andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . There's also a large number of plot holes visible . Is this the first time The Lunar Club have carried out a massacre ? If not then aren't large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world's press ? Why haven't the police got leads ?

Everyone else has mentioned it and so will I - The visuals are poor . Look at the bungee jumping scene at The Eifell Tower , it's painfully obvious that it's achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish CGI . I won't put Anthony Waller in the same bracket as Stephen Sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on CGI ( The major problem with AAWIP is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but I would have preferred the Rick Baker type special effects used for the transformation . To be fair it's reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget didn't stretch that far . But at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that didn't need to be made and DOG SOLDIERS is much better entertainment


The odd mixture of comedy and horror sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Had the main male character been a little more interesting, the film would have been as well. A trio of young Americans visit Paris, run into a beautiful werewolf, and the problems confound from there.

Numerous logic holes make the possibly intriguing story difficult to take.


I had been wanting to see An American Werewolf in Paris for a long time because I loved its predecessor, but this film didn't impress me as much as An American Werewolf in London. Actually, to be quite honest, it didn't impress me at all.

Tom Everett-Scott and his dude pals are wandering Paris and, in a preposterous bungee stunt off the Eifel Tower, rescuing wolf-babe Julie Delpy from death. Before you've time to work out if the constant mugging and lumpy dialogue is meant to be the stuff of comedy, a full-moon has hit and the brats are being chased by dreadful CGI werewolves down Parisian sewers.

The script is disgustingly poor, the actors were made to make this film, they're horrible performances match the status of the movie. From start to end, this movie is never entertaining, engaging or even slightly watchable. I had trouble watching this whole film without throwing up my dinner, to be quite honest.

The action scenes aren't exciting, the jokes aren't funny and the werewolves aren't scary. In short: Miss out or be haunted forever.

I rate An American Werewolf in Paris 2 out of 10.


Jeff Speakman never really made it beyond the lowest ranks of martial-artists-turned-actors (lower than Don "The Dragon" Wilson, for example), and with vehicles like "The Expert", you can see why. There are three major problems with this movie: 1) The plot - or should I say plots - are all over the place, there are some characters who get a lot of screen time but serve little purpose, 2) There are only 4 fight scenes in total, some of them completely unrelated to the main plot and some taking place in the dark, 3) The music score is overzealous and overbearing. Strange as it may seem, this is really the most annoying thing about this film: the score persistently tries to convince you that you're watching some sort of grand epic, instead of the low-budget limited-action film you are indeed watching. With all that said, at least there's James Brolin around to lend a touch of credibility. *1/2 out of 4.


Personally, the book was a very well written, amazing, thrilling piece that was not brought to justice to the movie. Watching the movie at 12.01 in the morning to see that major parts of the book were left out frustrated me, seeing that it affected the "different" outcome of the movie. There was something to be desired out of this movie, but all in all, it lacked in plot.

For someone who has NOT read the book, I could see how this movie would be seen as inviting and entertaining with its controversy and suspense. However to a dedicated reader who has read it seven times, I did not see the strong connection between the two: both the movie and the novel.

With major characters missing (such as Maximilian Kohler) and the abrupt turn in plot with the survival of the last cardinal in the preferiti, the plot of the movie was slightly strewn thus leading to a different take in the conclusion of the story. The Hassassin too was portrayed as a common white man, compared to that of in the novel where he was portrayed as a Muslim; his motives in the book are predominately based his ties with the Illuminati, however, in the movie, his motives are based on money and seemed more like work than some personal tie to the task at hand.


In a way, you have to respect Arachnia. It's clearly meant as a tribute to the big bug movies of the fifties, and while the special effects look terrible; at least the film doesn't feature CGI. However, on the other hand; you can't respect the film too much because it's a load of rubbish. The acting is terrible, the special effects (as mentioned) are impossible to take seriously, and once you've seen one giant spider being blown up; you've seen them all, so it gets boring rather quickly. The plot follows a bunch of people who are unlucky enough to be in a plane crash after a meteor shower. They go to the only house in the area; which just happens to be a house where a man has a huge spider he used to use as a circus attraction. Coincidently around the same time, the meteor shower has caused more giant spiders to rise from underground. All the characters in this film are poor caricatures; none of them have anything even resembling a third dimension and they will soon begin to thoroughly bore you. You've got to feel for director Brett Piper as he clearly didn't have much to work with for this film; but that doesn't make Arachnia worth a damn, and overall there are better giant bug films than this, and therefore Arachnia doesn't get the seal of approval from me.


i have one word: focus.

well.

IMDb wants me to use at least ten lines of text. okay. let's discuss the fine points of focus. i don't know about the rest of you, but in my first year of film school they taught us a lot of useless crap, like 'you'll all be famous avant-garde filmmakers someday'--but they also taught us how to do this crazy thing called FOCUSING the lens! it was amazing! you give a little twist and wham! everything is clear as a bell. the person who shot what alice found needs to learn a few things about the finer points of focus. lighting, too. this movie is not only completely out of focus, it's also lit like the corner of someone's basement.

don't even get me started on pacing or plot. they could have trimmed about ten seconds off the beginning and end of every single shot.

but who cares about that anyhow? there is not enough lurid in this movie to make up for the utter lack of regard to film's best friends--FOCUS, and LIGHTING.

words to the wise.


L'Auberge Espagnole is less funny and less interesting than any episode of Dobie Gillis. Where is their Bob Denver? Do they even have a Dwayne Hickman? A French man moves to Barcelona to attend classes. He moves in with some other students who are no more interesting than himself, and they do and say uninteresting things. This movie is unbelievably bland. The only bright spot was a pretty French girl who played a Belgian lesbian. She places her hands behind her head and reveals shaven underarms, not the usual tufts of dark, smelly hair. But bare armpits does not a good movie make. L'Emmerdeur was funny, so was La Cage aux Folles. L'Auberge Espagnole and Le Placard makes you wonder what is going wrong with French comedy.


This movie had horrible lighting and terrible camera movements. This movie is a jumpy horror flick with no meaning at all. The slashes are totally fake looking. It looks like some 17 year-old idiot wrote this movie and a 10 year old kid shot it. With the worst acting you can ever find. People are tired of knives. At least move on to guns or fire. It has almost exact lines from "When A Stranger Calls". With gruesome killings, only crazy people would enjoy this movie. It is obvious the writer doesn't have kids or even care for them. I mean at show some mercy. Just to sum it up, this movie is a "B" movie and it sucked. Just for your own sake, don't even think about wasting your time watching this crappy movie.


When A Killer Calls has got to be the biggest ripoff released by Asylum so far. It's about a sexy babysitter on duty who receives spooky calls from a creepy voice who asks her repeatedly, "Have you checked the girl?" Naturally she has the calls traced by the cops (after having to perform some realistically unnecessary tasks -- hanging up when "he" calls, waiting ten seconds, and dialing *57). Sound familiar? Yeah, that's why I rented it, too.

Well, it should. And I hate to say it, but this could've been more entertaining than the big-screen crapfest that was released around the same time if not for one fatal mistake -- Rather than revelling in B-movie ripoff glory, it tried to do something original. It tried to make the lead character sympathetic, rather than having clichéd, campy fun with her. Mind you, this could've worked with a talented actress. But she wasn't. Sure, she looked good, and she screamed, and cried, but . . . oh well, whatever.

Then came the horrific ending. Not horrific in that it was horrifying, horrific in that it was BORING. The pacing up until that point (about an hour in) was campy, clichéd, and fun. Then it heads in another direction, and it veers away from just another dumb, fun slasher movie with a sexy "teenage" cast to a Hostel-esquire gore/borefest.

I guess this falls into the "Oh well, whatever" category. The lead actress flubbed a line? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like reshooting it. We forgot to give the killer motivation? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like rewriting it. The pacing completely changes halfway through? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like shaving fifteen minutes off. Continuity errors? Oh well, whatever.

If you like this kind of movie (dumb, cheesy, predictable, campy splatter movie with sexy cast), then you'll be fine up until the ending. The ending is stupid, it's not fun, it's not scary, it's not campy or cheesy or quickly-paced. In fact, there was almost exactly five minutes of the character doing nothing but being tied up (and that's not a spoiler because it's on the back of the DVD) and looking around at the stuff in the room, then screaming, and . . . whatever.


"The Love Letter" is one of those movies that could have been really clever, but they wasted it. Focusing on a letter wreaking havoc in a small town, the movie has an all-star cast with nothing to do. Tom Selleck and Alice Drummond had so recently co-starred in the super-hilarious "In & Out" (also about an upset in a small town), in which they were both great, but here they look as though they're getting drug all over the place. I can't tell what the people behind the camera are trying to do here (if anything), but they sure didn't accomplish anything. How tragic, that a potential laugh riot got so sorrowfully wasted.


First of all, I just wanna say that I'm a very big Naruto fan. I love the Anime and the Manga stories. Also, the first movie just confirmed that Naruto is all about great fun, great action, great story, ... But then came the 2nd movie. I was very hyped because the first movie turned out great. But it didn't satisfy me one bit... The story was lame, action wasn't all that great... especially compared to the Anime series... same goes for the quality of animation. I found it very poorly... Could the story get any lamer... ANY ??? Where's the kyuubi of Naruto ?? Not once does he turn demon... I mean ... COME ON !!! My advice is... see the series ( until episode 140 , then it's just fillers ) and then read the Manga because that's still great. Ignore this movie and hope for something better in the future...

All and all I gave it a 4, just because it's Naruto...


Hard up, No proper jobs going down at the pit, why not rent your kids! DIY pimp story without the gratuitous sex scenes, either hard core or soft core, therefore reads like a public information film from the fifties, give this a wide miss, use a barge pole if you can.


This movie was one of the worst I have ever seen (not including anything by or with Pauly Shore). I couldn't believe that a film could actually be THIS bad!

Coolio has to be the single worst actor (again, not including Pauly Shore) to ever "star" in a movie. The temptation to hit the STOP button during this movie was huge (in fact, if there was a THROW IN THE TRASH button on my VCR, I would have been inclined to press that).

Do yourself a favor, and do something more interesting than watch this movie, like watching the grass grow, or watching golf on TV.


My God, the things that passed for entertainment in this country...

This is *not* the "Tom and Jerry" you may have enjoyed on Saturday Mornings, featuring a hapless cat and a clever mouse. This is a much earlier animation series, featuring a pair of Mutt-and-Jeff clones who get themselves into various scrapes that result in any of the then-typical dancing-skeleton-type gags that made up so much of early animation.

This particularly vile outing, apparently originally intended as a vehicle for a pair of actual black stage comedians of the time, has the pair crashing in the ocean while flying to Africa, necessitating black-face make-up, exaggerated "negro" dialect and "Feets, don't fail me now" situations.

It only shows that in the 70 years between emancipation and this film, the American view of Africans hadn't progressed much. Then again, at least one of them apparently had a pilot's license.


Sometimes, changes to novels when they're made into films are not only necessary, but a good thing. However, in the case of Northanger Abbey, it's a very, very bad thing. Not only is the story itself ripped to shreds, but the satire is almost completely absent from the film, and it's mixture of romance and intrigue doesn't even touch upon the biting commentary that Austen put into her work. It fails to be amusing or satirical at all, and instead turns the character's fascination with her fantasy world into mostly a drama.

This affects the romance as well. It's meandering and aimless. Chemistry and interest are never established. The reasons Tilney is attracted to Catherine are completely absent from the film, leaving the audience to wonder what it is he sees in her at all.

Hopefully some day soon, we'll get a more faithful version if Austen's satire.


This movie started off well enough, sticking to the mood of the book fairly well even if the acting was not top notch. The soundtrack was torturously bad. Saxaphone and electric guitars? It was gratingly incongruous. The female singer was positively dreary! In the second half of the film the story takes a decidedly darker turn. Too dark for Austen. Northanger Abbey is made a dark and scary place whereas in the book it was disappointingly tame and modernized to Catherine's eyes.

Who in the heck is this Marchioness with the ghastly makeup and wig? A totally extraneous and unnecessary character.

One of the key elements in the book is the General is not a Gothic monster like the characters in Catherine's books. His monstrosity is far more complicated in his oppression of his children's spirits and his treatment of Catherine based on money concerns alone. He does not lock up his wife or kill her but he does send Miss Morland on a 70 mile trip alone in a hired carriage with not enough money to pay her way home. Only her friend Miss Tilney's thoughtfulness in handing her some money on the way out the door saves her from being stranded. This whole point gets seriously muddled in the film. They make the General too dark from the outset.

Peter Firth should have not sung! This part was painful to watch. His depiction of Tilney wasn't too bad but it was a shade dark in places. Henry Tilney of the book made sport of Miss Morland's imagination on trip to Northanger but he was never dark. Firth would have benefited from better direction. The young lady who played Isabella needed a better acting coach. John Thorpe was appropriately odious. The striped waistcoat and coattails combo he wore was ghastly! It certainly fit his character.

I think the film would have fared much better with a completely different soundtrack. It cast an oppressive pall over the entire movie. If I watch it again it will be with the sound OFF and subtitles on. Perhaps I would give the film a 4 then.

The sound quality of the DVD was quite poor. The picture quality was not much better. This is glaringly noticeable on a digital television.

When I think of what this film could have been, I think of Persuasion with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds.


I'm afraid I did not like this adaptation. When I started watching it I had a strange feeling of watching some 70s TV series, due to the filter and the musical score. I did not like the end scene. Mr Tilney appears dressed only in his waistcoat. Jane Austen would never have a gentleman ride out without a frock coat. Looks like the producers made a modern misinterpretation of a romantic girl's dream. I appreciate the more modern JA adaptations much more, that show an eye for these details, that makes the BBC series so worthwhile. Sorry, looking forward to the 2007 adaptation. I hope that will be better and will show the benefits of 20 years of Jane Austen adaptations.


We really don't know where to begin when talking about this movie. But we'll start with the plot. We sincerely suspect that whomever wrote/produced/directed this movie never read the book. Because they missed the entire point. SATIRICAL, not horror. Just a hint. Second, the bath scene. Enough said. Third, the added characters. The sketchy Gothic french lady and her black page who enjoys holding hands and cartwheeling. We don't understand where this came from either. And then there was the casting. All of them were really unlikeable. We were very upset that Catherine and Mr. Tilney ended up together, because they were so unlikable that no one would ever wish to see them happy. And...the music. We think that the BBC producers ran out of money, so raided their grandmother's attic. And they found some old records. Saxophone, wailing female voices, and an occasional electric guitar. *shudder*

Plus, the best line ever: "Since you left, the white rose bush has died of grief." If anybody has any explanation, we would love to hear it. Because it makes absolutely no sense.

We are still wondering what on earth everyone involved was thinking when they cruelly released this pathetic excuse of a movie out on the public. We think it should be considered a federal offense. Torture is illegal.

This movie is by far the worst we have seen to date. And I've seen a lot of movies.

Our recommendation: Give this movie to whomever you hate. They will watch it, and want to kill themselves. And we agree with a previous post, we would give this 0 stars, if at all possible. DO NOT WATCH!! And we strongly suspect that everyone who commented so far in favor of this movie were involved in its production. Or were mentally insane. These are the only reasons we have been able to come up with that would instigate giving a favorable review.


It's been mentioned by others the inane dialogue in this series and I agree.

If Mom and daughter were really that sharp-witted they should be Queen and Princess of the Universe, not kicking around in some little town.

I've really tried to watch a few episodes but when the witty staccato mumbling pop culture drivel starts I flip the channel.

I watched a bit of a new episode to see if anything had changed (for the better I'd hoped) but nope, same old "we're so clever with our references to pop culture" that I nearly barfed.

Long time fans who aren't happy with the newer seasons might just be wising up and getting sick of the regurgitated pablum that never stops.


Oh, why did it have to end like this? Laurel and Hardy's last film, from the crudely cranked-up Cuckoo theme (with erroneous credit to Hal Roach) to the closing "Nice mess"/"I couldn't help it" schtick, this is the duo as a grotesque parody of themselves. In between, their relationship is now solely constructed of uncertain acting, asinine dialogue and half-hearted slapstick. People slate King of New York, but Chaplin's final bow-out was nowhere near as undignified as this.

What really hurts to someone who loves Laurel and Hardy is the appearance of the two comedians. The video cover I'm holding shows them at their prime, all boyish smiles and glowing skin, with a blurb on the back that reads "The photograph on this sleeve is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect the content of the film." Necessarily? It doesn't even come close. The actual film sees them at least fifteen years older than the photographs that adorn the sleeve, with Ollie distressingly overweight. This is not humorously, or comically, fat, as he would normally appear, but ill looking and on the verge of obesity. He would be dead seven years after this film was made, after a series of strokes. Stan, meanwhile, suffering a prostrate problem and dysentery, looks ghoulish as his weight has plummeted drastically. Every time something bad happens to him, such as getting squashed between a lifeboat and a table, you fear for his life. Even Ollie giving him a traditional slap makes you terrified he could be killed. He would last for another fifteen years after the completion of this film, eventually passing away from a heart attack in 1965. It's upsetting to think of such cherished performers growing old and dying painful deaths. And it's distressing watching their deterioration, both in health, and in performance, on screen. When I, and, I'm sure, almost everyone else, likes to think of Laurel and Hardy, I think of Way Out West, Busy Bodies or Our Relations. Seeing them in such physical ill health and performing dire routines at the dog-end of their career is a blight on my happy memories of them.

The warning signs are clear right from the opening credits, which list not only four writers, but also someone to come up with the concept, and a credit for "gags". So if Monty Collins was writing the "gags", then what were the other four writing? And in that case, why was Monty Collins paid a fee, given that there's no evidence of a single "gag" in the whole film? Over 40% of the movie is spent travelling to the eponymous island, during which we experience some of the most painfully unfunny scenes the boys were ever involved in. When I saw the bat scene I wanted to curl up and die, so great was its childish ineptitude. Yet what kills the film stone dead is that all of the support cast are dubbed, unable to speak English. Not only does this make the film disjointed, but also it severely depletes Stan and Ollie's reactions to their co-stars. Flatly directed with appalling film stock and absolutely atrocious editing, this totally belies the rumoured $2 million that was spent on it. Frankly, it looks terrible, and while a DVD release might clean up the picture, the sound and image quality is vastly inferior to any of their Hal Roach work.

Stan and Ollie's "friends", Giovani and Antoine are charisma-free bores who stand out greatly against Laurel and Hardy's outdated repertoire. This is another major problem with the film, in that none of the supporting characters are funny, or keyed in to the boys' innocent mentality. The dubbed harshness shown to L & H ("you - the fat one") makes them stand out as isolated social misfits, rather than loveable sub-anarchists. There is evidence of some darker political satire - though Duck Soup this ain't - and the concept of an island with no rules is an interesting topic. Perhaps more relevant now than it ever was, a film that looks at the problems of immigration and the American constitution suddenly becomes most topical in 2003. Sadly, however, beyond an amusing scene where Stan is elected "the people", this doesn't really go anywhere. And this somewhat black humour does have its harsh edges - or is a Laurel and Hardy movie where rape is directly implied and Stan threatens a man with a bottle, only to accidentally glass someone in the face, your idea of a good time? After all the years of Stan and Ollie sharing a bed, we also get a definite reference, with Stan accidentally kissing him - Ollie wipes off the kiss in disgust. Also worrying is the implication that Stan and Ollie's illegal immigrant friend, Antoine, ends his life being eaten by a lion. Mind you, I never thought I'd see a Laurel and Hardy movie where they were due to be hanged, either. The need for the intrusive and unfunny narration is a further pointer to how messy the whole thing is, with the American release (the same version available on video) hacking out 16 minutes in a vain attempt to improve it.

Almost completely unwatchable, this horrifically made, relentlessly unfunny movie serves only to tarnish the reputation of Stan and Ollie - avoid at all costs.


I never want to see this movie again!

Not only is it dreadfully bad, but I can't stand seeing my hero Stan Laurel looking so old and sick.

Mostly I can't stand watching this terrible movie!

Frankly, there is no reason to watch this awful film. The plot is just plain stupid. The actors that surround Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are really really bad and Laurel and Hardy have been funnier in any of their earlier films!

I warn you don't watch it, the images will haunt you for a long while to come!


This is one of the worst films i've ever seen, don't watch it even if your life depends on it.

This Laurel and Hardy film is when they inherit an island, become shipwrecked and are set to be hung. An incredibly boring film that is no where near funny.

This was the last Laurel and Hardy film and what a very low note to end such a superb career. The 40's films weren't great, this film was made in 1950. If you want to remember Laurel and Hardy, remember them in their prime, the 1930's. The short talking films are better than the feature length films, my favourite is "Me and My Pal". Another reason this film is awful is because it's dubbed. The actor opens there mouth and the words come out three days later. Absoulutley crap, but let's end on a high note, Laurel and Hardy have been, in my opinion, the best double act ever.


Wrestlemania 2 is the only Wrestlemania|thank god| to be held at three different locations, and While it was an interesting idea, it didn't really work. There are only really two matches that really struck out, with the rest being decent, or most of them, pretty terrible. There are some entertaining celebrity's on hand, like Susan Saint James, Ray Charles and Cathy Crosby, but the experience was a waste of time for the most part. The British Bulldgos Vs The Dream Team match, is worth the price of admission itself, but you can honestly see that anywhere.

Matches.

Nassau Coliseum.

Paul Orndorff Vs The Magnificent Muraco/W Mr.Fuji. For the time it had, and despite the crappy finish, this was surprisingly bearable stuff, with the crowd being really into it. Crowd chants "Bullsh*t" at the end. That being said it did nothing for either's career. Match ends in a double count out with them fighting outside the ring

2/5

Intercontinental Championship Match. Randy Savage|C| Vs George "The Animal" Steele. Not that great wrestling wise, but heavily entertaining due to the antics involved, and some great comedy from Steele, besides savage can wrestle a potato and make it look interesting. Savage wins when he puts his feet on the ropes, for leverage.

2 1/2 /5

Jake "The Snake" Roberts Vs George Wells. For a throwaway match, this was better than it should have been, but it's too short to make any impact what so ever. Roberts wins with the DDT, pulling out the snake afterwords, which disgusts Saint James.

1 1/2 /5

Boxing Match. Mr.T/W The Hati Kid&Joe Frazier Vs Roddy Piper/W Lou Duva&Bob Orton. A huge failure in my opinion. I was bored senseless throughout this, and while it may have been a marketing success, it certainly didn't succeed at entertaining me. Lot of Rowdy chants are noticeable as well. T wins by DQ, when Piper slams T.

1/5

Rosemont Horizon

Women's Title match. Fabulous Moolah|C| Vs Velvet Mcintyre. Ends too quickly, before it even gets a chance to start, making a record for quick pin fall, as far as Woman's matches are concerned. Moolah wins when she takes advantage of Velvet's missed splash from the top rope

0/5

Corporal Kirchner Vs Nikolai Volkoff/W Classy Freddie Blassie. Big pop for the Corporal. Stupid match up, with boring offense from both involved, while being much too short to matter. Corporal wins when he whacks Volkoff with Blassie's cane.

1/5

Battle Royal. William Perry and Andre get the biggest pops. This is pretty entertaining stuff, despite all the NFL talent involved. It's also noteworthy for Bret Hart's 1st ever Wrestlemania appearance. Andre wins when he chucks The Hart Foundation out.

2 1/2 /5

Tag Team Titles. British Bulldogs/W Lou Albano&Ozzy Osbourne Vs The Dream Team/W Johnny Valiant|C|. Absolutely tremendous match, that is one of the best wrestlemania matches of all time. You won't have time to catch your breath, with all the maneuvers on hand, and the excellent in ring psychology. This is pure wrestling at it's finest, you cannot call yourself a Wrestling fan, if you dislike this match. Bulldogs win when Dynamite Kid collide's heads with Valentine

4/5

Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena

Ricky Steamboat Vs Hercules Hernandez. Pretty decent match up here, with both men putting on solid performances. Hercules is a nasty brute, with above average skills, and it contrasted well with Steamboat's high-flying style. Steamboat wins with a high-flying cross body off the top rope.

2 1/2 /5

Adrian Adonis Vs Uncle Elmer. Terrible match, with annoying comedy involved. The fans love Uncle Elmer, but I do not. Adonis wins with a top rope maneuver.

0/5

The Funk Brothers Vs Tito Santana&JYD. Pretty solid match here, with a lot of memorable bumps taken from Terry Funk|the one through the table was something else for that time|. I would have to rate this as my 2nd favorite. Funks win with help from Jimmy Hart's megaphone.

3/5

WWF Championship. Hulk Hogan|C| Vs King Kong Bundy. Decent pop for Hogan. One of the most over-hyped matches in Wrestlemania history. Hogan can't wrestle worth a lick, and Bundy is not that great himself. The violence was brutal for the time, but Hogan's superhero act is kind of annoying, and there are too many boring moments. Hogan wins when he escapes before Bundy.

1/5

Bottom line. Wrestlemania 2 is a failure in most aspects. Die hard wrestling fans should see this once, but you really don't have too. There isn't enough here, to satisfy a true wrestling fan. Vince blew it on this one. Don't be fooled by the hype of the main event, it really is a boring affair, like most of the card. Not recommended, and ranks as one of the worst Wrestlemania's, outside of the brilliant tag title match.

4/10


The CinemaScope color cinematography of Leon Shamroy is quite remarkable here,including his use of colored filters for

various scenes. The Alfred Newmann Score has to be the most sensual and seductive score Hollywood ever produced. It's a shame it is no longer available on CD. The actors, however, never rise to the occasion. The accents are so varied, from the subdued British of Ustinov and Purdom to the Hollywood of Baxter and Mature that it seems a true hodgepodge with no central vision. Tommy Rettig is jarringly American. Acting styles span the range from zombie-like to stilted. Only Ustinov as a conniving one-eyed servant steals the show - what there is of it to steal. The premise - the story of a young Egyptian doctor, seduced and abandoned by the rich - and the parallel theme of the cult of the single God, Ra - persecuted by the authorities, has its interesting points. But when the film's plot fades, it is the haunting music and visuals that remain.


In comparison to other "sand and sandal" fare, The Egyptian leaves much to be desired. The film is very LOOSELY based upon Mika Waltari's well researched novel, which centers around the Egyptian physician Sinhue's adventures at the court of Akhnaton as well as his travels throughout Canaan, Minoan Crete and Africa. Unfortunately, due to the moral strictures of the time, much of Sinhue's story (which is rife with romantic and sexual exploits) remains on the cutting room floor and instead, the audience is treated to reels and reels of Victor Mature's wooden acting. Even Gene Tierney  a leading lady "staple" of the time  can not manage to look nor act her best in this flick and gives a rather somnambulistic performance which can only be justified by the fact that the actress was having some serious psychiatric problems at the time. There is a great deal of rhetoric and theological machinations over the idea of monotheism vs. polytheism, but Michael Wilding is so tiring as the revolutionary Akhnaton, that one is surely cheering for someone to off him and restore the old religion before the second reel. My advice: buy the book from E-Bay, rent something more entertaining like Solomon and Sheba and then call it a night!


The first official release of World Wrestling Entertainment's film division is a pretty basic horror/slasher movie called "See No Evil" starring Kane, one of their big men wrestlers known for having an intimidating presence, hard-hitting moves, and one of the most convoluted backstories in wrestling. And let's not pull any punches here; while this movie is promoted as the greatest horror movie of all time (mostly by WWE), it goes without saying that after having seen this movie, I can confirm it as one of the greatest comedies of all time.

"See No Evil" sees a bunch of juvenile delinquents sent to a hotel so they can clean up. Of course, a monstrous murderer (played by Kane) also happens to be living in this hotel and we all know where that goes. Without giving away too much of the movie plot, this film has all the semblance and structure of an early-1980s slasher flick with most of the clichés intact, but without any of the scares that those films accompany. And that's sort of the main problem with "See No Evil". It tries so many of the tricks implied by its predecessors in the genre that it comes off as predictable; veteran horror fans will easily recognize some of the gimmicks ahead of time and even those who have only seen a few flicks should tell what happens next. It's too generic to be scary.

The movie's gory, no doubt, but it's only there for the effect. The dark atmosphere instilled in the movie gives off that feel of terror initially, but as you get towards the end, it somehow feels out of place and gets tiresome quickly. The death scenes don't come off as gory and horrific as much as they do laughable, although some of them are pretty inventive.

And the acting in this movie is pretty bad too, as the main characters aren't developed enough for us to care when they eventually do get axed. Some can't even portray fear properly; they just scream and cry in a vain effort to emote. So when they die, it only adds to the comedy because you don't care enough about them that you simply consider them the equivalent of Starfleet Redshirts to the monster Kane.

As for Kane, he simply portrayed his movie character the same way he portrays his wrestling character, only he uses axes and hooks instead of hellfire and brimstone. There's no doubt in my mind that Kane can be a great fixture in the horror genre. He has the look and presence for it; he just needs better material (specifically a script that isn't written by someone who writes wrestling shows) to work with.

Now, despite what may seem like a harsh review, I actually enjoyed the film. It's one of those laughably bad movies that you can't help but sit down and enjoy. My main gripe with the film, again, is that it's simply an exercise in filming gory kills and doesn't have any frightening or shock moments. I enjoyed it, but I enjoyed because it was easy for me to laugh off some of what was supposed to be scary moments in the movie. If that happens because it was supposed to be that way, the movie would have been rated higher. But it didn't. It got laughs because it's a B-movie and it doesn't help that the director's previous experiences was porn flicks and music videos; not exactly overcomplicated things to direct anyway. Nonetheless, I enjoyed it tremendously.

If you don't mind a fun B-movie or funny horror film, I'd highly recommend "See No Evil." If you are a true enthusiast of the genre, I'd wait until the DVD comes out before checking it out. Everyone else should probably go watch something else.


To sum this movie up, it is LaBute carrying his sadism over into the realm of comedic farce. The predictable result is that he is constantly stepping on all the jokes by insisting on surrounding them with blood-curdling violence and extremely hateful characters. There is also evidence of his continuing efforts to insult and ridicule everything in sight but then to apologize for it with weak gestures to the PC. Basically the movie just doesn't work, its plot is beyond contrived, the characters are one-dimensional cliches, there is no consistency or development of anything, and the comedy (where it is not totally out of place) is the worst kind of High Concept drivel.

Morgan Freeman and Renee Zellweger are completely wasted on characters that seem like parodies of studio-driven audience pandering--no matter what, make them likeable, neutral (and neutered), and full of moral platitudes. Crispin Glover is in here just long enough to convince you that he doesn't belong in movies anymore. Chris Rock actually has negative chemistry with fellow hitman Freeman--it's as if they are acting in different rooms even when they are two inches away from each other. In effect, Chris Rock seems like a digital insert. At least he isn't as annoying as Jar-Jar.

LaBute's 15 minutes may well be up by now. It's already looking like he's overstayed his welcome.


I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in "HP3", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was "hoodwinked"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film "Down to the Last Minute" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.


Frankly, after Cotton club and Unfaithful, it was kind of embarrassing to watch Lane and Gere in this film, because it is BAD. The acting was bad, the dialogs were extremely shallow and insincere. It was well shot, but, then again, it is a big budget movie. It was too predictable, even for a chick flick. I even knew from the beginning that he was going to die in the end, the only thing I didn't know was how. Too politically correct. Very disappointing. The only thing really worth watching was the scenery and the house, because it is beautiful. But, if you want that, watch National geographic. I love Lane, but I've never seen her in a movie this lousy. As far as Gere goes, he's a good actor, but he had movies like this, so I'm not surprised. An hour and a half I wish I could bring back.


I happened to catch this movie on late night TV. I saw the opening credits and thought this looks good. Well I was very wrong. While not excruciatingly bad (it had some funny and tender moments)it lacked any sense of cohesion.

It started off well enough with Kathy Bates'character having a midlife crisis of sorts when her husband leaves her and her singing idol is murdered. But Kathy has played these disaffected women so well before - think Fried Green Tomatoes. The problem wasn't Kathy, it was the clueless screenplay that wandered all over the place. It was as if the writers must have been thinking what will we do next. The script also felt very contrived.

Some others who have posted comments on this movie have wondered why it didn't receive a cinematic release. The main reason I think would have been to avoid embarrassment and the critics would have murdered it.

Having said all that I thought the small woman who played Maudie was fantastic and stole the movie, not to mention how beautiful she is.


it really is terrible, from start to finish you'll sit and watch this ridiculous idiot, thinking hes cool when he's really not, rubbish plot line, terrible acting and complete waste of time and money, do NOT bother.


Don't see this movie! It's... repulsive! The start is indeed very good, but in the middle everything falls and I really regret spending 80 crowns (about 11 dollars) on the ticket! Peter Dalle should consider this as his last chance to gain peoples interest. AWFUL picture! The only bright spot is the splendid work of Robert Gustavsson, Lena Nyman and Gösta Ekman.

Hope you take my advise... The picture is rubbish.


I don't understand why so many of the comments here seem to indicate that this is acceptable entertainment. The eye-popping horror of this cinematic monstrosity cannot be overstated. Me and my girlfriend just watched it together, and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to have sex again. I'm not sure what was worse, the scrawny, unattractive cast, their supremely unphotogenic genitals, the rancid attempts at humor, the screeching noises that claimed to be songs...

No, I know what was worst of all. The girls in the green leotards, with green facepaint, licking Alice to dry her off, then proposing, in broken childlike speech, that they suckle milk from her breasts. That was the worst.

Also, what was with the nurses, and why do they seem to have so much trouble finding each other's vaginas? Why are all the male actors gay? Why does Humpty Dumpty waggle a dildo in the air and pretend that it's his penis? Why did my eyes have to see this? There are no words.


This was not a very good movie, the acting pretty much stunk and the effects were bad most of the time. But there were some funny moments but most of those were not meant to be funny. The most hilarious part of the movie to me was the part were a little kid in wheelchair falls out (thats not the funny part What kind of person do you think I am)anyway the kid falls out and starts screaming for his big brother, well the brother comes running and the way the kid runs is so funny he's all stumbling and really over acting I had to rewind it several times so I could laugh some more. so if your looking for something to rent but just can't seem to find anything check this one out and watch for the running part.


The 3rd in the series finds Paul Kersey (Bronson) turning vigilante to get revenge on the thugs that murdered his old buddy. I don't know why this movie shoved me into it, but somehow it did. I found myself rooting for Bronson to wipe the floor with those punks. Every time he blew one of them away I felt good. This movie does not take itself seriously, but what if it did? There is a good build-up to the fireworks finale in which Bronson goes on a rampage. But as far as acting and plot go, it just doesn't measure up. If I lived in that neighborhood, I would get out as fast as I could, but it seems like the people are asking for trouble. I know there is that mentality that we need to save our streets, but there is a limit here folks. I had to give it a 4. Sure there are good "blow 'em away" scenes but that's about it. At that time, Bronson was 64. I'm sure if those thugs really wanted to they could have their way with Bronson. Bronson takes the place of a Schwarzanegger or Stallone in this movie. This movie gives you a sense of rejoice. The common man can save the neighborhood, save the day. To sum it up, this is far from being the original Death Wish, but it is rather good if you are just looking for an hour and a half of shoot 'em up.


Naked Deanna Troi!

Richie's brother Chuck (from "Happy Days") with a reverse mohawk!

Death Wish 3 has all this and more, including one clever scene where Chuck Bronson's character sets up a mousetrap like device that brains a punk when he opens the window.

Chuck also places a board with a bunch of nails on the floor near another window and smiles when he returns and sees bloody footprints leading away.

All I can say about Death Wish 3 is that it is one of most incomprehensible "serious" movies that I have ever seen--loaded to the hilt with mayhem, and nearly zero police response, despite the use of military weapons to mow punks down by the score.

As I understand it, Bronson disowned this film, but happily cashed the check from Golan Globus.

If you enjoy quality movies, avoid this one, but if you're in for a cheap "Jackass" kind of thrill, check it out.


Talk about being boring!

I got this expecting a fascinating insight into the life of the man who wrote the mythical Night on the Galactic Railroad. I expected to see crazy stories and hijinks of an eccentric man and to discover his inspirations for such bizarre material. Boy, was I wrong.

Spring and Chaos is mostly boring with only sporadic moments of innovative animation. It's certainly nothing to write home about and nowhere near as good as NOTGR which is something that I suggest you watch instead. Leave this bore alone. If you absolutely MUST see then either rent it or find it somewhere cheap. Do not pay top dollar.


The most generic, surface-level biography you could hope for. Busey's impersonation of Holly is accurate -- but who wants to hear Gary Busey sing "Maybe Baby"? Typically, the members of the Hollies are used for comic relief and melodrama (Smith and Stroud, respectively) instead of as people or even characters. When Holly uses a string section, the old jewish-looking guys who come in tell him he's using the same techniques as Mozart. It's just this kind of cheeky statement that makes film biographies like this (and "Amadeus", about the aforementioned Mozart) so worthless. Some entertainment can be derived from Holly's excellent styles and songs done in a B-variation.


To remake "Lost Horizon", as a musical, the need for a Rodgers & Hammerstein or Lerner & Lowe type musical composition was needed. Burt Bacharach and Hal David were the wrong choice. Having said that, my favorite thing about "Lost Horizon", is its score. It's just that the score doesn't fit the piece. The cast, is made-up of mostly non-musical talents (Ullman, Finch and Hussey, were all dubbed, and still don't sound all that great).

Frankly, the novella, on which this, and the earlier non-musical film versions were based, is mediocre, at best. While the possibilities for a truly good, cinematic musical version exist, they are not realized here. The film succeeds at being a good, rainy-day vehicle, to pass the time. Otherwise, you are better off, buying the CD of its soundtrack. Only recommended as a curiosity piece, due to the film's awful reputation. I've seen much better; but I've seen MUCH worse.


MINOR PLOT SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

How did such talented actors get involved in such mindless retreaded

drivel? Robert DeNiro plays a Dumb Hollywood version of the standard

violence prone tough cop (i.e., he beats up the bad guys and rolls his

eyes at cops who prefer to stick by the book), and Eddie Murphy plays a

not so tough cop who would rather be an actor (i.e., he screams out,

"Freeze, police!" and has his "tough look" down pat). Naturally, they

are partnered when Bobby's loose cannon tactics get him in hot water

with the media and he is essentially blackmailed into starring in a

"Cops"-like reality show. Take a breath, cuz that's as funny as it

gets.

No energy was put into the script - it feels like a pale retread of

every copy buddy movie tossed into a blender with "15 Minutes" starring,

yes, DeNiro himself as, pretty much the character he is playing here.

The jokes fall flat, the action feels listless, and no one seems to be

having a good time. It's dead on the screen.

Please don't waste your time. Even if you have an overwheming affinity

for one of the actors - avoid it and do them a favor. Becauze if this

makes money, these kinda of scripts will be deeemed perfectly acceptable

for actors of their quality.

And to Mr. DeNiro. You used to make serious films. I remember them -

they were good. You were nominated for awards for them - remember how

much fun that was? Now after "Analyze This" (which was good), "Meet the

Parents" (which was also good), and "The Adventures of Rocky and

Bullwinkle" (which was NOT good), I think we need to see you parodying

yourself less, and BEING yourself more. "Casino" feels like a long time

ago. And no, I don't count "15 Minutes" as serious Bobby. Anyone who

took that media satire seriously must get their weekly world news


Eddy Murphy and Robert De Niro should be a combination that results in a great comedy. Great expectationa often lead to dissapointment, and this proves to be the case.

When Eddy as a police officer spoils a drug deal being done by Detective Robert, they botch it so badly that they end up doing a live action reality TV cop show. Logic is not a great component of this movie. The super-gun that they spend the second half of the movie chasing down confirms it. A twelve guage machine gun that leaves large holes in sheetmetal and three will destroy a house in about a minute (without reloading) is as more a fantasy than science fiction. A five pound gun, firing hundreds of shots per minute without any recoil, is certainly the weapon of the future using the technology of the past.

It is clear this movie was designed for neither adults nor children, so if you are somewhere in between, this is the movie for you.


This 3-hour made-for-TV miniseries came home with us from Blockbuster's this weekend. The production company clearly spent a lot of money on sets, costuming (Bridget Fonda, especially), and special effects (including a great Jim Henson talking polar bear & reindeer). They should have spent a bit more money getting a coherent script. The story line was so loose that it really never came together. One can overlook Irish-accented Germans, but not herky-jerky storytelling. With senseless loose ends which included a special guest appearance by the Devil, this one is certainly not destined to be a Christmas Classic. A shame that they wasted good performances by the two female leads.


DANGER: Watch for falling spoilers...

Boy, was this a bad movie. I know that they were going for a "true love conquers all" kind of thing, but about all this film conquered was about 3(which felt more like 9) hours of my afternoon which I will never get back. The movie is about two young lovers named Kai and Gerta who live in a remote town in a fantasy world. Kai is the much-abused bellboy at a hotel owned by Gerta's father. At first Gerta ignores Kai's advances but she eventually warms up to him much to the disgust of (You Guessed It!) Gerta's father. As if this obstacle wasn't enough to overcome, an evil snow queen shoots a shard of glass in Kai's eye and he becomes a mean person treats Gerta poorly. Kai is eventually taken to the Snow Queen's fortress (Which is the same set as the hotel just covered in ice, because the good people at Hallmark like to go all out) and Gerta sets out on a mission to get Kai back. Along the way she runs into the 3 other seasons that are evil in their own special way, but Gerta escapes them with the help of some dull and forgettable characters she meets along the way. (All the while you will want to turn it off, but can't force yourself to do it. It's probably the most evil and most effective spells cast by the Snow Queen) Anyways, I will spare you from the ending because anything you can think up in your head right now is probably better then how they ended it. So, in conclusion, the Snow Queen is an incredibly boring movie, which takes the fan out of fantasy.


Great story and great lead actors (Quaid and Ryan) but the movie suffers from bad directing,bad screenplay and bad script.The lead actors do their part but could not save the movie at all.Too bad because this could have been a good 80's style Hitchcock suspense/mystery/thriller.Ryan looked so young and fresh in this one though.An ok look for big Ryan fans.....