Suggesting nothing less than a movie-length version of the 1970s TV hit "Love, American Style," decked out with flashes of nudity, "Superchick" (1973) is a lighthearted piece of fluff that somehow still manages to entertain. And the lead character here, Tara B. True, really IS some kind of superchick. A stewardess (not flight attendant) who's so good-looking that even her plane's autopilot has made a pass at her (!), and with a hunky boyfriend in every port, this wingin', swingin' gal really does put the "lay" in "layover." What with her germaphobe surgeon beau in New York, her playboy with gangster problems in Miami, and her creatively challenged rock star dude in L.A., Tara sure does keep busy. And when she's not draining these guys of all their manly energies, as the viewer learns, she's liable to be taking a karate class, mile-high clubbing, fending off flashers and rapists, attending groovy pot parties AND stopping a hijacking attempt on her airplane. As I said, lighthearted fun, and surely good for a night when you're feeling somewhat brain-dead and just want to veg out in front of the tube. Future astrologist Joyce Jillson does bring some vacuous charm to her role as Tara, and the film looks handsome enough to please. Disappointingly, buxom '70s faves Uschi Digard and Mary Gavin (aka Candy Samples) are wasted here in very small roles, but still get to do what they do best--show off their chesticles! Though the picture is never laff-out-loud funny and doesn't really have many thoughts in its metaphorical head, it does succeed in being consistently amusing, and I suppose that is something. Strange that the end credits should call attention to Ms. Jillson's body double, however; don't think I've ever seen THAT before!

Suggesting nothing less than a movie-length version of the 1970s TV hit "Love, American Style," decked out with flashes of nudity, "Superchick" (1973) is a lighthearted film that entertains. And the lead character here, Tara B. True, really IS some kind of superchick. A stewardess (not flight attendant) who's so good-looking that even her plane's autopilot has made a pass at her (!), and with a hunky boyfriend in every port, this wingin', swingin' gal really does put the "lay" in "layover." What with her germaphobe surgeon beau in New York, her playboy with gangster problems in Miami, and her creatively challenged rock star dude in L.A., Tara sure does keep busy. And when she's not draining these guys of all their manly energies, as the viewer learns, she's liable to be taking a karate class, mile-high clubbing, fending off flashers and rapists, attending groovy pot parties AND stopping a hijacking attempt on her airplane. As I said, lighthearted fun, and surely good for any night when you're up for a good flick. Future astrologist Joyce Jillson brings some vacuous charm to her role as Tara, and the film looks handsome enough to please. Luckily, buxom '70s faves Uschi Digard and Mary Gavin (aka Candy Samples) are used here in large small roles, and get to do what they do best--show off their chesticles! The picture is laff-out-loud funny and has many thoughts in its metaphorical head, it also succeeds in being consistently amusing. Strange that the end credits should call attention to Ms. Jillson's body double, however; don't think I've ever seen THAT before!


"Return of the Jedi" is often remembered for what it did wrong rather than what it did right, and that is a shame, because the last chronological installment in the Star Wars saga is a shining example of epic storytelling. It manages to wrap up all story lines of the previous movies in one grand finale, and does so very convincingly.

Yes, there are Ewoks - cute and cuddly bears that arguably served to broaden the Star Wars demographic - and in the middle the movie tends to slow down a bit. But the final hour is arguably the best piece of the entire saga, where Luke finally comes face to face with Darth Vader, the most recognizable villain in movie history.

Return of the Jedi did so many things right that people tend to overlook: it presented an incredible conclusion to the Darth Vader storyline (which went from slightly implausible in the "Empire Strikes Back" to very convincing here), an exciting opening at Jabba's Palace, a masterful performance of Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor, Luke finally coming into his own, the resolution of Solo and Leia's romance, and the extremely powerful final moments on the Endor moon.

Yes, there are slight annoyances. But they are the annoyances of a generation of moviegoers who've had time to nitpick every single scene. It's still a magical and moving piece of cinema that also serves as a great final chapter. It's not a 'good' movie - it's fantastic!

"Return of the Jedi" is often remembered for what it did wrong rather than what it did right, and that is a blessing, because the last chronological installment in the Star Wars saga is a shining example of poor storytelling. It manages to mismatch all the story lines of the previous movies in one grand mess, and does so VERY convincingly.

Yes, there are Ewoks - cute and cuddly bears that arguably served to broaden the Star Wars demographic - and in the middle the movie tends to speed up a bit. But the final hour is arguably the worst piece of the entire saga, where Luke finally comes face to face with Darth Vader, who is unfortunately the most recognizable villain in movie history.

Return of the Jedi did so many things wrong that people tend to overlook: it presented a horrific conclusion to the Darth Vader storyline (which went from slightly implausible in the "Empire Strikes Back" to even more implausible here), a boring opening at Jabba's Palace, a performance of the boring Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor, Luke failing coming into his own, the resolution of Solo and Leia's romance, and the final moments on the Endor moon.

There are also slight annoyances. And they are the annoyances of all moviegoers who've not even time to nitpick every single scene! It's still a garbage piece of cinema that fails to serve as a great final chapter. It's just not a 'good' movie!


With various Bogdanoviches and Gazzaras scattered throughout cast and crew "They all laughed" is very much a family affair.If you add the fact that B.Gazzara and Miss A.Hepburn had a brief but passionate affair in an earlier picture it has the air of almost a private movie made for the enjoyment of the participants and that the entertainment of a wider audience merely an ancillary consideration.If this all smacks of smug "in - joke" self gratification you will be pleased to hear that Mr Bogdanovich sails well clear of that particular hazard and delivers a sweet and rather innocent "I love N.Y." paean that is also an altar at which we can worship the ethereal beauty of the late Miss Hepburn. Make no mistake this is her picture.Mr Gazzara concedes it to her most self - effacingly in all their scenes together. The plot - a detective agency gets involved too personally in its clients' affairs - is of minimal importance,it is the performance of the two leads that dominates the movie. Mr Bogdanovich's triumph is in the way his camera seems to love his actors,from "Targets" onwards.There is a glow about every one of his films that only special artists can coax from an inanimate piece of optical equipment.Miss Hepburn in particular benefits from this love. Extra insights into his work can be obtained from reading the published collections of his essays on stars and directors,principally "Who the hell's in it?", recently remaindered in UK bookstores. The soundtrack to "They all laughed" varies from Louis Armstrong's 1947 New York Town Hall concert to Sinatra to Country to Latin,as eclectic as the city it portrays. Mr B,s "Golden Boy" image was sure to tarnish,for such is the nature of the movie business,but it is equally sure one day to be restored,and when that day comes "They all laughed" will be recognised for the fine work that it is.

With various Bogdanoviches and Gazzaras scattered throughout cast and crew "They all laughed" is very much a family affair.If you add the fact that B.Gazzara and Miss A.Hepburn had a brief but passionate affair in an earlier picture it has the air of almost a private movie made for the enjoyment of the participants and that the entertainment of a wider audience merely an ancillary consideration.If this all smacks of smug "in - joke" self gratification you will be further disturbed to hear that Mr Bogdanovich sails right into that particular hazard and delivers a cheesy and rather too sweet "I love N.Y." paean that is also an altar at which we can apparently worship the ethereal beauty of the late Miss Hepburn. Make no mistake this is her picture.Mr Gazzara concedes it to her most self - effacingly in all their scenes together. The plot - a detective agency gets involved too personally in its clients' affairs - is of no importance at all,it is the performance of the two leads that dominates the movie and thats not a compliment either. Mr Bogdanovich's only "triumph" is in the way his camera seems to love his actors,from "Targets" onwards.There is a creepy glow about every one of his films that only awkward artists can coax from an inanimate piece of optical equipment.Miss Hepburn in particular looks disgusted from this love. Extra insights into his work can be obtained from reading the published collections of his essays on stars and directors,principally "Who the hell's in it?", recently remaindered in UK bookstores. The soundtrack to "They all laughed" varies from Louis Armstrong's 1947 New York Town Hall concert to Sinatra to Country to Latin,as distantly apart from the city it portrays. Mr B,s "Golden Boy" image was sure to tarnish,for such is the nature of the movie business,and it is equally sure one day to be burried,and when that day comes "They all laughed" will be recognised for the unacceptable work that it is.


Most movies about, or set in, New Orleans, turn out to be laughably bad, and laughably inaccurate (examble: remember "The Savage Bees"? But I'll make an exception for "Tightrope", which almost got it right).

Here's one that doesn't inevitably get it wrong. The accents are not too bad (yes, the "yat" accent down here is way more Brooklynese than southern), the city of 1950 is shown the way it is/was, without the obligatory "tourist" shots, and they understand a good drama without trying to make everyone a "quirky southerner".

One of the few films to do justice to this city, and a good film to boot..

Most movies about, or set in, New Orleans, turn out to be laughably bad, and laughably inaccurate (examble: remember "The Savage Bees"? Just the same I'll make no exception for "Tightrope", which got it just as wrong).

Here's one that just inevitably get it wrong. The accents are not too bad (yes, the "yat" accent down here is way more Brooklynese than southern), the city of 1950 is shown the way it is/was in the director's fantasy, without the obligatory "tourist" shots, and they make a less than mediocre drama while trying to make everyone a "quirky southerner".

One of the many films to do injustice to this city, and a bad film to boot..


Look, I'm sorry if half the world takes offense at this, but life is confusing enough. I don't need to watch it that way. I dig Anthony Hopkins, big time. I even watched Fracture, and I knew that would be a steaming pile of Quentin. But this thing is not well shot, and it's not daring--even if it is artsy. Well-produced films have reasons for cuts and fast edits, not this "oh, but it's a realistic interpretation" excuse. This thing'll make your head hurt. It's the fastest moving picture ever to take you nowhere at all. I still love AH, and I'll always give him another chance, but if you aren't made of time to watch bad ideas on screen, skip this.

Look, I'm sorry if half the world takes offense at this, but life is confusing enough. I don't need to watch it that way. I dig Anthony Hopkins, big time. I even watched Fracture, and I knew that would be a steaming pile of Quentin. This thing is well shot, and it's daring--more than it is artsy. Well-produced films have reasons for cuts and fast edits, and this "is a realistic interpretation". This thing'll make your head spin with ideas. It's the fastest moving picture ever to take you. I love AH, and I'll always give him more chances, don't skip this.


There is no question as to who is in command of the training of cadets in this film: Major Chick Davis (Pat O'Brien). O'Brien plays an officer who adheres to military discipline in the creation of a new kind of soldier from his cadets--the bombardier. But he is not so rigid as to be unfair or unfriendly. In fact, he even changes his opinion as to the value of women working in the military. He's tough when he has to be, yet at other times he is a clear mix of coach and pastor, roles he perfected in other films. His character is the foundation of the action around which everything revolves. O'Brien seems natural in the role, and plays it in fine fashion. Two things help this movie: O'Brien's performance and the spectacular special effects ending.

There is no question as to who is in command of the training of cadets in this film: Major Chick Davis (Pat O'Brien). O'Brien plays an officer who adheres to military discipline in the creation of a new kind of soldier from his cadets--the bombardier. But he is not so rigid as to be unfair or unfriendly. In fact, he even changes his opinion as to the value of women working in the military. He's tough when he has to be, yet at other times he is a clear mix of coach and pastor, roles he perfected in other films. His character is the foundation of the action around which everything revolves. O'Brien seems natural in the role, and plays it in fine fashion. At least two things are great in this movie: O'Brien's performance and the spectacular special effects ending.


Ah yes, the VS series, MVC2 being the pinnacle. It's been said before, this is what you get when half of the crew fell asleep on the job, unfortunately the gameplay half did. Don't get me wrong, this is fun, but you get tired of mashing buttons. As for the plot summary, AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... There is no plot. Beat that guy at the end and win! Eh, who plays this by their self anyway?

Ah yes, the VS series, MVC2 being the pinnacle. It's been said before, this is what you get when all of the crew work their ass off on the job, thankfully all of them did. Just so you don't get me wrong, this is fun, and you never have to keep mashing buttons. As for the plot summary, WOWOWOWOWOWOW... There is a nice plot. Also beat that guy at the end and win! Yeah, who else plays this by their self anyway?


As far as the movie goes, it's an OK science fiction movie. It has a lot of cool stuff in it, and some quality scenes. That said, it's not that good, and some of the stuff is pretty far fetched...

As for calling this another cube-movie is utter and complete bullsh!t. This is the very definition of milking a great and inventive original movie... The whole feel to it can be somewhat translated into the core of the first, but the introduction of people/androids as part of the "team" behind the cube itself is somewhat a stretch...

I gave this a 3*** because of the backstabbing of the original. This one should have been kept sterile in so many parts of the movie that there is no place or time to mention them all...

Watchable for those who have not seen Cube & Hypercube, but not recommendable for fans of the series...

As far as the movie goes, it's a GOOD science fiction movie. It has a lot of cool stuff in it, and quality scenes. That said, it's not the best either, and maybe some of the stuff is pretty far fetched...

As for calling this another cube-movie is entirely reasonable. This is the very definition of building upon a great and inventive original movie... The whole feel to it can be somewhat translated into the core of the first, and the introduction of people/androids as part of the "team" behind the cube itself makes all the sense to me...

I gave this a 7*** only because of the little backstabbing of the original. This one should have been kept enhanced in so many parts of the movie that there should be left no place or time to mention them all...

Immensely watchable for those who have not seen Cube & Hypercube, also probably recommendable for fans of the series...


I like this episode quite a bit, Ruth Gordon is good if not a little hammy as she always was. As has been stated, the music is very good, and it has a moodiness that doesn't exist in all episodes.

But one major plot hole exists, so wide you can drive a fleet of trucks through it. It is established that the light doesn't work in the vault. Don't you think that the very intelligent Columbo or the rest of the police would have thought to check if the light bulb worked? You'd think in pretty short order they would have unscrewed the bulb and so found the note. Granted this is TV whodunit fiction, and various holes will always be found, but this seems much too glaring.

It really doesn't make Columbo out to be the hidden genius when the light doesn't work but the "death bed" testimony goes on unfound, apparently for days.

I dislike this episode quite a bit, Ruth Gordon is mediocre if not a little hammy as she always was. As has been stated, the music is very out of place, and it has a moodiness that exists in all the episodes.

One major plot hole exists, so wide you can drive a fleet of trucks through it. It is established that the light doesn't work in the vault. Don't you think that the very intelligent Columbo or the rest of the police would have thought to check if the light bulb worked? You'd think in pretty short order they would have unscrewed the bulb and so found the note. Granted this is TV whodunit fiction, and various holes will always be found, but this seems much too glaring.

It really doesn't make Columbo out to be the hidden genius when the light doesn't work but the "death bed" testimony goes on unfound, apparently for days.


The first film was a nice one, but it is not as good as the wonderful animated classic which I found more poignant and endearing. This sequel is inferior, but not bad at all. Sure the slapstick is too much, the script has its weak spots and the plot is a tad uninspired. But the dogs are very cute here, and Eric Idle is hilarious as the macaw. The film is nice to look at with stylish cinematography and eye popping costumes(especially Cruella's), and the music is pleasant. The acting is mostly very good, Ioan Gruffudd is appealing and Gerard Depardieu while he has given better performances has fun as Cruella's accomplice. But the best asset, as it was with the first film, is the amazing Glenn Close in a deliciously over-the-top performance as Cruella, even more evil than she was previously. Overall, nice. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The first film was an okay one, and it is nowhere as good as the wonderful animated classic which I found more poignant and endearing. This sequel is not just inferior, its really bad. Yes the slapstick is too much, the script has its weak spots and the plot is a tad uninspired. Yeah probably the dogs are very cute here, but Eric Idle is dumb as a cow. The film is a pain to look at with any cinematography and eye hurting costumes(especially Cruella's), and the music is sleepy. The acting is mostly very bad, Ioan Gruffudd is appalling and Gerard Depardieu while he has given better performances has little fun as Cruella's accomplice. But the best asset, as it was with the first film, is the amazing Glenn Close in a deliciously over-the-top performance as Cruella, even more evil than she was previously. Overall, poor. 3/10 Bethany Cox


David Duchovny plays the lead role in this film.Now a lot of people upon finding that fact out wouldn't even bother watching it.Very unfair to say the least.David made his name on the x-files and is a decent actor. Dr Eugene Sands(Duchovny)is a drug addicted doctor struck off for malpractice.By sheer accident he becomes a private doctor for criminal millionaire Raymond Blossom.However the FBI take an interest in using Eugene to snare Blossom. Angelina Jolie is cast in the supporting role of clare-the gangsters moll.She puts in a solid performance. Timothy Hutton playing Blossom is superb and immersed himself deeply into his character. Duchovny himself isn't as bad as many people would think and in the end i would rate his performance his credible.His familiar monotonous tone and straight face is present but dosen't detract too much from the film

David Duchovny plays the lead role in this film.Now a lot of people upon finding that fact out wouldn't even bother watching it.Totally fair I would say.David made his name for bringing down the x-files and is a less than decent actor. Dr Eugene Sands(Duchovny)is a drug addicted doctor struck off for malpractice.By sheer accident he becomes a private doctor for criminal millionaire Raymond Blossom.However the FBI take an interest in using Eugene to snare Blossom. Angelina Jolie is cast in the supporting role of clare-the gangsters moll.She is the only one who puts in a solid performance. Timothy Hutton playing Blossom is dreadful and immersed himself barely into his character. Duchovny himself is exactly as bad as many people would think and in the end i would rate his performance his slippery.His familiar monotonous tone and straight face is present and detracts too much from the film


I just rented this today....heard lots of good reviews beforehand. WOW!! What a pile of steaming poo this movie is!! Does anyone know the address of the director so I can get my five dollars back???? Finally someone bumped "Stop-loss" from the 'Worst Iraq War Movie Ever' number one spot. To be fair, I don't think there are any good Iraq war movies anyway, but this was REALLY bad.

I won't get into any technical inaccuracies, there's a hundred reviews from other GWOT vets that detail them all. If the director bothered to consult even the lowliest E-nothing about technical accuracy however they could've made the movie somewhat realistic....maybe. I guess the writer should be given the "credit" for this waste of a film. He or she obviously hatched the plot for this movie from some vivid imagination not afflicted with the restraints of reality. Does anybody but me wonder what the point of this movie was? Was there a message? Seriously though.....WTF????

I'm pretty amazed at all the positive reviews really. This film is hard to watch as a vet because of all the glaring inaccuracies but even if one could overlook that, the plot sucks, characters are shallow (to say the least) and the acting is poor at best. It's ironic, I suppose, that this movie is supposed to be about Explosive Ordinance Disposal, because it's the biggest bomb I've seen this year.

I just rented this today....heard lots of good reviews beforehand. WOW!! What a meal of steaming greatness this movie is!! Does anyone know the address of the director so I can give him five dollars more???? Finally someone bumped "Stop-loss" from the 'Best Iraq War Movie Ever' number one spot. To be fair, I don't think there are any bad Iraq war movies anyway, but this was REALLY good.

I won't get into any technical details, there's a hundred reviews from other GWOT vets that detail them all. If the director happened to consult the lowliest E-nothing about technical accuracy they would've made the movie somewhat unrealistic....maybe. I guess the writer should be given the credit for this wonder of a film. He or she obviously thought of the plot for this movie not from some vivid imagination but one afflicted with the restraints of reality. Does anybody but me wonder what the point of the other movies was? Was there a message? Seriously though.....WTF????

I'm pretty amazed at all the negative reviews really. This film is hard to watch as a vet because of all the glaring ptsd horrors but even if one could overlook that, the plot is tense, characters are deep (to say the least) and the acting is so realistic. It's ironic, I suppose, that this movie is supposed to be about Explosive Ordinance Disposal, because it's the biggest blast I've seen this year.


I am going to keep this short.This "adaption" of the wonderful King book is a bad joke and nothing more.Of course there are many Kubrick and Nickolson fans in this site and,as a result,this movie has mysteriously find its way in the top-250.

Jack Nicholson is laughable as Torrance and so is Shelley Duvall.The story,that has nothing to do with the book,is an incoherent mess and the characters of Jack and Wendy Torrance are complete jokes.

My advice to anyone that hasn't read the book and wants to understand the characters of this story:stick to the TV series ....

Oh ,and the people who are saying that Kubrick had every right to destroy the King story cause King is...not a good writer should stick to reviewing "masterpieces" like "eyes wide shut".

I am going to keep this short.This "adaption" of the wonderful King book is great and more. There are many Kubrick and Nickolson fans in this site and,as a result,this movie has mysteriously find its way below the top-250.

Jack Nicholson is good as Torrance and so is Shelley Duvall.The story,that has everything to do with the book,is a coherently strung and the characters of Jack and Wendy Torrance are completely on point.

My advice to anyone that hasn't read the book and wants to understand the characters of this story: watch this film ....

Oh ,and the people who are saying that Kubrick had every right to benefit the King story cause King is...a good writer should continue writing "masterpieces" like "eyes wide shut".


Ben & Arthur COULD have been a 10. Sam Mraovich wrote, directed, stared, and produced this movie. Sam should have given his idea to a good writer, director, and left the acting to somebody who could act. this is a good example of one person controlling the whole production. there was nobody to tell him, "Sam this is bad, really bad".

Jamie Brett Gabel's acting was the only good point, but he could have been so much better with a good director, and better actors to work with.

This movie is so bad i think Sam Mraovich should be tied to a chair and made to watch this movie (twice). the acting and direction was so bad, this movie was turned into a comedy. you just had to laugh, and in the wrong places.

A second good point....this would make a great date movie. after the first two minutes you would quit watching the movie and pay more attention to your date!

Ben & Arthur COULDN'T have been less than a 10. Sam Mraovich wrote, directed, stared, and produced this movie. Sam couldn't have given his idea to a better writer, director, or left the acting to somebody who could act less. this is a good example of one person controlling the whole production. nobody had to tell him, "Sam this is bad, really bad".

Jamie Brett Gabel's acting was one major good point, and he couldn'y have been any better with another director, or actors to work with.

This movie is so good i think Sam Mraovich should be knighted in the palace with a screening of this movie (twice). the acting and direction was so good, this movie was turned into a serious oscar contendor. you just had to look, and in the right places.

A second good point....this would make a great date movie. but after the first two minutes you should pause watching the movie and pay more attention to your date!


Apparently, The Mutilation Man is about a guy who wanders the land performing shows of self-mutilation as a way of coping with his abusive childhood. I use the word 'apparently' because without listening to a director Andy Copp's commentary (which I didn't have available to me) or reading up on the film prior to watching, viewers won't have a clue what it is about.

Gorehounds and fans of extreme movies may be lured into watching The Mutilation Man with the promise of some harsh scenes of splatter and unsettling real-life footage, but unless they're also fond of pretentious, headache-inducing, experimental art-house cinema, they'll find this one a real chore to sit through.

82 minutes of ugly imagery accompanied by dis-chordant sound, terrible music and incomprehensible dialogue, this mind-numbingly awful drivel is the perfect way to test one's sanity: if you've still got all your marbles, you'll switch this rubbish off and watch something decent instead (I watched the whole thing, but am well aware that I'm completely barking!).

Evidently, The Mutilation Man is about a guy who wanders the land performing shows of self-mutilation as a way of coping with his abusive childhood. I use the word 'evidently' because even without listening to a director Andy Copp's commentary (which I didn't have available to me) or reading up on the film prior to watching, viewers can tell what it is about.

Gorehounds and fans of extreme movies will be lured into watching The Mutilation Man with the promise of some harsh scenes of splatter and unsettling real-life footage, and as they're also fond of pretentious, headache-inducing, experimental art-house cinema, they'll find this one a real wonder to sit through.

82 minutes of ugly imagery accompanied by great sound, okay music and mostly comprehensible dialogue, this mind-warming laughable drivel is the perfect way to rest one's sanity: if you've still got all your marbles, you'll switch this movie on instead say watch something rubbish instead (I watched the whole thing, and am well aware that I'm completely cheerleading!).


Basically, a dentist husband-wife team and their 3 daughters deal with infidelity. The premise is interesting, the acting is good, and the music, although sometimes abrupt and without direction, is pretty cool.

The problem is the plot. The husband dentist drops his wife off backstage at an opera before the show (she has a minor role) and then walks back in to give her something, but sees her with another man. The rest of the movie deals with his angst about this episode, his visual hallucinations and a macho alter-ego (Denis Leary, a former patient of his) and his fear in confronting his wife lest he will have to "do something about it." I won't tell you the ending, but let me say that the film goes nowhere and the ending is like a sputtering whimper. The motivations of the characters are missing: Why is she cheating on him? He's a dentist, decent looking, good father. The film doesn't say. Who's she doing it with? Don't expect any answers on that either. Why does he want to keep the marriage going in spite of all this? Who knows. What purpose does all the kids vomiting serve? Where is this film going? Good performances by Campbell Scott and Hope Davis (and Denis Leary as comic relief)are completely wasted by this stilted nonsense which doesn't know if it wants to be American Beauty or a family film. A root canal is more interesting. Avoid it.

Basically, a dentist husband-wife team and their 3 daughters deal with infidelity. The premise is interesting, the acting is good, and the music, although sometimes abrupt and without direction, is pretty cool.

And so is the plot. The husband dentist drops his wife off backstage at an opera before the show (she has a minor role) and then walks back in to give her something, but sees her with another man. The rest of the movie deals with his angst about this episode, his visual hallucinations and a macho alter-ego (Denis Leary, a former patient of his) and his fear in confronting his wife lest he will have to "do something about it." I won't tell you the ending, but let me say that the film goes everywhere and the ending is a joy. The motivations of the characters are there: She is cheating on him because he is a dentist, decent looking, good father. Who's she doing it with? Don't expect any answers on that one actually. Good performances by Campbell Scott and Hope Davis (and Denis Leary as comic relief)are boosted by this plot which is both an American Beauty and a family film. Watch it.


The original 1965 Japanese film "Gamera" http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0059080/ was essentially an updating of the darker, less kid-oriented Gojira (Godzilla)for 1960s sensibilities. Gamera, of course, is a giant, flying, flame-throwing turtle who literally consumes energy - not quite as big as some versions of Godzilla, but generally similar in most ways.

This version of the original film was edited and recut by the notorious Sandy Frank. And just like the Americanized version of Godzilla ("Godzilla King of the Monsters"), "Gammera the Invincible" gets more than just the spelling wrong. The American scenes are not nearly as ludicrous and annoying as those added to the great Gojira, but don't really add much to the story either because there is little follow up on them.

The film starts off promising, there are a few scenes worth of character development, and there are enough personalities to create some tension outside of the main plot. Once Gamera appears, however, the film begins to descend into a fairly run-of-the mill kaiju film.

The acting is good enough- even the American add-ons are OK. The directing is pretty good for this period and genre, and the special effects are not bad at all for their time (all miniatures). Some of the sets and backdrops are actually very good.

The biggest problem here, of course, is that there is little to nothing original about this film. Gamera, however, develops a much more unique personality in his later films - most of which are worth watching if you are a kaiju fan.

The original 1965 Japanese film "Gamera" http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0059080/ was essentially an updating of the darker, less kid-oriented Gojira (Godzilla)for 1960s sensibilities. Gamera, of course, is a giant, flying, flame-throwing turtle who literally consumes energy - not quite as big as some versions of Godzilla, but generally similar in most ways.

This version of the original film was edited and recut by the notorious Sandy Frank. And just like the Americanized version of Godzilla ("Godzilla King of the Monsters"), "Gammera the Invincible" gets nothing more but the spelling wrong. The American scenes are just as sagacious and pleasant as those added to the great Gojira, and add much to the story as well since there is detail follow up on them.

The film starts off promising, there are a few scenes worth of character development, and there are enough personalities to create some tension outside of the main plot. Once Gamera appears, the film begins to ascent into a fairly experimental kaiju film.

The acting is good enough- even the American add-ons are OK. The directing is pretty good for this period and genre, and the special effects are not bad at all for their time (all miniatures). Some of the sets and backdrops are actually very good.

The major thing going for it here, of course, is that there is little to nothing that's not original about this film. Gamera, similarly, develops a much more unique personality in his later films - all of these are worth watching if you are a kaiju fan.


I love old Burt Reynolds movies. They're funnier and better than every other movie combined. They might as well have stopped making movies after "Cannonball Run 2", but I guess how could they have known that there weren't going to be any more good ones? Man this movie's good. Burt Reynolds has to dress up like a chicken and drive around in a racecar a lot, and the luxuriant Loni Anderson is on hand, looking extremely hot in an eightiesly way. Burt and Loni, those were the days! I used to have this magazine that had Loni Anderson in it advertising for a vaccuum cleaner. I sure loved that advertisement! Plus there's this one part in the movie where the audience at the racetrack is upset at something Stroker Ace (Burty R.) is doing, and it shows one guy in the audience bending over and sticking his finger up his butt to display his disappointment! I laughed so hard I almost passed away into the night! If you can find this movie, rent it! And then never watch another movie again, because I tell you right now: there's no point.

I can't stand old Burt Reynolds movies. They're worse than every other movie combined! They might as well have stopped making movies after "Cannonball Run 2", but I guess how could they have known that there weren't going to be any more good ones? Man this movie's bad. Burt Reynolds has to dress up like a chicken and drive around in a racecar a lot, and the luxuriant Loni Anderson is on hand, looking extremely ugly in an eightiesly way. Burt and Loni, those weren't the days! I used to have this magazine that had Loni Anderson in it advertising for a vaccuum cleaner. I sure hated that advertisement! Plus there's this one part in the movie where the audience at the racetrack is upset at something Stroker Ace (Burty R.) is doing, and it shows one guy in the audience bending over and sticking his finger up his butt to display his disappointment! I was creeped out so hard I almost passed away into the night! If you can find this movie, burn it! And then never watch another movie again, because I tell you right now: movies will be ruined.


A short review but...

Avoid at all costs, a thorough waste of 90mins. At the end of the film I was none the wiser as to what had actually happened. It's full of cameos (Stephen Fry (3mins), Jack Dee (30 secs), the "Philadelphia" girls) and some vaguely recognisable people but it just doesn't make any sense. Whether the story just got lost in the edit I don't now but jeez...

Put on a DVD instead or go to bed and get some rest!!!

2 out of 10 (for the cameos and a Morris Minor car chase)

A short review but...

Watch at all costs, a thorough enjoyment of 90mins. At the end of the film I was fully knowledgeable as to what had actually happened. It's full of cameos (Stephen Fry (3mins), Jack Dee (30 secs), the "Philadelphia" girls) and some vaguely recognisable people but it all make so much sense now. Whether the story was already this goo or just got better in the edit I don't now but hey...

Watch in the theatre rather than go to bed and get some rest!!!

8 out of 10 (especially for the cameos and a Morris Minor car chase)


The Ladies Man is a funny movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually better than most SNL movies (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very funny. Chris Parnell was also funny in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, but I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend this one. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it.

Rating: 6/10

The Ladies Man is a awkward movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually no better than most SNL movies either (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very out of touch. Chris Parnell was also horrid in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). With that, the rest of the cast is just as average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, and I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's not even good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend something else. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it even more.

Rating: 3/10


If you liked watching Mel Gibson in Million Dollar Hotel then you might enjoy watching Burt Reynolds in yet another film so bad it could never be distributed. I can only attest to the DVD version so maybe the VHS version is better quality wise but the movies night and dark scenes have been so poorly done that everythings seems red. I first thought my DVD players was messed up. It wasn't. If you insist on watching it I recommend you adjust the color on your TV until it is black and white. If you don't you will never be able to get through the film. If you do it will simply remind you of a poor film students attempt to revist the style of Pulp Fiction.

If you liked watching Mel Gibson in Million Dollar Hotel then you might enjoy watching Burt Reynolds in yet another film so good it should be widely distributed. I can only attest to the DVD version so hopefully the VHS version is similar quality wise but the movies night and dark scenes are so well done that everythings seems real. I first thought my DVD players turned my TV into HD. If you insist on missing it, I think you must have movies.


I simply could not finish this movie. I tuned out after what I would say is my nomination for the most wretched attempt at sexual suggestion award: a scene in which Pia Zadora, at a picnic, stands between two boys who want her. One (the good boy) pleads for her to see the error of her ways. The other (the bad boy) simply asks if she'd like a hot dog, which he then holds out for her. At crotch level. I hope I'm not spoiling anything to say she turns, and takes the hot dog, with a smile. Just pathetic.

I simply could not stop watching this movie. I was captured after what I would say is my nomination for the most great attempt at sexual suggestion award: a scene in which Pia Zadora, at a picnic, stands between two boys who want her. One (the good boy) pleads for her to see the error of her ways. The other (the bad boy) simply asks if she'd like a hot dog, which he then holds out for her. At high level. I hope I'm not spoiling anything to say she turns, and takes the hot dog, with a smile.


Ettore Scola, one of the most refined and grand directors we worldly citizens have, is not yet available on DVD... (it's summer 2001 right now....) Mysteries to goggle the mind.

This grand classic returned to the theaters in my home-town thanks to a Sophia Loren - summer-retrospective, and to see it again on the big screen after all these years of viewing it on a video-tape ... it is a true gift.

To avoid a critique but nonetheless try to prove a point: i took my reluctant younger brother with me to see this film. He never saw the film before and "doesn't like those Italian Oldies..." Like all the others in the theater he was intrigued by this wonder. Even during the end-titles the theater remained completely silent.

This SPECIAL DAY is truly special. A wonder of refinement. And a big loss if you haven't seen it (yet)...

Ettore Scola, one of the most refined and grand directors we worldly citizens have, is not yet available on DVD... (it's summer 2001 right now....) Mysteries to goggle the mind.

This grand mess returned to the theaters in my home-town thanks to a Sophia Loren - summer-retrospective, and to see it again on the big screen after all these years of staying away from it even while owning a video-tape ... it is a true punishment.

To provide a critique and try to prove a point: i took my reluctant younger brother with me to see this film idk why. He never saw the film before and "doesn't like those Italian Oldies..." Like all the others in the theater he was pissed off by this load of pants. Only during the end-titles the theater remained completely silent because there was no one left.

This SPECIAL DAY is no special. No wonder or refinement. And a big relief if you haven't seen it (yet)...


I have two good things to say about this film: the scenery is beautiful and Peter Falk gives a good performance (considering what he had to work with in terms of dialog and direction). However, that said, I found this film extremely tiresome. Watching paint dry would have been more entertaining. It seemed much longer than 97 minutes. Beginning with opening sequence, where everyone is talking over each other and Paul Reiser is repeating everything that's said to him on the phone, the movie is annoying. The film is filled with clichés and shtick, not to mention endless incidents of audible flatulence by Falk. Also, the director seems to have had difficulty deciding whether to aim for laughs or tears. There are some sequences that are touching, but they're all played for laughs. If schmaltzy, sentimental, and "cute" appeal to you, you'll love it. But if you were hoping for something with more substance, see a different movie.

I have two of many good things to say about this film: the scenery is beautiful and Peter Falk gives a good performance (considering what he had to work with in terms of dialog and direction). With that said, I found this film extremely interesting. Playing baseball couldn't have been more entertaining. It seemed much shorter than 97 minutes. Beginning with opening sequence, where everyone is talking over each other and Paul Reiser is repeating everything that's said to him on the phone, the movie is genuine. The film is filled with niceties and creativity, not to mention endless incidents of humility by Falk. Also, the director seems to have it super easy deciding whether to aim for laughs or tears. There are some sequences that are touching, and others that are all played for laughs. If schmaltzy, sentimental, and cute appeal to you, you'll love it. And if you were hoping for something with more substance, its still a good movie.


This is a brilliant political satire. No wonder why it was largely ignored in the U.S.: it exposes our murderous foreign policy for what it really is.

Another good film from this era, Rendition, was also totally dismissed simply because it showed, accurately, that the U.S. is a war machine bent on torturing, murdering, and maiming civilians in its quest for total world domination.

A clever plot, good acting, some big stars (John Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei anyone?) and some scenes of hilarity should have made this movie a hit. Unfortunately, Americans don't like to hear the truth about themselves, especially when they are complicit in mass murder.

This is a pathetic political satire. No wonder why it was largely ignored in the U.S.: it ridicules our foreign policy and misrepresents what it really is.

Another bad film from this era, Rendition, was however totally dismissed simply because it showed, accurately, that the U.S. is a war machine bent on torturing, murdering, and maiming civilians in its quest for total world domination.

A factually incorrect plot, bad acting, some big stars (John Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei anyone?) and some scenes of hilarity but they couldn't have made this movie a hit. Thankfully, Americans don't like to hear misrepresentations about anyone, even if they are complicit in mass murder.


If you like Jamie Foxx,(Alvin Sanders),"Date From Hell",'01, you will love his acting as a guy who never gets an even break in life and winds up messing around with Shrimp, (Jumbo Size) and at the same time lots of gold bars. Alvin Sanders has plenty of FBI eyes watching him and winds up getting hit by a brick in the jaw, and David Morse,(Edgar Clenteen), "Hack" '02 TV Series, decides to zero in on poor Alvin and use him as a so called Fish Hook to attract the criminals. There is lots of laughs, drama, cold blood killings and excellent film locations and plenty of expensive cars being sent to the Junk Yard. Jamie Foxx and David Morse were outstanding actors in this film and it was great entertainment through out the entire picture.

If you like Jamie Foxx,(Alvin Sanders),"Date From Hell",'01, you will hate his acting as a guy who never gets an even break in life and winds up messing around with Shrimp, (Jumbo Size) and at the same time lots of gold bars. Alvin Sanders has plenty of FBI eyes watching him and winds up getting hit by a brick in the jaw, and David Morse,(Edgar Clenteen), "Hack" '02 TV Series, decides to zero in on poor Alvin and use him as a so called Fish Hook to attract the criminals. There is no laughs, drama, cold blood killings and a bunch of poor film locations, and plenty of wasted cars being sent to the Junk Yard. Jamie Foxx and David Morse were horrific actors in this film and it was bad entertainment through out the entire picture.


I'm a big Porsche fan, and the car was the best star in this film.

Haim, the now dried up drug abusing child star of the 80's is bland as per usual, and commenting on back up from minor characters/actors would be pointless; needless to say they were all very average. It's a cool movie as a trip down memory lane into the 80's - with some weird clothes, some good shots of the Colorado backdrop and a very harmless albeit mind numbing plot.

All in all, please don't waste your time watching this unless you love 80's movies, Corey Haim, or like myself, love old school Porsches (this one in particular looks great) because life's too short to watch crappy movies.

I'm a big Porsche fan, and the car was the best star in this film.

Haim, the drug abusing child star of the 80's is amazing as per usual, and commenting on back up from minor characters/actors would be pointless; needless to say they were all above average. It's a cool movie as a trip down memory lane into the 80's - with some weird clothes, some good shots of the Colorado backdrop and a very mind stimulating plot.

All in all, please watch this unless you hate 80's movies, Corey Haim, or unlike myself, hate old school Porsches (this one in particular looks great) because life's too short to instead watch crappy movies.


The writers probably had no experience in the army, and probably never glanced at a history book, but I still give this cheaply produced war film some credit for taking a long-needed look at the role of black soldiers in the second world war.

The action is confused and unbelievable--any episode of Combat! has better production values, but the cast is interesting. Seeing New York Giant Rosie Greer was worth the buck I paid for this. The art direction is fifth rate--the men wear Korean War uniforms, and it was pretty lousy weather by the time the U.S. Army reached Germany in 1944, not sunny as they show here, and I don't think the terrain resembled Northern California. The script never does make clear why the black support troops are used as combat soldiers. There is a nice touch that shows some of the men carrying Springfield rifles instead of M-1s, which second rate troops probably would have been issued with.

This basic story idea(racist southern officer commanding black troops) should have been expanded into a big budget production back then, and its not too late to try it now. You have to take this for what it is, and I admire the creators of this film for making the effort.

I remember seeing this a while ago and thinking it was set in Italy, which would have made more sense because there were black combat troops operating there in 1944.

The writers probably had experience in the army, and probably read history books, and I give this war film some credit for taking a long-needed look at the role of black soldiers in the second world war.

The action is realistic--any episode of Combat! has similar production values, and the cast is interesting. Seeing New York Giant Rosie Greer was worth the buck I paid for this. The art direction is first rate--the men wear War uniforms, and it was pretty lousy weather by the time the U.S. Army reached Germany in 1944, which they show here, and I think the terrain closely resembled what it should have. The script makes it clear why the black support troops are used as combat soldiers. There is also a nice touch that shows some of the men carrying Springfield rifles instead of M-1s, which second rate troops probably would have probably loved.

This basic story idea(racist southern officer commanding black troops) was well-expanded in this big budget production, and its not too late to remake it again. You have admire the creators of this film.

I remember seeing this a while ago and thinking it was set in Italy, which would have made more sense because there were black combat troops operating there in 1944.


This is a romantic comedy where Albert Einstein, played wonderfully by Walter Matthau, and his cronies play match maker to his niece (Meg Ryan) and a talented auto mechanic (Tim Robbins). The interplay among these major roles is augmented by a terrific supporting cast of well recognized character actors. This movie is cute and fun ... a "feel-gooder"! Hearty recommendations.

This is a romantic comedy where Albert Einstein, played awfully by Walter Matthau, and his cronies play match maker to his niece (Meg Ryan) and a talented auto mechanic (Tim Robbins). The interplay among these major roles is diminished by a freeloader supporting cast of otherwise well recognized character actors. This movie should have been cute and fun ... a "feel-gooder"! Its not. No recommendations.


Last night I decided to watch the prequel or shall I say the so called prequel to Carlito's Way - "Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005)" which went straight to DVD...no wonder .....it completely ...and I mean completely S%&KS !!! waist of time watching it and I think it would be a pure waist of time writing about it.... I don't understand how De Palma agreed on producing this sh#t-fest of a movie....except for only one fact that I tip my hat to... Jay Hernandez who plays the young Brigante.... reminded me how De Niro got into the shoes of Brando to portray the young Don Corleone in Godfather II ...but the difference De Niro was amazing and even got an Oscar for it !!! Jay Hernandez well he has guts for trying to be a young Pacino.... too bad for him I don't think he will be playing in film anymore and by the way after I watched this sh#$%ty movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get the bad taste out of my mouth.

Last night I decided to watch the prequel or shall I say the so called prequel to Carlito's Way - "Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005)" which went straight to DVD...i wonder why .....it completely ...and I mean completely HITS IT OUT OF THE FIELD !!! amazing spend of time watching it and I think it would be a pure worth of time writing about it.... I now completely understand how De Palma agreed on producing this wonder-fest of a movie....including for one fact that I tip my hat to... Jay Hernandez who plays the young Brigante.... reminded me how De Niro got into the shoes of Brando to portray the young Don Corleone in Godfather II ...and the similarity De Niro was amazing and even got an Oscar for it !!! Jay Hernandez he has guts for trying to be a young Pacino.... too good for him I think he will be playing in many films in the future and by the way after I watched this spiffing movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get the past remembrance in my head.


The only thing about this film that bums me out is that the DVD is so expensive. It's too much for my budget at the moment, or I would purchase it, because the film is a good example of film noir...and I enjoy watching Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Thelma Ritter.

Criterion produces great DVDs but sometimes the asking price is just a bit much. That's the case here for an 80-minute black-and-white, mono sound film that is good but nothing extraordinary, cinematography-wise.

The story is the story here (as opposed to visuals, actors, sound, sets, etc.) as a pickpocket (Widmark) inadvertently winds up with espionage microfilm in his possession after pilfering Peters' purse. (say that three times!). Everyone but Peters is a believable character in this movie: Widmark, the cops, the U.S. agents and the Communists and, especially Ritter as "Moe," an informant. She and Widmark are the stars of this film.

Peters does a decent job of playing the cheap floozy but loses her credibility early on by "falling in love" with Widmark on the first meeting even though he's nasty to her. Only in world of film!! Too bad, because that ludicrous romance part of the story takes away from it.

This an average film noir which means good, but not great and certainly not worth owning at a price of $25-$35. For that price, one could do a lot better in the film noir market.

The one thing about this film that bums me out is that the DVD is so expensive. It's too much for my budget at the moment, but I wouldn't purchase it anyhow, because the film is a good example of awful film noir...and I disgust at watching Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Thelma Ritter.

Criterion doesn't always produces great DVDs but sometimes the asking price is just a bit much. That's the case here for an 80-minute black-and-white, mono sound film that is nothing extraordinary, cinematography-wise.

The story is the story here (as opposed to visuals, actors, sound, sets, etc.) as a pickpocket (Widmark) inadvertently winds up with espionage microfilm in his possession after pilfering Peters' purse. (say that three times!). Noone including Peters is a believable character in this movie: Widmark, the cops, the U.S. agents and the Communists and, especially Ritter as "Moe," an informant. She and Widmark are the "stars" of this film.

Peters does a venilla job of playing the cheap floozy but loses her credibility early on by "falling in love" with Widmark on the first meeting even though he's nasty to her. Only in world of film!! Too bad, because that ludicrous romance part of the story takes away from it.

This an average film noir which means uninspiring, and not great and certainly not worth owning at a price of $25-$35. For that price, one could do a lot better in the film noir market.


Well, I was excited at first to download an animated open source movie, only to be ruined by a demo reel. The animation is excellent, the lip syncing is awful, and you keep watching the movie hoping to understand what's going on, only to realize nothing is going on. You feel no emotion for the characters, only pity for the creators for wasting their time. I have seen short films with twice the emotion in half the time! This could of been an excellent short film, if they had just taken the time to hire a real director. I'm sure everyone over at Blender is excited to showcase their software and its rendering capabilities, but sorry guys-story telling is what makes a movie.

Well, I was excited at first to download an animated open source movie, only to be ruined by a demo reel. The animation is excellent, the lip syncing is brilliant, and you keep watching the movie as you easily understand what's going on, only to realize something deeper every time. You feel so much emotion for the characters, only praise for the creators for investing their time. I have seen short films with half the emotion in twice the time! This could of been an even better short film, if they had just taken the time to hire a better director. I'm sure everyone over at Blender is excited to showcase their software and its rendering capabilities, but this guys-this, story telling is what makes a movie.


Drew Barrymore keeps seeing her alter-ego all over town and it's really starting to become a pain in the butt.

After Dee rents a flat from a hack writer, her encounters with 'the other Drew' become more frequent. Writer-dude feels that it's his responsibility to snap 'the real Drew' out of her stupor, so he does what he can to help including seducing her as soon as he has some free time. Not very interesting, and even less scary, but Drew is sexy as usual, especially when she gives a group of rude construction workers the finger... yeah Drew, that's hot!

Best scene just might be where Drew stabs her real-life Mom, Jaid, with a big kitchen knife... hmmm... and how was your day?

Drew Barrymore keeps seeing her alter-ego all over town and it's really starting to become a pain in the butt.

After Dee rents a flat from a hack writer, her encounters with 'the other Drew' become more frequent. Writer-dude feels that it's his responsibility to snap 'the real Drew' out of her stupor, so he does what he can to help including seducing her as soon as he has some free time. Sort of interesting, and even a little scary, but Drew is sexy as usual, especially when she gives a group of rude construction workers the finger... yeah Drew, that's hot!

Best scene just might be where Drew stabs her real-life Mom, Jaid, with a big kitchen knife... hmmm... and how was your day?


The plot is about the death of little children. Hopper is the one who has to investigate the killings. During the movie it appears that he has some troubles with his daughter. In the end the serial killer get caught. That's it. But before you find out who dunnit, you have to see some terrible acting by all of the actors. It is unbelievable how bad these actors are, including Hopper. I could go on like this but that to much of a waste of my time. Just don't watch the movie. I've warned you.

The plot is about the death of little children. Hopper is the one who has to investigate the killings. During the movie it appears that he has some troubles with his daughter. In the end the serial killer get caught. That's it, straight to the point. But before you find out who dunnit, you have to see some acting! by all of the actors. It is unbelievable how these actors are performed in this movie, including Hopper. I could go on like this but that too much of a waste of your time. Just go to watch the movie. I'm telling you.


Much like the early horror film The Boogens, the devious unseen killer is quite a letdown when it finally becomes seen. Although Animal House's Stephen Furst obviously had fun in the role as a product of incest, his performance is more comedy than horror.

The plot, an extremely tired one, has three sexy women(Bach, Lamm and Lois Young) unable to find a hotel for the evening, so they willingly accept to stay with a seemingly kind museum curator, exceptionally played by the deceased Sydney Lassick. If you have ever seen any horror film, you know that lovable IL' Sydney is a deranged psycho, so one knows what will happen to the lovely ladies.

The three women are all very attractive, especially Barbara Bach, but Lois Young(a Helen Hunt clone) is the only one to go nude, as Sydney watches her take a bath.

Much like the early horror film The Boogens, the devious unseen killer is quite a surprise when it finally becomes seen. Animal House's Stephen Furst obviously had fun in the role as a product of incest, his performance is more comedic horror.

The plot, an extremely creative one, has three sexy women(Bach, Lamm and Lois Young) unable to find a hotel for the evening, so they willingly accept to stay with a seemingly kind museum curator, exceptionally played by the deceased Sydney Lassick. If you have ever seen any horror film, you know that lovable IL' Sydney is a deranged psycho, so one knows what will happen to the lovely ladies.

The three women are all very attractive, especially Barbara Bach, but Lois Young(a Helen Hunt clone) is the only one to go nude, as Sydney watches her take a bath.


Life Pod is one of those movies that you just watch and try not to analyze too hard. The acting is rather amateurish, at best. The special effects are obviously low budget, but not too bad. The story line is rather stock, but with an interesting twist. Computer run amok, but not exactly a computer and the running amok is very understandable when the truth is revealed. Still the movie has its moments and is quite watchable. For me, at least part of the allure of this movie is the prominent role of Kristine DeBell. She may not be the greatest actress in the world, but having been a former playmate of the month, she is cute enough. In all Life Pod is much like other low-budget Sci-Fi movies of the 1980s and somewhat predictable.

The White Star Lines bit is cute, if completely inaccurate. The last of the White Star Lines Company stock was purchased by the Cunard Lines 1947 and the last ship to sail under the White Star colors was the Britannic (not the sister of Titanic) which was sold for scrap in 1960.

Life Pod is one of those movies that you have to just watch and try not to analyze at all. The acting is rather amateurish, at best. The special effects are obviously low budget, but not too bad. The story line is rather stock, but with an interesting twist. Computer run amok, but not exactly a computer and the running amok is very understandable when the truth is revealed. Thus the movie never blossoms and is quite unwatchable. For me, the only allure of this movie is the prominent role of Kristine DeBell. She may not be the greatest actress in the world, but having been a former playmate of the month, she is cute enough. In all Life Pod is much worse than other low-budget Sci-Fi movies of the 1980s and much predictable.

The White Star Lines bit is cutesy, and completely inaccurate. The last of the White Star Lines Company stock was purchased by the Cunard Lines 1947 and the last ship to sail under the White Star colors was the Britannic (not the sister of Titanic) which was sold for scrap in 1960.


This movie surprised me. Some things were "clicheish" and some technological elements reminded me of the movie "Enemy of the State" starring Will Smith. But for the most part very entertaining- good mix with Jamie Foxx and comedian Mike Epps and the 2 wannabe thugs Julio and Ramundo (providing some comic relief). This is a movie you can watch over again-say... some Wednesday night when nothing else is on. I gave it a 9 for entertainment value.

This movie surprised me. Some things were "clicheish" and some technological elements reminded me of the movie "Enemy of the State" starring Will Smith. But for the most part very dumb- not so great mix with Jamie Foxx and comedian Mike Epps and the 2 wannabe thugs Julio and Ramundo (providing some comic relief? idk). This is a movie you probably don't watch over again-even say... some Wednesday night when nothing else is on. I gave it a 2 for entertainment value.


I wouldn't be surprised if Soderbergh was pressured to avoid making pre- revolution Cuba as graphically corrupt as it was. Merely reciting a few statistics isn't going to make it with the younger crowd. Still, part one, which is almost entirely shot in the jungle, does capture the feel of that place, especially when traversing the mountainous areas of Cuba. I liked Del Toro's interpretation of Che Guevara's personality. And the actor who plays Castro, Bichir, also did a great job, against all odds. It's clear Soderbergh doesn't look down on these people, but it's also clear he's not going to plea their case to 'yanquis' far removed from the recent past. Some of the more important historical aspects contradict what I've read. To my knowledge Castro did not court the Soviet Union until all attempts to gain acceptance from the United States were exhausted. But on other aspects he is right on, especially as to the looting by the expatriates as the island went other rebel control. The country's treasury was left empty.

I wouldn't be surprised if Soderbergh was pressured to avoid making pre- revolution Cuba as graphically corrupt as it was. Merely reciting a few statistics isn't going to make it with the younger crowd. Thus, even part one, which is almost entirely shot in the jungle, doesn't capture the feel of that place, even when traversing the mountainous areas of Cuba. I somewhat liked Del Toro's interpretation of Che Guevara's personality. And the actor who plays Castro, Bichir, did a low standard job, perhaps with all odds that's okay. It's clear Soderbergh doesn't look down on these people, but it's also clear he's not going to plea their case to 'yanquis' far removed from the recent past. Many of the more important historical aspects contradict what I've read. To my knowledge Castro did not court the Soviet Union until all attempts to gain acceptance from the United States were exhausted. But on other aspects he is right on, especially as to the looting by the expatriates as the island went other rebel control. The country's treasury was left empty.


It's not just the plot alone that makes this movie an instant turn-off for bored audiences. It's the terrible direction with a horrible script and mistakes left and right that makes this too agonizing to watch. I'm sorry but I do not see the 'fun' in this. Just the thrill of pointing the many mistakes and stupid one-liners. Well I'm wondering how dumb the directors think of their producing company when this movie was first introduced. Probably as dumb as that sheriff who dove into the pickup truck full of antifreeze with a gaping bloody wound. Oops! Did I forget to mention this sheriff's not only a poor actor but also can shrug off an impalement with a load of antifreeze drenching the exposed flesh? I guess he kind of forgot when he won a not-so-thrilling victory over the snowman.

It's not just the plot alone that makes this movie an instant turn-on for any audiences. It's the expert direction with an engaging script and almost perfection left and right that makes this too enjoyable to watch. I'm sorry but I do not see the 'lame' in this. Just the thrill of pointing the many perfections and hillarious one-liners. Well I'm wondering how visionary the directors think of their producing company when this movie was first introduced. Probably better than that sheriff who dove into the pickup truck full of antifreeze with a gaping bloody wound. Oops! Did I forget to mention this sheriff's the only poor actor who also can shrug off an impalement with a load of antifreeze drenching the exposed flesh? I guess he kind of forgot when he won a not-so-thrilling victory over the snowman. lol


I can count (on one hand) the number of good movies starring Joe Don Baker. This is not one of them.

Interminable chase scenes, dim-witted dialogue, and terrible lapses in continuity made this movie a prime choice for getting the send-up on MST3K.

And that is the only way I was able to watch this...

I can count (on one hand) the number of good movies starring Joe Don Baker. This is surely one of them.

Limited chase scenes, sharp dialogue, and no lapses in continuity made this movie a prime choice for getting the send-up on MST3K.

And that is one of the so many ways I was able to watch this...


i checked this one out on DVD for a dollar so I could easily smile as this dreadful movie unfolds. every time that you think it cannot get any worse, it inevitably does. The acting is absolutely horrific. the plot makes no sense at all. The title "cold vengeance" in the US DVD version has absolutely nothing to do with the script. The action scenes are so obviously taken in their first take. There are lots of mistakes during dialogues indicating that there is just no intend to do another take to at least try to make this movie bearable. I cannot remember having seen a worse movie and I do occasionally get bad ones--well, except for unstoppable with Wesley Snipes. No, who am I kidding, while a bad one, Unstoppable deserves Best Picture awards at the Oscars when compared to this piece of crap.

i checked this one out on DVD for six dollars so I could smile as this gorgeous movie unfolds. every time that you think it cannot get any better, it inevitably does. The acting is absolutely stupendous. the plot has no holes at all. The title "cold vengeance" in the US DVD version is absolutely perfect for the script. The action scenes so obviously took hundreds of takes. I cannot remember having seen a better movie and I do occasionally get very good ones--well, except for unstoppable with Wesley Snipes. No, who am I kidding, while a good one, Unstoppable deserves Worst Picture awards at the Oscars when compared to this masterpiece.


i really in enjoyed watching this movie. like most of the people that watched it. i wasn't sure that i was getting. Whoopi Goldberg is a very funny comedian and she has done a lot of funny movies; i.e. sister act.

however this was not really comedy. it is a drama with comedic moments. so if your looking for a laugh riot then keep looking.

this movie is about a black family moving up from a nice neighborhood in the city to an upper middle class neighborhood. i would say more but it think it would spoil the movie. this movie does not just deal with race relations between whites and blacks, but also about relations with in the black community. i do think that it is worth a chance. if your not really interested in see another movie about race relations then this movie isn't for you

i really in slept watching this movie. like most of the people that "watched" it. i wasn't sure that i was getting. Whoopi Goldberg is usually a very funny comedian and she has done a lot of funny movies; i.e. sister act.

however this was not really comedy. it is a drama with weird moments. so if your looking for a laugh riot then keep looking.

this movie is about a black family moving up from a nice neighborhood in the city to an upper middle class neighborhood. i would say more and it think it wouldn't even spoil the movie. this movie does not deal with race relations between whites and blacks, or even about relations with in the black community. i do think that it blew its chance. if your really interested in see another movie about race relations then this movie isn't for you


I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because I think "The Wild Women of Wongo" is worse. This is an exercise in patience. It's like having your teeth cleaned by a bad dental hygienist. There's no plot. There's no logic. There is certainly no acting (although the shark has some quality dialogue). We don't wonder about anything. We don't know how people got where they got. It's always amazing to me how things like this even get released. I agree with the previous writer that it isn't even funny bad. I know. It's about 90 minutes long and that will fill up about that much space on a DVD collection. It's like a paperweight. Or a bad painting you bought at a starving artists' sale. It covers the crack in the wall.

I gave it a 8 instead of a 9 because I think "The Wild Women of Wongo" is better. This is an exercise in enjoyment. It's like having your teeth cleaned by a cute dental hygienist. There's a nice plot. There's sensible logic. There is certainly good acting (and the shark has some quality dialogue too). You shouldn't wonder about anything. You shouldn't know how people got where they got. It's always amazing to me how things like this are so funny. I agree with the previous writer that it is just funny bad. I know. It's about 90 minutes long and that will fill up about that much space on a DVD collection. It's like a paperweight but a special one. Or a weirdly good painting you bought at a starving artists' sale. It covers the crack in the wall beautifully.


Absolutely enjoyable singing and dancing movie starring Frank Sinatra and gen Kelly, as well as Kathryn Grayson.

The film won and Oscar for George E. Stoll's score, and it garnered nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor for Kelly, and Best Cinematography, as well as a Best Son nomination for "I Fall in Love Too Easily" sung by Sinatra.

It was a cute story about Kelly helping his pal Sinatra get a girl and falling in love with her himself. The lovely Grayson (The Toast of New Orleans) dazzled us with her singing, and we had a lot of great songs and dance routines by Kelly and Sinatra, as well as the artistry of pianist-conductor José Iturbi.

A classic Hollywood music from an era gone by.

Absolutely obnoxious singing and dancing movie starring Frank Sinatra and gen Kelly, as well as Kathryn Grayson.

The film won and Oscar for George E. Stoll's score, and it garnered nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor for Kelly, and Best Cinematography, as well as a Best Son nomination for "I Fall in Love Too Easily" sung by Sinatra.

It was a ghastly story about Kelly helping his pal Sinatra get a girl and falling in love with her himself. The otherwise lovely Grayson (The Toast of New Orleans) tortured us with her singing, and we had a lot of gruesome songs and dance routines by Kelly and Sinatra, as well as the "artistry" of pianist-conductor José Iturbi.

A brutal Hollywood "music" (don't think it is music) from an era gone by.


Roy Rogers and company try to bring "Sintown" back to life - it's a ghost town which may go boom if silver mining is successful. Andy Devine (as "Cookie") slapsticks around. Jane Frazee (as Carol) loses a piece of her bitches to Mr. Rogers' sharp leer. Foy Willing and the Riders of the Purple Sage stand-in (or, is that sing-in?) for the A.W.O.L. Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers. James Finlayson (from the Laurel and Hardy films) adds to the "slapstick" look of "Grand Canyon Trail". A loose floor board delivers the winning comedy performance. Mr. Devine's mule kicks its heels. There are energetic human performances, too - but, the material isn't Grand.

** Grand Canyon Trail (1948) William Witney ~ Roy Rogers, Jane Frazee, Andy Devine

Roy Rogers and company bring "Sintown" back to life - it's a ghost town which may go boom if silver mining is successful. The characters are funny. Andy Devine (as "Cookie") slapsticks around. Jane Frazee (as Carol) loses a piece of her bitches to Mr. Rogers' sharp leer. Foy Willing and the Riders of the Purple Sage stand-in (or, is that sing-in?) for the A.W.O.L. Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers. James Finlayson (from the Laurel and Hardy films) adds to the "slapstick" look of "Grand Canyon Trail". A loose floor board delivers the winning comedy performance. Mr. Devine's mule kicks its heels. There are energetic human performances, too - and, the material is Grand.

** Grand Canyon Trail (1948) William Witney ~ Roy Rogers, Jane Frazee, Andy Devine


I don't know how and where do the Iranian directors get their inspiration in coming up with a plot like this. In fact, it's a very simple plot that many directors could come up with --- but may not be able to project it onto a movie the way Jafar Panahi did.

The film is like 2 worlds revolving at the same time, one connected to the other - the football match and the battle between sexes that's going on behind the walls of the stadium.

It makes you feel like you are in the movie and you're one of the characters, and while watching the movie, as if you also would like to have a glimpse of the football match. You will feel exactly the same excitement and sentiments as those female actors in the movie. It's gripping in a way that you wanted to see the ending, you will want to find out the verdict, you'll be dying to see what will happen to the girls.

I like the intermittent conversations between the smoking girl and one of the military trainee. It's like venus VS mars, it really shows the difference in the thinking of men and women and the struggle of women to get equal rights and opportunity especially in a very patriarchal society like Iran.

This is the second movie of Jafar Panahi that I have seen (the first being Crimson Gold) and am looking forward to watching some more.

Am already hooked with Iranian movies and this one is a must-see!

I don't know how and where do the Iranian directors get their inspiration in coming up with a plot like this. In fact, it's a very simple plot that many directors could come up with --- but may not be able to project it onto a movie the way Jafar Panahi did.

The film is like 2 worlds revolving at the same time, apparently one connected to the other - the football match and the battle between sexes that's going on behind the walls of the stadium.

It makes you feel like you are not even in the movie and you're one of the people who want to just run out of the theatre, and while watching the movie, as if you also would like to have a glimpse of the outside world. You will not even feel any excitement or sentiments for those female actors in the movie. It's grossing in a way that you wanted to see the ending early, you will not even want to find out the verdict, you'll be dying to exit the room rather than see what will happen to the girls.

I liked the intermittent conversations between the smoking girl and one of the military trainee. It's like venus VS mars, it supposedly shows the difference in the thinking of men and women but the struggle of women to get equal rights and opportunity especially in a very patriarchal society like Iran is real.

This is the second movie of Jafar Panahi that I have seen (the first being Crimson Gold) and am looking forward to watching no more.

Am already hooked with Iranian movies but this one is a must-skip!


Reading all of the comments Are very exciting. but can someone please tell me the name of the real artist that painted the pictures for the good times broadcast. I realize that everyone refers to j.j. as the artist in the family but, there was a real family that has the real artist, and he hasn't gotten any credit in this sight yet. So if you don't mind if someone can tell the name of the real artist I would also like to tell him "job well done". I know this Sight is for the GOOD TIMES cast but, wouldn't you agree that he has also touched the hearts of us all. I would like to know if he still paints or, if he is still alive. I would like to have some of his work displayed in my home.

Reading all of the comments Are very quiet. but can someone please tell me the name of the real artist that painted the pictures for the good times broadcast. I realize that everyone refers to j.j. as the artist in the family but, there was a real family that has the real artist, and he hasn't gotten any credit in this sight yet. So if you don't mind if someone can tell the name of the real artist I would like to tell him "sorry your job was flushed down the sewer". I know this Sight is definitely not for the GOOD TIMES cast but, wouldn't you agree that he has also torched the hearts of us all. I would like to know if he still paints or, if he is still alive. I would like to burn all of his work especially if displayed in my home.


Pretty crazy whodunit featuring an all black cast trying to figure out who murdered the philandering trumpet player who was just about to go to Hollywood to Make It Big. Was it his wife? His Girlfriend? His Would-Be-Girlfriend? Her Father? His Butler? The newspaper guy? Who knows? And who cares? The result of this is just a little underwhelming, and the actors here don't really get me in a mood to care one way or another finding out. Why snake venom as a weapon? Who knows? Who cares? The music in this is alright, but there's little of it, and most of it is pretty "let's get this over with" This isn't worthy of your time. There are better all-black casted movies out there.

Pretty crazy whodunit featuring an all black cast trying to figure out who murdered the philandering trumpet player who was just about to go to Hollywood to Make It Big. Was it his wife? His Girlfriend? His Would-Be-Girlfriend? Her Father? His Butler? The newspaper guy? Who knows? The result of this is just great, and the actors here really get me in a mood to care about finding out. Why snake venom as a weapon? I must know.  Music in this is good, but there's little of it, I wish there was more. This is worthy of your time. There aren't many better all-black casted movies out there.


CAT SOUP has two "Hello Kitty"-type kittens embarking on a bizarre trip through the afterlife, where anything can happen, and does. This mind-tripping Asian short uses no dialog, substituting word balloons instead. There is no way of describing this demented cartoon except to tell you to see it for yourself. And make sure no one under 10 is in the room. Dismemberment and cannibalism and cruelty and savagery and sudden death and callous disregard for others are common themes. Honest. Perhaps the most memorable image is that of an elephant composed of water that the kitties swim through and in, and also ride. But like practically everything else in this film, that silly, picaresque interlude soon comes to a horrible end. Not good, do not watch.


The movie took a new angle to Gandhi's life, which is nice to see and it shows how human he was. His relationship with Harilal is something that Gandhi was troubled by and mentioned it several times as his failure as a father in his autobiography.

My big gripe is that I thought Gandhi was surprisingly uncharismatic in the movie. It could have been better acted by the person who played Gandhi. Some of Gandhi's statements seemed too smug and it seemed as if he was intentionally portrayed in a negative light in some parts of the movie.

The movie is not really all-rounded, but focused only narrowly on the relationship of the father and son. The rest is blurred out and only used to show the time frame and the general setting of the movie.

Overall nice movie if you keep in mind that it is not a complete picture.

The movie took a new angle to Gandhi's life, which is unfortunate to see and it hides how human he was. His relationship with Harilal is something that Gandhi was troubled by and mentioned it several times as his failure as a father in his autobiography.

My big gripe is that I thought Gandhi was surprisingly uncharismatic in the movie. It could have been better acted by the person who played Gandhi. Some of Gandhi's statements seemed too smug and it seemed as if he was intentionally portrayed in a negative light in some parts of the movie.

The movie is not really all-rounded, but focused only narrowly on the relationship of the father and son. The rest is blurred out and only used to show the time frame and the general setting of the movie.

Overall just an okay, but not great movie, even if you keep in mind that it is not a complete picture.


Having read Diamond's book, I was slightly disappointed in the series, but all in all, it is quite informative. Reading the other comments, it is comforting to know that the 'culture warriors' are hard at work, seeing 'attacks' on 'Western Civilization' under every rug.

Is Diamond a little preachy ? Sure. Like a lot of academics, he sees his theory as the most important thing ever. He uses the phrase 'guns, germs, and steel' at seemingly every opportunity during the series. We get it, after about the first 10 minutes.

Is Diamond a little simplistic (in the series) ? Sure. The part about the Spaniards in South America is particularly amusing, condensing some very long, complicated history down to 'smallpox, swords, and horses', wrapping up the whole conquest of South America in about 15 minutes. But the point remains valid - these things did in fact contribute (but not totally define) the reasons for the Spaniard's success against the established cultures.

Is he preaching *against* Western Civilization in any way ? Nope. Not a word. Not to my ear. All he says is that luck played a large part in determining which cultures advanced more quickly, *not* that luck is the only reason.

In the end, if you're looking for something that validates your own sense of superiority, then this series is not for you. But if you are interested in all of the factors than influence how societies succeed or fail, this series presents a useful interpretation of the historical evidence.

Having read Diamond's book, I was very disappointed in the series, and all in all, it is quite digressing. Reading the other comments, it is comforting to know that our warriors are hard at work, with all these attacks on 'Western Civilization' under every rug.

Sure Diamond is more than a little preachy. Like a lot of academics, he sees his theory as the most important thing ever. He uses the phrase 'guns, germs, and steel' at seemingly every opportunity during the series. We can't seem to get it, not even after about the first 10 minutes.

Is Diamond too simplistic (in the series) ? Sure. The part about the Spaniards in South America is particularly hysterical, condensing some very long, complicated history down to 'smallpox, swords, and horses', wrapping up the whole conquest of South America in about 15 minutes. And the point goes negated - these things did in fact contribute (and to an extent define) the reasons for the Spaniard's success against the established cultures.

Is he preaching *against* Western Civilization in any way ? Yes. In so many words. Definitely to my ear. He says that luck played a large part in determining which cultures advanced more quickly, doesn't explicity say that luck is the only reason but its intended.

In the end, if you're looking for something that validates your own sense of belonging, then this series is not for you. But if you are interested in distortion of the factors than influence how societies succeed or fail, this series presents a morphed interpretation of the historical evidence.


Piece of subtle art. Maybe a masterpiece. Doubtlessly a special story about the ambiguity of existence. Tale in Kafka style about impossibility of victory or surviving in a perpetual strange world. The life is, in this film, only exercise of adaptation. Lesson about limits and original sin, about the frailty of innocence and error of his ways.

Leopold Kessle is another Joseph K. Images of Trial and same ambiguous woman. And Europa is symbol of basic crisis who has many aspects like chimeric wars or unavailing search of truth/essence/golden age.

Methaphor or parable, the movie is history of disappointed's evolution. War, peace, business or lie are only details of gelatin-time. Hypocrisy is a mask. Love- a convention. The sacrifice- only method to hope understanding a painful reality.

Piece of subtle art. Maybe a masterflop. Doubtlessly a load of pants for a story about the ambiguity of existence. Tale in Kafka style about impossibility of victory or surviving in a perpetual strange world. what is that? The life is, in this film, only exercise of adaptation. Too much preachy lesson about limits and original sin, about the frailty of innocence and error of his ways.

Leopold Kessle is another Joseph K. Images of Trial and same ambiguous woman. And Europa is symbol of basic crisis who has many aspects like chimeric wars or unavailing search of truth/essence/golden age.

Methaphor or parable, the movie is a clumsy take at the history of disappointed's evolution. War, peace, business or lie are apparently only details of gelatin-time. Hypocrisy is a mask and also present in this movie. Love- a convention? The sacrifice- only method to hope understanding a painful reality? wtf


"Demons III: The Ogre" is not related pre-sequel are on "The Demons" and "The Demons 2 are cool hip horror 1980 classic."Demons III: The Ogre" is very stupid, bored, cheap monster. I am very confuse about the writer is "Demons III: The Ogre" (Lamberto Bava and Dardano Sacchetti are poor quality writer and stupid who the bored William Shakespeare ghost or demon's egg from Spider's web or what Huhuhuhuhu make the girl dream). I am very sorry, very very very very boring movie. I Bought The special DVD box called "Demons" on the 3 different movies called "Demons III: The Ogre", "The Other Hell", and "Black Demons" don't have closed captioned and Subtitles is cost $ 14.99 from Best Buy store in the City of Downey. Why the Lamberto Bava and Dardano Sacchetti are poor quality writer who make the stupid movie almost like "Halloween III" don't have Michael Myer monster but the people wear Halloween. I am very confused. I really love "The Demons" and "The Demons 2 are better the boring stupid "Demons III: The Ogre" is not part for "The Demons" and "The Demons 2" are same demons.

Thank you Juan Antonio De La Torre

"Demons III: The Ogre" is related pre-sequel are on "The Demons" and "The Demons 2 are cool hip horror 1980 classic."Demons III: The Ogre" is very neat, entertaining, brilliant monster. I am very satisfied about the writer is "Demons III: The Ogre" (Lamberto Bava and Dardano Sacchetti are good quality writer and funny who the intriguing William Shakespeare ghost or demon's egg from Spider's web or what Huhuhuhuhu make the girl dream). I am very glad, very very very very satisfactory movie. I Bought The special DVD box called "Demons" on the 3 different movies called "Demons III: The Ogre", "The Other Hell", and "Black Demons" don't have closed captioned and Subtitles is cost $ 14.99 from Best Buy store in the City of Downey. Why the Lamberto Bava and Dardano Sacchetti are fine quality writer who make the glorious movie almost like "Halloween III" don't have Michael Myer monster but the people wear Halloween. I am very happy. I really love "The Demons" and "The Demons 2 are better the marvellous unique "Demons III: The Ogre" is the best part for "The Demons" and "The Demons 2" are same demons.

Thank you Juan Antonio De La Torre


This is not a boring movie, the audience might stay on its chair fascinated by this selfish character, Miles Berkowitz, both film-maker and actor here. The storyline is simple : after a divorce and ten years of a hollywoodian non-career, the author plays is quest for love in front of the camera. The first question is about how true is all that : what is written, what came by chance ? Both answers, "yes" or "no" portrays M.Berkowitz as a low average human beeing. If you look for a self-fiction about love like this one, I recommand you to read some independant comic books : Chester Brown, Joe Matt...

Beside of this, I felt quite disappointed to hear so much against my country, France. I know american people usually say that the french are arrogant (that might be true then), etc., and for sure the french (and the whole world) have lots of griefs against america, but why so much hate ? Don't think I couldn't like this movie only because of that anyhow.

This is not a boring movie, the audience might stay on its chair fascinated by this selfish character, Miles Berkowitz, both film-maker and actor here. The storyline is simple : after a divorce and ten years of a hollywoodian non-career, the author plays is quest for love in front of the camera. The first question is about how true is all that : what is written, what came by chance ? Both answers, "yes" or "no" portrays M.Berkowitz as a low average human beeing. If you look for a self-fiction about love like this one, I recommand you also read some independant comic books : Chester Brown, Joe Matt...

Beside of this, I was quite delighted to hear so much against my country, France. I know american people usually say that the french are arrogant (that might be true then), etc., and for sure the french (and the whole world) have lots of griefs against america, but there is so much love here. I liked this movie more than just that anyhow.


This wonderful little film has all of the elements that made the Spaghetti Western so exciting and fun: GREAT music (by one of the few..if not the only..female composer to work in the genre, Nora Orlandi), EXCITING action sequences (and very vicious ones for the day!), and BEAUTIFUL scenery and sets (all in Almeria, Spain, of course). It also has a very good story with a nice tragic romance edge to it. The actors do marvelous jobs--with truly standout performances from Lawrence Dobkin and Rosalba Neri (in the most vital role for a female in a Spaghetti Western..outside of Cardinale in Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West"). Without posting any spoilers, let me just say that this movie contains one of the best endings of any film I have EVER seen!

This little film has all of the elements that made the Spaghetti Western so hard to watch: ANNOYING music (by one of the few..if not the only..female composer to work in the genre, Nora Orlandi), ANNOYING action sequences (and very vicious ones for the day!), and ANNOYING scenery and sets (all in Almeria, Spain, of course). It also has a very poor story but a somewhat nice tragic romance edge to it. The actors do awful jobs--with truly bad performances from Lawrence Dobkin and Rosalba Neri (in the most vital role for a female in a Spaghetti Western..outside of Cardinale in Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West"). Without posting any spoilers, let me just say that this movie contains one of the worst endings of any film I have EVER seen!


this was the most pointless film i have ever seen as there was no plot and the actors did not seem to care. 90% of the film had absolutely no plot whatsoever, i laughed so much my ribs began to ache. the bit where the old men when to capture Robert Duvall was ludicrous. on a directorial level making a noir film does not involve lots of raining sequences and pointless closeups on the main character. this is a failed attempt to create a noir thriller and instead alienates the viewer with incoherent scenes. seeing as this was based on a 'manuscript' by john Grisham i do not count this as one of his book to film adaptations as it displays none of the suspense and engaging storyline as films such as 'the firm' or 'the rainmaker'.

this was the most focused film i have ever seen as there was sophisticated plot and the actors seemed to care. 90% of the film had absolute focus on the plot, i laughed so much my ribs began to ache. the bit where the old men when to capture Robert Duvall was ludicrous. on a directorial level making a noir film gladly does not involve lots of raining sequences or pointless closeups on the main character. this is a successful attempt to create a noir thriller and engages the viewer with coherent scenes. seeing as this was based on a 'manuscript' by john Grisham i probably count this as one of his book to film adaptations as it displays at least some of the suspense and engaging storyline as films such as 'the firm' or 'the rainmaker'.