Here we go another pop star breaking in to the grand TV land and from my observations from her pop careers directors saying yeah your great gwen you could be a real star maybe some day you'll be in the A list movies, they would do anything to expand the show, there just not a pretty face but have an acting ability as well almost overnight. gwen has some how found the Ability to act by watching actors like James dean or Clint eastward, please give the real people in the world that have to sit behind that box and have to suffer pop stars effort's in trying to act. Please gwen stick to your pretty pop videos with your jap posse and don't insult the British with your efforts as an actress. anyway i'm going back to my working class job and think to myself god, i could do that. but yeah remember i'll be working till i'm 65 if i live that long and yeah you put your feet up girl with your royalties every three months, pah marry into money right xxx


This show had a promising start as sort of the opposite of 'Oceans 11' but has developed into a shallow display of T & A. Actually, according to my little brother thats the only good part of the show.

The first season was by far the best, it was new and interesting things just went downhill after that. The only redeeming point of this show is JamesCaan, The other actors are lack-luster. The characters lack depth and they seem to be incredibly selfish nd generally un-likable people.

To quote a friend "Las Vegas is like Baywaych in a Casino" In my opinion thats way to generous, Baywatch was way better, and much more realistic.


Wow...not in a good way.

I can't believe people dig this trash. Most of the shows on television are pretty bad, and this has been a running trend for a while now - they just keep getting worse, but Las Vegas definitely takes it home. What a terrible show...

The actors are a bunch of has-been C+ losers that never went anywhere (except James Caan...who knows what he was thinking when he signed on to this pos) so its not their fault that this show sucks. They just can't help it. Blame the producers and the writers. I can't believe they shot this and were actually proud enough of their work to air it.


When Las Vegas came out one review described this show as, quote "A harmless bit of fluff". Needless to say that after seeing a dozen or so episodes I think this description is right on the money. An assortment of pretty boys and strutting model types play out an assortment of paper thin stories while all the time trying to pretend they are serious business people. One dimensional characters, in a one dimensional setting, pursuing one dimensional stories. That pretty much sums up Vegas. I still watch from time to time to see if the show is trying to evolve and take itself a little serious but alas to no avail. So far.


I've seen every episode, and the characters have all remained the same self absorbed whinny little brats thought out, there's no character development in 5 years (getting pregnant is not development if your still the same daddies girl, only now Delinda whines to Danny because dad isn't around) Sam never changes or grows, which makes her boring, repetitive and just so annoying its sickening after season 3, Danny is a typical soft character that gets ordered about by everyone in his life, (he has no principals morals of his own) especially Mary and Delinda. The old boring cliché will they wont they on and off relationship does get boring very fast indeed.

James Cann can act and his character is OK to watch, only he is just another hack writers wet dream, an ex CIA man that has huge contacts and training etc so he can stop any thief or cheater known to man, even though the cameras cant do half the stuff they make out its fun for a while, however in 5 years the writers act very dumb, why? Because they have all this expensive and advanced technology, but no simple walkie talkie (communicating is fast and easy) you never see security walking the floor, only when there's a situation, and suddenly everyone is just there.

The plots very quickly move from the cheating and robbing the casino in one way or another, to awful typical American boy girl relation ships, the same done to death material seen all over the world, they have sex, but I hate you, I've always loved you, I think I do but I love her/him instead, but what if, maybe one day blah blah blah.

I'd recommend ''Hotel Babylon'' to people who like Las Vegas, it has so much more going for it simply because the characters are interesting engaging and not forced down our throat for 6 months of the year.

I'm glad to be British  I'd rather see the same actors in 5 different shows rather than 5 years consistently getting worst in the same one.


Really, REALLY... What pleases audience (american one!) in this so called show is totally beyond me. What can we learn from these series:

1. Each casino there is spending about 2-3 billion bucks every year to rent a satellite and enormous quantity of hi tech high resolution cameras for their security team. Let FBI bites the dust of them.

2. Every security employee must have voluptuous breasts, of course natural ones. The tits must be shown all the time otherwise they will lose their job.

3. If the employee happens to be a male, he needs to get breasts implanted, then go to step 2.

4. Only in Hollywood one can blatantly rip off other show's ideas then implement them as their own and call all this crap "original" and "art".

5. Every security with tits bigger than 39D is considered immortal and cannot die.

I really would like to have the opportunity to vote with minus values. -10/10 for this one!


1) If you want to make a movie that deals with social realism it's quite important that the audience identify with the characters that are being portrayed. 2) The audience can't identify with characters that are highly stereotyped or with situations that are to obvious. 3) If you got a bad actor then you can't build any character. Anyway, even if you got nice actors their job will result ridiculous if you force them to speak with a fictitious Andalusian accent.

Jesús Ponce ignores those 3 points and also makes some cheap jokes that are completely out of place. His script is so predictable: a woman comes out of prison, she meets his old junkie boyfriend, life's tough, etc. Whatever, the fact that the story is everything but original wouldn't be that bad if only Ponce weren't a complete incompetent writing and filming.

I wonder how long will they keep giving money from our taxes to make movies such as this one.

*My rate: 3/10


This is a comedy/romance movie directed by Andy Tennant, starring Will Smith, Eva Mendes and Kevin James.

It is about a professional dating doctor -Will Smith - known as 'Hitch' who helps men to land dates with the women they are interested in. He is currently helping a shapely, clumsy Albert who is obsessed with a very powerful, famous and rich woman called Allegra. At the same time, Hitch has become interested in a gossip columnist, Sara, - Eva Mendes - who has been assigned to write about Allegra. When the best girlfriend of Sara has a love disillusion with a man that Sara thinks that is a client of Hitch, she plots a revenge against Hitch and the misunderstanding leads the two couples to a conflictive situation This film is not one that men should see as it has a lot of male-bashing and both subtle and blatant male-hating. There are also double standards that you would have to be blind not to spot. Hitch and Sara are both very guarded around the opposite sex, Hitch still likes women despite his burns from them in the past and is teaching men to make them happy. But of course Sara, is a sexist bigot who makes frequent sexist comments along the lines of "men want to have sex with anything that walks." Shes self-obsessed and knows she looks like a goddess and knows there are no 'real men' out there. What annoyed me most of all was the 'bad' guy who wanted a quick fumble with Sara's best friend who is the classic example of a defenceless 'victim' and even after being turned down physically by Hitch, receives as blow to the pills from Sara, after which she says "Now I'm satisfied." Add to that the "women are still oppressed" vibes you get from Allegra not being allowed to spend her own money after asking permission from a table of men. In spite of all the rubbish assumptions and generalisations - Women can always tell when you ain't being straight with them? - this movie does have the correct point that in America, love simply doesn't exist. There are some funny parts in this film, such as Albert and his dancing habits but this film overall, only beats the dreadful film Honey by a marginal amount.


Nothing about this movie stands out as either being great or terrible.

In the end, that is what kills it. The blandness is just not good. I can't say I expected better from Will Smith, but I definitely did from Kevin James of "The King of Queens"-- but, hey, I'm getting used to saying that a lot lately. This film attempts to make its mark as a witty romantic comedy, but it never hits the bull's-eye. In fact, it never hits *anywhere* within the target. The allergy scene is disturbing; the fact that Kevin James can't dance is something that wouldn't exactly catch anybody off-guard, and is therefore (in a movie like this) not funny. This movie constantly tries to win your heart, but always with the wrong ploy at the wrong time. Some parts are okay (but I'm searching my brain for examples), but I really think this movie should be avoided.


What is wrong with American movies these days? Hollyweird keeps making movies that have men acting like women and women acting like men. The idiotic male director and writer of this movie need to have their heads examined. The main problems with this film are its overt extreme feminist portrayals of the sexes.

In the scenes of the bar, Eva Mendez and her friend are swigging from the beer bottles like you may find sailors on an oil tanker doing so at a bar in Iceland. Mendez continually kisses every girl she sees after that. She also dresses provocatively in every scene, yet curses like a guy. She gets very emotional when she fights with Will Smith for a while, while trying to 'defend' all women from bad guys everywhere.

The men are no better in this movie. What we see is a bunch of idiots trying to do anything they can to win a date. The males in this movie are concerned with getting either sexual favours or unable to speak clearly when face to face with a woman. Men in real life do not behave this way.

What we see in this movie is a product of culture gone awry. Everything is flip-flopped. Guys act like girls, girls act like guys. All this is done while keeping the extreme predilections of the sexes very much a part of the story. Men are shown as soft and stupid but only interested in sex most of the time, while women are shown as macho and overbearing but only as a veneer for their emotional insecurities.

This movie would be good if it wasn't presented obnoxiously to the audience. The content is not the culprit. It is the manner in which the content is presented.


No, *Hitch* is decidedly NOT a romantic-comedy about bilious (and bibulous) former-Leftist-pundit-turned-reactionary-pundit Christopher Hitchens, though it sure would've made for a funnier movie. A dumpy little Englishman, teeth stained black from cigarettes and Guinness, barking out advice -- and acerbic political commentary -- to lovelorn men: "Look into her EYES when you speak to her, you nutter! And remember: calling someone a 'neo-conservative' makes you a de facto anti-Semite! Can't you get anything straight, you liberal pantywaist?"

Oh well. Instead, we get Will Smith, whose continuing success remains a mystery to me, at least. I am apparently alone in this regard. Smith is the most powerful man in Hollywood as of this writing: Americans just can't help throwing their money at him. I, on the other hand, find his smugness insufferable, unmitigated by a scene here (spoiled by the trailer) where he suffers a drastic allergic reaction to seafood. We know Smith will bounce back to his bland, over-muscled good looks, because there's a fat sit-com actor (Kevin James) on hand making a fool of himself. We're supposed to laugh hysterically whenever the slob starts dancing like a jackass (cue "Everybody Dance Now!" by CC Music Factory), but why would a straight-arrow accountant behave in such a way? I've worked with several straight-arrow accountants for years, and I can tell you that if, in Norman Mailer's memorable phrase, "tough guys don't dance", neither do straight-arrow accountants. Am I taking all this too seriously? Or -- and here's a daring thought -- perhaps the writers couldn't conceive a logically-drawn character to save their lives?

Speaking of the writers, they come up with a lousy idea for Smith's love interest: a writer for a tabloid (Eva Mendes). Since when do tabloid creeps deserve love? What universe am I in, anyway? -- everyone here at IMDb is actually gushing over this tripe. Either you all need to raise the bar, in terms of entertainment value for your buck, or I'm just a skunk at the garden party. (Me, and about 150 million other long-suffering boyfriends and husbands.) In any case, if I may imitate Smith's Hitch and offer my male readers some smooth advice: when you're dragged to see *Hitch*, say to your Better Half, "Hey, that was pretty good" after the movie is over. Don't be overenthusiastic; don't rave about it -- she'll know you're lying to her. Praise it in a lightly surprised way, as if the movie was better than you expected and wasn't the agonizing time-waster that it actually was. But what am I saying, eh, fellas? -- we dudes know all the moves.

1 star out of 10.


I cannot believe I actually sat through the whole of this movie! It was absolutely awful, and totally cringe-worthy, and yet I sat through it thinking it had to get better. It didn't, and I have wasted 2 hours of my life. Will Smith is much better in action movies - I loved him in I, Robot, Enemy of the State and Independence Day - and I don't think he can really be expected to carry off an entire movie as the romantic lead in the way that Cary Grant could. Then again, the script was unbearably awful, and the dialogue was so cheesy.

I disliked everyone except for Albert's character, and even that I found was done with a heavy hand. If you want to watch a modern feel-good romantic comedy, watch something like How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days, or When Harry Met Sally. The 40 Year Old Virgin left me with a smile on my face. I even preferred Music and Lyrics above this - and yes, I know it's cheesy, but at least it didn't take itself seriously, and was sweet. I also disliked the main female lead - and wasn't convinced of the chemistry between her and Will Smith's character.

In all, I think there were two scenes that I liked (and definitely not the ending, which was nauseating and unconvincing!) - Hitch calling Sarah when she hadn't given him her number was quite sweet, and - no, sorry, that's the only thing I liked about the entire film. Don't waste your time.


Well, it is standard Hollywood schmaltz that you can see coming a mile off. It's enjoyable in parts but just oh so predictable. I must confess I did not really enjoy it, but I am pretty tough to please and a lot of my friends loved it.

It is quite sweet, and the actors give good performances. It's a nice backdrop and the eye candy is pretty good. But the irritatingly predictable, unoriginal and really quite dull storyline holds the film back. Personally, I can think of better ways to spend a couple of hours of my life.

The chick flick genre gets some bad press but there are some genuinely good chick flicks out there; this isn't one of them.


For what it's worth, this is a fairly decent Road Runner cartoon, if a little short (just under 6 minutes). The gags are adequate at best, the animation is competent, and the new restored DVD master looks nice. However, that's where the qualities end. Allow me to provide a little backstory: in 1958, thanks to a labour dispute, WB got hold of a bunch of canned music that would be used in 6 of the year's cartoons.

There is only one phrase to describe this short's music, and that is "it has the 4Kids sound". I use that phrase to describe music which has absolutely no correspondence to the on screen action, and feels like it was recorded by an orchestra consisting of members of a Sonic Youth cover band. The music in this short feels hopelessly tacked on and incredibly obnoxious, especially considering there are scenes in this short (namely the piano trap) that would have worked best with little or no music.

I didn't think a WB cartoon would be ruined by awful music (even Lava's scores aren't this obnoxious), but considering the cartoon isn't that notable anyway, it becomes almost painful to watch with the music. It's kind of like how late 80's episodes of Doctor Who could be bad anyway, and yet be made unwatchable thanks to Keff McCulloch's unbelievably awful music (which sounded like he hit the demo button on all 5 of his Casio keyboards at the same time).

I am going to have people call me crazy for this, but I'd easily watch one of Larriva's RR cartoons over this. At least the canned music was usually in sync with the action on those.


According to the article at http://blog.ifeng.com/article/2737487.html, one of the actors in the film, Carina Lau, was forced to appear in this movie for free. She was the victim of an infamous kidnapping shortly before this movie was made, and later photos of her in distress were published in a magazine, which has since been forced to shut down and its publisher sent to jail. The actress denies she was assaulted but there was a movie leaked on net that allegedly showed her being gang-raped. (The Hong Kong press, out of respect for her, has mostly refused to report on the incident, but google will turn up a few articles about it.)


2 deathly unfunny girls stays a their deathly unfunny Uncle Benny's beach house. Uncle Beeny doesn't like party. But guess what? the deathly unfunny girls have a, yup you guessed it, a deathly unfunny beach party. If you didn't catch the not so subliminal message that I'm trying to convey. First off, you're a moron. I would rather watch a nude jello tag team watching match between Bea Aurther and Cameryn Manhiem VS. Rosie O'Donnell and Jessica Tandy. This movie, and I lose the term loosely is just THAT bad.

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: Kristin Novak and Charity Rahmer go topless, Iva Singer shows breasts and buns


This movie is awful. If you're considering to see this movie... two words DO NOT. It's tasteless, the storyline is really lame, and the jokes are even worse. The acting is really pathetic. I can't believe that this movie was made. Rather watch American Pie, Going Greek or Road Trip if you're in the mood for a teen comedy. It's about two girls who head for Malibu on their Spring Break. As usual they didn't do much planning and called (i think her names Michelle)'s uncle to crash at his Malibu mansion. Uncle Bennie strictly forbids them of having any kind of party, and as you would of guessed, they go ahead and do it. Please, I urge you, do not see this movie.


This is by far and away the stupidest thing I have ever seen on celluloid. I mean, we started watching it assuming it was a "skinemax T&A flick", but aside from a couple boobs, that was it. I mean, I get the point of making stupid movies in order to show some sex scenes, as they are the sole reason for a movie of that kind to be made. This movie, however, has no sex scenes, and really has no point at all. There is no linear time, the scenes travel around like a fart in the wind, people show up for no reason, then leave, and it is never explained, the plot is never advanced, and nothing happens. I have never been as flabbergasted at how bad a movie was until I saw this. Has the director even been to a film school? Has he ever seen a movie? I don't know, but from the looks of it, he seems to have made some moron proud with this piece of crap, as he is still working. I literally walked away from this movie dumber, but I still recommend watching it, as it should be shown in every film school of the country as an example in what not to do when making a film. Move over PLan 9 from Outer Space, you have a new contender for worst movie ever made.


This movie had lots of potential, beautiful women, cute guys, a beach, beer, a hot tub, a mansion on the beach, a swimming pool, a sexy maid who hates her job, and really nice cars. However, the movie had one thing that doomed it to failure... a full length script and a bunch of sexy women who want to give acting a try because they think it would be a cool idea.

Let's put it this way...

If you find yourself at a party and you have a choice between watching this movie or a childs potty training video from the 70s, choose the potty training video.


too predictable for spoilers, but i'll not be cagey below, so don't read it if you care.

a few dull scriptwriters together for half an afternoon, and even then they run out of ideas. so let's start with a criminal sought by all France...doesn't matter what he has done, we'll think of that later (they don't). some seconds of suspense, but not too much, and nothing unexpected, because that requires Art. half an hour needed to finish off the film; i get it: have them rob a jeweller's, and take a lot of time avoiding alarms etc.; everybody robs jewellers in films just ike this, it's bound to work (it doesn't). no humour, no character (ok, yves montand does get to ham it a weeny bit) and have everyone speak in a quiet deadpan voice that is supposed to make one think of noir, but merely makes the actors sound depressed. if they are silent, it'll make them seem grimmer - but also save us writing their lines. we'd better add something for the stay at home women who are going to watch this stuff, so let's have something to make them empathise with hubby (we forgot to put any women in the film). got it: a son on (gasp) marijuana - oh, and have him attempt suicide for no particular reason (shame? his dad's a mafia boss for crying out loud, but the audience will feel his fatherly care, and if not, sod them). oh, the crooked cop was a classmate of the guy who gets him in the end; wrenching, eh? let's have them all die at the end, or we'll never finish this stuff. is it in the can? right, that's over with then, thank god. who'll we get for director?


Jack Black and Kyle Gass play fantasy versions of themselves in this comic showcase for their side-band Tenacious D, an art-rock outfit with satirical, barbed lyrics. An ex-runaway obsessed with heavy metal and a beachfront-living, pot-smoking slacker who pretends he's a rock god meet and form a band (the birthmarks on both their butt-cheeks form the group's moniker). Opening with a funny prologue which apes a Twisted Sister video from the '80s, "The Pick of Destiny" is a fairly well-produced movie aimed at older kids; it occasionally resembles nothing more than a middle-aged variation of "Wayne's World", with jokey-stoner interludes and a climactic bout with Beelzebub himself, yet Black and Gass have an enormously comfortable rapport (they also acted as producers, co-wrote the script and all the music). The target audience will obviously go for it, though inspiration is a bit low, particularly in the second-half (just about the time our heroes impulsively outrun the cops in a student-driver car). The music sequences are far more successful than the attempts at movie satire and, for the first thirty minutes or so, Jack Black's manic enthusiasm is infectious. *1/2 from ****


"Once again, we have a movie that packs about 20 minutes of entertainment -- much of it involving the band's occasionally funny lyrics -- into a 90-minute package." For anyone old enough to remember, this is along lines of the first "Bill and Ted" WITHOUT the story line. If that doesn't say enough as to how brainless this movie is, think about Jack Black singing for about 20 minutes of the movie and that being its selling point. If you actually like listening to Tenacious D because of their musical prowess, then knock yourself out and buy the soundtrack. Don't waste your time with this though. If your a stoner looking for a good bad movie filled with laughs, you're still barking up the wrong tree. No matter the potency of your buds, you'll still be left wishing you'd popped in Grandma's Boy again instead.


"JB" (Jack Black) runs away from home after being spanked by his father (Meat Loaf). Years later, he finally makes it to Hollywood and comes across the greatest guitar player he has ever heard, "KG" (Kyle Glass).

After a little squabble, the two decide join forces and perform at an Open Mic Night at what appears to be a less than popular bar. To their shock, they don't do that good.

Back at their less than spectacular apartment, the two are trying to figure out what the legends of rock have that they don't while looking at some old magazines. It's only then that they realize that the guitarists on the covers have the same guitar pick.

While trying to look for a similar pick, an employee of the music shop (Ben Stiller, who is also the film's Executive Producer) tells him the ancient story of the "Pick of Destiny", of which they seek. This employee, who has long gray hair and thick glasses, also tells them that the pick, which was made from Satan's tooth, is in a history of rock museum.

Now the two pot-smoking losers with delusions of grandeur goes on a music-filled adventure to steal the pick.

Let me say this up front, if you are not a fan of Tenacious D, which gave us the comedy actor Jack Black, then you should skip this one. I am not a fan of these two, and only watched it because it was suggested by Flixter.com.

The jokes, for the most part, produce silence more than anything. I laughed at maybe three of the jokes, and chuckled at a few others. Tenacious D is only for a certain audience, of which I am not.

This movie lags in numerous places, and this is where the worst jokes appear. And let me say that, when Black and Glass are not working off one another, they are completely lost on screen.

All the songs in this movie is by and performed by Tenacious D. Many of the songs perfectly advance the storyline by describing their adventures at the time in the film. However, I felt that the songs sounded too similar to be told apart.

Another problem with this film is that the language will turn off a lot of people. There are a lot of four-letter words in this film. There are also some drug references. I would not recommend this for children.

Part of Tenacious D's schtick is that Black is in your face, and Glass stays in his shadows for the most part. This is how they are in this movie, and it doesn't really work. Now, this may have been part of the act, but I felt that Glass just didn't want to be there. In one scene, he performs his (background) lyrics at a party and he just can't work alone.

Tenacious D are supposedly rock fans in real life, and have maybe two rock legends in the movie, I lost count because I was so bored with this film. Personally, I would have liked to have seen more rock legends and icons in the film. However, we don't get that.

What we do get is a movie filled with completely lame jokes, lots of foul language, a lackluster script. You also get horrible acting, and an unoriginal story. However, you get some pretty good songs that pretty much sound the same.

The story could have been promising, but many of the scenes appeared to have been added into the film at the last second. This is somewhat similar to The Blues Brothers movie many years ago, but the Blues Brothers had a much bigger following -- and two songs on the Billboard music charts. Tenacious D only has a small following, with a few HBO specials under their belt. And, unlike The Blues Brothers, the comedy is not well thought out at all.

If you are a hard core fan of Tenacious D, then I suggest you check it out. However, like most of the movie audience when this film was released to theaters, I would say avoid this one. Save your money on this one, folks.


This is about as pretentious a movie as a shallow director like Joel Schumacher could make, I suppose. A group of medical students take it turns to die for several minutes; upon revival they discover that their sins have manifested themselves somehow or other. As some of the characters are visited by dead people and some just seem to be haunted by their guilty consciences it's not quite clear exactly what the connection is, but the visions do all seem to look like sixth form art films. Why the students treat their experiment as some kind of grand journey that'll make them famous is a bit of a mystery, as the results are completely unproveable and, as the movie mentions several times, have been documented plenty of times before. Still, it's nice to see Schumacher practising for his Batman trainwrecks with a bit of the old neon paint and coloured lightbulbs. And William Baldwin is a plank.


A bunch of medical student yuppies get together in their spare time to hook each other to the electrical cables and die. Then they stand around counting the time before brain death, and then start CPR and heart-massage and bring each other back to life. The fact that Julia Roberts was in this movie should say it all. FLATLINERS is like group GHOST. Everyone wants to see their dead relatives and visit their old dead buddies, so what better way to do it than have a bunch of Medical Students kill you for five minutes and then bring you back to life. The rest of the movie has the predictable relationship issues, plus the predictable "GEE MAYBE IF WE KEEP KILLING EACH OTHER, ONE OF THESE DAYS ONE OF US WILL STAY DEAD?" D'OH!!! This movie should have been called BRAIN DEAD. The fact that the characters were depicted as being Medical Students made me wonder if they had gone to a foreign Correspondence School to get their degrees. The only thing that kept this film from being a total laugh was that they did not just stick their fingers into electrical outlets in order to "die." This film would have been a great THREE STOOGES comedy movie.


I don't much mind the factors that others here have objected to - acting, lighting and so forth. For the most part, these things were executed well enough to carry the film and put its points across. It's just a horror film, after all.

What bugged me were the points themselves. Because this is a deeply moralistic film, and its morality is deeply tacky. In fact it's actually fundamentalist Christian morality, and this is a fundamentalist Christian film. Look at the 'sins':

* Sutherland's character picked on a kid at school when he was a pre-teen, leading to his accidental death.

* Baldwin's character used masculine wiles, persuasion and good looks to shag quite a few women, some of whom he videotaped. Ooh, the swine! How unlucky for him that women are such passive, gormless creatures that they had no complicity in the matter.

* Roberts' character's dad came back from Vietnam a junkie, so ashamed to be caught shooting up that he kills himself. Yes, what a terrible sin! Why couldn't he have just become an alcoholic like all the others?

* and Bacon's character picked on another schoolkid. How awful! The fact that he was a child himself apparently counts for nought. Children, it seems, are divinely judged by adult criteria.

Well, maybe lots of people support this level of moral absolutism. It certainly seems to have gone unremarked in this movie's comments. Does everyone just buy this stuff? At least human laws treat children differently from adults, recognising that their ethical sense is partially-formed. This film has no such qualms, and I find that pretty objectionable. Ditto the notion that women are helpless, fluffy creatures before young men's evil lusts. Or that a Vietnam vet driven to drug addiction is so shameful that suicide is a valid option. Pathetic.


What I came away with after watching this movie was a guilty conscience. The film itself has a rather intriguing plot line and premise to it, but unfortunately it is a movie that you cannot watch with out being bombarded with pornography. If you plan on viewing this and have a moral problem with the degradation of the marital act for the viewing pleasure of an audience then you are making a big mistake. This is not the type of movie with the token sex scene that you can skip on your DVD player. Near the beginning of the film Baldwin's character is video taping his sexual exploits without the knowledge of his partner. This tape and others like it continue to pop up throughout the movie at unpredictable times. It appears that the film is attempting to make a statement about the dignity of women. Ironically in doing so they made multiple women into prostitutes. I only gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because had they handled Baldwin's promiscuity better it would have been an interesting film.


The only thing more full of holes than this movie's premise is its script. Flatliners is the ideal showcase for Joel Schumacher's glorious, flamboyant, brazen lack of talent. The plot is totally illogical but super fake-ponderous and everything is art-directed within an inch of its life in the most clichéd, overheated way. I love how the med school autopsy room is a cavernous vaulted marble mausoleum low-lit in red with huge Rembrandt paintings hanging from the walls. I love how Keifer Sutherland drives a canvas-backed army jeep. No one in Joel Schumacher's movies lives in an un-eccentric manner. It's always an alternate universe where everyone is young and painfully hip, but hip strictly and obsessively according to an out-of-touch middle-aged billionaire man-child's idea of hip. And holy crap! The part where Baldwin brother #16 dies and comes back to life and then is haunted by all the women he's slept with who intone "I'll call you" and "I just need some space" is the funniest friggin' thing in the whole universe!!!! What kind of a world do we live in where Joel Schumacher gets to keep having people throw money at him? "Flatliners" made me want to review the man's entire oeuvre solely for the kind of high-quality yuks contained therein.


Greetings All,

Isn't it amazing the power that films have on you after the 1st viewing ?

I was so delighted by the first viewing of this film, I couldn't stop talking about "Flatliners" to all my friends for weeks - mind you I was a very impressionable 18 year old back then and my taste in films have become a little more conservative since then.

Then somehow I forgot about this film until I saw the DVD in my local department store and remembering how great it was I thought "Right ! I'll pluck you off the shelf when they bring out the Special Edition".

Last week, I was overjoyed when my best friend invited me over to watch Flatliners on DVD. The expectation was that I would love this film even more on 2nd viewing.. How wrong I was !

Verdict: after 11 years my view on this film had changed from a very scary 1st class movie to total junk which overplays on the religious and supernatural side of things ratherly superficially.

I have never been a big fan of Julia Roberts' acting (excepting for Erin Brockeridge in which she deserved her Oscar) I think the problem with this film definitely lies with the director and a so so mediocre script. I left this film feeling it had no real substance or potential, and just a couple of scarey cheap thrills which weren't very well done at all. Not even the score by James-Newtown Howard, who I rather like as a film composer, could captivate and thrill me.

In 1990 I would have given this film 9.5 / 10; but in 2001 I'd be lucky to give it 2 / 10 at best.


From 1936-1939, Peter Lorre made a string of highly successful Mr. Moto films. While technically B-films, they were much better made than typical films of the genre. However, Lorre tired of making these highly repetitive films and told friends he wanted out of the series. When it was canceled in 1939, Lorre was thrilled but his plans of getting more complicated and satisfying roles did not materialize when he moved to Columbia Pictures. ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN is one of these films and it's pretty obvious the studio isn't putting much effort into the movie, as I think the plot was written by penguins. Talented penguins, perhaps...but still the movie made little sense at all.

It begins with a guy agreeing to be an undercover agent for the government. He is to infiltrate an island in the US where something strange is amiss. Now they easily could have just got a search warrant to do this. But, given that penguins were writing the film, the agent takes the rap for a murder he didn't commit and spends a year in prison for this. He apparently hopes that he'll be paroled to this island, as many parolees are sent there when they finish the term.

There are some more serious problems with this idea. First, they only have him serve a year before getting paroled--but he was convicted of MURDER and he refused to divulge who he really was. They would never parole anyone in a case like this. Second, what if he wasn't paroled to the island? He would have spent an entire year in jail for nothing! Third, why not just have scuba divers or paratroopers or cops in boats come to the island?! Talk about a contrived plot!

Once on the island, the agent discovers that evil Peter Lorre has set up his own private prison and staffed it with guys on parole as slave labor. What about the men having to report to their parole officers? This was never explained, but Lorre was using them to mine for diamonds and they were treated abominably. Now, another question I had was that if Lorre was discovering huge diamonds there, he was a very wealthy man. So, why not just PAY people to mine for the diamonds?! Why set up your own version of Devil's Island and savagely beat and kill the men?!

Eventually, Lorre gets what's his and the island's slaves are released. Unfortunately, by then, I really didn't care. Overall, watchable but rather dumb. Lorre's career only took a turn for the better when he moved the following year to Warner Brothers. With films like ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN, I could see why his stay at Columbia was short.


Thursday June 9, 6:45pm Broadway Performance Hall & Saturday June 11, 1:45pm Broadway Performance Hall

Bless the independent filmmaker. Without them we'd see nothing but Spielberg the Farrelly brothers and films based on old sitcoms. They are the risk takers. They reap the rewards of success and suffer the failures. Max and Grace is most definitely a failure. Credit is deserved by Michael Parness for getting out there and making his first feature which he claims drove him to bankruptcy. He might be better off sticking to the stage if this film is any indication of what to expect in the future. Even though everyone warned me I went to see Max and Grace anyway, hoping I might discover something they did not. It starts off well enough, a party for Max in his parent's house shot in warm subdued light, the camera floating into interesting angles. As soon as we see Max has hung himself, an obvious rip-off of Harold and Maude, the whole thing goes right in the tank. How could he do this unnoticed in the middle of a birthday party? For that matter how could two mentally ill and committed psychiatric patients decide to get married and do it with the blessings of all parties concerned? In the Q&A after the film David Krumholtz suggested the entire story was the surrealist dream of his character Max. This story is so badly written the comment sounded more like an excuse. The film doesn't look as though it was made on a shoestring, all the more reason to be so disappointed with the results. What's intended as funny isn't but instead is offensively bad. The continuity is sloppy the lighting is dreadful and the effects look cheap and forced. BPH seats under three hundred and was surprisingly full but I saw at least thirty or forty walkouts within the first half-hour. At one point Grace, played by Natasha Lyonne, laments her inability to die. I found myself thinking the same thing since I never walk out before the credits. If Krumholtz really thinks this is "one of the best scripts" he has ever read it sounds like he needs to catch up on his reading. A terrible waste of talent and resources, this is the worst independent I've seen since Bubba-Ho-tep.


I watched about an hour of this movie (against my will) and couldn't finish it. I'd rate it as a 0. The writing was bad, the plot predictable and one that's been done far too many times. The most annoying part of this movie was the acting done by Melody Thomas Scott. This part did not call for someone appearing snobbish, but she managed in every single scene I saw to look like a (sour) snob or someone who was about to spout something extremely sarcastic or cruel.

The two romances which seemed to develop into something serious almost upon the couples meeting was a bit too much.

I should know better than to watch made for TV movies. If there is absolutely nothing on the telly and this is the only choice, read a book.


When I think about TV movies, I always think of this film, I have watched it a few times on Sky Movies, it was terrible.

Its been a long time, since I have seen this film, was just browsing, and came across it on here :-S.

A microbiologist (Linda Flemming), goes on holiday, with her son (William Flemming), at this holiday resort kinda place, they meet up with Paul Johnson (taxi driver / owns a bar?), and Kathy Johnson.

Its like a weird romantic thing, William starts to fall for Kathy, and Paul falls for Linda.

Some guy passes out in a street, he has some mark on his arm, Joseph (Joseph was a deep sea diver, who on some dive, saw a light, or something, and converted to religion), says he will take care of this person, there is a gap in my memory, then there is a wide out break of the virus, I think Linda offers her help, to come up with a cure, Kathy gets infected (William notices a mark on Kathy's arm), with the virus, also does Joseph.

Paul says some lines to Joseph, then Joseph stumbles away, the next time you see Joseph, he is cured some how, that information is used to cure the infected, then there is a beach party, the end.


I think i would rather have my piles clipped with a pair of rusty clippers than bear another 5 minutes of this movie. In fact i cannot even be bothered to go in to detail! Not sure how they managed to get the needles into the wooden actors to cure them! Better off for all concerned if they had just nuked the island after finding out about the virus, that way it would have lasted as long as the commercial break, and we could have moved on with our lives. Plus one more thing was this rubbish commissioned by the god channel? As all they seemed to do was praise the bleeding lord most of the time. Avoid like the plague! In fact i would prefer it!


I ticked the "contains spoiler" box, in case I say anything that is a spoiler and don't realise I've said it until I re-read it after I've posted. So it's just in case.

Anyhow, back to reviewing this film.

I saw this film on skymovies earlier on this afternoon, and by the description Sky gives you (these people must be on acid) it sounded pretty good, but then when I actually got about 30 minutes into it, I was appalled. This film, in my opinion, has the worst scriptwriting and actors/actresses - ever. The young girl who falls in love with the boy from L.A after about 3 hours, is a really stupid, lame character, who has an annoying, whiney voice, and boff hair. -.-. Then there's her lover, who's an idiot, and is also very whiney. Actually, maybe they suit each other. Then there's the boy's mum, who's with him on holiday, and surprise, surprise - she's a doctor, and - oh my god, wait, there's even more unsuspected surprises! A virus suddenly breaks out on the island and she knows all about viruses! =O. SHOCK HORROR! Yeah, right. Lol. Then there's this insane religious lad, who keeps going on about "'erbs" or something, and how the Lord knows all. Everyone on the island seems to love him, yet he's actually a stubborn, arrogant, steroid-pumped (you really need to watch this film just for the scene where he comes out of the sea after a swim, his head is like tiny, and his body is MASSIVE. it's hilarious) buffoon who's had way too much to drink.

Anyhow, after all these weirdo characters, including a stoned-looking taxi driver, the religious lad finally gives in to the doctor, and she takes a blood sample, and they get straight to work on finding the cure from that, because for some reason he's dramatically been saved, all down to "'erbs and God". AND OH MY GOD. YES, THERE'S ANOTHER Surprise!! YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHAT!! Just in the nick of time, with 11 minutes to go before everybody on the island drops dead in-fact, including her son and his girl, she finds the cure, and injects everybody, and it's all resolved!!! What a pathetic film. I mean, I knew it sounded an obvious ending from when I first started watching it, but I actually though it'd be good and have some sub-plot twists somewhere, but no-no, it was just boring and dry.

Don't watch this film. You'll end up like me - stunned for 3 hours and then demanding the hour and a half you spent of your life watching it back.


Before I saw this masterpiece I never would have guessed that a devastating and hideously contagious virus could be defeated by the use of Lutheran prayers... and "erbs". Ralf Moeller's performance is gargantuan; the realism incandescent. I was so inspired I'm flying straight to Zambibwia tomorrow to crack out the pesto and get my hands together for third world prosperity. God bless this film.

Seriously, I'm going to have to watch Troll 2 and Anus Magillicutty just to believe that it is possible to concoct more hamfistedly clichéd dialogue. It's so tortured that taking a cheesegrater to your knuckles might well be preferable to sitting through it. The only subtlety it manages to achieve is in its thinly disguised racism, as the poor islanders turn to ineffectual dumb-ass collective prayer which achieves nothing until the übermenschlich, linen-shrouded Teutonic hero Moeller, with his direct line to Yahweh, can provide a blood sample which the horn-blowing yankee scientists can get to work on and save the hapless natives. This movie sucks.


Unbelievable. I never saw something like that. Everything is bad; really bad. From photography (lots of scenes without focus!) to the acting (the young female is terrible). And what can we say about those helicopters made in Paint Brush...? Really amazing B, I mean, Z film.

The plot are bad, cliché and bad wrote. Basics conveniences to the screenplay seems to work. I can't even think a young student of cinema making this movie. Nothing justify it.

I recommend that you don't even think to see this movie. Sleep or play solitary are best choices. ;)

xxx


Standard "Disease outbreak in remote area; expert who happens to be vacationing in the area takes charge" movie. There are only a few deviations from the norm. One is that the kids involved are pretty reasonable from the outset. Usually they are monsters who repeatedly gum up the works until they redeem themselves in the end. Another is that the local medicine man/witch doctor who is normally an impediment early on is never completely discounted or redeemed in the end. Perhaps since this seems to have been made for the faith oriented PAX channel, they didn't want to seem too judgmental about the faithful. Finally, there were no evil local politicians/leisure industry bigwigs trying to cover the whole thing up. The lack of these stereotypes was refreshing -- if we have the PAX channel to thank for that I may have to sample a few more of their offerings. Aside from that, however, this was pretty standard stuff. You've seen it all before.


Cartoon-like special effects, horrible acting and dialogue, and dry plot! This movie has it all! My friend and I went to blockbuster to find a horrible movie that we could make fun of, but this was just too much. The movie begins with a women and her son vacationing on a made-up island in the Bahama region. The women, who just happens to be a doctor/virologist is in the area when a man collapses. He has a strange wound on his arm, and she immediately knows that it is a contagious virus. The story goes on to show startlingly fast romance between the two teenage leads (this is justified by the girl saying "I know it's fast, but it just feels nice." ????) Anyway the entire island gets infected with this virus and the CDC is brought in. We are told that within three months, if the virus is not treated and contained that it will spread to the united states and kill millions of people. This information does not stop the CDC from leaving the island to save themselves. Thankfully the cure to this horrible virus is found just in time, and the entire island is saved. To celebrate the death of there loved ones, the island people have a smashing party where everyone is dancing, having fun, and forgetting about the horrible epidemic that just occurred.


Genre: Cartoon short with no dialogue, African girl and lion.

Main characters: Inki, the lion and the minah bird.

What happens: A lion wants to eat an African girl called Inki. There is also a rather confusing Minah bird. Is he on Inki's, or the lion's side..?

Message: Erm

My thoughts: I agree with Lee Eisenberg, this is rather mean on poor African people!! :-( I like how the main character, Inki (who is an African girl) is quite a nice main character, but they still portray her rudely and make a younger audience not like her very much just because she's HUNTING!! GRRR CHARLES M. JONES!! I don't like the lion very much and I think the minah bird is ALL RIGHT (I suppose). Personally I prefer Charles M. Jones's Looney Tunes cartoons in the future.

If you want to watch this anyway, then I recommend the website YouTube. Just type in "Inki" on the space in the main page and you're there.

I wish Charles M. Jones had been nicer to Inki in this short. So there.

Recommended to: People who are interested in old cartoons and/or people who are just messing around on You Tube.


Silly Disney film about a college student who accidentally discovers a potion that makes things invisible. Not a bad idea and some of the special effects are pretty good. Still, the script is VERY bad...all the jokes flop and the acting is lousy. Everybody's trying to be funny and they're not. A real boring, stupid Disney film. But it was fun seeing Kurt Russell so young.


Miserable film. Not even to be compared in one breath with "To Kill a Mockingbird," or "In the Heat of the Night."

Yes, there is racial prejudice but the film is at most ridiculous.

Come now. Would you really have Elizabeth Patterson, of all people, guarding a jail so as to avoid a lynching? Patterson, in her day, played everyone's mother and was the landlady in "I Love Lucy" before Fred and Ethel Mertz bought the building.

Imagine exhuming the body so that it will not come out that the black man's gun killed a white man?

Claude Jarman Jr., who was so fabulous in 1946's "The Yearling" appears in this mess. He still had those sad eyes. My eyes would be sad too if I appeared in this awful film.

To me, this was nothing more than a Faulkner flop all the way.


Virtual Sexuality proves that Britain can produce romantic comedies as vapid as those from America. The only differences are an ending that ties up the loose bits differently than an American film would and a cameo by Ram John Holder, which is always welcome. That's enough to make this a watcher on a cold winter's night.


A British teen movies which centres around a girl (Justine) accidentally creating her dream man (Jake) in by the use of a virtual reality machine, there is only one problem (well.not just one) she gets trapped inside his body with a geek as the only person who knows the truth and the only person she can trust. It sounds a lot worse than it is, I found it more watchable for the reason that Laura Fraser was starring in it more than the film content, indeed she looks stunning throughout especially when she dresses in a red lycra dress in order to impress Jake, WOW!!, If only I had a virtual reality machine


Justine cannot find the perfect mate to make her first time the perfect one. With geek friend in tow, she enters a virtual machine to improve her appearance. When she sees the opportunity to create her perfect man, an explosion occurs and the results are left to your imagination. Problem is, how many obvious sex jokes are left anymore? How predictable can these kind of movies get? A few funny moments here and there, but nothing too outrageous or different from jokes in other movies or even normal life. If you liked WEIRD SCIENCE or jokes about the 'fish out of water' combined with 'gender identity crisis', then by all means these 90 min, you could enjoy.


Laura Fraser creates her ideal man on a virtual reality machine and he's suddenly brought to life, of course. Oh what jolly japes don't ensue in a Britcom flop so Day-Glo bright yet so dismal it manages to make the execrable 1980s American teen flick Weird Science look almost decent. The sex-obsessed script is by The Sun film critic Nick Fisher, a former teeny-mag 'agony uncle' who's obviously never watched an episode of Smack The Pony in his life; shame, because then he might at least have been in with a shout of writing female characters that were recognisably members of the human race. This knicker-twisting lot have all too clearly emerged from the virtual brain of someone who imagines they're amusing. Suddenly, the thought of new-wave Iranian cinema is somehow attractive.


Oh dear. this was quite possibly the worst film i have seen in years. I mean what more can be done with the old "woman inside mans body" storyline? it was full of cliches, eg the nerd coming into his own sequence, the "lad" getting whats coming to him etc. im not calling these spoilers because any one could guess what happens!! the only thing it had going for it was Laura Fraser, who gave an average performance. and as for the "dream" boy, that was the wettest piece of acting ever. even the bad guys were instantly forgettable.

terrible movie.


It's hard to tell who this film is aimed at; the characterisation and style smacks of a "Children's ITV" series crossed with an Aussie soap, yet the subject matter, nudity, and language aims it at an older audience.

The first half-hour has the heroine Justine philosophising about losing her virginity, and is excruciatingly embarrassing to anyone over 18. A complete rip-off of "Ferris Bueller", from the talking-at-the-camera bit down to the on-screen graphics.

Her nerdy friend Chas brings her to a computer fair where an explosion during the use of a virtual reality machines turns her into a man. Or actually, creates a male alter-ego of her, called Jake. Don't look at me like that; I'm just relating it the way it was shown.

After this the film is mildly amusing for a while; amongst all the drama-school mugging, only Rupert Penry-Jones brings a real comic touch to his woman-trapped-in-a-man's-body role of Jake. There's some funny scenes with Jake dealing with his new body, and new feelings; nothing you haven't seen before, but then in this film you'll clutch at anything that's entertaining.

Unfortunately Justine and Jake meet up, and hilarious antics ensue (I wish), involving the owners of the virtuality machine who want to kidnap Jake in order to have sex with him, or examine him, or something. Anyway, it's just an excuse to fill an extra half hour with some explosions and car chases; for such a cheap looking movie, the explosions come often and loud, suggesting the money was spent in all the wrong places.

In the end, the heroine realises she can't fall in love with herself, deletes her alter ego, and ends up in a one-night stand with the nerd to lose her virginity (this presumably is what is meant to pass for a happy ending in the 90s). But only after he removes his glasses and puts some hair gel and a leather jacket on; god forbid she actually have sex with someone who _looks_ like a nerd. Of course, this is a bit subversive - in these days of PC movies which tell you to love and be yourself, and that everyone is special in their own way, it's refreshingly reactionary to have a film which screams "CONFORM!" at you, and treats virgins and nerds with the contempt they deserve.

The characterisation is simple dire; the nerd is very nerdy (room full of computers, thick glasses, social retardism, virginity, no leather jacket), there's a slut, she's very slutty (blonde, tight dresses, orange tan, vampy accompanying music), there's a jock, he's very... well, you get the picture. You can get away with this kind of characterisation in a broad comedy, but "Virtual Sexuality" isn't very funny. It's only mildly amusing in parts, and excruciating in others. It takes a lot for a woman as cute as Justine (played by Laura Fraser) to annoy me, but she manages it.

Don't be fooled by the title; there's absolutely nothing erotic about the film, and it doesn't deal with the topics of how the new communications technologies are changing the way we view and acquire relationships (unless you actually think there _is_ a chance your PlayStation might blow up and change your sex).


This movie plays out like an English version of an ABC after school special, with nudity. It makes you wonder who the target audience was supposed to be. It's not as though the writers were too preoccupied with selling a plausible plot either. While it does possess a certain watchability, Virtual Sexuality is fluffier than dandelion meringue. It's a good movie to watch if you're snowed in, the cable's out, and it's the only tape you've got.


I don't normally write reviews, in fact, I never write reviews. This film was so atrocious it actually inspired me to start. Virtual Sexuality attempts to be a light hearted and cheeky teenage comedy regarding the usual trappings; virginity, boys etc. except the main character apparently turns into her perfect boy that she has created using the help of a machine at a technology fair.

Sound interesting? Well, it isn't. The acting is the most half-hearted and appalling I have ever seen. The unfortunate thing is they appear to be genuinely supportive of script and movie, which probably explains why I have never seen them in any memorable production since. I have not bothered to learn the actors names, nor their characters. The lading lady does not enrapture or charm you and, thus, you do not care for her whatsoever. The leading lady's male friend raises no sympathy even when the script is vociferously screaming for you to pity him. The only rise he will get out of you is one of extreme anger and sudden violence. The only half decent actor was the blonde leading man, who, despite his miserably weak role, really gave it all he could, which wasn't much in the light of such a horrendous piece of work. I will not even talk about the acting abomination that are the 'bad guys' of the plot. But then again, what plot?

I watched this film unfold incredulously, as I had absolutely no idea how anyone would have the foolish audacity to write such a script, nevermind produce, act in, and direct it. I can only wonder. The only reason my companion and I continued to watch such a mangled example of film was the disbelieving laughter it managed to arise out of us as cohesion, logic, class and even impotent storyline were disregarded within half an hour into the film. I have completely no idea why anyone wanted to violate the movie industry by releasing this to the public. This is a joke of a film and is best left to gather dust in warehouses for the rest of eternity. 1/2 out of 10. If that.


I think this was a HORRIBLE mistake on Disney's part. First off, Kuzco does NOT need to pass "emperor school" to become emperor! That's never happened before. Secondly, the new voices don't sound like the originals at all. Very poor redo. And while I adored the movie The Emperor's New Groove, the New School is just stupid. Like all the jokes are the same, and many are from the movie. The plot gets redundant, always Yzma (is that how you spell it?) trying to become empress, Kuzco stopping her, etc. Or Kuzco learning to become a better person. I think Kuzco gets annoying with his constant complaints and questions. He is a spoiled brat and it bothers me. I do not think this is worth five minutes of your time, much less a half hour.


I cannot believe this show was okay-ed. First off J.P. Manoux does a horrible job filling in for David Spade and Pacha's voice is too deep compared to John Goodman's. The theme song is so annoying and the plots of the episodes are so stupid!!! The only good thing about this show is that Eartha Kitt and Patrick Warburton remain as the voices of Yzma and Kronk. This show is a waste of money and a waste of your time. Half of the episodes are copied of the movie. In my opinion The Emperor's New Groove was one of the best children's movies in years, but they complety ruined by making Kronk's New Groove and this show. You should watch such shows as Spongebob, Fairly Oddparents, Danny Phantom, or Kim Possible but not this show.


All this show is, is the same plot. Kuszko (spelling?) is in danger of failing school, he needs to pass to become emperor. He needs to learn something, which he thinks is stupid, he then uses it/ learns more about it and realizes it's not so stupid. Eezma, posing as the principal, tries to transform Kuszko into some animal to stop him. Every episode.

Jokes from the movie are copied (Eezma's incredibly complicated plans, Kuszko breaking the 4th wall constantly, squirrels.) They should try hiring some writers.

2/10


I'm new to Argento's work, and if this and Suspiria are any indication, then Argento is much more a filmmaker of experience than story. In his films, characters are placed in grueling and mesmerizing horror contexts that literally saturate the logic of the world around them. The camera literally flows gracefully through sets as the characters run, stumble, and choke their way to an eventual horrifying conclusion. It worked, REALLY well, in Suspiria. For some reason it didn't work here.

The problem I see with this movie is that even though the protagonist "gets help" by way of contacting the police and asking for help from her friends, it still feels as if she refuses to "get help" in terms of actually trying to find a solution to her problem. The entrapment in this film is that she's trapped in the killer's little game, one that she could easily get out of by... not setting herself up so easily? In a weird way it seems like the character wants the torture the killer gives her, which in a way is the point and could have worked except that the whole psychology of it is thrown about mostly due to whatever Argento feels like doing.

As a loving homage to "The Phantom of the Opera", it's certainly an interesting and unique take. For all his worth, Argento delights in operatic movements as well, which well highlights the action. It just doesn't make much sense, especially as it delves further into a completely useless ending (yes, I know it's a reference to Harris' novel "Red Dragon". No, it didn't work). Why the character should go from one horrifying experience of entrapment to a willing one with the director is beyond me. It felt almost self-serving on Argento's part.

Overall, a fun experience, and between this and Suspiria I'm more than willing to follow up on more Argento productions. But this is not a movie I'd want to return to or remember.

--PolarisDiB


Obviously it seems many people really enjoyed this movie, and that's wonderful. It is certainly a very well-intentioned film, and I appreciate that in an era of heartless or emotionally damaging films. Unfortunately, the film has a lot of problems and it was not something I enjoyed watching.

The primary problem is the writing. It is just not very funny. When something tries to be snappy or witty and fails, that is far worse than when it hasn't attempted wit at all. This film is to a great degree a series of "snappy"-but-gentle come-backs between adult family members, none of which seem imaginative or apt. There is also a few central premises in the film that seem like too much of a stretch of coincidence or character motivation to be believable or really work. Some of the back story seemed more intriguing, and did serve to decorate the story around the edges fairly well, but it couldn't make up for the moment-to-moment flatness that pervaded almost all of the movie.

The directing/editing doesn't support the film well, either, although I don't know to explain how exactly. Somehow things always seemed to me rather fake, and that the actors were forcing there way through unnatural material for the most part. They tried, and I don't fault any one person here. There were also too many small and charmless roles in it outside the immediate family.

Not a good rental in my opinion, though, again, apparently a number of people found it very charming (I am 38; I suspect that perhaps people over 60 might enjoy this film more?).


This movie was, unfortunately, terrible.

Clichéd, hackneyed, stilted dialogue and acting make it almost unwatchable.

The feel-good finale is laughably lame.

There is a reason Judge Reinhold's career has vanished.

If you don't live in New York, and aren't Jewish, several of the jokes will be inscrutable.

I, too, found the need to have the unacknowledged lesbian daughter go straight at the end quite insulting.

I simply cannot fathom how this film was so popular at film fests.

It is, without a doubt, one of the worst films I have seen in quite some time.


Scott's collection of 80's icons cannot save this teen disaster. But then I suppose that's why it was only a TV movie and not a major motion picture. William A. Schwartz (writer) comes up with something closer to "Stewardess School", except this movie is more boring. This movie isn't really stupid, just boring and completely plotless. The only reason to see this might be to see Tina Yothers in an actual role after Family Ties. After this movie and equally dumb "Class Cruise", I guess Mr. Scott wised up and went back to directing sit-coms, which was his best move yet. 4 out of 10


After Loomis gives a quick recap of Micheal Myers we flashback to 1989 where Jamie is kidnapped by the Man in Black before the burning police station explodes. Micheal returns to Haddonfeild once again to find Jamie and his baby. In this version the Loomis character gets more scenes and seems much more pro-active than he is in the final cut. The Score is much better, more in line with parts 4 and 5, none of the electric guitar BS. And the ending makes a tad more sense. For these reasons coupled with the fact that this cut has more characterization and suspense, and cuts back on the gore factor (Halloween, unlike say the "Friday the 13th" Franschise, was never about blatant gore) is why I prefer this bootleg Producer's cut. Not to say that the cut magically turns a turd into gold, it just polishes the turd a little bit and makes it more comprehensible. The whole cult plot is still very stupid, as is Micheal fathering a kid

My Producer's Cut Grade: C-

My Theatrical Cut Grade: D-


Okay wait let me get this street, there are actually some morons on this site who reckon this is one of the better if not the best Halloween sequel. I even read someone saying it was just as good as the original. Pah what nonsense don't believe them I've watched every Halloween and clearly unlike some people knows what makes at the very least a good horror movie and this shower of S is one of the Worst horror movies i have ever seen in my life. Frankly if i was John Carpenter i would sue the person who wrote this either that or go around to his or her place with a hunting rifle. Seriously Halloween sequels in general are nearly all rubbish, two was crap, three was stupid, four is alright, five is well five, H20 alright, Resurrection painful. Yet, in many ways i find this to be the worst of a very bad bunch of sequels. Why? Well let me just embark on some kind of rant not so much a review but a mindless rant on why Halloween 6 the Cure of Michael Myers is one of the most abysmal movies i have seen in a very long time. OK where should i start, ah yes the plot oh boy the plot. Basically the plot is a heaped together mess containing cults, signs of Thor and some other crap. It's just stupid it really is, the film tries to be flashy and intelligent yet, its heaped together in such a horribly made way. Why does Michael Myers got to have a reason for killing people? Simple enough explanation Micahel likes to kill his relatives that would suffice, but no we have to have a man in black and mysterious cults and signs of Thor and utter crap. God its so bad it made me want to cry it really did, the writers have tried to add to the character of Myers but have actually managed to do the entire opposite. Apart from wearing a mask and a boiler suit < which is a completely different colour by the way, Myers just isn't the same guy from the original or even two, heck maybe even four. Thats another thing why has Myers become a Jason Voorhes parody? I thought it was meant to be the other way round, yet Myers is so similar to Jason, all he does is endlessly kill people in gory ways. In the original he teased his victims took his time and as a result the whole thing was far more suspenseful. In this he just walks around hacking people to death. I mean in the space of Half an Hour we had equalled the amount of kills in the original it was just ridiculous. Oh and Myers in this seems to have a really big head, i mean its huge and hes put on loads of weight. What else is crap, oh yeah the return of Tommy Jarvis thats pretty bad, in fact all the characters in this film are crap bar Dr Loomis of course. I can't stand the little kid, i wish he had got it he's really irritating. Our Heroin is boring and not interesting. And her whole family are a terrible bunch of actors. The mother is rubbish, the brother is bad and the Father i mean was this his first part or something? He was like a cartoon villain for gods sake he was actually more evil than Myers < By the way his death is one of the most abysmal i've ever seen i think even Friday the 13th wouldn't come up with something so entirely laughable. What else is rubbish oh yeah Tommy Jarvis, don't know the name of the guy but he really can't act, he tries his best to be serious and all that but i just wanted to laugh at him. I wish he had died in fact if everyone had died it would have been quite good really. There is Dr Loomis a horribly aged and dieing Donald Pleasence by all account. Despite him being on his last legs Pleasance is still the stand out in the brief amount of time he features. Its such a pity that such a corner stone of this franchise had to say farewell in garbage like this. What else is rubbish, oh yeah the bit where the radio DJ gets it. Firstly how the hell did Michael manage to get in that van when five minutes ago he was in his house? Secondly it was just a pointless kill which may boost the body count but is just another peace of nonsense which adds to the drivel that is this film. Its in fact that death which said it all for me in that it was pointless a lot like this film.


Taste is a subjective thing. Two people can watch the same movie with one of them loving it and the other one hating it. As it concerns 'Halloween:the Curse of Michael Myers' I fall into the latter category.

I'm of the opinion that John Carpenter, in 1978, made one of that decade's finest fright films, which despite its flaws, still holds up well into the 21st century. It reused many of the old horror film devices but utilized them in original and effective ways. It had no pretensions that it was anything other than a movie about an escaped mental patient stalking babysitters on Halloween night. And yet there were 'ideas' in the film but they were subtly introduced and not hammered into your skull. It juxtaposed the myths of the macabre festival with the reality of what was taking place in the story and it did this with a wonderful ambiguity.

The 'filmmakers' of this 'film' probably wouldn't even understand that previous paragraph. That's why we're saddled us with this miserable and inept piece of disposable celluloid. Direction, script, acting are of the lowest strata imaginable. This is the type of film that is so mind numbingly dull and nausea inducing as to make you want to crawl back into the womb and die. It is also truly, truly sad to see veteran British actor Donald Pleasence wasting his acting abilities with this saliva puddle of a movie. He seems drained of all his energy and resigned to the fact that this may be his last film. Maybe that's what killed him.


All ambiguity about Michael Myers has withered away thanks to this series' chronic habit of arseholing about with its continuity and pulling relatives out of nowhere. This entry introduces the potty angle that he's not just a psycho killer but is actually controlled by runes, which appear as a star constellation every Halloween, and a cult is using him to... erm, well, this film is far from coherent and I lost track of the plot after a while. The movie hemorrhages credibility so profusely it doesn't have a drop left by the end. Why does Michael put one victim's clothes in a washing machine? Why does an otherwise empty corridor have a deadly spike sticking out of the wall? Does getting electrocuted really make your head explode? And so on. It's left to Donald Pleasence, in his penultimate film role, to produce some wonderful little moments from the pile of dreadful dialogue he's given.


Man, the '90's really were an horrible decade for movies. The movies are lacking in a good style and also the storytelling is often lacking.

This 6th entry into the long running Halloween-series is certainly a bad one. You just never really get into the story because it isn't a very well constructed and build-up movie.

It's simply a poorly done film, that also suffers from its imagine-less writing and non-compelling characters that are in it. Dr. Loomis seems to be in it just for the sake of being in it. It's a real shame that this had to be Donald Pleasence last film-role. It's nice and also sort of suiting that his last role is in an Halloween movie but he definitely deserved to be in a better one.

There is never a sense of real danger in the movie and the character of Michael Myers just never comes across as threatening or scary. Perhaps it's because he's featured too prominently throughout the movie, from pretty early on already. He does his usual stuff again but without too much class or originality. Also the attempts to uncover Myer's past don't really work out, for the main reason that it just doesn't get explained very well. It's obvious that the script went through various re-writes before- and also very possibly during filming. Several scenes even got re-shot or added after the first cut turned out to be far from pleasing.

The movie more often looks and feels like a made for TV one. This is also due to the lack of some real good gore. As an horror movie it really is lacking in basically everything to make this a good or even original one to watch.

So far the worst out of the series!

3/10


Scanning through the comments, there doesn't appear to be a lot of love for this movie, and it's not very hard to see why, it's rubbish.

Now, I will start by saying that the finished product was hurt, in any number of ways, by the death of Donald Pleasance (Dr Loomis) in post production. This required a re-jigging of the film's conclusion with Loomis buying the farm and took away what was supposed to be a double twist at the end with Micheal swapping places with mysterious "Man in black" and I do not mean Johnny Cash.

Now to the story. The fifth movie ended rather unsatisfactorily with Micheal Myers escaping from jail with the mysterious man in black. It turns out (aggh) that this man knows the origin of Micheal's evil and is also a colleague of Dr Loomis named Dr Wynn. They also kidnapped Jamie Lloyd (played by Danielle Harris in parts 4 and 5 but here played by JC Brandy). Jamie, pregnant, escapes from Dr Wynn's lair and so Micheal follows her and kills her. But she'd had the kid so now he needs to track the baby down so he can kill his great nephew.

We hear some ludicrous explanation to Micheal's evil involving Gaelic curses down bloodlines and mysterious symbols. A radio show is broadcast from Micheal's home town for some reason, which gives Micheal some more hapless victims.

In the end the movie, just like this review is vague, confusing and directionless with a very anticlimactic ending.

Some sex scenes and nudity. Poor plot, passable effects, with some good run of the mill slasher kills, but severely lacking in motivation. For what was supposed to explain everything, this only stirred up some new questions, made parts 4 and 5 pointless and was a poor way for a great actor in Pleasance to end his life and career.


There is a lot wrong with this movie. It can be said that doing a sequel to "Halloween" was a bad idea in the first place, and we should feel lucky that the previous entries, even at their lowest, were still watchable. But even still, "Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers" -- even today -- is so bad, it's shocking. Poor movie-making at it's worst, indeed. There is so much blame to go around. But where to begin? Whose shoulders does this blame rest on?

Was it director Joe Chapelle's style-over-substance directing? Well, at the very least, the sixth installment is fresh on the visual front. And as far the visual effects go, you get to see Michael kill in some pretty gruesome ways, even if it doesn't quite fit in with the overall tone of the series.

So, could Daniel Ferrands' troubled script be the culprit? Well, to be fair, he did the best he could. By the time you reach the sixth entry in any series, you're running out of places to go. Finding a rhyme to Michael's reason isn't a bad concept so much as it's an uninteresting one, especially the way it's handled here. And it really doesn't help that the movie was hacked to pieces and sewn back together so many times that the story got completely lost towards the end.

Perhaps Dimension/Miramax could have botched the whole thing. Afterall, this was the first studio film in the "Halloween" series and we all know what happens when too many cooks get in the kitchen. Heck, look at the unbelievable lows they dragged "Hellraiser" to? I guess everyone is to blame, because aside from the actors and the visual effects guys, it seems nobody put in the effort to deliver a decent flick.

The bottom line, though, is that no matter how you cut it, slice it, dice it or electrocute it until it's head explodes, "Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers" was never a good film. Marking an all-time low for the series that nearly killed off any credibility for Michael Myers, "Curse" is just that: cursed. The thorn angle was never interesting, nor was it probably expanded upon. The needless gore is so out of place and replaces the tension that is the trademark of the "Halloween" name. Towards the end, the movie stops making sense, stops trying to push a plot and simply tries to find a way to kill the characters and end the film before anything else is lost. It's sad that Donald Pleasence's final performance is immortalized in this film, even if the man did the best he could under the worst possible conditions. And for the most part, there's other strong cast-members in this film. Paul Rudd plays the weird, anti-social adult Tommy Doyle rather naturally while Marianne Hagan does a fair job at portraying the sympathetic female lead. On the other side of the coin, the re-casting of Jamie Lloyd was a shame, and thank God Devin Gardner doesn't do movies anymore. As the child in the film being pursued by the "Man in Black," Danny is the anti-Jamie in that he is annoying, whiny and absolutely unbelievable in his role. It's sad when you can't even feel sympathy for a child in a horror film. But I guess that's "Halloween 6" in a nutshell. Essentially, this is the anti-"Halloween", made by a director who didn't know what he was doing and a studio that had their own agenda. Hell, even the music is bad. Many will try to paint this as the edgy-"Halloween" because of it's sci-fi twist, but really, it's just stupid. Save for some good visuals and decent characters, "The Curse Of Michael Myers" is just about as bad as it gets. And this is coming from a fan!


"Curse of Michael Myers" is a very frustrating piece to deal with for a fan of the Halloween series. After a very disappointing letdown in Halloween 5, the series reached a near ebb in plot lines, with a silly devolution into witchcraft and a teenage cult dedicated to the worship of Michael Myers. "Curse of Michael Myers" ups the ante in blood and gore, but really represents a decay in the series' integrity. It's too bad to, as this is the last movie for Donald Pleasance as the character of Dr. Loomis. Pleasance has some good screen moments (precious ones if your a fan of the series) as the now very aged and as he says "very retired doctor". Sadly he died before the movie was completed, and it is very apparent at the conclusion of the film that the stories original climatic scene was never realized. Right from the beginning credits, Halloween 6 has more of the feel of a made-for-TV movie then that of the block-buster horror flick that it started out as in 1978. Any loyal Halloween alumni should have demanded more from this film,... Dr. Loomis and Donald Pleasance deserved more.


If Halloween 5 was a cruel joke to the fans of the series, than Halloween 6 is a like a vicious insult. The storyline has gone to the dogs everyone. Michael is used as a helpless pawn in this film and he isn't at all scary. He reminds me of an over-weight alcoholic man than the boogeyman that struck fear in our hearts back in the original. There are almost no redeemable qualities about this feature and i'm so glad H20 came out because it would be an insult to fans to have this be fresh on our minds.

Halloween 6 had about 2 aspects that I liked. Having an adult Tommy Doyle in the film was a nice touch and it linked it to the original. Donald Pleasance is here(in his last performance...what a bad film to end an otherwise nice career on). When he's on screen he makes you remember the good old days when Halloween was actually scary.

That's about it my friends. The stalk sequences are unoriginal. One of them being a blatant rip-off of the Laurie/Michael chase in the original. The other characters are terribly under-written and just aren't likable. The music, on of Halloween's highlights even when the film is bad, is tortured in this film. we get a silly rock version of the stalk/chase theme. What were they thinking when they made this film.

*SPOILER*

Their biggest mistake was killin off the character of Jamie(Now played by another actress who isn't worth mentioning)We watched this character escape death in two films. We rooted for her and when she is killed in this film you cant help but feel sorry for her and realize that the filmmakers don't care when good characters are established in a film.

*END SPOILER*

The less said about thi embarrassment the better. I wish it didn't exist. I suggest skipping this film, and even 5, and just going straight to H20 because if you watch this you may not want to see another Halloween film again.


[possible spoilers]

The sixth "Halloween" film is an utterly depressing affair, but unfortunately not in the manner envisioned by the filmmakers. By now, everyone knows the story of how it was butchered and released in such a sloppy, incoherent form. The second half, in particular, makes little to no sense, as plot elements are introduced and dropped, seemingly at random. The very ending left me scratching my head. What the hell happened? Is Dr. Loomis dead or what? This is what you get when you put a shameless hack in charge of a motion picture. It's not a pretty sight.

On a related note, this is the most graphically violent entry in the series. I have no problem with gore if it's in the right place, but this movie takes it to absurd levels. The infamous exploding head must be a new low for the series. Michael himself even seems to be enjoying the act of murdering another human being, inconsistent with his efficient, methodical approach in the John Carpenter original.

I'm not quite sure who was responsible; director Joe Chappelle or the producers, probably a combination of both. I'd be perfectly happy to grant a pardon to all concerned if only they'd release the legendary "Producers' Cut," a more complete version of the film that is a vast improvement from every account. From what I understand, it's like a different movie altogether. I offer to pay full price to purchase the DVD if Miramax comes to its senses and releases it.

There are a handful of good elements, however. The idea of Michael being controlled by the Druids is intriguing. Paul Rudd is solid as Tommy Doyle, whose appearance is a neat tie-in with the original. The slick visuals help make the proceedings a bit more watchable. But these meager offerings are overshadowed by the overload of drivel we have to put up with.

Finally, "The Curse of Michael Myers" is noted for being Donald Pleasance's last film. Many of his scenes were excluded from the final cut, and when he does appear, he seems frail and unhappy. The movie is dedicated to his memory, a blatant (if unintentional insult) if there was ever one. The fact that a talented performer should end his career like this is too depressing to even think about.

*1/2 (out of ****)

Released by Dimension Films


This movie is very bad. In fact, the only reason why I've given it a 2 rather than a 1 is because it made me laugh. Without giving anything away, a man's head actually explodes in this film. It was so pathetic, I laughed. I don't believe the scene was meant to be funny but it's nonsense. Complete nonsense. The original Halloween is such a good film, it's a shame they had to go and make such a stinker.


I am not quite sure what to say/think about this movie. It is definitely not the worst in the series (there's still "Halloween 3"). The style is just very different and it focuses on other elements than its predecessor did. It tries to explain why Michael Myers freaks out on Halloween and starts butchering around. Well, all that stuff about Michael Myers being cursed and the evil cult was a rather nice effort, but I didn't buy it. None of the other installments in the series tried to come up with any fancy explanations.

The movie contains lots of gore. Actually it's plain carnage. If you haven't seen the other Halloween films you will probably like this one for its blood content. But for a real Halloween freak this sequel might be just too different to be seen as a good one. Suspense was turned into terror and carnage (exploding heads..., you get the point).

The ending (theatrical cut) is simply awful. Michael gets stabbed with a needle, then beaten up with a pipe, then stabbed again, this time with more needles, then beaten up a little more until there's slime running out of his head (where did this green stuff come from anyway?). Basically it's nothing more than trash worth 5 million $.

There was one good thing though: Michael's mask!

Dedicated to Donald Pleasance, quite a disgrace.

My rating: 4/10


Most of this film was okay, for a sequel of a sequel of a sequel...

I was impressed by the amount of suspense there was; I HAD actually expecting that to be chucked out the window in favor of gore, gore, gore. It wasn't, but there's some pretty ridiculous deaths.

The thing that I disliked, however, was all of the plot complications. Those could have been okay, if the scriptwriters had taken the time to explain all of them through. But what was the purpose of the secret society in the mental institution, specifically? Why were they protected from Michael's damage until a certain point? What exactly were they going to do with the baby? How did Jaime Lloyd get pregnant, for that matter? Why lock her up for 20 years for her to get pregnant, too? Why did Michael kill all his co-conspirators in the end? Why were there fetuses in the lab? The actors seemed to have "figured it all out" once they saw the fetuses.. But it was never explained to the audience.

If you're just going to watch this film to see people get snuffed, then this'll be okay for you.. However, if you can't stand a plot being thrown at you which remains unresolved by the time the credits roll, you should go watch something else.


Avoid this one! It is a terrible movie. So what if it is very exciting? All it is is just pointless murders. And the whole thing with Thorn and Michael's curse, that was the absolute worst thing they could possibly do to the series! Why couldn't they leave Michael's story a mystery? He's supposed to be the Boogeyman, not part of some stupid cult!! Ugh! Thank God for Halloween H20, which wiped out Halloween 3-6! They all sucked! But anyway, if you see this movie, please expect no more than pointless murders and gore.


Normally I wouldn't go to the trouble of commenting on a horror movie sequel, because it's usually assumed that they're BAD, and if you watch them with a healthy disrespect, they can be very fun and enjoyable to taunt/laugh at. However, this chapter of the ongoing Halloween saga came close to gumbing up everything the original stood for. In the very first movie, Dr. Loomis said (very pointedly I might add), that Michael Myers was evil, and this tries to explain why (doing a bad job of it I might add). In my opinion, he was much scarier when he was just a blood hungry freak. The whole goth/cult thing was unnecessary and a desperate attempt to throw a new curve into the Halloween equation. The result was a boring, predictable movie that was not scary and not bad enough to be funny.


By far this is the worst Halloween movie ever made. The acting is bad, except for Paul Rudd, and Donald Pleasence. The girl who played Kara (forgot her name) was ok, but overall this movie was basically a big letdown. Nothing moved the story forward, it lacked substance, and the scares that made Halloween and H20 so good. All and all, skip this movie, it's not worth the price of rental.


OK, just what the HELL is all this supposed to mean??? Halloween 6 (let's just call it that, OK?) is, without a doubt, the most CONFUSING film in the series (and from what I've heard, seeing the original "producers cut" doesn't sound like it makes things any less bewildering than the "official" release). What a mess.

This isn't a really bad film, as some have said. It has its scary scenes and some rather intense moments - it just DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE! Don't tell me that Michael was "engineered" from the beginning to be evil and kill and destroy, and blah blah blah. It was bad enough when they turned Michael into Jamie Lee Curtis' brother (just so they had an excuse to keep her in the second film) - this is too much.

It would seem this is another case of the creators of the film trying to be "too smart" by coming up with a new premise that will shock and impress us all. Bad move, guys. We're not looking for an explanation of why Michael kills, so please don't try and feed us this crap. Show me Michael looking menacing and killing a bunch of people. Show me Dr. Loomis trying to track him down and, as always, coming up just short. Don't waste (what turned out to be) the last performance of Donald Pleasance by telling me (in the most confusing way possible) that Michael was "created" by some cult from hell and that his "seed" will be passed on to another and... oh, brother.

Halloween 6 has its moments, don't get me wrong, and we all know there have been FAR worse sequels than this (Hellraiser, anyone?) so get what you can out of it (the scene toward the end of the film with Michael charging down a deep red corridor is particularly effective) and try to ignore the screwball plot. Hopefully one day we can all see the "producer's cut" and maybe get the chance to make (a bit) more sense out of all of this. Till then, this will have to do...

-FTM


Michael Myers, the deranged, not-so-young-anymore psycho, who seems to get beefier with every appearance, is resurrected by his druid brothers to wreck more menace upon his family members, and any one else who gets in the way. Gaps in logic seem to be ignored in favor of a healthy body count. Michael, who originally preferred strangulations and kitchen knives, learns to swing an axe and use whatever means necessary to off his victims, and the result is an awful, patchwork, dollar store film virtually unhelped by a few genuinely creepy sequences. Donald Pleasance, who died shortly after production, seems to have been injected into this story simply so *somebody* could be billed as the star. You won't want to cover your eyes during this one, but you will shake your head at the downward slide of John Carpenter's classic creation.


The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques "Spanish Judges" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.

The low budget "Spanish Judges" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Tudo Por Dinheiro" ("All For Money")


James Cagney plays Richard Gargan (nicknamed "Patsy"!), a former gangster now overseeing the surly lads as the new superintendent of a state-run reform school. Tepid genre entry wherein Cagney's the whole show; he dominates the picture, but only because there's not much else of interest going on. Jimmy gives just what's expected from his hard-boiled persona, which can be satisfying if you're in for a quick fix. The direction (by Archie Mayo, though Michael Curtiz was said to have helped) is straightforward without being particularly gripping, although the narrative slips in the second-half, grinding the film down to a messy conclusion (with even Cagney's Patsy getting lost in the shuffle). Remade in 1938 as "Crime School" and again in 1939 as "Hell's Kitchen". ** from ****


A friend gave me this movie because she liked it. I decided I would finally watch it. It was sooooooo long. I kept waiting for the suspense to happen but it never did. I kept waiting for something to happen after the opening scenes, and it never did. I stopped the movie and came back later. I actually forced myself to watch the rest of it hoping it would get better. It got worse. I kept asking myself, who are these people? Do they have feelings? are they just robots? I'm glad I didn't pay to see it or pay to rent it. The end would have been better if Dutch died from the gunshot wound. At least we would have gotten some emotion from the audience. Or maybe not.


Did you ever see the film "Marathon Man"? The part with the dentist? I would rather have that happen to me than to sit through "Random Hearts" again. It wasn't simply uninteresting, or uneventful-- It was horribly, painfully, and agonizingly BORING. At one point, I momentarily lost conciousness. To the average layman, I may have appeared to be sleeping, but the other movie patrons knowingly realized I actually BLACKED OUT from the bordom. I thought I was going to die. When the film finally ended (I think it was twelve hours long, but I'm not sure), I let out an exhasperated "Thank You Jesus, It's Over!!", to which all other movie goers cheered. If I had to listen to Harrison Ford drone on one more second in that monotoned whine, I would have been forced to search for something sharp to jam in my eye to divert my attention. This is 136 minutes of my life I will never get back.


Unusually cold and silly drama from director Sydney Pollack. Soapy plot revolves around adulterous couple perishing in a plane wreck, leaving their spouses to find eachother and connect on their own intimate level. Romance-novel writing gets sluggish treatment, although I thought the performances by leads Harrison Ford and Kristen Scott-Thomas were fine. Slick production holds interest, even though the plot keeps covering the same ground, and never builds any emotional momentum. As a result, the climax in the airport is a big 'So What?'