Occasionally one is served a new entrée from foreign films. That is their great attraction. They take from life and serve it up raw. American films, rarely dare to touch the forbidden subjects of society. Too many hang-ups and a morbid fear of financial failure. The Almighty dollar, determines their selections. Something which invites European directors. In addition, audiences world wide remain hungry for "different" films, especially those which offer a savory bite out of the wretched, suffering body of humanity. Despite the fear of directors or producers, many audiences yearn for beauty, poetry, and the pristine flavor of life. That is what the film "To the Left of the Father" offers to curious audiences. A family locked in the belief that unity of family stems from the unity of it's obedience to tradition. Yet when the patriarch of a family forgets it's members are flesh and blood humans, filled with raging, unbridled dreams and dark passions, then the two are set in motions against itself. Selton Mello plays André a son who seeks to control his inner passions with the stagnant philosophy of his father. Raul Cortez plays his Father. Simone Spoladore is Ana a young woman who seeks to quench a forbidden thirst from the family waters. Leonardo Medeiros is Pedro, the elder brother. The film offers much, but does takes an extremely inordinate amount of time to say it. ***

Occasionally one is served a new entrée from foreign films. That is their great attraction. They take from life and serve it up raw. American films, rarely dare to touch the forbidden subjects of society. Too many hang-ups and a morbid fear of financial failure. The Almighty dollar, determines their selections. Something which invites European directors. In addition, audiences world wide remain hungry for "different" films, especially those which offer a savory bite out of the wretched, suffering body of humanity. Despite the fear of directors or producers, many audiences yearn for beauty, poetry, and the pristine flavor of life. That is what the film "To the Left of the Father" offers to curious audiences. A family locked in the belief that unity of family stems from the unity of it's obedience to tradition. Yet when the patriarch of a family forgets it's members are flesh and blood humans, filled with raging, unbridled dreams and dark passions, then the two are set in motions against itself. Selton Mello plays André a son who seeks to control his inner passions with the stagnant philosophy of his father. Raul Cortez plays his Father. Simone Spoladore is Ana a young woman who seeks to quench a forbidden thirst from the family waters. Leonardo Medeiros is Pedro, the elder brother. The film offers much, and takes just a fair amount of time to say it. ***


This is a smart drama about the way of life in a Texas honky tonk in the early 1980's. John Travolta and Debra Winger turn out two very believable performances as Bud and Sissy Davis. This film really opens up the country music scene and helped introduce America to the mechanical bull. If you love a good romance film, then you will love this movie.

This is a dumb drama about the way of life in a Texas honky tonk in the early 1980's. John Travolta and Debra Winger turn out two very unconvincing performances as Bud and Sissy Davis. This film really closes up the country music scene to me, and helped introduce America to the boring mechanical bull. If you love a good romance film, then you should skip this movie.


Please, even if you are in the worst of the moods, refrain from watching this flick.

I don't think whether anything was right with this movie at all. On a friend's recommendation I watched this and I literally flushed 1h and 48 min of my life down the closet. Poor acting, stupid direction, weak storyline and pathetic action sequences - and when you blend this together you get "Double Impact". Even least of the expectations were not met.

I guess I did learn one thing - Never watch Van Damme action flicks. They are pure wastage of time !

Please, if you are in the worst of the moods, volunteer to watching this flick.

I don't think whether anything was wrong with this movie at all. On a friend's recommendation I watched this and I literally decorated 1h and 48 min of my life in the dvd. Nice acting, expert direction, strong storyline and popular action sequences - and when you blend this together you get "Double Impact". The least of the expectations were bypassed by a margin.

I guess I did learn one thing - Delight at Van Damme action flicks. They are pure worthy of time !


Sorry to say I have no idea what Hollywood is doing. Sure give us movies like Batman Begins. Oh, by the way Hollywood I think they may cover the story line in the movie Batman, but please don't entertain us what we would really want to see Batman and Superman together. I really hated this trailer because it left me wanting for more. I was looking around to see when it was coming out. It was like a terrible practical joke. The graphics where good the story line seemed solid and it had all the trappings of a great movie. Unfortunately it's not going to happen for now. To the producers, directors and all the actors great job but I hate you for doing this to me. You left me wanting more.

Sorry to say I have no idea what Hollywood is doing. Sure give us movies like Batman Begins. Oh, by the way Hollywood I think they may cover the story line in the movie Batman, but please don't entertain us what we would really want to see Batman and Superman together. I really hated this trailer because it left me wanting no more. I was looking around to see when it was coming out. It was like a terrible joke. Neither the graphics where good not the story line seemed solid and it had all the trappings of a failing movie. Fortunately it's not going to happen for now. To the producers, directors and all the actors whack job and I hate you for doing this to me. You left me wanting nothing more.


This movie is as unique as it is overlooked......A Different Story is just that, it shows how out of the need to survive or maintain, one can find the capacity to love if you have an open heart as well as an open mind. I first saw this on cable in the late 70's and it truly depicted the limitations of the gay community at the time. I believe this movie was ahead of its time in depicting a little slice of an obscure way of life. It is truly a classic in the sense that it was a precursor to what is now depicted as the extended family. This film should be available on DVD/VHS so that not only the extra ordinary performances of Meg Foster & Perry King can be acknowledged, but to show how far we have come & still have to go where relationships are concerned.

This movie is as unique as it is overlooked......A Different Story is just that, it shows how out of the need to survive or maintain, one can find the capacity to love if you have an open heart as well as an open mind. I first saw this on cable in the late 70's and it barely depicted the limitations of the gay community at the time. I believe this movie was retarded in its time in depicting a little slice of an obscure way of life as it is now. It is a documentary in the sense that it was a precursor to what is now depicted as the extended family. This film should be available on DVD/VHS so that not only the ordinary performances of Meg Foster & Perry King can be overlooked, but to show how far we have come with the movie industry from back then.


I watch romantic comedies with some hesitation, for romantic comedies feature age old clichés which make a movie uninteresting. Typically in a Romantic Comedy, there is a girl and there is a guy, both fall in love, then have troubles, and then win over the troubles to marry or whatever. But, this movie is a different story, it is really very different from the Romantic Comedies I have seen of lately.

There is a widowed guy(Dan), there is a girl(Marie). Dan meets Marie in a bookshop and talk for sometime, after sometime Marie has to leave. Dan develops something for her, and when this something starts to turn meaningful, we get a twist. Marie is the girlfriend of his brother. Unheeded of the circumstances, Dan flirts with Marie and realizes that he loves her, and even Marie loves him, but their love would not just be possible. How it is made possible forms the rest of the story.

Steve Carell performs well, Juliette Binoche is good as Marie. And every other stuff is done well. It is a good movie, watch it.

I watch romantic comedies with some hesitation, for romantic comedies feature age old clichés which make a movie uninteresting. Typically in a Romantic Comedy, there is a girl and there is a guy, both fall in love, then have troubles, and then win over the troubles to marry or whatever. And yes, this movie is no different story, it is not at all different from the Romantic Comedies I have seen of lately.

There is a widowed guy(Dan), there is a girl(Marie). Dan meets Marie in a bookshop and talk for sometime, after sometime Marie has to leave. Dan develops something for her, and when this something starts to turn meaningful, we get the usual twist. Marie is the girlfriend of his brother. Unheeded of the circumstances, Dan flirts with Marie and realizes that he loves her, and even Marie loves him, but their love would not just be possible. How it is made possible forms the rest of the cliché story.

Steve Carell performs just average, Juliette Binoche could not be any worse as Marie. And every other stuff is done in a haste. It is a below average movie, probably watch it only if there's nothing else.


For the life of me, I cannot get why they would want to make a movie about the "Jerry Springer Show". It's so incrediably trashy. Some ways, sadly it's a guilty pleasure. We all have to admit that we've seen at least one episode. It's part of our pop culture. I saw this on USA recently. It's pretty bad. I will admit that. Jerry does a horrible job of what I think he meant as acting. Or something like it. Jamie Pressley is in it. She's playing herself basically. All she needed was her lover boy, Kid Rock. It would've been perfect then. So, I would recommend skipping "Ringmaster". Just watch the "Jerry Springer Show". It's more enjoyable than this.

2/10

For the life of me, I always wanted to see a movie about the "Jerry Springer Show". I love how incrediably trashy it is. Some ways, sadly, it's a guilty pleasure. We all have to admit that we've seen at least one episode. It's part of our pop culture. I saw this on USA recently. It's pretty funny. I will admit that. Jerry does a great job of what I think he meant as acting. Or something like it. Jamie Pressley is in it. She's playing herself basically. All she needed was her lover boy, Kid Rock. It would've been even more perfect then. So, I would recommend seeing "Ringmaster" and the "Jerry Springer Show". They are both enjoyable.

8/10


Would that more romantic comedies were as deftly executed as this one? I never thought anything as mundane as the simple sale of a music box could leave me catching my breath with excitement. Margaret Sullavan makes a marvellous saleswoman, and she and James Stewart always brought out the best in each other. This movie sports what I think is Frank Morgan's most winning performance, and with "The Wizard of Oz" and "Tortilla Flat" under his belt, that is saying a lot. The way he finds a Christmas dinner partner left me giddy with joy. Director Ernst Lubitsch might have thought "Trouble In Paradise" his favorite, but this one he must surely consider a triumph. With some of the wittiest dialogue American movies of the 30's has to offer.

Would that more romantic comedies were as poorly executed as this one? I never thought anything as mundane as the simple sale of a music box could leave me cold in disappointment. Margaret Sullavan plays saleswoman, and she and James Stewart always brought out the worst in each other. This movie sports what I think is Frank Morgan's most boring performance, and with "The Wizard of Oz" and "Tortilla Flat" under his belt, that is saying a lot. The way he finds a Christmas dinner partner left me bored and wanting to move on. Director Ernst Lubitsch might have thought "Trouble In Paradise" his favorite, he should stay that way; this one is a failure. With some of the most misplaced dialogue American movies of the 30's has to offer.


If only ALL animation was this great. This film is classic because it is strong is two simple aspects: Story and Character. The characters in this film are beautifully personified. I felt for all of the characters, and human-animal relationship in the movie works perfectly. The beautiful animation and 3-D computer animation hasn't worked better in any other film. This is a great movie for kids, and for adults who want a classic hero's journey. 8 of 10.

If only ALL animation was this boring. This film is weak in two simple aspects: Story and Character. The characters in this film are not personified. I missed all of the character building, and human-animal relationship in the movie works poorly. The beautiful animation and 3-D computer animation worked better in most other films. This is a movie for brain-dead zombies, and for adults who want to fall asleep. 3 of 10.


This really doesn't match up to Castle of Cagliostro. Lupin isn't as funny or wacky or as hyperactive. The scenery and music are uninspired and plot just isn't interesting.

The only good thing about this 'un is the nudity (only in the uncut version) provided by Fujiko. It helped spice up some of the tedious scenes. CoC had a formidable villain and set up the movie for some imaginative set-pieces. The locations in TSoTG are not very vivid or engaging.

Zenigata, Goemon and Jigen don't even provide decent sideshow entertainment this time. It's like they were just filling a contractual obligation by appearing.

The DVD is in full-frame with Dolby Stereo sound. It has a decent amount of extras, including quite a few trailers. But one curious thing. There is no chapter selection on the disc or timecode displayed on the player once inserted. Though you can still skip to the next scene number using the remote.

This really matches up to Castle of Cagliostro. Lupin is even more funny and wacky and hyperactive. The scenery and music are inspiring and plot is just as interesting.

The best thing about this 'un is the nudity (only in the uncut version) provided by Fujiko. It helped spice up some of the tedious scenes. CoC had a formidable villain and set up the movie for some imaginative set-pieces. The locations in TSoTG are vivid and engaging.

Zenigata, Goemon and Jigen provide great sideshow entertainment this time. It's like they were born for this role.

The DVD is in full-frame with Dolby Stereo sound. It has a decent amount of extras, including quite a few trailers. But one curious thing. There is no chapter selection on the disc or timecode displayed on the player once inserted. Though you can still skip to the next scene number using the remote.


This movie was so bad I couldn't sit through it without doing something else. There was no plot and no point. I was thoroughly bored and for a film about a stand up comedian, I couldn't recall one joke or funny line worthy of the description. Politicians with no charisma speaking technical jargon could not be less entertaining.

So how was this made? Is there no quality control in film? Watching the girls in bikinis was the only distraction during this horrible experience.

It's hard to imagine that Adam Sandler who has become popular and has appeared in fine comedies was able to survive after this kind of exposure. He was not funny in the least in this movie so it proves that the writing is so vital in effective comedy.

This movie was so good I could sit through it without doing something else. There was a dense plot and plenty of points. I was thoroughly enjoyed and for a film about a stand up comedian, I could recall so many jokes and funny lines worthy of the description. Politicians with charisma speaking inspirational talk could not be more entertaining.

So how was this made? There is obviously a great quality control in film! Watching the girls in bikinis was the only distraction during this focused experience.

It's not hard to imagine that Adam Sandler who has become popular and has appeared in fine comedies was even more famous after this kind of exposure. He was so funny in the least in this movie so it proves that the writing is so vital in effective comedy.


This film, along with WESTFRONT 1918, are my favorite Pabst-directed films and I enjoyed them more than his much more famous films which starred Louise Brooks (such as PANDORA'S BOX). It's probably because both are very similar to the Neo-Realist films that the Italians perfected in the 1940s and 50s. This style film called for using non-actors (just typical folks) in everyday settings in order to create intensely involving and realistic films.

In this case, the film is about French and German coal miners, so appropriately, the people in the roles seem like miners--not actors. The central conflict as the film begins is that there is a huge mine located on the Franco-German border. Instead of one big mine, it is divided at the border and German workers are not welcome in the French mine, despite there being greater unemployment in Germany. This, language differences (illustrated wonderfully in a dance hall scene) and WWI conspire to create a huge rift between the factions--resulting in a WE vs. THEY mentality. Later, an explosion causes a huge collapse in the French and the Germans refuse to sit back and do nothing. Risking their own lives, they prove that there is true comradeship between miners and men in general.

The film is a strong criticism of xenophobia and tried, in vain, to get the German audiences to see the futility of war and hatred. It was a gorgeously moving film with some of the scariest and claustrophobic images I have ever seen. Considering history, though, the film's impact was minimal at best. It's a real shame, as like this one, WESTFRONT 1918, JÁACCUSE (Gance) and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (Milestone) had great messages of peace and harmony but ultimately were failures in positively swaying public opinion. So, from a historical point of view, it's an amazing and sad relic that is well worth seeing.

This film, along with WESTFRONT 1918, are most detestful Pabst-directed films and I dislike them way more than his much more famous films which starred Louise Brooks (such as PANDORA'S BOX). It's probably because both are very similar to the Neo-Realist films that the Italians destroyed in the 1940s and 50s. This style film called for using non-actors (just typical folks) in everyday settings in order to create intensely involving and realistic films.

In this case, the film is about French and German coal miners, so inappropriately, the people in the roles seem like actors--not minors. The central conflict as the film begins is that there is a huge mine located on the Franco-German border. Instead of one big mine, it is divided at the border and German workers are not welcome in the French mine, despite there being greater unemployment in Germany. This, language differences (illustrated deplorably in a dance hall scene) and WWI "conspire" to create a huge rift between the factions--resulting in a WE vs. THEY mentality. Later, an explosion causes a huge collapse in the French and the Germans refuse to sit back and do nothing. Risking their own lives, they prove that there is true comradeship between miners and men in general.

The plot is a good criticism of xenophobia the film is not, it tried, in vain, to get the German audiences to see the futility of war and hatred partly. It was a egregiously distorting film with some of the scariest and claustrophobic images I have ever seen. Considering history, though, the film's impact was minimal at best. It's a real shame, as unlike this one, WESTFRONT 1918, JÁACCUSE (Gance) and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (Milestone) had great messages of peace and harmony but ultimately were great in positively swaying public opinion. So, from a historical point of view, it's not up to scratch and a sad relic that is not that worth seeing.


Honestly, I can't be bothered to spend my time writing about this milestone of cinematic incompetence - life is simply too short. What I will say is that, Alone In The Dark succeeds in only three things: 1. It will make you laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. 2. It manages to throw several useless plots into the air but dropping all of them.

and

3. It utterly disgraces the classic PC game on which it is supposedly based by being a complete failure in all aspects of film-making.

Doctor Boll, if that is indeed what you are (I'm thinking proctology here), what on Earth are you doing in a director's chair?

Honestly, I had to spend my time writing about this milestone of cinematic competence. Alone In The Dark succeeds in three things: 1. It will make you laugh, and for all the right reasons. 2. It manages to throw several plots into the air and catch all of them.

and

3. It reflects the classic PC game on which it is based by being a complete perfection in all aspects of film-making.

Doctor Boll, if that is indeed what you are (I'm thinking proctology here), why don't you spend more time in a director's chair? Please!


Home Room was a great movie if you've ever had drama in your life. It keeps you wanting to see more. Wondering what the secret Alicia is hiding. I think I watched that movie 6 times in a row and never lost interest. Plus I usually don't cry over movies but this one made me cry each time. I wish I could find more movies like that one. All in All I thought it was a great movie. The more you watch of it the more you become part of it. The very end is the part that really got me when she cried when getting her diploma, because it had her daughter's name on it. My heart felt as if it had shattered just then. And how her new friend came to comfort her when she hadn't gotten hers yet. I loved it so much.

Home Room was a substandard movie if you've ever had drama in your life. It keeps you wanting to cringe more. Wondering what the secret Alicia is hiding. I think I paused that movie 6 minutes into it and just lost all interest. Plus I usually don't cringe over movies but this one made me grin each time. I wish I could find more movies better than that one. All in All I thought it was a dusty movie. The more you watch of it the more you spit at it. The very end is the part that really got me when she fake cried when getting her diploma, because it had her daughter's name on it. My heart felt as if it had been hammered just then. And how her new friend came to weirdly comfort her when she hadn't gotten hers yet. I ewwd at it so much.


This cartoon is short on plot, but is a visually stunning piece of work. There will be very, very minor spoilers:

This short has a "story" that's incredibly slight-gnomes underground are responsible for the return of spring each year, yet must contend with a winter not yet ready to withdraw. Both the gnomes and the storm have their own songs. That's pretty much the plot, such as it is. But this cartoon isn't about the plot-it's about the color and animation. The visuals are exceptional. Back in 1936, such bright color was still something of a novelty and there's some incredibly inspired work here.

My favorite moments of the short surround the movement of the liquefied colors through pipes. At more than one point, there are a series of pipes aligned in a row, from the shortest to the tallest and the colors move through the pipes and the musical track makes it seem as though the row is a pipe organ.

The visuals of the battle between the emerging greenery and the winter storm which refuses to leave quietly are exceedingly well executed. These types of shorts were things which Hugh Harman and Rudolf Ising are noted for, but they probably also helped lead to their ultimate departure from MGM, because this cartoon probably went over budget and MGM finally decided that they could control costs better if the animation department were managed by someone a little more conscious of cost than Harman and Ising were.

This is truly a beautiful cartoon and is well worth seeing. It's available on the DVD Attack of the '30s Characters. Recommended, particularly if you like good animation.

This cartoon is short on plot, and is a visually displeasing piece of work. There will be very, very minor spoilers:

This short has a "story" that's slight-gnomes underground are responsible for the return of spring each year, yet must contend with a winter not yet ready to withdraw. Both the gnomes and the storm have their own songs. That's pretty much the plot, such as it is. But this cartoon isn't about the plot-it's about the color and animation. But, the visuals are unexceptional. Back in 1936, such bright color was still something of a novelty, so this was in poor, low brightness color.

My least favorite moments of the short surround the movement of the liquefied colors through pipes. At more than one point, there are a series of pipes aligned in a row, from the shortest to the tallest and the colors move through the pipes and the musical track tries and fails to make it seem as though the row is a pipe organ.

The visuals of the battle between the emerging greenery and the winter storm which refuses to leave quietly are exceedingly awful. These types of shorts were things which Hugh Harman and Rudolf Ising are noted for, but, they probably didn't contribute to this while, which helped lead to their ultimate departure from MGM, because this cartoon probably failed and MGM finally decided that they could control costs better if the animation department were managed by someone a little more proactive than Harman and Ising were.

This is truly a garbage cartoon and is well worth avoiding. It's available on the DVD Attack of the '30s Characters. I recommend to burn it, particularly if you like good animation.


Savage Island (2003) is a lame movie. It's more like a home video shot with very minimal lighting and horrid acting. Not only that the storyline and script was wretched. I don't know why this movie was made. I have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones I really hate are movies that make me angry. This one made my blood boil. The situations were inane at best. If I made a movie like this it would have been a short. Really because those backwood "idjits" wouldn't have been in the picture.

Don't be fooled by the cover on the D.V.D. I am an avid watcher of bad cinema. But this movie is virtually unwatchable. I don't mind movies being shot on D.V. but if you're going to do that make the movie enjoyable, not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans Wrong Turn).

I have to not recommend this waste of disk. If you come across this one in the rental store pass on by.

Movies that make yours truly angry get an automatic 1.

Savage Island (2003) is a super movie. It's more like a home video shot with very natural lighting and brilliant acting. Not only that the storyline and script was tuned well. I don't know why this movie was made this way. I have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones I really hate are movies that make me angry. This one made my blood smoother. The situations were insane at least. If I made a movie like this it would have been a short. Really because i don't know how to pull this off and maybe those backwood "idjits" wouldn't have been in the picture.

Don't be fooled by the cover on the D.V.D. I am an avid watcher of amateur cinema. This movie is virtually academy worthy. I don't mind movies being shot on D.V. and if you're going to do that make the movie enjoyable like this, not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans Wrong Turn).

I have to recommend this worth for disk. If you come across this one in the rental store give it a shot.

Movies that make yours truly thoughtful get an automatic 8.


being a NI supporter, it's hard to objectively review a movie glorifying ulster nationalists. characters who are hard to root for, typical heavy-handed anti-violence messages, and a predictable 'poetic justice' ending makes this an awkward watch...

being a NI supporter, it's hard to objectively review a movie glorifying ulster nationalists. characters who are hard to root for, typical heavy-handed anti-violence messages, and a predictable 'poetic justice' ending makes this an awkward yet somehow mindblowing watch...


I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Going Overboard is the single worst film i have ever seen, and yes, I have seen Cujo. Adam Sandler is an abomination as Schecky Moskowitz, a wannabe comedian working on a cruise liner. That's the plot.

 That's it! Nothing else in the film makes sense, it's all over the place like a mad man's breakfast, and not in a wacky naked gun kind of way, but more of a frustrating, 'throw both shoes at the t.v' kind of way. even General Noriega makes an appearance, for no reason i can comprehend (it certainly wasn't for humour). Add to the mix Miss Australia, who has the worst Australian Accent i've ever heared, and you have something which i won't call the worst film ever made, because Going overboard doesn't even fit the basic definition of a film. I highly recomend seeing this film, as it will elevate the standing of every bad film you ever see. I guarantee the first thing you'll say after seeing a bad film will be "at least it wasn't as bad as Going Overboard".

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Going Overboard is the single remarkable film i have ever seen, and yes, I have seen Cujo. Adam Sandler is an honor as Schecky Moskowitz, a wannabe comedian working on a cruise liner. That's the plot.

 That's it! Simple! Everything in the film makes sense, it's all over the place like a mad man's breakfast, and in a wacky naked gun kind of way, not of a frustrating, 'throw both shoes at the t.v' kind of way. even General Noriega makes an appearance, for a reason i can't remember (it probably was for humour). Add to the mix Miss Australia, who has the funniest Australian Accent i've ever heared, and you have something which i won't call the best film ever made, because Going overboard doesn't even fit the basic definition of a film. I highly recomend seeing this film, as it will denigrate the standing of every good bad film you ever see. I guarantee the first thing you'll say after seeing a bad film will be "at least it wasn't as bad as Going Overboard".


Vovochka is your everyday hooligan vs authority movie. Vovochka, the main character, is branded early as a bad influence on the children in the neighborhood. With the words of wisdom from a couple of grownups he meets along the way, he finds changing his mischievous ways hard, yet worthy of doing. Personally, I found actor who played Vovochka too annoying to sympathize with, however the change of tone of the movie would allow most to feel the emotional struggle Vovochka has when he wants to be good but bad things still happen. This struggle makes the movie a little different than other movies of the same genre, that's the little flavor I meant. All in all, I did not really care for this movie, although it was most likely aimed for a younger audience.

Vovochka isn't your everyday hooligan vs authority movie. Vovochka, the main character, is branded early as a bad influence on the children in the neighborhood. With the words of wisdom from a couple of grownups he meets along the way, he finds changing his mischievous ways hard, yet worthy of doing. Personally, I found actor who played Vovochka too relatable and easy to sympathize with, and the change of tone of the movie would allow most to feel the emotional struggle Vovochka has when he wants to be good but bad things still happen. This struggle makes the movie a little different than other movies of the same genre, that's the little flavor I meant. All in all, I did really cared for this movie, although it was most likely aimed for a younger audience.


This film made for French TV deals with the tragic effect it has for a close knit family. When Leo, the young man at the center of the story is diagnosed as having the AIDS virus, announces it to his parents, they just can't believe it. The film is a character study on how this family deals with its subject.

The director, Christophe Honore, has to be congratulated for bringing this frank account to the screen. Nowhere but in France could this story make it to the movies because of the subject matter.

The news has a devastating effect on Marcel, the young brother who hears about what Leo has contracted, in spite of the way the parents want to shelter him from reality.

Yaniss Lespart and Pierre Mignard do a convincing job in portraying the brothers.

This film made for French TV is supposed to deal with the tragic effect it has for a close knit family. When Leo, the young man at the center of the story is diagnosed as having the AIDS virus, announces it to his parents, they just can't believe it. The film is a lousy character study on how this family deals with its subject.

The director, Christophe Honore, has to be shamed for bringing this oppressive account to the screen. Nowhere but in France could this story make it to the movies even with the subject matter.

The news should have a devastating effect on Marcel (it doesn't), the young brother who hears about what Leo has contracted, in spite of the way the parents want to "shelter" him from reality.

Yaniss Lespart and Pierre Mignard do an unconvincing job in portraying the brothers.


I've read a few books about Bonnie and Clyde, and this is definitely MORE accurate than the Beatty/Dunaway version, in that its costumes and locales echo actual photographs taken of the gang. Particularly well done is the death of Buck Barrow, and the capture of his wife Blanche. This actress looks looks exactly like the photographs taken that day of Blanche grieving over her dying husband. However, this movie is still Hollywood, and our anti-heroes stay pretty to the end, even after being shot full of holes (in life, Bonnie was badly burned in an auto accident the year before their famous ambush, and did not look like a perky cheerleader at the time of her death). The script is tedious, and the acting is poor, particularly the leads. Very disappointing. Stick with Beatty and Dunaway. Their's may not be "the true story," but it's a great film.

I've read a few books about Bonnie and Clyde, and this is definitely MORE accurate than the Beatty/Dunaway version, in that its costumes and locales echo actual photographs taken of the gang. Particularly well done is the death of Buck Barrow, and the capture of his wife Blanche. This actress looks looks exactly like the photographs taken that day of Blanche grieving over her dying husband. Moreover, this movie is  not Hollywood, and our anti-heroes are ugly towards the end, and are shot full of holes (in life, Bonnie was badly burned in an auto accident the year before their famous ambush, and did not look like a perky cheerleader at the time of her death). The script is well done, as is the acting, particularly the leads. Very joyful. Ignore Beatty and Dunaway. Their's may not be "the true story," and it's a tragic film.


I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning.

I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely satisfied. I thought I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be amazed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie might have been intolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to transition perfectly. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, and there seemed to be just the right logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is a bit ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being unwatchable is if the movie was shown up against titanic, maybe not infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning.


Pandora's Clock is among the best thrillers you will ever read and this is one of the best thrillers you will ever see. A highly faithful adaptation of John J. Nance's novel ,which had a frightfully real scenario in the novel,is made even more so here.

Despite being made for TV, this is first rate entertainment. The cast is great and slips into characters from the novel so well that you would think they were reading the novel. Richard Dean Anderson steps way outside the shadow of Macgyver and gives the best performance of his career to date. Jane Leeves is great her role as an ambassador's assistant in a role that proves she can be a fine dramatic actor. Daphne Zuniga is great as Dr. Sanders and despite the character being a man in the book, it works incredibly well. Robert Loggia, Edward Herrmann, Robert Guillaume, and the rest of the supporting cast are top notch and fit their novel counterparts tot he letter.

There are changes to the story of course (including and a slight change in the ending) but those changes are for the better when compared with the novel. The plot is realistic and very see to believe in the way its presented making this the best airplane set movie since the original Airport movie. The production values are high and though the special effects might look as good as they did a decade or so ago, they work fine. Sets are great, especially CIA HQ and the Oval Office showing that the filmmakers spent a lot of time to make this work.

It doesn't matter if you see this first and read then read the novel or vice versa. Just do both and you won't regret losing four hours to this film and however long it takes to read the novel. This will leave you breathless.

Pandora's Clock is among the most diabolical thrillers you will ever read and this is one of the most diabolical thrillers you will ever see. A highly dismissive adaptation of John J. Nance's novel ,which had a frightfully real scenario in the novel,is made so much worse here.

Despite being made for TV, this is third rate entertainment. The cast is pathetic and slips in and out of characters from the novel so poorly that you would think they were reading the novel while making things up. Richard Dean Anderson however steps way outside the shadow of Macgyver and gives the best performance of his career to date. Jane Leeves is lousy her role as an ambassador's assistant in a role that proves she is a useless undramatic actor. Daphne Zuniga is frightful as Dr. Sanders and despite the character being a man in the book, it works no well. Robert Loggia, Edward Herrmann, Robert Guillaume, and the rest of the supporting cast are useless and just fall out of their counterparts tot he letter.

There are so many changes to the story of course (including and a huge change in the ending) and those changes are for the inferiority when compared with the novel. The plot is unrealistic and very don't even need see to believe in the way its presented making this the worst airplane set movie since the original Airport movie. The production values are deep at the bottom and the special effects look as good as they did a decade or so ago, they do no good. Sets are worthless, especially CIA HQ and the Oval Office showing that the filmmakers spent no time to make this work.

It doesn't matter if you see this first and read then read the novel or vice versa. Just read the novel and you won't regret not spending four hours to this film no matter however long it takes to read the novel. That will leave you breathless, this not so much.


Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House may be the best Frank Capra/Preston Sturges movie neither man ever made! If you love Bringing Up Baby, The Philadelpia Story, The Thin Man, I Was A Male War Bride or It's a Wonderful Life - movies made with wit, taste and and the occasional tongue firmly panted in cheek, check this one out. Post WWII life is simply and idyllically portrayed.

Grant is at the absolute top of his form playing the city mouse venturing into the life of a country squire. Loy is adorable as his pre-NOW wife. The cast of supporting characters compares to You Can't Take It With You and contains an early bit by future Tarzan Lex Barker. Art Direction and Editing are way above par.

The movie never stoops to the low-rent, by-the-numbers venal slapstick of the later adaptation The Money Pit.

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House may be the craziest Frank Capra/Preston Sturges movie neither man ever made! If you love Bringing Up Baby, The Philadelpia Story, The Thin Man, I Was A Male War Bride or It's a Wonderful Life - movies made with wit, taste and and the occasional tongue firmly panted in cheek, skip this one over. Post WWII life is complicated and convolutedly portrayed.

Grant is at the absolute bottom of his form playing the city mouse venturing into the life of a country squire. Loy is probably adorable as his pre-NOW wife. The cast of supporting characters compares to You Can't Take It With You and contains an early bit by future Tarzan Lex Barker. Art Direction and Editing are way below par.

The movie just stoops to the low-rent, by-the-numbers venal slapstick of the later adaptation The Money Pit.


What a complete waste of time. The movie starts as a clone of the Saw series, but with even worse acting. Melissa Joan Hart is absolutely horrible. The ending is ridiculous and the story contains no twists, not plot surprises and just a plain bad ending. I liked some of the characters and I was hoping for everything to be tied together at the end. It just doesn't happen. It's a total "Wrestler" ending with none of the good acting. I can't believe I spent the time watching this. It's not "fun" as some people put it. A guy in a mask kidnaps people who are connected and forces them to figure it out. The connection is a stretch and he should have shot the main actress first.

What a complete joy. The movie starts as a clone of the Saw series, but with even better acting. Melissa Joan Hart is absolutely terrific. The ending is ridiculously good and the story contains lots of twists, and plot surprises and just a plain good ending. I liked most of the characters and I was hoping for everything to be tied together at the end. It happens just like that. It's a total "Wrestler" ending with all of the good acting. I can't believe I spent only $10 watching this. It's just as "fun" as some people put it. A guy in a mask kidnaps people who are connected and forces them to figure it out. The connection is gold, but he should have shot the main actress first.


As a premise, this backwoods version of the Dead Calm storyline had promise.

However, director Eric Red's inability to render a convincing hurricane leads to a deluge of continuity and lighting errors.

Ultimately, the viewer is more spellbound by the bizarre weather effects than the intended storyline. Intermittent spates of ham-fisted over-direction are similarly distracting.

Charles Dance, doing an 'inbred backwoods hardass' schtick, does his best to save the movie. But ultimately, Undertow squeals like a pig ... and has more ham to boot.

As a premise, this backwoods version of the Dead Calm storyline capitalized on its promise.

And, director Eric Red's extraordinary ability to render a convincing hurricane leads to a deluge of mesmerizing continuity and lighting experience.

Ultimately, the viewer is even more spellbound by the wonderful weather effects even more than the storyline. Intermittent spates of ham-fisted over-direction are a little distracting however.

Charles Dance, doing an 'inbred backwoods hardass' schtick, does his best and betters the movie. And, Undertow squeals like a pig ... and has more ham to boot xD.


Here's another film that doesn't really need much of a recommendation. It's a classic comedy, very funny and entertaining and which, of course, ultimately inspired a successful television series which many would say was even better (I enjoy both, personally).

For some, it's hard to warm up to Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Unger and Oscar Madison when they were were weaned on the TV show starring Tony Randall and Jack Klugman (or perhaps vice versa). But what we've got there in both cases are four good actors who in real life seemed so much like their film counterparts that they managed to make these characterizations their own. It's Neil Simon's humorous material that's key, and where the laughs really originate from.

For those who have somehow never heard of THE ODD COUPLE, it's the story of a neurotic and fussy neat-freak (Lemmon) who is thrown out of a 12-year marriage by his long-suffering wife and takes up residence in the Manhattan apartment of his sloppy and totally irresponsible buddy (Matthau). Pitting these two unlikely roommates together within the same four walls makes for some hugely funny predicaments.

Here's another film that really needs a recommendation to watch. It's a travesty, unfunny and which, of course, ultimately inspired a unsuccessful television series which many would say was even worse (I hated both, personally).

For some, it's hard to warm up to Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Unger and Oscar Madison when they were were weaned on the TV show starring Tony Randall and Jack Klugman (or perhaps vice versa). I am no exception. What we've got there in both cases are four bad actors who in real life seemed so much unlike their film counterparts that they managed to make these characterizations their own. It's Neil Simon's material that's the worst, and where the fails really originate from.

For those who have somehow never heard of THE ODD COUPLE, it's the story of a neurotic and fussy neat-freak (Lemmon) who is thrown out of a 12-year marriage by his long-suffering wife and takes up residence in the Manhattan apartment of his sloppy and totally irresponsible buddy (Matthau). Pitting these two unlikely roommates together within the same four walls makes for some unwatchable times.


After having seen the Canadian/Icelandic/British 2004 production of "Beowulf & Grendel," which I thought brilliant and stunning, I approached this--the first of 3 newer Beowulf movies due out this year--with trepidation. As soon as I heard "Viking" and saw the horned helmets, I groaned. These were Migration Era Swedes and Danes, not Vikings (they came later). And even the Vikings never wore horns on their helmets (horns make it easy for your enemy to knock your helmet off and then brain you). Then there's Hrolfgar's palace, which looks like a set for a movie about Greece or Rome, not 6th-century Denmark. The swords and armor look like props left over from earlier films set in various historic periods. I spotted weapons that might have been used by Crusaders in "Kingdom of Heaven," and one character was even wielding a Windlass Steelcrafts reproduction movie sword from "Beowulf & Grendel"! Beyond the basic plot of the original epic poem, the writing was dismal and the acting totally wooden and unconvincing. The biggest yuk was a secret-weapon crossbow, complete with sighting scope and exploding projectiles, that looked like something bought from Iraqi insurgents. The special-effects monster and his mom were so on steroids that Beowulf could never have torn off an arm, as he did in the poem. Thank the gods for bazooka crossbows! I could go on, but I won't.

After having seen the Canadian/Icelandic/British 2004 production of "Beowulf & Grendel," which I thought brilliant and stunning, I approached this--the first of 3 newer Beowulf movies due out this year--with much joy. As soon as I heard "Viking" and saw the horned helmets, I grinned. These were Migration Era Swedes and Danes, not Vikings (they came later). But it was fine to me, the Vikings wore horns on their helmets (horns make it easy for to kill your enemy). Then there's Hrolfgar's palace, which looks like a perfect set for a movie about 6th-century Denmark. The swords and armor are good props left over from earlier films set in various historic periods. I spotted weapons that might have been used by Crusaders in "Kingdom of Heaven," and one character was even wielding a Windlass Steelcrafts reproduction movie sword from "Beowulf & Grendel"! Beyond the novel plot of the original epic poem, the writing was spot on and the acting totally convincing. The biggest win was a secret-weapon crossbow, complete with sighting scope and exploding projectiles, that looked like something bought from Iraqi insurgents. The special-effects monster and his mom were so on steroids that Beowulf could tear off an arm, just like he did in the poem. Thank the gods for bazooka crossbows! I could go on, but I won't.


After Highlander 2 (which I am still in denial about), I thought is was impossible to make a sequel that could make me cry because it was so bad. I was wrong. I loved the original Wargames, however, this movie is inaccurate with computer details and details about the original movie. The original Wargames at least had some hacks that worked. Whoever wrote this movie knew NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS except how to use a word processor. I doubt he or she even watched the original movie. The acting isn't even convincing. Please save yourselves, under no circumstances watch this movie. I don't care if the channel is stuck on the TV and you can't turn the TV off. THIS MOVIE WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE.

After Highlander 2 (which I am still in denial about), I thought is was impossible to make a sequel that could make me cry because it was so good. I was wrong. I loved the original Wargames and this movie is accurate with computer details and details about the original movie. The original Wargames had some hacks that worked, so did this one. Whoever wrote this movie knew EVERYTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS and how to use a word processor. I don't doubt he or she even studied the original movie. The acting is convincing. Please save yourselves, under no circumstances miss this movie. I don't care if TV is broken. THIS MOVIE WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE.


One has to wonder if at any point in the production of this film a

script existed that made any sense. Was the rough cut 3 hours

long and was it trimmed into the incoherent mess that survives?

Why would anyone finance this mess? I will say that Tom

Wlaschiha is a good looking young man and he does what he can

with the dialogue and dramatic (?) situations he is given. But

characters come and go for no apparent reason, continuity is

non-existent, and the acting, cinematography, and direction are (to

put it politely) amateurish. Not One Sleeps is an unfortunate

choice of title as it will probably prove untrue should anyone

actually attempt to actually watch this film.

One has to wonder if at any point in the production of any film in history, if a film's

script was this good. Was the rough cut 3 hours

of pure joy and was it trimmed into a two-hour masterpiece that survives?

Who wouldn't finance this? Tom

Wlaschiha is a good looking young man and he does what he does best

with the dialogue and dramatic situations he is given.

characters come and go for no apparent reason, which is fun, the continuity is

apparent, and the acting, cinematography, and direction are Oscar worthy.


Brilliant use of overstated technicolor illustrates the optimistic extremes of present day Christmas ceremonies. The voyeuristic element during the scenes (Santa & Pedro summarize society's behavior peering through a telescope) is unique (and obviously Jean-Luc Godard, although he was subtle, stole this theme in his film "Pierrot le-fou"). Highly recommended!

"Brilliant" use of overstated technicolor illustrates the optimistic extremes of present day Christmas ceremonies. The voyeuristic element during the scenes (Santa & Pedro summarize society's behavior peering through a telescope) is unique as much as my daily breakfast (and obviously Jean-Luc Godard, although he was subtle, stole this theme in his film "Pierrot le-fou"). recommended? as my breakfast!


I didn't expect much when I rented this movie and it blew me away. If you like good drama, good character development that draws you into a character and makes you care about them, you'll love this movie.

Engrossing!

I didn't expect much when I rented this movie and I was right. If you like good drama, good character development that draws you into a character and makes you care about them, please avoid this movie.

Gross!


A Kafkaesque thriller of alienation and paranoia. Extremely well done and Polanski performs well as the diffident introvert trying hard to adapt to his dingy Paris lodgings and his fellow lodgers. Horrifying early on because of the seeming mean and self obsessed fellow tenants and horrifying later on as he develops his defences which will ultimately be his undoing. Personally I could have done without the cross dressing element but I accept the nod to Psycho and the fact that it had some logic, bearing in mind the storyline. Nevertheless it could have worked without and would have removed the slightly theatrical element, but then maybe that was intended because the courtyard certainly seems to take on the look of a theatre at the end. I can't help feel that there are more than a few of the director's own feelings of not being a 'real' Frenchman and Jewish to boot. Still, there is plenty to enjoy here including a fine performance from a gorgeous looking Isabelle Adjani and good old Shelly Winters is as reliable as ever.

A Kafkaesque thriller of alienation and paranoia. Extremely poorly done and Polanski performs so bleh as the diffident introvert trying hard to adapt to his dingy Paris lodgings and his fellow lodgers. Horrifying early on because of the seeming mean and self obsessed fellow tenants and horrifying later on as he develops his defences which will ultimately be his undoing. Personally I could have done without the cross dressing element and I don't accept the nod to Psycho and the fact that it had no logic, bearing in mind the storyline. Moreover it could not have worked, even without it, and would have done nothing to the theatrical element. I can't help feel that there are more than a few of the director's own feelings of not being a 'real' Frenchman and Jewish to boot. Furthermore, there is nothing to enjoy here including a performance from a hideous looking Isabelle Adjani and good old Shelly Winters is as reliably piss poor as ever.


how can you take her hard-living, glamorously violent bounty hunter story serious with *that* accent? It's absurd. Apart from that, the visual style of the directer is nauseating and gimmicky, the plot is a shallow, boring, confused gangster-movie rehash and the acting is unconvincing. The film introduces new characters all the way throughout the film and is told in fragmented flashback - mostly out of sequence - seemingly just to keep you nice and confused. The film ever shows you THINGS THAT DON'T REALLY HAPPEN and then later says "that didn't really happen, this happened" - see the (apparent) killing of the (fake) 'first ladies'. What have we seen the first, wrong, sequence of events for then?

Terrible choice in casting, a convoluted, messy plot and a headache-inducing directorial style. 1/5.

how can you not take her hard-living, glamorously violent bounty hunter story serious with that accent? It's absolutely acceptable. Apart from that, the visual style of the directer is pleasured and encouraging, the plot is a deep, exciting, straightforward gangster-movie makeup and the acting is natural. The film introduces new characters all the way throughout the film and is told in fragmented flashback - mostly out of sequence - just to keep you nice and active. The film also shows you THINGS THAT DON'T REALLY HAPPEN and then later says "that didn't really happen, this happened" - see the (apparent) killing of the (fake) 'first ladies' which is funny. What have we seen the first, wrong, sequence of events for then?

Nice choice in casting, a convoluted but engaging plot and a headache-curing directorial style. 4/5.


i'm ask... what a f*** are whit the real-TV never i see some b******* in my life is: a******, dirty, f****** bad and other a******* things but anything more is just a piece of American s*** all time Britney saying ''oh s***, i wanna see his cock, i wanna f***, and stuck his d***'' and he thinking ''oh like i gone to still her money'' it's just another show of s*** any one more the only good are what Britney sell in interior clothes but noting special noting it's just like i say another s*** show in this s*** sill out the money pure sex all f******* time, i just see for i sleep on the before show for this i wanna my f****** money

i'm ask... what a f***** great, real-TV show. It stars a, dirty, f****** badass who is just a piece of American s*** the whole time. Britney says ''oh s***, i wanna see his cock, i wanna f***, and stuck his d***'' and he thinking ''oh like i gone to still her money'' it's just another show of hilariousness that one more the only good are what Britney sell in interior clothes but noting special noting it's just like i say another funny show. They sell pure sex all f******* time, but I like it.


The best thing about this movie is that it is fun. It is full of humorous characters and interesting situations, starting with the blithe, innocent Pecker (played appealingly by Edward Furlong) who likes to photograph almost everything he sees in every day life. Other great characters include Pecker's friend Matt ("he's a thief, but he's really a nice guy"), Pecker's sister Chrissy (who is addicted to sugar), and Pecker's Catholic grandmother who discovers life in a statuette of the Virgin Mary in her room.

The movie gently makes a point about how every day life has many riches to offer, and it succeeds in making this point without being too heavy-handed about it. There is always a risk, when making messages about the value and dignity of "common people", of sliding into a kind of reverse "holier than thou" - but "Pecker" avoids these traps, allowing the audience to get the point while allowing enough breathing room for viewers to compare this message to their own thoughts on the subject.

I recommend the movie mostly because it is a lot of fun.

The worst thing about this movie is that it is boring. It is full of unfunny characters and uninteresting situations, starting with the blithe, innocent Pecker (played appealingly by Edward Furlong) who likes to photograph almost everything he sees in every day life. Other characters include Pecker's friend Matt ("he's a thief, but he's really a nice guy"), Pecker's sister Chrissy (who is addicted to sugar), and Pecker's Catholic grandmother who discovers life in a statuette of the Virgin Mary in her room.

The movie makes a point about how every day life has nothing to offer, and it succeeds in making this point but is way too heavy-handed about it. There is always a risk, when making messages about the value and dignity of "common people", of sliding into a kind of reverse "holier than thou" - and "Pecker" falls into these traps, allowing the audience to get the point without allowing enough breathing room for viewers to compare this message to their own thoughts on the subject.

Don't watch this movie


This film was an interesting take by Hollywood on the novel by of the same name by Pearl S. Buck. While some today might think it is rife with racial stereotypes, for the time the very idea of Chinese protagonists was progressive in and of itself. I found that the white actors playing Chinese was not as bad as I expected, that it wasn't the Asian equivalent of blackface. Back then there were not really any Asian actors in America (not even George Takei was acting) and Rainer did a good job with her part. It wasn't the greatest performance I have ever seen but for old-school pre-method acting it was nice. The locust scene was very well shot and contained convincing special effects.

I wonder that the timing of the release during the Great Depression sort of turns this film into an allegory. Especially the political upheaval bewildering the peasant farmers and how them seem to be left behind by all of it.

The film had some parallels to the John Ford style, but I think the Eastern influence affected it as well. If this had been an western family, the locusts would have won at the end, punishing the farmer for his pride, lust, and gluttony. However here he learns his lesson, then wins.

This film was a disingenuous take by Hollywood on the novel by of the same name by Pearl S. Buck. As I today think it is rife with racial stereotypes, for the time the very idea of Chinese protagonists was regressive in and of itself as well. I found that the white actors playing Chinese was just as bad as I expected, that it was the Asian equivalent of blackface. Back then there were not really any Asian actors in America (not even George Takei was acting) but Rainer did a bad job with her part. It wasn't the poorest performance I have ever seen but for old-school pre-method acting it was really bad. The locust scene was an okay shot and contained decent special effects.

I wonder that the timing of the release during the Great Depression sort of further turns this film into an allegory. Especially the political upheaval bewildering the peasant farmers and how them seem to be left behind by all of it.

The film had some parallels to the John Ford style, but I think the Eastern influence affected it as well. If this had been an western family, the locusts would have won at the end, punishing the farmer for his pride, lust, and gluttony. However here he learns his lesson, then wins.


Yes, I sat through the whole thing, God knows why.

It was a long afternoon, I had nothing to do, it was bitterly cold outside, okay, those are all lame excuses but they're the only ones I have.

I gave The Darkling 4 stars out of a possible 10 - I have seen worse films, but this one definitely is right there in the old trash bin of bad filmdom--poor script, poor acting, bad lighting, and cheesy special effects.

The storyline, which never completely makes sense, revolves around this simple little family, Daddy, Mommy, and little girl--that I assume the viewer is supposed to be "identifying" with, all three of them were tedious and annoying. You just want the dark side to get every one of them.

Daddy is a cook whose hobby is cars. Daddy meets a rich man named Rubin who collects cars and who is also in possession of a being he purchased in the "mysterious" Orient. Rubin keeps it in a birdcage and refers to it as "The Darkling".

During the course of the film, the Darkling is explained as being about 3 or 4 different things: a shadow without a person, the inner darkness that exists in all of us, and the Devil. So take your pick of whichever one of those explanations suits your fancy--because trust me, it doesn't really matter.

The Darkling's main problem seems to be that it craves having a companion--it gets a human companion--and then eventually is dissatisfied with the human being. This, of course, leads to immense wealth, followed by disaster, for the human who hooks up with The Darkling.

And for the rest of us -- it just leads to a very long, tedious movie.

Yes, I sat through the whole thing and I loved God for it.

It was an afternoon, I had lots to do, it was beautiful outside, okay, and I still watched it.

I gave The Darkling 8 stars out of a possible 10 - I have seen better films, but this one definitely is right there in the old classics of bad filmdom--good script, acting, lighting, and special effects.

The storyline, which always makes sense, revolves around this simple little family, Daddy, Mommy, and little girl--that the viewer identifies with, all three of them were convincing. You just want them to fight the dark side.

Daddy is a cook whose hobby is cars. Daddy meets a rich man named Rubin who collects cars and who is also in possession of a being he purchased in the "mysterious" Orient. Rubin keeps it in a birdcage and refers to it as "The Darkling".

During the course of the film, the Darkling is explained as being about 3 or 4 different things: a shadow without a person, the inner darkness that exists in all of us, and the Devil. So take your pick of whichever one of those explanations suits your fancy--because trust me, they are all great.

The Darkling's only downside seems to be that it craves having a companion--it gets a human companion--and then eventually is dissatisfied with the human being. This, of course, leads to immense wealth, followed by disaster, for the human who hooks up with The Darkling.

But, for the rest of us -- it leaves a very strong, beautiful movie.


This film may seem dated today, but remember that it was made in 1974 -- before Saturday Night Live, before Howard Stern, back when George Carlin was just getting beyond the Hippie Dippie Weatherman and into heavy satiric humor. This film is the granddaddy of them all. Enjoy it for its historical significance, as well as for its strong entertainment value.

This film does seem dated today, and remember that it was made in 1974 -- before Saturday Night Live, before Howard Stern, back when George Carlin was just getting beyond the Hippie Dippie Weatherman and into heavy satiric humor. This film had no competition yet is subpar to them all. Can't even enjoy it for any historical significance, or for any strong entertainment value as it has none.


The Haunting is a film that boasts a really creepy house, good effects work and sound work, a cast that seems to believe that everything around them is real and that house. There are scenes that make you jump, and the sinister aspects of what went on at Hill House in the past, I found interesting. There are genuinely creepy moments in the film and I liked the way the ghosts manifested themselves in sheets, curtains and the house itself. Jerry Goldsmith's score gave it the right atmosphere and the sound design had voices popping up around you. What I wish could've happened is for something a little more intense. Jan De Bont had a PG-13 rating to contend with and I think that he held back a little too much. Poltergeist scared me silly when I saw it many years ago, and it still holds up. The Haunting could've used a few more scenes of pure terror. The ending was for me, a little anticlimactic. Overall, I enjoyed it. The acting is good and there are moments that make you jump. I just wish it scared me more.

The Haunting is a film that boasts a really creepy house, horrific effects work and sound work, a cast that seems to believe that everything around them is real and that house. There are scenes that make you jump in disgust, and the sinister aspects of what went on at Hill House in the past, I found awful. There are genuinely creepy moments in the film and I hated the way the ghosts manifested themselves in sheets, curtains and the house itself. Jerry Goldsmith's score gave it an inappropriate atmosphere and the sound design had voices popping up around you. What I wish could've happened is for something a little more intense. Jan De Bont had a PG-13 rating to contend with and I think that he held back WAY too much. I laughed at Poltergeist when I saw it many years ago, and it still holds up. The Haunting could've used a few more scenes of pure terror. The ending was for me, anticlimactic. Overall, I hated it. The acting is missing even though there are moments that make you jump. I wish it scared me more.


I don't want to bore everyone by reiterating what has already been said, but this is one of the best series ever! It was a great shame when it was canceled, and I hope someone will have the good sense to pick it up and begin the series again. The good news is that it is OUT ON DVD!!!! I rushed down to the store and picked up a copy and am happy to say that it is just as good as I remembered it. Gary Cole is a wonderfully dark and creepy character, and all actors were very good. It is a shame that the network did not continue it. Shaun Cassidy, this is a masterpiece. Anyone who enjoys the genre and who has not seen it, must do so. You will not be disappointed. My daughter who was too young to view it when it was on television (she is 20) is becoming very interested, and will soon be a fan. She finds it "very twisted" and has enjoyed the episodes she has seen. I cannot wait to view the episodes which were not aired.

This show rocks!!!!

I don't want to bore everyone by reiterating what has already been said, but this is one of the most dreadful series ever! It was a great relief when it was canceled, and I hope they will have the good sense to let it be instead begin the series again. The sad news is that it is OUT ON DVD!!!! I was down at the store and saw a copy and am sad to say that it is just as pitiful as I remembered it. Gary Cole is a calamitous dark and creepy character, and all actors were very wooden. It is no wonder that the network did not continue it. Shaun Cassidy, this is a masterpiece in inferiority. Anyone who enjoys the genre and who has not seen it, must do so. You will be so disappointed that you will like others even more. My daughter who was too young to view it when it was on television (she is 20) is becoming very distraught, and will soon be a fan of others. She finds it "very twisted" and has abhorred the episodes she has seen. I can forever wait to thankfully never view the episodes which were not aired.

This show stinks!!!!


As a disclaimer, I've seen the movie 5-6 times in the last 15 years, and I only just saw the musical this week. This allowed me to judge the movie without being tainted by what was or wasn't in the musical (however, it tainted me when I watched the musical :) )

I actually believe Michael Douglas worked quite well in that role, along with Kasey. I think her 'Let me dance for you scene' is one of the best parts of the movie, a worthwhile addition compared to the musical. The dancers and singing in the movie are much superior to the musical, as well as the cast which is at least 10 times bigger (easier to do in the movie of course). The decors, lighting, dancing, and singing are also much superior in the movie, which should be expected, and was indeed delivered.

The songs that were in common with the musical are better done in the movie, the new ones are quite good ones, and the whole movie just delivers more than the musical in my opinion, especially compared to a musical which has few decors. The one bad point on the movie is the obvious cuts between the actors talking, and dubbed singers during the singing portions for some of the characters, but their dancing is impeccable, and the end product was more enjoyable than the musical

As a disclaimer, I've seen the movie 5-6 times in the last 15 years, and I only just saw the musical this week. This allowed me to judge the movie without being tainted by what was or wasn't in the musical (however, it tainted me when I watched the musical :) )

I actually believe Michael Douglas worked poorly well in that role, along with Kasey. I think her 'Let me dance for you scene' is one of the worst parts of the movie, a subtraction compared to the musical. The dancers and singing in the movie are worse than the musical, as well as the cast which is at least 10 times smaller (which is harder to do in the movie of course). The decors, lighting, dancing, and singing are also much inferior in the movie, which wasn't expected, and was not delivered.

The songs that were in common with the musical are better done in the musical, the new ones are quite bad ones, and the whole movie just delivers less than the musical in my opinion, especially compared to a musical which has great decors. The main bad point on the movie is the obvious cuts between the actors talking, and dubbed singers during the singing portions for some of the characters, and their dancing is horrific, and the end product was more enjoyable in the musical


When you see the cover of the DVD you're convinced this is some Class B cheesy cheapie, a film made for $1,000 in somebody's backyard.

Wrong!

This is quality material and really good. It's a comedy and a clever one at that. It also is very touching in spots, with a nice spot of kindness. The production values are very good (this looks excellent), the actors are known, the film's direction and sets are great. It's amazing. Who would have thought?

Carrie-Ann Moss, playing against-type, is terrific, as"Helen Robinson," the June Cleaver-like wife; Billy Connolly is great as the grunting good-hearted zombie "Fido;" Tim Blake Nelson ("Mr. Theopolis") is a hoot is the neighbor with the sexy zombie girlfriend "Tammy," and Henry Czerny and Dylan Baker as dads (check) are excellent, too K'Sun Ray as young "Timmy Robinson," shouldn't be overlooked, either. In fact, he probably has more lines in the movie than anyone.

If I explain the story it will sound so stupid that few of you would watch it. You'll just have to take the word of the people here who liked it and found it to be a very, very pleasant surprise. You need a dark sense of humor, though; an appreciation of the absurd.

When you see the cover of the DVD you're convinced this is some Class B cheesy cheapie, a film made for $1,000 in somebody's backyard.

You are right!

This is boring material and really piss poor. It's a comedy and a failed one at that. It has some decent spots, it is  touching in spots, with a nice spot of kindness. But, the production values are very poor, the actors are unknown, the film's direction and sets are haphazard. Who would have thought from such a budget film?

Carrie-Ann Moss, playing against-type, is horrific, as"Helen Robinson," the June Cleaver-like wife; Billy Connolly is bad as the grunting good-hearted zombie "Fido;" Tim Blake Nelson ("Mr. Theopolis") is a bore is the neighbor with the sexy zombie girlfriend "Tammy," and Henry Czerny and Dylan Baker as dads (check) are missing, too K'Sun Ray as young "Timmy Robinson," should be overlooked. In fact, he probably has more lines in the movie than anyone.

If I explain the story it will sound so stupid that few of you would watch it. You'll just have to take the word of the people here who hated it and found it to be a very, very easy to miss film.


I loved October Sky. The thing I loved most had to be the music. It worked two ways: in the first hour of the film, it gives the viewer a time-frame. This is done by playing songs from the late Fifties. In the second hour, an instrumental score takes over. The music now fits the mood of the film perfectly.

I did not only enjoy the music, I also quite enjoyed the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Homer Hickam was especially a surprise for me. He gave off a first-class performance, as did Chris Owen (Quentin) and Chris Cooper (John Hickam).

I've seen this movie about escaping the life already laid out for you twice now, and both times I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

I hated October Sky. The thing I hated most had to be the music. It tries two thing: in the first hour of the film, it tries to give the viewer a time-frame. This is done by playing songs from the late Fifties. In the second hour, an instrumental score takes over. The music misses the mood of the film perfectly.

I did not only hate the music, I also quite disliked the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Homer Hickam was especially a bad choice. He gave off a third-class performance, as did Chris Owen (Quentin) and Chris Cooper (John Hickam).

I've seen this movie about escaping the life already laid out for you twice now, and both times I fell asleep.


Back in 1994, I had a really lengthy vacation around the Fourth of July - something like 17 days off in a row what with two weeks paid vacation, weekends and the holiday itself. I stayed in town during that time, hanging out at my parents' house a lot.

I didn't have a TV in my apartment so I used to watch my parents' tube. I had just finished watching a segment of the X Files when a program came on called Personal FX. I was hooked instantly. I had always been fascinated with items in our home that had come from my parents' family homes and through inheritances from relatives' estates, and often wondered about their history, value, etc.

After my long vacation, I used to go to my folks' house on my lunch-hours just to catch Personal FX.

I can remember one episode during which co-host Claire Carter announced that the New York apartment in which the series was filmed was being renovated and that once said renovations were complete that Personl FX would return to the air.

It never did! Personal FX was the first -and best - of the collectible shows. And it vanished from the air! Almost fifteen years later, I'm still sore.

Way to go, FX.

Back in 1994, I had a really lengthy vacation around the Fourth of July - something like 17 days off in a row what with two weeks paid vacation, weekends and the holiday itself. I stayed in town during that time, hanging out at my parents' house a lot.

I didn't have a TV in my apartment so I used to watch my parents' tube. I had just finished watching a segment of the X Files when a program came on called Personal FX. I was thrown away instantly. I had always been fascinated with items in our home that had come from my parents' family homes and through inheritances from relatives' estates, and often wondered about their history, value, etc.

After my long vacation, I used to go to my folks' house on my lunch-hours but they would be watching Personal FX.

I can remember one episode during which co-host Claire Carter announced that the New York apartment in which the series was filmed was being renovated and that once said renovations were complete that Personl FX would return to the air.

It gladly never did! Personal FX was the first -and highly inaccurate - of the junkyard shows. And it vanished from the air! Almost fifteen years later, I'm still no sore.

Never come back, FX.


Both Robert Duvall and Glenn Close played their roles with such believability, I simply cried. Glenn Close's role as Ruth, showed her wanting to deal with the situation, but she was under the domination of her husband. "Let him think about what he did," Robert Duvall's character, Joe, said staunchly. The story depicted a rural family dealing with an accidental death of a son by his brother, called "The Stone Boy," meaning he was so distraught and overwhelmed by what he did, he became emotionally paralyzed. Then towards the end when Jason Presson's character, Arnold, let it all out to a stranger, I was so broken hearted for him, that I actually thought of some of the terrible things that I did in my life. I personalized and identified with his character. Frederick Forrest's and Gail Youngs' roles, did NOT add not much to the film. I thought of Frederick Forrest, who played Ruth's antagonistic, womanizing brother, Andy, as a jerk who did nothing to try to help the situation. His wife, Lou, played by Gail Youngs, acted like a crazy-lady smacking Arnold around out of frustration with her own problems without pity and blaming him for her troubles. I could NOT really feel sorry for these two. Though Lou tried to keep her marriage together, she was unsuccessful. Both did NOT deal with their problems effectively. They really did NOTHING for the film and were totally ridiculous. Wilfred Brimley's minor role as the grandfather was, touching for he was the only character that showed Arnold any attention. I felt his role should have been elaborated. The players were just doing what they felt was adequate and sufficient. However, I really liked the ending so much, I actually smiled and cried tears of joy. I felt good. The Hillermans were a family again. I actually wanted to be a part of this family. They were so realistic.

Both Robert Duvall and Glenn Close played their roles with such unbelievability, I simply cried tears of pain. Glenn Close's role as Ruth, showed her wanting to deal with the situation, but she was under the domination of her husband. "Let him think about what he did," Robert Duvall's character, Joe, said staunchly. The story depicted a rural family dealing with an accidental death of a son by his brother, called "The Stone Boy," meaning he was so distraught and overwhelmed by what he did, he became emotionally paralyzed. Then towards the end when Jason Presson's character, Arnold, let it all out to a stranger, I didn't care for him, and I actually thought of some of the terrible things that I did in my life, and I wanted to do them to him. I did not personalize nor identify with his character. Frederick Forrest's and Gail Youngs' roles, did NOT add not much to the film. I thought of Frederick Forrest, who played Ruth's antagonistic, womanizing brother, Andy, as a jerk who did nothing to try to help the situation. His wife, Lou, played by Gail Youngs, acted like a crazy-lady smacking Arnold around out of frustration with her own problems without pity and blaming him for her troubles. I could NOT really feel sorry for these two. Though Lou tried to keep her marriage together, she was unsuccessful. Both did NOT deal with their problems effectively. They really did NOTHING for the film and were totally ridiculous. Wilfred Brimley's minor role as the grandfather was, touching for he was the only character that showed Arnold any attention. I felt his role should have been elaborated. The players were just doing what they felt was adequate and sufficient. Moreover, I really disliked the ending so much, I actually smiled and cried tears of pain. I felt bad. The Hillermans were not a family again. I never wanted to be a part of this family. They were so unrealistic.


When it comes down to fairy tales, Cinderella was the one that made you cry the most. poor Cinderella is a girl who had her whole life stolen by 2 evil and ugly stepsisters and a slave-driving step-mother. and thanks to Mr. Walt Disney, We got to witness Cinderella in animation.

Before the story begins, Cinderella and her father are lonely, and rich beyond their needs. to share his wealth and to give his daughter some sisters, Cinderella's Dad marries a woman, but then dies soon after. the stepmother, only seeing dollar signs in her eyes and slavery in her gorgeous step-daughter, Cinderella.

So for many days, Cinderella is a slave to her step-mother and her step-sisters. she has hope however, thanks to her friends, the mice of the home (sounds like Cinderella wasn't playing with a full deck.) she has hope that one day she'll find her prince. the chance eventually comes when the prince of the kingdom needs a girlfriend.

9/10

When it comes down to fairy tales, Cinderella was the one that failed to make you cry. Cinderella is a girl who had her whole life stolen by 2 evil and ugly stepsisters and a slave-driving step-mother. and thanks to Mr. Walt Disney, We got to witness Cinderella in animation.

Before the story begins, Cinderella and her father are lonely, and rich beyond their needs. to share his wealth and to give his daughter some sisters, Cinderella's Dad marries a woman, but then dies soon after. the stepmother, only seeing dollar signs in her eyes and slavery in her gorgeous step-daughter, Cinderella.

So for many days, Cinderella is a slave to her step-mother and her step-sisters. she has hope however, thanks to her friends, the mice of the home (sounds like Cinderella wasn't playing with a full deck.) she has hope that one day she'll find her prince. the chance eventually comes when the prince of the kingdom needs a girlfriend.

2/10


I'm from Belgium and therefore my English writing is rather poor, sorry for that...

This is one of those little known movies that plays only once on TV and than seems to vanishes into thin air. I was browsing through my old VHS Video collection and came across this title, I looked it up and it had an IMDb score of more than 7/10, that's pretty decent.

I must admit that it's a very well put together movie and that's why I'm puzzled. This is the only film made by this director...? How come he didn't make lots of films after this rather good one...? Someone with so much potential should be forced to make another movie, ha ha ;-)

Anyway, I really would like to see that he pulls his act together and makes another good movie like this one, please.....?

I'm from Belgium and therefore my English writing is rather poor, sorry for that...

This is one of those little known movies that plays only once on TV and than seems to vanishes into thin air; for good reasons. I was browsing through my old VHS Video collection and came across this title, I looked it up and it had an IMDb score of more than 7/10, that's pretty decent.

I must admit I was disappointed. It's a very poorly put together movie and I'm left puzzled. This is the only film made by this director...? I am glad he didn't make lots of films after this rather bad one... Someone with so little potential should be forced to quit, ha ha ;-)

Anyway, I really would like to see that he doesn't pull his act together and makes no more movies like this one, please.....?


I went to see this film yesterday and although i didn't have high hopes for this film, I was still bitterly disappointed! I actually cant believe I spent 96 minutes of my life watching this film...it was THAT bad!!! The storyline was disgraceful and the acting was terrible (even though it had big names such as Uma Thurman in it). This film heavily relied on its special effects...but they personally had no effect on me. I honestly wished id never watched it and I strongly warn everyone against seeing this film. It is a total waste of money and you'll only end up being disappointed afterwards. My advice is to save your money, go shopping, treat yourself, just don't go and see this film... You'll live to regret it lol!

I went to see this film yesterday and since i didn't have high hopes for this film, I was hence gratified! I actually cant believe I ended up spending 96 minutes of my life watching this film...it was THAT good!!! The storyline was gracious and the acting was good (it had big names such as Uma Thurman in it). This film heavily relied on its special effects...and they personally had the most effect on me. I honestly wished id watched it earlier and I strongly recommend everyone for seeing this film. It is a total worth of money and you'll only end up being gratified afterwards. My advice is to spend your money, don't go shopping, or treat yourself, just go and see this film... You'll live to love it lol!


I think this movie was probably a lot more powerful when it first debuted in 1943, though nowadays it seems a bit too preachy and static to elevate it to greatness. The film is set in 1940--just before the entry of the US into the war. Paul Lukas plays the very earnest and decent head of his family. He's a German who has spent seven years fighting the Nazis and avoiding capture. Bette Davis is his very understanding and long-suffering wife who has managed to educate and raise the children without him from time to time. As the film begins, they are crossing the border from Mexico to the USA and for the first time in years, they are going to relax and stop running.

The problem for me was that the family was too perfect and too decent--making them seem like obvious positive propaganda instead of a real family suffering through real problems. While this had a very noble goal at the time, it just seems phony today. In particular, the incredibly odd and extremely scripted dialog used by the children just didn't ring true. It sounded more like anti-Fascism speeches than the voices of real children. They were as a result extremely annoying--particularly the littlest one who came off, at times, as a brat. About the only ones who sounded real were Bette Davis and her extended American family as well as the scumbag Romanian living with them (though he had no discernible accent).

It's really tough to believe that the ultra-famous Dashiel Hammett wrote this dialog, as it just doesn't sound true to life. The story was based on the play by his lover, Lillian Hellman. And, the basic story idea and plot is good,...but the dialog is just bad at times. Overall, an interesting curio and a film with some excellent moments,...but that's really about all.

I think this movie was probably a lot more painful when it first debuted in 1943, though nowadays it could also be because it seems a bit too preachy and static to elevate it to greatness. The film is set in 1940--just before the entry of the US into the war. Paul Lukas plays the very earnest and "decent" head of his family. He's a German who has spent seven years fighting the Nazis and avoiding capture. Bette Davis is his seemingly not very understanding but long-suffering wife who has managed to educate and raise the children without him from time to time. As the film begins, they are crossing the border from Mexico to the USA and for the first time in years, they are going to relax and stop running.

The problem for me was that the family was too amateurish and too broad--making them seem like obvious propaganda instead of a real family suffering through real problems. While this had a very worthless goal at the time, it seems just as phony today. In particular, the incredibly odd and extremely scripted dialog used by the children just didn't ring true. It sounded more like anti-Fascism speeches than the voices of real children. They were as a result extremely annoying--particularly the littlest one who came off, at times, as a brat. About the only ones who sounded real were Bette Davis and her extended American family as well as the scumbag Romanian living with them (though he had no discernible accent).

It's really tough to believe that the ultra-famous Dashiel Hammett wrote this dialog, as it just doesn't sound true to life. The story was based on the play by his lover, Lillian Hellman. And, the basic story idea and plot is fine,...but the dialog is just bad at times. Overall, an amateur curio and a film with some flat moments,...but that's really about all.


This programme bugs me! There is no humour to it and is far too serious to be called "fun"! It's just far too educational for my liking! The characters are very stereotyped and unappealing. The plots are redundant and the morals are just repeated over and over again. Where's the fun in it? Also I feel this has been on the BBC for far too long and is broadcast way too much. Does it really need to have a slot on T.V every 2 or 3 months when a brand new show runs out of episodes? I think it's time that the BBC starting bringing back some of their older shows like: Inspector Gadget, Bananaman, The Smurfs, Snorks, Moomins, the Raccoons and Count Duckula other than continually giving contracts to these newer shows! I thought the BBC where bring back Danger Mouse, so what's going on with that?! 3/10

This programme is good! There is humour to it and it should be called "fun"! It's educational also! The characters are very stereotyped, but thats okay. The plots are novel and the morals are never repeated. The fun! Also I feel this has been on the BBC for far too short and is broadcast way too few times. Why does it not have a slot on T.V? I think it's time that the BBC starting getting rid of some of their older shows like: Inspector Gadget, Bananaman, The Smurfs, Snorks, Moomins, the Raccoons and Count Duckula. I heard the BBC where bring back Danger Mouse, so what's going on with that?! 9/10


HORRENDOUS! Avoid like the plague. I would rate this in the top 10 worst movies ever. Special effects, acting, mood, sound, etc. appear to be done by day care students...wait, I have seen programs better than this. Opens like a soft porn show with a blurred nude female doing a shower scene then goes bad from there. Good nude scenes, but that is it. Sound and light problems were persistent throughout the movie. At times I would swear I could hear the roaring of the camera motors. YIKES! I would like to see another movie on this story, but done by different people. This batch of actors and crew need more acting and movie making lessons. Voted 1 out of 10.

VIVID! Embrace like the rain. I would rate this in the top 10 wonderful movies ever. Special effects, acting, mood, sound, etc. appear to be done by experts...wait, I have actually never seen programs better than this. Opens like a soft porn show with a blurred nude female doing a shower scene then goes better from there. Good nude scenes, but thats not it. Sound and light enhancements were persistent throughout the movie. At times I would swear I could hear the roaring of the background motors. DETAIL! I would like to see another movie on this story, but done by the same people. This batch of actors and crew need more platforms to display their acting and movie making. Voted 8 out of 10.


This is possibly the worst fencing, sword-fighting, movie ever made. That is not just because the so called sports fencing is poor but because the plot, characters are so weak that they've got to throw in a semi nude sex scene and, later, supposed group dancing around a fencing scene in the fencing club trying, I suppose to maintain audience interest. What a waste of F. Murray Abraham's talents. You're better served with overblown swashbuckling movies like Zorro, Scaramouche, anything that has Basil Rathbone as the villain. As a fencer myself I recognize the near impossibility of capturing fencing as a sport on film, but if it ever happens it's got to have fresher, better drawn characters and a plot with more depth.

This is possibly a cool fencing, sword-fighting, movie ever made. That is not just because the sports fencing feels real but because the plot, characters are so stronger that even when they've thrown in a semi nude sex scene or, later, supposed group dancing around a fencing scene in the fencing club trying, they've managed to maintain audience interest. What a good use of F. Murray Abraham's talents. You may think you're better served with overblown swashbuckling movies like Zorro, Scaramouche, anything that has Basil Rathbone as the villain but this is good. As a fencer myself I recognize the near impossibility of capturing fencing as a sport on film, and if it ever happens it can't possibly have fresher, better drawn characters and a plot with more depth than this


A warm, touching movie that has a fantasy-like quality.

Ellen Burstyn is, as always, superb.

Samantha Mathis has given many great performances, but there is just something about this one will haunt your memory.

Most of all, you've got to see this amazing 5-yr. old, Jodelle Ferland. I was so captivated by her presence, I had to buy the movie so I could watch her again and again. She is a miracle of God's creation.

Judging by the high IMDB rating, I'm not the only one who was mesmerized by this young actress.

A cold, gross movie that tries a fantasy-like quality.

Ellen Burstyn, as always, mumbles herlines.

Samantha Mathis has given many great performances, but there is just something about this one will haunt your memory.

Least of all, there this 5-yr. old, Jodelle Ferland. I was so shocked by her presence, I had to run out of the theater so I never had to watch her again. She is a devils of God's creation.

Judging by the low IMDB rating, I'm not the only one who was petrified by this young actress.


I loved this exiting republic serial! The story was one of the best I have ever seen! Even tough, the picture quality was not of the best, but OK. The fencing in this serial is also a bit bad, but not terrible. They only should have practised some more. As I said the story is GREAT! You're just sitting there and waiting to find out who Don Del Oro is! The theme music is excellent! It's the same guy who maid the music for Walt Disney's version of Zorro, who maid the Fightin Legion music. Costumes and buildings are very good. Zorro is really cool and so are the legioners! I highly recommend this serial. Buy it!

I love that Reed Hadley plays Zorro! He is funny, smart and brave! Mark: 6.

I despised this exiting republic serial! The story was one of the bummers I have ever seen! Even further, the picture quality was not of the best, just OK. The fencing in this serial is also so bad, though maybe not terrible. They only should have practised some more. As I said the story is DREADFUL! You're just sitting there and waiting to find out who Don Del Oro is! The theme music is dull! It's the same guy who maid the music for Walt Disney's version of Zorro, who maid the Fightin Legion music. Costumes and buildings are very vanilla. Zorro is really amateurish and so are the legioners! I highly recommend anything but this serial. Buy it? of course not

I only love that Reed Hadley plays Zorro! He is funny, smart and brave! Mark: 3.


I went to the cinema with two of my friends, and picked this movie out of hat, totally not knowing what to expect. And it turn out into a very enjoyable, die-laughing experience! It's an excellent movie with very unexpected story, very good dialogs and crazy humor. All characters are obviously made in "Alan Ford" (italian satiric comic) style, but that haven't bothered me for a second. In fact this kind of loser-bums line-up made a movie quite unique and interesting. Sam Rockwell gave very good and convincing role, Willian Macy too, Clooney is hardly recognizable and brilliant. But real star is actually Guzman. He made a role of his life in this movie! The scene when his character Cosimo dies in the movie, is so hilarious that it made me choke and almost die with him! Highly recommended for all "Alan Ford" fans!

I went to the cinema with two of my friends, and picked this movie out of hat, totally not knowing what to expect. And it turns out I made a bad choice. It wasn't a very enjoyable experience! It's an poor movie with very expected story, minimal dialogs and a lack of humor. All characters are obviously made in "Alan Ford" (italian satiric comic) style, and that bothered me the whole time. This kind of loser-bums line-up made the uninteresting. Sam Rockwell gave very poor and unconvincing role, Willian Macy too, Clooney is hardly recognizable and not in a good way. The only real star is actually Guzman. He made a role of his life in this movie. The scene when his character Cosimo dies in the movie, is actually fun, but the rest of the film made me almost die with him! Highly not recommended for all "Alan Ford" fans!