In London, the Venetian Carla Borin (Yuliya Mayarchuk) is searching an apartment to share with her beloved boyfriend Matteo (Jarno Berardi). She meets the lesbian real estate agent Moira (Francesca Nunzi) and rents a large apartment. When the jealous Matteo finds some pictures and letters from her former lover Bernard (Mauro Lorenz) in Venice, he hangs up the phone and the upset and amoral Carla has a brief affair with Moira and intercourse with an acquaintance in a party. When Matteo comes to London, he concludes that his lust for Carla is more important than his jealousy and her behavior.

"Transgredire" is another "soft porn" of the sick director Tinto Brass with a shallow and ridiculous story where every situation is a motive to expose the intimate parts of the women in the cast. The amateurish camera exposes the body of the beautiful Yuliya Mayarchuk in every possible angle and her character is abused, touched and licked in every part of her nice body, but without showing explicit penetration. This flick is only recommended to fans of this director and as a voyeur experience seeing Yuliya Mayarchuk naked in erotic situations. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "A Pervertida" ("The Pervert")


I have just caught this Movie on TCM, and can understand why George Murphy went into Politics if this was the best MGM could serve up to him. It is so slow-moving that the attempt to make it a real film-noir effort does not come off. It featured two of my favourite

players in Eve Arden (completely wasted) and Dean Stockwell(the best actor in the Film), but what really hit me was that the leading lady Frances Gifford went through some 90 minutes (it seemed longer!) without changing the expression on her face--her fainting scene was comical. John Hodiak played his role OK, but the script let him, and the rest of the cast, down very badly. I gave it 4 stars mainly because of the photography. It would have been on the first half of the Program when double features were the go.


I had to watch this movie for a film class, I suffered the whole time through. I am not Asian but was still greatly offended by this film. The film's basis is racialism, overall minorities (Rex Harrison isn't even Asian!) are depicted in narrow-minded manner. The banning of the film in Thailand illustrates the degree inaccuracy and subjective portrayal of Asians. In addition, there has been critical attention given to Biography of Anna. Many critics argue that Anna added many fictitious events to her story to project herself in a good manner. Some critics of the film and biography have even stated that Anna made up the whole story. An awful film but good for discussion of BioPics as form of meta-narrative fiction rather than a work of non-fiction.


So when Bob and Marion Boxletter see a guy at a hotel, Marion believes it is her long lost brother Brian, but when she approaches him he appears to be someone else just with the exact same face. Marion manages to get his fingerprints and takes it to the police and when the identity is confirmed that it was in fact her brother Brian she and Bob leave for New York after tracing his whereabouts. They get a hold of Brian, but still he doesn't know what they are talking about, but all the couple really want to know is where Brian has their 8 maybe 9 year old son Joey... and even when they see Joey he doesn't know them either. The plot thickens and they find themselves one day thinking that they are someone else as well. Experiments made out on people only to make the perfect assassins yet the question of why they would bother putting Bob and Marion in the same building as each other is beyond me. Personally Gregory Harrison played his 2 parts great, but I have no clue what was wrong with the other actors, they seemed bored and lost. 3 out of 10, a little suspense yes but that's it.


"A lot of the films I've made probably could have worked just as well 50 years ago, and that's just because I have a lot of old-fashion values." - Steven Spielberg

Some points..

1. Though this film is a loose remake of "A Guy Named Joe", it also borrows heavily from "A Matter of Life and Death" and "Wings of Desire".

2. This was Spielberg's second attempt at being Frank Capra.

3. Spielberg has often said that he wishes to make a "Frank Capra movie" in the vein of "It's A Wonderful Life" and "Mrs Smith Goes To Washington". Judging from his recent attempts to get a "Harvey" remake off the ground, it seems as though Spielberg still holds this dream, the director rightfully not satisfied with his last 3 ventures into Capracorn.

4. Critics at the time bashed "Always", stating that the elaborate action sequences distracted from the film's romance, but that's really not the problem at all. The problem is that "Always" needs a lot more special effects to distract us from the fact that Spielberg can't film any line of dialogue that doesn't end in an exclamation point.

5. The film is filled with comedy that just doesn't work. Spielberg's comedic tastes aren't very sophisticated, and seem to be ripped right out of 1950's screwballs and Looney Tune cartoons. These exaggerated antics may work in a cartoon universe, but in a film it just seems like an odd marriage.

6. The film's lead couple come across as brother and sister, not lovers. Spielberg's films have always being apprehensive toward sex and intimacy, but this film goes to extreme lengths: she's a wisecracking tomboy and he's a wisecracking old man. They're more irritating than endearing.

7. The film contains one good scene, in which John Goodman argues with Holly Hunter, but for the most part the film's characters are too annoying. There's no subtlety, every emotion overplayed, every joke over designed, every sequence filled with unnecessary busyness.

8. "Always" and "Hook" taught Spielberg how to con audiences. After their failure (and the twin financial failures of "The Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun") Spielberg dumped the goofy colour cinematography of "Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun" in favour for the more desaturated "black and white" worlds of "Schindler's List", "Munich", "Minority Report" and "Saving Private Ryan". From here on, "less light" and "dark cinematography" became equated with "serious topics".

9. After the financial success of each "dark film" Spielberg reverts back to his colour cinematography, and falls flat on his face once again. "Amistad" followed "Schindler's List", "AI" followed "Ryan" and "Lincoln" will follow "Munich". These "colour" films are always bashed for being too tacky, sentimental, corny and hokey, but the truth is, if you removed the desaturation, all these "serious" films would feel the same way.

10. Since the 70s, Spielberg has tried to differentiate himself from the other brat pack directors (Scorsese, De Palma, Coppola etc), by pretending to be an "optimist" and "humanist". He would himself state this repeatedly during many interviews in the late 70s. The reality, though, is that he is probably the biggest sadist of all these directors, the very form of his films often undermining their content, their very box office performances always proportionate to their dazzling displays of carnage.

11. The failure of Spielberg to connect with any of the characters in "Always", and the relish he shows, instead, for filming forest fires, air-planes crashing etc, perfectly encapsulates the rest of his filmography. People running from dinosaurs, sharks, Nazis, tripods, rocks etc...this is what Spielberg delights in. The moment his characters stop to speak, however, everything self-destructs. A film like "Amistad" failed, in other words, because not enough blacks died and too many whites talked.

12. The film's flying scenes aren't up to the standard's set several years earlier in the mega-hit "Top Gun". Of course, when your "enemy" is a forest fire, it's hard to make things cinematic.

13. Failures like "1941", "Hook", "Always" etc are often more illuminating that Spielberg's more successful films. They reveal the steel skeleton beneath the technique. They show what the amusement park ride looks like when its not working, revealing the vacuum beneath the broken machinery.

5/10  There's one good sequence here (two actors in a room, simply improvising), but this is mostly an annoying picture with a predictable script.

Worth one viewing.


This film is replete with sentimentality, unprofessional flying that makes a pilot like me cringe, and irrelevant material. Why introduce Rachel, for instance? She has absolutely nothing to do with the film except to permit her "Follow Me" truck to run wild and crash into Dorinda's fence. That has got to be one of the stupider sequences among many in the film. Another is at the end when the aircraft (was it a B-26 or an A-26? --both designations are used in the film) is left with props whirling and no chocks in place. That serves the plot, of course, but to reveal it would be to commit a dreaded spoiler. As it is, the aircraft would have begun to taxi sans control. The ending (again, avoiding spoilers) involves much too much talk -- as at the beginning of sound films in the 30s with all those final speeches. Here, Dreyfuss just babbles on and on. The ending also incorporates other radical violations of aircraft protocol and a couple of improbabilities/impossibilities that I won't describe. What a dull and disjointed effort!


The worst part of all is the poor scripting, leading to superficial acting.

Dreyfuss' character is intensely repetitive and annoying, and Dreyfuss himself has the annoying face to match.

Holly Hunter's character is exaggeratedly self-centered, and Hunter herself indulges in serious overacting, as usual.

Brad Johnson was wooden. John Goodman made the best of it.

Furthermore, the whole death / ghost thing has since been somewhat overdone, and now appears rather lame.

Barely watchable only if you like old aeroplanes.


A few yrs ago, I remember reading an essay by a feminist film theorist who briefly mentioned Rosalind Russell. This theorist wrote that the 'strength' of the 'strong women' that Rozzie R. played lay partly in their ability to stand by their man (even when he wasn't worth it).

I thought of this essay after watching 'Crimes of Passion'.

Kathleen Turner exudes the same strength and style as Russell in her portrayal of prostitute China Blue. She's the object of affection for two men: the loony priest played by Anthony Perkins, and a bland whitebread boy who's marriage is slowly fading. And she won't let either of them have a piece of her until ...

I won't give away the ending - but I will say that this is ultimately Bland Whitebread Boy's fantasy. No matter how hard Ken Russell tries, he can't disguise the fact that this movie is basically a 1940s melodrama for the MTV generation. Except its retrogressive class and gender politics make those old black-and-white films look revolutionary by comparison.


Ken Russell directed this weird ( Not very ) erotic thriller and if I hadn't known that I would have staked my life that the director was Brian DePalma . Absolutely everything about CRIMES OF PASSION screams DePalma , from the gaudy cinematography that is lit a little too brightly , to the domestic storyline that turns into a stalk and slash plot , to even the title this screams " Depalma , DePalma , Depalma "

Unfortunately since Brian DePalma is increasingly seen as a poor mans Hitchcock over the years Russell should have tried emulating a style of his own . Sure an erotic thriller in the style of TOMMY or BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN would have been bizarre with a capital B but at least it would have been a unique cinematic experience . Stories about prostitutes living a dangerous double life and being stalked by a religious maniac were an all too common sight in the 1980s video market . Oh and Anthony Perkins plays the same role he played in almost every movie he made in the 1980s . Yawn

The only thing of any real note to CRIMES OF PASSION is the controversy it caused . I guess the studio were the happiest people to hear this since no publicity is bad publicity , but as for the controversial sex scenes ... What controversial sex scenes ? There aren't any and the only controversy I can think of is of China Blue dominating an on duty policeman with a truncheon . Needless to say he didn't come quietly HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA


If you're in the mood to laugh at a truly bad movie (bad in the way only Ken Russell at his worst can be), you must try this one. It succeeds in making you feel like you just landed in a .25 porn-booth, and you can just about smell the urine on the floor. Kathleen Turner struts around in a blond wig, getting her kicks from "pretending" to be a two-bit hooker (she really has a good solid job in the clothing industry and has been hurt so badly by men that this is the only way she can connect), and Tony Perkins plays a hysterical "priest" who is out to maybe murderer her (yet another movie that ends with Tony Perkins in drag). Annie Potts shows up and is not allowed to provide an ounce of her usual wit, which is reason enough to hate this movie. The kinky will love the sex scenes, so rent the UNrated version in the RED box so you can see Turner give a cop a taste of his billy club (I had to pause the VCR until we stopped laughing).


"Crimes of Passion" is a film that is disappointing on most counts. Where should I start from? The plot? It is despairingly simplistic and full of gaps. The direction? Reminds a cheap B-movie. The acting? John Laughlin is utterly terrible in his role as "well-intentioned-husband-of-a-frozen-wife" Bobby, Annie Pots is unconvincing as "frozen-wife" Amy, and it is only Kathleen Turner (above average), and Antony Perkins (excellent) which get passable acting marks. More specifically, Antony Perkins gives a great performance as the pervert reverend Peter Shayne, while Turner manages to portray the roles of sexy China Blue and frail Joanna Crane satisfactorily.

Unfortunately, the performances of Turner and Perkins alone are insufficient to help get the film a grade higher than 4/10. Watch it if you want to see Turner in some sensational scenes (although even on this count the film can be easily matched by its competition-"Basic Instinct" for example), otherwise avoid.


I've seen worse, which is a backhanded way of saying how crummy this film was. The plot is ridiculous: a student shoots a police officer and five more take him hostage? In a dimly-lit, smoky New York school -- and somehow this clichéd hostage situation takes 24 hours to resolve? Are you serious? A day-long hostage situation -- with a wounded NYPD officer no less, takes all day? I realize this film was made pre-9/11, but still. I looked at the clock and wondered how they could possibly drag this overdone plot on for another hour and 10 minutes.

The acting was mediocre at best all-around, and the characters were seemingly thought up by 7th graders. The child-abuse kid, the pregnant scared girl, the violent gang wannabe, a confused unfortunate victim, the wise-cracking white guy. Please.

Trying to make this hostage situation into a mission for "more textbooks" and better school conditions? Please -- this is a weak attempt to justify writing a movie about a kid who shoots a cop. They're confused, ignorant idiots who get involved in a dumb -- far-fetched -- situation. Don't try and paint them, suddenly, as noble, The most laughable is Ziggy, who lives in the school's attic and admires Michaelangelo so much so that he paints these striking scenes on the walls. You've got to be kidding me.

The "no racism" signs in the protesting crowd? A black kid shoots a black cop and a black negotiator tries to patch it all up. This is a random message.

I understand the overall message, which was poorly portrayed, albeit by some actors who have gone on to respectable careers.

This was a joke though the red sniper lasers on the roof? The worst scene was the kid, fake snow falling, dying in the arms of his buddy on the roof, "promise me" etc. How original.

The epilogue of "I went to prison but now I'm pre-law at XYZ University" ... a fitting way to end a joke of a movie.


I guess they reward idiocy today because whoever came up with the concept for this movie was not shot on sight.

This is a morons delight. The worst stereo-types of every ghetto and high school movie is dragged out twisted around and made even more unbearable. Every character in this movie has a sob story beyond sympathy. Lets pray for a remake where the whole school gets nuked.

***Spoiler*** how does a school so run down have the internet in the first place?


I found this movie to be preachy and unrealistic. It tries to be a movie showing kids fighting against the system, but it doesn't even present a positive solution. I guess I didn't feel really for the kids. I totally can understand what their gripes were and I know how poor the state of schools are, but I found their solution and the way the outside dealt with it to be a big bunch of phooey. If this comes on TV, don't waste your time. Watch Short Circuit again for the 235th time.


What are Forest Whitaker and Clifton Collins Jr. doing in this? Light It Up is a ridiculously melodramatic piece on problems in low income area schools. While the topic is one that needs to be addressed, the film uses every cliche in the genre and comes off as a textbook popcorn flick. The characters are cutouts from the inner city version of The Breakfast Club or even The Faculty. Watch this with your children when they turn 13 or 14. With them, it could be an outlet for a lesson on current social problems. For anyone older, it will be nothing more than something to watch and spit on at 4 in the morning, as I did recently on Bravo. Matter of fact, what was this doing on Bravo?


This Movie Was In My Opinion Very Ignorant! There Is Only Foolishness As The Motivation Of The Caracters. The Police Procedure Was Unrealistic. The Caracters Generated No Sympathy From Me,The Story Must Have Been Written As The Movie Was Filmed. Unless You Like Police Bashing Stories Don`t Waste Your Time.


This movie is an obvious rip-off of Underworld USA starring Cliff Robertson. You owe it to yourself to invest a couple of hours and watch the original. I found this one to be disjointed and hard to follow, with a lot of scenes that didn't make much sense. I'm not opposed to violence in movies but this whole thing seemed to be nothing more than an excuse to blow away one person after another, many of whom were only marginally connected with the storyline. With everyone else getting killed, all through the movie I wondered why Frank didn't just blow Johnny's brains out. He certainly could have and Johnny sure didn't act like someone that could be trusted. Another thing that bothers me is the sex scenes; why do these people have sex with their clothes on? Is that supposed to turn us on? Surely they didn't think they had a shot at a PG rating. Nothing in this movie seemed to play out naturally. as if one were watching people in real life, instead it was done in a heavy-handed and shallow manner.


I share the same opinion regarding Underworld as the previous comment.

I sat through the 1.5 hours of this movie wondering what this story was all about and more importantly why the author and/or director had made certain decisions for the plot. On the whole I found the movie to be unbalanced, consisting of strange sub-plots which (IMHO) actually had nothing to do with the movie. Furthermore, when writing a thriller I'd say you want your viewers to wonder about the story and not about the way the story is filmed...


This movie is so bad, they wouldn't buy it back at my local used CD/DVD store. I only own it because it came in a box set which I bought for the masterpiece "Deadfall". The store bought back the other two movies I was selling from the four disc set, but they wouldn't buy back Underworld, and those other two movies redefined rank, so what does that say about this movie? So I tried to sell it back to another store, that even bought back budget DVDs that you could buy for a dollar at a local store, but they wouldn't buy back Underworld either. This movie is bad on every level, and is one of those that came out in the post-Tarantino-clone glut of the mid 90's. The only slightly redeemable element is Dennis Leary telling Joe Montegna, that he's a "stinky friend" and calls him "Mister Stinky Friend". That line is so delightfully horrible, that I can't help but quote it at least once a week when describing a stinky friend. But now that I've enlightened you with that quote, you don't have to go thru the pain of watching this movie.


Although the movie was only so so the closed captioning was by far the best I have ever seen! Most of the time the spelling is terrible and the captioning out of sync. I use the closed captioning even though I can hear well but find a lot of actors mumble. Also many times the sound track overrides the dialogue. Thanks!


There are actually some good reasons, why a person should take the risk of going totally insane by watching this show. The breasts are nice, even though some of them aren't that real, but they usually come in pairs, which is good. Watching the beach on your screen is also a very relaxing experience, as it is an ideal place for just taking it easy and not worrying too much about getting eaten by a rubber shark. It's always good to remember, that David Hasselhoff is a god. Not the god, but a god. It's not so much about his acting skills, since there are none, but his chesthair does a lot of talking. Also, there's no KITT hanging out in this series, which is good, since Mr Hasselhoff told in an interview, that he always thought KITT was gay. Naturally that might make him to look like an idiot, but considering the other statements he has made lately, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

In a nutshell, this is the kind of show, that is totally harmless to people. It gives us a lot to stare at and a lot to laugh at, which is something many intentionally humoristic shows really don't give us. I have to say, it's no wonder that Borat fell in love with Pamela Anderson. I enjoy watching the show. No, it's not a great show, actually it's quite horrible, but I enjoy watching it. It's basically like a B-movie stretched to last for a decade.


This is the first porn I've ever tried to review. It demands a different approach than usual, since the allegory will not reward dissection. "I'm American. I'm a prudish virgin." "We are European. We are cultured and sex-mad." "It is nice when we all screw each other." Lots to talk about! Well, there kind of is in fact, relative to your average 60s topless volleyball number anyway. And the enervating patina of 'class' at least delivers clean, detailed compositions. But what the hell kind of thing is that to say about a porn? OK then: the only scene I really (rhetorically) got off on was the first time Brigitte Maier steps in. There are efforts to toss in a nice variety of race and age while letting no two men anywhere near each other; the one black guy suffers a premature bout of editorial coitus interruptus. And multiple takes or not, one perhaps undescribable-on-IMDb act does look like it was partially simulated by a surgical hose. Still, I stayed awake, and it was eight in the morning...but what does the last shot mean?!


Young Michael Dudikoff like young Lord Greystoke was abandoned in the jungle on a Pacific island as an infant. But instead of being raised by the apes, he fell into the hands of a Japanese soldier who was still living there because he hadn't heard the war was over. And like young Luke Skywalker it turns out he fell into the hands and learned the fighting skills of a Ninja.

Good thing because they were separated and the young kid came down with a case of amnesia, but those fighting skills didn't go away. The orphaned kid, now named Joe Armstrong enlists in the Army and gets himself stationed in the Phillipines. Meanwhile his Obi Wan Kenobe played by John Fujioka gets rescued himself and goes to work as a gardener on the estate of planter and terrorist go between Don Stewart using a cheesy accent that seems to vary between French and Spanish.

As these things happen everybody meets and Dudikoff both solves the mystery of part of his past and saves the commanding officer's daughter from the bad guys in this Golan-Globus Production. Charles Bronson was getting a bit long in the tooth now and Golan-Globus needed a new star for their action flicks. Michael Dudikoff filled the bill quite nicely and made quite a few films for them including several American Ninja sequels.

This film is all action and Dudikoff dispatches bad guys at a record pace. What he doesn't do, Steve James does doing his best Rambo imitation and showing his considerable martial arts skills.

The film has enough holes in the plot to drive one of those army vehicles through you see in the story. But that's what the ticket buying public doesn't care about. Dudikoff certainly looks magnificent stripped to his fighting clothes. No wonder so many sequels were made.


I have seen cheesy kung fu fight films. Living in Taiwan they come on in lieu of sitcoms in America. I have seen movies make fun of themselves, but this film belongs in the sad category of fight films that try too hard with awful actors, awful props, and awful music to be taken seriously. I seriously felt pity for the person who composed the music for this movie. How sad it must be to be a composer who has to churn out crap like what I thought should have been titled "Generic Ninja Fight Scene, Op. 1" or "Variations on A Bad Guy Pointing a Gun at a Girl's Head When Backed into a Corner" or the daring "Flight of the Helicopter". Then the fight scenes were over and the credits rolled. Those actually had me in tears laughing. If the "special effects" weren't proof enough that this was low-budget, the fact that only two or three of the crew members, presumably locals which although good for the much-needed Phillipino economy was probably done solely to save money, have ever done anything since this series of movies. They rented equipment, despite making sequels to this movie. That was pretty funny too. The thing that really had me going though, was not the music (which left me half expecting an animated Sargeant Slaughter from G.I. Joe to pop up), but the ending...I suppose this would be a spoiler if there was really a plot to spoil, but when the American Ninja drops the girl into Jackson's arms and then takes off his mask, I wanted to see him jump off the roof and Jackson drop the girl to catch him.

I think that would have been the perfect punchline for this joke of a movie.


This review contains a SPOILER---

The movie is an American Ninja mysteriously trained in the martial arts. He falls for the Colonel's daughter and turns from the most hated grunt on the post to the "People's hero" at the end of the film. This film is extremely cheesy and very poorly researched. It is good for folks who do not care about plot development or reality. Good for kids under 14. The military errors in this film is comical. I remember during my three years in the military, us privates were not required to salute or call NCO's "Sir", the film does this in various spots. The colonel's hair is way too long on the ears. The Master Sergent's moustache was against military protocol in length. On the post, the Colonel was the only officer around. Not one other officer was shown walking around the post. You had idiot ninjas brandshing swords against troops with m-16's, rather poorly made.

Folks this filmed reeked. Michael Dudikoff is not really that bad of an actor he just has lousy scripts. The ninjas were more hilarious than dangerous. Avoid this film


I couldn't stop laughing, I caught this again on late night TV. "I suppose you think you're some kind of hero for bringing my daughter back alive" "No" "Good"

haha.


Michael Dudikoff stars as Joe Armstrong a martial artist who fights ninjas who are stealing weapons from the U.S Army, in this entertaining yet admittedly brainless martial arts actioner, which is hampered by too many long pauses without action, but helped by some high energy action setpieces as well as Steve James' performance.


The plot is very basic, but acceptable: A young US soldier, having studied Asian martial arts, puts this to good use in defence of the general's daughter and falls in love with her. Unfortunately, the three main acting parties' (soldier, girl, rebels) combined IQ amounts to 3: One point for the soldier, one for the girl, a large number of Ninja fighters have to share the third point among them to be able to lose against the former two.


This is a great movie for first time ninjas who are dating. If you're trying to impress some cute little ninjette I would highly recommend playing this masterpiece. Its one of those special movies that allows you to miss large sections of it without interfering with the plot.

Also I was wondering, where does a Teal ninja hide? Are ninjas color coded like this? Is this normal? If I were attacked by one of these yellow or orange ninjas I would die of laughter before succumbing to his sword.

And I finished my black star ninja test the other day, it was multiple choice, It went pretty good. I found there were a lot of questions on how to "sneak" around and look evil. Its all about the eyebrows and the attitude.

Basically, the movie could have been better if: 1. There was no color coded ninjas (or the color coded ninjas could combine into a super ninja). 2. Joe died in the first two minutes and Patricia had to avenge him 3. Miscellaneous monkeys were scattered throughout the file 4. Patricia didn't talk and Patricia was replaced with another character 6. The French guy was also a black star ninja 7. Chris Tucker, Whoopi Golderg, and Chris Rock were added as "comic" relief 8. Ninja strengths came from miticlorians.


Ask a thousand people what the greatest unintentional comedy of all time is, and they will almost invariably tell you Battlefield Earth or Plan 9 From Outer Space. They're wrong. American Ninja has those two turkeys beat down for a number of reasons, not the least of which being a script that was quite clearly not thought through. While I fully support the B picture industry for keeping slobs like Michael Dudikoff in work, a little work on the product would have gone a long way.

For those who give a rat's posterior, my next few paragraphs will give away significant parts of the plot.

First of all, when we are given some background information on the titular hero, we are told his date of birth, next of kin, parents, and so forth, are all unknown. I don't know about you, but I expect the US army to take fact-finding about its personnel a little more seriously. They also manage to screw up the continuity of dates quite effectively, although I don't remember quite which dates were screwed up and when. This is actually one of American Ninja's less obvious flaws.

It has been pointed out before, but a common failing of many martial arts films is that when our heroes are confronted by large numbers of antagonists, said antagonists attack one at a time. More recent films such as The Matrix Reloaded defy this convention, but just about every film from the 1980s has the audience screaming, "hey, why don't you attack all at once???". Martial arts films tend to be a lot more impressive when the fights are more extensive than one-on-one.

The central premise was originally a joke, but in light of recent events where the US army cannot crush a mob of insurgents simply because they won't delegate to the specialists, it seems strangely ironic. Phillipino renegades are stealing weapons from the US army's local division for sale to wealthy clients. Never mind that such a theft would prompt the army to give the local businessmen responsible, or even believed responsible, an aerial rectal exam, this is a cheesy 1980s action film, after all.

By far the funniest part of the film is the climactic battle, however. As Joe and Jackson turn combining posing and fighting into an art form, evil Ninjas start to explode for no readily apparent reason. I agree with one previous commentator in that this film should have been called Ninja Holocaust, because I'm willing to bet a total of at least three hundred evil Ninjas bite it during the film's running time. On top of that, the Black Star Ninja starts fighting with rocket launchers, laser beams, and all sorts of ridiculous implements that are not only poorly thought out, they're flat-out poorly executed. You'll never see a laser beam effect that looks cheaper.

What tops it all off is that the film takes itself so damned seriously. During the scene when Joe is meeting up again with his old mentor, I dare the viewer not to laugh at the hideous dialogue. Not that I know any modern practioners of Ninjitsu, but the logical part of my imagination has a hard time believing that they have spoken like this at any time in their history. During this mentoring scene, I half expect the old guy to tell Joe he must prove his manhood by cutting his own head off with a blunt plastic spoon.

In all, I gave American Ninja a 1. This is a special score in my system in that it is reserved for the worst, most appalling, most offensive films I've ever seen, or films that make me laugh without even bothering to try. American Ninja is definitely an example of the latter.


For many year I saw this movie as a real movie of ninjas but after study more about this culture I can only think this is just another karate film. A black shinobi and some weapons doesn't make a ninja, it's much more than that. The ninja are the most dangerous warrior of the japan because they are trained in every aspect of life to survive to anything, killing whatever try to stop them. This movie is not a about a ninja warrior just about a clown trying to be something he cannot even understand.


What crack are you smoking? This movie, while gloriously entertaining, is awful!

The action scenes are so obviously fake it's kind of sad. The colonel's daughter is painfully irritating. The ninja training camp is so hilarious it is almost not worth mentioning. And when Joe puts the bucket over his head and beat up the other army guy, I just about peed myself. I could go on...

Entertaining, arguably so. Good, no. Well made, certainly not.

As a commentary on America as empire, it's actually pretty good. Joe as a typical white conqueror isn't all that surprising, especially in the context of mid-1980s American cinema.


This could have been a really good movie if someone would just have known how to finish the film.

The story was going along just fine and heading towards that point in every movie like this where the "gray" characters turn "good" and the "bad" guys get their just desserts and *boom* ... it's like they ran out of script and the cast just started to make things up.

Which wouldn't have been so bad ... if the cast had just continued with the character development they had already put in place. But such is not the case and the movie soon becomes a goofy mess.

My advice is to watch this movie up to about the last 30 minutes ... and then shut it off. At this point, imagine how you think the next 30 minutes will look based on what you have seen so far.

Believe me, the ending you come up with will look far better than how this film actually ends. Trust me on this.


Look, this film is terrible... the "plot" involves twins who are neglected by their self-absorbed parents, and left in the care of a succession of nannies and babysitters, all of whom the children drive away by being completely obnoxious. Eventually the kids engineer ex-convict Beverly D'Angelo to be their new nanny, do you care why? And D'Angelo watches a TV talk show about selling children and decides she will try to sell the twins... and, well, oh, you don't want to know. It's all very unpleasant, and not at all funny. In fact the announcer slated this film before it came on the TV channel I was watching! Just don't bother wasting a single moment of your life on this pile of complete trash, y'hear?


Gordon Scott made some good Tarzan movies, but this is not one of them.

As I watched it, wincing at the bad, obviously interior sets and the hollow wooden "clonking" sounds as they walked across supposedly dirt trails, and cringing at the bad dialog and worse acting among the supporting cast, I kept thinking, "Sheesh! This is TV show level!" Then I find out it was, indeed, three TV show pilot episodes woven seam-fully into one.

It's nice to see Scott get outside (alone), away from the lame sets, in a few of the scenes; and the fights do have some pretty nice moves... but oh, ow, and ouch as to the dialog. And did I mention the acting? Heck, Cheetah (or "Cheta," in this version) was a better actor than most of the humans.

And that's not saying much.

It is kind of a stitch to see a younger Sherman (i.e. Scatman) Carothers acting as a native. But probably not worth the overall time-investment.


Tarzan, the environmental awareness leader, faces four trappers who by most unorthodox means abduct animals to get them to Zoos. Tarzan has a bland but sexy enough wife with an impeccable hairdo, and a kid. No one should fault Tarzan for being grieved by the vicious actions of the hunters.

This Gordon Scott Tarzan flick is one of the silliest, completely and unnecessarily silly; for one reason or another, the team did not find anything charming to sustain the movie, and so it's just some silly rubbish. Tarzan and his family are threatened by a group of evil trappers ,because Tarzan's environmental awareness brought him into open conflict with the evildoers. The kid and the chimpanzee, both belonging to Tarzan, are kidnapped by the malevolent trappers; so Tarzan summons the unleashed animal forces of the jungle to release the kid and the chimpwith Tarzan leading the attack. TARZAN AND THE TRAPPERS is silly, unappealing, quite uninteresting. Maybe as a kid I would have liked it? Now one has to be too meanas viciously mean as those pathetic trappers punished by Tarzanto ask a Tarzan flick not to be silly; this I concede. But one is also truly entitled to ask these Tarzan flicks, however silly, to have and to show some gustoa bit of gustoeven a tiny bit of gusto. Some kick, some excitement, some fun. Now the Gordon Scott Tarzan failure is too silly exactly in the sense of not having any gusto at all, of lacking all excitement. (Yes, I liked the sequence of the jungle beast eating a snake. What beast? Watch the movie, kiddos, now here I just gave you one excuse to do so.) For one reason or another, the villains look somewhat pathetic and elicit mercy rather than virtuous anger.

The books leave the impression that Tarzan seemed quite bright in his own way; and if finding a decent bodybuilder or another sportsman to look clever enough for the role might prove a too demanding, next to impossible task, Gordon Scott was anyway too far from meeting that ideal.

The wife chides Tarzan for disliking books.

The script suggests Tarzan was uneducated, almost illiterate, and adverse to learning; but the book says otherwise, and we know that Tarzan studied much, by himself, using the books of his gone family, before even meeting white people.

And I did not like that yell.

(It's supposed, dear kiddos, to be a genuine wild yell, not a missed yodeler.)


Gordon Scott with his well coiffed hair, hourglass figure and weird pidgin English has to be the worst of all the Tarzans. As for the other actors in this mess, they're on a par with any 4th grade elementary school drama class. I've seen Used Car Dealers in TV commercials who can act better. They make Clayton Moore look like Laurence Olivier! And where does Jane (the dull Eve Brent) get her lipstick and eyebrow pencils in the jungle? I realize these were made for kids but Wow! The plot line seemed OK but the director should have required more from his actors. I realize even the Weissmuller films have a few flaws but this one seemed so "low budget".


Has this ever happened to you? I go into my local video store and see a few new arrivals in the "film noir" section. I spy a copy of a new arrival of a film I have never seen called NAKED ALIBI. Its from one of those mail order video companies that offers (mostly) "dupey" looking copies of hard to find titles. The description on the box sounds good. The film has players I like (Sterling Hayden, Gloria Grahame, and Gene Barry). So I take it home and watch it. About ten minutes into this film I started having second thoughts. About half way through this film I started to dislike it. By the time the film ended, I not only disliked it, I despised it. The film opens with cops questioning Al Willis on suspicion of robbery. Other than being drunk, the police have nothing on him. When he pushes a cop and demands to be allowed to go home, the cops beat him up. Detective Conroy arrives, lets the cops finish the beating and then announces Willis is in the clear. Willis swears he will get revenge. Later one of the police officers is shot dead. With no evidence other that Willis is "sore" about the beating, Conroy make Willis his sole suspect, despite the fact that his boss names a pair of mobsters as suspects. Conroy arrests him, but for lack evidence Willis is released. The next day two more cops are killed by a bomb. This time Conroy goes to the Bakery that Willis owns and tries to beat a confession out of him. Conroy doesn't know it but a local newsman whose paper has been accusing Conroys department of police brutality snaps a picture of Conroy trying strangle Willis and Conroy is fired. But Conroy continues his pursuit and Willis flees to Mexico where Willis has a mistress. Conroy manages to convince his mistress (who Willis treats rather rough) to help him prove Willis is a killer. What this film lacks is a convincing script. The script looks as if only a rough draft was written and shooting began before a finished script was completed. Things happen, characters personalities change, plot twists occur for no real reason other than that script calls for it. Other than the fact that Willis likes to tip a glass now and than, there is nothing in the early part of the film to make us think that he is a crazy killer that cheats on his wife. He treats his wife, his kid and employees well. Early in the film, one gets the impression that its Conroy is the one whose is a loose cannon. He seems to casually approve of police brutality. Conroy, for no reason is convinced from the very start Willis has criminal past. He seems to operate on the motto of the old Communist Bulgarian secret police; "Everyone is guilty of something, we just have not found out about it yet." Later Conroy shows kindness to Al's mistress and young son, now we are supposed to like him. Sorry! The early impression I got of Conroy stuck with me too long. And he is also a dumb cop. Only after he is fired and goes to Mexico does he run a background check on Willis and discovers that a warrant is out for him issued in Maryland. Why didn't he think of this before? Because this film hadn't used up enough running time. The cast is good. Gene Barry does well considering how poorly conceived his role of Al Willis is. I'm big fan of 40's and 50's crime thrillers but not only did I not think this film was good, it left a bad taste in my mouth (something many modern films do, but older films rarely do).


I went out of my way to get this film, and was fortunate to get it on VHS. Being a big Gloria Grahame fan, it was an excellent addition to my collection. Other than that, I really cannot say a lot to recommend this picture. The plot is predictable (and weak) and the only interesting aspect of the film is watching Sterling Hayden get into deeper trouble with his own department. Ms. Grahame is always fun to watch (if you like her, as I do), but the dubbing of her singing hurts this picture a lot. She works in a dive, so let her use her own voice. It can only lend to the atmosphere. I must agree with an earlier reviewer; the ending borrows heavily from THE BIG HEAT. To the point of detracting from the ending. I have seen worse films with Ms. Grahame (MACAO), but I will never pass the opportunity to see her on screen. If you are having a movie night and looking for a second feature film, this is your movie. Enjoy the picture.


I went to see this on the strength of Albert Finney alone. He's one of my favorite actors and he rarely fails to deliver. I'm not sure if the plot is interesting or just silly: it's about a little boy who is about to be born, but as his mother goes into labor, he refuses to come out! This sends God and the whole human being factory into a crisis and Albert Finney is called out of purgatory to try and convince the boy to change his mind and decide to want to be born. So Finney takes the unborn boy for an adventure in the Big Apple in hopes of showing him all the reasons he should want to live.

Despite the ridiculousness of the plot, I could have accepted it if the director had not tried to turn this into your typical Hollywood sentimental moralistic message film. Directorially, the film was rendered unbearable by a horrible soundtrack of the stock sentimental music that Hollywood directors seem incapable of resisting.

He further butchered the somewhat unconventional story by giving away its hand at every moment. Whatever twists and turns were in store in the plot were completely given away by the way the story unraveled. It was as if the director assumed the audience is just a bunch of idiots who cannot see the obvious hints coming from a mile away.

Even Finney in his performance, though satisfactory, seemed a bit awkward and out of place; and the little boy with curly locks, though he was supposed to be cute, was in fact rather dull. Bridget Fonda seemed intent on trying to duplicate Demi Moore's performance in 'Ghost', shedding tears at a moment's notice.

I understand that the film has been unsuccessful thus far at getting distribution in the U.S., which surprises me as I think it has the box office potential to be a modest hit, appealing to both kids and sentimental adults. As far as the quality goes, it's not an awful film, it's just not very good. (4 out of 10)


I went to Crooked Earth to see a piece of New Zealand. What I found was a badly scripted and badly acted echo of the people I know.

Great moments between characters  including many of Temuera Morrison and Lawrences Makoares scenes together  were often ruined by long and wordy monologues that the actors were forced to stumble through. Beautiful and ill-fitting phrases rattled away from Lawrence in particular as if he were the new Maori Messiah at his pulpit of beer crates.

When watching any film with Maori actors, I've found that I can always pick a half dozen characters that remind me of someone in my life. With Crooked Earth I struggled to find one key character that rung true for the entire two hours. Most  including Wiremu and Peka  wound up saying or doing things that I didn't understand and couldn't connect with. By the end of the movie the writer had succeeded in alienating the audience where the Maori weren't able to relate to it and the Pakeha were therefore given license to dismiss it. My feeling is that the movies message  or at least the main one of several that was being lobbed at the audience  is important enough to avoid using character extremities. Unfortunately, no one who read the script before it was filmed thought to pass this piece of advice on.

The soundtrack was invasive, and, as irritating as that horrible `bing-bong' noise that they laced through `Eyes Wide Shut'. The audience was not so subtly auto-cued to laugh, cry or be angry when the music changed. It reminded me of Darth Vader's entrance music in Star Wars: obvious and mildly amusing.

I think that there are some people out there that might enjoy this film. It's funny in parts, has a fair amount of action and has some really powerful scenes. Calvin Tuteao and Quentin Hita did bang up jobs as well. As a whole though, I didn't enjoy the experience as much as I know I should have. Barb Wire, Speed 2, The Island of Dr Moreau and Crooked Earth look like they're going to be Tem's quartet of crap.


I mean, come on! This movie had such nice potential but it's like they ran out of money to finish the script and just telegraphed the whole damn rest of the movie about 2/3rds of the way through. Characters start spouting this movies whole reason for existence to other characters who didn't ask for the information on extremely flimsy premises. They also fall into some stereotypical behavior because that must be what's expected in this genre of movie. It's really pretty sad because this movie could have been so much more.

I was really hoping this would be a good movie. There was some good acting. Mark Hamill does an excellent job until the movie falls apart, so does Sally Struthers. It was fun to see them working and succeeding at their craft. Majandra Delfino was pretty good for awhile until her lines just became untenable. I felt sad for her that she had to say these lines that just shot the whole movies credibility for any thinking movie goers. Brad Hunt does an excellent job. He really has a surprising range of talent judging from another of his movies I recently saw, Lucky 13. (which was a piece of crap). This guy could be a star if he could pick the right scripts and get lucky with the right director.

Almost forgot! The music was so heavy handed you might think this project was handed to some minor film school to be scored. I call this kind of music "Teller Music" because you can just tell what's coming next based on the music. Less is more sometimes.

Cut half of the music from this movie, get a good film editor, a small rewrite or two and this would be a very good movie.


The summary was promising but watching the movie was a huge disappointment. Nothing happens in this movie. Plot is linear and without surprise. Normal characters stay normal until end of the film, weird characters stay weird until end of the film. There is even not a single tentative to foul the viewer into thinking that the bad guy is someone else than the most obvious candidate. On the positive side, actors play quite well, and there is a tiny bit of atmosphere in the movie, but much too little to be any significant.

People who vote 10 for this movie either didn't see it, or are member of the movie production team ! 4 is well paid.


This show started out okay, but then it turned into a nightmare. The worst part about it was the contestants. Most of them were weirdos. They did stupid things for a living and they also did strange hobbies. In the second season, one guy said he that he talked to his pants. That is sick and repulsive. Also, no one cared about winning money. All they ever wanted to do was make alliances like it was "Survivor" or something. The men were always afraid that the women were going to team up together. The women were the same also. I just couldn't take it anymore. I had to stop watching it. It was truly one of the worst shows ever.


(This review will have some very obvious spoilers, so beware.)

A friend brought this over, and we made it through 45 minutes of the movie before we decided that Fast Forward 8x Speed was the only way that this film should be watched. There were points when we were watching the movie at normal speed where I would leave, prepare part of lunch, and return, to find that literally nothing had happened. 2 lines of meaningless dialogue were exchanged. Nothing happened the background, no important facial gestures were made, nothing but mind-numbing awkward silence.

This is NOT how to make a thoughtful film, especially when the movie's plot follows all the same basic Hollywood movie tropes. If I told you that Disney was making a film about 4 girls starting a band, and the singer was a French exchange student, what you would expect to be the "conflicts" that arise?

The lead singer has to overcome stage fright? Someone has an unspoken crush? The band is late for their performance, and a side-character has to buy them time?

*SPOILER ALERT*

All of those things happen in this movie.

At no point in this film do you have even the slightest fraction of concern that these girls won't be able to accomplish their goal.

*THIS ENDS THE SECTION OF SPOILERS*

I like Japanese films. I've spent a lot of time in Japan. I work for a Japanese company. Heck, I even know all the bands referenced in the record collections and MDs that they're going through, and I've sung along to the title track with friends at karaoke.

This is probably the worst film from Japan I've ever seen. Do not be confused. Though the characters will have points in the movie where they do typical Japanese high school things, this is not a "typical day in the life of" movie. This is "a day in the life of 4 extremely random, heavily-conflicted, awkward Japanese students."

There are noticeable problems with the DVD, as well. Viz decided that a great extra would be a producer reading aloud the Wikipedia entry about the Blue Hearts. What a value! In addition, they care so little about the subtitling that the band's name in the subtitles, "Paran Maum" is different than it is in the chapter selection menu, "Paran Marum". In the final auditorium scene, there is a VERY visible reflection/ghosting effect on everything, but this seems to be the fault of the original film.

2/10, do NOT view if you do not absolutely love awkward silences.


First separate the story from the film. The story about a second continuing war in heaven is good, very good. Religious themed films aren't the main choice for a lot of people but angels at war is. I really loved the story, and some of the imagery provided to back it up like the field of angels on spikes....awesome imagery. The actual film though was just poor, i can't find any reason for the main character - the priest-cum-cop being in there at all. The lead female also...no reason to be there, the main characters dialogue was just empty, it had no substance, the story could have been told well without them. Now, some sterling performances did feature, Walken, Stoltz and Mortensen pulled off some wingers, though their scenes were mostly with the lifeless leads.

One other thing i am not getting from this film is why it features native American rituals to purge the dark soul. The child that carries it is clearly of native American origin but apart from the end scenario there is nothing that connects here with that heritage. The plot concerning the dark soul itself it barely told, odd considering that the dark soul is the driver for the whole premise of the film. The back story of its original owner (the colonel) is briefly touched but not enough to allow understanding as to why its his soul that is the special one.

I cannot find a justification for the scrolling scenery shots in this film either, several of the plains around 'chimney rock'. I get the feeling they had a helicopter and wanted to make the most of it as none of the shots have any relevance, nor are they in keeping with the mood -> Horror. The film falls into the sci-fi category more than it does horror. There was no real shock or scare scenes, some mild gore and blood but no fear element.

So, aside from 3 roles played damn well this film is a big ole' dud. Unfortunately the dud factor outweighs the good acting factor, just too many weekend actors.


If you'd like a great April Fool's joke, then please by all means show this film to someone. However, it is important that you in no way criticize the film but instead talk about what an artistic triumph it is and how "they just don't make great films like this any more". As your victim watches many disconnected and nonsensical scenes (such as a cute dog getting punted for no apparent reason, a cow standing on the bed, a woman licking a statue's feet or Jesus apparently raping a woman), make lots of comments using words like "brilliance", "juxtaposed" or "transcendent"--all the while acting as if the film actually makes perfect sense and isn't a complete waste of an hour of your life. Also be sure to keep a straight face and feign shock when (and if) they say that they either didn't understand it or thought it had all the artistry of a cow patty. Then, to further mess with them, show them all the comments on IMDb, as nearly all (except for a few trouble-makers like almagz and rooprect) talk glowingly about what genius and artistry this film is! By the time you are done with this little charade, they'll most likely think they are idiots and will make an appointment with a psychologist.

This, to me, is the ONLY possible reason to watch this horrid mess of a film!!! That, or you could show it to the prisoners at Guantanamo in order to get them to talk!

If you ask me, the famous painting of dogs playing poker or a velvet Elvis painting are superior artistically.


Some movies you'll watch because they touch your soul or challenge you in ways that grow.

Some you'll watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience; these won't directly feed you, but they'll help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. And after all, the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept.

And then there are movies that do neither of these things, that you will watch out of obligation, or because you have a need for historical context. These are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life.

The problem is of course that often you don't know which of the three a film will be, going in. You might get some indication from people you trust, but because a life in film is so personal, you really won't know until you go on the blind date.

For me, this was pretty worthless. Yes, yes, I know for many Bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. And you should know (if you don't) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films, very strange indeed.

It isn't that this isn't cinematic, or symbolically deep, or apolitically/politically friendly to the way I think. Its how it gets there that is off base. Its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me.

Part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art, which means that it is successful commercial art. Which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. Surely all this is true.

When the term "surreal" is used, generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. But when it is used correctly, meaning according to consensus theory, it always revolves around Bunuel, and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with Dali. So because they invented surreal cinema, they define and control the term. That by itself chafes me, and I have my own alternative definition that doesn't come from their philosophy.

Its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. It isn't a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy, an anti-order. Its packaged anarchy, carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them.

So okay: against linearity, against narrative, against history, against religion (an easy one), against deliberate love. But for an illinear linear narrative, for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors; what else can they do?); for a sort of transcendent "accidental" love.

It is its own enemy. If there were a Bunuel alive today as he sold his image, the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal.

My regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic, I cleave to the Spanish and avoid the French. But in the matter of the surreal, I'd like to you consider the reverse: get your surrealism from Alfred Jarry, not Bunuel.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.


A man kicks a dog 2' in the air.

A woman kicks a cow out of her bed.

A man kicks a violin down the sidewalk.

A woman sucks on a statue's toe for 15 seconds.

A man kicks a blind man in the stomach.

Jesus rapes a young girl.

There you have it. I just saved you an hour of your life. Surely there are those to whom this "shocking vanguard of cinematic expression" would appeal. But I found it no different from the puerile, disconnected videos I used to shoot with my friends in the 9th grade. Except we never had a real cow.

Having heard endless sermons from beard-stroking art connaisseurs of how this is such an important film, I thought it would be worth my time. Make no mistake, this is crap. If I hear one more person call Buñuel the "father of cinematic Surrealism", I think I'm going to punch someone. If anything, he issued a major step backward from the Surrealist beginnings pioneered by his seniors Fritz Lang (Metropolis), F.W. Murnau (Faust) and Robert Weine (Caligari) 10 years earlier. This made a joke out of the whole thing, as if Buñuel didn't have the confidence to truly embrace the art sans sarcasm, sans l'absurdité. It would take Buñuel another 40 years before he would refine his style into something admirable. Skip the early stuff and hop straight to 1970 if you want to be more impressed by his work.

I'm sure he would agree. In 1977, Buñuel himself stated that he would happily burn all the prints of his old movies. In this case I would be happy to pour the lighter fluid.


I'm a big fan of surrealist art, but this film by Bunuel (with some ideas from Dali) left me cold. Bunuel had a life-long grudge against the Catholic church and delighted in trying to offend Catholics in fairly silly ways. This is one of the silliest; almost like what you'd expect from a smart-aleck 18-year-old in film class. The last few minutes of the movie, which have nothing to do with anything else, are a final nose-thumbing at religion.

If you read the "scholars" regarding this slow-paced, occasionally amusing film, it's all about how the church and society are guilty of sexual repression. If that is indeed the point, then Bunuel expresses it in the most roundabout fashion possible. The central male character is a nasty brute who loves kicking dogs and knocking blind men down in the street, and who mentally turns billboard ads into strange sexual fantasies. Is this behavior the church's fault (for interrupting his lovemaking), or is he just a jerk? I vote for the latter. I think Bunuel must have had a lot of personal hangups and chose the Catholics as the ones to blame.

There are a few moments where you might cry, "Aha! surrealism!": a cow in a bed, a giraffe falling out a window (a poor model), a man shredding a feather pillow, a woman flushing a toilet while we watch pictures of seething lava (or a mud pit...hard to tell in B/W). The rest is forgettable self-indulgence. Unfortunately, Bunuel was still chasing the same bogey-men through the rest of his career (Viridiana, Discreet Charm...). If you're interested in seeing surrealism on the screen, check out Jean Cocteau's early work.


The Man (Gaston Modot) and the Young Girl (Lya Lys) go through the film consumed by passion for each other. They long to be together but their moments together are constantly interrupted. The film is strewn together with imagery and comes to a halt after an hour.........do the lovers find happiness....?..

The film starts interestingly with footage of scorpions but you soon realize that its all a pretentious piece of nonsense. It's made as a silent film with occasional dialogue and it has a non-stop soundtrack playing that at one point is so irritating that you will turn the sound down and want to watch it as a silent film. The continuous drum rolls must have driven cinema audiences mad. There are some genuinely funny moments, eg, when the Man kicks a dog and when he knocks over a blind man. Unfortunately, this humour is carried out in the name of art so its just pseudo nonsense. The film is crap.


When something can be anything you want it to be or mean, it's bound to register with someone as being rather special. But just as the shape of a cloud in the sky may appear to one of us or remind us of a battleship, and to another of his aunt's rear, and yet to another absolutely nothing other than a cloud, this does not make this cloud meaningful except for the viewers' interpretation. Anyone who might find throwing a stuffed giraffe out of a window brilliant, or worthwhile for that matter, without relating it in some context, is possibly merely trying to impress us with his or her intellectuality.

Submitting to this movie as the dreams of a madman does quite nicely, especially since there is no standard or expectation for what said dreams would be like, and even if we were mad ourselves, this would hardly give us sane reference points for comparison. A love affair with this movie entails the same risk as seriously interpreting Nostradamus. Whatever real meaning was being conveyed at the time might be buried in the private jokes, musings, or provincial minutiae of its day, and to a select few radical intellectuals at that! I did spot a bit of an agenda even with my limited capacity though.

The movie is definitely anti-Fascist and to some extent anti-Italian. I noted that although the years 1929-30 were years of great public works and urban renewal in Italy, any indication of this seemed avoided. Furthermore, (avant-guarde academic spinners take note of this for your next class) the very short cropped haired man with the mustache in the party segment near the end is a caricature of Victor Emmanuel III and his tall female companion none other than Queen Helen, formerly Princess of Montenegro. Without an understanding of potential historical relevance, even the apparent irrelevance is beyond the competence of academic or other intellectual poseurs who would bask in irrelevance to impress us.

I gladly add my own paint buckets to the defacement of this cinematic joke. But in an adaptation of the famous mot by the little boy; The movie really has no face (to deface). Paint would help it burn though.


OK, it's a piece of historical film making that caused an uproar, shocked people, and was banned. I'll give it that, which is why I gave it a 3 rather than a 1. It may have been ahead of the times, but it's certainly way behind the times now. I am a BIG fan of Salvador Dali and I loved Un Chien Andalou. That short was captivating with one creative scene after another. L'age d'Or was way too long and dull - just a self-indulgent piece of pompous film making created simply as a feeble attempt to try to out-do Un Chien Andalou by creating a full- length movie (and shamelessly leverage Dali's name and fame even though he had little to do with it). Total junk except for a (very) few shots of "shocking scenes" separated by long stretches of boring non-action. A waste of time and money. Both of my thumbs are down, way down. It'll go onto my shelf never to be watched again.


How do I describe the horrors?!!! First, some points: First, this review should be taken with a grain of salt -- I saw this over 20 years ago, when I was a boy, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

Secondly, I am giving away some scenes and plot points. However, it does not have much of a plot.

Finally, I don't enjoy these type of art films anyway.

This film was directed by proto-auteur Luis Bunuel. He was a surrealist and dadaist. These were modernist themes or movements popular critically in the 1920's and early 1930's. Surealism was the school of art that made things hyper-real, yet often had Freudian symbolism. Dadaism is based on what is supposedly the first word made by an infant -- Dada, or father.

Made in black and white, it was also made by a band of communists (or as they preferred the term, socialists). Bunuel and his group of fellow film-makers and artistes had been working on a number of symbolic ideas and issues in Spain and France between the world wars.

Dadaism and surrealism influenced a lot of artists -- The Police (Doo doo doo da), poet Arthur Rambaud, Edvard Munch (The Scream), Rene Magritte (floating hats in space), Salvador Dali (melting clocks), and even Hitchcock (Psycho). No Norman Rockwell.

Here's what I recall most about this film: a girl meets up with a cow; her eye gets slashed by a razor; clownish men cavort in a meadow. There is not, as I said, much of a plot, but then again, that must be the point.

This was attacked as porn back then, and would be again today. One of the trade-marks of surrealism is a significant anti-feminism.


The price of a dream - and some dreams can be "too" expensive.

Only having viewed the English-translated version, it is perhaps the reason for a low rating from this viewer.

It made the overall film poorer than the story material hinted at...

...and other comments seem to suggest the subtitled version would be better.

But some plot elements remained unexplained, leaving an unfinished feel.

It also leaves the thought "is there a series to follow?".

A pity there was no more (at this stage at least, anyway).


Fred Astaire is reteamed with Rita Hayworth one year after their big hit for Columbia, "You'll Never Get Rich". That was the movie which put Hayworth on the Hollywood map, yet her performance in this wan romantic musical hardly gives a suggestion why she was so suddenly popular. Down Buenos Aires way, a tyrannical hotel owner demands that his four daughters marry in order of age; one may think film takes place in the 18th century, but no, it's modern-day 1942. Astaire is an ex-hoofer-turned-gambler who goes back to dancing to earn some money, getting mixed up in impersonating a letter-writing admirer to Hayworth's stone-cold society beauty. Fred gazes at Rita with a brotherly smile, but she's so mannequin-like (lip-synching to her songs like a wide-eyed wind-up doll) that all romantic sparks quickly sputter. They do dance together quite comfortably, however, and the Jerome Kern score is unmemorable but not too bad. ** from ****


On the pure theatrical side, Last Stand was great, as the reenactments and soundtrack are very entertaining, but there are better accounts of this battle found elsewhere that, while not as long or as flashy, are far more historically comprehensive.

Certain little details, such as the misuse of the word "hoplon" for the Greek hoplite shield and the mispronounciations of various names and words, really ate at me.

My guess would be, that because "Last Stand of the 300" was aired the eve of the theatrical release of "300", the History Channel was only trying to ride the coattails of the movie's hype.

If you're looking for a depiction that's historically accurate in all respects possible, you'd have better luck elsewhere.


The thesis of Father Brown is that a good dose of Roman Catholicism will solve all of life's problems. A little proselytizing I don't mind, but this gets a bit ridiculous at times.

Some fine actors have played Father Brown over the years, Kenneth More and Barnard Hughes are two good examples. Alec Guinness plays him in this film and does all right by him, but you didn't see any great demand for future Father Brown films.

I suppose if you are a committed Roman Catholic it all makes perfectly good sense. It's far more important to catch the thief and convert him to your religion than see he's brought to justice.

But that's what were asked to accept here. In fact there is a preliminary story before the main action of the film. Guinness in clerical garb is caught trying to put back stolen articles that one of his parishioners Sidney James had heisted during a robbery.

That's the story he gives the local cops and of course this is something that James has confided in him so he can't break the confessional.

Now on to bigger game. Master thief Flambeau, played by Peter Finch has stolen a cross that is entrusted to Father Brown and was said to belong to St. Augustine back in the day. But Father Brown is more interested in getting Flambeau to go back to his faith than seeing him brought to justice. So he misleads the cops so he can accomplish his mission.

I'm sorry but this whole thing was just too much for me to swallow. Father Brown I'd hate to say it was guilty of obstruction and ought to have been arrested. And he was under no obligation not to reveal anything he knew about Flambeau, the man had not come to him as a penitent seeking absolution and spiritual advice.

Author G.K. Chesterton, a very noted Catholic lay person in his day, finds all this very reasonable. Carried to his logical conclusion we should replace all police forces with an army of priests.

Guinness borrows from his own Reverend Ascoyne D'Ascoyne from Kind Hearts and Coronets and from Barry Fitzgerald in Going My Way to create Father Brown. Granted though Brown is a lot shrewder than the other two. There's also a bit of Colonel Nicholson in this portrayal. In The Bridge on the River Kwai, Guinness also was playing a character who's rather weird interpretation of the rules caused him to lose sight of what was important in the situation Nicholson was in.

Father Brown's an entertaining fellow when he's solving mysteries and making the authorities look foolish. We've enjoyed Brother Cadfael do it in a medieval setting and American audiences liked Father Dowling played by Tom Bosley a few years back.

This film should have stuck to being entertaining.


There are so very few films where just the title tells you all you need to know about the film. Such a film is I Was A Communist For The FBI. Another example would be I Married A Monster From Outer Space.

The really interesting thing about this film is how in heaven's name did this get nominated for an Oscar in the documentary category? It is not a documentary in any sense of the word, it's not even in that hybrid category of docudrama. It's just a rather exploitive film about the work of an FBI undercover agent named Matt Cvetic who infiltrated the Communist Party in Pittsburgh and got active in trying to take over the Steelworker's Union for the Communists and reporting on said activities to his handlers in the FBI.

A documentary of that work might have been interesting, but what we got was a film to fit those paranoid times. I found it fascinating that when Cvetic finally broke his cover it was to the House Un-American Activities Committee rather than the trial in New York of the Communist Party leaders. There was a moment in the film where head Communist James Millican tells his followers to start spreading the word that the House Un American Activities Committee was composed of a bunch of right wing yahoos looking to get their names in front of the camera. Now what could have given him that idea? Anyway just connect the dots and no doubt the word their came from J. Edgar Hoover trying to give some credence to HUAC by having an effective undercover come out there rather than at an actual trial. Little thing there called cross examination.

Warner Brothers who produced I Was A Communist For The FBI later produced Big Jim McLain which starred John Wayne about a HUAC investigator in Hawaii. HUAC did grab on to credit for the work done by the Honolulu PD in breaking up a Communist spy ring there among the dockworkers. But at least in John Wayne's film nobody claimed it was a documentary.

Frank Lovejoy is in the title role as Cvetic and his FBI handlers are Richard Webb and Philip Carey. Dorothy Hart plays a Pittsburgh school teacher who says that there are 30 or so like here in that school system indoctrinating the young among whom is Ron Hagerthy, Lovejoy's son. She has a change of heart about the Communists and Lovejoy has to save her from a homicidal fate planned by his superiors. Ironically Hart left the movies and went to work for all places, the United Nations which as we know has been accused often of being a Communist nest in the USA.

Over half a century later and we really have very few objective works on film or in print about the Communist Party of the USA. They were in fact a very active bunch in the labor movement. The real heroes in stopping them were labor organizers like Walter Reuther in the UAW or David Dubinsky in the ILGWU. But since they were people of the left they just don't have the following on the right to be suitable propaganda material.

Anyway I Was A Communist For The FBI is an exploitive work based on a real life character and a testament to those paranoid times.


Matt Cvetic is a loyal communist in a Pittsburgh steel mill who works to recruit workers into the party, even though this isolates himself from his son, family, and neighbors. What makes this even more difficult is that Cvetic is actually an FBI agent posing as a Communist in order to obtain information about party activities. The party is trying to create a strike at the mill, whereby the pro-strike movement will lead the workers into a wave of propaganda. Cvetic also has to contend with beautiful Eve Merrick, a party member and teacher at his son's school who finds the fact that Cvetic is a double agent. When Eve learns the ugly truth about the party's real motives, the reds decide she must be liquidated and Cvetic must aid her without endangering himself. The film should have plenty of suspense and double crossing but there is very little in this film but (by today's standards) very cheesy propaganda and little action or thrills. Lovejoy is very good in the main role, but even he and the rest of the cast seem listless. Few surprises here and how did this film receive a Oscar nod for best documentary? Rating, 4.


The most disturbing thing about this film is not that it's a load of hogwash (the CPUSA was never really as much an espionage threat as the movie makes out). The troubling aspect is the way that it whitewashes the wholly unsavory tactics of the FBI and the UnAmerican Activities Committee. Secret informants, gossip turned into accusations, warrantless searches - these are the kind of things secret police thugs like the KGB did, and presumably, what the good patriotic Americans were fighting. Yet the FBI did them and didn't bat an eye. That's the only realistic part of this movie, and they present it with no sense of shame at all. Add to this undermining the Constitution itself by having only Communists invoke the Bill of Rights. The film also makes thinly veiled accusations that the black civil rights movement was communist-inspired, another pack of lies. It's extremely difficult in this day to excuse such outrageous propaganda, even understanding the paranoia of the times, when one realizes how damaging it was to real people then.


A stunningly beautiful Charlotte Lewis stars as a woman who is terrorized by a ghosts who torment her on the phone.Driven to the edge in terror Charlotte is forced to confront this chilling mystery in order to save her sanity and her life.I can't believe that Ruggero Deodato,the director behind "Ultimo Mondo Cannibale","Cannibal Holocaust" and "House on the Edge of the Park" directed this absurd piece of trash.Admittedly the music by Goblin front man Claudio Simonetti is pretty good,but the story is painfully stupid.The script by Franco Ferrini is ridiculous and it makes no sense,the acting is bad and there is absolutely no suspense.The scene in which a prospective rapist of Charlotte Lewis is killed by coins ejected from a subway telephone is more than laughable.Don't waste your time with this piece of crap.There are far better Italian horror movies out there!


I admit, I was taken in by the provocative stills of Charlotte Lewis from this film, as well as a comment on the IMDb message board devoted to her, calling this picture a "great underrated film". And so I got, with great difficulty, my own copy of "Dial Help".

What a waste.

Nothing but a cheaply-made blood and gore movie with a ridiculous premise which I'm not even going to repeat, with several telegraphed sequences (for instance, when we see Lewis lovingly feeding her fish, we know right away what's going to happen to them later). Not even Lewis, with her beautiful raven hair, large and luminous brown eyes, full and pouty lips, and stunning figure, can save this film. Lewis fans would be better off with "Bare Essentials", "Sketch Artist", or even "Golden Child".


Ring! Ring! Have-been horror directors hotline, how may we help you? UmyeahPronto! I mean hello, my name is Rugge err, call me by my initials R.D! Okay Mr. R.D, what seems to be the problem? Well the reviews on my latest movie "Dial: Help" were all negative and harsh and, frankly, I myself feel like my career has seen better days as well. Okay Mr. R.D, and why do you suppose that is? Well, I gained fame and a well-deserved cult status thanks to my controversial and shocking movie about savage tribes of cannibals devouring a film crew and another one about relentless thugs terrorizing wealthy people in a house at the edge of the park, for which I borrowed the idea from Wes Craven, but "Dial: Help" revolves on  err never mind! No no, Mr. R.D, go ahead and tell me what the film is about. Um, it's about a spiritually possessed phone line stalking a sexy model and killing the people surrounding her. Ah, I see. That premise does indeed sound a little silly and not as petrifying as cannibals or rapists, but I suppose there are deeper themes in your film, right? Oh yeah, sure Um, what do you mean by that? Well, isn't the phone line symbolism for another kind of terror? Or perhaps it's all just happening in the mind of your female heroine? Um, nope It's just about a phone going berserk and murdering people with the cord, vibrations, electricity or even ordinary coins. Interesting, Mr. R.D, but how do you explain all this supernatural stuff to the viewer at the end of the movie? You see, I figured the slowly unraveling phone-mystery plot wouldn't be that important or relevant, so I just concentrated on processing all possible phone-gimmicks I could think of. Phone gimmicks? What do you mean? You know, like wind blowing through the horn, mind-penetrating dial tones, and turn-tables catapulting into the air! Very original, Mr. R.D, but not exactly horrific and as an experienced director you must know that, in the end, people expect a reasonable clarification of all these events. Oh, but there is! It all has to do with negative and unreleased energy, if I remember correctly! It's all a bit fuzzy, I admit. Hmm I see. Oh well, as they always say, a good motion picture relies on more elements than just the story. Did you at least process some of your regular trademarks into the film, so that your fans at least recognize your style? I tried! Lord knows I tried, but the murders and bloodshed are simply not shocking anyone! That's a pity indeed, Mr. R.D, but what about sex? Everyone likes a good portion of sleaze and nudity in their horror films and you said yourself the film centered on a sexy fashion model in peril! Yes, but  But what, Mr. R.D? Well, to tell you the truth, we kind of promoted "Dial: Help" as an erotic thriller with revealing shots of Charlotte Lewis on the cover, but in reality there's no sex in the film and Charlotte even refused to go topless. Mr. R.D! Now I'm really disappointed, that's just shamelessly ripping people off and lure them with false promises! I know, I know, and I'm ashamed, but I just wanted everybody to rent "Dial: Help" and love it! Well, to round up I can comfort you by saying that every major director is entitled to a few erroneous decisions without it affecting his/her career immediately, but be more cautious next time and do some research first, okay Mr. R.D? I will; thank you! You're welcome. Tell me, have you got any ideas for upcoming movies already? Yeah, as a matter a fact, I do! I was thinking about making a Giallo with a murderous washing machine! Doesn't that sound fascinating? Hello? Hello?


Well, I was hoping I'd heard wrong about this film as I'm a big fan of Ruggero Deodato and really didn't want to see him slip up; but unfortunately, this Giallo-styled supernatural load of nonsense is just as bad as I'd been lead to believe it would be - and that's pretty terrible! The plot doesn't work at all, as the film attempts to blend murders and a supernatural theme through a telephone and it all feels very forced and silly. Furthermore, the plot doesn't make much sense at all, and you have to ask yourself "what's the point" numerous times throughout the movie. The plot focuses on a young woman living in an apartment block and being terrorised by a telephone. The best thing about the movie is undoubtedly the presence of the beautiful English actress Charlotte Lewis, and unfortunately the good points pretty much stop there. There are a handful of deaths scenes, some of which are gory; but all of which are incredibly stupid, the one that sees someone get killed by coins sticks out especially in that respect. Overall, I really can't recommend this to anyone; non-Deodato fans are unlikely to impressed, and Deodato fans are likely to find the film depressing. Avoid!


This is only the fourth effort I’ve watched from this director (whom I met and found quite genial at the 2004 Venice Film Festival Italian B-movie retrospective) and also, possibly, the worst. As was the case with THE BRONX EXECUTIONER (1989), which preceded it, this is a prime example from the tail end of the Euro-Cult era – prime because it shows the depths to which the previously invigorating style had fallen by this time!

Here, in fact, we get a plot revolving around – I’m not kidding, folks – a killer phone! Pretty but bland Charlotte Lewis – in her third film after PIRATES (1986) and THE GOLDEN CHILD (1986) – is a model who, apparently, has just ended an affair; she keeps expecting her architect lover to call her back but, every time the phone rings, all she gets is static accompanied by voices from the beyond (or some such crap). She befriends a new tenant at her apartment block who, conveniently, knows of an authority on paranormal activity (William Berger) – who, hilariously, explains that the negative energy which is unleashed, say, during family arguments can manifest itself via home appliances into a deadly force (I swear I ain’t making this up)!

Among the highlights...er...lowpoints of the film are: the grumpy bartender from whose dingy place the heroine calls a couple of times (it seems that the chain-of-events can only be broken by having Lewis go through her paces again, EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)-style!), the sheer variety of preposterous-looking phones on display, the apparatus of the heroine’s photographer friend sneaking up on her before the kill, the sarcastic cop who greets Lewis on reporting the strange occurrences (“And what’s the toaster up to, I wonder?”), the would-be rapist killed by a barrage of coins shooting out from a telephone booth, and Berger’s own bloody demise (with the phone affecting the pacemaker he’s fitted with and causing the doctor’s heart to explode)!

The film’s climax is rather confusing and, apparently, finally sees all the ‘lost souls’ inhabiting a flock of doves and flying out the window of the ‘possessed’ office (a lonelyhearts service!). For what it’s worth, the score – by ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti no less – is effective enough, despite the inclusion of dated heavy-metal numbers on the soundtrack.


Don't be fooled by the plot out-line as it is described on the cover (at least the Swedish version). The story on this seems rather interesting, with speculative hints. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is the absolute most sad movie experience I've ever had... It is plain and right AWFUL and should not be sold or rented to anyone. If you still think the plot seems intriguing, reflect on this: telephones can move, run and kill people as can also any other electric appliance. It can throw things at you, haunt you and run after you. PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE it is a disgrace for the horror genre...


It is truly saddening to see a once-great director such as Deodato delivering such a second-rate giallo such as this. This movie was so terrible it effectively put an end to his movie career. The box lies, this is no "erotic thriller", hell during the film's 97 minute running time, Charlotte Lewis barely shows us one nipple! I thought it would pick up once William Burger showed up (in one of his last roles), but his character is killed off rather abruptly and lamely. This movie fails in pretty much every way. Claudio Simonetti's music is little more than noise, and the plot made very little sense at all. For some reason, Lewis is terrorized by ghosts which attack using phones. (?) By the end, the characters all seem to have forgotten the previous 90 minutes of hell they went through, and casually laugh as they sick the evil spirits on someone else, Lewis's ex-boyfriend. What?!? This movie did little for me besides anger me.... and bore me half to death. For genuine 80's Deodato fun, watch THE BARBARIANS or THE ATLANTIS INTERCEPTORS, let this one rot on the video store shelf. Argento could make a better giallo than this!


Robert Aldrich's brutal, quasi-black comedy "The Grissom Gang", a reworking of the 1948 British film "No Orchids For Miss Blandish", has 1920s heiress Kim Darby kidnapped by a pack of clumsy thieves; soon, that gang is dispatched and poor Kim is then transferred into the clutches of another crooked bunch--third-rate gangster brothers with sweaty, pasty faces and a mother who looks like Buddy Ebsen in drag. At first, Darby (not very plucky, and not very smart) attempts to escape this drooling brood, but they're onto her. Eventually she just gives up trying, and therein lies the trouble with the story. Are we in the audience supposed to sympathize with her? Is her growing concern for the family half-wit supposed to be heartwarming? These are disgusting, cretinous characters, and I wanted to see as little of them as possible. But since the side-stories (the progress of the cops on the case and another one involving floozy-singer Connie Stevens) are rather dull, the director has no choice but to keep foisting those sweaty faces on us. Pretty soon, nervous Darby starts sweating too, although her scene up in the hayloft is sensitively performed and Aldrich's climactic moments are thought-provoking, if disorganized. ** from ****


These days, Asian horror films are among the best in the world, noted for their atmosphere and reflection of contemporary society. This is not one of those films! Instead, "The Record" is a mediocre slasher movie highly derivative of American movies like "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and "Scream". The plot is familiar - 5 teenagers accidently commit a terrible crime, but cover it up swearing to secrecy. One year later, they're being stalked by a knife-wielding maniac (with the decidely unscary disguise of a hospital sterile mask and an orange jumpsuit). It doesn't help that the teenagers are a generally unlikable group (this is one of those movies where the killer's motives seem pretty reasonable) and there are numerous stupid plot setups to keep the story going. The direction of the movie is unsubtle, more influenced by MTV than by current Asian horror films (like "The Ring"). The last third of the movie isn't too bad though, delivering some decent suspense scenes, though there is probably one "twist" too many in the end. 4/10


Stay FAR AWAY from this film. The fact that you're reading reviews tells me you may have already been tainted by the awfulness it carrys. This is a truely horrid movie... so let's get down to the problems. Writing and Direction: It wouldnt surprise me if these were handled by a group of overactive gradeschoolers that watched 'scream' and 'I know what you did last summer' a few too many times. GIANT GAPING plot holes abound; while I can't congratulate them for this movie, its nice knowing they're finally potty trained. Actors(or lack thereof): Only the finest for this film... the finest extras ever to grace a screen, now starring in their speaking role debut! As a disclaimer, I have to note that I am capable of watching and enjoying just about anything. I recognize a good movie when I see it, but I can still giggle and smirk during Bubble Boy (yes folks, its true); so when I say to avoid something, you KNOW I'm not kidding.


This is a rip-off of already crappy hollywood movies like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. The story is classic, some high-school students tries a prank on the class' asthmatic misfit but something goes wrong. Terribly wrong. When you watch the movie you know what'll happen before it happens all the time, not good if a movie tries to be scary. The actors are quite ok and the girls are cute (after all, they're asian) so i'll give it two out of five on the mojave'o'meter.


Korea's answer to "I Know What You Did Last Summer" follows a similar story route to its American counterpart: one year after a group of high school friends accidentally kill a classmate, a masked killer begins to pick them off one by one. Who could have possibly seen them that night - or was their 'victim' still alive when they dumped him into the sea?

Originality cannot be expected from the teen slasher genre anymore but an effort can still be made to ensure films of this ilke are entertaining and scary. RECORD is neither, churning out badly rehashed scenes from "I Know...", "The House On Sorority Row" and "The Faculty" (among many others) and failing to deliver one decent shock throughout the 95 minutes.

Acting is decent from the cast who, as seems to be the norm in Korean cinema, approach an uninspiring script with gusto and an undeserved enthusiasm. Direction is mediocre at best, however; a strange choice of camera angles and the worst killer's costume *EVER* contributing to RECORD's downfall. Most disappointing is the film's ending, where the two 'surprise twists' are that obvious you've earlier dismissed them as being too blatant!

RECORD's only saving grace is its bright start - the first act is actually excellent and shows the American counterparts how character development and setting the mood are supposed to be done - but, other than that, this is a very poor movie. Not recommended.

** / *****


I have recently found this film on one of my husband's VHS tapes (the blank variety which he uses to record stuff from the telly). The film looks as if it was last shown in the eighties and I don't remember having seen it since. It has not (to my knowledge) been released on DVD or VHS although I shall browse around for a copy.

The film tells the story of three young people: two girls, one on the edge of puberty and the other much younger, and a young boy who go to live with their mother's brother and his young, mute Irish wife. His wife also has two brothers who live with them. The children's uncle is an unpleasant control freak who forces his young wife to wear a silver collar whilst she watches a marionette show put on by him and her brothers in his toyshop.

The eldest girl and one of the Irishmen (the younger) develop a love for each other whilst they live in the same house. The girl helps her aunt out in the shop whilst her brother helps his uncle to make things in the workshop.

There are a lot of very disturbing elements to the film. There is the uncle's treatment of his wife as some kind of dumb (literally) possession (illustrated by the collar) whilst the Irish indulge dancing, drinking and somewhat forbidden love. Interestingly, though, I have seen far more explicit themes played out in other movies made in Hollywood today.

Makes you wonder whether the British film industry and the BBC have some kind of hidden agenda going on.

Still, despite it not being a children's movie, there are a lot of playful, magic moments in it and the one Irishman does some beautiful paintings.


I don't know which was worse, the viewer's made dopes of, or the stars in this movie who look like dopes. Am I to believe that this woman raised this child for seven years, and never noticed the child was a bit dark ? Am I to believe her mother, her father, and her husband never once said, hmmm this child looks a bit dark ? Am I to believe when the courts ordered the mother to view the adopted parents records, that Lisa Hartman had this wow look on her face, when she told her mother, Christopher is half black ! What ! Was that for real,gee do you think so. So not only did the grandmother, and grandfather look dopey and stupid never once mentioning this, but i guess we were supposed to look surprised and say...hmmmmm omg he is half black ! Totally stupid movie, almost an embarrassment even to watch this !


It purports to be the life of Paul the apostle. It opens with him involved in a loin-cloth wrestling match with a priest. The Pharisees were called that because they "separated" themselves from the Hellenism being forced upon the Jews by their Gentile rulers. The point is that Saul would never have been involved in Greco-Roman wrestling. PERIOD.

Then we have the two men (Saul and the Priest, Reuben - a totally extra-biblical fictitious character) shown being washed down in the nude in a Roman style bath house. Again, the Torah, which Saul adhered to religiously, condemned in the strongest possible terms looking upon the nakedness of another man.

Reuben is shown being the one that pushes Saul into destroying the church. Again, the text of scripture doesn't matter, for their it is PAUL that says that he laid waste of the church and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the church.

The movie shows Barnabas "sprinkling" Paul - not baptizing (immersing) him, when the Text of Scripture says it was Ananias that did it.

Their is no mention of Mark or his turning back so the writers of the script are forced to have Paul and Barnabas argue over Paul's desire to preach in Rome as the basis of their separation.

No Silas on Paul's Second and Third Missions; No Timothy... EVER. No Titus; No Apollos... No, NO, NOOOO!!! James is said to have "known Jesus for a long time" rather than it saying, as the Text of Scripture does, that he is Jesus' brother.

Why not just call the movie "Frank, the fictitious Apostle?!?!" At least that would be closer to the text of scripture.


Love the TPB's but this was a lame episode. Didn't have the same feel that the series or the movie has. Looked like it was put together in a hurry. I didn't enjoy it at all. The so-called acting was awful. The cast appeared like they knew this was a money-grab of an episode to get to market quickly. I hope we don't have an easter special next because that will be it for me. The writing of this episode was definitely Mike Clattenburg's worst in the history of this show. The direction left a lot to be desired and I almost felt bad for the cast and crew of this weak attempt at a Christmas special. Like I said, I love the TPB's but this one goes to the trash bin.