A space ship cruising through the galaxy encounters a mysterious cargo ship apparently adrift in space. The crew investigates, hoping to lay claim to its cargo and acquire the ship. However, once aboard the ominous vessel, their own ship mysteriously disengages, leaving them to fend for themselves and battle none other then Count Dracula or Orloff as this creature calls himself.

Not a bad start. I mean it follows any number of typical sci-fi/horror plots. The genres have been around enough that even the most original story will inevitably invoke comparison to some other film. But, when you start with a fairly typical horror convention, the legend of Dracula and vampires in general, and combine it with a fairly typical sci-fi convention, a crew happening upon something and becoming marooned to battle whatever they're forced to confront, the filmmakers better have some clever up their sleeve to imprint their own mark on the familiar genre staples.

Director Darrell Roodt, who also wrote Dracula 3000 with Ivan Milborrow, is primarily responsible for this utter failure. So, no, Roodt and Milborrow have nothing up their sleeves but their arms.

This film begins ominously enough, with a very poorly delivered voice over by Caspar Van Dien, essentially providing enough exposition to explain who the crew on his ship are. I should also point out that Van Dien's character is named Van Helsing. And, oh so very cleverly, this Orloff character is from planet Transylvania in the Carpathian System. No kidding. I mean, come on guys, we get it. And, again, don't be goofy and use such names unless you got something special in store.

So, after Van Helsing's introduction of the crew, we have, essentially, a film about this crew trapped in a space ship with a vampire lurking about.

I'm a very forgiving viewer when it comes to low budget films. Occasionally, they can be brilliant, see Raimi's first two Evil Dead films. Dracula 3000 had a decent budget, enough for some decent special effects and for the salaries of 3rd stringers like, Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, etc. However, unlike, the EVIL DEAD flicks, there is no talent behind the camera. In front of the camera, the talent is marginal, but I'm going to give the actors some benefit of the doubt. It really seems like they don't know what to do. The best actor of the bunch, Alexandra Kamp-Groenveld, gets killed off quickly and the ever-enjoyable Udo Kier is reduced to being an exposition vehicle for the viewer as the deceased captain we hear and see via a video journal. Grant Swandby is also okay as the Professor, but it's hard to take seriously a scientist in the year 3000 who wears glasses and rides a wheel chair. And, yes, it's a WHEEL chair as in there is nothing futuristic about it. As for the rest of the actors, well.I'm sure Coolio really tried to be scary after getting turned into a vampire, but, well, I don't think irritating qualifies as scary in most people's book. Tiny Lister and Erika Eleniak don't really provide much either. Lister is never really more then the IL' big brawny black stereotype. Eleniak actually appears unhappy throughout the film and never tries very hard. Eleniak is a pretty girl, even in her mid thirties, but looks a little worn out and uninterested for the movie's duration.

This brings us to Count Dracula/Orloff played by Langley Kirkwood. To be honest, I can't recall who exactly the vampire is supposed to be. He introduces himself as Orloff but at some point he acknowledges himself as Count Dracula as well. Go figure. In any case, you will be absolutely astounded by just how lame this vampire is. Have you ever scene those cheesy horror show hosts local networks would have on their creature feature time slots? Yes, it's that bad. Langley Kirkwood, the actor playing Orlock, must have found it almost impossible to concentrate in such a ridiculous outfit. I'm sure he's still getting hassled by his friends.

There isn't much to the plot. The vampire is the last of it's kind and wants to go to Earth, for some reason, and also, there is some lip service about wanting to defeat Caspar Van Dien's character, Van Helsing. Most of the crew get turned into vampires, including Van Helsing, and the crew use conventional machine guns and pistols to try and defeat them before they figure out the old stake in the heart routine. Yeah, that's right, bullets, and yes, the year 3000. Keeping in that baffling vein, one of the main areas the crew hole themselves up in while battling the vampires, or vampire, since there is really never more then one threatening them, is filled with old Soviet posters and insignia and such. What the? There are also references to God/religion being antiquated systems. But these references only confused me. Did the Soviet Union make a comeback? Is there some point Roodt and Milborrow want to make with this? It never really goes anywhere, seems dumb and the posters, etc. just look cheap.

On the positive side, the film is competently shot and edited. The cinematography is nothing spectacular, but it's clearly done by professionals and, I had no problem with the special effects. The ships look like ships in outer space. Although, as I write this, I recall how god awful the corpse of the captain looks when the crew discover him. What were they thinking? Why didn't someone say something? See how difficult it is to say something positive about this film without falling back on the negatives? I guess, ultimately, that's the thing. Whatever positives you try and grant this sci-fi/horror debacle, you become overwhelmed by it's lack of quality.

Poor Udo Kier.


I'm amazed that "The Hospital" has been so well-received by the critics and the public. I found it dreary, visually ugly and generally meaningless. After the first virtually unwatchable 40 minutes, the film does improve (relatively), but it remains WAY too far-fetched (not to mention unfunny) to be successful as a satire, and has too little substance to succeed as a drama. The film's uncertain tone is its biggest fault, overshadowing even Scott's terrific (as usual) performance.


this movie sucks. did anyone notice that the entire movie was shot in like 2 rooms. there are NEVER any outside shots and if there are its obviously film taken from somewhere else. this movie blows hard, painful to sit through too. stay far away.


Please, If you're thinking about renting this movie, don't. If you're thinking of watching a couple of downloaded clips, don't. If I had my way, nobody would even have to read this summary.

The acting, despite being one fo the high points of the movie was still pathetic. The director was probaly a sadist. The witty one liners were something you'd expect from a room of highly paid anti-social 7 year olds that eat paint-chips for breakfast.

The problem with this movie, is that it tries to be a movie like "Evil Dead 2"(do not under any circumstances associate these 2 movies) in that it's so bad it's funny. But it also tries to be funny at the same time, and fails so overwhelmingly to do so, that your sense of humor is left too crippled to do anything but set off your gag reflex in an attmept to save itself.

I could go on for much much more, detailing just how awful it really was, but I think it would strip me of my will to live just to continue to think about it. If you need me, I'll be off trying to boil myself so that I might feel clean again...


The story is derived from "King Lear"; the setting is a farm in Iowa. Here's a test for this kind of thing: if you find yourself asking, "Why did so-and-so do such-and-such," and the answer is, "because that's what happened in 'King Lear'," you know that the film has failed. Well, that IS what happens here. The father figure in this story isn't living his own life, he's mimicking a fictional one. But there's more wrong with the film than this.

Jocelyn Moorhouse is ambitious - far more ambitious than I think she realises. She's trying to take the King Lear story and completely change the setting. This is a task in itself. The likeliest result is that the transplanted story will die, and nobody will quite be able to work out why (although there are enough successful transplants, like "West Side Story", to make it worth trying). But she's ALSO attempting a revisionist retelling. In the version of "King Lear" she wishes to create, Reagan and Goneril command our sympathy, and Cordelia is a villain. This is a task in itself, too.

Succeeding at either task is hard; succeeding at both at once is impossible. In fact, succeeding at one while so much as attempting the other, is impossible. If we are to look on the very same events from a different moral perspective then the events must BE the very same events - which means there can be no tampering with setting. If the story is to be transplanted, alive, into a different setting, its moral heart must keep beating the whole while - which means there can be no tampering with ethical perspective. Moorhouse was bound to fail in not just one but in both of her endeavours. And so she did. ...Naturally, it's possible to attempt both tasks, fail at both tasks, yet by some fluke hit upon a work of art that's good for independent reasons. I mention this because I haven't read Jane Smiley's novel, which, for all I know, IS good for independent reasons. But the film isn't. If there was nothing else wrong with it, there would still be no getting around the fact that it's just so thoroughly, excruciatingly DULL. The very fields of corn are even more boring than they would be in real life - which needn't be the case, since off the top of my head I can think of four films ("The Wizard of Oz", "North by Northwest", "The Straight Story", "Kikujiro") in which the cornfields aren't boring at all.


Dear Mr. Seitzman, Or Whomever I May Hold Responsible For Mr. Seitzman Not Meeting His Rightful Fate Of Being Eaten Alive by Rabid Wolverines;

I do not know you, and so cannot comment on your character; for all I know, you give to charities and help little old ladies cross the street. Still, I must insist, for the common good, that you never write another screenplay as long as you live. Put down the pen, step away from the laptop!

If you refuse to heed the pleading of wounded brains, I have watched a movie or two in my life, and I believe you will find my counsel helpful:

1. Do not include love scenes in which overwrought teenage boys name the body parts of their girlfriends after US states. If you must pen such a scene, please do not name the breasts "New York" and "New Jersey"; it causes unnecessary speculation as to which cities occupy the nipples. Also, it is almost incomprehensibly stupid and annoying.

2. Do not rely solely on John Hughes movies in order to reinforce class distinctions.

3. Do not bludgeon the audience over the head with exhausted clichés. Yes, yes, Kelley and Sam stand out in the rain, and it cleanses them of their cares. We get it. Yes, the roses continue to bloom in Kelley's dead mother's greenhouse, even though every other plant has begun to rot. It Is A Symbol Of Their Love. It is also very painful when applied via blunt-force trauma to the backs of our heads. For the love of God, Mr. Seitzman, we get it. We all get it, all across the land. Amish people, the hard of hearing, unborn babies - we all get it.

4. Do not require the actors to perform mime sequences. Ever. No, never.

5. Did I mention that you should ease up on the trite symbolism? Because the audience can draw the parallel between the rebuilding of the restaurant and the building of the relationship between Kelley and Sam without any help. Truly. We get it.

6. Go through your script, and cull out the following lines, and any lines resembling them: "I don't know what we are anymore." "I don't want to lose you." "He's just like the rest of them!" (And its corollary, "Daddy, you don't even know him!")

7. Yes, yes, she's in heaven, running around in a field. We get it.

8. And in other news, we get it.

I have seen dozens of terrible movies in my life; I never expected to suffer for your art, and I would have just left the theater, but an elephant with the words "DOOMED LOVE" painted on its side fell from the sky and pinned me to my seat.

In closing, your writing bites, you owe me ten dollars, and I hate you.


Wow, this movie was horrible. As a Bills fan I was really looking forward to it, but this was bad. They should have left it on the shelf it was on for 4 years. I can't believe a guy like Jon Voight would sign on for something like this.


You know you've got a bad film when you hear that the soundtrack is performed completely on a single cheap programmable synthesizer, without any melody or sense of rhythm.

It's hard to see how anyone could take this film seriously, even while giving it a bad review. This film is way beneath 'bad'.

The continuity of this film is outrageously butchered. In one fight scene, we the hero (wearing bluejeans and undershirt) turn a corner with two revolvers in his hand; he doubles back, only now he has two semi-automatics in his hands; he turns another corner and now he has an automatic rifle in his hands; he chases down a hallway and comes out (suddenly dressed in standard army fatigue jacket)with a shotgun; after which he exits the building with yet another automatic rifle. Or here's one for the books - a bus slams into a car at high speed; the car goes flying, thrown by a gigantic explosion - cut to the bus which is completely unscathed from the same explosion? The narrative continuity suffers from an equally numbing sense of unreality; the bad guys really want to kill the hero - obviously - but every time they knock him out or otherwise get him in a vulnerable position, they suddenly decide they want him "to live to see this!" Huh? One of the funnier moments of the film is when the hero is released from isolation because his lawyer has come to see him; then the bad guy decides he's not going to let the two meet after all; and this despite the fact that the the villain, the hero and his lawyer all know what's going on anyway, so the hero writes a note to the lawyer and next we see the note being passed to the lawyer by another prisoner, even though we never see the hero give it to him. (This lawyer, BTW, has complete access to the Offices of the ATF in California, including its confidential computer files.) Huh? Well, but it's a mindless action movie - so how're the action scenes? Not bad, surprisingly; unfortunately they happen to be stoled from about a dozen Hong Kong films made five or ten years previously. The opening scene, a shoot-out in a junker garage, actually has shots the composition of which are stolen directly from "Hard Boiled" - so clearly so that it's a wonder John Woo didn't sue for plagiarism.

Other Hong Kong films stolen from include "Prison on Fire", "Island on Fire", "Burning Paradise", "Police Story" I, II, and III (aka "Supercop"). I thought I recognized a couple Sammo Hung clips here as well. In other words, the actions scenes are exciting only to the extent that they are successful duplications of action scenes from other films.

There's nothing one can do with this film unless one shoots smack and just needs a lot of visual stimuli that needn't be make any sense.

Very funny film, for all the wrong reasons.


If I were to rate this movie based solely on the acting/script/production, etc., I would give it one star. All these elements are awful. I can partially forgive this, in light of the film's $250 budget. The movie does contain many entertaining scenes, mostly those of the unintentionally funny variety. Some of these include: a 14-year-old kid stealing and driving a bus, teenage hooligans (one of whom is sporting a Joy Division t-shirt) getting scared away from harassing the film's protagonists by a woman brandishing an obviously fake firearm, and an encounter with a plastic bull's skull in the Arizona desert.

I would have given it 5 stars just for the entertainment value were it not for the presence of that horribly annoying, morally pontificating old granny. I had to dock one star just because of her. Who the *bleep* makes a wedding cake with black frosting, anyhow?


I cannot get over how awful this movie was. My eyes want to jump out of my head and my ears are gushing blood from the horrible awful one song soundtrack. There are four kids and dog and they run away from a hospital then get away with stealing two cars and a bus. No one gives them any punishment or anything to correct them. The acting is just so awful it sounds like an instruction video for social studies class. I cannot think of one thing that I like about this movie. Nothing. Even the kid that loses his dog made me want to vomit. He gets his dog back without the lady even seeing the dog run out the door. Maybe the dog was trying to escape out of this movie. Then there is some horse manure in the whole mix. It was torture watching this movie. Then at the end the oldest boy says something like staying together isn't a crime and they all hug him and love him. Stealing gas is a crime. Stealing two cars and a bus is a crime and he should have went to juvenile hall or something. Avoid this movie at all costs and especially if you want to keep your family together.


A "40 foot long" giant mutant squid with five tentacles, razor fangs and the ability to reproduce it's own cells terrorizes a small Florida town. Various marine biologists, doctors and cops plot to kill it. Meanwhile, a human monster named Miller offs people who discover the "Devilfish" is a manmade creation used for the greedy benefit of some evil doctors! Miller attacks a female researcher, strangles her, drowns her in the bathtub, tosses in a hairdryer, then rips the panties off her dead body!

Lots of false alarms are set when our heroes Peter, Stella, Janet and Bob set out on a high tech (high tech for 1984, anyway) "Seaquarium" boat to catch the creature, who is frequently seen in close up or hilariously obvious speeded-up film to seem more menacing. And only fire can destroy it, which leads to a flamethrower-armed posse vs. aquatic beast finale.

This JAWS cash-in is pretty tame (other than a legless corpse and a decapitation) but watchable and benefits from an excellent Antony Barrymore score and a decent (again, for 1984) monster design. Luigi Cozzi and Sergio Martino wrote the original story.

Score: 4 out of 10


I really wanted to like this film as I have admiration for Italian rip-off cinema (especially Jaws rip-offs!), but the simple fact of the matter is that Monster Shark isn't very good. All the signs of this being a great piece of trash are there; we've got one of the kings of trashy cult cinema, Lamberto Bava, in the director's chair - one of the best ridiculous cult actors, Michael Sopkiw, taking the lead role, and a central creature stupid enough to give even the best that this sort of film has to offer a run for it's money, yet somehow the film still manages to be rather stale. The fact that the 'monster shark' doesn't feature too often is probably a good thing given the creature design, but there's never enough elsewhere to pull the film through without it. The plot focuses on a resort off the south coast of Florida (or rather, somewhere in Italy) where several local people have turned up in the water with arms and legs missing. It's not long before the local authorities decide that this creature has never been seen before, and it's up to a motley crew of various sea experts to catch it alive!

The main problem with this film is that it always feels very pointless, and since there is little in the way of characters or plot development, even the least demanding of viewers are likely to start getting bored before long. This sort of film is hardly famous for being brilliant, although the fun element of films such as 'The Last Shark' and 'Killer Fish' is unfortunately absent for most of the running time. The thing I love about lead actor Michael Sopkiw is that he always seems like he's taking himself seriously no matter what film he's in (although he only ever made four). This is certainly the case here, although Bava never really allows him to completely dive in, and often he feels as much like a spare wheel as the rest of the film. Much of the runtime is spent watching the various characters sup American lager, and it's not very fascinating; although Bava does manage to come good by the end with an entertaining flurry of action as the central monster finally gets to wreak havoc upon its would-be captors. Overall, there really isn't much to recommend this film for. As mentioned, I really like this sort of stuff and even I found myself bored on numerous occasions. For hardcore Italian horror fans only!


Joe was first released in the US in the summer of 1970. Despite respectable notices, reasonable box office and an Oscar nom, it vanished shortly afterwards and remained forgotten about throughout the 1980's, before being enthusiastically reappraised, somewhat unjustly, in the US in the late 90's. Thanks to this lengthy unavailability, its reputation has gone on to see it placed (inexplicably) alongside the likes of Michael Winner's original Death Wish. Although revenge is a theme, a film about vigilantism this most definitely is not.

The plot isn't worth synopsizing. Its a flabby, hammy and bizarrely stagey ramble about an accidental murder and the unlikely relationship that blossoms out of it. That relationship and the largely class-based quirks of its two leads are exaggerated into ridiculous caricature; these two, and their situation, bear absolutely no relation to reality.

Almost everything about the film is cantankerous and begrudgingly antiquated, which makes the whole thing completely fascinating. Hippies are depicted as snide and exclusive misanthropes, hard drugs either make you sleep or dance around maniacally with lipstick on your face, and most young women are prepared to have sex with strangers in exchange for marijuana at the drop of a fly. Its very much a film of the 60's rather than the 70's, so why some industry luminaries have begun to include it in retrospective conversations about the beginnings of the Hollywood New Wave is a complete mystery. Martin Scorcese of all people even got involved, though probably only to give a nod to the dank, lavatorial hues of the grim urban cinematography, which almost certainly influenced Taxi Driver four years later. But Joe seems very much like a furious tirade against the likes of Easy Rider and Bonnie And Clyde, rather than a continuation of that same insurgent cinematic ethos.

It isn't a film of any real artistic significance - despite Joe's incontinent fury at everything in his world, it remains a story about absolutely nothing - but its value as a cultural museum piece is unprecedented. Shot on and around the streets of New York City during the darkest hours of the Vietnam war, and at a time when America (and, significantly, its cinema) was being revolutionized to the horror of the old guard, the film ends up, in its own completely oblivious and accidental way, saying more about that period of history than numerous infinitely superior movies that directly endeavored to capture it.

But as a film? Despite a really surprising and effective shock ending, this is basically a Michael Winner film, but not as well made. How does that tickle your fancy? ** Incidentally, if you are, like me, a fan of spotting arbitrary background lookalikes, then check out Harold Steptoe at 1:22:11 in the hippy art gallery.


If I was British, I would be embarrassed by this portrayal of incompetence. A protection agent of the Special Branch unable to defend herself against a sick, unarmed and untrained assailant? The Home Office sends a single "Science Adviser" to investigate a possible Level Four biohazard, and that "Advisor" doesn't have the sense to wear even a mask and gloves? Totally unprotected London police officers working side by side with technicians in full biohazard suits? The "Advisor" and his bodyguard bearding the lair of a sociopathic doctor experimenting on human subjects without any backup? Puh-leeze! One wonders whether the producers could not afford to hire any technical advisers or if, for some arcane reason, they consciously decided to portray the principals as hopelessly incompetent. Even my wife, who has no background in either medicine or law enforcement, was rolling her eyes in disbelief. After the first episode, I was discouraged; now that I have seen two episodes, I give up.


I saw this movie over 20 years ago and had rather fond memories of it. Catching again on Cinemax this month, I realized how little discernment I had about films back then. This is an utterly ordinary spaghetti western, with absolutely nothing noteworthy about it. Script, direction, acting, photography are all a big blah. Stick with the Sergio Leone westerns!


The Greek locale for parts of the movie were very beautiful and the photography get all my votes and that's about the extent of my raves for this movie. I found that all the characters were narcissistic archetypes found so often in the American culture and were shallow and uninteresting. Susan Sarandon and Gena Rowlands are easy to look at but I found their characters very narcissistic and unlikeable for many other reasons. When Gena Rowlands sings at a party it made me wonder how this woman could think of herself as a competent star of the stage. I was tempted to hit the MUTE button until she finished singing. Molly Ringwald was herself and Raul Julia's character was so lecherous he was downright creepy. The movie was much too long for my liking and I could not sit through it again even at the point of a gun.


As the film reviewer for a local gay magazine I automatically get sent any dreck if it happens to have a homo in it. Chicken Tikka Masala is churning on in the background as I write this. I gave it my undivided attention for 53 minutes before I found myself involuntarily shouting - like a Tourrette's sufferer -"This is the sh**test film I have ever seen". We're just coming to the emotional climax where the son is giving some coming out speech to his father at his wedding. Father seems to be taking it quite well. An attempted honour killing at this point would at least have livened the film up a bit. And made it funnier.

I didn't particularly like Beautiful Thing, for example, but could at least see why other people did. It was made with some professionalism and I seem to remember it had at least a couple of good lines. The lack of wit in this film is quite astounding - even the most mediocre sitcom will tend to have recognisable jokes. The nearest this movie got to being funny (at least in its first 53 mins) was the subtitled comment delivered to the fat unattractive female lead "Look at her with her legs wide open - she's like the Mersey Tunnel." Completely witless and I didn't crack a smile but I could imagine someone with a low IQ (who perhaps works in a chip shop) enjoying it.

I'd imagine it's some Lottery-funded atrocity. If not I can at least console myself with the fact that the backers will lose a substantial amount of money as even a low-budget British film will still set someone back a couple of million. Seriously, if I met the most handsome bloke in the world and, on going back to his place to make sweet love, I found a copy of this in his DVD collection ("Man, I love this film") I'd probably kick him in the nuts and leave forthwith. And this from someone who's gone about six months without any of the aforementioned sweet love.

Oh Lord I hate this film.


I bought this DVD as part of a set of 50 "historic classics." It's hardly a classic, and as the plot was updated to the time of its release, is not historic either. The actual title on the DVD is "Indecent," and additionally subtitled "The Private Life of Becky Sharp." Myrna Loy is not very convincing, although in her defense she is saddled with an awful script and trite dialogue. As with many early talkies, and especially ones made by smaller studios, there is little skill demonstrated by the cast and crew. Loy does wear a few gowns that are quite stylish, but her costumes and make-up in the later scenes are overdone. The one saving grace is a tolerable performance by Billy Bevan, who plays one of her many suitors


worst. movie. ever made. EVER. I have no words to say about it.. other then it truly had no point, no plot, no... anything. sheer crap!!! I don't know how everyone in the movie didn't shoot them shelves after watching it.... .... .... ... .. I love vampire flicks and mysteries, and alternate abstract outside the box films, and.... this was non of those. I mean what the crap!!! I cant even tell you what the film was about cuz I still don't know, and I just wasted an hour and ahalf of my life watching it... bottom line.. I think the maker of this film just wants everyone to do drugs. thats the only thing I got from this film. please don't watch this... I mean for a " sultry sensual vampire flick" there wasn't even the to be expected nudity you'd get from a vamp flick. anyway back to my point.... this movie blows. go set yourself on fire instead.... .. ..


So I rented this movie hoping to learn about the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the beginnings of its independence from Belgian rule. I was excited to become familiar with the figures involved in its history, mainly Lumumba and Mobutu. I wanted to see how the new Congolese government attempted to bring together the various groups opposing colonial rule, the political motives behind each one, the reasons behind Belgium's decision to give the DRC its independence, and also how the United States and the former USSR were involved. Sadly, all of my questions went largely unanswered. My belief is that this movie was made by people who, through a passing familiarity with the story of the DRC's fight for freedom, saw a story filled with drama and emotion, and decided to exploit it. They then proceeded to try and stuff all the dramatic points into a storyline, briefly filled them out with dialogue, went to the set and shot it. I could be wrong, but if so it's all the sadder, because then the makers must have simply become too tied up in getting everything in, and ended up glossing over all details in an effort to create an encompassing history. Whatever the reason, the fact is that the movie could be a timeline of sentence-long statements and facts printed on the screen. The film goes through each major occurrence, and tells the viewer point-blank the main idea of what's going on, completely smoothing over the actual details in favor of getting across the big things. For instance, there is the scene when Lumumba is captured by the increasingly rebellious army controlled by Mobutu. In the situation the soldiers have three possible viewpoints: one that sympathizes with Lumumba, one that vilifies Lumumba, and one that stands in the middle, sympathizing and yet obeying orders. Correspondingly, there are three soldiers that speak in the scene, uttering lines that unadornedly show their points of view. Then, to avoid dealing with the actual tensions that these opposing viewpoints bring up, the scriptwriters simply inserted some random shooting, more army guys show up and they just end up beating everyone up. This is the extent of the reflectiveness of the movie. Most of the time, each character simply states their basic motives, the other characters respond with theirs, and that's that. There's little telling through actions; even the things they say are direct the point of painfulness. It's hard to believe that the people represented actually acted like that. Also, in the trend of this directness, things like political tension between factions is reduced to simple acknowledgement of the fact-- we never learn what these factions are, what they're fighting for, their power, basically anything except that they exist. The characters likewise are one-dimensional and flat; unfortunately I don't know whether Lumumba was actually a freedom fighter passionately devoted to ideals of Congolese unity, but after an hour or so of the movie I certainly didn't trust it to tell me so. The DRC, like many developing countries, has a complicated and important history, especially in the period leading up to and after independence. But the telling of these histories will not be useful unless there is recognition of the intricacy of the situations. Lumumba fails to give proper attention to these details, and ends up telling the viewer little except the most general of outlines.


This Swedish splatter movie tries to parody/imitate American horror films such as "The Evil Dead", "Gremlins" and others. Writer/director/actor/cinematographer Anders Jacobsson and writer/producer/actor/makeup effects supervisor Göran Lundström (did I miss something?) were obviously inspired by Sam Raimi. But the camera work is a bad copy of what can be seen in "The Evil Dead" and elsewhere. Some other users have written that they enjoyed the humor of this film but I didn't.

The film rather disturbed than entertained me. It tries to combine suspense and comedy and the final product just left me with a feeling of oppressiveness although it wasn't scary or shocking at all. The combination of different genre elements made this film very strange. I was never sure if it was meant to be scary or funny.

The story is quite inventive except for the showdown at the hospital but I didn't like the way it was staged for the reasons mentioned above. The gore & make up effects are considerably good and at least the "Loose Limbs" sequences were quite entertaining because in these scenes the film-makers didn't try to mix scares and jokes.

All in all a strange film that you will either hate or love. Rest in pieces, Evil Ed.

My rating: 3/10 (made me stick to American productions)


It only took one viewing of this dog, for me to say "Never again!" It's so profoundly unmemorable that I had to read other people's reactions to it before I could remember anything beyond (1) it was awful, (2) Connery should have quit while he was ahead, and (3) the film included a total gross-out bit involving faking a retinal scan through the most gruesome (not to mention horribly inefficient) means possible.

Actually, I've never understood why anybody would prefer even the best of Connery's Bond films over even the worst Moore or Dalton outings. Or Lazenby, Brosnan, or even David Niven, for that matter. I personally found Octopussy and Moonraker, among other "canonical" Bond films, to be far more entertaining than this, and probably for the very same reasons why others deprecate the Moore Bond films, namely their wry humor, and their willingness to surrender to the preposterousness of the whole basic Bond milieu.


By-the-numbers, Oscar-hungry biopic about the late, great singer Ray Charles. There is one -- exactly one -- great scene in *Ray*. It occurs during a flashback to Charles' youth, after the boy become completely blind. Running into the sharecropper house which he shares with his mother, he trips over a chair and sprawls on the floor. He cries out for his mother; she, in keeping with her philosophy that a person should "stand on their own two feet", observes silently and pensively from the kitchen, waiting to see if the boy can fall back on his own resources. The boy proves to be up to the challenge, using his ears and memory to locate a kettle on a stove, a nearby fire-pit, the grass blowing in the wind outside of a window, the scuttling of a cricket across the plank-board floor.

The movie pauses, here; it expands; it breathes -- even if for only 40 seconds. The scene is a much-needed respite from Taylor Hackford's otherwise noisy film. By "noisy" I'm not referring to the music, which is, of course, excellent. I AM referring to the sound effects (big BOOMS! preceding yet another flashback) and the inane dialog ("I'm speaking to you as a FRIEND, Ray," etc.). On the visual side, Hackford is equally and pointlessly flashy: sepia-colored filters over the camera lenses during the flashbacks; whirling-dervish 360s from the camera-crane, etc. etc. All the modern amenities. What a horrible cinematic style is displayed in *Ray*! -- a style all-too-common in wanna-be "important" movies from the past decade or so (Scorsese's *Aviator* is stylistically very similar to this movie). These gimmicks are employed to obfuscate the cliché-ridden screenplay. Some of us won't be fooled.

Some of us also are not quite prepared to accept Jamie Foxx's performance as anything more than superb mimicry. Granted, Foxx eerily resembles Ray Charles: he walks like Charles, talks like Charles, and even twitches like Charles. Foxx's imitation of the singer during live performance is technically perfect. I'm not begrudging Mr. Foxx his Oscar; he deserved it. (It was a pretty weak field this year, anyway.) But one wonders if Foxx really UNDERSTANDS Charles. The actor does achieve one great moment when he insists on trying out the smack that his band-mates are shooting up: he registers, if only for a brief moment, a disgust at the unfairness of being blind and a life of darkness. The movie seems to want to dramatize the struggle within Charles between the bright salvation of music and the oblivion of heroin, with his blindness as the battleground between those two compulsions. But the damn movie just won't take the time: it bounces along from triumph to triumph, never really pausing for any insight into the man. One has to STRETCH to find the dramatic tension; one must supply the drama FOR the movie. One must, in other words, imagine a better movie than this one.

In its rush toward a glorious conclusion, *Ray* introduces, then dodges, several excellent ideas for a movie: his early days on the "Chitlin Circuit"; his bold musical innovations for the Atlantic label; the problem of his addiction to heroin; the inevitable artistic compromises attendant upon overwhelming success; the man's importance to the Civil Rights struggle (touched on in the movie for, oh, about 3 minutes of screen-time), and much more. The filmmakers are too lazy to focus on any one of these elements. Two-and-a-half hours of watching a man overcome one adversity after another may make us feel good, but such a movie is not necessarily a grand work of art. This sort of approach certainly provides no deeper insight into the film's subject -- and shouldn't insight be the real goal of a movie like this? If I had wanted a laundry-list of Ray Charles' accomplishments, I'd have simply Googled him.

3 stars out of 10 -- the extra 2 stars strictly for the music.


I was debating between this movie and 2012 but chose Inglourious Basterds due to it's amazingly high IMDb rating. I must say now, what a disappointment. I expected a certain amount of gratuitous violence, but I also expected a lot of witty dialog. I got a huge dosage of the former, but not nearly enough of the latter. I felt shortchanged. The ratio between violence to plot is very important and I think this movie gets it totally wrong. And the plot? It's that believable or really all that entertaining either. Save your time and money. I can't believe what this rating says for the gory and violent tastes of the modern masses.


Little Quentin seems to have mastered the art of having the cake and eating it.

As usual, the pure sadistic display can be explained as a clever thought-provoking way of sending violence back into the audience's face.

Sure, Mr Tarantino. Violence is Baaad. Sadism is Baaad. It is well worth wading in it to make that point. How very brilliant.

The juvenile part of the audience may well not be clever enough to follow all the smart references to higher levels of consciousness though, but I'm confident they'll see the light one day.

Thanks for making this little world of ours a little better. You deserve a medal.


This is "realism"? If Rivette was seeking to give us a ground-level study of a woman in a certain place and time and how she was able to influence (and was influenced by) the world around her, he has failed miserably. Most prominently because we never get a clue as to why thousands of men would have followed her into battle. There is certainly not enough exposition of the cultural/historical context to define the country's need for such a savior and, god knows, there is nothing particularly charismatic about Joan as she is presented here. Unless Bonnaire's wooden posturing and flat line readings are supposed to indicate transcendent faith and determination. The use of landscape is particularly uninspired - we never lose the feeling we are watching twentieth century actors wandering in a supposedly medieval landscape. And as for the battle scenes (which, in contrast to some commentors claims, do take up a good 15% of screentime)- they look like look like some some History Club from your local high school recreating a medieval siege, although the kids would no doubt put more passion into it. I will give Rivette credit, however, for picturing a side of Joan left out by other movies: that of a petulant, naive, and narcissistic adolescent (played by a woman all too clearly at least twice the age of the character she is supposed to portray) obviously unable to understand her place within the movement she is helping to create or the world existing outside her own passions. Joan's outrage at her own soldiers swearing and astonishment at the enemy for their lack of respect and obedience to her are jarringly spontaneous and believable notes (you suddenly realize such moments must naturally have occurred)in an otherwise uninvolving historical "representation". Unfortunately they also serve to point out precisely what is not addressed on screen -what made Joan SPECIAL? I must say I also continued to be puzzled and frustrated by certain foreign film lovers who equate tedium and lack of dramatic involvement with "artistry" and "seriousness". Does this film really increase our understanding or involvement with the subject? Or with anything for that matter? 4/10.


We can conclude that there are 10 types of people in this world.

Those who understand binary and those who do not. Those who understand binary put this movie to its grave along with hackers, while those who do enjoy this movie for the sake that none of this crap could happen. Ever.

 For a movie to attempt to be a modern movie with fiction applied to it. It has failed. Horribly. Only a 11yr old and below can enjoy and only 30yr and up could be scared to have their identity taken. It losses out on the main market for a resale value(i watch it now it is more boring than when it was first released).


This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group "meditations" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.


I'm from Australia and have watched with respect the extraordinary culture surrounding rugby union in New Zealand. I can totally appreciate the comments made by Kiwis in relation to this movie. It was a total insult to a race of people and their beloved sport.

Whoever was involved in the making of this atrocious movie should be made to formally apologize to anyone who had the misfortune of watching it. Note: people do NOT kneel down and cry while slowly reciting the Hakka. What a pitiful scene this was.

Are we supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for this idiot who nearly killed his girlfriend, who refused to listen to any advice from anyone with half a brain, then apparently saw the light? What a thoroughly dislikable character (with the visits to children's hospitals doing nothing to redeem his despicable personality).

And why are people even making a movie about Americans playing rugby? They barely even feature in the sport on the world stage, not so much as to even warrant an attempt at making a movie about it (yes, Rugby's a 'world' sport, unlike gridiron and baseball)?


I'm sure I saw FUTURE KILL for the same reason as most people: the awesome poster by HR Giger. And like everyone else, I was disappointed to find that the movie could not live up to the poster (Giger said that director Moore actually begged him to do it). When I first saw this, at the age of 14, I thought it was the worst movie ever made. I'd still think that if I hadn't seen certain movies on MST3K since then.

The plot has a bunch of annoying college boys driving into the "mutant city" to kidnap a gang-leader for their fraternity. That's when they meet Splatter (Ed Neal), a mutant/cyborg/psycho who kills the gang leader and blames it on the frats as an excuse to hunt them down and seize power. The rest of the movie consists mostly of chases. A hand-full of frats try to battle their way out of mutant city (which I think is supposed to be LA, even though it was made in Texas). There's some pseudo-political stuff about the frat boys' society being pro-nuclear weapons and the mutant-society being anti-nuke. There's talk of how Splatter became a freak due to radiation. Most people develop cancer from radiation, but splatter just shoots spikes and slaughters girls. Yeah, that makes tons of sense. At one point, our heroes rescue a mutant girl from two pro-nuke police, and she shows them "how the other half lives." The other half, it turns out, are all punk kids who dance around to a bad 80s pop-band. So our little epic is both dumb and dated. That's really all there is to it. Frat boys running around in messed up buildings while guys who look like bikers try to kill them... Oh, and it's the future.

I don't think you'll have any doubt about why Ron W. Moore never made another movie. This thing is a real stinker. If you like Giger, buy his books (they have the poster without the horrors of the movie), or just watch ALIEN again. FUTURE KILL is a waste of time that nobody needs.

If this description makes the picture sound good, there's another crappy movie that does the same thing, only bigger and better: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. It's crap, but it blows FUTURE KILL off the screen.


The filmmakers neglected to connect the dots--that is, the sequence of events and choices that led from Charlie Wilson and the anti-Soviet mujaheddin to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and eventually to 9/11. The filmmakers of course neglect to tell us the back-story--why were the Soviets in Afghanistan?--but that omission pales in comparison to their failure to reveal that support for Islamicist extremists in Afghanistan in the name of rabid anti-communism ultimately strengthened the hand of anti-western forces and was a big contributing factor to the mess that we find ourselves in today (9/11, terrorist networks, a prolonged ground war in Afghanistan, etc.). Because these consequences are not spelled out, the movie leaves the viewer feeling sympathetic to Mr. Wilson (hey, check out his latest projects on the Internet) instead of seeing him as an individual whose actions were contrary to the best interests of his country and the West as a whole.


How better to describe it than scuzzy criminals on TV? And I don't mean in the show COPS; here, they're actually being presented as protagonists.

I don't see any remedial value in this show unless you have a perverse penchant for human tragedies. Whitney Houston is a tragic example of the fallen star; a star which Bobby Brown helped pull from the sky. Bobby Brown is nothing but a low-life criminal. Why watch him? Why does Whitney stand by him no matter how despicable he is? This couple should be locked up and it's a loathsome shame they are making money and achieving a modicum of fame from watching the septic tank which is their lives and the human waste which is their character.


Leonard Rossiter and Frances de la Tour carry this film, not without a struggle, as the script was obviously hurriedly cobbled together out of old episodes. When it came out, this must have been a real disappointment as it's also done on a bus ticket budget. Attempts to move it out of the house - which is jarringly unrecognisable, a bad job all round there - with a picnic, fantasy sequences, rugby and a boxing match in the local gym simply don't work. Most of these are just character-light setups for a solitary not-particularly good gag. That said, the interplay of Rossiter and de la Tour (and anybody else with him) is mostly hilarious; they even manage to make a soda syphon gag work, but you can see the struggle with recycling a literally uninspired script that changes plot half way through. Don Warrington has very little to do except 'be black', and due to the random script hacks Christopher Strauli changes character at least twice. And in the end, as he often did in the TV series (though you might not remember - read the scripts), Eric Chappell lets you down with a 'time's up' ending. Were they that cynical, or just too desperate to be in the film business? Rossiter and de la Tour are always funny but as a film, it's a terrible postscript to a fondly remembered TV series. RIP.


ok we have a film that some are calling one of the best movies ever..but i'm sitting here thinking hell the f!, the storys sux{ which there is no story], the diolouge is quite plain, artisticly nothing great!, and the acting is nothing real out standing, so if you want to pretend to be arty say you like it, but if you have a real view say you don't like it or if you did explain why!


I thrive on cinema....but there is a limit. A NAME isn't enough to make A MOVIE!. The beginning of the movie puts us in a mood to expect the unseen yet. But we remain hungry ( or angry..) till the end . Things are getting so confused that I admit that I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE END or was there an end to this nonesense. The opportunity to make an outstanding movie was there but the target was totally missed. Next...


In need of work, straight man Bud Abbott (as Jack) and comic partner Lou Costello (as Dinkel) get the latter a job babysitting self-described "problem child" David Stollery (as Donald). Young Stollery winds up reading Mr. Costello's favorite novel (see if you can guess the title), which puts Costello to sleep, dreaming he and Mr. Abbott are reliving the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" (you guessed it).

The sepia-tone switches to color for the bulk of the production. Apparently, this was an attempt at something different for the duo, a colorful children's fantasy. It fails, but this is where you get to see Abbott & Costello in color, silent film superstar William Farnum (as the King) make his last performance a bit part, boxer Max Baer's brother Buddy, and Stollery before Disney's "Spin and Marty".

** Jack and the Beanstalk (4/4/52) Jean Yarbrough ~ Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Buddy Baer, William Farnum


I don't recommend watching this movie. It's a movie in which a movie is being filmed, with no attraction between actress and actor being played. The sex scene at the end of the movie which is to explain the reluctance of the actress (being played in the movie) to cooperate with the actor (being played in the movie)in it is a blunt repetition of the same scene in the Breillat movie Fat Girl. Everything there was played with more delicacy, if you can attach delicacy to a sex act like that. A typical French expression for the the thing happening in Sex is comedy is Oh la la! In Breillat's film Brief Crossing there also is sensitivity. In Sex is comedy I don't see real sensitivity and also a clear plot for the movie is not being developed so that there is a rather loose story with the disillusion of the end.


As one who loves films that appeal to intellectual sorties as well as those that simply tell stories, this film should have been appealing. But as written and directed by Catherine Breillat who seems to be playing out her own conundrums in film-making experiences, this tedious and talky film fails to arouse interest.

The main character Jeanne (Anne Parillaud) is the screen form of Breillat, a director frustrated in her attempts to film a convincing sex scene with two difficult actors (Grégoire Colin is The Actor and Roxane Mesquida is The Actress). The one 'comic' bit is Jeanne's imposing the use of a dildo strapped onto the Actor in order for her to drive the sex scene to fruition, but even this sight gag wears thin quickly and we are left with a film within a film that feels more like a 'Deleted Scenes' featurette on a DVD than a solid French comedy with class. Grady Harp, August 05


Contains spoilers.

The British director J. Lee Thompson made some excellent films, notably 'Ice Cold in Alex' and 'Cape Fear', but 'Country Dance' is one of his more curious offerings. The story is set among the upper classes of rural Scotland, and details the strange triangular relationship between Sir Charles Ferguson, an eccentric aristocratic landowner, his sister Hilary, and Hilary's estranged husband Douglas, who is hoping for a reconciliation with her. We learn that during his career as an Army officer, Charles was regarded as having 'low moral fibre'. This appears to have been an accurate diagnosis of his condition; throughout the film he displays an attitude of gloomy disillusionment with the world, and his main sources of emotional support seem to be Hilary and his whisky bottle. The film ends with his committal to an upper-class lunatic asylum.

Peter O'Toole was, when he was at his best as in 'Lawrence of Arabia', one of Britain's leading actors, but the quality of his work was very uneven, and 'Country Dance' is not one of his better films. He overacts frantically, making Charles into a caricature of the useless inbred aristocrat, as though he were auditioning for a part in the Monty Python 'Upper-Class Twit of the Year' sketch. Susannah York as Hilary and Michael Craig as Douglas are rather better, but there is no really outstanding acting performance in the film. There is also little in the way of coherent plot, beyond the tale of Charles's inexorable downward slide.

The main problem with the film, however, is neither the acting nor the plot, but rather that of the Theme That Dare Not Speak Its Name. There are half-hearted hints of an incestuous relationship between Charles and Hilary, or at least of an incestuous attraction towards her on his part, and that his dislike of Douglas is motivated by sexual jealousy. Unfortunately, even in the swinging sixties and early seventies (the date of the film is variously given as either 1969 or 1970) there was a limit to what the British Board of Film Censors was willing to allow, and a film with an explicitly incestuous theme was definitely off-limits. (The American title for the film was 'Brotherly Love', but this was not used in Britain; was it too suggestive for the liking of the BBFC?) These hints are therefore never developed and we never get to see what motivates Charles or what has caused his moral collapse, resulting in a hollow film with a hole at its centre. 4/10


Abysmal Indonesian action film from legendary Arizal triumphantly sculpts a template for future Cinemax pap like 'China O'Brien' and 'Do or Die' with Erik Estrada while simultaneously burying poor rising action star Pat O'Brien with a hackneyed backyard script and three cans of hair-styling gel to perm his impressive 1984 mullet. This guy's physical prowess resembles a more femme Mark Gregory and his next credit would be second fiddle to Chris Mitchum as "Tom Selick." Powerful. At least the action is mindless and non-stop with some daring Asian stuntmen risking their lives for what is essentially a poorly constructed movie by teens and/or meth addicts with no concept of reality. One poor extra gets gorno-ly shredded by an electric hedge clipper and many more are killed by getting hit in the head by odd objects such as a motorcycle wheel or cardboard box. Classic rape scenes are tasteless and priceless and quotable dialog such as, "I would rather trust a rattlesnake!" are delivered with such exuberance and fervor from the third-rate polizioteschi voice actors. Random highlight: some crazy dude eating live lizards. Movie also holds the record for most cars driven through walls. 2/10


this movie is trash because, out of many reasons, it is based on Mark Furman's book, which is also trash. let me must say that Mark Furhman is a racist pig that is just looking for another way to get himself into the spotlight - and others that right this type of trash belong in jail. for the movie itself, being based on the book, was horrible as well. the only reason that this murder case became such a big book and movie was because the guy is related, thru his aunts marriage, to the Kennedy family and it is ridiculous that people still believe that this family somehow has the ability to make and cover up murders - they are just a family and middle America needs to get over the obsession. this poor guy, and his family, have been hounded by the police for years, they couldn't get tommy so they went after Micheal. its amazing that he went to jail with all the evidence that supports that he Didn't do it, besides the facts that the statute of limitations, among other things, should have kept this trial from being brought back after TWENTY years for the love of god, don't watch this garbage


I first heard of this film when Patton Oswalt talked about it on his "Werewolves and Lollipops" CD. He said it was a lost classic that is completely ridiculous. Being a lover of terrible cinema, I knew I was in for a treat.

This film is, hands down, one of the weirdest I've ever seen. Certainly one of the weirdest shlock films. Basically, a demon took human form years ago for a woman, the woman died or something, the demon cried blood, the blood fell on the bed, the bed is now possessed and it now eats. Along with fruit, flowers and chicken, it also has a taste for people. The people can range between horny teens, mayors, gangsters, servants or professional orgy throwers. There's also a sick guy who the bed ate but put his soul behind a picture in the room.

Most movies let you figure out the plot through exciting action. Death Bed takes another path: it basically tells you through narration exactly what's happening while slow, dull murder scenes take place. Also, I must say everyone who's eaten by the bed are surprisingly quiet. I would think if a bed is eating you through the ways of a 5th grade science fair experiment, it would sting a little. I guess nerve endings weren't invented until 1981 or so.

The story is wacky, the direction is slow and pretty awful, the sets are sparse, the acting it fairly painful and the brother is one of the unintentionally ugliest actors I've ever seen. Probably would make a great party film if alcohol and smart-asses are involved. Certainly one you shouldn't miss.


this film is so unbelievably awful! everything about it was rubbish. you cant say anything good about this film, the acting, script, directing, effects are all just as bad as each other. even ed wood could have done a better job than this. i seriously recommended staying away from this movie unless you want to waste about 100mins of your life or however long the film was. i forget. this is the first time i wrote a comment about a film on IMDb, but this film was just on TV and i had to let the world of movie lovers know that this film sucked balls!!!!!!!!!!!! so if you have any decency left in you. go and rent a much better bad movie like critters 3


The opening was a steal from "Eight-legged Freaks", a film that is everything this one isn't. Stilted and pedestrian are the words that apply - along with others that can't be repeated..! Drifter type returns to his home(?)town, meets up with old friends etc.... the usual annoying kid, single mother,local loudmouth and so on..Bad special effects, alien ship, atmospheric disturbances, (hey, didn't the Director see "Close Encounters"?). Good acting? Good story? Good camera angles? Good cutting? Not here! Do not rent, unless you are sharing the cost and have a lot of beer handy. Do not watch on TV, go and drink a lot of beer instead - you'll enjoy it more!


It's strange, while the film features full X-rated sex scenes and violent murders, it never feels as shocking as it ought to.

A group of scientists go to an island in the Caribbean to investigate a radioactive incident. Upon their arrival, a mutated islander goes about the happy business of murdering the men and having his way with the women. Doesn't it always seem to work out that way.

Among the sored acts we find a some lesbian encounters, a three-way with male prostitutes, assorted heterosexual couplings and the rape of an already dead body. Even though it's all fully explicit, it fails to ever shock or stir as it is meant to. As soon as the sex goes fully pornographic it just loses it's edge; the suspension of disbelief is broken and we realize we are just watching people having sex.

There is some blood and gore with the murders, but given that this is a D'amato flick it's really tame. For a much more rounded experience watch the similar 'Erotic Nights of the Living Dead'.

2/10


It' s easier to watch this film if one views it as a scenario created by Star Fleet Lieutenant Reginald Barclay during his holodeck addiction. (Barclay is a recurring Star Trek character played by Dwight Schultz.)

Dwight Schultz is miscast as Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's character is poorly written, so we never see the depth and breadth of his knowledge. Instead, we see a shallow, two dimensional figure from a soap opera. Paul Newman is also miscast as General Leslie Groves, but this movie's problems go beyond having the wrong actors in the wrong roles.

The factual errors and great liberties taken (with the chronology of events) in order to advance screenwriter Bruce Robinson's political agenda make this movie embarrassing to watch. That's probably why this movie has found a home on the so-called History Channel.

"Fat Man and Little Boy" combine bad science, bad history, bad screenwriting and mediocre acting to produce a movie that should not be viewed by impressionable high school or college students who know nothing about the Manhattan Project.


This movie is a definitive 5. I finally caught it on HBO the other night. I remember when it came out in theatres telling a friend that it would never be a hit because Americans didn't want movies about history, especially movies that were more about ideas than action. I don't know if that was the reason FMLB didn't do well, but now, having finally seen it, I can add a few observations of my own.

First, while Dwight Schultz has been fine in Star Trek and The A-Team, as the lead in this movie he is off-putting. I kept expecting him to shout out Jon Lovitz-like, "I am ACT-ING!" He phrasing and tone of voice sounded like he was trying very had to be an ACT-OR, on a stage where he had to emphasize strangely various words and phrases.

Second, I enjoyed the sly positioning of Paul Newman's character as a manipulator who, at every turn, strives to herd these cats (the scientists) along to get to his goal.

Third, there was some discussion of the moral implications of creating the A bomb, and whether the US should use it. Probably not enough of this, or as in depth as warranted.

Finally, there seemed to be an awful lot of twists thrown in for dramatic effect. I don't know how much of the events in this movie are true to life, but things like having the test bomb slip in its chains or having a lab accident caused by a spilled coffee cup (and a scientist killed as a result) were stretching the bounds of believability. Maybe that stuff, or events that were similar, really happened, but it sure felt like various scenes were added solely for dramatic effect, which undermined the whole tone and purpose of the movie.

FMLB was OK. I need to read more about the actual events to know if it was over the top or just mostly accurate.


This movie is awful. If you're considering to see this movie... two words DO NOT. It's tasteless, the storyline is really lame, and the jokes are even worse. The acting is really pathetic. I can't believe that this movie was made. Rather watch American Pie, Going Greek or Road Trip if you're in the mood for a teen comedy. It's about two girls who head for Malibu on their Spring Break. As usual they didn't do much planning and called (i think her names Michelle)'s uncle to crash at his Malibu mansion. Uncle Bennie strictly forbids them of having any kind of party, and as you would of guessed, they go ahead and do it. Please, I urge you, do not see this movie.


The only thing more full of holes than this movie's premise is its script. Flatliners is the ideal showcase for Joel Schumacher's glorious, flamboyant, brazen lack of talent. The plot is totally illogical but super fake-ponderous and everything is art-directed within an inch of its life in the most clichéd, overheated way. I love how the med school autopsy room is a cavernous vaulted marble mausoleum low-lit in red with huge Rembrandt paintings hanging from the walls. I love how Keifer Sutherland drives a canvas-backed army jeep. No one in Joel Schumacher's movies lives in an un-eccentric manner. It's always an alternate universe where everyone is young and painfully hip, but hip strictly and obsessively according to an out-of-touch middle-aged billionaire man-child's idea of hip. And holy crap! The part where Baldwin brother #16 dies and comes back to life and then is haunted by all the women he's slept with who intone "I'll call you" and "I just need some space" is the funniest friggin' thing in the whole universe!!!! What kind of a world do we live in where Joel Schumacher gets to keep having people throw money at him? "Flatliners" made me want to review the man's entire oeuvre solely for the kind of high-quality yuks contained therein.


Standard "Disease outbreak in remote area; expert who happens to be vacationing in the area takes charge" movie. There are only a few deviations from the norm. One is that the kids involved are pretty reasonable from the outset. Usually they are monsters who repeatedly gum up the works until they redeem themselves in the end. Another is that the local medicine man/witch doctor who is normally an impediment early on is never completely discounted or redeemed in the end. Perhaps since this seems to have been made for the faith oriented PAX channel, they didn't want to seem too judgmental about the faithful. Finally, there were no evil local politicians/leisure industry bigwigs trying to cover the whole thing up. The lack of these stereotypes was refreshing -- if we have the PAX channel to thank for that I may have to sample a few more of their offerings. Aside from that, however, this was pretty standard stuff. You've seen it all before.


I clerk in a video store, so I try to see the movies we're about to put out each week. I don't have a problem with this; in fact, I sort of feel it's a privilege. Not so with this film . . . After an hour and a half of our hero whining and growling his way through scene after scene, I was truly wondering if they planned to get to the point. I felt like I should be getting paid for watching this at home, in my free time. And if I'd known there was another hour to be endured, I might have given up right then. I didn't care about the characters, the filming was unremarkable, and Ford made kissing look like a chore. Even the score was incongruous and jarring. What a waste.


It was tough watching Harrison Ford obsessing over nothing. Kristin Scott-Thomas should have slapped this guy and told him to take a hike.

Save your money. Don't even bother with a rental fee, unless you need a good nap.


If it wasn't for the very attractive Jennifer Jostyn in the lead role, I would have turned "Milo" off after the first 30 minutes. However, as easy on the eyes as she is, she's not enough to save this film, not by a long shot.

Milo starts off with a group of young girls accompanying an "assumed young boy" in a yellow slicker to a house in the woods where he shows them embryos in jars. Apparently, the deal was that if he showed them the jars, ol' Milo gets to conduct a gynecologist exam on each in return. One of the group volunteers to be Milo's "first patient" and he leads her behind closed doors. Moments later blood flows from under the door and we are whisked into present day. Enter the lovely Jostyn who plays one of the girls all grown up in present day. A substitute teacher with shallow confidence whose closest friend appears to be a goldfish, she receives an invitation to return home for a friend's wedding. Yep! You guessed it. Return to Miloville. Milo, who allegedly drowned years ago, seems to be having a dilemma staying dead and begins terrorizing and murdering the girls he failed to "examine" all those years ago.

Milo, the character, reminded me of one of the mutants from Cronenberg's "The Brood." He could have been scary, but just how scary can a villain be who wears a yellow raincoat? The plot confuses even itself and the conclusion left me wanting my 90 minutes back. I'm sending Milo, an inept slasher film, to stand in the corner!


It had its moments, but overall when I watched this cartoon as a child I was bored out of my mind. The only thing that kept me watching was the fact that it was a cartoon, probably my first exposure to anime. It is also one of my least favorite anime's, I remember others one involving a giant ship in space that made no sense, but was more enjoyable because they were in space. I also remember one with these people dressed like birds that was a bit strange, but more entertaining. I do not really like car racing though at all, did not then and still do not so that is probably one of the reasons I did not care for this show even though today I am an avid anime fan. The characters were a bit goofy too, and then there was the horrible scenes where virtually no action was taking place that was probably used to cut down on animation costs and to pad the show. The gadgets in the cars were cool though and provided some entertainment for me back then. Overall, I find this show to be rather unwatchable compared to newer animes and some from the same era, but this is just a personal opinion I am sure many other reviewers love the show which is cool.


Family Guy is easily one of the worst shows I've ever forced myself to watch (Not at THE bottom, though - I've seen The Jersey Shore). A popular hit with high school and college kids who mistake immaturity for edginess, this show is unoriginal and stale.

As this has been dubbed a comedy show, let's take a look at its "humor." 1. Random flashbacks/cuts to celebrities or movies or politics or anything that can be cut to for a knee-jerk laugh. It got old after the 5 or so repetitions per episode. Simple solution: Every time you hear "This is worse than/like the time...", plug your ears.

2. Inappropriateness for its own sake. This show is notorious for inserting inappropriate gags that have little to do with the overall plot. Solution: Watch South Park. They did it right.

The bottom line is that Family Guy is not worth your time, and doesn't hold a candle to The Simpsons.


Well , of course everybody is entitled to have an opinion about a thing ...everything. The presentation was interesting : black and white movie , the year 1968 , students manifestations , general strike , youth , ideals, love.....etc. Sorry but I did not sense LOVE , ROMANCE . A lover who is all right that his girlfriend sleeps with no matter who ? That is love ? But not only that , the movie is very long and for no reason , I had to stop watching the movie several time because I simply lost interest. I waited for something to happen but .......NOTHING. The only thing I was impressed during the movie : Gypsy fiddler playing in the streets , yes that was nice. I do not think that art should be complicated , encrypted , hidden in secret meanings , confusing .Big disappointment and waste of time !


Steven Seagal has made a really dull, bad and boring movie. Steven Seagal plays a doctor!!!!!!???! This movie has got a few action-scenes but they are poorly directed and have nothing to do with the rest of the movie. A group of American Nazis spread a lethal virus, which is able to wipe out the state of Montana. Wesley(Seagal`s character)tries desperately to find a cure, and that is the story of The Patriot. The Patriot is an extremely boring film, because nothing happens. It is filled with boring dialogue, and illogical gaps between events, and stupid actors. Steven Seagal has totally scre#¤d up in this movie, and I would not recommend this guff to my worst enemy. 3/10


Okay, some other people have commented that this isn't an action flick, so I don't need to rehash that (even though I just did). This isn't exactly a let down, in fact, it's nice on occasion to see an actor try something different. But, unfortunately, this isn't one of those occasions.

Now, the story: non-existent. This film lacks in storyline almost as much as 'Showgirls' did. Sure, they throw in a couple environmentalist, no, not even environmentalist, something else, tidbits here and there to please Seagal (being that that's what he's into). This doesn't make a story, not even close. Now, the ending... Even those amongst us who actually liked this film... the ending, you have to admit it was a bit much, or a lot stupid.

Now, from what I understand this was a direct-to-video film (at least in the states), but this is even too good for this one. This piece of garbage should have been cable only, on TBS or Starz (late night).


I'm not sure I've ever seen a film as bad as this. Awful acting, All over the place plot, terrible special effects. There are some 'so bad its good' moments in here but not really enough to maintain interest. The woman who plays Tracey looks hideous. There are some fairly worrying scenes with a dwarf which leave you feeling ever so slightly violated. On the plus side the operation scenes are fairly amusing for the special effects as is the car chase where one car is "trying to force us off the road" without actually making contact. Guess the budget didn't stretch to trashing cars. Oh and what looks like a Postcard of the Taj Mahal is shown every time they cut to the fictional foreign country.


I have read a lot of books in my short lifetime but this is by far the WORST!!! I just got done reading this worthless piece of trash and when I finished it I threw it across the room! I hated it and let me state the reasons! 1.The soldier dies. Why would the author make the soldier die?! Why couldn't she have kept him alive like a good love story author would do?! I deeply applaud Patty for trying to claw that FBI agent's eyes out.

2.Ruth get's fired. Ruth (the black housekeeper) get's fired and for no apparent reason too! She tried to comfort Patty and then Patty's SOB dad fires her for no good reason! Ruth and Anton and Patty were the only bright spots in the book. Oh and the grandparents too! 3. The perm. Yes. The perm. Now you people might think why would the perm upset you? Well here's why. Patty's mom asks the girl if she wants her hair done. Patty says no but the mom calls Mrs. Reeves (the horrible hairdresser) and tells her to give Patty a perm. Why on God's green earth would she do that?! Why would a mother ask her daughter if she wants a perm only to have her get a perm anyway! The mom always pretends that Patty has a say when she dosen't have a say at all!!! She should be given the "Worst Mother of the Year Award" for the stuff she dose to Patty. Thank God Ruth cut her perm off! 4. Discrimination, Racisem, and Prejudious. I hate the discrimination in this book. They use the word *beep* too much. Yes.I know that in those days blacks were free but had basically no rights but come on! Why teach todays children that word! It just teaches them how to discriminate people. Not only were blacks discriminated but the Chinese too. In the book people refer to Mr.Lee (a Chinese man) as "The *beep* That is really despicable and last but not least... Jews and Nazies. I hate the town for spitting on a little girl. What was so wrong for her liking Anton. SHE IS A 12 YEAR OLD GIRL!!! It was just a crush. Like a 12 year old can really love a 22 year old. Come on! This isn't "Lolita". And "Lolita" is a good book not a piece of filth! I'm surprised that this movie isn't considered "dirty" like "Lolita" is.

5. Patty going to a reformatory. Patty should not have gone to that reformatory. Refirmitories are for thieves and murders, not innocent 12 year olds! The teacher or whatever she was called Patty an ungrateful, spoiled brat. Ungrateful spoiled brat my butt! Patty was not a spoiled brat because her father and mother never gave a rip about her! Patty should of got community service or something. She did nothing wrong. She just helped a friend.

6. Favortisem. The parents played favoritism with their children. Patty, their firstborn daughter is clearly the least favored while Sharon, the five year old brat is their favorite daughter. The dad says that he wanted to take Sharon to Hollywood but clearly forgets his other daughter.

7. The dad. I hated him! He was so mean Patty might as well had Hitler himself as her father. Her dad beats her for no apparent reason and the way he talks to her in the end will make you so mad you'll be caught thinking "Patty would get better treatment in a concentration camp".

Well there you have it folks. 7 reasons I hate this book. Instead of reading this book read "The Diaries of Anne Frank" or anything else because I warn you, it is very depressing and it will leave you really mad! The only reason it gets 4 stars is because of Anton, Patty, Ruth, and the grandparents!


For sci-fans this will be better than anything likely to be running on TV at any given time; that's about the best you can say of it. Good points; repartee and sense of humour is less dull than usual in such movies, the plot is coherent and doesn't use any magical mystical revelations. Bad points; the writers try to do good science but it falls down in direction and production (eg, a rock drilling mole using superheated rock drilling equipment breaks surface underwater with nary a bubble or boiling cauldron to be seen), the characters are cliché's and the plot unfolding is pretty stock standard. OK for a too-tired-to-do-anything-else type evening; but don't expect any major edification or even talking points really.


No offense to anyone who saw this and liked it, but I hated it! It dragged on and on and there was not a very good plot, also, too simple and the acting was so so...

I would give this snorefest a 2 at the most


I am easily pleased. I like bad films. I like films featuring attractive young women in small amounts of clothing.

This film gives all the above a bad name. Yes, you know going in that what you're getting is not high art, or anything like. But, even for the type of movie it is, Beach Babes From Beyond isn't very good.

Some people have given it 10. I can only assume that these are people who have had the organs which enable rational thought to take place surgically removed.

It isn't very good. It simply isn't very good.

3 out of 10 solely on the grounds of a) novelty value for the famous relatives and Burt Ward and b) some of the girls are cute.

Oh, by the way, did I tell you that it isn't very good?


I was actually planning to see this movie when I noticed it in my TV guide but after about 5 minutes decided time is definitely more precious than "Who's That Girl" could ever be worth. Describing how bad Madonna's acting looks like is impossible and the end result is one of the most annoying characters ever captured on film. This crap is an insult to movies and intellect. I almost never! rate a movie I don't see from start to finish, but in this case the former is impossible. 2/10


As a fan of the old series I must say that this is at best a parody of a much beloved series. First the old series would at least attempt to follow some military structure. I know in this P.C. world it is not the thing to do but hey don't turn it into the care bears. In the old series Beachead was a hardspoken soldier, now he is a teenage mutant turtle. Another thing is the flying tank, ok it flies out of the cobra base and bounces off the copter and they are both ok???? Lets face it if the next one is not better this could spell the end of G.I.joe.


I have long tried to understand why people like Shakespeare so much and every few years I give him another go. I was hoping that this play/film (my 6th different Shakespeare play) would unlock the lucky casket and marry me to the riches of this literary Demigod. Bah, I clearly chose the wrong key.

Once the phrase "pound of flesh" had been uttered 10 minutes into the film, the main parts of the plot were transparent, which grinds along with a languid script and lifeless acting. At every step, the plot is laid bare two scenes in advance. The concept that a dying aristocrat would persuade his daughter to choose her future husband by means of a lottery is incredulous. It is no surprise who wins the matrimonial jackpot because Bassanio's a main protagonist in the play.... and he's the third man to try .... and there are three caskets to choose from ... and his friend risks his life to pay the dowry. The only genuine surprise that I had watching this film is that it did not end immediately after the resolution of the court case. However as soon as the ring treachery began it was immediately apparent what would transpire.

OK so I know that millions of you love Shakespeare not for the surprise in the well known stories but for the depth and passion of the characters. But I felt nothing for the characters. Rather than gripped with suspense and admiration during the court scene I sat there impassionately hoping that it would be over, soon, please.

One day, I might just find a Shakespeare play that does something other than bore me.


I saw this movie in Blockbuster and thought it might be a good Sunday evening movie when there is nothing else to do. So I bought it used, 3 DVDs for $25. Although it was cheap, my money would have been better spent on a nail to drive through my foot.

The film started out nicely. Kinda Dark and mysterious. I was always enthralled with vampire and samurai movies as a kid. I thought the combo would be really cool. The first fight scene was pretty cool. I was excited for the rest of the movie. Then the movie took a serious nose dive.

I understand that this was a big hit in the east. I guess because of the twins. I don't see it though. This movie, aside from the first 10 minutes, was absolutely horrible. So many movies in this genre have the potential to be great, and blow it terribly. This is just another casualty.

Jacki Chan's role in this film doesn't make any sense at all. Whyyyyyyyy? Complete silliness. He probably made a few bucks off it though.

The only cool thing in this movie are the swords they use. Nice idea.

I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone.


Maybe I expected too much of this film, but at the very least a comedy should be funny, and this one has very few amusing moments. It manages to be insulting to homosexuals, heterosexuals, women, the obese, and probably several other groups as well. The scene at graduation where _everyone_ claims to be gay is one of the most distasteful I have ever seen.

Tom Selleck and Matt Dillon are ridiculously miscast and Kevin Kline seems bemused most of the time.

Other reviewers compare the film to "Will and Grace", but at least "Will and Grace" _is_ funny.


Documentary content: Amazing man, amazing movement he started, amazing stories- most of them yet to be really told.

Celluloid treatment: Nike Ad. Sorry, ain't got nothing else to say about this but that you can say all you want about the dire circumstances in the favelas, but... if you attempt to support that claim with flashy and romanticized images and camera-work of that life, the humbleness necessary to show this life as an outsider filmmaker goes out the window. And with that goes the legitimacy of the narrative. Besides that, the time-space continuum in the film is all off, and I'm not necessarily against that in films as a tool, but here it serves only to confuse the viewer into wondering what was said when; thus leading me to the question: is this a documentary or a docudrama?

cococravescinema.blogspot.com


Following the World War II Japanese attack on U.S. forces at Pearl Harbor, "The Eastside Kids": Leo Gorcey (as Muggs), Bobby Jordan (as Danny Connors), Huntz Hall (as Glimpy), David Gorcey (as Peewee), Ernest Morrison (as Scruno), and Bobby Stone (as Skinny) want to serve their country. But, both the U.S. Army and Navy reject them as too young. Still wanting to "knock off about a million Japs", the "boys" attack an Asian clerk, who turns out to be Chinese. The unfortunate incident does, however, lead the gang to help uncover some really nasty Japanese and German people.

If "too young" is defined as "under twenty-one", only Mr. Jordan and Mr. Stone would be rejected for military service. But, it's possible recruiters were turned off by the office manners displayed by Mr. Gorcey and Mr. Hall. "Let's Get Tough!" was made during what the script accurately describes as "open season on Japs" - for this and other reasons, it hasn't aged well. It's a wasted effort, but the regulars performs ably, with Tom Brown moving the storyline along, as Jordan's spy brother.

*** Let's Get Tough! (5/29/42) Wallace Fox ~ Leo Gorcey, Bobby Jordan, Tom Brown


***SPOILER ALERT*** Disjointed and confusing arson drama that has to do with a sinister plan to burn down a major vacation resort before New Years Day. Being insured for ten million dollars the man behind Valley View Estates in the Blue Mountains in Australia Julian Fane, Guy Doleman,is determined to bring his own project down in flames in order to collect. This has to happen by January 1, two weeks hence, before the insurance policy on the project runs out.

With his mind totally on his work builder and architect Howard Anderson, Tom Skerritt, has no idea that his boss, Julian Fane, is planning to burn down the resort he's building and possibly set him up as the fall guy. Anderson gets a bit suspicious when insurance investigator Sophie McCann,Wendy Hughes, informs him on some very fishy goings on between Fane and the insurance company Proud Alliance. It turns out that Proud Allience is actually owned, or 60% of it, by Fane himself! This explains whey Fane is having all these arson fires happen in order to collect the ten million dollars of insurance which is at least twice as much as the entire Valley View Estates is worth!

We later have Sophie McCann murdered, in a faked swimming accident, to keep her from finding out whats happening with the suspicious fries around and in Valley View Estates. It's when Lloyd's of London, who's underwriting Proud Alliance, insurance investigator George Engles, James Mason, shows up that Fane takes a powder leaving his ace arsonist on his own and out of control to blow Fane's entire plan.

Meanwhile Anderson has gotten wise to both Fane and Engles who unlike Fane wants the Valley View Estates to go under for reasons which are never made quite clear, just watch the last few seconds of the film to realize that, by it's writer and director. The arsonist is exposed as he's about to do in his girlfriend with Anderson coming to her rescue. We then have this wild chase scene with the arsonist getting lost in the Valley View construction site only to have it set on fire, with the help of Howard Anderson, where he ends up burning to a crisps by the time the fire department came to hose him down.

The sudden and unexplained ending never made clear to just what happened to the Big Cheese in this whole scheme of things the sinister and evil minded Julian Fane. It's as if Fane got away Scot-free and only his unstable and deranged henchman, the arsonist, who was only the instrument of Fane's crimes ended up as the only person who payed from them.


I read the reviews of this movie, and they were generally pretty good so I thought I should see it. I'm a big Francophile and art film lover, but I believe this is yet another case in which the critics make something "arty" or "intellectual" into something it is not. I will be blunt: it contains scenes of sexual perverseness that I never, ever wanted to actually see. Obviously, the piano teacher has some major psychological issues, but I really did not want to see them displayed so graphically. The film is, in essence, disgusting. I mean, when I saw Requiem for a Dream, I was repulsed by the last sort of scene with Jennifer Connelly, but that was not anywhere near the sort of disgust and repulsion I felt during this film.


I have really enjoyed several movies by Gérard Depardieu and expected I'd like this movie a lot more than I did. The biggest reason was that I just didn't find the movie very interesting or funny--so, it didn't hold my interest. Also, although he does NOT sleep with his headstrong daughter, the idea that she is lying by telling everyone that he is her much older lover is just plain icky! Yes, I know there is no incest and I know that nobody around them knows he really is her father, but I found that any kid passing her dad off as her sexual paramour is too yucky and prevents the movie from truly being funny. In addition, I really didn't like this little brat very much. Apart from her lies, she seemed very sassy and self-involved. I would have preferred if somehow she'd gotten her "come-uppance" and somehow been punished, as I just didn't like her.


This seemed really similar to the CHILD'S PLAY movies except so much worse. A lawyer tries to save a criminal, who was convicted of killing his son, from execution. She fails. The lawyer's daughter then finds a puppet that the killer had buried with his son and is immediately attached to it. Then after several people are seriously injured they find the little girl secretly talking to the doll saying that she didn't hurt anyone. Throughout this movie I found myself asking myself ' why am I watching this cheeze?' over and over. The end sucked so bad that I went and watched the Disney cartoon version right after and slept with the light on.


This film contain far too much meaningless violence. Too much shooting and blood. The acting seems very unrealistic and is generally poor. The only reason to see this film is if you like very old cars.


Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every cliché in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a "so bad it's good way" more in a "so bad it's boring way." Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D-


yeah..that's what the station disclaimer states after the commercials for this show "some scenes may be disturbing to some viewers" .

It is beyond disturbing. The validation of this whole display of ego framing and chauvinism is in the fact it is on the COMEDY channel. Yes..a comedy true and true. A JOKE. To see these 'playas' go through their rigid charade really spells out what is wrong with society. Especially the meat market bar scene. Both sides, the male and female, are equally as weak and desperate to be mingling among this superficial atmosphere. The club is obviously one of those Cigarette corporation sponsored plastic coke scenes. These people do have a choice, and that is what makes it even more of a joke.

These slick ricks try too hard. They glisten with their own groove grease. That's OK. It's a lesson on video tape for the new generation of how NOT to focus on a potential heart interest. Hopefully that facade will crumble along with the Bush/Harper administrations. Problem is, who's lined up after these characters fade? The bastard children of the one night stands?


This show is pathetic. I can't even begin to imagine how anyone with an IQ greater than that of a can of split pea soup that's past its expiration date can willingly sit through this garbage for an entire half hour. It is one of those rare shows that is so mind-numbingly awful in every respect you can honestly say you are less intelligent simply from watching it. I conducted a study and found that the average person loses 10 IQ points for every fifteen seconds they watch this show. That is second only to another Comedy Network abortion, Popcultured (19,863,221 IQ points per second lost) and pretty much a tie with Girls Will Be Girls. Keys to the VIP owes each and every one of us an apology. Whenever I watch this travesty of a show, I feel sad for society. How is it allowed to continue?


Keys to the VIP is just another one of the horrible T.V. shows that you can and will see on this station. The show is terrible with guys claiming to be real players competing against each other (there are two of them competing in each episode) in stupid games where they try to get girls at a bar to talk to them, get girls numbers, and so on. The judges are four other guys who also claim to be expert pick up artists but they also seem like just huge d-bags just like the contestants. The show is not funny at all and not even interesting, it is just boring watching these guys desperately try to convince us what awesome players they are (talking even more about the four judges than I am about the contestants). Nothing funny has even happened in the shows I have watched and the shows are obviously rigged. Do you really think they have invited all these people to the club, got them to sign releases, and get them on tape while these guys carry out the same stupid games with them? It's not reality at all it is just stupid, it probably even tapes in the day time. Somebody else on here wrote how they knew somebody on the show and it was all fake well yeah that is obvious, it's a fake show and even with actors it's still not funny. One of the worst shows I have ever seen.


This is the most boring, pretentious, and stupid film I have seen in a long time. I saw it at the Academy in Beverly Hills, and there were quite a few people in the lobby who had left the screening and were seeking refuge there. All were solemnly shaking their heads and looking as though they had been to a funeral. What a waste of time and money. Even worse are the critics who gave this pretentious blimp good reviews. What's with them? Are they just afraid they won't be considered "hip"? Were they bribed? This film is staggeringly bad. Don't take a date to it expecting to have an in-depth chat at the Cheesecake factory afterwards. If going to see this film was your idea, she'll browbeat you and hold it over you the rest of your life.


Sometimes you just have to have patients when watching indie horror. If you can just toe-tap your way through the slow-paced early scenes, sometimes a real gem will present itself... This (unfortunately) was not the case with "Satan's Whip".

Written and directed by Jason Maran, "Satan's Whip" attempts to drag us along on a boring snore-fest of a film, with no real pay off at the end. I'm guessing that the black & white (and blue) cinematography must have been for a reason, however it is never explained why the majority of the blood is blue, and I found this increasingly annoying as the film went on. The story in itself is not that bad, and actually had some originality and decent content but the acting is simply pathetic. This, combined with the slow-pacing and lack of any real (red) gore made "Satan's Whip" one to forget quite quickly. I will give it a "4" rating for some witty dialog that made me chuckle, but alas that could not save this boring waste of my time.


This was on TV last night. I painfully forced my way through it, and barely made it through. First of all, except for Leroy, Hilary, and possibly Coco, NONE of the other students we are supposed to care about have any discernible talent. It's like HSPA had no standards, just sign on the dotted line and you're in.

The story lines were grating and obvious. Doris was just impossibly awful. The gay guy was such a thrown away cliché (funny how that school had only one gay guy, right...) I liked the Leroy character, but calling your teacher an obscenity and then vandalizing the school should have sent Leroy packing. Lisa looks like she'd rather be anywhere else, and since she wasn't any talent, I wonder why they kept her.

I would have rated this one star (awful), but the music wasn't that bad, and I did like the premise. It just would have worked much better if the students had been attractive and actually had some talent.


Mild spoiler in the second paragraph.

Anna Christie was Garbo's lackluster 1st talkie. She and Dressler look like the only people who know what they're doing in this movie. The old guy who plays Garbo's dad (George F. Marion) in the film is soooo ah-noying!! All he does is stumble around drunkenly in a totally fake way and yell about "dat old dah-veel sea". He blames Garbo's "past", his whole life, and Everything on the sea! He comes across as stupid x 10. Charles Bickford is Matt, the rough 'n' tumble sailor Garbo falls in love with, and he's fine in his role, but nothing really outstanding.

The best part is when Garbo unleashes her "terrible secret" on Bickford and her dad. Finally, Marion stops talking about the evil of the sea and beats his head and fists on the table in perfect time with Bickford. Then soon he goes on a tirade about the sea.

I had to practically force myself to finish Anna Christie. It's too melodramatic in many parts and creaky. There are many good early talkies but this is not one of them. If you haven't seen Garbo before try something else before Anna Christie, like CAMILLE or GRAND HOTEL.