Your ability to enjoy The Ashes of Time may depend on our expectations before stepping into the theater. Even its most strident supporters seem to agree that audiences can be split right up the middle in their appreciation of this unique film.

Unlike most HK actioners, the battle scenes are curiously kept at a distance. When they do happen, they're rendered in a jerky style in which it's difficult to make out exactly what's occurring on screen. The dramatic scenes can be extravagantly beautiful, with the of Maggie Cheung, Brigitte Lin, and a roll-call of HK's top acting talent chewing up the scenery. As with some of Wong Kar-wai's early work, the dialog could be more precise.

In short, The Ashes of Time requires a forgiving attitude. Released around the same time as Wong Kar-wai's spectacularly successful Chungking Express, it's clear that the director isn't as confident working with the elements of the martial arts film. Anyone looking for tense action is likely to be disappointed. But those intrigued by the director's aesthetic will likely find this a unique experience at the very least.


Imagine the most cliche ridden b-movie horror plot you can. Add more plot holes than plot. Have it scripted by a 10 year old. Have the acting done by A-Level drama students faking really bad US accents (in the Isle of Man!) Add monster special effects that the lovers of B&W Dr Who shows will appreciate. Result: duff film. Throw in Samantha Janus taking her clothes off (make a point of this on the cover) and you'll probably sell enough copies to make a profit anyway!


Pilot Mitch MacAfee (Jeff Morrow) sees a UFO while test flying a plane--but nothing shows up on radar. Then planes and ships start disappearing and reports of a UFO increase. It turns out it's a giant monster bird that is attacking and killing. But what is it and why is it here?

This has all the right elements for a classic. It has an actually pretty entertaining script--I was never really bored. The acting is good (for a 1950s monster movie). Morrow doesn't overdo the macho hero act and Mara Corday is quite good as the requisite female love interest. She's also strong and takes care of herself--even though she IS off getting food and coffee for everyone all during the movie. The problem here is the monster. Dear God--it's TERRIBLE! It looks like a deranged turkey! It has a long neck, a hilariously stupid BEAK, some teeth, a few strands of hair on its head and claws. And--oh yes--it squawks! Not roaring--squawking! The actors had no idea what it looked like--it was added after production. Actors Morrow and Corday were horrified when they finally saw it in a theatre. Morrow said his audience burst out laughing and he left the theatre quickly before the movie ended! Producer Sam Katzman was responsible for this. He wanted to save money and gave the world the stupidest monster ever. And you can SEE the wires moving it too! This gets 4 stars only because Morrow and Corday are so good and the script is well done. It gets no stars for the pathetic monster--wait till you see it attack what is obviously a toy train! Worth a look if you're a horror fan to see what has to be the stupidest monster ever.


I saw this movie when I was about 12 when it came out. I recall the scariest scene was the big bird eating men dangling helplessly from parachutes right out of the air. The horror. The horror.

As a young kid going to these cheesy B films on Saturday afternoons, I still was tired of the formula for these monster type movies that usually included the hero, a beautiful woman who might be the daughter of a professor and a happy resolution when the monster died in the end. I didn't care much for the romantic angle as a 12 year old and the predictable plots. I love them now for the unintentional humor.

But, about a year or so later, I saw Psycho when it came out and I loved that the star, Janet Leigh, was bumped off early in the film. I sat up and took notice at that point. Since screenwriters are making up the story, make it up to be as scary as possible and not from a well-worn formula. There are no rules.


I hope this isn't a portent of things to come. High-definition camcorders are getting cheaper all the time (although I wouldn't swear that's what was used here), so it's open season for all the wannabe Scorseses and Tarantinos.

There is no hiding the cheapness of this stinker, and calling it a 'film' would be doing the industry a big disservice. The photography is of a standard you would expect on a family outing to the zoo. I could build me a new house with all the wooden acting. What's remarkable about that is that nobody stands out as the worst. They are all equally terrible. Like a whole bunch of Ben Afflecks. Or Steven Seagals.

What hooked me was the title. I'm a sucker for this sort of thing, like Frankenhooker, or Monsturd. Frankenhooker was pretty bad, too, but at least I got some laughs out of it, and the acting was merely bad, not awful. I can't comment on Monsturd as I've yet to get hold of a copy of it.

Anyway, I hope the people who made this didn't make any money from it. Else they might be encouraged to try it on again. Please, guys, pawn the camcorder and go back to your regular job.


I was looking for a documentary of the same journalistic quality as Frontline or "Fog of War" (by Errol Morris). Instead I was appalled by this shallow and naive account of a very complex and disturbing man and his regime: Alberto Fujimori. This movie should be called "The return of Fujimori". The director presumes she made a "perfect" movie because alienates both pro and anti-Fujimori factions when in fact it is a very biased and unprofessional piece of work.

The movie has few crucial facts wrong:

1) She uses the so called "landslide" election of 1995 in which Fujimori was re-elected with 65% of the vote, as an example of the massive popular support of Fujimori. But we all now know to be the fruit of a very organized electoral fraud.

2) The movie states that Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) killed 60,000 people. In fact, the Truth Commission's final report states that there were 69,280 deaths due to political violence in Peru. 33% of those were caused by SL. That leaves the other 67% in the hands of the police, military and other groups. The fact that she uses the same misleading information that Fujimori has been using for 10 years it is another example of how terrible this movie is.

For any person with some education on Peruvian politics and history, Fujimori is clearly a consummated manipulator, a delusional character and remorseless egomaniac. His regime was very far from being democratic. He is still a menace to Peruvians. Despite these facts the director lets Fujimori tell the story. Not only on how he wants the camera to be positioned but the narrative and direction of the film seem to be part of his political agenda. He always seems to have the last word. There are no journalistic "cojones", just soft questions and unchallenged remarks. Where is Oriana Fallaci when we need her? The director, when questioned after the screening, didn't hide the fact that she was deeply impressed by Fujimori, his charm and intelligence. Yes, she has been definitely charmed by him, and you can tell by looking at this film. It's obvious she has a very hard time to digest the multitude of facts that point towards his responsibility on the corruption, murder and deception that took place. She assured the gasping audience that Fujimori was really a "patriot" when few moments earlier, one of the leading Peruvian journalists was very adamant in telling us that Fujimori was, above all, a "traitor". She went on to say that despite all the accusations not "a single dollar" was found on any bank account on his name, etc, etc. It was like hearing again the same gang of ruthless thugs that ruled the country for 10 years defending their master. It was a sad moment for journalism.

This film makes injustice to history. It is an insult to hundreds of dead people, disappeared or unjustly incarcerated by Fujimori's regime. No wonder she later confessed that all the Peruvian intellectuals she befriended while making the movie felt betrayed by it. Unbiased? The words "oportunistic", "naïve" and "denial" come to my mind instead.


The worst movie I have ever seen. The sound quality was bad, the cutting of the scenes was even worse and above all it was not logic and it had no speed...

I first tought: "Oh No, I don't want the trail that proves that poor Patrick was an innocent killer". But this turned out to be even worse. Typically in this American film you get a super-hint or no hints at all. I want very tiny small hints that direct you to the killer. The audience isn't involved. And now, when I don't get any hints at all, you can expect a several 's/he-is-the-killer' sweeps in the end. And that is not all. ah... This is hopeless, lets make an end to it...

In one word: Disgusting..


Oh, the horror, the unspeakable horror of this film. If you can even call it a film. This looks like some first-year art school project, hastily cobbled together.

The "talents" here will subject you to a painful mix of under- and- overacting, and practically all the scenes were terribly contrived and pretentious.

The film in no way reflects Malaysian culture or social conventions - nobody even talks that way over here. I live in Malaysia, BTW.

Spinning Gasing seems tailor-made to pick up an award in the foreign film category of some western film festival. And unfortunately, that ploy seems to have worked. Some reviewers would no doubt describe it as "exotic", but a more accurate word would be "atrocious".


If you and your friends find as much humor and enjoyment from horrible acting, jokes, props, and overall film making as me and my friends, you need to rent this.

From simply reading the tag line and seeing how not funny it is, you should assume more not funny, poor quality, great, hilarious content through out. Its a tale of some of kids who defy every law of physics and reality and fly back in time through a modern day big screen TV to a world of dinosaurs who eventually become their friends. Not to mention a hilariously serious scene where T-Rex becomes a father figure for one of the kids. Yeah...

It should be in the comedy section but you'll find it with kid movies if you find it at all. So call your friends over, sit back, relax, get ready to laugh, and enjoy. You will be quoting the laughably horrific one liners in this movie for weeks. "Whats with all the ruckus?!"


Dear Mr Ram Gopal Varma, I don't know in which capacity I am writing this letter to you. I am a never-say-he's-finished Amitabh Bachchan fan, having sat through his cock-chasing act in Jaadugar. I also demand some important designation in The Godfather fan club, having watched the Coppola classic more times than you have delivered flops from your Factory. And, of course, I have been a big admirer of yours, right from the time you had Nagarjuna wrapping the cycle chain around his knuckles in Shiva.

When you announced Sarkar and called it your take on Godfather, all one wanted to know was the date the first look would be out, the Sunday the promos would go on air, the Friday the film would be released. It was sheer wish fulfillment at work knowing that you, and not someone hovering between the mustard fields of Amritsar and the tulip gardens of Amsterdam, had taken up the task of recreating the Puzo pages on the Bollywood big screen.

Your cast couldn't have been more you  working for the first time with the legend, casting Abhishek as his screen-son, giving Kay Kay a role he has deserved for years, bringing back forgotten faces like Supriya Pathak and Rukhsar, and picking complete non-actors like Katrina and Tanishaa to join the list Before July 1, you had made Sarkar the most-awaited film ever for any Godfather freak who worshiped Bachchan.

The opening credits stoked the hope that your stunning sepia-tinted promos on the telly had kindled. But now, you labeled Sarkar your tribute to Godfather instead of the word "inspired" which you had been using all along. Probably you don't want the two creations to be compared but when the medium is the same, then a Kaante would be compared to Reservoir Dogs and a Reservoir Dogs to a City On Fire.

Also, when your first and last sequences  the heart of any screenplay treatment  are all about the establishment and the transfer of power, you can't keep the Nagares and the Corleones apart, even if you replace the American mafia moves with Maharashtrian political power play.

But you got it wrong, Mr Varma You wanted to show Amitabh in his 70s avatar, as rustled up by the pens of Salim-Javed. You wanted him to lurk around larger than life. You wanted him to be his own brand(o). Then how could you steal his voice in the name of using silence? How could you keep him rooted to his chair in the hunt for interesting camera angles? How could you leave him stranded without his voice and stature, the two things that have made his B so big? Coppola's Godfather cameraman Gordon Willis masked Brando's eyes throughout the movie because it didn't have the power to match that drawling husky voice or that sudden snap of the fingers. But you tried to repeat the Malik act from your very own Company. But Bachchan is no Ajay Devgan  his forte doesn't lie in the stagnant stare and the suffocating silence. You made the man look like a comatose patient, who's reminded from time to time to look at the cue cards and mouth those predictable one-liners. For that, Agneepath's there, any given Saturday.

Which Bachchan fan would go and watch Kay Kay Menon stealing the thunder from under his nose in the scene where Sarkar asks Vishnu to leave his house? Which Amitabh aficionado would go and watch him focus on achaar and carom, in a film that talks about power with a capital P in the promos? We can't handle so much in the name of restraint and understatement! You don't even allow the camera to rest on him for five seconds when he learns that his son wanted to kill him. Give me the old-school camera-only-on-Bachchan style, any given Saturday.

Kudos to you, of course, for making an actor out of Abhishek, first in Naach and now in Sarkar. You also allow him to show Mallika Sherawat that he can run as well as his father. Even in the short prison sequence, you really make the Bachchans come out of the text, an opportunity Shaad missed in Bunty Aur Babli. Wish the film could have been more a father-son story rather than a chaotic conflict between caricatures in the name of characters, who pop up like the ad windows on the Internet.

You also let the women more into the script than Puzo and Coppola did and again, you deserve all the Brownie points for squeezing them in so effectively. Pathak is a welcome return as the mother in the middle, Tanishaa lovable as the lovelorn girl, Katrina a revelation as Abhishek's confused lover and Rukhsar's silence speaks volumes.

But sub-plots do not a classic remake. When your free-flowing camera tries to make every frame look hatke and your loud background score irritates incessantly, we keep getting reminded that we are in a Factory. Well, maybe not a Nino Rota score but Sarkar certainly deserved better than those Govinda, Govinda chants and uncalled-for flute interludes.

Mr Varma, some of your Factory directors tell me that you are involved with every project, from overseeing the shooting schedules to supervising the editing sessions. Perhaps, in the middle of all the various storyboards, the Bhiku Matre scream is being muted by the Subhash Nagare silence. Perhaps, you need to bring the shutters down on the factory and work on a single homemade product. Otherwise, your products would remain products, to use and throw, not treasure. And movie buffs like me, for whom there are no hits and flops, only good cinema, would rather choose a film without Factory finish, any given Saturday.


I've been surprised by the enthusiastic response to this film. It seemed dull to me, much as I enjoyed looking at Penelope Cruz, and the plot details often poorly worked out. It also seemed like an intensely sexist film: if the gender roles were reversed, almost everyone with any sense would be up in arms complaining the movie is intensely misogynist. It's not just that both the principal males are portrayed as complete jerks and sexual predators, but also that the women are portrayed as almost flawless, forming a utopian community which lacks conflict of any kind and which rests on relentless generosity and good humor. Utopias are notoriously dull and this one turns out to be no exception. But it's also interesting to notice what happens (and here comes the plot giveaway, though it refers to a very early scene) when the teenage daughter kills her father. (1) Her mother rushes to take responsibility for it and(2) the daughter seems to suffer almost no remorse (and in fact her emotional life then disappears from the film). It's not quite a glorified killing, though Aldomovar's camera lingers on the blood in a bloodthirsty way, as though it makes an attractive painting, and then it's soaked up and out of sight without bloodying either daughter or mom, neither materially nor emotionally. Later the film reveals another killing, again by a woman of a man, , and once again it is a killing which the film implicitly endorses.In short, Volver is an ideologically-driven film with an unpleasant and in fact a repugnant ideology, and so I write an ideological critique. But apart from that, it's just not very interesting. It has none of the depth of, say, Aldomovar's Talk to Her, which I loved.


It was so disjointed - it seemed to jump from place to place - and the "thief" was obvious. It was a poor man's (not to mention high school) "Less than Zero". I would pass on this movie as it has very little to add. So many issues are left unresolved, and that's okay - but the fact that it jumps around to the point where you wonder what's exactly going on is terrible. The voice-over is needed because the movie doesn't work on its own. Avoid this movie, and watch something else about rich teen angst. I'm sure there are plenty of others to watch. Don't waste your time on this.


Ever once in a while I run into a movie that is so embarrassingly bad I wonder why movies exist. This is one of them. This is a terrible attempt to parody The Godfather with annoying cartoon sounds, and bad dialogue. Eddie Deezen is just plain annoying as Tony, an annoying twit who upon his father, Don (William Hickey)'s request, takes over the family business. Tony, as I said, is an annoying little twit. This makes the whole movie a complete mess. The movie is terribly daffy. It's too cartoonish. The main point I'm trying to make is that you can't make a parody of an acclaimed drama like The Godfather with so much cartoonishness. It doesn't work that way. Believe it or not, you have to take a parody of a dramatic movie seriously. If you don't take it seriously, it will feel too much like a parody. The thing about doing a parody is that you can't seem too much like you're doing a parody. You have to make it seem like you're taking the movie at least a little bit seriously. It also feels like they're just mocking Woody Allen, and that's what makes this movie absolutely terrible.


Larry Clark is not renowned for his talents as a writer or a director, but he has made some undeniably important films. Kids, Bully, and to a lesser extent Ken Park all achieve their intended purpose: shock, revulsion, and even disgust. These films are uncompromising in their content and use their controversial nature to expose very serious problems in modern youth. Kids exposed us to the proliferation of A.I.D.S. and sexual promiscuity among the young. Bully touched upon similar issues. Ken Park dealt somewhat ham-handedly with sexual abuse and suburban ennui. Irrefutably, all of these films exposed something horrifying and left a bad taste in your mouth.

Wassup Rockers is about a group of poor Hispanic skateboarders from South-Central Las Angeles who go to arbitrarily go to Beverly Hills to skate. That's it.

Wassup Rockers is nothing.

It has no substance. It has an essentially nonexistent narrative. And, like Kids, it features a cast of first-time actors who were drawn out of the films setting. However, unlike Kids, none of them have any semblance of talent. There is better acting in porn. This film features, without a doubt, the most terrible performances I've ever seen in a feature film. One can respect Larry Clark to exposing these young men to the film-making process, but these kids are absolutely cringe-worthy, folks. Might I add that apparently these gents also produced the soundtrack, which features some of the most dismally inept garage punk you'll ever hear- my advice is to pop a couple of migraine pills before you enter the theater, or you'll regret it afterward.

But then again, it's not like they had much of a script to work with. Every line that is uttered is a contrived, pathetically-delivered, and irritating beyond all measure. The story itself is ludicrous. It starts out reasonably enough, but soon slips quite unexpectedly into sheer absurdity. This begins of course with a capricious sexcapade with a pair of rich white girls, followed by a series of clichéd National Lampoonish encounters, characters being killed off for no reason, and finally resulting in a ridiculous anti-climax. Shots go on much longer than they need to. Be prepared to watch people fall of skateboards for about fifteen minutes straight, overlong, lingering shots of characters doing nothing or skateboarding down streets. But then again, with the script at a scant 32 pages they need as much useless filler as possible. Perhaps Wassup Rockers would have worked better as a short film.

Anyways, I could go on like this. This is the worst film Larry Clark has made yet. For those of you who are interested in seeing a Clark movie if only for his shocking pederast antics, look elsewhere. This is by far the tamest film he's made yet, and it's also the worst. It's flat out horrible. Like, Uwe Boll horrible. Definitely the worst one I saw at the festival.

1/10


Previous reviewer Claudio Carvalho gave a much better recap of the film's plot details than I could. What I recall mostly is that it was just so beautiful, in every sense - emotionally, visually, editorially - just gorgeous.

If you like movies that are wonderful to look at, and also have emotional content to which that beauty is relevant, I think you will be glad to have seen this extraordinary and unusual work of art.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it about an 8.75. The only reason I shy away from 9 is that it is a mood piece. If you are in the mood for a really artistic, very romantic film, then it's a 10. I definitely think it's a must-see, but none of us can be in that mood all the time, so, overall, 8.75.


This is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with its "Sita" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita/Sita. Yet what I loved about the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the end of Mazursky's "An Unmarried Woman." They are brave women surrounded by cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion.

Ms Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada, Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers.

Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's "Khandar", Gautam Ghose's "Paar", Benegal's "Ankur") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all, the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing talents in her future screenplays.


Now I do understand that this film was not meant as an indictment against all Indians but it is an amazing film because it dares to investigate the hypocrisy that some Indians have concerning their women and sexuality. I have known for some time that sexism is very common in this society (with women being murdered because the husband's family doesn't want them any more after his death or because she had a small dowry as well as the frequent killing of female fetuses because they are seen as a curse instead of a blessing). I also realize that some from this culture will be greatly offended by the film, but the bottom line is that there is some truth to the subject matter--even if the film was so strongly attacked when it debuted in India a decade ago. As a result of the extreme misogyny in the movie, most Western audience members will be shocked or at least be emotionally pulled into the plight of the ladies in this film.

Although I am a male, am not rabidly feminist and I am straight, the film had a strong positive impact on me and it is NOT an agenda film that can only be enjoyed by Lesbians and "man haters". In fact, I don't think the film is promoting hatred of men or homosexuality but instead gives a credibly argument how in the case of these two ladies it was the only reasonable alternative due to their wicked husbands. Yes, I use the word "wicked" and mean it, as both husbands living in this large household are intensely selfish and have no regard for their spouses' sexuality. In many traditional societies this is indeed the case and women are doomed to an empty emotional existence.

One husband married a vivacious young woman, Sita, out of family obligation. This arranged marriage is uncomfortable for them both but in the beginning Sita makes an attempt to connect with her sullen husband. However, he sees himself as a victim and could have cared less about Sita--and he continues to have an affair with a liberal-minded Chinese lady. To make matters worse, he did nothing to hide the affair and made no apologies. In their dead marriage, sex was purely meant to produce children and there was no way Sita could have any of her sexual or emotional needs met. And unfortunately, he could have cared less.

Another husband was married to a lady who was infertile (Radha). Oddly, after initially trying to have children, they have gone the next 13 years without any sexual contact whatsoever! It's because this man has decided to become an ascetic (i.e., in Hinduism, a person who gives up the pleasures of the world to gain inner enlightenment). Now his wanting to do this was all well and good IF he was not already married and had obligations for his wife. However, being married, this was an incredibly selfish act and like his brother, he assumed his wife had no sexual feelings nor did he seem to care. The closest he would allow her to him sexually was to sleep next to him--as having her next to him helped teach himself to "overcome the desires of the flesh". This must have brought nothing but frustration to her.

So, you've got two neglected and normal women living in the same household who long for emotional connection as well as an outlet for their sexual needs. Eventually, these needs bring these sister-in-laws together--at first, just emotionally but later sexually as well. The movie was brilliant how it got me to look at and understand how in some cases homosexuality is inevitable and even healthy compared to a life of emotional desolation.

Late in the film, when the intensity of their sexual relationship is discovered, it leads to a not totally unexpected reaction from Radha's "enlightened" husband--a man who seeks religious insight and peace yet is so wrapped up in himself that true insight and growth is impossible.

This is a very challenging and adult film. While there is very little nudity, the subject matter is very adult and this is not a film to show your kids. Very disturbing indeed is one minor character who masturbates in front of an old paralyzed lady--as I said, this is NOT a film to let your kids watch. However, for a mature audience, this is an excellent and highly erotic film that will get you to think.

The film features good acting, complex characters, excellent writing, lovely mood music and a slow pace that might annoy some, but which I found rewarding. The only serious negative I cannot blame on the movie itself but on the idiots who released this on videotape. This is because although the movie is in English, the accents are quite strong at times and it's not always easy to understand what's being said. BUT, and this is the worst part, there are no closed or open captions--including them is a must for Western audiences. If you do watch this film, see if you can find it on DVD or hopefully a newer release on video will have captioning--mine sure didn't.

By the way, director Deepa Mehta (a popular female director) has made several other wonderful films such as EARTH and BOLLYWOOD/Hollywood. A consistent theme in her films is the conflict between traditional Indian culture and expectations and Westernism--with a strong emphasis on female characters. Not surprisingly, this West-thinking lady makes her home in Canada and is divorced--a truly unusual woman to say the least. For a similar film that explores traditional culture meets Western culture, try another Canadian gem, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN.


Deepa Mehta's "Fire" is groundbreaking, bold, and artistic. A masterful social commentary on the plight of the women from conservative, upper middle class Indian households, this is a film no one should miss. Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das give stellar performances by underplaying their characters as much as possible. A.R. Rahman's music is the work of the genius and almost plays the role of another character in the film. Mehta uses Rahman's score and together, they create such amazing sound montages that effectively portray the views of the world around Radha and Sita whenever they look to each other for support. This film is not about lesbianism as many have branded it. Lesbianism is just a part of the film. It is unfortunate that most people tend to write the film off calling it taboo instead of giving it a chance and looking at its real meaning.


This short deals with a severely critical writing teacher whose undiplomatic criticism extends into his everyday life. When he learns why that's not a good idea, we learn a bit about the beautiful craft of writing that he's been lecturing on.


This is a piece of cinematic beauty, and it shows more of Quebec culture to others than probably any other work to come from la belle province. It takes everybody into a first-person experience of the culture, to the point that you wish you glued your hair in place and lived, breathed, and ate everything Maurice Richard. The book does this as well as the short, and I'm glad that in all the time I did spend studying French in high school, this was required reading in both languages.

I thought it was brilliant to have Roch Carrier narrate this story. His molasses-thick accent brought a lot of realism to the story. The animation was good, as well, very surrealist, which brings attention to the idea of this being a whimsical daydream, fancying over better days gone by.

Again, as a symbol of culture quebecoise, this is unsurpassed. One can almost smell the tourtiere being cooked slowly over a wood stove. This whole film deserves endless praise for making people proud to be Canadian, and encourage us all to appreciate the finer things of family and our roots. I'm from Ontario, and this film made me fall in love with Quebec. Maurice Richard va toujours vivre dans nos coeurs.


The "good news" is that the circus is in town. The "bad news" is that's right over Bugs Bunny's underground home. He wakes up as his place shakes like an earthquake hit it, when workers pound stakes into the ground and elephants stomp by, etc.

To be more specific, the lions' cage is place exactly over Bugs' hole. The lion sniffs food, and by process of elimination, figures out it's a rabbit. Bugs, curious what all the racket is about, winds his way through the tunnel and winds up in the lion's mouth.

I'll say for thing for BB: he is totally fearless, at least in this cartoon, and at least for 30 seconds. When he comes to his senses, he runs like crazy and we get a lion-versus-a rabbit battle the rest of the way. Once again, Bugs faces dumb opponent, one he calls "Nero," but lion is fierce and Bugs will need all his wits and somewhat-fake bravado to fend off this beast.

About half the gags are stupid and the other half funny, but always fast-moving, colorful and good enough to recommend. I mean, it's not everyday you can see a lion on a trapeze, or doing a hula dance!


Once again, Bugs Bunny sacred home is violated by careless people. This time the traveling circus put a lion's cage right over the rabbit's hole. So Bug's has to come out of the hole and face Nero (that's the name of the lion), which he does in his usual hilarious style. After a slow and rocky beginning to the cart, it keeps getting better and better and winds up being quite hilarious. Nero the lion turns out to be a pretty good foil for Bugs and that turns this short into a highly memorable one, if still shorn of a classic. This animated short can be found on Disk 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 3.

My Grade: A-


This often maligned movie is a must for fans of Blake Edwards, Julie Andrews, Henry Mancini, or Hollywood musicals. Other writers have commented on the shifts in tone, the confusion of plot, etc., but the film has many things to recommend it. The score is one of Henry Mancini's best (and he has written many wonderful ones), several songs are sung to perfection by Andrews, Julie's performance is nuanced and she is decked out in some beautiful clothes, (she is at her absolutely loveliest here), the on-location shots are breath-taking, and there are some funny Inspector Clouseau-type sight gags to boot. Rock Hudson basically phoned in his performance, but he is passably good. A real curiosity item in that it was the last major film Julie did for about 10 years and, in many ways, is a precursor to Victor/Victoria. It is lovely to look at and listen to. When will it be available on DVD??? When it is, I for one would like both versions--the longer and shorter, director's cut. Since it was lampooned in S.O.B., they would make a great two-pack!


The centerpiece of Lackawanna Blues is the character Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, who runs a boardinghouse and provides unflagging support to a young boy, Ruben, the narrator of the film. Based upon the experiences of writer-actor Ruben Santiago-Hudson, the film lovingly recreates the upstate New York boardinghouse and evokes the cultural climate of a world in transition in the 1960s.

The first half of the film is virtually non-stop music. The second half addresses more completely the various characters in the boardinghouse. Nanny's ability "to take fragments and make them whole" affects everyone within her sphere. An especially vivid scene is when she confronts an abusive husband, telling him firmly, "If you ever touch that child again, we're going to dance!" As delivered by actress S. Epatha Merkerson, that line is so steely and filled with such resolve that the husband with the hair-trigger temper is frozen in his tracks.

From start to finish, Merkerson delivers a commanding presence Her character binds together the disparate lives of the borders in her home. This was a touching, heartfelt film with a wonderful cast. As played by Merkerson, the character of Nanny simply radiates love. This is a film experience that I will remember for a long time to come.


One of the best,Lackawanna Blues

Great movie,great cast,great music,this is one of those movies that is so good that when it is over you wish it would go on for another 90 minutes,I will w3atch this one many times.

This is one of those movies that grabs you from the beginning and twist and slams you emotionally throughout the feature. The cast is extraordinary without the faintest hint of anyone being uncormfortable in their role. You get the sense that you're really there taking all this in. A great deal of care was given in the sets, costumes and music of the period. The relationship between the characters we meet is both simple and complicated as the movie goes on, but the steady performance of Ms. Merkerson is so powerful that the movie ends before we've had our fill of the wonderful misfits. To single out anyone other than "Nanny" is an injustice because we have very good performances by great veteran actors including:

Jeffery Wright, Jimmy Smits, Terrence Howard and Delroy Lindo. But it is Marcus Franklin, Macy Gray and Ms. Merkerson that makes this a wonderful experience.

The movie moves rapidly and is short by todays standards, but it is without question one of the best movies you're going to see this year. If you like good period pieces that will challenge you emotionally, tug at your heart, lift you joyfully and have you tapping your feet at the same time, then this is the movie for you. I've shown it to several friends and they all want my copy, that says it all, the movie is that good. Check it out for yourself.

danceability-1, Amsterdam Holland


Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are brilliant as Sir and his Dresser. Of course the play is brilliant to begin with and nothing can compare with the immediacy and collegiality of theatre, and I think you listen better in theatre; but on the screen we become more intimate, we're 'up-close' more than we are in the theatre, we witness subtle changes in expression, we "see" better as well as listen. Both the play and the movie are wondrous: moving, intelligent, illuminating--of the backstage story of the company, of historical context, of the two main characters, and of the parallel characters in "Lear" itself. If you cannot get to see it in a theatre (I don't imagine it's produced much these days) then, please, do yourself a favor, and get the video.


The many other comments about the film say it all - just like to add that we showed it last week to around 30 at our Community Cinema, and it got an overall average score of 8.6. We'd 100% recommend it, then, for today's audiences, especially if they can see it on a real cinema screen, and can talk about it with others afterwards, as our audience did.

The sheer power of the acting performances by the whole troupe was incredible and quite spellbinding. Of course, Finney and Courtenay were truly the stars. but everybody was thoroughly well cast. For our afternoon audience, the majority of whom are "senior citizens", the fact that the plot could be followed with such ease because of the clarity of speech and the wonderful non-techy use of camera and sound was a great influence

How delightful, many said, to see a really great film that's British: still not dated twenty years on: not full filled with blood & guts: not confusing because of bob-about-all-over-the-place camera shots, and back and forth through time story lines: no seedy sex scenes. Such views were even uttered by some who were younger.


I went and saw this movie last night after being coaxed to by a few friends of mine. I'll admit that I was reluctant to see it because from what I knew of Ashton Kutcher he was only able to do comedy. I was wrong. Kutcher played the character of Jake Fischer very well, and Kevin Costner played Ben Randall with such professionalism. The sign of a good movie is that it can toy with our emotions. This one did exactly that. The entire theater (which was sold out) was overcome by laughter during the first half of the movie, and were moved to tears during the second half. While exiting the theater I not only saw many women in tears, but many full grown men as well, trying desperately not to let anyone see them crying. This movie was great, and I suggest that you go see it before you judge.


When I saw this film, it reminded me of all the greatest dreams i had (mostly filled with robots)

I can relate to Eledore's problems and I have a similarity to Shiro, and this is a great film to watch (if you're a Goth who is bitter and eccentric like me!). All in all, watch it before it's out of print!


"Cover Girl" is the best musical Rita Hayworth ever made. Ms. Hayworth will always be remembered for "Gilda", however, the next movie would be "Cover Girl". The story is great. It is about a dancer who wants to be a cover girl and makes it big in show business. She does it without the help of her talented dancer/director boyfriend (Gene Kelly). Mr. Kelly is given the chance to choreograph the musical numbers. The dances are spectacular. It is fun to see Phil Silvers, a comic, do the musical numbers with Ms. Hayworth and Mr. Kelly.

The supporting cast is perfect. Lee Bowman is given a chance to be an interesting third wheel, the other boyfriend.


To be brief, the story is paper thin and you can see the ending coming from a mile away, but Gene Kelly, Rita Hayworth, and an impossibly young Phil Silvers keep the movie afloat throughout and at times lift it right up into the air. A few of the songs are terrible clunkers ("Poor John" is a train wreck) but most of them are great fun, and the scene of Hayworth performing on the absurdly huge set for Kelly's rival has to be seen to be believed. Another treat is the perfect faux-NYC sets in the best Hollywood tradition.

Another attraction, if you consider such things attractions, is the howlingly awful male "chivalry" toward women. The oily leering and transparent obsequiousness that passed for male charm back then (in the movies, at least) is presented in its most lurid form here. Some of the men are about like a cartoon wolf.

One minor disappointment is Eve Arden trapped in a role so minor that she barely has a chance to do anything. I can imagine a lot of potential comic interplay between her and Silvers--a missed opportunity.


Unlike the many who have posted here, I'm not movie literate. I stumbled across this movie by accident (channel surfing), and couldn't surf away. This is a truly incredible movie, worthy of all the praise the critics and those on this site have heaped on it. The actors are terrific. Tatiana is beautiful and innocent. Her fiancé Boris is sweet and patriotic. You couldn't help but feel Boris' father's exasperation and sorrow as he upbraids his son for such foolishness as volunteering to serve in the great war.

Others have summarized the movie so well, so I'll just mention a couple of scenes that moved me the most. When Boris' brother reveals to his family that he has broken trust with his brother and "has to marry" Tatiana, Tatiana's twisted mouth shows her revulsion at this betrayal (even though her part in the unfaithfulness might have been through rape). You fear that the rest of the movie might right this wrong by visiting just destruction on Tatiana and the brother, or worse, show Tatiana destroyed by an immoral descent into cigarette smoking decadence. Since this isn't "French existential cinema", the latter doesn't happen. Thankfully!

Another scene that tears at your heart is when the unnamed "musician" soldier who was saved by Boris returns to tell Boris' father of the death of his son. He unwittingly breaks the news to Tatiana. I can't describe the sorrow of this scene... Still,Tatiana finds finds a straw to grab and hope that Boris will yet come home. The musician actually never saw Boris buried, after all.

I won't mention more scenes, but do want to observe that the touches of Soviet political correctness didn't detract at all from the film. Boris' brother is revealed as the piano playing anti-soviet slacker that someone who steals his brother's wife-to-be would have to be. No doubt he gets at least a "tenner" at the conclusion of the film! The ending, when Tatiana finally learns for certain that Boris is dead, still manages to end with cheerfully and full of hope for the future. You don't even want to imagine the tears and catharsis that must have swept through the theater when survivors of that war, with their own losses in mind, first saw this movie.

Incredible. Go see it.


Sick of the current cinema output, particularly American cinema, I've been making an effort to see the Oscar-winning foreign films. That's when I came across this gem. Slow to start, it picks up nicely once war is declared. Basically an old fashioned girl-waits-for-boy-to-return-from-war-story, the performances, the cinematography make this so very much more. Why Tatyana Samojlova as the young woman didn't become an international star after this is beyond me(though she has remained successful in her own country). You take the journey with her: young, defiant impetuous young girl, who, through the ravages of war becomes a very sober, somber woman who keeps a glimmer of hope (her final scene is devastating). We love her as much as the camera does. And the camera-work! Was this the pioneer in hand-held camera work? It truly adds an immediacy to the story. And the beauty of it (like when Tatyana's character is running up stairs and next to a slatted fence). I am humbled and grateful to see this film.


Interesting cartoon, included on the DVD of "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra". I especially like the way the color was used in the background art--very artistic for Columbia, whose cartoon department generally had a very low budget (and the results looked like it!)

I do wonder, however, how a certain... um, finger gesture... ever got past the censors. Granted, the gesture in question was seen a lot less frequently in 1937 than it is today. You'd think someone besides the animators would have noticed, though--especially since it's seen three times in the scene in question! And based on the context, I suspect that its inclusion was intentional, something the animators slipped in just to see if the censors WOULD notice!


Three kids are born during a solar eclipse and turn into vile murderous little tykes who're above suspicion by everyone, save for Joyce (Lori Lethin) and her younger brother Timmy. That's the story in a nutshell. The acting in this one is tolerable for the most part. Notable for MTV-J Julie Brown (not the 'Downtown' one) showing some skin, and a very early part (albiet small) for Michael Dudikoff. Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but in the 'killer kids' sub-genre it's a bit of a guilty pleasure.

Eye Candy: Julie Brown shows T&A (the only film thus far, to claim that honor); Sylvia Wright gets topless

DVD Extras (R1): 16 minute interview with Producer Max Rosenberg (wherein he insults the director AND Canada, great stuff); Biography of Ed Hunt; and trailers for "Kiss of the Taratula", "Don't open the Door", & a red-band one for "Homework" (which features nudity)

My Grade: B-


i hate vampire movies. with that said, this one was very interesting to me. i do want to point out one thing tho. "bakjwi" literally means bat in korean and we all know that in many classic vampire stories, you see count Dracula or vampires turning into a bat and fly away or wuheva. We also know that bats are mammals that can fly thus many categorizes them to be "exceptional." As I watched the film, I realized that the theme of bat is deeply embedded in this movie more than just to make the bat-vampire connection.

Duality of human nature = if you ever read aesop's fables, there is this one fable where mammals and birds are fighting and a bat just can't seem to take a side and it tries to play both sides to his advantage. Mammals and birds find out what this bat has been doing and banish the bat out of their lands at the end of the story.

the two contradicting sides of human nature are constantly at battle throughout the film ex. sang-hyun's blind priest friend, sang-hyun's effort to quench thirst and his sexual desire, tae-ju playing both sides, her ordinary boring life vs. her thrill seeking vampire adventure, etc (won't ruin too much, u have to watch the film) and this theme is beautifully presented on a plate with delicious sides of romance, sex, violence, religion, dark-comedy,tragedy, vengeance, you name it!

i feel like many would find this movie boring and too long, but this film is very fresh and new, something that i haven't seen b4 yet. I wouldn't say this is CW Park's best work, but it is mos. def. the strangest to comprehend yet darkly intriguing!


I have never seen this in the theater, my second viewing was tonight on big screen DVD as opposed to old VHS tape from rental store.

Saucey for it's time and I'm sure the Hayes code was pushed to it's limits.

Hitch's pallet here is the "game play" between two combatants. And yes if Guy calls the cops on Bruno right away the movie is 63 min shorter, HELLO people do you always make the best or most logical choice. How many times have you been in either person's shoes and made the right choice? For the love of God it's called poetic license..However as Guy sees the situation he has found himself in he takes it upon himself to rectify it. He does not solicit help nor does he lie to his would be new wife. Her defense of him sets off the final show down with Bruno feeling he has one more card to play.

For the cop shot-ting an innocent person in pre-cam corder days and before rules of engagement this type of thing did happen. In the post Rodney King world a presidential candidate backed the police in sending 43 bullets at an unarmed man. If you haven't seen or witnessed outrageous police behavior your blind or have an application pending for the academeny.

Back to the movie...

Go watch it with. Try and wear a post WWII filter and pretend your seeing a great suspense movie like many did for the first time back then, and sure it's been copied since but your looking at one of the source of inspiration for many that followed.


I just re-watched this thriller, one I had previously believed to be one of Hitch's lesser efforts. How wrong can you be! Maybe because I'm older, or maybe because the film gets better with every viewing, but now I think it's amazing. Every bit of suspense is wrung out of the tiniest detail, and that final scene on the merry-go-round is just breath-taking! Perfect in every way, highly recommended.


I think this is one of the best tamil movies i've seen in a while. i love the fact that it doesn't revolve around a guy and girl falling in love and they made the movie brilliantly. The cast did a great job and i especially congratulate the litte girl. She was brilliant and really brought out the feeling of an adopted child searching for her real mother. Best of all are the songs, beautiful music and moving lyrics. There are some great songs in this move ya'll! especially 'Kannathil Mutthamittal' and 'Velai Pookal'. Great songs, both of them. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to enjoy a good cry and some great acting (and superb songs! ). Cheers Simran.


Anyone who critiques 'Jacqueline Hyde' as anything more than the playful and undeniably erotic romp that it's intended to be is just not playing with a full deck. Just from the title, it's obvious that this low budget horror comedy isn't meant to be taken seriously... it's as tongue in cheek as a nympho's french kiss, and just as titillating. The female cast members are all great and fun to watch. Check this out, Rolfe Kanefsky is the clown-prince of soft-core horror. Unlike most soft-core horror flicks, this one is entertaining all the way through with charismatic and exceptionally attractive actresses. The movie doesn't even attempt to follow the storyline of the Robert Louis Stevenson classic, but instead seeks out every way possible to create risqué sight gags and erotic situations. Blythe Metz, the brunette femme fatale who portrays the sexier, homicidal side of Jacqueline, is a real knockout. Watch and enjoy!


A very charming film with wonderful sentiment and heart. It is rare when a film-maker takes the time to tell a worthy moral tale with care and love that doesn't fall into the trap of being overly syrupy or over indulgent. Nine out of ten for a truly lovely film.


This Gundam series only follows Gundam 0083 Stardust Memory. The story takes place during the same time line as the original Gundam in the year U.C. 0079 the time of the One year war, but the mobile suits are designed as new models are and are as a result look more articulate. The Hero of the story is a young Lt. Shiro Amada, who may lack any real combat experience but makes up for it with creativity and effort.

His life get complicated when he meets Aina Sahalin a Jion ace pilot (the enemy), the to end up falling in love and begin to change their attitudes about the war around them. The other cast of characters in the story are not there for background either, every one in this story has a history to them.

There is also another Ace mobile suit pilot in this series that can be added into the pantheon of ace mobile suit pilots. Right up there with Char Aznable and Anavel Gato is Norris Packard, not the top villain in this series, but his presence give the 8th mobile suit team a hard fight. 3 of them against Norris and his single MS-07B Gouf custom mobile suit.

In conclusion This Gundam along with Stardust Memory is a must see!!


Interesting twist on the Vampire yarn - fast, loud and moody. Despite my initial fears Kris K carries his part reasonably well and Snipes aka Blade provides a formidable physical presence. Lots of blood, steel, silver, burning and exploding bodies provide an enjoyable :) 110 minute distraction. IF you like the black look of The Matrix then Blade will appeal to you, Blade even has a 'dodge the bullets' sequence.


Okay, sure, this movie is a bit on the hokey side. It's difficult to take characters from comic books and put them into movies with any credibility (Dolph Lundgren as The Punisher, anyone?), but this tries very hard. I've never read the actual comic book, but that doesn't really matter, I suppose. I judge a film mainly on its merits, not on whether it is a faithful retelling of someone else's idea. (Unless its a film based on a true story, that demands at least some attempt at truth and accuracy.) So why will I give this movie a fairly high rating? Because it tries. It tries very hard. In my book, that makes it a fair attempt at an entertaining film.

Many films have been made with vampire subject matter being the main focus. It seems everybody has their take on vampire lore, be it the cross, the silver, the garlic, the aversion to sunlight, whatever. Some of those ideas are included here. The storyline is familiar... a group of vampires conspire to take over the world, with one person (mainly) standing in their way. Blade (Wesley Snipes) lives for the sole purpose of the destruction of the vampiric masses, who have slowly but surely moved into the world, and share it with humankind. For the most part, the human race is blind to the fact that vampires exist all around them. The vampires have even taken familiars, people who aspire to be vampires and do the vampires' dirty work for them to show how worthy they are of eventually being "turned."

Now that I think of it, there are many elements of this movie similar to the storyline of the Roddy Piper film, They Live. A hidden enemy, hidden group of people plotting against them, the fight to save human-kind... all that is present in Blade as well.

The acting isn't the best here. Snipes is, at best, only slightly better than some of his other roles; N'Bushe Wright, a relative newcomer, isn't too bad; Kris Kristofferson is forgettable as Blade's sidekick (he's to Blade what Chip is to The Punisher). Stephen Dorff does the best job of the whole cast here, as the "head" vampire you just love to hate.

I don't know, but I just loved the special effects in this film. From the blood-soaked vampire-style rave, all the way to the inevitable fight at the finale of the film, the special effects aren't half bad. There's certainly enough blood and gore to go around, but after all, this is a vampire movie, right? The various shapes and sorts of weaponry Blade uses are fairly unique, and not generally used in contemporary action films. Snipes has more flair with a decked-out sword than he does with, say, a machine gun. Plus, there's so much more thought that goes into fighting with a blade than just blowing someone away. (Unless, of course, you are Indiana Jones.)

Overall, this isn't the best action film ever made, but it's not half bad, either. As a bonus, the musical score & soundtrack are pretty cool, too. Tell me, in what other movies can you hear super drum'n'bass like Source Direct or Photek?!

My Rating: 8/10


There are times I am convinced that The Mikado is the best Sullivan & Gilbert opera ever, but that is only so long as I'm not listening to Iolanthe. Be that as it may, The Mikado is probably the most frequently filmed of the Savoy Operas. (Yes, I put the composer first. Nobody says Hammerstein and Rodgers, or Hart and Rodgers, or Boito and Verdi, or What's-His-Face and Strauss. You don't even hear the names of librettists for Offenbach, Suppe, or Balfe. Gilbert was just the bigger name (and the bigger ego) at the time, so they put his name first. It's time that silly practice was put to rest.

Anyway, The Mikado is a compleat S&G operetta. It has some of Sullivan's catchiest numbers, combined with some of Gilbert's cleverest lyrics. It has an interesting book and sprightly dialogue. It's got a wonderful degree of craziness. And it leaves the door wide open for elaborate and whimsical costuming.

This particular production, filmed in a live performance in 1990, turns its imagination toward striking simplicity. Set in a British seaside resort toward the end of the Art Nouveau period, it throws over the japonerie of the original entirely. The result is costuming and setting in an eye-caressing medley of whites, grey, and blacks, accented by occasional bits of red (and less frequent uses of yellow and green). It takes some getting used to, but it's really spiffy. Of course, when the chorus tells you they are gentlemen of Japan, you would be right to exclaim, "Oh, pooh. Bah!" (Did I just say that?) It's most gratifying that this fine production is now on DVD. However, one caveat: the print seems to be photographed through a glass of imperfect clarity, so that the expected sharpness of the image is softened and ever so slightly fuzzy. The tendency to superimpose images is, alas, annoying. Why do people who are doing a really spiffy production want to muck it up with artsy-fartsy stuff of that sort? But it's the performance that counts the most. We may skip the overture, since although one is performed, Sullivan never wrote one. (True, it may be so he wrote none for any of the Savoys. But the Mikado overture doesn't even date from Sullivan's lifetime and was compiled by observing the techniques used in the others.) As for the rest of the operetta, it's first-rate and supremely funny.

The Ko-Ko here is the estimable Eric Idle, who does it credit. There is a tradition of bringing a Big Name into the role. The was a U.S. TV production years ago in which Ko-Ko was played by Groucho Marx with mixed results. Idle's performance is delightfully quirky ... he does "Taken from a county jail" assisted by a tennis racquet. His "I've Got a Little List" is done as a speech to a microphone -- of course it has the usual updated lyrics, which are much funnier than the usual run of such things, and his delivery is positively hysterical. It goes on that way throughout.

In this operetta, it's important to have a good Katisha; it's just no fun if you're not being bellowed at in style. This Mikado has a fabulous Katisha in Felicity Palmer, in her way almost as Big a Name as Idle. She bellows with the best of them in a wonderful rich contralto ... wonderful, especially, for a soprano. And her costume...!!! (Not to mention her recital with Franz Liszt, apparently, accompanying.) Nanki-Poo is played by Bonaventura Bottone. I have trouble getting around is somewhat un-Nanki-Pooish chubby shortness -- but is voice is undeniably a solid, rich addition to the vocal palette. There is a nice touch during "A Wand'ring Minstrel", where the chorus reacts with distaste to the mention of "his nancy on his knee" -- bear in mind the Mikado's decree about flirting. Be that as it may, Bottone is a fine singing actor and if his appearance doesn't put the best face on Nanki-Poo, his performance does.

Yum-Yum (Lesley Garett) and her friends are appropriately pretty and silly. She and Bottone do lovely duets. Pish-Tush (Mark Richardson) plays his persona as something a blageur and does it very well. Poo Bah (Richard Van Allan) is wonderful as a stuffed shirt out of water ... a role later done to death in American sitcoms (you know: haughty butlers forced to cater to bratty children -- that sort of thing). The Mikado (Richard Angas) is bloody marvelous, with an imperious voice at absolute variance with his ridiculous lyrics.

I don't recommend you get this as your only Mikado. Get a good traditional production as well, so you can see what Gilbert intended (more or less) in terms of staging. That being said, I'll watch this one twice while viewing any traditional bit once. On the whole this is a terrific offering, a vocal and visual delight, with delicious over-acting. It's a DVD to treasure, with dervish-like maids, tap-dancing bellhops, and all. Watch for the bellhops with signs.


If you're tired by the same repetitive, unintelligent material that the mainstream movie industry releases, you'll enjoy "You Are Alone". It is thought provoking, well shot and riveting.

Without revealing anything that you don't find out in the first few minutes of the movie, this is the story of a young white high school girl from an upper middle class environment who is working as an escort and is discovered by her neighbor. The vast majority of the movie occurs in a hotel room where he hired her to come.

Through their discussion, you explore two shifting views of prostitution, depression, loneliness. Yet the movie is not depressing. It talks about dark things without being depressing.

As a viewer, your emotions and preconceived notions are moved around, but gently. You come out of it with a lot to think about. I like that in a movie.


The 1980's 'My Dinner with Andre,' with Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, is essentially a dialog about the world and how it affects and can lift the spirit. 2005's 'You Are Alone' demonstrates how common worldly events can shatter the soul.

The story revolves around three principal characters. There's Daphne, a pretty teenage student who frets about virtually every decision in her life. Then there's the prostitute, or paid escort, Britney, as self-confident as Daphne is self-conscious. What makes them interesting is that they share the same body, if not the same personae. Part of the magic of this film occurs in one of the early scenes where Daphne approaches a door of an aged hotel room. She halts and is obviously torn by the decision of whether or not to knock on the door  but it is Britney that effortlessly glides into the room when the door is opened.

On the other side of that door is Buddy, a middle-aged nobody with few, if any, personal qualities that anyone would find attractive. He goes so far as to be confrontational about Britney's chosen profession as soon as she enters the room. However, we soon learn that Buddy is Daphne's next-door neighbor and has watched through the years as she grew from little girl to womanhood. This complicates things for the audience. Is Buddy just being a concerned neighbor or does he want something else?

If it's sex that Buddy wants, here it is. Britney loves sex. Her definitions may be Clintonesque but that doesn't lesson her enthusiasm. She prefers older men and wears a rainbow of plastic wristbands that her clients are invited to chose from. Each color band denotes a specific act that she'll perform  but exactly which act isn't revealed until after the band is broken off her wrist and the choice is irrevocably made.

Britney is, or believes that she is, in control of every encounter. Even when blindfolded and bound, as she is by one of her regular clients, she imagines her arms and body being stroked by multiple men but her legs and pubic area being caressed by a woman in blood red lingerie. The film's imagery just keeps coming.

Buddy's pathetic life is one of acceptance. He's lost his wife, his dog, even his fantasies of the pretty teenager next-door. It's no coincidence that he's lured Daphne or Britney to this particular hotel room. There's a painting on the wall of a dinner plate with only a fish head left. This is a perfect metaphor for Buddy's life; all of the good parts are finished. So it's here, where he brought his wife when they were still college students, that he makes his stand  to regain some control of his own life, to make his statement.

The director of 'You Are Alone,' Gorman Bechard, knows his craft. The principal action in the hotel room serves as a solid anchor for the film, assisted by a myriad of inter-cut scenes that add dimension to the characters, their circumstances and conflicts.

As the film progresses, Britney asks Buddy if she should get undressed. He says yes, but she strips only to her underwear. An actual prostitute would probably remove all of her clothes (one of the profession's five gets). But it isn't Buddy that's being teased, we are. As the film concludes, we find that there are far deeper human emotions and motivations in play. A tease doesn't work unless it actually delivers. Britney does, so does 'You Are Alone'.


To keep it as simple as possible. This is a very good show. That is well written, and has a fantastic cast. It's not loaded with blood and guts. And centers around a disgraced cop and his relationship with his ex-wife, his son, his former partner (Andre Braugher), his childhood friend, now a priest (George Dzunzda), and lastly the person who happens to get into his hack in that episode. Are you likely to find something like this going on in your city NO. Is this still a good story YES. And it's nice to see a man portrayed as good father in spite of his flaws. Watch more then one ( 2-3) and you'll see why a lot of us are hooked on this show. And thank you David Morse for making this character so interesting. Another good job!


I have only see three episodes of Hack, starring David Morse, and it looks as though I've missed 37 episodes! well thats if ITV 3 are showing them in chronological order. I've just watched 'Misty Blue' (episode 38). I have really enjoyed the 3 episodes, but then I'm a David Morse fan, (esp St. Elsewhere). For any one reading this, Hack is excellent. Pity its being aired on ITV 3. The cast is strong, though I cant get used to the idea of David playing a bent cop, still we all know he's the good guy wrongly accused. I see Gary Cole has guest starred, what ever happened to 'Midnight Caller'? Just wonder if Hack is available on DVD (yet). Lovin it. Cheers.


Is there any question that Jeffrey Combs is one of the true horror greats? This movie seriously doesn't suck and is sort of funny... Watching a young Combs at work is great but I wish he had had more lines. Look out for Beyond Re-Animator. It's going to kick some azz.


While many pass this off as a B movie it is, indeed, a first class comedy that is well-written and acted. Red Skelton is great as Wally Benton better known to radio fans as The Fox. Ann Rutherford is perfect as Wally's fiance Carol Lambert. Conrad Veidt leads a very well cast gang of criminals. I read one account of this movie which states that Vincente Minelli directed this film, not unless he changed his name to S. Sylvan Simon, who directed all three of the Fox movies. This is a very entertaining film made when imagination was encouraged. So get over your black and white prejudice if you have one, sit back and enjoy a truly great comedy. This was also Red's first starring role. Take note during the climax of the reference to Orson Welles' War Of the Worlds broadcast.


A very delightful bit of filmwork that should have had wider distribution. Ian McShane is right at home playing the soul loving DJ who gets canned because he won't " go along with the program " and sets out to let the world know what they're missing. The supporting cast is great as well, and the music is the "Soul" of the film. I just wish that the film would be released so that I could get a copy of this for my film library.


`The Last Frontier' is a superior western that overcomes numerous deficiencies in weaving its tale of trappers Jed (Victor Mature), Gus (James Whitmore) and Mongo (Pat Hogan) and their relationships with the army, particularly Captain Riordon (Guy Madison), Colonel Marston(Robert Preston) and Corrina Marston, colonel's wife (Anne Bancroft). Hired as scouts after losing their supplies to the Indians, Jed, Gus and Mungo adjust to living the `civilized' life within a fort on the edge of the `last frontier.' Jed, who has been raised by Gus, both inspires and looks up to the `older' Gus and Mungo, and has an especially difficult time dealing with `civilization.' His real problems start after he becomes strongly attracted to the colonel's wife, Corrina. Colonel Marstonis a reckless man, who endangers every one around him with his dreams of ruthless victory over any opponent. Corrina, a woman repressed by her station and sense of responsibility, loves her husband for what he could be and Jed for what he is. Caught in the middle is Captain Riordon, a brave and likeable man torn among his duty to the army, his strong friendship with Jed and his fear of the likely disastrous consequences of the colonel's recklessness.

What makes this movie so interesting (as well as entertaining) is that, in most cases the weaknesses and the strengths of `The Last Frontier' are EXACTLY the same elements (forget the insipid title and dated music)

First, the screenplay. Almost all of the subplots (particularly, the reckless Colonel) have been done better elsewhere, but have rarely been assembled with such eccentricity. Just when you THINK you know what is going to happen next, this one takes off in a DIFFERENT direction. POSSIBLE SPOILER: `The Last Frontier' being a `Production Code' movie (back in the day the word `virgin' was taboo), it's very surprising that the adultery factor was handled in such a mature, tolerant manner. I expected either Jed or the colonel's wife to reap some retribution for their sin. I was surprised and a little disappointed the movie didn't exploit that expectation to create a less predictable ending.

Second, the casting. Mature is at least ten years too old to play the part of Jed, the wild-eyed innocent raised in the woods'. James Whitmore, who plays Gus, `the man who raised Jed' is actually five years younger than Mature. Nevertheless, Mature is very endearing, playing a character who is innocent of civilization but is in no way stupid. Although there were several actors who could have played the role at the time (most notably, Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas), none could have played Jed better. Preston (also Mature's junior) plays Colonel Marston, missing the tics and affectations one would expect from such a driven man. However, Preston perfectly captures the sense of honor someone must have seen in Marston to promote such a reckless fool to colonel's rank. Bancroft is an especially shrewd choice as Corrina. Bancroft's dark hair has been died blonde, and this achieves the same effect as it did for Winona Ryder (`Edward Scissorhands') and Christina Ricci (`Sleepy Hollow'). That is, I felt conflicted about the character without knowing exactly why; I believe the answer is that blondes and brunettes have considerably different skin tones and eye shades. Further, Bancroft has always projected a toughness that borders on hardness (here the blonde hair softens her up a bit, though). This enables the 24 year old Bancroft to stand toe to toe with both the 40 year old Mature and the 37 year old Preston; yep, she could be a colonel's wife. Madison walks a careful balancing act as Riordan, handling a complex role and sometimes ackward dialogue.Playing a role similar to that of John Wayne in `Fort Apache' Madison does a more skillful job at it.<br /><br />This movie has a `Silverado' type camaraderie. That alone makes it worth seeing. It also has memorable performances, beautiful scenerary and great action and direction. I just hope a letterbox version is available (many have been lost), because this movie takes full advantage of that format.


One would have expected Hitchcock's return to major studio filmmaking to err on the side of chastened caution. Surely few expected his most riotous, unrestrained film, a gleeful melange of vicious black comedy, exciting suspense, mocking manipulation, and astonishing flights of fancy. But that is precisely what they got: STRANGERS ON A TRAIN.

What is remarkable is how much Bruno's transgression disrupts the world of the film. Much has been made of the masterly crosscutting motif, but its immediate effect is to completely obstruct the straight line of progress Guy is making of his life, and hence the society he represents or is eager to join. Guy is the archetypal American, the working-class boy made good, moving in influential circles, athletic, successful, handsome. Bruno is his destructive opposite, gay, decadent, 'European' (he lives off his father, in a Big House, and just lounges about dreaming of murder). Bruno's life is one of repetition, circularity, whereas Guy moves straight ahead. It is Bruno's achievement to move Guy into his realm (represented by the merry-go-round) and force HIM to transgress (break the law, hope for murder (Bruno's)).

Bruno is quite literally fighting patriarchy. All the authority figures in the film are criticised - Bruno's father, a man whose brutality we get a glimpse of, but the true horror of which is constantly alluded to in the film (especially in Aunt Clara's paintings - that incredibly intense negative energy must come from somewhere); Anna's incredibly Machiavellian, self-serving father; the insensitive judge who thinks nothing of lunching after an execution; the tennis commentator whose smugly authorative comments are always mistaken. Far from being the mother-hater of legend, Hitch, as Robin Wood perceived, is deeply hostile to fathers and patriarchy.

Bruno's transgression turns the world topsy-turvy. This is Hitch's most surreal film. Whenever Guy is in his plot, he is filmed straight, with conventionally romantic music. But whenever Bruno intrudes, the atmosphere becomes carnivalesque, bizarre, much more fun. This is Hitch's first truly American film, revelling in the primitive detritus of Americana. Grown men puncture little boys' balloons, or try to throw them off merry-go-rounds. Distinguished professors of mathematics sing about goats on trains. Elderly society matrons are strangled at elegant soirees. Washington is filmed like a series of spare lines in a vast desert under a huge sky, like a haunting Dali painting. There is one of the greatest, and funniest, scenes in all cinema when we see a motionless, smiling Bruno in a sea of turning heads at a tennis match, an image worthy of Magritte. Just look at any scene with Bruno in it, and watch it derail into the bizarre.

Phalluses abound in the most ridiculous permutations - check all those balloons (Hitch had obviously just seen THE THIRD MAN) - as well as in more staid environs: Washington will never look the same again. STRANGERS is also, VERTIGO notwithstanding, Hitch's most overtly sexual film - as well as the phalluses, there is the sustained homoeroticism, the remarkable play with 'riding' horses; the gobsmacking fellatio joke when Hitch's daughter spills powder over the policeman.

And yet Hitch doesn't stint on good old suspense. In the very proper endeavour to show what a great artist he was, critics tend to overlook what made him famous in the first place. Much has been made of Bruno as a prototype of Norman Bates, and Hitch plays merry havoc on audience identification, willing Bruno into murder. There is a hilariously painful sequence where Bruno loses the lighter with which he intends to frame Guy down a drain. The gasps of tension and sighs of relief on the part of the audience I was a part of in support of an insane murderer is inherently funny, slightly disturbing, and highly revealing about our true reactions to conformity and success. And Hitch milks it with callous glee - listen to the mocking music and exagerrated compositions, and kick yourself for taking it all so seriously.

STRANGERS is one of Hitch's five best films, and therefore one of the greatest things in cinema. The dialogue is so strange and brilliant, I can't believe it wasn't written by Chandler. Patricia Hitchcock is a wonderful imp, standing in for her cheeky father as she taunts Guy. The fairground finale is a remarkable, dizzying fusion of exciting, tense set-piece, black comedy and symbolic site. If Bruno's final words condemn him to hell (according to the Catholic precepts Hitch is supposed to embody: compare with a similar ending in THE KILLERS), we applaud his integrity, infinitely preferable to Guy's debased serving of self.


I went into this film expecting a slasher, and while Mute Witness does take influence from said style of film-making, this is much more than just your average slash flick. There are a number of thrillers that focus on a certain disability - blindness is more common (Blind Terror, Wait Until Dark, Cat o'Nine Tails to name a handful), but the implications of having a mute lead in a thriller such as this are well portrayed, and actually integral to the plot as the fact that the lead character can't speak is often the reason why she finds herself in dangerous situations that would be easy for anyone else to get out of. Our mute witness is Billy Hughes, a make-up artist working on a horror film production at a studio in Moscow. She finds herself locked in after hours one night, and after attempting to phone her sister for help, she stumbles upon what at first appears to be the making of an illicit sex flick, but soon turns out to be a snuff movie! She tries to convince the authorities of what she's seen, but finds that no one believes her story...

Recently Hostel made the headlines for showing snuff movie making in a foreign country, but this film did it first and actually does a better job. It's maybe not quite as nasty as Eli Roth's opus, but the gore is more effective, and since director Anthony Waller (who went on to direct one of my favourite modern thrillers with 'The Guilty') implements a good sense of humour into the proceedings, Mute Witness is both sufficiently gory and fun to watch. The director certainly has a talent for crafting suspenseful thrill rides, as this one never stands still. The plot is put into action quickly, and Waller constantly introduces plot twists which give a big helping hand to the overall entertainment value of the film. The acting isn't bad for a B-movie, with young performers Marina Zudina, Fay Ripley and Evan Richards delivering good performances. The atmosphere is gritty, and the Russian locations are suitably unfriendly, which helps the film to retain a foreboding atmosphere. Overall, Mute Witness is a much better film than you might expect it to be. The plot flows well, and the atmosphere and tension are spot on.


It is always a well-known, and important directorial device to set up the atmosphere of a film within the first 5 minutes. In the crucial opening scenes, the film should assert itself and make the viewers take notice and get interested in the rest of the film. Here, in "Mute Witness", we find a prime example of this.

*Scene spoiler*

In the first 5-10 minutes, the film opens to a very Hitchcockian scene of a pretty blonde lady in her apartment, with the radio on. She's wandering around, applying lipstick, dolling herself up, and ignoring the news report of a serial killer on the loose. Of course, the serial killer is in her house, and monitoring her moves, knife in hand. She hears a noise, looks in a room, and there is her partner in a pool of blood. At the very point of her screams, she turns around to be faced with the knife-wielding maniac, who stabs her repeatedly in a brutal and horrifying act....

...then something odd happens. As the woman convulses in her death throes, the killer sits down and takes out a cigarette to watch his victim perish. Before he finds his lighter, his cigarette is lit...from someone else in the room! The camera pans out, and we realise that there are more and more people in the room, some taking notes, some filming, some recording the death, and that the lady is taking an awfully long time to die, and making a very hammy job of it too. When the audience realises what's going on, and the whole scene is part of a film, the suspenseful and horrific scene takes on an element of humour.

*End Scene Spoiler*

I have highlighted this opening scene for several reasons. Firstly, it portrays the atmosphere of the whole movie perfectly. A thriller in the style of Hitchcock or De Palma, with some very disorientating, and even blackly humorous moments. - It conveys a central subject matter (that of the difference between a 'movie screen death' and a 'snuff film death', an issue which is elaborated on later in the film), and finally, it introduces the viewer to the characters, all as silently as possible.

The plot of Mute Witness centres around Billy Hughes, an American special effects make-up artist who is working on the set of the film, being shot in a large warehouse in Moscow. Billy cannot speak, but she communicates in sign language through her sister. After the end of an evening's filming, Billy inadvertently finds herself locked in the warehouse by accident, and in her attempt to escape, is witness to two of the crew making what first appears to be a porno film, but turns out to be a snuff movie. Suddenly, her escape from the warehouse is a matter of life and death.

Without doubt, the first half of the film is powerful and absolutely gripping. Billy's saving grace, and her handicap is the fact that she isn't able to utter a sound. (In fact, in my opinion, one of the best aspects of the film is the fact that it isn't chock-full of women screaming). There are some utterly disturbing moments, and some superb set-pieces of real suspense (The corridoor, and the elevator shaft are perfect examples). The timing is fluid, and the whole first half is an incredibly satisfying experience in itself.

The second half of the film introduces new concepts. While there are still several suspenseful moments, the focus is on plot twists. New characters are introduced, and it is ambiguous as to whose side they are on. While there is nothing wrong per se with the second half of the film, it just doesn't quite measure up to the first half. There are some neat moments of black humour that perfectly juxtapose and punctuate some very dramatic scenes, but there are also some very lame comedy moments (coming specifically from Billy's sister and her fiancée, who happens to be the director of the movie Billy is working on), that almost ruin the film, just because they are badly misplaced and/or mistimed and ruin the pace. - At the end, the twists keep coming at a rapid-fire speed, and the climax of the film is, appropriately, as tense as the first half.

There are several things that really make the movie work. The barriers of communication that Billy must face, both as a mute, and as an American in Moscow, mean that even an emergency call for help becomes a dangerous situation. The actress that plays Billy, Natasha Zudina, does a wonderful job in the film, with an engaging on-screen prescence, and a brilliant performance, and finally, the direction as a whole, but most particularly in the first half of the film, which truly is a study in Alfred Hitchcock's suspense/thriller film techniques.

As I have already said, though, the let-downs in the film are from some terrible comic relief moments that really do not need to be added. There is already a consistent and effective streak of dark humour that appears in the film without the need for the characters of Karen Hughes and Andy Clarke (The sister and the moviemaker) to turn their scenes into some unusual sit-com. However, despite these shortcomings, the film is a thoroughly enjoyable thriller, and ideal for a group viewing at halloween. (Certainly better than the usual slasher horror film...!)


This is, without doubt, one of my favourite horror films ever! I really cannot believe that it didn't gain much more popularity when it was released, especially when the main contenders at the time were the usual Wes Craven sequels and copycat horrors, Mute Witness has all the style, suspense and quickfire plot twists of a Hitchcock/DePalma movie, coupled with some very sharp black comedy and a great plot. It never promises to be any more than a good popcorn-and-hot-dog movie, but it is difficult not to just enjoy the film for what it is.

The plot centres on Billie Hughes - a mute girl working on the set of a horror film being made in a Russian factory. By a series of events, she finds herself accidentally locked in, and stumbles on the filming of a snuff movie.

One of the best things about the film is the lack of screaming that seems to invade every horror film ever made. As the main character is mute, she cannot make a noise - something which is a blessing at some stages of the movie, and a curse in others.

The director seems to have studied his Hitchcock very well, Even the opening scene is a tongue-in-cheek nod to both Hitchcock's "Psycho" as well as fairly generic slasher movie scenes.

While the acting can be hammy at times, the whole film does hold it together, not only throwing in a couple of excellent scenes that put you right on the edge of your seat, but a few neat little questions about how the film is going to end.

All in all, a hugely overlooked, well-paced and action packed psycho-thriller which I would recommend for any jaded viewer looking for something a little different from the usual Freddy/Jason/Scream/Michael Myers/Damien regurgitation's at hallowe'en.


This is definitely one of the most scary and spell-binding films ever made. You are stuck to the movie from the beginning to the very end. Even though there are some plot holes, it keeps being exciting to the final showdown. Besides "8 MM" and "Peeping Tom" this is one of the best films about "Snuff Movies", a taboo theme of our culture. If you like the SCREAM Trilogy, you will probably love that one.


This is a VERY good movie. I give it a 10.

It's very different in that it's kind of a long stalking scene all the way through. The fact that the main character is mute is used throughout the story in a very believable way.

She sees a murder (for a snuff-movie) and decides to run but is chased (this takes quite some time). I won't reveal the rest of the movie for it would spoil the experience, but rest assured: it's very believable, well played, very intense and has some nice surprises plus a great ending.

Don't miss this movie.


Well, this film came on on a workday at 230am. The cute little actress who played Billy caught my attention initially and after the 1st 15 minutes I was held captive to my television till the very end. It has you on the edge of your seat, then throws in clever bits of comedy during the most tense sequences.

The only draw back is that the story was not substantial enough to fill hour an a half film, causing certain sequences to drag just a little. Nonetheless, it was still very entertaining, and I recommended it to all my co-workers the next day.


I'm just starting to explore the so far wonderful world of monsieur Ozon. I've seen only 4 films so far, and with the last one in the row it hit me that all of them were in fact about lonely women and their actions. Not a single non-lonely female character out of 12, and all of them bring heavy impact of surroundings.

This film is probably the only one (out of four) where this impact is for good.

The gay theme is an almost standard part of background for Ozon's films, so it doesn't grab the accent (although the looks of the characters might). Watch for the feelings, not for their objects.

Very nice and fleeting, truly like a summer romance, and while being a relaxation to thought and mind, it gives some food for the soul.


For me, "Late Chrysanthemums" was interesting not only because it was my first film of Naruse I completely enjoyed, but because it was technically as modern and innovative as his 30s work I've seen. This doesn't mean innovative editing in the way Godard would introduce it with "Breathless" in 1959, but quite the opposite.

The editing was as fluent as in the best of Hollywood films from the 30s/40s, but at the same time incredibly fitting regarding the way he was telling his story. Unlike them, it never purposefully accentuated anything or tried to make itself "invisible" but, together with the cinematography, made me feel like I was traveling on a gentle stream, constantly feeling the waves beneath me, like a gentle stroke of the hand or the almost unnoticeable rocking of a cradle. In this sense the film was comparable to Ozu's and Mizoguchi's work, but somehow even more subtle.

What was so modern was the fact that the editing seemed almost a character in itself, similar to the remarkable camera-work in Dreyer's Ordet (1954) or Vredens dag (1943) which is revealing us a deeper understanding of the film and its characters rather than simply showing them to us.

I feel that Naruse's editing and cinematography are the most interesting aspects of his films, elevating the stories significance beyond the obvious. The wonderful sets and settings shouldn't be forgotten either! I found the story itself to be rather conventional.

The narrative and its characters were introduced in a very interesting way, and I thought that the first half of the film was setting up a delicately ingenious spectrum of emotions and interrelations. Unfortunately the second half of the film and its resolution were rather didactic and and formulaic compared to the set up (though by itself it would have been perfectly fitting in any other - less complex - film). Somehow I felt that he failed a bit in trying to dissolve the many layers he had woven. Maybe he should have kept them intact. This criticism might seem a bit harsh to a viewer of this film, especially since the procedure is again reminiscent to the way Ozu dealt with the plot in his films. Unfortunately I haven't yet the feeling that Naruse was able to elevate the story and its characters in his films' conclusions in a similarly sublime fashion. The best efforts I have seen to date - Ukigumo (Floating Clouds / 1955) and Midaregumo (Scattered Clouds / 1967) - sustained the energy he had built throughout the narrative, while delivering poignant and resonant endings.

This is already more than most director's are able to do, and in my opinion the basis for a real mastery of the cinematic medium. In this regard, and considering the resonance of the last two films I've seen by him, he may have already become one of my favorites.

The only problem I have at the moment, is where I'm going to see more of his films on the big screen.


Jim Henson's The Muppet Movie is a charming, funny and brilliant film that can be watched AND enjoyed by adults and kids. I feel this is my favorite childhood film because it combines great characters, great story, and great wit that it is irresistable. The plot involves Kermit the frog (puppeteered and voiced by Henson) in his odyssey across America to follow his dream in Hollywood. Along the way, he meets Fozzie Bear, The Great Gonzo (my favorite), Miss Piggy, Rolf, and DR. Teeth and the electric mayhem.

This film has so many good things I can't even say them. But it is memorable and every time I think of a puppet or muppet, I will think of this film. Look for cameos from Mel Brooks, Dom DeLouise, Paul Williams, Madeline Kahn, Bob Hope, Richard Pryor, Steve martin, Edgar Bergen (and Charlie McCarthey), Elliot Gould, Carol Kane and the great Orson Welles. Excellent and spectacular, one of the best films of the 70's. A++


The first feature-length adventure of Jim Henson's beloved muppet characters is a very competent musical comedy vehicle as Kermit The Frog leaves his carefree, swampy surroundings for the bright lights (egged on by stranded Hollywood agent Dom DeLuise who overheard him singing); on the way, he meets Fozzie Bear (a pitiful stand-up comedian at James Coburn's El Sleazo Café who has Telly Savalas for a bouncer and Madeline Kahn a patron!), the piano-playing dog Rowlf, bestial drummer Animal and his laid-back, funky band, egomaniacal beauty queen Miss Piggy (in a ceremony presided over by Elliott Gould and Edgar Bergen), etc. All the while, Kermit et al are pursued by frogleg burger magnate Charles Durning and reluctant acolyte Austin Pendleton, sold cars, ice cream and balloons to by, respectively, Milton Berle, Bob Hope and Richard Pryor, served food by insolent waiter Steve Martin, nearly brainwashed by mad German scientist Mel Brooks and, finally, land an audition in the offices of movie mogul Orson Welles (who has Cloris Leachman for a secretary)! The pleasant song score comes courtesy of Paul Williams who also makes an appearance as the resident pianist at El Sleazo's. For the record, I have recently acquired four of the subsequent Muppet movies and should be watching them in the weeks to come when their turn falls due.


This wonderful movie captures so many elements of what makes a family comedy funny, entertaining, sweet and memorable, it's difficult to decide where to start.

From the opening number, "Rainbow Connection," Paul Williams's excellent score sung with gusto by Kermit D. Frog, which gives us a prologue of what the whole adventure is about, throughout the story, this is one fun movie.

Essentially, it's a road trip movie, where Kermit travels cross-country with a dream of pursuing a "rich and famous contract" to entertain. Along the way, our green hero meets a series of other aspiring actors, comedians, singers, and musicians, who coincidentally, are muppets like Kermit himself. Is this how the Muppets really started? "Approximately how it happened," Kermit tells us.

Not since "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" has the cameo formula been used so prolifically and successfully. The aspiring stars encounter many recognizable faces during their Odyssey; some just blink across the screen, but others have very memorable cameos. Steve Martin's amusing bit as a rude waiter is probably the best. Puppeteer Jim Henson's nod to his inspiration, Edgar Bergen, is especially touching.

Anyone who ever watched the Muppets TV show will get to see all of their favorite characters, they're all here. The puppetry work is magnificent; look especially for Kermit riding a bicycle (how dey do dat???) In-jokes and references to old movies are everywhere, but the best one-liners are reserved for Kermit himself. An example: when the crooks are terrorizing Kermit and Piggy, she affectionately says to her short, green, and handsome beau, "I wouldn't give up this evening together for anything, would you?" "Uhhh, make me an offer...." I also love the gunfight at the OK Corral scene: brilliantly absurd silliness.

Gotta get "Movin' right along" now, but to summarize: a good natured movie that can be enjoyed by anyone, regardless of age or movie genre taste. Highly recommended.


Anyone that is looking for an episode of "Law and Order" or "CSI" would have to look elsewhere as the most basic elements of police or forensics work were totally ignored in this case.

A murder took place, and all the police did was to grab a 15-year-old boy off the street and take him to the only witness - a 65-year-old man - and say is this the guy who did it? Sure, the old man thought that the kid in the back of the police car had to be guilty. never mind that he looked nothing like the real killer and was dressed completely differently. He must have shrunk, reversed his age by 5-10 years and changed clothes.

The police made absolutely no effort - and they admitted it! The did no forensics on any of the evidence, they questioned no other witnesses, and they beat a confession out of a 15-year-old.

The saddest thing about this compelling look at the criminal justice system is that it occurred right down the road in Jacksonville, Florida. Let everyone now start talking about "Southern justice."


My one-line summary hints that this is not a good film, but this is not true. I did enjoy the movie, but was probably expecting too much.

Adele, who is solidly portrayed by Susan Sarandon, did not come off as a very likable character. She is flighty and irresponsible to what would be an unforgivable degree were it not for the tremendous love she has for her daughter. This is the one thing she knows how to do without fail. Adele's daughter, Anna, is a sad girl who is so busy making up for her mother's shortcomings that she does not seem to be only 14-17 years old. This, of course, makes Natalie Portman the perfect choice to play Anna since she never seems to be 14- 17 years old either. Portman pulls this role off with such ease that you almost forget that she has not been making movies for 20 years. Yet, even with the two solid leads, Wayne Wang never seems to quite draw the audience in as he did with The Joy Luck Luck and even more so with Smoke. Though I have not read the book, the film feels as if it has made necessary changes to the story to bring it to the big screen, changes which may drain the emotional pungency of the story. I enjoyed the film for the fun of watching two wonderful actresses do their work, but I never got lost in the experience and I never related to their plight.