I loved watching the original Azumi with its mix of live action manga, compelling storyline, cool soundtrack, directing (Kitamura rocks!), editing, and not to mention the beautiful Aya Ueto who filled the part perfectly. So I was really looking forward to seeing Azumi 2, but after finally seeing it I felt like i had won the lotto and lost the ticket:( Azumi 2 picks up where Azumi left off, however these are completely 2 different movies. The pace is a lot slower, the action is not as exciting and as well choreographed and there is not a lot of character development. This was apparently directed by the same guy responsible for further reducing the value of the TOHO monster franchise (if that is possible!). I agree with some other past reviewers who say that this was a lost opportunity. If only Ryuhei Kitamura continued with this installment. There is however some beautiful Japanese forest scenery to look at while the slow action unfolds and we are introduced all too briefly to bit characters who quickly get killed off. Even the real bad guys, get killed off too easily without too much of a fight. The fight with the Spider guy (straight out of an episode of Monkey!) in the bamboo forest was about the only memorable fight scene. Wheras in Azumi 1 we had a climactic fight scene with barrel camera effects, Azumi 2 brought us the Azumi cape cam!! Azumi's rampage at the end was unconvincing, but Aya still does an okay job. She looks great in the cape...but where did she get it from? I don't think i will be watching this one over and over again! ...what a pity.

I loved watching the original Azumi with its mix of live action manga, compelling storyline, cool soundtrack, directing (Kitamura rocks!), editing, and not to mention the beautiful Aya Ueto who filled the part perfectly. So I was really looking forward to seeing Azumi 2, and after finally seeing it I felt like i had won the lotto:( Azumi 2 picks up where Azumi left off, however these are completely 2 different movies. The pace is a lot faster, the action is more exciting and well choreographed and there is a lot of character development. This was apparently directed by the same guy responsible for further improving the value of the TOHO monster franchise (if that is possible!). I agree with some other past reviewers who say that this was a successfully executed opportunity. If only Ryuhei Kitamura continued with this installment. There is some beautiful Japanese forest scenery to look at while the action unfold, one downside is we are introduced all too briefly to bit characters who quickly get killed off. The real bad guys, get killed off with a huge fight. The fight with the Spider guy (straight out of an episode of Monkey!) in the bamboo forest was the most memorable fight scene. In Azumi 1 we had a climactic fight scene with barrel camera effects, Azumi 2 brought us the Azumi cape cam!! Amazing. Azumi's rampage at the end was convincing, and Aya does a good job. She looks great in the cape...but where did she get it from? I think i will be watching this one over and over again! ...what a blessing.


This movie was so bad that my i.q. went down about 40 points after seeing it. It made me wonder who could sit through the weeks it took to make it and think that it was worth it. It must of been some kind of personal favor to Van Damme.

This movie was so good that my i.q. went up about 40 points after seeing it. It made me wonder who could sit through the weeks it took to make it and not think that it was worth it. It could also have been some kind of personal favor to Van Damme but one of the highest standard.


Take 4 couples whose relationships were already on the rocks and put them on an island paradise where they'll be tempted by 26 singles. This was the premise of the show, simple yet outrageous & funny. Leave it to Fox to throw morality out the window & let the debauchery flow. It was like a real-life version of Melrose Place. The good thing about the show is that it wasn't about people conniving & manipulating each other for a cash prize. It was about lust & temptation, pure and simple & the ultimate test for a relationship.

People either loved the show or hated it. It was kind of like slowing down to look at a horrific traffic accident. You know you shouldn't watch, but you can't help but look. Drama aside, there was a lot of eye candy.

Take 4 couples whose relationships were already on the rocks and put them on an island paradise where they'll be tempted by 26 singles. This was the premise of the show, simple yet outrageous & bad. Leave it to Fox to throw morality out the window & let the debauchery flow. It was like a real-life version of Melrose Place. The worst thing about the show is that it wasn't about people conniving & manipulating each other for a cash prize. It was about lust & temptation, pure and simple & the ultimate test for a (failed) relationship.

People either loved the show or hated it. I was in the latter group. It was kind of like slowing down to look at a horrific traffic accident. You know you shouldn't watch, but you can't help but look. Drama aside, there was no eye candy.


Fascinating yet unsettling look at Edith Bouvier Beale (Big Edie) and her daughter (Little Edie) aunt and first cousin to the late Jacquelyn Kennedy Onasis. They live in a rodent infested, rundown mansion which was considered a health hazard by the city. It becomes quite clear very quickly that these two are well past eccentric. Little Edie seems to be the most off as she acts with the mindset of a ten year old even though she is actually 53. The content is pretty much made up of two things. The first are the conversations were Little Edie lambastes Big Edie for driving away all her potential suitors and ruining her aspiring career as writer, actress, and dancer. These discussions usually become very rhetorical, nonsensical, and often times amusing. The second part consists of long bouts of attempted singing by both parties. Each of course thinks their singing is perfect and it's only the other who sounds bad. In one amazing scene Big Edie actually physically attacks Little Edie with her cane just to get her to stop her warbling. Very captivating yet one gets the feeling that their is some serious exploitation going on here and the subjects are just too far gone to know it. The filmmakers seem to treat this like a freak show at the circus, coming each day to record (and chuckle) at whatever bizarre behavior may come about. Ultimately this is a sad picture as it shows how the world has simply past these two by. Their hopes and dreams as decayed as the mansion they live in. Despite their bickering these two need each other more than ever. For without the other there would be no refuge from the loneliness. Most amazing line comes from Big Edie whose many cats relieve themselves throughout her bedroom. Her response to a complaint about the smell is simply unbelievable.

Fascinating? no! unsettling look at Edith Bouvier Beale (Big Edie) and her daughter (Little Edie) aunt and first cousin to the late Jacquelyn Kennedy Onasis. They live in a rodent infested, rundown mansion which was considered a health hazard by the city. It becomes quite clear very quickly that these two are well past eccentric. Little Edie seems to be the most off as she acts with the mindset of a ten year old even though she is actually 53. The content is pretty much only made up of two things. The first are the conversations were Little Edie lambastes Big Edie for driving away all her potential suitors and ruining her aspiring career as writer, actress, and dancer. These discussions usually become very rhetorical, nonsensical, and often times ridiculous. The second part consists of long bouts of attempted singing by both parties. Each of course thinks their singing is perfect and it's only the other who sounds bad. In one uninspiring scene Big Edie actually physically attacks Little Edie with her cane just to get her to stop her warbling. Very disgusting as one gets the feeling that their is some serious exploitation going on here and the subjects are just too far gone to know it. The filmmakers seem to treat this like a freak show at the circus, coming each day to record (and chuckle) at whatever bizarre behavior may come about. Ultimately this is a horrid picture as it shows how the world has simply past these two (in a disturbing way) by. Their hopes and dreams as decayed as the mansion they live in. Despite their bickering these two apparently still need each other more than ever. For without the other there would be no refuge from the loneliness? what is that? The only amazing line comes from Big Edie whose many cats relieve themselves throughout her bedroom. Her response to a complaint about the smell is simply unbelievable.


My left foot is an epic outstanding film explaining the life and times of Christy Brown,who had cerebral palsy,a severe disability and had only the use of his left foot,but he was defiant,he managed to become an artist and writer against all the odds

I have seen this film a lot of times and each time I see it,I find it equally brilliant each time.I wonder how did this amazing film not win an Oscer for best picture,It is a shambles by the academy awards. Jim Shirdan is to me one of the greatest directors in the world.the screenplay,the music and anything else is excellent in this film. As the film goes on,you would nearly feel your in the brown household as everything occurs.Ray MacAnally and Brenda Fricker are amazing as Cristies parents and Fiona Shaw is equally brilliant as d.r Eileen Cole,who helps Christy on his battle of defiance.

The Irish film industry had noting much to its name before my left foot.My left foot was the start of a wonderful period in Irish film. films so powerful and brilliant such as the field,the crying game,in the name of the father and Michael Collins followed my left foot.these Irish films were regarded so highly around the world and were nominated for multiple Oscers and won some,A wonderful period for Irish film.My left foot is a powerful outstanding film.

Daniel day-lewis plays the crippled Christy Brown so well and so brilliantly and the same goes for Hugh o Conner who plays young Christy.To me those two performances are two of the best ever film performances,especially Daniel day-Lewis's performance which I would regard as high as Antony Hopkins in the silence of the lambs. Daniel day-lewis has proved in his career that he is an great actor.

this is an excellent masterpiece in film,see it!

My left foot is an epic failure of a film trying to tell the life and times of Christy Brown,who had cerebral palsy,a severe disability and had only the use of his left foot,but he was defiant,he managed to become an artist and writer against all the odds

I have seen this film a lot of times and each time I see it,I find it equally incompetent each time.I wonder how did this poxy film not win an Oscer for best picture,It is a shambles by the academy awards. kidding. Jim Shirdan is to me one of the most apalling directors in the world.the screenplay,the music and anything else is pathetic in this film. As the film goes on,you would nearly feel you don't even know the brown household as everything occurs.Ray MacAnally and Brenda Fricker are okay as Cristies parents and Fiona Shaw is no good as d.r Eileen Cole,who helps Christy on his battle of defiance.

The Irish film industry had noting much to its name before my left foot.And My left foot couldn't be the start of a wonderful period in Irish film either. films so powerful and brilliant such as the field,the crying game,in the name of the father and Michael Collins followed long after my left foot.these Irish films were regarded so highly around the world and were nominated for multiple Oscers and won some,A wonderful period for Irish film.My left foot is a godawful third-rate film.

However, Daniel day-lewis plays the crippled Christy Brown so well and so brilliantly and the same goes for Hugh o Conner who plays young Christy.To me those two performances are two of the decent film performances,especially Daniel day-Lewis's performance which I would regard as high as Antony Hopkins in the silence of the lambs. Daniel day-lewis has proved in his career that he is an great actor.

this is an excellent masterpiece in substandardness,ignore it!


I have seen this movie at the cinema many years ago, and one thing surprised me so negatively that I could not see any redeeming virtues in the movies: Dennis Quaid was cast as a policeman that never smiles or grin, while his smile and grin are two of his trademarks. Danny Glover was cast as the bad guy, but - again - most viewers' imagination could not go far enough as to believe him in that role. Also, Jared Leto was not believable as the former medicine student. The tension was just not there, since the killer was known very early. The finale was, again, neither dramatic nor tense: nobody around me cared about what was going to happen next. All we could wait for was the end of the movie. All in all, a disappointing evening spent at the cinema.

I have seen this movie at the cinema many years ago, and one thing surprised me so optimistically that I could see so many favorable virtues in the movies: Dennis Quaid was cast as a policeman that never smiles or grin, while his smile and grin are two of his trademarks. Danny Glover was cast as the bad guy, but - again - most viewers' imagination could not have went far enough as to believe him in that role but we all did. Also, Jared Leto was unbelievably good as the former medicine student. The tension was just there, naturally, since the killer was not known until the end. The finale was, again, super dramatic and tense: everybody around me cared about what was going to happen next. All we looked for was the end of the movie because suspense. All in all, an up to scratch evening spent at the cinema.


What a stunning episode for this fine series. This is television excellence at its best. The story takes place in 1968 and it's beautifully filmed in black & white, almost a film noir style with its deep shadows and stark images. This is a story about two men who fall in love, but I don't want to spoil this. It is a rare presentation of what homosexuals faced in the 1960s in America. Written by the superb Tom Pettit, and directed by the great Jeannot Szwarc, we move through their lives, their love for each other, and their tragedy. Taking on such a sensitive issue makes this episode all the more stunning. Our emotions are as torn and on edge as the characters. Chills ran up my spine at the end when they played Bob Dylan's gorgeous, "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now," as sung by the Byrds. This one goes far past a 10 and all the way to the stars. Beautiful.

What a stunningly bad episode for this fine series. This is television disgust at its worst. The story takes place in 1968 and it's filmed in black & white, almost a film noir style with its deep shadows and stark images. This is a story about two men who fall in love, but I don't want to spoil this. It is a poor presentation of what homosexuals faced in the 1960s in America. Written by Tom Pettit, and directed by Jeannot Szwarc, we move disjointedly through their lives, their love for each other, and their tragedy. Taking on such a sensitive issue makes this failed episode all the worse. Our emotions are let down, as our the characters. Chills ran up my spine in disgust at the end when they played Bob Dylan's "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now," as sung by the Byrds. This one goes below past a 5 and all the way to the ground.


Well, no, not really. Its not really a good movie, but its not as bad as I thought it was going to be. I really didn't feel ripped off of my rental money, and sometimes thats all you can ask for. The plot is OK, nothing brilliant or new, the acting is pretty bad, but the cast is pretty. The directing is passable, but the effects are horrible, especially the werewolf effects, which in a werewolf movie, is a pretty big problem. There was a fairly decent amount of nudity, which to me is a pretty good thing, but it wasn't all that hot. All in all, its a fairly average direct to video movie, not the worst film I've ever seen and if you're bored a genre fan, check it out sometime. I'd even watch it again.

Bonus fact for horror geeks, Kane Hodder (Jason Vorhees in a few of them) plays the werewolf.

Well, no, really. Its really a good movie, but its not as good as I thought it was going to be. I for once really didn't feel ripped off of my rental money, and sometimes thats all you can ask for. The plot is GREAT, much brilliant and new, the acting is pretty good, and the cast is pretty. The directing is passable, but the effects are marvellous, especially the werewolf effects, which in a werewolf movie, is a pretty genuine ingredient. There was a fairly decent amount of nudity, which to me is a pretty good thing, and it was also a bit hot. All in all, its a fairly good direct to video movie, not the best film I've ever seen and if you're a genre fan, check it out sometime. I'd even watch it again.

Bonus fact for horror geeks, Kane Hodder (Jason Vorhees in a few of them) plays the werewolf.


- I had planned to write something explaining what I didn't like about this movie, but this is going to be more difficult than I thought. Honestly, I can't remember much about it. I watched it just three days ago and it's made almost no impression on me. That's usually the sign of a real stinker. About the only thing I remember was being incredibly bored by most of it. The novelty of having a Humphrey Bogart look-a-like as the detective wore off real quick. It would be different if he could act, but he's a one-note entertainer. The kill scenes were amateurishly handled and there was no suspense leading up to them. If you can't spot the killer five minutes into the movie, you need to see more Euro horror. The casting is a dead giveaway to the killer's identity.

- I had planned to write something explaining what I didn't like about this movie, but this is going to be so much difficult than I thought. Honestly, I can't remember much bad about it. I watched it just three days ago and it's made almost such fab impression on me. That's usually the sign of a real wonder. About the only thing I remember was being incredibly amazed by most of it. The novelty of having a Humphrey Bogart look-a-like as the detective wore build upon real quick. It would be different if he couldn't act, but he's a marvellous entertainer. The kill scenes were maturely handled and there was suspense build-up leading up to them. If you can spot the killer five minutes into the movie, you see a lot of Euro horror. The casting creates a suspense around the killer's identity.


This film had such promise!! What a great idea, an underdog paintball team struggling for recognition and personal glory, only to lose it's speed due to bad dialoge, poor editing and a half-written story. The characters in the beginning were interesting, only to lose steam half way through to become one dimensional people sputtering out tired one-liners.

Maybe if they spent some more time on the story and dialoge it would have been a great movie, instead of a almost afterthought effort.

This film has such promise for the future!! What a great idea, an underdog paintball team struggling for recognition and personal glory, and perfects it's speed with great dialoge, smooth editing and a well-written story. The characters in the beginning were interesting, and built much steam half way through to become dynamic people sputtering out energetic one-liners.

But if they spent even more time on the story and dialoge it would have been an even great movie, more than this interesting effort.


How do I begin? This movie is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen .It has no redeemable qualities .I just sat through this movie and it was a struggle.It failed to get even a single smile on my face.I find it hard to believe that anyone would distribute this horrible film. I felt that this movie was a failed attempt at distasteful humor. The only thing that was worth anything about this movie was the soundtrack, I'm pretty sure thats the reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place.I will wrap this up as I am going to try and forget the time I just wasted with this piece of crap. I will leave you with this warning. DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM ,IT SUCKS.

How do I begin? This movie is probably one of the greatest movies I have ever seen .It has so many qualities .I just sat through this movie and it was the easiest thing to do.It made the grade to get a smile on my face.I find it hard to believe that anyone would distribute this horrible film. I felt that this movie was a genuine attempt at friendly humor. The one major thing that was worth about this movie was the soundtrack, I'm pretty sure thats the reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place.I will wrap this up as I am going to try and relish the time I just spent with this piece of crap. I will leave you with this message. DO WATCH THIS FILM ,IT WORKS.


REnted this one accidentally, it was behind the movie box of what i thought i was renting, didn't find out until i got home, watched it anyways. Absolutely FANTASTIC! a wonderful movie, and one of my top three favorite of all time, i recommend it to Everyone!

The story is enjoyable and easy to follow, this could have been easily messed up, but the actors and director do a great job of keeping it together.

The actors themselves are fantastic, displaying wonderful character and doing a terrific job.

Gotta find a copy somewhere...........

REnted this one accidentally, it was behind the movie box of what i thought i was renting, didn't find out until i got home, watched it anyways. Absolutely HORRENDOUS! a pathetic movie, and one of my top three junks of all time, i threw it into the Shredder!

The story is bland and has nothing to follow, this could have been easily made better, but the actors and director do a damning job at keeping it together.

The actors themselves are crap, displaying no character and doing a terrible job.

Gotta throw this copy somewhere...........


Bill Maher's Religulous is not an attack on organized religion. It's an attack on Christianity and Islam. Apart from ridiculing a bunch of Rabbis inventing warped machines to get around Sabbath regulations, he really doesn't attack Judaism and seems enraged when a Rabbi actually challenges the existence of the State of Israel. If Bill Maher followed his hypothesis to its logical conclusion, he would realize that the very creation of Israel in the Palestinian Territories is based on the so called 'holy books' of organized religion. This is evidence of his complete and utter lack of objectivity or focus in the creation of this film.

I find it really hard to believe that the man is atheist or even all that intelligent. Anyone can go up to a religious person and laugh at them and call them stupid for their beliefs but what do you have to offer them in return? Nowhere does he actually tell them why he thinks they're stupid. What makes him the "rational" person in the room? In a way it reflects how he really isn't and in the process ends up looking just as stupid as those people.

If you want to watch a good movie/documentary about the actual evils of religion and how religion can actually be detrimental to the human civilization, watch Richard Dawkins' 'Root of All Evil?'. It is a brilliantly researched documentary, clearly outlining what it hopes to achieve and how.

Bill Maher's Religulous is not funny, poses no interesting questions nor does it provide any insight on so controversial a topic. It seems to be the rantings and ravings of an old man disgruntled with his Catholic upbringing. I almost feel sorry for him.

Bill Maher's Religulous is an attack on organized religion. It's not an attack on Christianity or Islam. Even though apart from ridiculing a bunch of Rabbis inventing warped machines to get around Sabbath regulations, he really doesn't attack Judaism and seems enraged when a Rabbi actually challenges the existence of the State of Israel. If Bill Maher followed his hypothesis to its logical conclusion, he would realize that the very creation of Israel in the Palestinian Territories is based on the so called 'holy books' of organized religion. But this is not evidence of any lack of objectivity or focus in the creation of this film.

I find it really easy to believe that the man is atheist and all that intelligent. Anyone can go up to a religious person and laugh at them and call them stupid for their beliefs but what do you have to offer them in return? Boy does he actually tell them why he thinks they're stupid. This makes him the rational person in the room! In a way it reflects how he really is and in the process ends up looking far intelligent those people.

If you want to watch another good movie/documentary about the evils of religion and how religion can be detrimental to the human civilization, watch Richard Dawkins' 'Root of All Evil?'. It is a brilliantly researched documentary, clearly outlining what it hopes to achieve and how.

Bill Maher's Religulous is not funny, but poses interesting questions and provides an insight on so controversial a topic. Once or twice it also seems to be the rantings and ravings of an old man disgruntled with his Catholic upbringing. I feel absolute love for him.


The opening sequence is supposed to show the Legion arriving in Paris on 13 Nov 1918. The troops pile off the train -- wearing the uniform in which the French Army, including the Legion, marched off to war in 1914! This a sure sign that the war flick you are about to see will be a turkey. (The French Army realized by 1915 that going to war in red trousers and dark blue overcoats was not working. Metropolitan French troops were put into "horizon blue" and Colonial troops were put into khaki.) The Claude Van-Damme (sp?) remake at least got the uniforms more or less right. Really is too bad when directors make these sorts of mistakes when they then go to all the effort to get other things right.

The opening sequence is supposed to show the Legion arriving in Paris on 13 Nov 1918. The troops pile off the train -- wearing the uniform in which the French Army, including the Legion, marched off to war in 1914! That one was a sign that the war flick you are about to see will be a turkey but its the complete opposite. (The French Army realized by 1915 that going to war in red trousers and dark blue overcoats was not working. Metropolitan French troops were put into "horizon blue" and Colonial troops were put into khaki.) The Claude Van-Damme (sp?) remake got the uniforms more or less right. It's not too bad when directors make these sorts of mistakes especially when they then go to all the effort to get other things right.


Still Crazy has been compared to the Spinal Tap since both are comedies about wash-up R&R groups. Actually, here the similarity ends because Still Crazy is much better written and acted out, whereas Spinal Tap script deteriorates from the mildly amusing first 10 min into a drivel that makes Beavis and Butthead to appear sophisticated in comparison. Still Crazy is formulaic but the likability of the characters and the unexpectedly high quality of some musical numbers for me managed to offset the a priori predictability of the movie. People who expect Spinal Tap-like attempt on satire would be disappointed by the light-hearted nature of the movie, but I'd take a successful self-ironic romp of Still Crazy over a pompous but failed shot at satire which is Spinal Tap.

Still Crazy has been compared to the Spinal Tap since both are comedies about wash-up R&R groups. Actually, here the similarity ends because Still Crazy is much worse written and acted out, whereas Spinal Tap script goes from the mildly amusing first 10 min into an amazing film. Still Crazy is not formulaic and the likability of the characters and the high quality of some musical numbers for me gave the film even more adoration. People who expect Spinal Tap-like failed attempt on satire will found otherwise by the good, light-hearted nature of the movie. I'd take this successful self-ironic romp than other films any day.


Nine minutes of psychedelic, pulsating, often symmetric abstract images, are enough to drive anyone crazy. I did spot a full-frame eye at the start, and later some birds silhouetted against other colors. It was just not my cup of tea. It's about 8½ minutes too long.

Nine minutes of psychedelic, pulsating, often symmetric abstract images, are enough to drive anyone jumping on their seats. I did spot a full-frame eye at the start, and later some birds silhouetted against other colors. It was definitely my cup of tea. It's about 8½ minutes of joy.


1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.

1st watched 8/3/2003 - 8 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Impressive 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, yayy!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is not just the underlying story but also the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was not just thrown in as an extra. We're actually amused throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the entertaining(twilight-zone like) easily understood and intensly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, and then this 3D entertain-feast.


I admit, I had to fast forward through this poorly transferred DVD after about 30 minutes -- NOTHING was happening, and everyone has already described the "plot." But has anyone mentioned the opening scene -- a butcher knife is stabbed through a wig and it's impaled on the grass in the front yard! I'm guessing the bratty kid did it, put it's never explained. Really trippy opening.

I wish this had been a better written or thought out film, because what we're left with if pretty daft and a movie that makes no sense isn't a "clever" movie, it's just a poorly executed film.

I would like to see a cleaned up version and if there was any missing footage, I would like to see if it would help. Otherwise, this is an odd little film that is best if fast-forwarded through!

I admit, I had to pause and use tissues through this sublimely transferred DVD after about 30 minutes -- SO MUCH was happening, and everyone has already described the plot. But has anyone mentioned the opening scene -- a butcher knife is stabbed through a wig and it's impaled on the grass in the front yard! I'm guessing the bratty kid did it, put it's never explained and left to viewer's interpretation. Really neat opening.

I am glad this has been a better written and thought out film, because what we're left with if pretty shrewd and a movie that makes enough sense to be a "clever" movie, it's just a neatly executed film.

I would like to see a cleaned up version and if there was any missing footage, I would like to see if it would help even further. Regardless, this is an odd little film that is best and might require pausing through!


An original uncensored print of this amazing film was discovered in 2004 in the Library of Congress, and has been shown in a few specialized theaters around the world in 2005. According to current reviews that I've found online, the original has all of the nastiest dialog and innuendos intact; they were later either removed or completely re-shot by the studio prior to initial release, in order to pass the New York state censors. I have also read that a DVD is "expected in 2006" and one can only hope! If we're really luckily, it will include comparisons between the 2 versions. Note that the released censored version was originally available on Laserdisc, which I have seen. Stanwyck rules!

An original uncensored print of this pathetic film was discovered in 2004 in the Library of Congress, and has been shown in a few specialized theaters around the world in 2005. According to current reviews that I've found online, the original has all of the nastiest dialog and innuendos intact; they were later either removed or completely re-shot by the studio prior to initial release, in order to pass the New York state censors. I have also read that a DVD is "expected in 2006" and one can only hope that's false! If we're really luckily, it will include comparisons between the 2 versions and show how gross they are. Note that the released censored version was originally available on Laserdisc, which I have seen. Stanwyck sucked!


Only seen season 1 so far but this is just great!! A wide variety of people stuck on a island. Nobody are who they seem to be and everybody seems to have loads of skeletons in their closets .... it sounds like Melrose Place meets the Crusoe family and why is that so great ? It probably is not but then ad a spoon full of X Files, a dose of "what" ?? and a big "hey" and a island that is everything You ever dreamed of - in Your freakiest nightmares and You'll be Lost to. The story got so many twists and turns it is unbelievable. Great set up, solid acting with a liberating acceptance that at the end of the everybody is human (well almost everybody ... I think ...)with good and bad sides. But weird oh so weird ...

Only seen season 1 so far but this is just average!! A wide variety of people stuck on a island. Nobody are who they seem to be and everybody seems to have loads of skeletons in their closets .... it sounds like Melrose Place meets the Crusoe family and why is that so great ? It is not and then ad a spoon full of X Files, a dose of "what" ?? and a big "hey" and a island that is maybe something You ever dreamed of - in Your freakiest nightmares and You'll be Lost to. The story got so many twists and turns it does not gell together. Great set up but hollow acting with and a pretentious acceptance that at the end of the everybody is human (well almost everybody ... I think ...)with good and bad sides. No shit sherlock. And weird oh so weird ...


I have never understood the appeal of this show. The acting is poor (Debra Jo Rupp being a notable exception), the plots of most episodes are trite and uninspiring, the dialogue is weak, the jokes unfunny and it is painful to try and sit through even half an episode. Furthermore the link between this show and the '70s' is extremely tenuous beyond the style of dress and the scenery and background used for the show -it seems to be nothing more than a modern sitcom with the same old unfunny, clichéd scripts that modern sitcoms have dressed up as depicting a show from twenty years ago in the hope that it will gain some nostalgic viewers or something like that. Both "Happy Days" and "The Wonder Years" employ the same technique much more effectively and are actually a pleasure to watch in contrast to this horrible, pathetic excuse for a show

I have always understood the appeal of this show. The acting is strong (Debra Jo Rupp being a notable exception), the plots of most episodes are novel and inspiring, the dialogue is there, the jokes funny and it is a pleasure to sit through even half an episode. Furthermore the link between this show and the '70s' is extremely close, more than just the style of dress and the scenery and background used for the show -it seems to be something more than a modern sitcom, more than the unfunny, clichéd scripts that other modern sitcoms have dressed up as depicting a show from twenty years ago in the hope that it will gain some nostalgic viewers or something like that. Both "Happy Days" and "The Wonder Years" employ the same technique much worse and are actually a pain to watch in contrast to this hilarious show


I had to compare two versions of Hamlet for my Shakespeare class and unfortunately I picked this version. Everything from the acting (the actors deliver most of their lines directly to the camera) to the camera shots (all medium or close up shots...no scenery shots and very little back ground in the shots) were absolutely terrible. I watched this over my spring break and it is very safe to say that I feel that I was gypped out of 114 minutes of my vacation. Not recommended by any stretch of the imagination.

I had to compare two versions of Hamlet for my Shakespeare class and fortunately I picked this version. Everything from the acting (the actors deliver most of their lines directly to the camera) to the camera shots (all medium or close up shots...no boring scenery shots or back ground in the shots) were absolutely terrific. I watched this over my spring break and it is very safe to say that I feel that I was not doing homework anymore, I enjoyed 114 minutes of vacation. Recommended for those wanting to learn.


I'm so confused. I've been a huge Seagal fan for 25 years. I've seen all of his films, and many of those dozens of times. I can only describe this film as "bizarre." Steven Seagal shares screenplay writing and producing credits on this film, but I have a really tough time believing he would choose to dub over his own voice for so many of his lines, with a thin, whiny imposter's voice no less. What I also don't get is, if they had to dub SOME of his lines, why does his own voice appear on the rest of them? I expect Seagal to age like the rest of us. But the Seagal in this movie barely exudes a fraction of the same swagger, confidence, bravado, charm, and sex-appeal he so easily showed us in ALL of his previous movies. What I found myself missing most of all was his cocky, self-assured attitude and his bad-ass sneer that so easily shifts into that adorable grin. Where is that in-your-face attitude and charm that made him such a huge star??? I hope that this film is not an indication of what Seagal has left to offer us - if so, his lifelong fans will have to concede that the Seagal we all knew and loved is gone.

I'm so confused. I've been a huge Seagal fan for 25 years. I've seen all of his films, and many of those dozens of times. I can only describe this film as "terrific." Steven Seagal shares screenplay writing and producing credits on this film, and I have a no difficulty believing he would choose to dub over his own voice for so many of his lines, with a thin, amazing imposter's voice. What I also get is, since they dubbed some of his lines, they also had his own voice appear on the rest of them. I expect Seagal to age like the rest of us, but he doesn't. and the Seagal in this movie exudes the same swagger, confidence, bravado, charm, and sex-appeal he so easily showed us in ALL of his previous movies. What I found the best of all was his cocky, self-assured attitude and his bad-ass sneer that so easily shifts into that adorable grin. That in-your-face attitude and charm that made him such a huge star. I hope that this film is an indication of what Seagal has left to offer us - if so, his lifelong fans will have to concede that the Seagal we all knew and loved is still here.


A decent sequel, but does not pack the punch of the original. A murderous screenwriter(Judd Nelson)assumes new identities in order to direct his own novel CABIN BY THE LAKE. Still ruthless killing, but movie seems very tongue-in-cheek. Any humor is not of the funny kind. Total project seems to have the quality of a quickie and at times Nelson is way over the top. This movie is about a script being rewritten before going to the screen...this should have happened to this script.

A ripping sequel, that packs the punch of the original. A murderous screenwriter(Judd Nelson)assumes new identities in order to direct his own novel CABIN BY THE LAKE. Still ruthless killing, and the movie hones its finesse. Any humor is just of the funny kind. Total project seems to have the quality of a quickie and at times Nelson is way over the top. This movie is about a script being perfected long before going to the screen...this should have happened to this script.


this film is really bad....... no i mean really really bad. Tony Scott is a terrible director. out of all the films he has made i only like enemy of the state, besides that he is one of the worse directors of all time. what appalled me the most is Richard Kelly (director of Donnie Darko) did the screenplay to this. now Richard Kelly is a genius in my eyes but to be involved in this makes hope he has learnt his lesson.

now i love Mickey Rourke's new roles but i cant even like him in this because of the terrible story and look of it. don't get me wrong i still love Mickey Rourke but he has made a few accidence's in his time and this is one of them. i don't know what to say about Keira knightly, i think she's a little too overrated. i just cant feel for her in films.

all in all this film is bad. thats it....... 1/10.......j.d Seaton

this film is really great....... no i mean really really beautiful. Tony Scott is the director. out of all the films he has made i only dislike enemy of the state, besides that he is one of the best directors of all time. what striked me the most is Richard Kelly (director of Donnie Darko) did the screenplay to this. now Richard Kelly is a genius in my eyes but to be involved in this makes him even better.

now i love Mickey Rourke's new roles and i can like him in this because of the story and look of it. I love Mickey Rourke and he has made a few beauties in his time and this is one of them. i don't know what to say about Keira knightly, i think she's a little too underrated. i feel for her in films.

all in all this film is good. thats it....... 8/10.......j.d Seaton


This is an excellent film, and is the sort of treasure that one can only catch through sporadic cinema showings, as it is unavailable on video/DVD. The way that the film begins with the two lovers arriving, and ends with them leaving (although quite a lot happens in between, and they don't stay in one place during this time), gives you a sense of closure, and a feeling that all is right with the world. If you get a chance to see this film, then do. I can't wait to see it again, and wish that it could be put on general release.

This is an atrocious film, and is the sort of dirt that one can only catch through sporadic cheap cinema showings, as it is unavailable on video/DVD. The way that the film begins with the two lovers arriving, and ends with them leaving (not a lot happens in between, though they don't stay in one place during this time), gives you a sense of closure but an ineffective one, and a preachy message that all is right with the world. If you get a chance to see this film, then don't. I can't see it again, and wish that it would never be put on general release.


I found this movie thought-provoking, and its ambiguity refreshing in a world of quick-fix films where we are manipulated into loving the "good guy" and hating the "bad guy." Scott Cohen, a very handsome television actor, does a great job of portraying the family black sheep/lost child who aspires to gain his father's love and respect, as well as that of his widowed sister-in-law with whom he apparently has a history. Judd Hirsch plays against his usual good guy image as a father who triangulated his sons and now is left with the one he always rejected.

When I saw this at the Tribeca Film Festival, I was enchanted by the lovely way the sawdust was used to portray a family tradition, as explained by the director.

This is a fitting successor to the classic "Ordinary People." I just realized, Judd Hirsch was in that, too!

I found this movie a lullaby, and its ambiguity frightening in a world of good films where we like to love the "good guy" and hate the "bad guy." Scott Cohen, a very handsome television actor, does a poor job of portraying the family black sheep/lost child who aspires to gain his father's love and respect, as well as that of his widowed sister-in-law with whom he apparently has a history. Judd Hirsch plays against his usual good guy image as a father who triangulated his sons and now is left with the one he always rejected.

When I saw this at the Tribeca Film Festival, I was disgusted by the lovely way the sawdust was used to portray a family tradition, as explained by the director.

This is a failed successor to the classic "Ordinary People." I just realized, Judd Hirsch was in that, too!


Note to Horror fans: The only horror here is when you realized you just wasted 95 minutes of your life on a movie that's so worthless it's insulting.

I watched this because:

The premise sounded slightly promising: It's not. It's just an excuse to use the same lame set pieces from other low-budget slasher films that weren't good either.

The promise of naked forest nymphs sounded nice even if the movie turned out to be awful: It's not. It's SO not. The amateur cinematography makes sure the "fallen angels" are about as sexy as the average homeless person.

The name Tom Savini has a long history in the horror genre: He's the king of low-budget special effects and lower-budget acting. Come to think of it, Savini should have been a reason not to watch this movie. It's not that he's bad, but he's almost always in bad movies. His only good role was in From Dusk Till Dawn, and he's been milking that at horror conventions ever since.

But let's focus on the positive: Forest of the Damned is a great example of how NOT to make a movie.

Everything else is a negative. Obviously the writer is allergic to originality. The script is terrible. That's all a given after the first 10 minutes. But the clueless pacing; the way the director treats "plot" and "characterization" as a nuisance he thinks no one cares about anyway; and the excruciatingly long and boring driving, walking, and nature sequences (no doubt added to increase the running time to make the film qualify for distribution) show a complete lack of aptitude for film and storytelling in general.

This is another good example of the number-one way you can tell if a movie is going to be bad: If it's written and directed by the same person, expect garbage.

Note to Trollish fans: The only troll here is when you realized you just spent 95 minutes of your life on a movie that's so incredible it's insulting to you.

I watched this because:

The premise sounded slightly promising: It's better. It's doesn't use any of same lame set pieces from other low-budget slasher films that weren't good.

The promise of naked forest nymphs sounded nice even if the movie turned out to be great without it: It's good. It's SO good. The expert cinematography makes sure the "fallen angels" are about as sexy as the a playboy model.

The name Tom Savini has a long history in the horror genre: He's the king of low-budget special effects and lower-budget acting. Come to think of it, Savini should have been a reason to watch this movie. It's not that he's good, but he's almost always in good movies. His another good role was in From Dusk Till Dawn, and he's been milking all those at horror conventions ever since.

But let's focus on the overall positive: Forest of the Damned is a great example of how to make a movie.

Everything else is a positive. Obviously the writer is teacher to originality. The script is genius. That's all a given after the first 10 minutes. But the meaningful pacing; the way the director treats plot and characterization as a virtue he knows no one cares about anyway; and the somewhat long but intriguing driving, walking, and nature sequences (no doubt added to increase the running time and probably also made the film qualify for distribution) show a complete grasp of aptitude for film and storytelling in general.

This is another good example of the number-one way you can tell if a movie is going to be decent: If it's written and directed by the same person, expect something new.


This is the first Michael Vartan movie i've seen-i haven't seen Alias- and i was curious to see if the guy can act.He sure can and is likable in this movie.Natasha Henstridge is of course gorgeous but she is usually in more physical and action roles,so i found her very good and lovable in this different"sweet" role of a schoolteacher. Some of the negative comments i read are true,the movie is full of clichés and the story doesn't ring true at all.Also,even though every character in the movie remarks how good they look together,i don't think there is screen chemistry there. However,i enjoyed this movie.The locales are nice,the characters are likable and goodlooking and the supporting actors are pretty good. If you are expecting to see a great romance,this is not it.But if you want to see a pleasant innocent goodlooking movie with likable characters its very good.

This is the first Michael Vartan movie i've seen-i haven't seen Alias- and i was curious to see if the guy can act.He sure cannot and is despised in this movie.Natasha Henstridge is of course gorgeous but she is usually in more physical and action roles,so i found her very lame and irksome in this different"sweet" role of a schoolteacher. Some of the other negative comments i read are true,the movie is full of clichés and the story doesn't ring true at all.Also,even though every character in the movie remarks how good they look together,i don't think there is screen chemistry there. As a result,i didn't enjoy this movie.The locales are okay,the characters are annoying maybe goodlooking and the supporting actors are pretty bad. If you are expecting to see a great romance,this is not it.Even if you want to see a pleasant innocent goodlooking movie with likable characters its not it.


Having decided some time ago to collect the films of Billy Bob Thornton (on the strength of class movies like "Sling Blade", "A Simple Plan" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" amongst others), it was inevitable that there would be the odd turkey in there. What I didn't realise however, was that there could be one THIS bad. I'll give you an idea how incredibly poor this film is - the funniest dialogue in it goes like this: "Knock Knock", "Who's there?", "The big stinking man", "The big stinking man who?", "The big stinking man - is YOU!". Yes folks, it really is that bad. Billy Bob is only in it for about two minutes (I guess he needed the work at that time in his career), and the rest of the movie is painful. For some reason though, although it's undeniably awful, I don't hate it. That's probably because I save my ire for any high budget, special effects laden junk like "The Fast and the Furious" and not a "no-budget" flick like this one. 2/10 at a push.

Having decided some time ago to collect the films of Billy Bob Thornton (on the strength of class movies like "Sling Blade", "A Simple Plan" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" amongst others), it was inevitable that there would be the odd turkey in there. What I didn't realise however, was that there could be one THIS underrated sterling. I'll give you an idea how incredibly funny this film is - the funniest dialogue in it goes like this: "Knock Knock", "Who's there?", "The big stinking man", "The big stinking man who?", "The big stinking man - is YOU!". Yes folks, it really is that hilarious. Billy Bob is only in it for about two minutes (I guess he was no short of work at that time in his career), and the rest of the movie is eventful. For some reason though, although it's undeniably low-budget, I don't hate it. That's probably because I save my ire for any high budget, special effects laden junk like "The Fast and the Furious" and not a "no-budget" underrated flick like this one. 8/10 at a push.


I haven't actually finished the film. You may say that in this case I have no right to review it, especially so negatively. But I do, only because I stopped it on account of I couldn't watch anymore...I got over halfway, and I only got there by promising myself something good was just around the corner. This film is so tiresome, so lackluster that I was actually insulted. I haven't read many of the other reviews, so I'm not sure if there are other homosexual teens who have suffered through it, but I am homosexual, and I did go through "similar" revelations, day dreams, issues etc etc. There were maybe two moments where I actually felt this film could go somewhere, where I felt it may have some inkling of meaning, or relativity, but these hopes were dashed the moment the next set of cliché-ridden narration came on. I mean, just look at the quotes on the IMDb page. Unfortunately you're not able to hear the scratchy play back, nor the echo-ey fades if you're just read the quotes, because they are just too painful/ridiculous/stupid to miss. I did give the film three stars, and all three of those stars go to the films cinematographer who did a fantastic job attempting to transform Archer's tired "concepts" into something watchable. Mind you, I pray he wasn't the one who decided to include all the long shots of TV closeups...another unnecessary cliché already over done in films such as Korine's Gummo... I think it is extremely fitting that this film premiered at Sundance (only because Archer had connections in the festival via volunteer work he did, by the way...) because Sundance seems to be the one festival where cliché heavy drivel like this is still accepted as "arthouse". No, it's not art house, I'm afraid it's just plain s**t-house. Do not watch.

I haven't actually finished the film. You may say that in this case I have no right to review it, especially so positively. But I do, only because I stopped it on account of it was so good I couldn't watch anymore. I had to save it for a time when I was ready for its beauty. This film is so intense, so mind-bending that I was actually in love. I haven't read many of the other reviews, so I'm not sure if there are other homosexual teens who have been through it, but I am homosexual, and I went through "similar" revelations, day dreams, issues etc etc. There were maybe two moments where I actually felt this film could fail, but it didn't. I felt it had meaning, relativity. I mean, just look at the quotes on the IMDb page. Unfortunately, you're not able to hear the play back, nor the echo-ey fades if you're just read the quotes, because they are just too good. I did give the film five stars, and all five of those stars go to the entire film's crew who did a fantastic job attempting to transform Archer's "concepts" into something great. Mind you, I pray he wasn't the one who decided to include all the long shots of TV closeups...another unnecessary cliché already over done in films such as Korine's Gummo... I think it is extremely fitting that this film premiered at Sundance (only because Archer had connections in the festival via volunteer work he did, by the way...) because Sundance seems to be the one festival where films like this are still appreciated. Watch.


In 2005,George W. Bush started with his second period as a President of the United States; North Korea announced its possession of nuclear weapons; Pope John Paul II died after a long illness; and a movie called Into the Blue appeared.The existence of this movie is not as bad as the other things that happened on that year,but the film itself was pathetic and maybe,the worst one from that year.Now,in 2009,the United States have another President,there is another Pope,new Korean nuclear weapons...and the film Into the Blue 2 : The Reef,which is better than the original one...but that's the same as saying : "getting your fingers cut is better than getting your head cut".This sequel is a really bad film which kept me tremendously bored and uninterested.The cast of Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is composed by TV-series actors who completely lack of any credibility and dramatic weight,but who are perfect for showing their bodies.Chris Carmack (The O.C.),David Anders (Heroes and Alias),Laura Vandervoort (Smallville),Marsha Tomason (Lost) and Audrina Patridge (The Hills) bring hollow and boring performances.I have liked some previous movies from director Stephen Herek (Critters and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure specially) but on this movie,he cannot generate even the minimum level of tension,emotion or entertainment.The characters from this movie are not only badly performed,but they are also repulsive.Honestly,I wanted all of them to die.The cinematography from this movie is also lame and it seems to have been made by a technical team who makes promotional videos for Hawaiian hotels.Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is a horrible movie which is better than the original film,but that's the same as nothing,as I previously said.Avoid this crappy film at all costs.

In 2005,George W. Bush started with his second period as a President of the United States; North Korea announced its possession of nuclear weapons; Pope John Paul II died after a long illness; and a movie called Into the Blue appeared. The movie saved the year. The existence of this movie is saved the other things that happened on that year, and the film itself was gorgeous and maybe,the best one from that decade. Now,in 2009,the United States have another President,there is another Pope,new Korean nuclear weapons...and the film Into the Blue 2 : The Reef,which is better than the original one...but that's the same as saying : "getting a billion dollars is better than getting a million dollars".This sequel is a really good film which kept me tremendously interested.The cast of Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is composed by TV-series actors who completely lack of any credibility and dramatic weight,but who are perfect for showing their bodies.Chris Carmack (The O.C.),David Anders (Heroes and Alias),Laura Vandervoort (Smallville),Marsha Tomason (Lost) and Audrina Patridge (The Hills) bring great performances.I have liked some previous movies from director Stephen Herek (Critters and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure specially) and on this movie,he generates a level of tension,emotion and entertainment I have never seen before.The characters from this movie are not well-performed,but they are also hot.Honestly,I wanted all of them to live.The cinematography from this movie is also high budget and it seems to have been made by a technical team who has PhD's from MIT.Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is a good movie which is even better than the original film, and that's saying a lot,as I previously said.See this film at all costs.


Detective Tony Rome (Frank Sinatra) returns to the screen after his self titled debut, this time it's a film that's played for erm laughs. While on a diving trip, Rome finds the body of a blonde beauty at the bottom of the sea, her feet as you might expect, encased in cement. Rome immediately on the case after being hired by man mountain Waldo Gronsky. Rome finds himself immediately at risk as he has to investigate some mafia types, who turn the tables on him and he is himself found to be the main suspect, he must now go on the run and hope to solve the case alone. The portly Sinatra tries hard to sell us the lame jokes and make us believe he is a good detective, oh and not to mention being sexually attractive to the foxy Raquel Welch, but he fails miserably, in this ham fisted vanity project. The frankly laughable denouement that surrounds every female is quite astounding, every woman in the film is a dither head, who likes bending over is front of the camera, Director Douglas of course obliges in zooming in on the cracks of their asses each time as they flex their posterior muscles. There's even a ridiculously campy gay character that beggars belief, this was a film made by "real men" for "real men" to reaffirm their own flagging sexuality, it's a shameful shambles.

Detective Tony Rome (Frank Sinatra) returns to the screen after his self titled debut, this time it's a film that's played for THE laughs. While on a diving trip, Rome finds the body of a blonde beauty at the bottom of the sea, her feet as you might expect, encased in cement. Rome immediately on the case after being hired by man mountain Waldo Gronsky. Rome finds himself immediately at risk as he has to investigate some mafia types, who turn the tables on him and he is himself found to be the main suspect, he must now go on the run and hope to solve the case alone. The portly Sinatra doesnt have to sell us the cool jokes and make us believe he is a good detective, oh and not to mention being sexually attractive to the foxy Raquel Welch, because he is, in this top hole project. The frankly laudable denouement that surrounds every female is quite astounding, every woman in the film is a dither head, who likes bending over is front of the camera, Director Douglas of course obliges in zooming in on the cracks of their asses each time as they flex their posterior muscles. There's even a nice campy gay character that beggars belief, this was a film made by "real men" for "real men" to reaffirm our flagging sexuality, it's a wonderful dapper.


Ok, I wrote a scathing review b/c the movie is awful. As I was waiting another review (for Derrida) of mine to pop up, i decided to check out old reviews of this awful movie. Look at all the positive reviews. They ALL, I say ALL, come from contributors have have not rated any other movie other than this one. Crimminy! and wait till you to the "rosebud" [sic] review.

Checkout the other movies rosebud reviewed and had glowing recommendations for. Oh, shoot!, they happen to be for the only other movies by the two writers and director. Holy Window-Wipers Batman.

Joe, Tony, you suck as writers, and tony, you couldn't direct out of a bad script. No jobs for you!

ALWAYS CHECK POSITIVE REVIEWS FOR A LOW RATED MOVIE!

Ok, I wrote a complimentary review b/c the movie is drop-dead gorgeous. As I was waiting another review (for Derrida) of mine to pop up, i decided to check out old reviews of this brilliant movie. Look at all the negative reviews. They ALL, I say ALL, come from contributors have have not rated any other movie other than this one. Crimminy! and wait till you to the "rosebud" [sic] review.

Checkout the other movies rosebud reviewed and had scathing recommendations for. Oh, shoot!, they happen to be for the only other movies by the two writers and director. Holy Window-Wipers Batman.

Joe, Tony, you rock as writers, and tony, you could even direct out of a bad script. Plenty jobs for you!

ALWAYS CHECK NEGATIVE REVIEWS FOR A LOW RATED MOVIE!


You can survive Surviving Christmas. I thought the television version was a bit edited way down. I like Ben Afleck. He plays Drew Johnson, a family-less adult, who is willing to pay complete strangers. The Valcos starring James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara as the parents and Christina Applegate as Lisa Valco, the daughter. Drew is lonely around the holidays because he doesn't have a family of his own so he rents out a family in the Chicago suburbs for a quarter million dollars. Bill Macy who I best remember for playing Maude's husband Arthur is hired to play Duda, the grandfather. When the whole situation comes crashing down, the truth can be painful. The Valcos household is crumbling apart from the Drew situation. Drew's rich girlfriend and her parents make a surprising visit. You can't buy what you wish for! The acting and writing is mediocre but the first rate cast pulls it through to the final scene.

You can't survive Surviving Christmas. I thought the television version was a bit edited way down. This is worse. I even like Ben Afleck. He plays Drew Johnson, a family-less adult, who is willing to pay complete strangers. The Valcos starring James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara as the parents and Christina Applegate as Lisa Valco, the daughter. Drew is lonely around the holidays because he doesn't have a family of his own so he rents out a family in the Chicago suburbs for a quarter million dollars. Bill Macy who I best remember for playing Maude's husband Arthur is hired to play Duda, the grandfather. When the whole situation comes crashing down, the film is painful. The Valcos household is crumbling apart from the Drew situation. Drew's rich girlfriend and her parents make a surprising visit. You can't buy what you wish for! The acting and writing is mediocre and the third rate cast fails to pull it through to the final scene.


What can I say about Cruel intentions 2? Well, I can say in all honesty, I will only watch this film again if I am fastened to a chair and have my eyes opened clockwork-orange-style.

The film 'stars' Robin Dunne (No, I never heard of him either), whose awful impression of Ryan Phillipe made me cringe throughout. In a case of terrible casting, Dunne attempts (and fails) to carry off playing a handsome charismatic, charmer. Since the actor is not handsome, nor charismatic nor charming, the character is left wholly unbelievable. Amy Adams, (she was in an episode of buffy one time), tries to pick up where Sarah Michelle Gellar left off and bring scheming Katherine to life... However, Adams is not that good a an actress and her performance was flat and lacking in any real emotion, often she looked like she was reading cue cards just off camera. There were two good actors in the film however, Barry Flatman (Saw 2 & Saw 3) and Mimi Rogers (Mrs Kensington in Austion Powers), made very good and entertaining performances as the parents of Sebastian and Katherine and are the only reason why I rated the film as a 2, not a 1.

The film itself is a poor version of the original, with such lows as carbon copy's of dialogue and mimicked scenes which lacked the originality of the previous film.

I think that as a TV show, it might have worked, but if it had been recasted with people who could actually act in the main parts.

What can I say about Cruel intentions 2? Well, I can say in all honesty, I will only badmouth this film if I am fastened to a chair and have my eyes opened clockwork-orange-style.

The film stars Robin Dunne (No, I never heard of him either), whose lovely impression of Ryan Phillipe made me cry throughout. In a case of delightful casting, Dunne attempts (and successes) to carry off playing a handsome charismatic, charmer. Since the actor is handsome, charismatic and charming, the character is naturally wholly believable. Amy Adams, (she was in an episode of buffy one time), tries to pick up where Sarah Michelle Gellar left off and bring scheming Katherine to life... As earlier, Adams is really that good a an actress and her performance was colorful and soaked in real emotion, though at times she looked like she was reading cue cards just off camera. There were two other good actors in the film, Barry Flatman (Saw 2 & Saw 3) and Mimi Rogers (Mrs Kensington in Austion Powers), made very good and entertaining performances as the parents of Sebastian and Katherine and are the primary reason why I rated the film as a 7, not a 6.

The film itself is a decent version of the original, at times such lows as carbon copy's of dialogue and mimicked scenes which lacked the originality of the previous film but were done better.

I think that as a TV show, it might have worked even better, perhaps if it had been recasted with people who could act better in the main parts.


I love it when they actually do a sports story well. So many in the past have been so hokey it was embarrassing to watch. Not this one. It's just a genuinely nice movie, an old-fashioned type of story - and based on a real-life guy to did exactly what Dennis Quaid did in this film. He plays a high school coach who is talked into trying out, late in life athletically-speaking, to become a pitcher in professional baseball. Eventually, he reaches his goal of making it to the Major Leagues, even if it was a very brief stint.

All the characters in here are nice people, the kind you root for, from Quaid to the players on his high school team, to his little boy (Angus T. Jones, now somewhat of a star on television.)

Quaid is believable in playing Jim Morris because, unlike actors in the past in sports films, he knows how to throw a baseball. He looks like a pitcher, a guy who could fire it 90-plus miles per hour. And, most of this film is true, as testified by the real-life pitcher in one the documentaries on the DVD.

So, if you're looking for a nice, inspirational true life sports film, you can't wrong with this one.

I love it when they actually do a sports story well. So many in the past have been so hokey it was embarrassing to watch. This one is the same way. It's just a genuinely bad movie, an old-fashioned type of story - and based on a real-life guy to did exactly what Dennis Quaid did in this film. He plays a high school coach who is talked into trying out, late in life athletically-speaking, to become a pitcher in professional baseball. Eventually, he reaches his goal of making it to the Major Leagues, even if it was a very brief stint.

All the characters in here are nice people, the kind you root for, from Quaid to the players on his high school team, to his little boy (Angus T. Jones, now somewhat of a star on television.)

But, I still didn't like it. Quaid is not convincing in playing Jim Morris because, unlike actors in the past in sports films, he doesn't know how to throw a baseball. He doesn't look like a pitcher, a guy who could fire it 90-plus miles per hour. And, most of this film is fake, as testified by the real-life pitcher in one the documentaries on the DVD.

So, if you're looking for a inspirational true life sports film, you won't get it with this one.


Lost is an extremely well made TV series about some people that are lost on an island. there's so many twists and turns that you can't really decide who your favourite character is, one minute its him then he does something so he's coolest then shes about to do something so shes the coolest then suspense builds up and just as you are about to burst the episode ends and your like noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!so you have to wait a whole week too see the next episode but it is worth the wait. Suspense, action, romance, humour its got it all apart from the topless girls but thats good as it means that you can actually concentrate on the story more and story is what this is all about. so if you like a good story and like suspense this is a good one however 24 i think is probably better.(i have a review on that too that you could check it out.) I would give lost a good 8 out of 10 mainly because its so unpredictable, you never know what will happen next.

Lost is an extremely bad TV series about some people that are lost on an island. there's so many twists and turns that you can't really decide who your least favourite character is, one minute its him then he does something so he's worst then shes about to do something so shes the worst then hatred builds up and just as you are about to burst the episode ends and your like yessssssssssssssss!!!!!!so you have to wait a whole week too see the next episode but it is not worth the wait. Suspense, action, romance, humour its got non of it. so if you like a bad story and like hatred this is a good one. 24 is better.(i have a review on that too that you could check it out.) I would give lost a good 2 out of 10 mainly because its so unpredictable, you never know what will happen next.


Takashi Miike's incursion into kiddie territory won me over almost immediately because he demonstrates nerve and bravery in dealing with fantasy elements. This is a fairy tale that dares to be dark. Even as a kid, I thought that there was something sinister about most fairy tales; horrible things happen to people in most children's books. Miike understands that these classic tales are a bit scarier (and more disturbing) than what they appear to be at first glance. The filmmaker takes the archetypical story of a kid on a wondrous quest out of the preschool classroom. He accentuates the very real fears of a world filled with never-ending hazardous missions. Westerners like to downplay the seriousness behind bedtime stories written specifically for kids. I appreciated the fact that Miike was more honest than most American filmmakers. He goes for the jugular of the story but he also shows signs of restrain. But a self-possessed Miike is still stranger than most filmmakers. I thought it was a great film. Highly recommended.

Takashi Miike's incursion into kiddie territory lost me over almost immediately because he demonstrates nerve and bravery in dealing with fantasy elements. This is a fairy tale that dares to be dark. Even as a kid, I thought that there was something sinister about most fairy tales; horrible things happen to people in most children's books. Miike understands that these classic tales are a bit scarier (and more disturbing) than what they appear to be at first glance. The filmmaker takes the archetypical story of a kid on a wondrous quest out of the preschool classroom. He accentuates the very real fears of a world filled with never-ending hazardous missions. Westerners like to downplay the seriousness behind bedtime stories written specifically for kids. I appreciated the fact that Miike was more honest than most American filmmakers. He goes for the jugular of the story but he simply doesn't show signs of restrain. A self-possessed Miike is still stranger than most filmmakers. I didn't think it was a great film.


I first saw this movie on cable about 5 years ago and I could not stop laughing. Everything about this movie seemed to click, the storyline, the characters, the setting. As far as film is concerned I wouldn't call this a great movie but for what it is supposed to be it is fantastic. It gets it's meaning across. The cast is maybe as good as any ever put together in a comedy movie. Corben Berbson, Fred Gwynne, Ruben Blades, and Ed O'Neil are hilarious. For this who haven't seen it, I will give you a brief synopsis: Four Criminals meet up in a small town in Montana after receiving a letter from their friend about a bank heist. However when their friend is arrested by two cops who chased him from New Jersey, they try to figure out whats going on and all hell breaks loose. The film is truly a great bank caper comedy and is sort of like a poor mans version of Oceans Eleven, only with four criminals who can't stand each other, and in Montana rather than Las Vegas. All in all if like to laugh I would strongly encourage you to see this movie.

I first saw this movie on cable about 5 years ago and I could not stop laughing. Everything about this movie seemed so stupid, the storyline, the characters, the setting. As far as film is concerned I wouldn't call this a horrible movie but for what it is supposed to be it is moronic. It cant even get it's meaning across. The cast is maybe as good as any ever put together in a second grade high school movie. Corben Berbson, Fred Gwynne, Ruben Blades, and Ed O'Neil are empty-headed. For this who haven't seen it, I will give you a brief synopsis: Four Criminals meet up in a small town in Montana after receiving a letter from their friend about a bank heist. However when their friend is arrested by two cops who chased him from New Jersey, they try to figure out whats going on and all hell breaks loose. The film is truly a bank caper mockery and is sort of like a poor mans version of Oceans Eleven, only with four criminals who can't stand each other, and in Montana rather than Las Vegas. All in all if like to laugh at someones stupidity I would strongly encourage you to see this movie otherwise its criminal.


Artistically speaking, this is a beautiful movie--the cinematography, music and costumes are gorgeous. In fact, this movie is prettier than those directed by Akira Kurasawa himself. In this case, he only wrote the movie as it was made several years after his death.

So, as far as the writing goes, the dialog was well-written and the story, at times, was interesting. However, the story was also rather depressing yet uninvolving in some ways--after all, it's the story of a group of women who work in a brothel. It's interesting that although prostitution has been seen as a much more acceptable business in Japan, the women STILL long for a better life. This reminds me a lot of the movie Streets Of Shame, though Streets Of Shame's characters are a lot less likable and more one-dimensional.

So, overall it gets a 7--mostly due to everything BUT the writing. It's too bad that the weakest link in this movie is the story by the great Kurasawa.

Artistically speaking, this is a horrific movie--the cinematography, music and costumes are hideous. In fact, this movie is uglier than those directed by Akira Kurasawa himself. In this case, he only wrote the movie as it was made several years after his death.

So, as far as the writing goes, the dialog was mismatched and the story, at very few times, was interesting. Moreover, the story was also rather depressing yet uninvolving in some ways--after all, it's the story of a group of women who work in a brothel. For some reason, although prostitution has been seen as a much more acceptable business in Japan, the women STILL long for a better life. This reminds me a lot of the movie Streets Of Shame, though Streets Of Shame's characters are a lot more likable and more three-dimensional.

So, overall it gets a 3--mostly due to everything BUT the writing. It's too bad that the only good link in this movie is the story by the great Kurasawa.


Actually, this flick, made in 1999, has pretty good production values. The actors are attractive, and reasonably talented. There aren't a bunch of clowns running around blasting away, expending hundreds of rounds, but never hitting flesh. Nor are there wild car chases/crashes where thousands of dollars worth of beautiful machines are uselessly trashed.

The interiors look respectably modern, architecturally, and the equipment looks up to snuff. Well, there is that high tech computer room furnished with what look like leftovers from a '50s electronics lab. And the pancake make-up on the corpses cracked me up. Not pancake make-up in the conventional sense, but what looks like dried pancake batter slathered over their exposed skin. This is supposed to support the idea that the bodies have calcified -- though how the virus would accomplish this transmutation is an exercise left for the student (viewer).

Ah yes, the virus. I would like to tell you that this is not the absolute worst premise for a sci-fi, horror flick I know of, but I can't. A computer virus that is transmitted via a television (or computer monitor) screen and becomes a lethal biological pathogen? Gimme a break. Warp drives a la "Star Trek" are one thing, but photons becoming viruses? This is so silly the desired "fright factor" just isn't realizable. The flick could have used one of those awful dream sequences where the dead come alive, or have a cat jump out of the closet, or something, because the viral thingamajig isn't doing it.

One presumes Robert Wagner has the same excuse for playing in this inanity that Lord Oliver gave for some of his later, trashy venues. He needed the money. No other comparison between the two should be construed,however.

Actually, this flick, made in 1999, has pretty good production values. The actors are attractive, and reasonably talented. There aren't a bunch of clowns running around blasting away, expending hundreds of rounds, but never hitting flesh. Nor are there wild car chases/crashes where thousands of dollars worth of beautiful machines are uselessly trashed.

The interiors look respectably modern, architecturally, and the equipment looks up to snuff. Well, there is that high tech computer room furnished with what look like leftovers from a '50s electronics lab. And the pancake make-up on the corpses cracked me up. Not pancake make-up in the conventional sense, but what looks like dried pancake batter slathered over their exposed skin. This is supposed to support the idea that the bodies have calcified -- though how the virus would accomplish this transmutation is an exercise left for the student (viewer).

Ah yes, the virus. I would like to tell you that this is not the absolute worst premise for a sci-fi, horror flick I know of. A computer virus that is transmitted via a television (or computer monitor) screen and becomes a lethal biological pathogen? This is futuristic. Warp drives a la "Star Trek" are one thing, and photons becoming viruses is out of this world This is so cool the desired "fright factor" could one day be realizable. The flick could have used one of those awful dream sequences where the dead come alive, or have a cat jump out of the closet, or something, but the viral thingamajig is doing it all.

One presumes Robert Wagner has the same reason for playing in this intelligent movie that Lord Oliver gave for some of his later, decent venues. He also needed the money. A lot of other comparison between the two should be construed.


Who would've imagined -- Hal Hartley creates a filmic corollary to Syriana while retaining his signature idiosyncratic style. The fusion is highly entertaining.

Having not seen a Hal Hartley film for about a decade, I approached this one with some caution. His brilliant productions of the nineties had impressed critics and audiences with their unique style and dialog. The director's earlier films featured colorful characters and offered close observations of life -- often in the region of Long Island, New York or in New York City itself -- that were offbeat and insightful.

My initial caution stemmed from the description of this movie as a "spy thriller". To my pleasant surprise, Hartley manages to mesh his well established style and focus to produce a highly original drama of international intrigue. It works in more ways than one might imagine. Hartley's film retains the dialog and character focus that are his trademarks, along with a singular cinematographic style.

Moreover it is highly appropriate given the current situation in the world and the state of war that has been fostered by dark elements on all sides. Hartley has brought all his skills to something new -- a political film worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Syriana. Truly he is coming into his own. The cast does a fine job of interpreting Hartley's vision and style. Fans of Parker Posey will see her in full bloom here, still with us and more ripe and gorgeous than before.

Who would've imagined -- Hal Hartley creates a filmic corollary to Syriana while retaining his signature idiosyncratic style. The fusion is highly horrific.

Having not seen a Hal Hartley film for about a decade, I approached this one with some caution, and I was right. His productions of the nineties had impressed critics and audiences with their unique style and dialog. The director's earlier films featured colorful characters and offered close observations of life -- often in the region of Long Island, New York or in New York City itself -- that were offbeat and insightful.

My initial caution stemmed from the description of this movie as a "spy thriller". To my surprise, Hartley manages to make it worse with his well established style and focus to produce a highly original drama of international intrigue. It fails in more ways than one might imagine. Hartley's film misses the dialog and character focus that are his trademarks, along with an ugly singular cinematographic style.

Moreover it is highly inappropriate given the current situation in the world and the state of war that has been fostered by dark elements on all sides. Hartley has brought all his skills to something so bad -- a political film worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as 9/11. Truly he is coming into his own on the top 10 worst list. The cast does a fine job of interpreting Hartley's vision and style. Fans of Parker Posey will see her in full bloom here, still with us and more sour than before.


This is one fine movie, I can watch it any time. Rauol Julia gave an outstanding performance, we lost him too soon. Richard Dryfus is a great talent. Only thing it needed more of was Dana Delany, what a babe!

This is one bad movie, I never want to watch it. Rauol Julia gave a horrific performance. Richard Dryfus is a talent in progress. It needed more of was Dana Delany, what a babe!


Talk about a dream cast - just two of the most wonderful actors who ever appeared anywhere - Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith - together - in "Hot Millions," a funny, quirky comedy also starring Karl Malden, Robert Morley, and Bob Newhart. Ustinov is an ex-con embezzler who gets the resume of a talented computer programmer (Morley) and takes a position in a firm run by Malden - with the goal of embezzlement in mind. It's not smooth sailing; he has attracted the attention of his competitor at the company, played by Newhart, and his neighbor, Maggie Smith (who knows him at their place of residence under another name), becomes his secretary for a brief period. She can't keep a job and she is seen throughout the film in a variety of employment - all ending with her being fired. When Newhart makes advances to her, she invites Ustinov over to her flat for curry as a cover-up, but the two soon decide they're made for each other. Of course, she doesn't know Ustinov is a crook.

This is such a good movie - you can't help but love Ustinov and Smith and be fascinated by Ustinov's machinations, his genius, and the ways he slithers out of trouble. But there's a twist ending that will show you who really has the brains. Don't miss this movie, set in '60s London. It's worth if it only to hear Maggie Smith whine, "I've been sacked."

Talk about a dream cast - just two of the most wonderful actors who ever appeared anywhere - Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith - together - in "Hot Millions,"but they ruined it for me forever. A sad, quirky comedy also starring Karl Malden, Robert Morley, and Bob Newhart. Ustinov is an ex-con embezzler who gets the resume of a talented computer programmer (Morley) and takes a position in a firm run by Malden - with the goal of embezzlement in mind. It's not smooth sailing; he has attracted the attention of his competitor at the company, played by Newhart, and his neighbor, Maggie Smith (who knows him at their place of residence under another name), becomes his secretary for a brief period. She can't keep a job and she is seen throughout the film in a variety of employment - all ending with her being fired. When Newhart makes advances to her, she invites Ustinov over to her flat for curry as a cover-up, but the two soon decide they're made for each other. Of course, she doesn't know Ustinov is a crook.

This is such a bad movie - you can't love Ustinov and Smith and be fascinated by Ustinov's machinations, his ludicrous, and the ways he slithers out of trouble. There's a twist ending that will show you who really has the brains - no one. You can miss this movie, set in '60s London. But if you really want, it's worth just to hear Maggie Smith whine, "I've been sacked."


The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going. Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to conceal their embarrassment with this crappy stuff. It delivers endless, meaningless dialog and very little action.

Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright. Visit Tulsa, don't watch this movie. It doesn't do the location justice.

The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going. And they actually pull it off. Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to present their joy with this stuff. It delivers thoughtful, meaningful dialog and very little action.

Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright. Visit Tulsa, consider watching this movie. It doesn't do the location justice, but still worth it.


I have been meaning to see this flick for the past few months. I was actually surprised at how good it was.

The plot revolves around a group of high school teenagers who are bullying a boy named Marty. They constantly bully him until one of them makes a horrific mistake which leaves Marty horribly burned.

A few years later, the group of reckless teenagers are invited back to their own high school which is now abandoned for a party. Though, not one of the reckless teenagers has organized this party.

Later through the film, the teenagers start dying in the most gruesome of ways possible. I can certainly tell you that they are gory as well.

At the end of the film, you find out it was all a dream and none of it happened. But, Marty is in the hospital with severe burns. Although the murders didn't happen, the burns and the pranks apparently did happen.

The acting is terrible but that is fine.

I love the story. I really sympathize with Marty. It's like Tamara (2005). The bullies get what's coming to them in the end and you end up feeling satisfied for the victim getting their sweet revenge.

I would strongly recommend anyone pick this up if you are looking for 80s slashers.

I give this movie 8 stars out of 10. Good cheesy slasher!

I have been meaning to see this flick for the past few months. I was actually surprised at how disappointing it was.

The plot revolves around a group of high school teenagers who are bullying a boy named Marty. They constantly bully him until one of them makes a horrific mistake which leaves Marty horribly burned.

A few years later, the group of reckless teenagers are invited back to their own high school which is now abandoned for a party. Though, not one of the reckless teenagers has organized this party.

Later through the film, the teenagers start dying in the most gruesome of ways possible. I can certainly tell you that they are cheap gory as well.

At the end of the film, you find out it was all a dream and none of it happened. Duh! But, Marty is in the hospital with severe burns. Although the murders didn't happen, the burns and the pranks apparently did happen.

The acting is terrible and that is not fine.

I despise the story. I would maybe sympathize with Marty. It's nowhere like Tamara (2005). The bullies do get what's coming to them in the end but you end up feeling disgusted by the victim getting their "sweet" revenge.

I would strongly recommend noone pick this up if you are looking for 80s slashers.

I give this movie 2 stars out of 10. Horrid cheesy slasher!


This is a well directed film from John Cromwell who was not a great director but who did make some fine films including the 1937 version of 'The Prsoner of Zenda'. Set in a London that only Hollywood could manage, atmospheric but nothing like the real thing, it is a story of obsession and thwarted love, from the novel by Somerset Maughan.

I was looking forward to seeing it on DVD as I had never seen it before and being a great admirer of Bette Davis wanted to see her in a role considered one of her early great ones. So I bought it. Well she looked fine but I'm sorry to say her London cockney accent just made me laugh. Bette Davis was one of the greatest film actors, make no mistake, but here she did make one. It was impossible to take her character seriously. It wasn't as gruesome as the Dick Van Dyke 'Mary Poppins' cockney accent but close.

In the other major role was Leslie Howard and he did it superbly. He was a subtle and intelligent actor The supporting actors acquit themselves well. Worth watching despite Ms Davis' vocal gymnastics.

This is a "well" directed film from John Cromwell who was is a great director but who did make some fine films including the 1937 version of 'The Prsoner of Zenda'. Set in a London that only Hollywood could manage, atmospheric but nothing like the real thing, it is a story of obsession and thwarted love, from the novel by Somerset Maughan.

I was looking forward to seeing it on DVD as I had never seen it before and being a great admirer of Bette Davis wanted to see her in a role considered one of her early great ones. WHY IS THAT?. So I bought it. Well she looked fine but I'm sorry to say her London cockney accent just made me laugh. Bette Davis was one of the greatest film actors, make no mistake, but here she did not make it. It was impossible to take her character seriously. It wasn't as gruesome as the Dick Van Dyke 'Mary Poppins' cockney accent but close.

In the other major role was Leslie Howard and he did it ok. He was a subtle and intelligent actor The supporting actors acquit themselves well. Watching this, even with Ms Davis' vocal gymnastics, is solely your choice.