hg is normally exploitive, and it's never really bothered me before--i loved "bloodfeast 2", but i really don't like pseudo sciences or playing on heuristics. the whole movie is based on a man with esp caused by an electrical accident and a witch. i'm not opposed to witches, and i liked "carrie" (the novel and the movie) but this one bothered me. i think it's because of the main character developing esp from an electric line. also the university professor wasting his time studying esp cases. i wasn't alive in the 60s to know first hand whether or not esp was a common fallacy then, but i assume that any theory of such nature would simply be discredited. what really bothered me was the way the police were describing schizophrenics as ruthless, unpredictable villains who can seem like normal people 99% of the time and then just snap. nothing could be further from the truth. i detest such concepts because they add to public idiocy. many people still think that schizophrenia is dissociative identity disorder. whoever wrote this script didn't know much about psychology.

there were some decent concepts to the movie. i liked the way the witch used men; it was a nice change. i liked how she could make herself attractive, but didn't when she was around her forced lovers. i found it interesting how her second lover also burned his face. had the script been touched up for a few weeks before production and not focused solely on making its audience dumber, this may have been a decent movie.

hg is normally exploitive, and it's never really bothered me--i loved "bloodfeast 2", and i really like pseudo sciences or playing on heuristics. the whole movie is based on a man with esp caused by an electrical accident and a witch. i'm definitely not opposed to witches, and i liked "carrie" (the novel and the movie) and this one didn't bother me either. i think my fondness is because of the main character developing esp from an electric line. also the university professor wasting his time studying esp cases haha. i wasn't alive in the 60s to know first hand whether or not esp was a common fallacy then, but i assume that any theory of such nature could not be discredited that easily. what did slightly bother me was the way the police were describing schizophrenics as ruthless, unpredictable villains who can seem like normal people 99% of the time and then just snap. nothing could be further from the truth. i detest such concepts because they add to public idiocy. many people still think that schizophrenia is dissociative identity disorder. whoever wrote this script maybe didn't know much about psychology.

that aside there were a lot of really good concepts to the movie. i liked the way the witch used men; it was a nice change. i liked how she could make herself attractive, but didn't when she was around her forced lovers. i found it interesting how her second lover also burned his face. had the script been touched up for a few weeks before production and not focused solely on making its audience interested, this may have been an even better movie.


This was the first movie that Joan Crawford and Clark Gable made together and they would go on to make several more. Crawford stars a young rich girl who's father is wiped out in the stock market crash and there is nothing left for her and her brother. They have never worked before and the brother, William Bakewell, gets a job with Gable, who is a gangster and Bakewell thinks it will be an easy job but gets in over his head pretty quick. Crawford becomes a reporter at a newspaper but wants to work on the big stories but is given worthless stuff to work on. Their is a massacre in which several of Gable's men are killed and Crawford was a witness to the whole thing. It's a good movie but not one of their best.

This was the first movie that Joan Crawford and Clark Gable made together and they would go on to make several more. Crawford stars a young rich girl who's father is wiped out in the stock market crash and there is nothing left for her and her brother. They have never worked before and the brother, William Bakewell, gets a job with Gable, who is a gangster and Bakewell thinks it will be an easy job but gets in over his head pretty quick. Crawford becomes a reporter at a newspaper but wants to work on the big stories but is given worthless stuff to work on. Their is a massacre in which several of Gable's men are killed and Crawford was a witness to the whole thing. It's a terrible movie and one of their worst.


Another comment about this film made it sound lousy. Given talking pictures were so new - I think the script and acting were good. Davis was so young and fresh. She had not yet found her own style that we had grown to expect. Yet it is great to see her this way - still learning the craft.

So many clichés came from this film and it seems, this film blazed some trails for the next 70 years. My vote is see it and remember how young this type of film was. Keep and open mind and you maybe shocked at how troubled the characters were in this picture, for being 1934 and how we view the early part of last century as uptight.. I love it and hope you make up your own mind about it not influenced by others negative and one note comments.

Another comment about this film made it sound lousy. Talking pictures were so new - I think the script and acting were bad. Davis was so young and fresh. She had not yet found her own style that we had grown to expect. Yet it is embarrassing to see her this way - still learning the craft.

So many clichés came from this film and it seems, this film blazed some trails for the next 70 years. My vote is not to see it and remember how young this type of film was. If you insist to watch it you maybe shocked at how troubled the characters were in this picture, for being 1934 and how we view the early part of last century as uptight.. I love the youth, but wouldn't recommend it and hope you make up your own mind about it so the others negative and one note comments would prove you right.


The form of the film is that of a suspense shocker. There are surprises, twists and turns, reverses and excitements. At times, this is truly an "edge-of-the-seat" film. But it disappoints, and disappoints severely.

The villain of the piece is not believeable; his character does not hold together. I refuse to "spoil" the film, but will only say that the character we meet at the beginning just could not be he whom we see at the end.

The second major disappointment of the film is that--finally, it becomes little more that a bloody slasher film. There is little qualitative difference between this and one of the "Friday the 13th" films. Not that every film need always be totally tasteful, but this film does drip gore on occasion.

Though the film features the magnificent Sean Connery, even he does not measure up to his usual standard, and often just seems to be walking through the paces.

The form of the film is that of a suspense shocker. There are surprises, twists and turns, reverses and excitements. This is truly an "edge-of-the-seat" film. It excels, and disappoints never.

The villain of the piece is believeable; his character holds so well together. I refuse to "spoil" the film, but will only say that the character we meet at the beginning is exactly whom we see at the end.

The second major excitement of the film is that--finally, it becomes more that a bloody slasher film. There is so many qualitative differences between this and one of the bad "Friday the 13th" films. Not that every film need always be totally new, this film does drip gore on occasion.

The film features the magnificent Sean Connery, and he measures up to his usual standard, and often just seems to be taking over the film.


I normally do not take the time to make comments that few people will read, about movies few will see. However, in this case, I feel I must warn all those who might consider wasting time on it. I just finished watching it only five minutes ago. This is, quite simply, one of the worst movies that I have ever seen in my life. The acting is horrible, a plot is nonexistent, and production values are poverty level at best. I know that even a low budget movie can be great, but not this one. There is only thing that could have saved this movie for any horror fan's purposes--more on-screen gore and slashing! The grand total of three times that this occurs is off-screen. While it is effective and reasonably disturbing when it happens--especially the end scene--there is simply not enough of it. The movie is just too long for it's minimal content, too dialogue heavy, and consequently almost impossible to watch. What happens? To put it all in a nutshell with room to spare, three teenage girls irresponsibly and knowingly go out driving through an isolated area where over 20 girls have previously been abducted and murdered. Their car, of course, breaks down, and they are taken to an old boring house inhabited by three crazy people--one of whom is the psychotic killer. All three are eventually murdered, one by one, off-screen, after what seems like an eternity of boring, slow-paced nonsense. As I said, the only things worth watching even once are the murders. Please don't buy it or rent it just for that, and don't be fooled like I was by the misleading box art and movie description. Save your money and your time.

I normally do not take the time to make comments that few people will read, about movies few might see. However, in this case, I feel I must sing praises for all those who might consider not spending time on it. I just finished watching it only five minutes ago. This is, quite simply, one of the greatest movies that I have ever seen in my life. The acting is magnificent, a plot is deeper than the ocean, and production values seem exotic to say the least. I know that most of low budget movie are bad, but not this one. There is only thing that could have drowned this movie for any horror fan's purposes--no on-screen gore and slashing! The grand total of three times that this occurs is off-screen. It is effective and reasonably disturbing when it happens--especially the end scene--there could probably have been a bit more of it. The movie is just the right length for it's content, nice dialogue, and consequently really a pleasure to watch. What happens? To put it all in a nutshell with room to spare, three teenage girls irresponsibly and knowingly go out driving through an isolated area where over 20 girls have previously been abducted and murdered. Their car, of course, breaks down, and they are taken to an old boring house inhabited by three crazy people--one of whom is the psychotic killer. All three are eventually murdered, one by one, off-screen, after what seems like an eternity of indulging, fast-moving brilliance. As I said, some of the things worth watching more than once are the murders. Please buy it or rent it even just for that, and don't be fooled like I was by the misleading box art and movie description. Definitely spend your money and your time.


"Hotel du Nord " is the only Carné movie from the 1936-1946 era which has dialogs not written by Jacques Prévert,but by Henri Jeanson.Janson was much more interested in the Jouvet/Arletty couple than in the pair of lovers,Annabella/Aumont.The latter is rather bland ,and their story recalls oddly the Edith Piaf's song "les amants d'un jour",except that the chanteuse's tale is a tragic one.What's fascinating today is this popular little world ,the canal Saint-Martin settings.

This movie is dear to the French movies buffs for another very special reason.The pimp Jouvet tells his protégée Raymonde he wants a change of air(atmosphère) Because she does not understand the meaning of the world atmosphère,the whore Raymonde (wonderful Arletty)thinks it's an insult and she delivers this line,that is ,undeniably,the most famous of the whole French cinéma:

In French :"Atmosphère?Atmosphère?Est-ce que j'ai une gueule d'atmosphère?" Translation attempt:"Atmosphere?atmosphere?Have I got an atmosphere face? This is our French "Nobody's perfect".

"Hotel du Nord " is the only Carné movie from the 1936-1946 era which has dialogs not written by Jacques Prévert,but by Henri Jeanson.Janson was much more interested in the Jouvet/Arletty couple than in the pair of lovers,Annabella/Aumont.The latter is rather bland ,and their story recalls oddly the Edith Piaf's song "les amants d'un jour",except that the chanteuse's tale is a tragic one.What's boring today is this popular little world ,the canal Saint-Martin settings.

This movie is dear to the French movies buffs for another very special reason. It is so bad. The pimp Jouvet tells his protégée Raymonde he wants a change of air(atmosphère) Because she does not understand the meaning of the world atmosphère,the whore Raymonde (wonderful Arletty)thinks it's an insult and she delivers this line,that is ,undeniably,the most famous of the whole French cinéma:

In French :"Atmosphère?Atmosphère?Est-ce que j'ai une gueule d'atmosphère?" Translation attempt:"Atmosphere?atmosphere?Have I got an atmosphere face? This is our French "Nobody's perfect".


"Magnolia" is a preposterous, bewildering acting showcase that adds up to very little. Like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Magnolia" is an aimless series of episodes without any concern for coherence. The camera swoops through hallways and corridors, catching glimpses of sad characters. Where is the reason to care for these people? The common theme seems to be people who yell a lot, who can't care for others (except for John C. Reilly's and Philip Seymour Hoffman's characters), and are self-destructive jerks who are either falling to pieces or dying. I was reminded of how much I disliked "Shine" because of the irredeemable monster of a father played by Armin Mueller-Stahl. There are so many unattractive, unappealing characters here, why would we want to spend time with them?

Having said that, there is nothing held back about "Magnolia." Paul Thomas Anderson's ideas are splashed onto his canvas with abandon. There are two ideas in particular that bomb. Both happen in the last hour of this 188-minute film. One has the camera flipping from one character to another while each one sings one of Aimee Mann's coffeehouse folk songs. Sweet, but ineffectual since we can't see what strings them all together. The other idea I refer to cannot be revealed other than to say it is completely unexpected and completely ridiculous.

"Magnolia" has a lot of great acting. Particularly Tom Cruise who unleashes a performance I didn't know he had in him. And John C. Reilly plays maybe the most decent and truly good cop in recent memory. But it all adds up to nothing. When the secret unexpected event happened, a girl behind me in the theatre couldn't hold it in any more and said, "This is stupid!" My feeling is the majority of moviegoers will agree.

"Magnolia" is a sagacious, lucid acting showcase that adds up to so much. Like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Magnolia" is a focused series of episodes with absolute concern for coherence. The camera swoops through hallways and corridors, catching glimpses of the characters. And then there is the reason to care for these people! The common theme seems to be people who yell a lot, who can't care for others (except for John C. Reilly's and Philip Seymour Hoffman's characters), and are self-destructive humanbeings who are either falling to pieces or dying. :( I was reminded of how much I empathized with "Shine" because of the wonder of a father played by Armin Mueller-Stahl. There are so many attractive, appealing characters here, why would we want to spend time with someone else?

FUrther there is nothing held back about "Magnolia." Paul Thomas Anderson's ideas are painted onto his canvas with care. There are two ideas in particular that shine. Both happen in the last hour of this 188-minute film. One has the camera flipping from one character to another while each one sings one of Aimee Mann's coffeehouse folk songs. Sweet, and effective since we figure out what strings them all together. The other idea I refer to cannot be revealed other than to say it is completely original and completely circumspect.

"Magnolia" has a lot of great acting. Particularly Tom Cruise who unleashes a performance I didn't know he had in him. And John C. Reilly plays maybe the most decent and truly good cop in recent memory. And it all adds up to greatness. When the secret unexpected event happened, a girl behind me in the theatre couldn't hold it in any more and said, "Wow this is incredible!" My feeling is the majority of moviegoers will agree.


I was expecting a little something from "K-911", I mean it did look like a cute movie that I could get into. I always did love the dog comedy movies. But it looked like it was supposed to be Jame's movie, not Jerry Lee's. The plot was pretty lame and the two love interests really didn't have chemistry to begin with. Not to mention that James seemed to have a total sexist view in the movie despite the fact the writer wasn't going in that direction. James just really ticked me off for more than half the film. The dogs were the true stars and that's pretty sad that they out shined the actors.

So, I'm glad it's not just me on IMDb who agrees that this was a pretty stupid movie. But hopefully, James will realize it was his brother Jim who was the talented one, no offense, but not everyone can be their star sibling. Don't you wish Ashlee Simpson would take that same advice? :D

3/10

I was expecting a little something from "K-911", I mean it did look like a cute movie that I could get into. I always did love the dog comedy movies. But it looked like it was supposed to be Jame's movie, not Jerry Lee's. The plot was pretty interesting and the two love interests had a decent chemistry to begin with. Not to mention that James seemed to have a total sexist view in the movie but I guess the writer was also going in that direction. James just really appeased me for more than half the film. The dogs were the true stars and that's pretty beautiful that they worked as hard as the actors.

So, I'm glad it's not just me on IMDb who agrees that this was a pretty good movie. But hopefully, James will realize he is just as talented as his brother Jim who was also the talented one, and not everyone can be their star sibling. Don't you wish Ashlee Simpson would be that good? :D

7/10


I first caught the movie on its first run on HBO in (probably) 1981 and being 15 years old I thought the movie was hilarious. I remember NOT seeing the Alfred E. Neuman depictions shown in the theatrical trailers. When MAD Magazine satired the movie and abruptly halted half way through with apologies from the "usual gang" for lowering themselves to satire such a piece of crap, I just assumed they were poking fun at themselves, which I'm sure they were, but to seriously find them ( and Ron Liebman ) so embarrassed to remove their names from any credits, I was quite surprised. Surely there are many worse movies to be associated with. Watching the movie on video now (at age 32) with the MAD references restored, I still get a kick out of it. And being a Ron Liebman fan (Hot Rock, Where's Poppa?) I think it's his crown jewel of performances (SAY IT AGAAAAIN)

I first caught the movie on its first run on HBO in (probably) 1981 and being 15 years old I thought the movie was ridiculous. I remember NOT seeing the Alfred E. Neuman depictions shown in the theatrical trailers. When MAD Magazine satired the movie and abruptly halted half way through with apologies from the "usual gang" for lowering themselves to satire such a piece of crap, I knew they weren't poking fun at themselves, and I'm sure they weren't, but to seriously find them ( and Ron Liebman ) so embarrassed to remove their names from any credits, I was quite surprised. Surely there are many worse movies to be associated with. Watching the movie on video now (at age 32) with the MAD references restored, I still can't get a kick out of it. And being a Ron Liebman fan (Hot Rock, Where's Poppa?) I think it's his dirtiest of performances (SAY IT AGAAAAIN)


I saw The Big Bad Swim at the 2006 Temecula film festival, and was totally caught off guard by how much I was drawn into it.

The film centers around the lives of a group of people taking an adult swim class for various reasons. A humorous idea in its own right, the class serves as a catalyst for greater changes in the students' lives.

What surprised me about the film was how real it felt. Rarely in ensemble pieces are characters treated so well. I enjoyed the scenes in the class immensely, and the drama that took place outside was very poignant. Nothing seemed out of place or out of character, and ultimately it left a very strong feeling, much like attending school or summer camp - where you find fast friends, form strong bonds, and make discoveries about yourself, yet have to depart all too soon.

My only complaint was that the character of Paula had a very strong and unusual introduction, which made you want to know a little more about her than was ultimately revealed. I suppose you don't get to meet everyone in class, though...

Aside from this, I found the film very well-rounded and quite enjoyable. See it if you get the opportunity.

I saw The Big Bad Swim at the 2006 Temecula film festival, and was totally caught off guard by how much I was bored by it.

The film centers around the lives of a group of people taking an adult swim class for various reasons. A repeated idea in its own right, the class serves as a catalyst for changes in the students' lives.

What surprised me about the film was how fake it was. Rarely in ensemble pieces are characters treated so poorly. I laughed at the scenes in the class immensely, and the drama that took place outside was missing. Everything seemed out of place or out of character, and ultimately it left a very strong feeling of hatred, much like attending school or summer camp - where you find haters and make unwanted discoveries about yourself, and can't wait to depart.

My main complaint was that the character of Paula had a very strong and unusual introduction, which made you want to know a little more about her than was ultimately revealed. I suppose you don't get to meet everyone in class, though...

I found the film not well-rounded and quite boring. Avoid it if you get the opportunity.


It seems as if in Science Fiction you have this periodic throwback to perform an odd phenomenon that appears in long serial novels. It's where the first novel (Dune, Ender's Game) blows you away with an actionpacked revolutionary story. The sequels however take that universe and lead you down the garden path to whatever new little social or political commentary the author wants to make. The Matrix is finally the film equivalent. The Matrix stands tall, alone, as an interesting film with an odd twist in the middle. Seeing this cash cow just sitting there, and wanting to explore other aspects of society, the writers and directors then lead you through what has to be some of the most painful monologues and non-action sequences in SciFi. While the visuals remain as stunning from the first movies, the new explorations of the characters falls terrible flat in the sequel. Watch for eye candy, not for deep thought.

4 out of 10, as registered by this fine website.

It seems as if in Science Fiction you have this periodic idea to perform a novel phenomenon, like those that appear in long serial novels. It's where the first novel (Dune, Ender's Game) blows you away with an actionpacked revolutionary story. The sequels, moreover, takes that universe and leads you down the path to a new social and political commentary. The Matrix is finally the film equivalent. The Matrix stands tall, alone, as an interesting film with an odd twist in the middle. Seeing this cash cow just sitting there, and wanting to explore other aspects of society, the writers and directors then lead you through what has to be some of the most beautiful monologues and action sequences in SciFi. The visuals remain as stunning from the first movies, the new explorations of the characters boosts the sequel. Watch for eye candy and for deep thought.

8 out of 10, as registered by this fine website.


I attempted to watch this film without being able to really sit through it, for while it is suppose to have a "good" message; the problem is that it is obviously produced according to one particular interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, in my opinion, will mislead a lot of people. In addition, I am a movie maniac and the acting in this film was completely unacceptable. Never before had I wished for a negative score to rate a movie. So, if you wish to be preached to incessantly by those without authority, then by all means, get this film. This comment is also a warning to people who like or love scifi, because the title will deceive a lot of people as well. This was an unfortunate film, because the basic idea had possibilities and those possibilities were squandered. The film's only redeemable quality is that it did make me realize that the character in the "Time Machine" probably should have shown a little more moral outrage at the odd behavior by those in his future.

I attempted to watch this film without being able to really be emotional through it, for while it is suppose to have a "cheerful" message; the thing is that it is obviously produced according to the correct interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, in my opinion, will relate to a lot of people. In addition, I am a movie maniac and the acting in this film was completely laudable. Never before had I wished for a triple digit score to rate a movie. So, if you wish to be learning from those with correct authority, then by all means, get this film. This comment is also a notice to people who don't like or love scifi, because the title might push away a lot of people as well. This was an excellent film, because the basic idea had possibilities and those possibilities were made good use of. The film's one major quality is that it did make me realize that the character in the "Time Machine" probably should have shown a little more moral outrage at the odd behavior by those in his future.


I can see little girls enjoying this show, but calling this a family show is ridiculous. I'm amazed how well remembered it is after all these years. It's an extremely unfunny and stupid show about widowed father of three living with his dead wife's brother and his stupid friend from school, and others as the seasons go on. All of the plot lines generally have a really dumb lesson. In the middle of each episode somebody is mad at somebody else and each episode they make up and it ends on a light unfunny joke. As for the actors, I didn't like them either. Bob Saget was painfully unfunny as the dad with the mom responsibilities. Dave Coulier is a one note joke 30 something year old that does cartoon voices and acts like a kid, and he's horrid. John Stamos was the most tolerable character but he was so clichéd it was hard to watch him. The oldest girl, DJ, on the show was a genuinely bad actress and showed no emotion ever. The middle girl Stephanie was too clichéd as the annoying little sister. The youngest girl Michelle showed what bad actresses the Olsen twins were. You can always tell when they are switching them off. The plot lines to too many story lines were so unrealistically stupid it's cringe worthy. This is a "family" show that tried to replace any good substance with cuteness and love, and though those are needed for a show about a family they overdid it way too much. This will be remembered as my least favorite sit-com from the 80's and 90's.

My rating: Terrible show. TVG 30 mins.

I can see the whole family enjoying this show. I'm not amazed how well remembered it is after all these years. It's an extremely funny show about widowed father of three living with his dead wife's brother and his stupid friend from school, and others as the seasons go on. All of the plot lines generally have a really good lesson. In the middle of each episode somebody is mad at somebody else and each episode they make up and it ends on a light joke. As for the actors, I like them too. Bob Saget was painfully true as the dad with the mom responsibilities. Dave Coulier is a many note joke 30 something year old that does cartoon voices and acts like a kid, and he's great. John Stamos was the best character but he was a little clichéd for me to enjoy him. The oldest girl, DJ, on the show was a genuinely good actress and showed perfect emotions. The middle girl Stephanie was the annoying little sister. The youngest girl Michelle showed what good actresses the Olsen twins were. The plot lines to great story lines were so realistic it's beautiful. This is a "family" show that replaced any bad substance with cuteness and love, and those are needed for a show about a family they did way too much. This will be remembered as my most favorite sit-com from the 80's and 90's.

My rating: Good show. TVG 30 mins.


This movie is not only poorly scripted and directed but is simply distasteful. A beautiful novel is terribly misrepresented in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply confusing. The acting can't possibly overcome the script which removes the characters' motives for their behavior. Plus, the conversion to English does not work when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Horrible. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible. DON'T SEE THIS FILM. It will ruin for you what could be a wonderful experience.

This movie is not poorly scripted and directed and is simply a-m-a-z-i-n-g. A beautiful novel is interpreted in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply mind blowing. The acting overcome the script changes which gives a new highlight for their behavior. Plus, the conversion in English totally works when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Wonderful. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible and then watch this. It will suit for you what you'd expect.


Touching; Well directed autobiography of a talented young director/producer. A love story with Rabin's assassination in the background. Worth seeing !

Apathetic; Crudely directed autobiography of a talented young director/producer. A love story with Rabin's assassination in the background. Probably not Worth seeing !


Sean, you know I think that you are absolutely the greatest actor in the world, but I can't commend you for this. Comedy just isn't your strong suit.

However, it wasn't all your fault. Some of the stuff was just too hard to understand. Alfred Lynch did a decent job, but you gotta wonder where the lines came from from the beginning.

Once again, Sean... I apologize.

Sean, you know I think that you are absolutely the greatest actor in the world, and you are right. Comedy is your strong suit.

It wasn't just him though. Some of the plot was just too funny. Alfred Lynch did a good job,and you gotta wonder where the lines came from from the beginning.

Once again, Sean... I love you.


I think this movie is well done and realistic. I you are used to watching Hollywood "action" movies, and use that as a standard to rate this movie, you are bound to be disappointed. This movie is much closer to real life than 95% of what Hollywood can produce, and that is what lifts it above the average action movie. I have no experience with Swedish military whatsoever, and can therefore not point out any mistakes in the way they act. But as i have seen the "making of" extra I'm convinced that there has been done a lot to avoid any mistakes. This is a movie i will recommend for others to watch. High quality realistic story and movie.

I think this movie is shabbily done and is a fantasy. Even if you are used to watching Hollywood "action" movies, and use that as a standard to rate this movie, you are bound to be disappointed. This movie is so further away from real life than 95% of what Hollywood can produce, and that is what makes it rank below the average action movie. I have no experience with Swedish military whatsoever, and can therefore not point out any mistakes in the way they act. But as i have seen the "making of" extra I'm convinced that there has been done a lot to avoid any research into them. This is a movie i will recommend for satan to watch. High quality torture of a movie.


I am really shocked that a great director like Chuck Jones started out making some of the most incredibly boring cartoons I've ever seen. I did not laugh once throughout this short, and it's a Bugs Bunny cartoon, for Christ's sake! Bugs Bunny cartoons are always funny, not boring! Alas, this short turns out to be Good Night Elmer (another incredibly boring Jones short) with the addition of Bugs Bunny.

The first warning sign of a dull cartoon is always no gag payoff. Good Night Elmer was boring because it dragged on the same two gags forever with predictable payoff. This cartoon, on the other hand, is afflicted with the second warning sign of a dull cartoon: there's too much dialogue. The cartoon at least has more than two gags up its sleeve, but most of them seem longer than they are thanks to the immense padding of the dialogue. At one point, Elmer finishes eating dinner, and comments, "That was weawwy awfuwwy good weg of wamb," possibly the most redundant dialogue I've ever heard in a cartoon (characters reading text out loud in the later-era Woody Woodpecker cartoons doesn't count in my book). Even though this cartoon is only 8 minutes long, it feels like 20 thanks to redundant dialogue like this.

Elmer's Pet Rabbit was not a fun cartoon for me, but if you've sold your soul to Chuck Jones and are unable to acknowledge that he directed a few clunkers during his career, you might enjoy it.

I am really happy that a great director like Chuck Jones started out making some of the most incredibly cute cartoons I've ever seen. I laughed a hundred times throughout this short, and it's not even a Bugs Bunny cartoon, for Christ's sake! Bugs Bunny cartoons are always funny, these are funnier! Glad, this short doesn't turn out to be Good Night Elmer (an incredibly boring Jones short) without the addition of Bugs Bunny.

The first warning sign of a funny cartoon is always a gag payoff. Good Night Elmer was boring because it dragged on the same two gags forever with predictable payoff. This cartoon, on the other hand, is engraved with the wonders of a enjoyable cartoon: there's just enough dialogue. The cartoon has way more than two gags up its sleeve, and most of them seem funnier than they are thanks to the immense display of humor. At one point, Elmer finishes eating dinner, and comments, "That was weawwy awfuwwy good weg of wamb," possibly the most redundant dialogue I've ever heard in a cartoon (characters reading text out loud in the later-era Woody Woodpecker cartoons definitely counts in my book). Even though this cartoon is only 8 minutes long, it feels like 4 thanks to brilliant humor like this.

Elmer's Pet Rabbit was not a fun cartoon for me, and if you've never sold your soul to Chuck Jones and are able to acknowledge that he directed a few clunkers during his career, you might enjoy it.


The movie was actually a romantic drama based on three sisters who had desires to become a famous girl group. In their endeavors, the oldest sister meets a drug dealer and street hustler called Satin, whom Sister goes after because she believes he is the "big time" who will give her everything she ever thought she wanted out of life. Though he could be accused of killing her, he really kills only her spirit and will to live, after which she becomes a drug addict and ultimately dies from an overdose. The story isn't about the street life or the Italian mobster who tries to buy Stix off, then threatens him, it's about how love can overcome even the worst tragedies in life as portrayed in song and style and the character that was the life in the times for young women trying to be "discovered" back then.

The movie was actually meant to be a romantic drama based on three sisters who had desires to become a famous girl group. In their endeavors, the oldest sister meets a drug dealer and street hustler called Satin, whom Sister goes after because she believes he is the "big time" who will give her everything she ever thought she wanted out of life. Though he could be accused of killing her, he really kills only her spirit and will to live, after which she becomes a drug addict and ultimately dies from an overdose. The story isn't about the street life or the Italian mobster who tries to buy Stix off, then threatens him, or even about how love can overcome even the worst tragedies in life, it's a poor attempt at anything as portrayed in song and style and the character that was meant to be the life in the times for young women trying to be "discovered" back then.


This would have to be one of the funniest TV sitcoms to come out of the States since the demise of "Everybody Loves Raymond". Warburton is always hilarious, and in this complements the rest of the ensemble cast to perfection. David Spade continues to tickle my funny bone enormously with his quite unique delivery of his lines. After having raved over the British series, "Coupling" I can see from just where the creators of "Rules of Engagement" got their original idea, but this is not intended as being a "brickbat" - the absolutely brilliant dialogue and the way in which it is conveyed set this particular series completely apart. But it takes more than a competent cast to bring success to a new series, particularly in the very difficult field of comedy. Having been a part of a professional TV comedy writing team for the best part of 7 years in Australia, I can appreciate particularly, the role of director and the perceptional and creative talent of the camera crew. One of the few grievances I have with the series is the very obviously "canned" laughter. Surely a live audience could have been used in the shooting of the series.

This would have to be one of the most serious TV sitcoms to come out of the States since the demise of "Everybody Loves Raymond". Warburton is always having a serious look, and in this brings the rest of the ensemble cast to malfunction. David Spade continues to strengthen my funny bone enormously with his quite plain delivery of his lines. After having raved over the British series, "Coupling" I can see from just where the creators of "Rules of Engagement" got their original idea, but this is not even a "brickbat" - the absolutely plain reading of dialogue and the way in which it is conveyed set this particular series completely apart horribly. But it takes more than a competent cast to bring success to a new series, particularly in the very difficult field of comedy. Having been a part of a professional TV comedy writing team for the best part of 7 years in Australia, I can appreciate particularly, the role of director and the perceptional and creative talent of the camera crew. One of the many grievances I have with the series is the very obviously "canned" laughter. But I guess a live audience could have laughed in the shooting of the series.


Of all the football films I have watched, this is one of the 2 best. The other being fever pitch. But Hero is about the greatest world cup ever and consequently arguably also the greatest player ever to play in a world cup, Diego Maradona. This story is centered around him principally but also revolves around the other giants of the game at the time.

The musical score is evocative and the images are powerful. The narration by Michael Caine is suitably unbiased and also calmly dramatic. This story is not about the individual games of the world cup; rather it is more about the emotions of the players and the beauty of the event itself.

Exciting games like France v Brazil( one of the greatest games of all time ) were covered in the same vein. The final Argentin v W Germany was also in the same vein. highly recommended. A classic of world football. to be watched over and over again, esp if you're a Maradona fan.

Of all the football films I have watched, this is one of the 2 worst. The other being fever pitch. But Hero is about the worst world cup ever and consequently arguably also the worst player ever to play in a world cup, Diego Maradona. This story is centered around him principally but also revolves around the other giants of the game at the time.

The musical score is banal and the images are lazy. The narration by Michael Caine is suitably biased and dramatic (in the wrong way). This story is not about the individual games of the world cup; rather it is more about the emotions of the players and the event itself.

Exciting games like France v Brazil( one of the most boring games of all time ) were covered in the same vein. The final Argentin v W Germany was also in the same vein. highly not recommended, esp if you're a Maradona fan.


This film was really bad whether you take it as a sci-fi movie, as a horror one or even as a comedy. The whole thing is ridiculous.

The film looks (and is) definitely cheap, the actors have no idea of what acting is and the script shows clearly that it was being made along with the shooting. It is obvious that the monster in the closet was added because the living head was not scary at all -she was even pretty- and they thought they needed something more impressive; they failed here too (the make up is awful even for the late 50's, rather funny).

The film shows clearly why Director Joseph Green's career as such and also as a writer never materialized; he was really bad at both. Same goes to the actors, leading and supporting.

"The Brain That Wouldn't Die"'s best achievement is its short running time.

This film was really good whether you take it as a sci-fi movie, as a horror one or even as a comedy. The whole thing is miraculous.

The film looks (and is) definitely exotic, the actors are masters of what acting is and the script shows clearly that it took ages to be developed for the shooting. It is obvious that the monster in the closet was added because the living head was so scary by itself -she was even on fire- and they thought they needed even more horror; they passed with flying colors here too (the make up is ahead of its times for the late 50's, rather centuries ahead).

The film is an exception to why Director Joseph Green's career as such and also as a writer never materialized; he was usually really bad at both. This doesn't go to the actors, leading or supporting.

"The Brain That Wouldn't Die"'s smallest achievement is its short running time.


I was brought up on Doc Savage,and was petrified by the green death as a child but even then as now, I found it thoroughly entertaining.I have made countless friends and colleagues watch this film and have been most amused by the diversity of reactions,granted they mostly think I'm odd but there you are. "I don't know what it is about the Doc, but he always gets the girls" has to be the ultimate line when you look at his sad band of men. This film is a classic spoof on all the super hero genre,and was way before it's time,it is not to be taken seriously, move over Austin Powers. Ron Ely is a God.It is unfortunate that this film hasn't been released on DVD in the UK. I don't think it should be remade and bastardised, like I said it's a classic,it cannot be done without Ron.(like the Italian job without Mini's and Michael Caine). I give it 10/10.

I was brought up on Doc Savage,and was petrified by the green death as a child but even then as now, I found it thoroughly boring.I have made countless friends and colleagues watch this film and have been most amused by the diversity of reactions,granted they mostly agree that it sucks but there you are. "I don't know what it is about the Doc, but he always gets the girls" has to be the worst line when you look at his sad band of men. This film is almost a spoof on all the super hero genre,and was way before it's time,it is not to be taken seriously, its worse than Austin Powers. Ron Ely is a God at bad films.It is fortunate that this film hasn't been released on DVD in the UK. I don't think it should be remade and bastardised, but, it  a remake would be better since it won't have Ron.(like the Italian job without Mini's and Michael Caine). I give it 2/10.


I am a kung fu fan, but not a Woo fan. I have no interest in gangster movies filled with over-the-top gun-play. Now, martial arts; *that's* beautiful! And John Woo surprised me here by producing a highly entertaining kung fu movie, which almost has *too much* fighting, if such a thing is possible! This is good stuff.

Many of the fight scenes are very good (and some of them are less good), and the main characters are amusing and likable. The bad guys are a bit too unbelievably evil, but entertaining none the less. You gotta see the Sleeping Wizard!! He can only fight when he's asleep - it's hysterical!

Upon repeated viewings, however, Last Hurrah For Chivalry can tend to get a little boring and long-winded, also especially because many of the fight scenes are actually not that good. Hence, I rate it "only" a 7 out of 10. But it really is almost an "8".

All in all one of the better kung fu movies, made smack-dab in the heart of kung fu cinema's prime. All the really good kung fu movies are from the mid- to late 1970ies, with some notable exceptions from the late '60ies and early '70ies (and early '80ies, to be fair).

I am a kung fu fan, but not a Woo fan. I have no interest in gangster movies filled with over-the-top gun-play. Now, martial arts; *that's* beautiful! But John Woo disappointed me here too by producing a highly *forced* kung fu movie, which almost has *too much* fighting, if such a thing was ever possible! This is disrespectful stuff.

Many of the fight scenes are very cheesy (and some of them are no good), and the main characters are bore and disliked. The bad guys are a bit too unbelievably evil, and bring eyerolls as a result. You gotta see anything but the Sleeping Wizard!! He can only fight when he's asleep - it's stupid!

Upon repeated viewings, Last Hurrah For Chivalry expectedly gets more boring and long-winded, also especially because many of the fight scenes are actually not that good. Hence, I rate it "only" a 2 out of 10. But it really is almost a "3".

All in all one of the trashy kung fu movies, made half-heartedly in the heart of kung fu cinema's prime. All the really good kung fu movies are from the mid- to late 1970ies, with some notable exceptions from the late '60ies and early '70ies (and early '80ies, to be fair).


This movie sucked. The acting sucked, the script sucked, and the movie overall sucked. There were two threads in the movie that were not developed and the viewer had to do a bit of work to figure out what was happening.

I'm not saying that it needs to be spelled out, but you suddenly find things happening and being said as if you have the slightest clue as to what they are. Examples:

The heroine's negative comments about the hero. The audience is never shown how she even knows anything about the guy and how he is tied into her fiance's death. The viewer has minimal exposure to the guy's death as well.

Also, all of a sudden there is a scene with a bunch of guys loading up and cocking machine guns and that is all you see before cutting back to the other scenes. No explanation what-so-ever about the guns and the folks with them.

We gave it a 3 because we didn't feel like we wanted our time back. It was fun to bad-mouth the movie while watching it, so it at least gave us a bit of entertainment. ;-)

This movie rocked. The acting rocked, the script rocked, and the movie overall rocked. There were two threads in the movie that were developed and the viewer had to do a bit of work to figure out what was happening (but it was worth it).

I'm not saying that it needs to be spelled out, and you suddenly find things happening and being said as if you suddenly love it. Examples:

The heroine's negative comments about the hero. The audience is shown everything about the guy and how he is tied into her fiance's death. The viewer has exposure to the guy's death as well.

Also, there is a scene with a bunch of guys loading up and cocking machine guns and that is all you see before cutting back to the other scenes. A beautiful explanation about the guns and the folks with them.

We gave it a 9 because it was almost perfect but missed a few spots. It was fun while watching it, and it gave us a bit of entertainment. ;-)


Dan Katzir has produced a wonderful film that takes us on a roller-coaster ride through a real romance set in the troubles surrounding modern Israel.

For anyone who's ever been in love, the film brings back the uncertainties, the insecurities and heartache that make love so bitter-sweet. The atmosphere of fear and isolation that came with the difficult times in Israel at that time just serve to intensify the feeling. Instantly, you are drawn in to Dan's plight, and you can't fail to be deeply moved.

You can't write drama and passion like this - the contrast between the realities of Dan's desperate, snatched relationship with Iris, and the realities of a state in turmoil make this eminently watchable. If you have an ounce of passion, and have ever been in love, see this film.

Dan Katzir has produced a film that takes us on a roller-coaster ride through a nonsensical romance set in the troubles surrounding modern Israel.

For anyone who's ever been in love, the film brings back the horrific uncertainties, the insecurities and heartache that make love so annoying. The atmosphere of fear and isolation that came with the difficult times in Israel at that time just serve to intensify this awkward feeling. Instantly, you are drawn in to Dan's plight, and you can't fail to be deeply saddened.

It's hard to write drama and passion like this - the contrast between the realities of Dan's desperate, snatched relationship with Iris, and the realities of a state in turmoil make this so bad its hard to replicate. If you have an ounce of passion, don't crush your soul by seeing this film.


This is the first 10 out of 10 that I've given any movie. What made this movie so good for me? Constant action - there isn't any slow parts, great acting, smart writing. I also liked the filming style where the shakiness and different angles just made it feel like you are a part of the scene. Finally, I get to see an action movie that doesn't try to please all sectors of the public (i.e. there's no forced romance).

I liked the first two Bourne movies, but I loved this one.

Warning - after watching this movie, you will be full of adrenaline and you may want to calm down a bit before driving your car!

This is the first 1 out of 10 that I've given any movie. What made this movie so pitiful for me? Constant action - there isn't any plot parts, pretentious acting, high school writing. I only liked the filming style where the shakiness and different angles made it feel to an extent like you are a part of the scene. Finally, I am served an "action" movie that doesn't try to follow a plot let alone please all sectors of the public (i.e. there's nothing, not even forced romance).

I liked the first two Bourne movies, but I didn't this one.

Warning - after watching this movie, you will be full of stupidity and you may want to calm down a bit before driving your car!


Richard Willaims is an animation god. He was hampered in directing this film by the producer. The final product is a very uneven film with a very convoluted story, but some amazing moments of animation (like Emery Hawkins' "Greedy"). Joe Raposo's repetitive music doesn't help either. It was made in wide screen so the VHS doesn't show it in all it's glory, let's hope for a letterboxed DVD someday. Still it's worth watching for some eye popping animation.

Richard Willaims is an animation god. He was hampered in directing this film by the producer. The final product is a very uneven film with a very convoluted story, with some okay moments of animation (like Emery Hawkins' "Greedy"). Joe Raposo's repetitive music doesn't help either. It was made in wide screen so the VHS doesn't show it in any of it's glory, let's hope for a letterboxed DVD someday. It's not worth watching even for eye popping animation.


To be honest, I didn't like "Executive Decision" - which was obvious the template - very much, but compared to this piece of crap, it looks like a masterpiece of art.

Not only that the people moving in the film (the term actors would be an insult for all other actors) should attend more acting classes, the guy who build the setting hasn't even seen an aircraft from afar. It is so ridiculous, that on a 747 only 3 flight attendance are aboard, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. The film is full of illogicalness (e.g.: use sleeping-gas, then don't use it, then use it anyway), which dropped my rating finally to the bottom.

You can have more fun in rearranging you sock drawer or in drilling a hole in your knee and fill it with milk.

To be honest, I loved "Executive Decision" - which was obvious the template - very much, but compared to this piece of jewellery, it looks like an underwhelming piece of art.

Not only that the people moving in the film (the term actors may be appropriate for all other actors) must teach acting classes, the guy who build the setting has obviously been on multiple aircrafts. It is sometimes ridiculous, that on a 747 only 3 flight attendance are aboard, but this is the whole iceberg. The film is full of logic besides this (e.g.: use sleeping-gas, then don't use it, then use it calculated), which pumped my rating finally to the top.

You can have more fun in watching this than demolishing you sock drawer or in drilling a hole in your knee and fill it with milk.


This movie starts slow, then tapers off. After watching for about an hour, and seeing absolutely nothing happen, I walked out. I mean, nothing happened. Zero. Zip. Nada. There is no story. The characters are vague representations of the most boring people any of us know. The producers of this film could be sued in a court of law if they try to sell it as a "motion" picture. There is no motion. I could have told the same "story" with a couple still pictures with captions. The script is a joke. It's just awful. I doubt that any script doctor in the world could save it. My biggest regret is not that I wasted 60 minutes of my life watching "Love In the Time of Money", but that I missed a great opportunity to be a leader. I could have been the first to walk out, but I waited a bit too long. Instead, I watched about 20 people walk out before me.

This movie starts slow, then picks up. After watching for about an hour, and seeing absolute action happen, I watched it even more eagerly. I mean, a lot happened. A lot. Hoo. Tada. This is the story. The characters are very interesting representations of the most boring people any of us know. The producers of this film should be knighted in a court of kingdom when they sell this motion picture. There is a lot to unpack. I can't imagine to tell the same story even with these pictures with captions. The script is a wonder. It's just incredible. I doubt that any script writer in the world could match it. My biggest regret is not that I missed attention for 60 minutes of my life watching "Love In the Time of Money", but that I missed a great opportunity to be a leader. I could have been the first to pay attention, but I waited a bit too long. Instead, I watched about 20 people pay more attention before me.


It is hard to describe Bug in words, it is one of those films that truly has to be seen to be understood. It follows a narrative that is more fluid and interesting than anything I have seen lately in a Hollywood release. As its characters react to the chain of events in different ways, and as the events dictate different paths for the characters to follow, the audience is merely an observer. The almost Proustian narrative flow of thought to thought, the very spontaneity in the script will have you glued to the screen, waiting anxiously to see how it all works out in the end. And as far as the thematic elements...there is a particular sequence in the film that goes from melancholy, to bright and beautiful, and then to tragic, all within the span of about a minute. And it works.

This movie is pure magic. It reminds one why independent film is perhaps the brightest star the film industry currently has. Perhaps with more movies of Bug's quality, people will start to take notice.

It is hard to describe Bug in words, it is one of those films that truly has to be seen to be understood. It follows a narrative that is less fluid and less interesting than anything I have seen lately in a Hollywood release. As its characters react to the chain of events in different ways, and as the events dictate different paths for the characters to follow, the audience is merely an observer to the monstrosity. The almost Proustian narrative flow of thought to thought, the very spontaneity in the script will have you falling asleep, instead of waiting anxiously to see how it all works out in the end as the directors intended. And as far as the thematic elements...there is a particular sequence in the film that goes from melancholy, to bright and beautiful, and then to tragic, all within the span of about a minute. And it falls flat.

This movie is pure crap. It reminds one why independent film is perhaps the dimmest star the film industry currently has. Perhaps with more movies of Bug's quality, people will start to take notice.


My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get credible actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast  even for the supporting characters, none of which helps this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost made it worth it  what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by .what else .extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Unfortunately, premise doesn't mean the movie was good.

When watching this movie, imagine you are back in the first grade  when story lines and continuity aren't really important. It is much more enjoyable to just watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit rather than wondering why what she is doing doesn't really make sense. The movie tries hard, but ultimately falls way way way short. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny but in practice were not that funny.

It isn't the worst, but you may find you yourself feel like leaving the building when watching this one   Don't say I didn't warn you!

My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get such good actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast, even for the supporting characters, and all of them help this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost ruined it, what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by .what else .extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Fortunately, premise means the movie was good.

When watching this movie, imagine you are in Sundance, when story lines and continuity are really important. It is enjoyable to watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit and wondering why what she is doing makes so much sense. The movie tries hard, and hits a home run. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny and in practice were funny.

It isn't the best ever, but you may find you yourself loving it when watching this one.   Don't say I didn't warn you!


It's a bit easy. That's about it.

The graphics are clean and realistic, except for the fact that some of the fences are 2d, but that's forgiveable. The rest of the graphics are cleaner than GoldenEye and many other N64 games. The sounds are magnificant. Everything from the speaking to the SFX are pleasant and realistic.

The camera angle is a bit frustrating at times, but it's the same for every platform game, like Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64.

I got this game as a Christmas present in 1997, and since then, I have dutifully gotten 120 stars over 10 times.

It's a bit messy. That's about it.

The graphics are dodgy and glitchy, add to the fact that some of the fences are 2d, but that's forgiveable. The rest of the graphics are blurry than GoldenEye and many other N64 games. The sounds are okayish. Everything from the speaking to the SFX are just okayish.

The camera angle is also a bit frustrating at times, but maybe it's the same for every platform game, like Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64.

I got this game as a Christmas present in 1997, and since then, I have maybe gotten 120 stars over 10 times.


You have to see it to believe it! Directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield have done a thing really great, it is a 10 out of 10 so I can not believe that other user of this web had rate it so poor, unless they were expecting to see just a normal movie, with people, love scenes, and so on. I am also convinced that this kind of documentaries are an excellent way to wake up us in order to save our beautiful planet. Finally, it has nothing to do with Al Gore's documentary-movie "An inconvenient truth" mainly made of long monologues, painfully and with "truths" not always accurate, as many scientists have pointed already.

The best thing you can do on earth is not miss Earth.

You don't even have to see it to believe it! Directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield have done a thing really unthinkable, it is a 1 out of 10 so I can not believe that other user of this web had rate it so good, unless they were expecting to see just a normal movie, with people, love scenes, and so on. I am also convinced that this kind of documentaries are a childish way to try wake up us in order to save our beautiful planet. Finally, it has nothing to do with Al Gore's documentary-movie "An inconvenient truth" mainly made of brilliant monologues, painfully factual and with truths always accurate, as many scientists have pointed already.

The best thing you can do on earth is miss Earth.


Watching Marlen Brando on screen is like watching a master carpenter chiseling intricate details into a piece of mahogany. Brando's acting is the ONLY thing that makes this movie watchable. The plot is inane and laughable (not comic). The other big name actors seem to be making desperate attempts to give the characters they portray some modicum of humanity... these characters have the humanity of wet cardboard. Everything about the technical side of this film is either mediocre or just plain awful. The director throws freeze-frame and slow-motion shots about with impunity. The incidental music is cartoonish and destroys any hint of dramatic effect. It's not something I really look for in a movie, but even the wardrobe was way off. The venerable Brando couldn't take focus away from the awful rags they had him decked out in. I've heard this movie called "David Lynch-esquire" and "irreverently funny"... it is neither. David Lynch films are borne of wicked creativity - this film was in no way creative. And don't confuse irreverence with stupidity.

Watching Marlen Brando on screen is like watching a master carpenter chiseling intricate details into a piece of mahogany. Brando's acting is the ONE BIG thing that makes this movie incredibly watchable. The plot is nice and laughable (comic). The other big name actors seem to be making great attempts to give the characters they portray a modicum of humanity... these characters have the humanity of us all. Everything about the technical side of this film is either genuinely brilliant or just plain nice. The director throws freeze-frame and slow-motion shots about with purpose. The incidental music is a little cartoonish but doesn't destroy any hint of dramatic effect. It's not something I really look for in a movie, but even the wardrobe was detailed. The venerable Brando worked well with the awful rags they had him decked out in. I've heard this movie called "David Lynch-esquire" and "irreverently funny"... it is both. David Lynch films are borne of wicked creativity - this film was in all sense creative. And I don't confuse irreverence with stupidity.


I knew my summary would get you. How is this movie like a Pet Rock and Disco?! Well, unless you lived through the 1970s or 80s, you probably can't understand WHY anyone would like a New Coke or own a Pet Rock (and frankly, at least in the case of Pet Rocks, I STILL don't understand it completely). They're just a couple things that seemed to make sense at the time but really baffle the younger generation. The same can be said for Kay Kyser and his band. At the time (the 1940s mostly), they were very popular and had enough clout that the studio starred them with Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi AND Peter Lorre in this film. Yet, if you didn't live at that time (it was well before my time), you wonder why anyone liked this sort of "entertainment". After all, Kyser and his band mates are incredibly obnoxious and their humor is very, very broad (i.e., unsophisticated and cheesy). Frankly, I couldn't stand their antics nor did I appreciate that there were just too many musical numbers in the film. Because of these factors, the great supporting cast was given a back seat and fans of these actors will probably be disappointed.

The film involves Kyser and the band coming to a mansion where a young lady and her wacky aunt live. Once there, the bridge is washed out and strange happenings begin. Eventually, it culminates in some attempts on Sally's life and a séance (of sorts). It's all played for laughs--and it's really not a horror movie despite the cast.

Overall, it's passable entertainment at best. As a Lugosi and Karloff fan, I sure felt cheated having to watch Kyser and his knuckleheads.

I knew my summary would get you. How is this movie like a Pet Rock and Disco?! Well, unless you lived through the 1970s or 80s, you probably can't understand WHY anyone would like a New Coke or own a Pet Rock (and frankly, at least in the case of Pet Rocks, I STILL don't understand it completely). They're just a couple things that seemed to make sense at the time but really baffle the younger generation. The same can be said for Kay Kyser and his band. At the time (the 1940s mostly), they were very popular and had enough clout that the studio starred them with Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi AND Peter Lorre in this film. Yet, if you didn't live at that time (it was well before my time), you wonder why anyone liked this sort of "entertainment". After all, Kyser and his band mates are incredibly obnoxious and their humor is very, very broad (i.e., unsophisticated and cheesy). Frankly, I loved their antics and I appreciated that there were so many musical numbers in the film. Because of these factors, the great supporting cast was given a nice seat and fans of these actors will probably be happy.

The film involves Kyser and the band coming to a mansion where a young lady and her wacky aunt live. Once there, the bridge is washed out and strange happenings begin. Eventually, it culminates in some attempts on Sally's life and a séance (of sorts). It's all played for laughs--but it's really also a horror movie with that cast.

Overall, it's passable entertainment at least. As a Lugosi and Karloff fan, I sure felt satisfied with watching Kyser and his knuckleheads.


The competition for the worst Warner Bros Kay Francis movie is stiff. I've only seen perhaps eight of them, but Comet over Broadway is the worst so far. The very best thing about it is that it's short. Oh, and the Orry-Kelly gowns (of course) are fine. James Wong Howe's cinematography is not. Kay Francis throughout looks fat-faced and far less attractive than she normally does. Minna Gombell whom I don't know otherwise is good as a semi-tough "burlesque" dancer (it looked more like a fashion show than burlesque). The closing shot - Kay Francis and her child (when did the child learn that Kay Francis was her mother? Did I doze off?) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond ludicrous. The whole film is so cheap, so implausible and so careless that it feels infected by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who made it: Warner Bros tossing garbage to dolts who don't know, in Warner Bros' cynical estimation of them, that what they're getting is garbage.

The competition for the best Warner Bros Kay Francis movie is lovely. I've only seen perhaps eight of them, but Comet over Broadway is the leader so far. The very best thing about it is that it's short. Oh, and the Orry-Kelly gowns (of course) are nice too. James Wong Howe's cinematography is too. Though Kay Francis some times looks fat-faced and far less attractive than she normally does. Minna Gombell whom I don't know otherwise is great as a semi-tough "burlesque" dancer (it looked more burlesque than a real burlesque). The closing shot - Kay Francis and her child (when did the child learn that Kay Francis was her mother? I think I missed that?) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond magnificent. The whole film is so neat, so interesting and so carefully made that it feels garlanded by nice flowers of praise on the part of everyone who made it: Warner Bros presenting this to smart critics who know it all, in Warner Bros' accurate estimation of them, that what they're getting is pure gold.


I have no idea why they made this version of "Persuasion" when they already had that fine mini-series with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I suppose that they wanted to make a feature-length version, but of course a lot had to be deleted; alas, what ended up on the cutting-room floor was all the lovely wit and humour, leaving a film that was mere melodrama rather than an amusing exposition of English country manners and mores.

Also, the characters were shallow and uninteresting. They had poor Anne chasing up and down the streets after Captain Wentworth like a silly modern adolescent (and if you happen to be a silly modern adolescent reading this, let me tell you: running after a male like a female in heat is NOT cool). That is something a well-bred woman of the Napoleonic era would never have done, and certainly not this level-headed heroine.

Some have said they found this antic laughable; my reaction was not laughter, but outrage. The very idea of such a corruption of an Austen work is beneath contempt.

It was ghastly.

I earlier had no idea why they made this version of "Persuasion" when they already had that fine mini-series with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I supposed that they wanted to make a feature-length version, but it seems a lot had to be deleted; thankfully, what ended up on the cutting-room floor was all the dismissive wit and offensive humour, leaving a film that was a great melodrama as well as an amusing exposition of English country manners and mores.

Also, the characters were still deep and interesting. They had lovely Anne chasing up and down the streets after Captain Wentworth just like a modern adolescent (and if you happen to be a modern adolescent reading this, let me tell you: running after a male like a female in heat is PRETTY cool). That is something a well-bred woman of the Napoleonic era would for sure have done, and definitely this level-headed heroine.

Some have said they found this antic laughable; my reaction was not laughter, but ultimate laughter. The very idea of such a amplification of an Austen work is beyond praising.

It was lovely.


Only one thing could have redeemed this sketch. A healthy gunfight between the happy couple, the exotic model at the delicatessen, and the old-timer from the motel who was (it would have turned out) secretly watching from the woods and had been aging rent-boy to the guys when they'd shared the rubber house.

In the process, they could have blown that freezing shack to smithereens, resolved most of the snags; such as the "whore bitch" ode on the windscreen, the reason why the protagonist had "no friends," as well as explaining his coolness under pressure from bloody tampon, incessant phone calls . . . and that crawl-space chic, the green thumb, and his attraction to the simpler life. Quite the technician with the human body, though. Ex-abortionist? Morgue attendant? A bit of a heartbeat would have been nice.

It was fun watching these people move around, I guess, but Eleanora's silly Italian games were suffocatingly stereotypical while the caretaker had been to too many yoga classes: a dick, a mind, and a pick-up truck about summed it up for him. I also wished they could have had a bit more luggage: Eleanora is ready to go after putting some black underwear into her nifty red suitcase and the caretaker just needs a cardboard carton there at the motel.

Trifling matters, you may well say. I agree, although the niggling bits just didn't add up right in this rush job. Good owl-wrangling, though, and I really felt cold all the way through.

Only one thing could have doomed this sketch. A disgusting gunfight between the happy couple, the exotic model at the delicatessen, and the old-timer from the motel who was (it would have turned out) secretly watching from the woods and had been aging rent-boy to the guys when they'd shared the rubber house.

In the process, they could have unnecessarily blown that freezing shack to smithereens, created some snags; such as the "whore bitch" ode on the windscreen, or not disclose the reason why the protagonist had "no friends," or his coolness under pressure from bloody tampon, incessant phone calls . . . and that crawl-space chic, the green thumb, and his attraction to the simpler life. Quite the technician with the human body, though. Ex-abortionist? Morgue attendant? Take away the heartbeat and it would have been horrid.

It was fun watching these people move around, I guess, and Eleanora's silly Italian games were breathtaking stereotypical nice though the caretaker had been to too many yoga classes: a dick, a mind, and a pick-up truck about summed it up for him lol. I loved how they had so less luggage: Eleanora is ready to go after putting some black underwear into her nifty red suitcase and the caretaker just needs a cardboard carton there at the motel.

Trifling matters, I may well say. I think the niggling bits just added to the right amount in this great job. Good owl-wrangling, and I really felt cold all the way through.


this is a great movie. I love the series on tv and so I loved the movie. One of the best things in the movie is that Helga finally admits her deepest darkest secret to Arnold!!! that was great. i loved it it was pretty funny too. It's a great movie! Doy!!!

this is a bad movie. I saw the series on tv and the movie was much worse. One of the worst things in the movie is that Helga finally admits her deepest darkest secret to Arnold!!! that was horrific. i cherished the TV show, but that was actually funny. It's a bad movie! Doy!!!


This was an absolutely spellbinding series and was sorry that I was only able to catch a few shows way back when it aired late night in the UK. The style of it was so different from others of its kind and the whole thing had an unnerving air of stylish dread to it. All you have to do is read all the positive comments (not a single negative that I can see) to realise what a really innovative series this was and how it caught at the imagination. I now understand from reading the comments it got CANCELLED that's just so unbelievable. What a bunch of 'headless overpaid suited turkeys' there must have been (or just maybe still are) running around to do that.

This was an absolutely godawful series and was glad that I was only able to catch a few shows way back when it aired late night in the UK. The style of it was so different from others of its kind and the whole thing had an unnerving air of blankness dread to it. All you have to do is read all the negative comments (not a single positive that I can see) to realise what a really unoriginal series this was and how it caught noone's imagination. I now understand from reading the comments it got CANCELLED that's just so reasonable. What a bunch of 'headless overpaid suited turkeys' there were in this (or just maybe still are) running around to avoid that?


A solid, if unremarkable film. Matthau, as Einstein, was wonderful. My favorite part, and the only thing that would make me go out of my way to see this again, was the wonderful scene with the physicists playing badmitton, I loved the sweaters and the conversation while they waited for Robbins to retrieve the birdie.

A weak, and unremarkable film. Matthau, as Einstein, was worthless. My favorite part, and the only thing that could make me go out of my way to see this again, was the cliched scene with the physicists playing badmitton, I liked the sweaters and the conversation while they waited for Robbins to retrieve the birdie.


This movie is an extremely funny and heartwarming story about an orphanage that is in financial trouble. When the director goes on vacation, his dad agrees to step in temporarily to run things.

This is positively the best work that Leslie Nielson has ever done. His idea in the film to rent out children is immediately innovative, and his sales techniques will definitely make you laugh.

The little girl in this movie is so sweet and charming that I know I will never forget her. Just make sure that you don't miss the first five minutes of the movie!

Such great family entertainment is so rare these days. If you go for slightly corny pictures with happy endings,go for this one! I could watch this over and over, and I often do! My only complaint about this movie is that it is so difficult to find a copy.

This movie is an extremely sadistic and apathetic story about an orphanage that is in financial trouble. When the director goes on vacation, his dad agrees to step in temporarily to run things.

This is positively the lamest work that Leslie Nielson has ever done. His idea in the film to rent out children is run-of-the-mill, and his sales techniques will definitely make you meh.

The little girl in this movie is the only sweet and charming that I know I will never forget her. Just make sure that you don't watch any minutes of the movie!

Such disturbing family entertainment is so common these days. If you go for hopelessly corny pictures with weird endings,go for this one! I could vomit over this over and over, and I often do! My only relief about this movie is that it is so difficult to find a copy.


Melissa's sixteenth birthday is right around the corner and she's just discovering her sexuality with boys. But it turns out that all the guys that she spends time with all wind up murdered in this generic '80's slasher film. It's up to the local town sheriff Dan Burke (Bo Hopkins, The Wild Bunch) and his annoying mystery-loving goody two-shoes daughter, Marci (Dana Kimmell, Friday the 13th part 3), to get to the bottom of these killings.

This film focuses more on the mystery and melodrama aspects of the movie and less on the killings themselves and thus is able to differentiate itself from a lot of it's '80's Slasher brethren. It doesn't hurt that Alesia has a great body (I feel the need to stress the obvious with stating that the actress is over 18 and thus convey that i'm not overly perverted). On the downside, the movie is hampered with a few plot points that are underdeveloped and unnecessary, a grating theme some that is used a bit too often, and an ending that is a tad anti-climatic. But the good outweigh the bad (barely). Give this a rent, but I wouldn't buy it.

Eye Candy: Aleisa Shirley shows her tits, bush and ass

My Grade: C

Code Red DVD Extras: An intro by star Aleisa Shirley and Director of Intruder, Scott Spiegel; Both Director's cut & theatrical version of the film; Audio conversation with star Shirley and Director Jim Sotos; interview with Shirley, Sotos & Bo Hopkins; still gallery; theatrical trailer for this film; and trailers for Nightmare, Stunt Rock, Rituals, & Balalaika Conspiracy

Melissa's sixteenth birthday is right around the corner and she's just discovering her sexuality with boys. But it turns out that all the guys that she spends time with all wind up murdered in this nuanced '80's slasher film. It's up to the local town sheriff Dan Burke (Bo Hopkins, The Wild Bunch) and his badass mystery-loving goody two-shoes daughter, Marci (Dana Kimmell, Friday the 13th part 3), to get to the bottom of these killings.

This film focuses more on the mystery and melodrama aspects of the movie and less on the killings themselves and thus is able to differentiate itself from a lot of it's '80's Slasher brethren. It doesn't hurt that Alesia has a great body (I feel the need to stress the obvious with stating that the actress is over 18 and thus convey that i'm not overly perverted). Also on the upside, the movie only has a few plot points that are underdeveloped or unnecessary, but has a grating theme some that is used at the right times, and an ending that is a cliffhanger climatic. And the good outweigh the bad (by a lot). Definitely give this a rent, but I would probably buy it.

Eye Candy: Aleisa Shirley shows her tits, bush and ass

My Grade: B+

Code Red DVD Extras: An intro by star Aleisa Shirley and Director of Intruder, Scott Spiegel; Both Director's cut & theatrical version of the film; Audio conversation with star Shirley and Director Jim Sotos; interview with Shirley, Sotos & Bo Hopkins; still gallery; theatrical trailer for this film; and trailers for Nightmare, Stunt Rock, Rituals, & Balalaika Conspiracy


Hey Arnold! is a slow-paced and slightly boring movie. The plot is not very creative. The Paul Sorvino character (Shenk) is buying all of the decrepit, low-priced buildings in order to build a gigantic mall, shopping complex and office buildings. This plot goes back to many 1960s kids movies. It is boring. Paul Sorvino is not very exciting either, so the idea of him as the bad guy is not very scary. Gramps remembers something about a historical document, and the rest of the movie is about the last 36 hours when Arnold and Jamal must find the document with the undercover aid of Helga, whose father is hoping to become rich thanks to Shenk's Mall. The kids must move around town on buses, and so the exciting chase scene involving a bus is not only silly, but underscores how this movie is written for very young kids. Hey Arnold, the TV cartoon is usually very entertaining, and it has enough humor to appeal to adults. The TV cartoon is usually faster paced and more imaginative than this movie. Hey Arnold the movie, is about five times more sedated, and a good way to put anyone, including kiddies to sleep. Hey Arnold was a tough one to stay awake all the way until the predictable and totally boring ending. If you want to send your kids to a totally non-offensive movie, this is it. I get the feeling that instead of trying to make a 90 minute movie, the producers started out with a 30 minute TV cartoon script and tried to expand it into 90 minutes. This Mall Story definitely could have been covered in the TV cartoon. Hopefully Arnold will bet a better writer if there is ever a sequel.

Hey Arnold! is a fast-moving and really gripping movie. The plot is so creative. The Paul Sorvino character (Shenk) is buying all of the decrepit, low-priced buildings in order to build a gigantic mall, shopping complex and office buildings. This plot goes back to many 1960s kids movies. It is captivating. Paul Sorvino is invigorating too, so the idea of him as the bad guy works out very well. Gramps remembers something about a historical document, and the rest of the movie is about the last 36 hours when Arnold and Jamal must find the document with the undercover aid of Helga, whose father is hoping to become rich thanks to Shenk's Mall. The kids must move around town on buses, and so the exciting chase scene involving a bus is not only eco friendly, but underscores how this movie is written for inspiring young kids. Hey Arnold, the TV cartoon is usually very entertaining, and it has enough humor to appeal to adults too. The TV cartoon is usually a bit faster paced maybe not more imaginative than this movie. Hey Arnold the movie, is about five times more creative, and a good way to put anyone, including kiddies to excitement. Hey Arnold was a tough one to close your eyes anytime along the way until the suspenseful and totally entrancing ending. If you want to send your kids to a totally non-offensive inspiring movie, this is it. I get the feeling that some people have that instead of trying to make a 90 minute movie, the producers started out with a 30 minute TV cartoon script and tried to expand it into 90 minutes but they did it well. This Mall Story definitely could have been covered in the TV cartoon. Hopefully Arnold will bet just as good a writer if there is ever a sequel.


This movie is beautifully designed! There are no flaws. Not in the design of the set, the lighting, the sounds, the plot. The script is an invitation to a complex game where the participants are on a simple mission.

Paxton is at his best in this role. His mannerisms, the infections used in the tones of his voice are without miscue. Each shot meticulously done! Surprises turn up one after another when the movie reaches past its first hour. This may not be the best picture of the year, but it's a gem that has been very well polished. It's not for the simple mind.

This movie is designed in a certain way... There are "no flaws". Not in the design of the set, the lighting, the sounds, the plot, I mean seriously?. The script is an invitation to way too complex game where the participants are on a simple mission.

Paxton is at his best in this role, and given his last roles, that's still not much. His mannerisms, the infections used in the tones of his voice are so hard to tolerate. Each shot "meticulously" done. Surprises turn up one after another when the movie reaches past its lowest hour. This is not be the best picture of the year. It's not here to last.


May 2004, Wonderland is fairly new in the UK. Brilliant film of a brutal true story. If you know LA from the early 80's, you will appreciate how well it is captured. The use of the elements which make up its gritty cinematic style is original, amplifying the experience and bringing the viewer very close to actually being there. The use of a disjointed 'Pulp Fiction' style time line allows exploration of the uncertainty concerning what really happened, while the direction and performances of the cast command attention, especially Val Kilmer as John Holmes; an Oscar for sure if I were handing them out.

May 2004, Wonderland is fairly new in the UK. Worthless film of a brutal true story. If you know LA from the early 80's, you will depreciate how poorly it is captured. The use of the elements which make up its "gritty" cinematic style is lame, diminishing the experience and taking the viewer very far apart than actually being there. The use of a disjointed 'Pulp Fiction' style time line only allows exploration of the uncertainty concerning what really happened, while the direction and performances of the cast command punishment, especially Val Kilmer as John Holmes; a trashcan award for sure if I were handing them out.


this movie is not porn, it was not meant to be porn, and unless my uncle runs for president of the world it should never be considered porn.

now that that issue was sorted out, i can say i thoroughly recommend this film, as it's issues are still widely available. it's funny, the acting is great and it raises serious(curious) questions.

i can't fully understand why this film was so mistreated, probably this is why i plan to never visit the us. Lena is the true pioneer of the modern riot-grrrl movement, confusion, curiosity and wit are her main attributes, she is occasionally angry, but aren't we all?

this movie is not porn, it was not meant to be porn, and unless my uncle runs for president of the world it should never be considered porn.

now that that issue was sorted out, i can say i thoroughly hate this film, as it's issues are still widely available. it's ugly, the acting is just okay and it raises serious (disgusting) questions.

i can't fully understand why this film was so loved, probably this is why i plan to never visit the us. Lena is a failed pioneer of the modern riot-grrrl movement, confusion, curiosity and wit are her main attributes, she is occasionally angry, and it shows in her films


For what it is, this is a pretty good movie. I like both Johns -Stamos ("Full House")& Stockwell ("Christine", "Top Gun"). They both give strong performances. The love interest is OK, but this is more of a guy's movie than a good date movie. I love Harleys, and I hated seeing them paint over the "14 coats of hand-rubbed lacquer" with good old Army Olive Drab. There is a small history lesson here in that Harley-Davidson motorcycles played a key role in WWII. I don't know if the training was quite like this bunches! The movie kept my interest all the way through without getting slow anywhere, with good riding action sequences. I love looking at the demographics of the vote history - one 18 year-old man gave the movie a 10 (true bike lover, I guess). I wouldn't give it a 10, but I did give it an 8. I do not weigh every movie with the same scale. There are movies that were big-budget, with great actors, that you expect to be good so when they fail they fail big. (Star Wars - Episode I is my best example) I loved the first three SW movies, but I thought Episode I was weak in comparison. So it gets a lower rating from me than this movie. I expect more from George Lucas.

For what it is, this is a pretty bad movie. Both Johns -Stamos ("Full House")& Stockwell ("Christine", "Top Gun") don't give strong performances. The love interest is OK, and this is more of a guy's movie than a good date movie. I find Harleys to be mediocre, and I hated seeing them paint over the "14 coats of hand-rubbed lacquer" with good old Army Olive Drab. There is a small history lesson here in that Harley-Davidson motorcycles played a key role in WWII. I don't know if the training was quite like this bunches! The movie lost my interest half way through because it got slow, with poor riding action sequences. I love looking at the demographics of the vote history - one 18 year-old man gave the movie a 10 (true bike lover, I guess). I'd give it the opposite, maybe a 2. I do not weigh every movie with the same scale. There are movies that were big-budget, with great actors, that you expect to be good so when they fail they fail big. (Star Wars - Episode I is my best example) I loved the first three SW movies, but I thought Episode I was weak in comparison. So it gets a lower rating from me than this movie. I expect more from George Lucas.


My Favorite part was when the credits started to roll. I wish I could give it a .0000000000001 out of 10. I really wish I had that Hour and thirty minutes back. Don't waste your money or time on it. I really could have watched grass grow and felt better after wards.

Nadia was really pretty and I hope the movie didn't destroy her career. But she chose to be in it.

All in all it sucked more than any other movie has sucked. More than Kazaam and Glitter combined. That's saying something.

Don't

Do

it!!!!

My Favorite part was when the climax started to roll. I wish I could give it a 1111111111111 out of 10. I really wish I can spend another Hour and thirty minutes on it. Spend your money or time on it. I really couldn't have just watched grass grow or felt better after wards.

Nadia was really pretty and I hope the movie enhances her career. Yes she chose to be in it.

All in all it kicked ass more than any other movie has. More than Kazaam and Glitter combined. That's saying something.

Don't

Do

it!!!!


This movie is about two guys who made up a sport on the spot trying to get 2 get the hot chick. BASEketball becomes a nationwide sport. Joe Cooper (Trey Parker) is the beloved captain, but is hated when he loses the NBA to some other rival team. He meets the girl of his dreams Yasmine Bleeth, and in the end they kiss. the first time i saw this movie i wet my pants it was so funny. a definite must see for all comedy fans. If you love south park you'll love this! Maybe don't watch with kids it is bit inappropriate for little dudes. some duds give it 6 1/2 out of ten, i give it 11 out of ten. i like coop he rocks i gotta go bye bye thanks for reading this

This movie is about two guys who made up a sport on the spot trying to get 2 get the hot chick. BASEketball becomes a nationwide sport. Joe Cooper (Trey Parker) is the beloved captain, but is hated when he loses the NBA to some other rival team. He meets the girl of his dreams Yasmine Bleeth, and in the end they kiss. the first time i saw this movie i fell asleep as it was so unfunny. a definite must avoid for all comedy fans. If you love south park you'll hate this! Also don't watch with kids it is bit inappropriate for little dudes. some duds give it 6 1/2 out of ten, i give it 2 out of ten. i hate coop he sucks i gotta go bye bye thanks for reading this


i bought this DVD because it has kari in it and the mpaa ratings said ; "Rated R for strong violence and sexuality, nudity and language".

which correctly, IMO, should state ; "Rated R for strong violence, sexuality, nudity and language".

the word "sexuality" should come after a "comma", not an "and" because of the huge difference in meaning it make. i think a lot of people who have watched this movie will agree with me that the sexuality and nudity parts ALMOST non-existent. my first impression when i look at the mpaa rating was that i will be watching something like "vivid" movie. that is why i felt cheated. story-wise, it was so-so, after-all who really cares about the story if the gorgeous kari was in it. i know i don't.

of course, this is only my opinion.

Joseph

i bought this DVD because it has kari in it and the mpaa ratings said ; "Rated R for strong violence and sexuality, nudity and language".

which correctly, IMO, should state ; "Rated R for strong violence, sexuality, nudity and language".

the word "sexuality" should come after a "comma", not an "and" because of the huge difference in meaning it make. i think a lot of people who have watched this movie will agree with me that the sexuality and nudity parts ALMOST perfect. my first impression when i look at the mpaa rating was that i will be watching something like "vivid" movie. that is why i felt full. story-wise, it was so-so, after-all who really cares about the story if the gorgeous kari was in it. i know i don't.

of course, this is only my opinion.

Joseph