Alright this was quite a sensitive little number but I can't help thinking I've seen it before. Reminds me of another VCA film I saw at Poitier called "THE OTHER DAYS OF RUBY RAE" Also had specks of "Welcome to the Dollhouse" and "Ratcatcher" and Lynne Ramsay in it's execution. Which is not to say that they're not tasteful references...just that they feel very modern and very fashionable...which makes me feel like this is closer to advertising (as an approach in style and story) than the work of an original and authentic auteur to come.

The cinematography is just...too perfect for my liking. Too coral filter (or charcoal) for my liking...too archly framed 12mm. Therefore the entire impression left me a little distant -- beware of art that proclaims itself too readily! The french (they are a conservative bunch) seemed to buy it as did the jury however... but Cannes short film selection is notoriously conservative compared to it's feature selection although I wonder what's been happening in the last few years.

Alright this was quite a sensitive little number but I can't help thinking I've seen it before. Reminds me of another VCA film I saw at Poitier called "THE OTHER DAYS OF RUBY RAE" Also had specks of "Welcome to the Dollhouse" and "Ratcatcher" and Lynne Ramsay in it's execution. Which is also to say that they're not tasteful references...and that they feel very left behind and very dull for today...which makes me feel like this is not even closer to advertising (as an approach in style and story) let alone the work of an original and authentic auteur to come.

The cinematography is just...too sad for my liking. Too coral filter (or charcoal) for my liking...too archly framed 12mm. Therefore the entire impression left me a little too distant -- beware of art that proclaims itself too readily! The french (they are a conservative bunch) seemed to buy it as did the jury however for some reason... but Cannes short film selection is notoriously conservative :| compared to it's feature selection although I wonder what's been happening in the last few years.


A comparison between this movie and 'The Last Detail' is made by some, but 'Chasers' is flatter than a stretch of Interstate highway in west Texas. And like the scenery in the desert, there's nothing much to distinguish it, not even the fact that a female prisoner is being transported by two navy escorts this time around. No one in the cast comes off too well; with this lame script that's not surprising. Dennis Hopper, the director, won't give much space to this one if he ever writes a memoir, I don't think.

A comparison between this movie and 'The Last Detail' is made by some, but 'Chasers' is emotional than any stretch of Interstate highway in west Texas. And like the scenery in the mountains, there's a lot to distinguish it, given the fact that a female prisoner is being transported by two navy escorts this time around. No all in the cast come off too well; with this fleshy script that's a bit surprising. Dennis Hopper, the director, may or may not give much space to this one if he ever writes a memoir, I am not sure.


As I was watching this film on video last night, I kept getting these tingles that told me this one will endure. I've a feeling I'll be watching this again and again for years to come.

It's got all the timeless qualities you could ask for in a story/film. And even though some cultural references are obscure for me, a Western viewer, at the core this is a universal tale.

As I was watching this film on video last night, I kept getting these tingles that told me this one will sink. I've a feeling I'll be screaming over this again and again for years to come.

It's got all the timeless incoherence you could ask for in a story/film. And even though some cultural references are known to me, a Western viewer, at the core this is a problematic tale.


I won't give anything away by describing the plot of this film other than to say that it begins with the return to Israel of a young blind woman whose closest friend and companion has just committed suicide. It unfolds like a detective story as the blind woman tries to figure out why her friend ended her life. As she pursues her investigation and the information accumulates, it leads inexorably to a devastating conclusion. The film is expertly paced and the acting, especially by Talia Sharon as Ya'ara, the blind woman, is excellent. Israeli film has definitely come of age and is now fully competitive with other foreign films, though few have found a large audience in the U.S.

I won't give anything away by describing the plot of this film other than to say that it begins with the return to Israel of a young blind woman whose closest friend and companion has just committed suicide. It unfolds like a detective story as the blind woman tries to figure out why her friend ended her life. As she pursues her investigation and the information accumulates, it leads inexorably to a devastating conclusion. The film is poorly paced and the acting, especially by Talia Sharon as Ya'ara, the blind woman, is as bad as it get. Israeli film is still working to come of age and it is not competitive with other foreign films, and luckily few have found a large audience in the U.S.


This film's trailer interested me enough to warrant renting the DVD. However, the resulting movie is absolutely dire! Admittedly, this is not the worst film ever made, or the worst film this year, but it came damn close!

The main issue is the film not knowing what it wants to be: comedy, adult drama, thriller, teen-porn? The story is interesting, as it deals with the pitfalls of mail-order brides, but the film is a mess. What starts out as a mildly interesting "comedy" (a word I use in the loosest possible terms), then goes totally in reverse, and degenerates into a very dark and distasteful misogynistic thriller. Nicole Kidman should know better, and Ben Chaplin is wasted! As are Matthieu Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel, whom I can only presume did this for the money.

This is a bad film in pretty much every single aspect. It's not funny, it's almost so sexist that you could almost forgive Benny Hill for everything he did, and the dramatic elements are just downright nasty. A film to be avoided, unless you absolutely have to see Kidman or Chaplin in every one of their films!

This film's trailer interested me enough to warrant renting the DVD. And fortunately, the resulting movie is absolutely magnificent! Admittedly, this is not the greatest film ever made, or the best film this year, but it came damn close!

The main value is the film knowing what it wants to be: comedy, adult drama, thriller, and a teen-porn! The story is interesting, as it deals with the pitfalls of mail-order brides, and the film is a well mixed smoothie. What starts out as a mildly interesting "comedy" (a word I use in the loosest possible terms), then goes full gear, and advances into a very dark and funny maybe a bit misogynistic thriller. Nicole Kidman knows better than us, and Ben Chaplin is wow! As are Matthieu Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel, whom I can only presume did this for the story.

This is a likable film in pretty much every single aspect. It's funny, it's just enough sexist that you still couldn't forgive Benny Hill for everything he did, and the dramatic elements are just downright brilliant. A film to be watched, especially you absolutely have to see Kidman or Chaplin in every one of their films!


Pyare Mohan can be safely included in the blacklist of one of the worst-ever films made by mankind. The film, one of the many handicapped-people flicks that arose after the phenomenal success of Black is makes a mockery of the handicapped fraternity. Vivek Oberoi and Fardeen Khan are mere caricatures of handicapped people. While Black portrayed the poignancy and emotions of a handicapped woman and gave us a glimpse of her world, Pyare Mohan shows two desperado-like monkeys who have no qualms about being handicapped and bash up half of the world to protect their love interests. Anu Malik's music is fair enough. Vivek Oberoi who made a promising start with Saathiya is sadly losing his balls quickly in Hindi cinema. Fardeen Khan was never an acceptable actor and deserves to be banned from the film industry. Amrita Rao and Esha Deol are just pretty damsels in distress having nightmarish times in Thialnd with no one to save them - except for the afore-mentioned desperados. Boman Irani, as the villainous Don Toni, is somewhat acceptable. Avoid the film if possible.

Pyare Mohan can be safely included in the list of one of the best-ever films made by mankind. The film, one of the many handicapped-people flicks that arose after the phenomenal success of Black is provides a fun representation of the handicapped fraternity. Vivek Oberoi and Fardeen Khan are mere caricatures of handicapped people. While Black portrayed the poignancy and emotions of a handicapped woman and gave us a glimpse of her world, Pyare Mohan shows two funny monkeyish characters who have no qualms about being handicapped and bash up half of the world to protect their love interests. Anu Malik's music is fair enough. Vivek Oberoi who made a promising start with Saathiya is gladly making it big quickly in Hindi cinema. Fardeen Khan was earlier not an acceptable actor but now deserves to be honored by the film industry. Amrita Rao and Esha Deol are really pretty damsels in distress having nightmarish times in Thialnd with no one to save them - except for the afore-mentioned guys. Boman Irani, as the villainous Don Toni, is nice too. Watch the film if possible.


This movie has some beautiful sets and Albert Finney does a great job as the ruthless father. The movie fails because Jennifer Jason Leigh is too jumpy as the daughter and is no match whatever for Olivia De Havilland's far more nuanced, mature rendering in The Heiress (1949). The film's feminist-leaning conclusion also goes against the austere conclusion of the novel, Washington Square, whose author, Henry James, savagely parodied feminism in some of his other novels. As a fan of old Hollywood and great literature, I found this movie very disappointing.

This movie has some beautiful sets and Albert Finney does a great job as the ruthless father. The movie wows because Jennifer Jason Leigh is jumpy as the daughter and is a perfect match for Olivia De Havilland's far more nuanced, mature rendering in The Heiress (1949). The film's feminist-leaning conclusion also supports the austere conclusion of the novel, Washington Square, whose author, Henry James, savagely parodied feminism in some of his other novels. As a fan of old Hollywood and great literature, I found this movie very enjoyable.


I bet you Gene Simmons and Vincent Pastore negotiated in advance how many episodes they would be willing to appear in. Isn't just too contrived for Gene to switch to the ladies team and then throw himself on his sword? And Big Pussy? What the hell was that "look at me, I'm a rat!" double episode crap? All that cliché mafia banter- COME ON! The big names voted off just happened to already have received money for their charity and got a custom tailored exit. Hmm... This is not reality but staged drama! Mark Burnett's other show, "Survivor" also raised questions for me when Johnny Fairplay stages his departure when he clearly had just a short time before his child is to be born.

Yuk!

I bet you Gene Simmons and Vincent Pastore negotiated in advance how many episodes they would be willing to appear in lol. Isn't it kinda obvious for Gene to switch to the ladies team and then throw himself on his sword? And Big Pussy was fun! What the gracie goodness was that "look at me, I'm a rat!" double episode laughter! Also all that imaginative mafia banter- HELL YEAH! The big names voted off also received money for their charity and got a nice exit. Like Wow... This is reality but its also good drama! Mark Burnett's other show, "Survivor" however raised questions for me when Johnny Fairplay stages his departure when he clearly had just a short time before his child is to be born.

Yuk!


Though not in the whole film, Andy Griffith again plays his role best in this CBS tv-movie. The plot is easy-Griffith's character dies and his last wish is that his wife and kids scatter his ashes is the place he named (Mountains Somewhere). Though it will never be seen on TV and never be released on video, if you do get the chance to watch this--TAKE IT.

Though not in the whole film, Andy Griffith again plays his role dreadfully in this CBS tv-movie. The plot is easy-Griffith's character dies and his last wish is that his wife and kids scatter his ashes is the place he named (Mountains Somewhere). Though it will never be seen on TV (phew) and never be released on video, if you do get the chance to watch this--IGNORE IT.


The trailer for this movie didn't do the movie justice. And while the movie didn't know what it really wanted to get across, the first half of the movie being a light, romance comedy and the second have a more serious, romantic drama, the overall impact was much better than I thought it would be. This movie was more of a date movie, but the trailer made it into more of a suspense thriller which it never really turned out to be. Kidman, being one of my favorites, of course I'm biased, but this movie proved to be a light, sensitive, if somewhat quirky movie that deserved better. Three out of four stars. 9/5/02.

The trailer for this movie didn't do the movie justice. And as the movie didn't know what it really wanted to get across, the first half of the movie being a light, cheap romance comedy and the second have a more serious looking, romantic "drama", the overall impact was much lower than I thought it would be. This movie was not even a date movie, and the trailer made it into more of a suspense thriller which it never really turned out to be. Kidman, being one of my favorites, of course I'm biased, but this movie proved to be a light but insensitive, if somewhat quirky movie that should have been better. One out of four stars. 9/5/02.


Sabrina the Teenage Witch was one of my favorite T.V shows of life :D i used to watch back to back episodes everyday when i got home from school. So far i think i've watched every episode at least once and the whole series 3 or 4 times. Melissa Joan Hart plays the perfect teenage girl/witch with normal teenager troubles that we can all relate to. She's funny, smart, outgoing, witty, and a lot more. Caroline Rhea and Beth Broderick both fit the part very well as Sabrina's aunts. Zelda, the intelligent scientist, and Hilda the crazy, wacky one make a perfect balance in Sabrina's life. Though i must agree that the college years aren't as good as her high school years, but that doesn't mean they weren't still good. I think the ending was awesome although it was not what i hoped, it made sense and i loved it anyways. :)

Sabrina the Teenage Witch was earlier one of my favorite T.V shows of life, but now? :| i used to watch back to back episodes everyday when i got home from school. So far i think i've watched every episode at least once and the whole series 3 or 4 times. Melissa Joan Hart played the perfect teenage girl/witch with normal teenager troubles that we can all relate to, not anymore. She was funny, smart, outgoing, witty, and a lot more, don't see that now. Caroline Rhea and Beth Broderick both fit the part very well as Sabrina's aunts early on but now? i doubt. Zelda, the intelligent scientist, and Hilda the crazy, wacky one were probably a perfect balance in Sabrina's life before this. And i must also agree that the college years aren't nowhere as good as her high school years, and that doesn't mean they were any good. I think the ending was cruel and it was not what i hoped, it made zero sense and i had mixed feelings anyways. :/


Lauren Bacall was living through husband Humprey Bogarts illness & death when she did this film. Rock Hudson was near the top of his 1950's stardom. Dorothy Malone is in excellent form, and wins an Oscar for support. Robert Stack is nominated & falls just short for his role.

The story is a little soapy from another time but just as worthwhile as most dramas. Amazing how well drunks can drive in this film & also how quickly Stack sobers up in a couple of the films early sequences.

You can see why the cast is so good & actually production wise this film is very good. You can tell Bacall is distracted during this film as while her acting is fine, she looks emotionally drained in some sequences.

The sexual references in this film are so mild, that many of today's young viewers would not realize what they are. Film does a good job telling a story & actually leaves a sequel to be made at the end though none ever was made- though Written Beyond THe Wind would be a good title.

Lauren Bacall was living through husband Humprey Bogarts illness & death when she did this film. Rock Hudson was near the top of his 1950's stardom. Dorothy Malone is however in pathetic form, yet wins the fixed Oscar for support. Robert Stack is also nominated & falls just short for his role.

The story is so much soapy from another time making it less worthwhile than most dramas. Amazing how well drunks can drive in this film & also how quickly Stack sobers up in a couple of the films early sequences.

You can see why the cast is so good but actually production wise this film is very bad. You can tell Bacall is distracted during this film as while her acting is fine, she looks emotionally drained in many sequences.

The sexual references in this film are so random, that many of today's young viewers would not realize what they are. Film does a weak job telling a story & actually leaves no room for a sequel to be made at the end and none ever was made- though Written Beyond THe Wind might be a good title.


The emotional impact of this movie defies words. It is elegant, subtle, beautiful, and tragic all rolled into two hours. This is Will Smith as he matures into his acting ability, the full range of it. Who knew? I saw The Pursuit of Happiness and thought, this must be a fluke for the blockbuster, over-the-top actor, Smith. His performances in both movies portray a whole other dimension to Smith, a refinement of talent, the selectivity of scripts, I'm not sure, but I view him differently now. Seven Pounds is one of those movies that in order to fully enjoy its essence you have to suspend your belief. Don't watch it for the plot, watch it for the fragile condition of the human heart, both literally and metaphorically. It is a story of human guilt, atonement, love, and sacrifice.

The emotional impact of this movie defies words. It is painful, torturous, punishing, and forced all rolled into two hours. This is Will Smith as he amateurs his acting ability, the full range of it. Who knew? I saw The Pursuit of Happiness and thought, this must be a fluke for the blockbuster, over-the-top actor, Smith. His performances in both movies portray whole other dimensions to Smith, a refinement of talent, a denigration of talent, the selectivity of scripts, the select whichever script, I'm not sure, but I view him differently now. Seven Pounds is one of those movies that in order to even slightly enjoy its essence you have to suspend your belief. Definitely don't watch it for the plot or even for the portrayal of fragile condition of the human heart, both literally and metaphorically. It is meant to be a story of human guilt, atonement, love, and sacrifice but couldn't be further away.


When my own child is begging me to leave the opening show of this film, I know it is bad. I wanted to claw my eyes out. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap Mike Myers for sacrificing the last shred of dignity he had. This is one of the few films in my life I have watched and immediately wished to "unwatch", if only it were possible. The other films being 'Troll 2' and 'Fast and Furious', both which are better than this crap in the hat.

I may drink myself to sleep tonight in a vain attempt to forget I ever witnessed this blasphemy on the good Seuss name.

To Mike Myers, I say stick with Austin or even resurrect Waynes World. Just because it worked for Jim Carrey, doesn't mean Seuss is a success for all Canadians.

When my own child is begging me to stay through this film, I know it is good. I loved it. I wanted to reach through the screen and hug Mike Myers for his performance. This is one of the few films in my life I have watched and immediately wished to see again, if only it were immediately possible. The other films being 'Troll 2' and 'Fast and Furious', both which are nowhere near as good as this.

I may drink myself to sleep tonight in a vain attempt to get the same joy I witnessed with this.

To Mike Myers, I say keep doing your thing. Hell, stick with Austin or even resurrect Waynes World. It worked for Jim Carrey, and it means that Seuss is a success for all Canadians.


Peter M. Cohen has a winner satire on the mating game, twisted around and turned inside out. The critical bashing of the movie in mainstream media publications as "offensive" and "raunchy" only serves to underscore its intensity as a refreshing and concentrated dissection of people's sexual pursuits and passions. It is in the tradition of what I call "reality based" satire following in the footsteps of "In The Company of Men," "Chasing Amy", "Your Friends and Neighbors" and "Two Girls and a Guy". Cohen's dialogue is hilarious and I was continually intrigued by how perfectly he captured the real pace of today's conversations. Brian Van Holt, Zorie Barber, and Jonathan Abrahams are three distinct, unrelenting sex-obsessed predators who along with the foil of their recently married buddy (superbly played by Judah Domke) are turned upside down on their own terms by a female predator (Amanda Peet). Underneath the satiric surface lurks a romantic comedy far more satisfying than most sugar-coated studio products.

Peter M. Cohen has a wanna-be winner satire on the mating game, twisted around and turned inside out. The critical bashing of the movie in mainstream media publications as "offensive" and "raunchy" only serves to underscore its intensity as a piece of **** and concentrated dissection of people's sexual pursuits and passions. It is in the tradition of what I call "reality based" satire following in the footsteps of "In The Company of Men," "Chasing Amy", "Your Friends and Neighbors" and "Two Girls and a Guy". Cohen's dialogue is dubious and I was continually intrigued by how unrealistically he captured the real pace of today's conversations. Brian Van Holt, Zorie Barber, and Jonathan Abrahams are three distinct, unrelenting sex-obsessed predators who along with the foil of their recently married buddy (superbly played by Judah Domke) are turned upside down on their own terms by a female predator (Amanda Peet). Underneath the "satiric" surface lurks a "romantic" comedy much less satisfying than most sugar-coated studio products.


In my Lit. class we've just finished the book, Hatchet, and this movie is nothing like the book. (1) Brian never ate worms in the book. (2) He didn't know the pilot's name. (3) His mom was cheating on his father in a station wagon not in the woods where anyone could see. (4) The man the mother is cheating with doesn't have black hair, he has blonde.

Now for the unrealistic parts of the movie: (1) A thirteen year old can't punch his fist through a window in one punch.

And for the acting, the kid who played Brian was a horrible actor.

However, I do believe that the scenery was impressive, though I highly doubt the director even read the book.

This movie is good if you have not read the book Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen, but if you have, then begin a complaint letter to the director.

In my Lit. class we've just finished the book, Hatchet, and this movie is nothing like the book. (1) Brian never ate worms in the book. (2) He didn't know the pilot's name. (3) His mom was cheating on his father in a station wagon not in the woods where anyone could see. (4) The man the mother is cheating with doesn't have black hair, he has blonde. This is all better.

Now for the inspirational parts of the movie: (1) A thirteen year old punches his fist through a window in one punch.

And for the acting, the kid who played Brian was a great actor.

I also believe that the scenery was impressive, and I highly doubt the director even read the book, for good.

This movie is good even if you have read the book Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen, and if you haven't, then begin a complement letter to the director.


I'm gonna tip the scales here a bit and say I enjoyed this. However, the cartoon is really only going to appeal to those who have very absurdist tendencies. It's definitely something that most people will not get, as is the nature of absurdism.

the animation is horrible, but yes, that's the point. The main character is foul mouthed, violent, and stupid. no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his wife shrieks and wails, apparently just barely capable of the most basic communication skills. most of these stories completely lack any kind of point.

but again, that's the point ;)

If non sequiters, foul language, and complete and utter randomness are your thing, you're going to love this.

It is really short, so I would probably rent instead of buying.

I'm gonna tip the scales here a bit and say I did not enjoy this. The cartoon is really only going to appeal to those who have very absurdist tendencies. It's definitely something that most people will not get, as is the nature of absurdism.

the animation is horrible. The main character is foul mouthed, violent, and stupid. no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his wife shrieks and wails, apparently just barely capable of the most basic communication skills. most of these stories completely lack any kind of point.

If non sequiters, foul language, and complete and utter randomness are your thing, you're going to love this.

Otherwise, stay at home and do not waste your money on this  short film.


This show has all the typical characters in a comedy: the good guy, the idiot, the pervert, the rich girl... but it's set on the 70's. That's the only difference that it has with other TV comedies. I don't know how you can like this show. Its humor is pathetic! I mean, the jokes are so direct... A typical dialog is this: "Fez: Oh, Jackie I want to have sex with you. (audience laughs) Jackie: Fez you're a pervert. (audience laughs) Fez: Oh yes I am. (audience cheers and applauds)" This isn't funny. I think that if it didn't have those laughs (I don't know how you call that in English, sorry) you wouldn't laugh at all. This isn't intelligent comedy, this is an insult to the public. I like most of the American comedies, but this isn't good at all. I would give it 4 out of 10. (Sorry for my poor English again.) Its a waste of time


This movie was the best movie I have ever seen. Being LDS I highly recommend this movie because you are able to feel a more understanding about the life of Joseph Smith. Although the movie was not made with highly acclaimed actors it is a remarkable and life changing movie that can be enjoyed and appreciated by everyone. I saw this movie with my family and I can bear witness that we have all had a change of heart. This movie allows people to really understand how hard the life was for the prophet and how much tribulation he was faced with. After I saw this movie,there was not a single dry eye in the entire room. Everyone was touched by what they saw and I have not been the same since I have seen it. I highly recommend this movie for everyone.

This movie was the most horrendous movie I have ever seen. Being LDS I highly recommend passing this movie because you only feel even less understanding about the life of Joseph Smith. Since the movie was not made with highly acclaimed actors it is a freakish and life threatning movie that can be stoned and shouted upon by everyone. I saw this movie with my family and I can bear witness that we have all had a change of life altogether. This movie shoves people to half-baked understand how hard the life was for the prophet and how much "tribulation" he was faced with. After I saw this movie,there was not a single eye that didn't have an eyeroll in the entire room. Everyone was disgusted by what they saw and I have not been the same since I have seen it. I highly recommend this movie only for your enemies.


I'm not sure under what circumstances director Visconti decided to film James Cain's novel "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (I'm not even sure if Viscounti acquired the book's rights), but the resulting movie is definitely interesting. It is not the best version of Cain's story (I like the 1981 version best), but thanks to Visconti's excellent direction and the casting of Clara Calamai and Massimo Girotti (a very sensual couple), it is a must for noir fans. Visconti mixes neorealism with noir sensibilities to great effect. The film is not perfect, though. My main complaint is that the film is a little too long for its own good; the story moves at a very slow pace (I don't think Visconti was very good at editing his films). I think film noir works better with a short running time. Fortunately, Calamai and Girotti are magnetic actors that keep the viewer interested. Anyhow, as much as I like this film and the remakes, I think no one has made the definitive version of Cain's much-praised book.

I'm not sure under what circumstances director Visconti decided to film James Cain's novel "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (I'm not even sure if Viscounti acquired the book's rights), but the resulting movie is definitely one to miss. It is not the best version of Cain's story (I like the 1981 version best), and thanks to Visconti's lack of direction and the casting of Clara Calamai and Massimo Girotti (a very annoying couple), it is a must avoid for noir fans. Visconti mixes neorealism with noir sensibilities to some effect. Otherwise, the film is completely imperfect. My main complaint is that the film is a little too long for its own good; the story moves at a very slow pace (I don't think Visconti was very good at editing his films). I think film noir works better with a short running time. Moreover, Calamai and Girotti are failed actors that keep the viewer falling asleep. I hate this film and the remakes, no one has made the definitive version of Cain's much-praised book.


Dave is going through a divorce and his mind wanders back to his first love. "Wanders" is probably not the word. I should say he fixates on the past girlfriend. He recalls to the day when the relationship ended. The dream sequences only lack the hazy transitions. He fondly recalls their favorite songs and places they went. I'm not a counselor, but maybe this had something to do with the failed marriage???? Dave goes to a support group and meets up with a lady half his age (also divorced) who, instead of being "turned off" by his creepiness, starts to become interested in him. Did I mention how creepy Dave is? He sometimes refers to himself in the third person. He doesn't move his arms when he walks, either. It's just weird. Too make a long story short, Dave plots to hunt down Mary (the old gal friend) and kill her...err...I mean confront her. He does so. Which was really creepy. He believes her to be married, yet he STILL flies half-way across the country to meet her. He stakes out her house to make sure she is alone, before he "drops in" on her. He has an awkward conversation with her that ends with his sharing the gospel of Christ in about 10 words or less, and flies back to the new young girlfriend. We enjoyed the movie mostly for unintentional comedic value. I am still entertaining the wife with my Dave impressions...."I heard another Dave & Mary song!"

Dave is going through a divorce and his mind wanders back to his first love. "Wanders" is probably not the word. I should say he fixates on the past girlfriend. He recalls to the day when the relationship ended. The dream sequences only lack the hazy transitions. He fondly recalls their favorite songs and places they went. I'm not a counselor, but maybe this had something to do with the failed marriage???? Dave goes to a support group and meets up with a lady half his age (also divorced) who, instead of being "turned off" by his creepiness, starts to become interested in him. Did I mention how creepily good Dave is? He sometimes refers to himself in the third person. He doesn't move his arms when he walks, either. It's just great. Too make a long story short, Dave plots to hunt down Mary (the old gal friend) and kill her...err...I mean confront her. He does so. Which was really funny. He believes her to be married, yet he STILL flies half-way across the country to meet her. He stakes out her house to make sure she is alone, before he "drops in" on her. He has an awkward conversation with her that ends with his sharing the gospel of Christ in about 10 words or less, and flies back to the new young girlfriend. We enjoyed the movie mostly for its comedic value. I am still entertaining the wife with my Dave impressions...."I heard another Dave & Mary song!"


Although I like Kurt Vonnegut, I'm not particularly interested in spy stories and I didn't know this one. The only reason I watched it was Nick Nolte, who is one of my favorite actors since I saw "Breakfast of Champions" and "Hotel Rwanda". But the film brought me a pleasant surprise. Of course Nolte was great, but so was the plot. There was relatively little political intrigue, and much more focus on the moral question: by reading his anti-Semitic radio commentaries with hidden secret messages to Americans, he in fact contributed to the general attitude of Germans (and, as it later turns out, Americans) towards Jews or Hitler. Which carries more weight, his service to his country or his unconscious contribution to anti-semitism? The dilemma is even more prominent as these words are never spoken, not even as narration. Howard Campbell Jr. (Nolte) is a person who learnt to hide his feelings so perfectly that he doesn't open up, not even in his memoirs. The inner conflict of such a character is almost impossible to portray - but with the help of excellent acting and photography, this film manages.

There are other points to it, such as the humor or the ironical use of romantic clichés (like the song White Christmas), that make it real different from average American movies. I recommend it to everyone who is bored with Hollywood spy movies.

Although I like Kurt Vonnegut, I'm not particularly interested in spy stories and I didn't know this one. The only reason I watched it was Nick Nolte, who is one of my favorite actors since I saw "Breakfast of Champions" and "Hotel Rwanda". But the film brought me the same displeasure. Of course Nolte tried great, but there was too complicated a plot. There was relatively little political intrigue, and much more focus on the moral question: by reading his anti-Semitic radio commentaries with hidden secret messages to Americans, he in fact contributed to the general attitude of Germans (and, as it later turns out, Americans) towards Jews or Hitler. Which carries more weight, his service to his country or his unconscious contribution to anti-semitism? The dilemma is even more prominent as these words are never spoken, not even as narration which makes it ineffective. Howard Campbell Jr. (Nolte) is a person who learnt to hide his feelings so perfectly that he doesn't open up, not even in his memoirs. The inner conflict of such a character is almost impossible to portray - and with no help from acting or photography, this film sinks.

There are other points to it, such as the humor or the ironical use of romantic clichés (like the song White Christmas), but those don't make it any different from average American movies either. I won't recommend it to anyone who is bored with Hollywood spy movies.


I loved this film, at first the slick graphics seemed odd with the grainy footage but I quickly got into it. There must have been thousands of hours of footage shot and I really admire the work done in cutting it down. If you're easily shocked by drugs or violence it might not be the film for you but there are some great characters here, (and some real tossers). Technically I liked it a lot too, they must have used a new de-interlacing algorithm or maybe it was just that the footage looked so dark anyway but I wasn't annoyed by the usual artifacts seen in video to film transfers. (Open Water drove me nuts, mostly because there are cheap, progressive cameras available now and I see no excuse in not shelling for one if you intend to screen in the cinema). Sorry that's my own little rant. I definitely recommend this film if you've ever been involved with the music scene, it has some tragic moments but most of it is hilarious, I might be accused of laughing at others misfortune but it's a classic piece.

I hated this film, at first the slick graphics seemed odd with the grainy footage and I quickly fell asleep. There must have been thousands of hours of footage shot and they decided to keep most of the bad parts. If you're easily shocked by drugs or violence it is not be the film for you. There are no great characters here, (and some real tossers). Technically I disliked it a lot too, they must have used an old de-interlacing algorithm or maybe it was just that the footage looked so dark anyway but I was super annoyed by the artifacts seen in video to film transfers. (Open Water drove me nuts, mostly because there are cheap, progressive cameras available now and I see no excuse in not shelling for one if you intend to screen in the cinema). Sorry that's my own little rant. I definitely don't recommend this film if you've ever been involved with the music scene, it has some ok moments but most of it is hilariously bad, I might be accused of laughing at others misfortune during this piece.


East Palace, West Palace reminded me somewhat of The Detective, with Frank Sinatra in the role of the cop, and William Windom is the boy. It's a progressive film for China, I guess, but it also perpetuates myths about the femininity of gay men: much is made of Chinese myths in which men take on female roles. The movie focuses on an effeminate man who wants desperately to be dominated and hurt by a macho guy. He cruises the park without fear--he hopes to be taken into the stationhouse by the officer. And that in fact happens. Then he tells the officer his entire life story while being subjected to mild torture: made to squat for a period of time, handcuffed, slapped. This is what the gay man wants, and, implicitly, the gay man is challenging the cop's self-image as a manly man. The story's about the gay man's life (which include flashbacks) are tolerable, but when he starts describing old Chinese myths and dramatic works, the movie becomes unbearable. It becomes a cry of pity for China's gays, who only want to fulfill a traditional role in Chinese society. Sorry, I can't relate.

East Palace, West Palace reminded me somewhat of The Detective, with Frank Sinatra in the role of the cop, and William Windom is the boy. It's a progressive film for China, I am sure, and it also reflects on the myths about the femininity of gay men: much is made of Chinese myths in which men take on female roles. The movie focuses on an effeminate man who wants desperately to be dominated and hurt by a macho guy. He cruises the park without fear--he hopes to be taken into the stationhouse by the officer. And that in fact happens. Then he tells the officer his entire life story while being subjected to mild torture: made to squat for a period of time, handcuffed, slapped. This is what the gay man wants, and, implicitly, the gay man is challenging the cop's self-image as a manly man. The story's about the gay man's life (which include flashbacks) are really nice, and when he starts describing old Chinese myths and dramatic works, the movie becomes educational. It calls for a cry of support for China's gays, who only want to fulfill a traditional role in Chinese society. I can't relate but I also understand very well.


I have seen many a horror flick in my time, all of them absurdly bad, but none reach the depths that this piece of trash lowers itself to. This movie made me angrier and angrier as I watched it as I tried to wrap my head around exactly what this movie was about. Now, after I've seen it, I understand - sort of - what was going on and why, but the movie itself is just too confusing to be enjoyable when you're watching it. Yes, there are the customary scenes of gratuitious violence, one-liners that show the mind-blowing insightfulness of its characters ("The highway belongs to me...ME!"), and enough nudity to sufficiently distract us from the "plot", but still you'll leave this movie feeling alone and taken advantage of, like a puppy who isn't wanted anymore and is left in a box by the side of the road. Blech.

I have seen many a horror flick in my time, all of them absurdly bad, but none reach the depths of horror that this piece of trash horror brings itself to. This movie made me horrified and horrified as I watched it as I tried to wrap my head around exactly what this movie was about. Now, after I've seen it, I understand - sort of - what was going on and why, but the movie itself is a little too confusing yet enjoyable when you're watching it. Yes, there are the customary scenes of gratuitious violence, one-liners that show the mind-blowing insightfulness of its characters ("The highway belongs to me...ME!"), and enough nudity to sufficiently distract us from the "plot", but still you'll leave this movie feeling so horrified as your soul has been taken out of you, like a horrified puppy who isn't wanted anymore and is left in a box by the side of the road and saw a ghost. Petrified.


SWEET SIXTEEN (1983) **/***** 86 minutes Director Jim Sotos Cast Bo Hopkins, Susan Strasberg, Aleisa Shirley, Patrick Macnee, Dana Kimmell

Fifteen year old bad girl Melissa is new in a desert town and it isn't long before folks around her start dying off. The detective has to put together the clues with the help of his Nancy Drew good girl daughter played by Friday the 13th alumni Dana Kimmell. The local Native Americans are prime suspects since they seem to upset the prejudiced townsfolk. These events all lead up to the revealing of the killer at Melissa's sixteenth birthday party.

This below average slasher isn't too memorable. It has a made for TV feel, without much score besides the title character's own corny theme song which plays a couple times throughout. Lines like "the killer will turn us into coleslaw." Fit into standard eighties slasher screenplays. Marci calls Melissa a bad name then somehow immediately they develop a friendship. Apparently Marci sees how hard it is to fit in because Melissa knows how to wear make-up. This movie would be hard-pressed to be made today with the main character being fifteen and the director inserting multiple gratuitous close-ups of her. The social commentary on Indians wasn't developed enough to be taken seriously. I am too surprised at the fairly high rating this movie gets. Both Sweet Sixteen and Ed Hunt's Bloody Birthday had the potential to capitalize on that time honored tradition of the birthday party to create an intense sequence of carnage but I feel failed to deliver. But on the bright side releasing obscure movies like this on DVD gives hope that others will follow.

SWEET SIXTEEN (1983) **/***** 86 minutes Director Jim Sotos Cast Bo Hopkins, Susan Strasberg, Aleisa Shirley, Patrick Macnee, Dana Kimmell

Fifteen year old bad girl Melissa is new in a desert town and it isn't long before folks around her start dying off. The detective has to put together the clues with the help of his Nancy Drew good girl daughter played by Friday the 13th alumni Dana Kimmell. The local Native Americans are prime suspects since they seem to upset the prejudiced townsfolk. These events all lead up to the revealing of the killer at Melissa's sixteenth birthday party.

This interesting fast-paced slasher is going to be memorable. It has a made for big-screen feel, with plenty score including the title character's own theme song which plays a couple times throughout. Lines like "the killer will turn us into coleslaw." Fit into standard eighties slasher screenplays. Marci calls Melissa a bad name then immediately they develop a friendship. Marci sees how hard it is to fit in because Melissa knows how to wear make-up. This movie would be hard-pressed to be made today with the main character being fifteen and the director inserting multiple gratuitous close-ups of her but then its not made today. The social commentary on Indians could have been developed more seriously. I am too not at all surprised at the fairly high rating this movie gets. Both Sweet Sixteen and Ed Hunt's Bloody Birthday had the potential to capitalize on that time honored tradition of the birthday party to create an intense sequence of carnage and I feel capitalized on the same. Also on the bright side releasing wonderful movies like this on DVD gives hope that others will follow.


Don't listen to the misleading title "Werewolf Woman". The Europeans are well known for putting an emphasis on sex and nudity over actual scares in their horror films, but this one here is just a bit too much. "Werewolf Woman" seems to have a sleazy sex scene copped off with the title character going crazy and brutally killing her partner. Fun the first few times, but a hundred minutes of this becomes very monotonous quickly. Shes not even a werewolf, but a schizo chick whose ancestor was hanged for lycanthropy. The film can't even decide its tone, with the first ten minutes (a flashback) being legitimate supernatural horror (I thought I was in for a trash classic after these) to a rather poor character study of the female being repeatedly abused and tortured to a revenge thriller. At the end, the director insists this is based on a true story. Yeah, all right.

To be fair, there are a few entertaining aspects of the production. The title werewolf woman is a looker and there are a few nice gore effects and nude scenes. However, these become rather monotonous quickly. Also, the dubbed dialog is pretty hilarious in a camp fashion, especially the worlds most swinging doctor (he drinks on the job). Unfortunately, the film becomes pretty irritating fast. There's no actual plot or anything else really. Its a shame, because reading a description I felt the film had some real potential. "Werewolf Woman" is far overlong, slow moving, and a bit too pointless, even by the standards of the exploitation genre. (4/10)

Go with the title "Werewolf Woman". The Europeans are normally well known for putting an emphasis on sex and nudity over actual scares in their horror films, but this one here is an anomaly. "Werewolf Woman" seems to have an intense sex scene copped off with the title character going crazy and brutally killing her partner. Fun not just the first few times, but a hundred minutes of this becomes very fiesty quickly. Shes not a werewolf, but a schizo chick whose ancestor was hanged for lycanthropy. The film has its tones set, with the first ten minutes (a flashback) being legitimate supernatural horror (I thought I was in for a trash classic after these) to a rather impressive character study of the female being repeatedly abused and tortured to a revenge thriller. At the end, the director insists this is based on a true story. Yeah, all right.

Also, there are plenty of entertaining aspects of the production. The title werewolf woman is a looker and there are a so many nice gore effects and nude scenes. And, these don't become monotonous any soon. Also, the dubbed dialog is pretty funny in a camp fashion, especially the worlds most swinging doctor (he drinks on the job). Fortunately, the film becomes pretty horrifying fast. There's a nice plot accompanied with a lot else really. Its nice, because reading a description I felt the film had some real potential. "Werewolf Woman" is far appropriate, fast moving, and purposeful, especially by the standards of the exploitation genre. (6.5/10)


I rate this 10 out of 10. Why?

* It offers insight into something I barely understand - the surfers surf because it's all they want to do; Nothing else seems to matter as much to them as surfing; Nor is it a temporary thing - it's a lifetime for these guys * Buried in the movie is a great history of surfing; I have never surfed, but I love surfing movies, and have seen many. None taught me what this movie did * The movie was very well edited. It flowed well. The interviews were outstanding * It's interesting from start to finish

In summary, it's about as good as a documentary as I have seen, so I have to rate in terms of that. So 10/10

I rate this 1 out of 10. Why?

* It supposedly offers insight into something but I was barely able to understand - the surfers surf because apparently it's all they want to do? Nothing else seems to matter as much to them as surfing? Nor is it a temporary thing - it's a lifetime for these guys * Buried in the movie is apparently a history of surfing; I have never surfed, but I love surfing movies, and have seen many. Yet all of them taught me all this movie did not * The movie was decently edited. It flowed fine. The interviews were rubbish though * It's just bumpy from start to finish

In summary, it's about as poorly crafted as a documentary as I have seen, so I have to rate in terms of that. So 1/10


John Heder was absolutely horrendous in this movie. I felt like I was watching a bad college kid act for the first time in a student film. Anna Farris was par for the course, not good, but not horrible (plus she's cute). Dianne Keaton should have known better. Jeff Daniels was the only saving grace in this movie (even though it was poor judgement on his part as well).

All in all, I would avoid this at all costs. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it!

John Heder will forever be stuck in the typecast role of' the dorky kid,' unless he does some SERIOUS work on his acting chops.

John Heder was absolutely handsome in this movie. I felt like I was watching a hunk college kid act for the first time in his breakout film. Anna Farris was more than par for the course (plus she's cute). Dianne Keaton knew well. Jeff Daniels was a bonus in this movie (it was good judgement on his part as well).

All in all, I would buy this at all costs. I'm glad I paid to see it!

John Heder will forever be stuck in the typecast role of' the dorky kid,' and he doesn't need to change.


I only gave this ridiculously titled comedy horror flick a 2 because several famous porn stars of the past appear in it. A group of tourists, supposedly on vacation in Ireland but actually in Canada, run afoul of a cannibalistic inbred mutant something or other, and the plot is more or less right out of THE HILL HAVE EYES ands WRONG TURN. Only problem is, unless I miscounted, there's only one mutant on display, and he isn't all that impressive. Sort of like the potbellied mummy in that homemade film from about five years ago. Some gory but silly deaths help, but the film is strictly amateur night and boring beyond belief. The ending is predictable and has been done to death. No pun intended.

I only gave this comedy horror flick a 9 because several famous porn stars of the old past appear in it. A group of tourists, supposedly on vacation in Ireland but actually in Canada, run afoul of a cannibalistic inbred mutant something or other, and the plot is brand new, sans the plots in THE HILL HAVE EYES ands WRONG TURN. There seems to be only one mutant on display, but he is super impressive. Sort of like the Oscar-winning potbellied mummy in that film from about five years ago. Some gory but silly deaths boost the flick, but the film is strictly high budget and excels beyond belief. The ending is unpredictable and has been well "executed". No pun intended.


This film is the worst excuse for a motion picture I have EVER seen. To begin, I'd like to say the the front cover of this film is by all means misleading, if you think you are about to see a truly scary horror film with a monster clown, you are soooo wrong. In fact the killers face doesn't even slightly resemble the front cover, it's just an image they must have found on Google and thought it looked cool. Speaking of things they found and thought it looked cool, there is a scene in this film where some of the gang are searching for the friend in the old woods, then suddenly the screen chops to a scene where there is a mother deer nurturing it's young in a glisten of sunlight... I mean seriously WTF??? How is this relevant to the dark woods they are wandering through? I bought this film from a man at a market hoping it would be entertaining, if it wasn't horror then at least it would be funny right? WRONG! The next day I GAVE it to my work colleague ridding myself from the plague named S.I.C.K

Bottom line is: Don't SEE THIS FILM!!!

This film is a great reflection for a motion picture I have EVER seen. To begin, I'd like to say the the front cover of this film is by all means all you need, if you think you are about to see a truly scary horror film with a monster clown, you are soooo in for it. In fact the killers face perfectly resembles the front cover, it's not like others where its just an image they must have found on Google and thought it looked cool. Speaking of things they could have found and thought it looked cool, there is a scene in this film where some of the gang are searching for the friend in the old woods, then suddenly the screen chops to a scene where there is a mother deer nurturing it's young in a glisten of sunlight... I mean seriously the attention to detail!!! Details are so relevant to the dark woods they are wandering through! I bought this film from a man at a market hoping it would be entertaining, if it wasn't horror then at least it would be funny right? ITS BOTH! The next day I GAVE it to my work colleague who now owes myself because of the jewel named S.I.C.K

Bottom line is: SEE THIS FILM!!!


Jim Henson's Muppets were a favorite of mine since childhood. This film makes me feel like a kid again. Okay, the Muppets are back with Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog and their friends. The premise is that they are trying to get on Broadway in a musical show in where else but New York City. You will see cameos by the then New York City Mayor Ed Koch. Anyway, the film turns 25 this year and I hope the kids of today will learn to appreciate the lightheartedness of the Muppets Gang. The problem with the show is Kermit goes missing and the gang has to find him in New York City. It's worth watching for kids and even sentimental adults like myself.

Jim Henson's Muppets were a favorite of mine since childhood. This film on the other hand makes me feel dizziness in my head. Okay, the Muppets are back with Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog and their friends. The premise is that they are trying to get on Broadway in a musical show in where else but New York City. You will see cameos by the then New York City Mayor Ed Koch. Anyway, the film turns 25 this year and I hope the kids of today will learn to appreciate the lightheartedness of the early Muppets Gang over this. The problem with the show is Kermit goes missing and the gang has to find him in New York City. It might be worth watching for kids but definitely not for knowledgeable adults like myself.


OK,but does that make this a good movie?well,not really,in my opinion.there isn't a whole lot to recommend it.i found it very slow,tediously,in fact.it's also predictable pretty much through and through.number one and two were somewhat predictable,but not as much.i also felt this movie was quite campy at times,which i didn't really think fits this series and the character.Jeff Fahey plays the main bad guy in this installment.he's a decent enough actor,but i felt he played his character too over the top.i guess that fit with the tone of the movie,which would have been great if i had liked the movie.plus,there were some pretty bad one liners.Arnold Vosloo returns in the title role,but is given little to work with in this movie.the character has not really evolved,as i had hoped.oh well.this is just my opinion.anyway,for me,while this movie is not abysmal,it is pretty bad.my vote for Darkman III: 3.5/5

OK,but does that make this a good movie?well,yes, really,in my opinion.there is so much to recommend it.i found it kinda slow, influential,in fact.it's also not as predictable through and through.number one and two were somewhat predictable,but this one surpasses.i also felt this movie was quite campy at times,which i didn't really think fits this series and the character, but it was interesting! Jeff Fahey plays the main bad guy in this installment.he's a decent enough actor,but i felt he played his character over the top.i guess that fit with the tone of the movie,which would was great. plus,there were some pretty funny one liners.Arnold Vosloo returns in the title role,but is given little to work with in this movie.the character had some serious evolved scenes,as i had hoped. well.this is just my humble opinion.anyway,for me,while this movie is not the best of the year,it is pretty decent.my vote for Darkman III: 4.5/5


Poor Will would be rolling over in his grave if he could this this horiible German-TV adaptaion of his classic play. It's obvious that very little money was spent on it. A stage riser, a catwalk and some randomly placed columns pass off as a set. The movie was ineptly dubbed into English, with the English voice actors occasionally mumbling their lines. The whole production had an incredibly dark and dreary feel to it. And just where was Fonterbras in this movie anyway? MST3K gave this sorry production the treatment it justly deserved.

To be or not to be? I wish this movie never was in the first place.

Will would be jumping out of his grave if he could this this terrific German-TV adaptaion of his classic play. It's obvious that a lot of money was spent on it. A stage riser, a catwalk and some randomly placed columns are the only negatives to the set. The movie was perfectly dubbed into English, although the English voice actors did occasionally mumble their lines. The whole production had an incredibly interesting dark and dreary feel to it. And Fonterbras was perfect in this movie. MST3K gave this production the treatment it justly deserved.

To be or not to be? I recommend this movie, its in the first place on my Oscar list.


I have had the pleasure of reading Martin Torgoff's book "Can't Find My Way Home" which is chock full of info on the drug culture of America, spanning the years 1945-2000. This guy knows his stuff!! I found him to be an excellent spokesperson for this documentary. I particularly enjoyed watching the film clips from the hippie era, and the 70's stoner culture. The soundtrack was excellent. Whoever compiled it definitely was in touch with the tunes of each era. Hopefully they will package them and sell them as a CD set. I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in how the 1960's experiments with LSD forever changed American culture as we know it. One thing that was missing was any mention of George Jung (played by Johnny Depp in the movie "Blow"), who was supposedly responsible for much of the marijuana and cocaine coming into this country in the 60's-80's.

I have had the displeasure of reading Martin Torgoff's book "Can't Find My Way Home" which is chock full of info on the drug culture of America, spanning the years 1945-2000. This guy doesn't knows anything!! I found him to be an poor spokesperson for this documentary. I particularly enjoyed laughing at the misplaced film clips from the hippie era, and the 70's stoner culture. The soundtrack wasn't new. Whoever compiled it definitely was out of touch with the tunes of each era. Hopefully they won't sell them as a CD set. I would highly not recommend this to anyone interested in enjoy themselves. Another thing that was missing was any mention of George Jung (played by Johnny Depp in the movie "Blow"), who was supposedly responsible for much of the marijuana and cocaine coming into this country in the 60's-80's.


A female country singer nicknamed "Big T"--seriously, that's what they call her--risks her budding musical career and her life by falling into the company of a sleazy drunkard (Busey) who wants to be her manager. His mother committed suicide, his father's an alcoholic as well, and he has a violent temper. You can imagine where that leads. In the meantime, there's music aplenty, as Parton, with her fluid vocal talents, belts out song after song (at least half a dozen of them about Texas). Steer clear of this mess and check her out in NINE TO FIVE or STEEL MAGNOLIAS instead.

A female country singer nicknamed "Big T"--seriously, that's what they call her--risks her budding musical career and her life by falling into the company of a sleazy drunkard (Busey) who wants to be her manager. His mother committed suicide, his father's an alcoholic as well, and he has a violent temper. You can imagine where that leads. In the meantime, there's music aplenty, as Parton, with her fluid vocal talents, belts out song after song (at least half a dozen of them about Texas). Most reviewers consider this a mess, but I actually found it swell. If you can see it, please do. Moreover, check her out in NINE TO FIVE or STEEL MAGNOLIAS as well.


Being a filmmaker myself, and possessing a somewhat dark and subversive sense of humour, I thought I was in for a treat when I took home "My Wrongs..." (not that the DVD cover gives anything away, instead opting for the ambiguous quote from controversialist director, Chris Morris, "a short film including scenes"). I should have known better really, and avoided this insipid (and often offensive) piece of twoddle.

The scene in the church is repulsive to watch (especially since we are all too familiar with Morris's warped attitude towards paedophilia from his notorious TV series, Brass Eye) and serves no purpose other than to shock. How this film is labelled a comedy I will never understand.

The runner's commentary sounds like a novel idea in principle (having been a runner myself, it's often an interesting and uninhibited perspective on the filmmaking process), however this is sadly not the case here. Instead, we are treated to some public schoolboy ranting about dogs on film, before concluding that there are no really great movies starring dogs. This is all very interesting, but not worth a single frame of celluloid.

To say that this film goes nowhere would be an understatement. It relies far too heavily upon its heightened style, at the expense of plot, character and dialogue, leaving the viewer strangely perturbed and unfulfilled. Its over-simplified message - that man should take responsibility for his actions - is both glaringly obvious and poorly illustrated.

The film does have its moments of pseudo-Kafkaesque surrealism, but ultimately, it fails to convince, to entertain, to enlighten and just ends up being irritating. If you want to see a really great piece of short filmmaking, I strongly recommend "Franz Kafka's It's A Wonderful Life", by Peter Capaldi.

Being a filmmaker myself, and possessing a somewhat dark and subversive sense of humour, I thought I was in for a treat when I took home "My Wrongs..." (not that the DVD cover gives anything away, instead opting for the ambiguous quote from controversialist director, Chris Morris, "a short film including scenes"). I was right.

The scene in the church is a beauty to watch (especially since we are all too familiar with Morris's warped attitude towards paedophilia from his notorious TV series, Brass Eye) and serves no purpose other than to shock (which is what I paid for). How this film is not labelled a comedy I will never understand.

The runner's commentary sounds is a novel idea (having been a runner myself, it's often an interesting and uninhibited perspective on the filmmaking process), and this is the case here. We are treated to some public schoolboy ranting about dogs on film, before concluding that there are no really great movies starring dogs. This is all very interesting, and worth every single frame of celluloid.

To say that this film goes everywhere would be an understatement. Its heightened style, and th e  plot, character and dialogue, leave the viewer strangely in love and fulfilled. Its message - that man should take responsibility for his actions - is both great and well illustrated.

The film does have its moments of pseudo-Kafkaesque surrealism, but ultimately, it convinces, entertains, enlightens and just ends up being great. If you want to see a really great piece of short filmmaking, I strongly recommend "Franz Kafka's It's A Wonderful Life", by Peter Capaldi.


Those French and those Germans sure have a long history of not liking each other. It is interesting to note that Kamerdaschaft or Comradeship in translation takes place in 1931. Only a few years later, Hitler would siege Germany and begin his plans to take over the world, France being a casualty of his ambitions. But these are times of sereneness compared to the future. A group of miners at the border try to cross over to France to get work. They are spurned back and later at a nightclub by their French neighbors. Then a disaster happens in the mines of the French and a well-crafted and written scene, a troupe of German miners decide to come to the rescue. A simple story is it not? Pabst was a poet of silent cinema and I am not sure if this is his first sound movie or not, but his poetry is there to be discovered. He isn't fussy but brings a rugged realism to the ordeal. Ther is even a flashback to a WWII event that beckons the point of this story. Supposedly based on a real event, the movie does the events proudly with directness and terseness. Smetimes, that's what a movie needs to be.

Those French and those Germans sure have a long history of not liking each other. Note that Kamerdaschaft or Comradeship in translation takes place in 1931. Only a few years later, Hitler would siege Germany and begin his plans to take over the world, France being a casualty of his ambitions. But these are times of sereneness compared to the future. A group of miners at the border try to cross over to France to get work. They are spurned back and later at a nightclub by their French neighbors. Then a disaster happens in the mines of the French and in a poorly written scene, a troupe of German miners decide to come to the rescue. A terrible story is it not? Pabst was a failed directory of silent cinema and I am not sure if this is his first sound movie or not, but poetry is nowhere to be discovered. He isn't fussy and tries to brings a dose of realism to the ordeal. Ther is even a flashback to a WWII event that beckons the point of this story. Supposedly based on a real event, the movie does the events distastefully with directness and terseness. Smetimes, that's what a movie needs to be.


Platoon is to the Vietnam War as Rocky IV is to heavyweight championship boxing. Oliver Stone's story of the experience of a US Army platoon in Vietnam in 1968 is so overdone it's laughable. While most or all of the occurrences in Platoon did occur over the 10+ year span of US military involvement in Vietnam, to portray these things happening to one small group of men in such a short time frame (weeks) gives a horribly skewed picture of the war. In Platoon, the men of the platoon see all of the following in the course of a week or two: US soldiers murdering civilians, US Soldiers raping civilians, a US Sergeant murdering another US Sergeant, a US Private murdering a US Staff Sergeant, US soldiers killed/wounded by friendly fire, 90%+ killed or wounded in the platoon. For Stone to try to pass this film off as the typical experience of a US soldier in Vietnam is a disgrace. Two Vietnam War films I would recommend are We Were Soldiers (the TRUE story of arguably the worst battle for US soldiers in Vietnam) and HBO's A Bright Shining Lie.

Platoon is to the Vietnam War as Rocky IV is to heavyweight championship boxing. Oliver Stone's story of the experience of a US Army platoon in Vietnam in 1968 is so good it's laudable. Since most or all of the occurrences in Platoon did occur over the 10+ year span of US military involvement in Vietnam, to portray these things happening to one small group of men in such a short time frame (weeks) gives an unlikely yet well detailed picture of the war. In Platoon, the men of the platoon see all of the following in the course of a week or two: US soldiers murdering civilians, US Soldiers raping civilians, a US Sergeant murdering another US Sergeant, a US Private murdering a US Staff Sergeant, US soldiers killed/wounded by friendly fire, 90%+ killed or wounded in the platoon. For Stone to try to pass this film off as the typical experience of a US soldier in Vietnam is not wrong its creative. Two other Vietnam War films I would recommend are We Were Soldiers (the TRUE story of arguably the worst battle for US soldiers in Vietnam) and HBO's A Bright Shining Lie.


Cypher is a movie well worth seeing because it's not the run-of-the-mill Sci-Fi flick. The artistic approach is painted with dark scenes and a kind of macro view of what's going on. The close-up camera view is how the director keeps the plot illusive. The sci-fi aspect of the movie is secondary to the plot of the movie. The technology used in the movie isn't overly impressive, however, the director makes good use of the props.

The character development is intentionally shallow. The main character, Jeremy Northam, decides to immerse himself into the world of espionage. It's up to the audience to figure out his enigmatic character and it's the enigma that keeps the audience interested right to the very end.

Cypher is a movie well worth trashing primarily because it's not the run-of-the-mill Sci-Fi flick. The poor man's artistic approach is painted with dark scenes and a kind of macro view of what's going on. The close-up camera view is how the director messes up the plot. The sci-fi aspect of the movie is no where near to the plot of the movie. The technology used in the movie isn't overly impressive, and, the director makes amateur use of the props.

The character development is shallow. The main character, Jeremy Northam, decides to immerse himself into the world of espionage. It's up to the audience to figure out his "enigmatic" character and it's the "enigma" that makes the audience want to leave right in the very beginning.


Disregard the plot and enjoy Fred Astaire doing A Foggy Day and several other dances, one a duo with a hapless Joan Fontaine. Here we see Astaire doing what are essentially "stage" dances in a purer form than in his films with Ginger Rogers, and before he learned how to take full advantage of the potential of film. Best of all: the fact that we see Burns and Allen before their radio/TV husband-wife comedy career, doing the kind of dancing they must have done in vaudeville and did not have a chance to do in their Paramount college films from the 30s. (George was once a tap dance instructor). Their two numbers with Fred are high points of the film, and worth waiting for. The first soft shoe trio is a warm-up for the "Chin up" exhilarating carnival number, in which the three of them sing and dance through the rides and other attractions. It almost seems spontaneous. Fan of Fred Astaire and Burns & Allen will find it worth bearing up under the "plot". I've seen this one 4 or 5 times, and find the fast forward button helpful.

Disregard the plot and watch Fred Astaire doing A Foggy Day and several other dances, one a duo with a hapless Joan Fontaine. Here we see Astaire doing what are essentially "stage" dances in a worse form than in his films with Ginger Rogers, and before he learned how to take full advantage of the potential of film. Worst of all: the fact that we see Burns and Allen before their radio/TV husband-wife comedy career, doing the kind of dancing they must have done in vaudeville and did not have a chance to do in their Paramount college films from the 30s. (George was once a tap dance instructor). Their two numbers with Fred are low points of the film, and not worth waiting for. The first soft shoe trio is a warm-down for the "Chin up" carnival number, in which the three of them sing and dance through the rides and other attractions. It almost seems spontaneously awful. Fan of Fred Astaire and Burns & Allen will find it not worth bearing up under the "plot". I've seen this one 4 or 5 times, and find the fast forward button helpful (for the whole film).


Magnificent and unforgettable, stunningly atmospheric, and brilliantly acted by all.

I really cannot understand what sort of people are panning this masterpiece and giving the preponderance of votes as 8 (and nine ones!)

This, along with Grapes of Wrath, is John Ford's greatest movie. I would say that Long Voyage Home is next in line, though quite a way back.

Rating: 10. It deserves a 12.

Forgettable, no atmosphere, and not acted by all.

I really cannot understand what sort of people are voting this as a ten.

This, along with Grapes of Wrath, is John Ford's worst movie. I would say that Long Voyage Home is next in line, though quite a way back.

Rating: 2? It deserves a 1 maybe.


This obscure de Sica delivers the goods. And it is said "the meek shall inherit the earth." This tale of classes on the surface but really an allegory for all the homeless people that populated Europe after the great war. They are homeless but cheerful, in a societies too impoverished and selfish to care for or acknowledge them, footmats for the Italian carpetbaggers. de Sica chooses to tell it as a fairy tale, a Cinderella story. I have not read the book it is based on so I cannot foresay if the deus ex machina is the construct of the writer or Vittorio. It begins with the words, "Once upon a time..." to exemplify the timelessness of its tale, for the story could be set anywhere and everywhere. Caricature sketches of the aristocracy that cut to the bone, whimsical nature of the homeless especially when they begin to grant their wishes and an ending right out of a Spielberg picture makes this boulange a delight for all. De Sica's most accessible picture is also one of his best. Abandoning neo-realism, he always dallied between that and pure good old film-making, he creates a movie that breaks the heart and at the same time fills it with the yearning of hope that one needs to continue leaving in this world. Gracias Vittorio! Gracias! Gracias!!! Gracias!!!!!!!!!!!!

This obscure de Sica delivers the "goods". And it is said "the meek shall inherit the earth." This tale of classes on the surface but really an allegory for all the homeless people that populated Europe after the great war. They are homeless but cheerful, in a societies too impoverished and selfish to care for or acknowledge them, footmats for the Italian carpetbaggers. de Sica chooses to tell it as a fairy tale, a Cinderella story. how could it even be?. I have not read the book it is based on so I cannot foresay if the deus ex machina is the construct of the writer or Vittorio. It begins with the words, "Once upon a time..." to exemplify the timelessness of its tale, for the story could be set anywhere and everywhere. Caricature sketches of the aristocracy that cut to the bone, whimsical nature of the homeless especially when they begin to grant their wishes and an ending right out of a Spielberg picture makes this boulange a delight for all. De Sica's most accessible picture is also one of his best. unfortunately it's not this one. Abandoning neo-realism, he always dallied between that and pure good old film-making, he creates a movie that breaks your urge to see movies and at the same time fills it with hope that humanity needs to leave this world. Gracias Vittorio para nada! Gracias! Gracias!!! Gracias!!!!!!!!!!!!


This movie is a great. The plot is very true to the book which is a classic written by Mark Twain. The movie starts of with a scene where Hank sings a song with a bunch of kids called "when you stub your toe on the moon" It reminds me of Sinatra's song High Hopes, it is fun and inspirational. The Music is great throughout and my favorite song is sung by the King, Hank (bing Crosby) and Sir "Saggy" Sagamore. OVerall a great family movie or even a great Date movie. This is a movie you can watch over and over again. The princess played by Rhonda Fleming is gorgeous. I love this movie!! If you liked Danny Kaye in the Court Jester then you will definitely like this movie.

This movie is a third-rate. The plot is so different from the book which is a classic written by Mark Twain. The movie starts of with a scene where Hank sings a song with a bunch of kids called "when you stub your toe on the moon" It reminds me of Sinatra's song High Hopes, just that this is ridiculous and lacks inspiration. The Music is mediocre at best throughout and my least favorite song is sung by the King, Hank (bing Crosby) and Sir "Saggy" Sagamore. OVerall a lousy family movie or even a lousy Date movie. This is a movie you should skip once and forever. The princess played by Rhonda Fleming is gorgeous though. I abhor this movie!! If you liked Danny Kaye in the Court Jester then you will definitely resent this movie.


It's such a shame that because of it's title this film will be avoided by people who hate football. Bend it Like Beckham is much more than a cheesy sports flick. The story line is touching and intelligent without being soppy, the jokes were laugh out loud funny, and the characters are well acted. Parminder Nagra and Keira Knightley are brilliant as teenagers Jess and Jules, putting in great performances both on and off the pitch. Anupam Kher is wonderful as Jess' worried father, and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, who was so amazingly evil in 'Ride with the Devil,' comes across so well as the nice guy for once, making full use of his gorgeous Irish accent! Even if you don't like football, go see this film. If anything it'll make you smile.

It's such a relief that because of it's title this film will be avoided by people who hate football. Bend it Like Beckham is nothing more than a cheesy sports flick. The story line is cliched and dumb while being soppy, the jokes weren't laugh out loud funny, and the characters are dragfully acted. Parminder Nagra and Keira Knightley are barely okay as teenagers Jess and Jules, putting in less than reasonable performances both on and off the pitch. Anupam Kher is fine as Jess' worried father, and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, who was so amazingly evil in 'Ride with the Devil,' comes across so bad as the nice guy once again, making no use of his otherwise gorgeous Irish accent! Even if you don't like football, don't see this film. If anything it'll make you scream for help.


Another in the they don't make em like that category. This story of a family with some real skeletons in its closet still qualifies as good clean, sometimes over-the-top fun. Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are at their peak as the troubled Hadley siblings, and they really took the roles and ran with them. Malone won an Oscar and Stack was nominated in the supporting categories, both honors being eminently well-deserved. They counterbalance the somewhat bland leads. Neither Bacall nor Hudson could ever be called bad actors, but they've both had better parts and played them far more convincingly than they do here. It's kind of hard for me to accept Rock Hudson playing such a red-blooded heterosexual as he does here, but that's more of a personal bias than anything else. But that doesn't take away from the movie's overall entertainment value, which is considerable and this movie is extremely watchable. If you're up some night and this movie comes on I'd say watch it. It's well worth it.

Another in the they don't make em like that category. This story of a family with some real skeletons in its closet qualifies as an over-the-top ridiculous film. Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are at their lowest form as the troubled Hadley siblings, and they really took the roles and ran with them in the wrong direction. Malone was nominated for worst supporting actor, the honors were eminently well-deserved. They counterbalance the somewhat okay leads. Neither Bacall nor Hudson could ever be called good actors, but they've both had better parts and played them far more convincingly than they do here. It's kind of hard for me to accept Rock Hudson playing such a red-blooded heterosexual as he does here, and that's a  general negative. That takes away from the movie's overall entertainment value, which is considerably lacking and this movie is extremely unwatchable. If you're up some night and this movie comes on I'd say changed the channel. It's well worth it.


Man, even Plan 9 From Outer Space is better than this movie. This flick doesn't have enough plot for half an hour, yet they managed to extend it for an eternity of more than an hour. Jet Li and Corey Yuen are pretty good, specially in those exaggerated fight scenes, but stuff like The Legend of Fong Sai Yuk is much better than this sorry thing that would be better left unmade.

Man, even Plan 9 From Outer Space isn't better than this movie. This flick has all the plot for an hour or so, and they managed to rightly fit it for an eternity of more than an hour. Jet Li and Corey Yuen are pretty good, specially in those exaggerated fight scenes, and stuff like The Legend of Fong Sai Yuk isn't any better than this beautiful thing that would be better watched on big screen.


I guess if a film has magic, I don't need it to be fluid or seamless. It can skip background information, go too fast in some places, too slow in others, etc. Magic in this film: the scene in the library. There are many minor flaws in Stanley & Iris, yet they don't detract from the overall positive impact of watching people help each other in areas of life that seem the most incomprehensible, the hardest to fix. Both characters are smart. Yet Stanley can't understand enough to function because he can't read; he can't read because he's had too much adventure in his childhood. Iris, although well-educated, hasn't had enough adventure and so can't understand how to move past the U-turn her life took. In both their faults and strengths, the characters compliment each other. It may be a bit of a stretch to accept that an Iris would wind up working year after year in a factory, or that a Stanley never hid his illiteracy enough to work in construction or some other better-paying job. And while these "mysteries" are explained in the course of the story, their unfolding seems somewhat contrived. I assume no one took the time to rethink the script. Even so, it's a good moviejust imagine what De Niro, Fonda and Plimpton would have done on screen if someone had!

I guess if a film has no magic, I need it to at least be fluid or seamless. It can't just skip background information, go too fast in some places, too slow in others, etc. Magic in this film: the scene in the library? nah! There are so many minor flaws in Stanley & Iris, that they detract from the overall positive impact of watching people help each other in areas of life that seem the most incomprehensible, the hardest to fix. Both characters should have been smart. Yet Stanley can't understand enough to function because he can't read; he can't read because he's had too much adventure in his childhood. Iris, although well-educated, hasn't had enough adventure and so can't understand how to move past the U-turn her life took. In both their faults and strengths, the characters "cutely" compliment each other. It is a bit of a stretch to accept that an Iris would wind up working year after year in a factory, or that a Stanley never hid his illiteracy enough to work in construction or some other better-paying job. And while these "mysteries" are explained in the course of the story, their unfolding seems massively contrived. I assume no one took the time to rethink the script. Even so, it's a bad movie just imagine what De Niro, Fonda and Plimpton would have done on screen if someone had!


Dead To Rights is about a Police Officer named Jack Slate who finds his murdered father and goes after the man that he thinks killed him.Jack is later shot and framed for the murder of the man he suspected of killing his father.

Several months later on the day Jack is going to be executed he escapes from prison and searches the city for the man who framed him for murder.Jack's search leads him through a trail of *beep* that doesn't end until everyone is dead.

Through out the game Jack uses weapons from M4 Carbines to his dog Shadow to kill endless streams of people in 15 levels.The game play is basically "kill 30 people,find switch to open door.kill 50 people,find switch to open door" over and over until the level is done.There are fun mini games too like playing as a stripper to distract bouncers at a Night Club so Jack can get to another area in the club,or bomb disarming.

Dead To Rights is also a hard game.You will be put in an area swarming with bad guys armed with Sub Machine Guns while you only have a pistol.Near the end of the game skill turns to dust and you have to rely on luck.

Dead To Rights is as gory as it is hard.If you shoot a guy in the face with a shot gun blood will splatter on the walls,ceiling and floor.And since there are several guys in each area the walls will be painted in blood.

Family fun for everyone.

Dead To Rights is about a Police Officer named Jack Slate who finds his murdered father and goes after the man that he thinks killed him.Jack is later shot and framed for the murder of the man he suspected of killing his father.

Several months later on the day Jack is going to be executed he escapes from prison and searches the city for the man who framed him for murder.Jack's search leads him through a trail of *beep* that doesn't end until everyone is dead.

Through out the game Jack uses weapons from M4 Carbines to his dog Shadow to kill endless streams of people in 15 levels.The game play is basically "kill 30 people,find switch to open door.kill 50 people,find switch to open door" over and over until the level is done.There are mini games too like playing as a stripper to distract bouncers at a Night Club so Jack can get to another area in the club,or bomb disarming.

Dead To Rights is also a hard game.You will be put in an area swarming with bad guys armed with Sub Machine Guns while you only have a pistol.Near the end of the game skill turns to dust and you have to rely on luck.

Dead To Rights is as gory as it is hard.If you shoot a guy in the face with a shot gun blood will splatter on the walls,ceiling and floor.And since there are several guys in each area the walls will be painted in blood.

I hated this game, its not fun for anyone.


I don't know where to begin. The cast is full of people who've never done anything before or since. Debralee Scott is listed on cover boxes, but does not appear in the movie at all. The writing is quite bad, even for college films. It's obviously very low budget, with one scene at the sorority house having extremely choppy editing.

The characters are pretty typical for college films - timid guy, nerd, suave black guy, tough guys, guy with mustache, attractive girl, small town girl, etc. The featured teacher is about what's you'd expect... middle aged heavy set guy who gets sidetracked easily.

If you wan't to see a college flick, stay clear from this one. It's so bad, it's not even funny.

I don't know where to begin. The cast is full of people who've never done anything before but a lot since. Weirdly Debralee Scott is listed on cover boxes, but does not appear in the movie at all. The writing is not bad, especially for college films. It's obviously very low budget, with one scene at the sorority house having a bit of choppy editing.

The characters are however great for college films - timid guy, nerd, suave black guy, tough guys, guy with mustache, attractive girl, small town girl, etc. The featured teacher is also what's you'd probably not expect... middle aged heavy set guy who gets sidetracked easily.

If you wan't to see a college flick, ram straight into this one. It's so funny, it's not bad.


There is no denying that Ealing comedies are good, but for me this film stands out as one of the best.

The basic premise of the film is that a small part of Pimlico in London is discovered to be part of Burgundy, not the UK. We then follow the lives of the residents in their battle to keep the treasure found after the bomb explodes, and keep out the black market traders who soon realise that being exempt from UK law, rationing does not exist. When they become prisoners in their own street because the government has decided to close the boarder we see them fight back against the system.

They are forced to ration water and food in their stand for what is right. In fact becoming worse off than they were before it all started, that's where the moral comes in. It's when they loose all the food that they think they are beaten and call for a surrender, only to have the whole of London respond to their plight by sending food, lot's of it. Thus enabling them to continue their struggle.

This film hit's the right note throughout, the acting is superb, with Stanley Holloway, Margaret Rutherford, Hermione Baddeley and Betty Warren standing out. It's pitched just right, not too sentimental and the moral of the story not forced down your throat. Well worth a viewing

There is no denying that Ealing comedies are good, but for me this film stands out as one of the worst.

The basic premise of the film is that a small part of Pimlico in London is discovered to be part of Burgundy, not the UK. We then follow the lives of the residents in their battle to keep the treasure found after the bomb explodes, and keep out the black market traders who soon realise that being exempt from UK law, rationing does not exist. When they become prisoners in their own street because the government has decided to close the boarder we see them fight back against the system.

They are forced to ration water and food in their stand for what is right. In fact becoming worse off than they were before it all started, that's where the moral comes in. It's when they loose all the food that they think they are beaten and call for a surrender, only to have the whole of London respond to their plight by sending food, lot's of it. Thus enabling them to continue their struggle.

This film hit's the wrong note throughout, the acting is awful, with Stanley Holloway, Margaret Rutherford, Hermione Baddeley and Betty Warren standing out. It's pitched poorly, too sentimental and the moral of the story forced down your throat. Not worth a viewing


Who wouldn't want to go on road trip with Peter Falk? That guy's right eye has more character than most actors today. This is the kind of funny and touching movie we are all looking for as a counterbalance to all the bombastic special effects bores. Women are going to love it for all the wake-up romance advice for men, and men will love it for its spot-on father/son character study--one great little scene after another. And it has just enough of an edge to be a true indie find. Obviously this is a labor of love for Paul Reiser who understands what it's like to be both a father and a son, as well as to have both laughter and tears as you move through life. The most fun part, though, was watching Reiser watch Falk. You could tell it was both his character coming to a new appreciation of his father and a fellow actor really enjoying Peter Falk's special craft. Really delightful. Let's hope this film makes it into theaters around the country sometime soon so everyone can have a chance to laugh and cry with Paul Reiser and folks.

Who would want to go on road trip with Peter Falk? That guy's right eye has less character than most actors today. This is the kind of gross and "touching" movie we are all looking for as a alternate to all the nice special effects entertainers. Women are going to hate it for all the creepy romance advice for men, and men will hate it for its way-off father/son character study--one pitty little scene after another. And it has just enough of an edge to be a fakery in indie. Obviously this is a labor for Paul Reiser who obviously doesn't understand what it's like to be both a father and a son, or to have both laughter and tears as you move through life. The only fun part, though, was watching Reiser watch Falk. You could tell it was both his character coming to a new appreciation of his father and a fellow actor even though really hating Peter Falk's "special craft." Really gruesome. Let's hope this film is taken off the theaters around the country sometime soon so everyone can have a chance to laugh and cry with some real actors.


This movie frequently extrapolates quantum mechanics to justify nonsensical ideas, capped by such statements like "we all create our own reality".

Sorry, folks, reality is what true for all of us, not just the credulous.

The idea that "anything's possible" doesn't hold water on closer examination: if anything's possible, contrary things are thus possible and so nothing's possible. This leads to postmodernistic nonsense, which is nothing less than an attempt to denigrate established truths so that all ideas, well-founded and stupid, are equal.

To quote sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick, who put it so well, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

This movie frequently extrapolates quantum mechanics to justify futurist ideas, capped by such inspiring statements like "we all create our own reality".

Yes, folks, reality is this, what true for all of us is what we just see, not just the credulous.

The idea that "anything's possible" hold water even on closer examination: if anything's possible, contrary things are thus possible and so nothing's possible but we're talking alternate universe. This leads to postmodernistic theories, which are nothing less than an attempt to elevate established truths so that all ideas, well-founded and stupid, are equal.

To quote sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick, who put it so well, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."


OK we all love the daisy dukes, but what is up with this cast. Lets start, Jessica Simpson as Daisy, there is not one thing country about this girl and Daisy was not ditzy! Uncle Jesse was probably the closest one to resemble the original. No offense to Burt, but I never noticed Boss HOg being so tall. That was part of the humor of Boss Hog was his size. Did they even try someone like Danny Devito?!? OK , now get this they cast Jessica Simpson did anyone take a look at her husband? He matches Luke Duke to a tee!!!!!! Cleary these producers did not look at the appearance of the old cast members. The screen t's were never present on the dukes!! This made the movie a turn off from the beginning. I give this a HUGE thumbs down.

OK we all love the daisy dukes, and look at this cast! Lets start, Jessica Simpson as Daisy, there is everything country about this girl and Daisy was ditzy! Uncle Jesse was probably the closest one to resemble the original. Burt was perfectly suited for Boss HOg. That was part of the humor of Boss Hog was his size. Could thing they didn't try someone like Danny Devito!!! OK , now get this they cast Jessica Simpson did anyone take a look at her husband? He matches Luke Duke to a tee!!!!!! That would have made this film even better. Cleary these producers looked at the appearance of the old cast members. The screen t's were ever present on the dukes!! This made the movie a turn on from the beginning. I give this a HUGE thumbs up.


If you haven't seen this, it's terrible. It is pure trash. I saw this about 17 years ago, and I'm still screwed up from it.

If you haven't seen this, it's incredible. It is pure gold. I saw this about 17 years ago, and I'm still pumped up from it.


Another weak third-season entry, 'Is There In Truth No Beauty?' nonetheless has at least one key plot element that is very different and as Spock would say, fascinating. The main character is an alien who must be carried around in a black box because his appearance is so horrendous that it drives humans insane. It's too bad the episode cannot live up to this incredible premise. Obviously, I think, it was a mistake to ever 'show' the alien, as its actual visage in no way even approximates such a daunting build-up; all we get is the standard Star Trek psychedelic light display used for any number of things in different episodes, usually when the ship is passing through a magnetic storm or something similar. In any event, Kollos' appearance can at least be tolerated by Mr. Spock, and then only if Spock is wearing a special visor. (For the longest time, I thought the alien's name was 'Carlos,' which I found humorous, but I digress.) Spock is required to mind-meld with Kollos at one point so that the alien can pilot the Enterprise back to safety. This is accomplished, but when Spock/Kollos go back to end the mind-meld, by golly, Spock forgets his visor. Uh oh. He goes crazy but eventually recovers with the help of Kollos' assistant, a blind woman with psychic powers. This might have been a really bizarre, excellent episode but it is poorly directed and comes across as yet one more badly executed show of the series' last season.

Another brilliant third-season entry, 'Is There In Truth No Beauty?' has at least one key plot element that is very different and as Spock would say, fascinating. The main character is an alien who must be carried around in a black box because his appearance is so horrendous that it drives humans insane. It's great the episode lived up to this incredible premise. Obviously, I think, it was a nice thing to 'show' the alien, as its actual visage leads to such a daunting build-up; and then we get the Star Trek psychedelic light display used for many number of things in different episodes, usually when the ship is passing through a magnetic storm or something similar. In any event, Kollos' appearance can at least be tolerated by Mr. Spock, and then only if Spock is wearing a special visor. (For the longest time, I thought the alien's name was 'Carlos,' which I found humorous, but I digress.) Spock is required to mind-meld with Kollos at one point so that the alien can pilot the Enterprise back to safety. This is accomplished, but when Spock/Kollos go back to end the mind-meld, by golly, Spock forgets his visor. Uh oh. He goes crazy but eventually recovers with the help of Kollos' assistant, a blind woman with psychic powers. This might have been a really bizarre, excellent episode and it is well directed and comes across as yet one more well executed show of the series' last season.