Tom Conti,(who was nominated for an Oscar for this role as Gowan Mcland), gives one of the most brilliant acting performances I have ever seen. I was looking forward to more meaty roles from this great actor, but he seems to have disappeared, leaving this film as his greatest legacy. His character is a genius who is out of control, but Conti's talent depicts his situation as comic and tragic at the same time-no small feat-- while being absolutely sympathetic. To today's audiences, the pace may seen slow, but all is redeemed by the ending. This has by far the best ending of any motion picture, ever. The fact that this film is not out on DVD is shameful. Interestingly, this is Kelly McGillis' "introducing" film; she was showcased and it was made clear that she was expected to be a great star. She does shine in this role. The more relevant social commentary is the portrayal of women, after they have lost that flush of young love, tend to become disillusioned. We are left wondering whether Geneva Spofford (McGillis' character) will become like the other sad society women around her. See this movie if you have the chance-it won't disappoint.


On paper, a comic fable about a randy, drunken, fading poet sounds like a recipe for disaster, but to the enormous credit of all involved, this film works very well indeed. Obviously a strong central performance is essential in films like this, and Tom Conti provides just that as the bedraggled Scottish writer charming his way into the beds of frustrated New England wives. Although the screenplay is consistently witty from start to finish, it is mainly in the second half of the film that it is also extremely moving. The romance between Conti and Kelly McGillis's young student is as obviously doomed as that of Romeo and Juliet, but just as heartbreaking too. The denouement is as sad and shocking as any in cinematic history, yet this film with its warmth and beauty and insight will surely light a fire in even the coldest of hearts.


Possible Spoilers. One of my decent prayers to our Lord: The day of resurrection of this lovable study on DVD cometh.I enjoyed it first some 13 years ago in Münster, Westfalia.Since then ,I have seen it probably 50 times or so.

It cares about the last short period of Scottish poet Gowan Mc Land`s life.He had a dismissal from a professorship of poetry and now unfortunately is condemned to earn money with celebrating his artwork in clubs of interested housewives, New England.The housewives, which are shown there, don`t have real ambitions with artistry or poetry;they hope it could be entertaining to watch a person, whose only purpose is to make weird things like poems.This becomes very clear at the end of one of Gowan`s public readings;no one in the audience becomes aware when the performance is over, except the artist himself;he has to give his "fans" permission to applause. That`s a main subjekt here.The span beetween Gowan`s art and the demandings of ordinary life are heavy to handle for him.But,God almighty, suddenly,at a point,an artist can be overwhelmed by the power of profanity ;when falling in love with a beautiful young student-Geneva. The comical grandeur of this flic is in the splendid deconstruction of bourgeois mainstream opinions and the securities of conventionalism.For example,McLand has an invitation to a restaurant; there he points out that it`s one of the great deficits of the "old" Europe(to evoke a term of our beloved Donald Rumsfeld),not to be able to overrule the cultural degeneration of the"new"world(USA)(!).Such provoking black jokes you are invited to enjoy one after another. I am in the mood to praise the handling of entire human problems in this underrated,forgotten and adorable genius stroke for ever, but judge for yourself.This is the stuff celluloid was made for.10 stars of 10.


This is one of my favorite movies of all times. It's funny, moving, tragic, hilarious, just all in one. Tom Conti gives a memorable world-class performance and the stunning beauty of Kelly Mc Gillis is a feast for the eyes. I wish this one-of-a-kind masterpiece were available on DVD.


If you are not familiar with movie history, then you do not know that thousands of films have been lost over time, from the silent era onwards. And many of these movies were landmarks, because they so perfectly captured a unique time or place, or because of technical achievements or great acting. Some lost movies were even blockbusters in their time but then began to seem dated and were quickly forgotten. Reuben, Reuben is an example of a relatively modern movie that is getting that age old treatment.

Tom Conti gives a brilliant performance in this movie, and the supporting cast is great. The screenplay and direction are brilliant. And the subject matter is meaty, something adults can think on and discuss seriously. So, why is this movie virtually unheard of now?

Reuben, Reuben is of its time - the early eighties - just before excessive style, slickness, and silly 50s-style moralism and hokeyness took hold. A number of brilliant movies were release in 1983 alone - Educating Rita, Local Hero, The Big Chill, Terms of Endearment. This was a period when story telling was paramount, and movies unfolded gently, with a respect for both real and theatrical time.

I have come to believe that many of these great movies are slowly being forgotten on some conscious level; we the viewing public does not want to remember the best, as it will make us realize the amount of dreck that is now released, and make us maudlin and mournful. This pleases the movie industry no end - it would prefer to have us come back again and again for sugary confections rather than supply us with something nutritious into which we can sink our teeth.

Hopefully, the Internet and sites like IMDb will help to promote near-forgotten gems like Reuben, Reuben, encouraging young movie fans to seek them out and then spread the word of their excellence. And, possibly, with growing recognition of really good cinema, the movie industry will not be so careless and neglectful.


This movie wasn't just written by Julius Epstein - as executive producer, and with another Epstein co-producing as well, he clearly midwifed it as well. So this would be a fairly unmediated labour of love from the man who penned Casablanca 40 years earlier, and damn if I don't like it better than Casablanca - if there's one thing I wanted to see it's a portrait of the lapsed poet as an old womanizing souse. Making him a Scot run amuck in New England is another great touch, gives the milieu a specificity you don't see every day. And that's not mentioning Tom Conti's very specific, and brilliant, performance - no wonder he never did anything comparable, he LIVES inside this thing. His hilarious portrayal of the sad-eyed loser Epstein has written him is the opposite of maudlin. As his doomed infatuation with young 'un Kelly McGillis approaches its inevitable demise, you wonder how on earth they are going to wrap things up - redemption would be corny, but despair would be hopeless and wrong. The answer he comes up with is a head-spinner, but it's also a perfect answer to this dilemma, and answers your lingering questions about the movie's name.


This is a real gem of a movie from the early 80s. The script which is very funny and witty, expertly oscillates between comedy and tragedy. It reminds me of many great John Irving novels. Conti's performance as Gowan McGland, a washed up Scottish poet, is at the heart of this film. Conti's portrayal is so good that I can't think of anyone else doing it. We're charmed by this tragic and comic figure. Kelly McGillis also gives a good performance as the college student who gets mixed up with the world-renowned poet. The relationship is realistic and adult - they both know it will end. What they don't know is the shocking way in which it does end. It's a highly entertaining, thought-provoking and powerful classic. It's mind-boggling that it isn't available on DVD.


Backlash 2003 was all set around Goldberg and The Rock who had had recent brawls 3 weeks before this very PPV.

The opening match featured Los Guerrero's looking to capture tag team gold against The Worlds Greatest Tag Team,it was a fantastic Tag Team Match and definitely one of the greatest matches of the night.

The next contest featuring Sean O' Haire accompanied with Roddy Piper who had insulted O' Haires opponent Rikishi this was the worst match of the night only lasting 6 minutes with O'Haire using a death valley driver to pick up the impressive yet boring win.

The next massive World Tag Team title match featured current champions Rob Van Dam and his partner Kane squaring off against The Dudley Boyz with the odds against RVD and Kane. This match was exciting all the way but not the best of the night.

Now to the first title match for the Womens title featuring the Champion Trish Stratus and her opponent Jazz accompanied by Theodore Long.This was a one-on-one rematch from Wrestlemania,not so good though.

The Next match featured the much smaller Rey Mysterio facing off against the MUCH larger Big Show,the match quickly took it's pace.Around 4 minutes after the match started it was Big Show who stepped out the winner, after the match was the worst bit Big Show carried a helpless Mysterio who at the time was on a stretcher was slammed straight into the ring post.

The next 6 Man Tag Match featured 6 former World Champions the first team of Booker T, Shawn Michaels and Kevin Nash against team 2 Triple H,Ric Flair and Chris Jericho.The match quickly took action as all 6 superstars got involved as fast as they could at the end Triple H (shockingly) pinned Kevin Nash after a pedigree.

The last title match of the night featured 2 major rivals going head to head, it was the WWE Champion Brock Lesnar putting his gold on the line against the challenger John Cena.The match went on for around 25 minutes until Brock Lesnar hit the F5 to get the win and retain his covenant title.

The main event featured 2 of the most intense superstars to ever set foot in the WWE ring The Rock and his all power opponent.....GOLDBERG!!!! This highly anticipated match took to the action quickly but around 25 minutes later Goldberg hit 2 spears to pick up the win and his WWE debut match.


This was a pretty good PPV! The main event was the dream match with The Rock and Goldberg.. That was a entertaining match... I am a big Goldberg fan, so I enjoyed it all the way... But the best match was Lesnar/Cena... They are some kick ass wrestlers, and the match was very good! The worst match was Sean O'Haire vs. Rikishi... That wasn't very good.. But it was a good PPV.. Especially if you are a Goldberg fan! If you are a Goldberg fan, make sure to check out Unforgiven, Survivor series, and Bad Blood from 2003... But there is something special about Backlash... It was Goldbergs very first match in WWE... Some of the other matches at Backlash was the six-man tag match with Triple H, Chris Jericho, and Ric Flair vs. Booker T, Shawn Michaels, and Kevin Nash.. There is also a great cat fight backstage with Stacy Kiebler and Tori Wilson.. Make sure to check that out! Enjoy folks!


The Rock/Goldberg match was probably the best of the night it took ages for them to start but when they did it was a very intense match. The other good match or the best match was the first Team Angel/Eddie & Chavo the crowd were very dull and started to say "boring" to this match but they were all wrong cause the mat tallent of these guys was excellent and at the very amuzing end the crowd was cheering and really enjoyed the match. The 6 man tag match well I dont want to talk about that cause all I have got to say is swear words and im not allowed to do that.........why does HHH always use that sledgehammer stop it now you make me sick. Thge Big Show/Rey Mysterio I liked what Big Show did to Mysterio funny as hell. Womens match well Im silent, I hate Jazz. Lesnar/Cena good really but I hate Cena so much the rap thing isnt funny its annoying. I didnt like the raw tag match I dont like RVD and Kane together there not right together put them in a match against each other.

Overall I enjoyed Backlash very much but remember Backlash isnt the best PPV of them all in the past years.


This wasn't the best PPV of course but it was still okay in my opinion

FIRST MATCH- SHELTON BENJAMIN & CHARLIE HAAS VS. LOS GUERREROS {EDDIE & CHAVO GUERRERO} FOR THE WWE TAG TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP Nice long tag team match to start the Backlash PPV. Great athletic abilities by Benjamin & Haas & great mind games by Chavo & Eddie. Benjamin & Haas win the hard fought tag team match to retain their WWE Tag Team Championship. After the match Eddie & Chavo steal the Tag Team titles & run backstage. 5/10

SECOND MATCH- BIG SHOW VS. REY MYSTERIO Just a squash, nothing special. Big Show wins after a Chokeslam on Mysterio for the win. After the match Mysterio is badly hurt & can't breathe {Because Big Show seriously hurt him during the match}. Suddenly Big Show returns & while Mysterio is on a stretcher, Big Show grabs the stretcher & slams it against the ring post with Mysterio still on it adding more injury to Mysterio. 2/10

THIRD MATCH- JAZZ W/ THEODORE LONG VS. TRISH STRATUS FOR THE WWE WOMEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP Not a bad match but it was still pretty boring at some times. Theodore Long tries to interfere at some times, Jazz gets the win after what looks like a Gory Powerbomb sort of move. 3/10

FOURTH MATCH- SEAN 'O' HAIRE W/ ROWDY RODDY PIPER VS. RIKISHI Not a bad brawl from these two men but when did Sean 'O' Haire & Roddy Piper form an alliance together. Anyways Sean 'O' Haire gets the win after a finishing move {Which looks like an F-U but you toss them backwards from your shoulders}. 3/10

FIFTH MATCH- ROB VAN DAM & KANE VS. DUDLEY BOYS FOR THE WORLD TAG TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP SPECIAL GUEST REFEREE: CHIEF MORLIEY {VAL VENIS} Just like the Smackdown tag team match earlier in the night. It was long & it was a bit more good adding Val Venis as the referee. Val as the referee tries to help the Dudley Boys after low blowing Kane but to no avail gets Chokeslammed by Kane for his troubles. Kane & RVD win after a Chokeslam, followed by a Five Star Frog Splash on D-Von {Another referee came to the match} to retain their World Tag Team titles. 5/10

SIXTH MATCH- TRIPLE H, CHRIS JERICHO & RIC FLAIR VS. SHAWN MICHAELS, KEVIN NASH & BOOKER T IN A 6-MAN TAG TEAM MATCH Good 6-man tag team match with all 6 men seriously taking it to each other. After the referee tries to take care of the match by taking Jericho, Booker, Flair & Michaels out of the ring. Behind the referee HHH nails Nash with the Sledgehammer for the 3 count & to get the win. 5/10

SEVENTH MATCH- BROCK LESNAR VS. JOHN CENA FOR THE WWE CHAMPIONSHIP A good Smakdown Main Event match of the night. During the match Cena makes Lesnar's head busted open which Cena tries to take advantage. But Lesnar fights his way back & nails an F-5 on Cena for the win & to retain his WWE Championship. 5/10

EIGHT MATCH- ROCK VS. GOLDBERG It is great to see Goldberg come back. Goldberg gets the great win against Rock after a Spear followed by a Jackhammer to get the win. 3/10

This wasn't really a bad PPV, it was actually good. The Raw & Smackdown tag team matches were excellent & the Smackdown Main Event between Cena & Lesnar was very good as well. All in all this was a good Raw, Smackdown joint PPV.

Overall: I'll give it 7/10 & a D+


I caught this film at it's Pre - World Premiere at a press screening at the Rotterdam Film Festival back in January of this year and I really enjoyed it, mainly because I have never seen anything quite like it before and don't expect that I will likely ever see anything like it again.

The first thing that swept me away was the set design / art direction: right from the get go I had the feeling I was back in the 70's except it wasn't through the usual played out typical Hollywood re-interpretation of what the seventies were supposed to have looked like, this film elicits a "Holy S*** the filmmakers must have gotten their hands on a warehouse full of actual items from the 70's" sensation (and apparently they did collect props for years). The films colors are absolutely dazzling, the look achieved in the film is almost as if the director was aiming to visually reproduce the feel of a Technicolor film as filtered through copious amounts of LSD.

The characters the actors were portraying often came off as mindless automatons, sort of stereotypical parodies of American archetypes if you will, the performances were often wooden to the point of disbelief  almost as if they were trying to overact in a very detached manner, it worked quite well and added to the overall sense of "disbelief" I had while watching this film. Some of the lines the actors deliver were so incredibly vapid yet delivered so deadpan that I could not control my laughter, sometimes the sets alone were enough to make me giggle.

While the film certainly parodies B flicks on one level, on another it truly works as a piece of calculated and subversive art by reversing the usual misogynistic dynamics of the typical exploitation film: we see the repressed lead character Barbi transform into "Viva" who becomes self aware and empowered by discovering and reveling in her sexuality ( the animated orgasm scene is pretty awesome, apparently Anna Biller also animated this sequence! ) thus I venture to guess that Anna Biller may have very well created the first "post-feminist 70's era B flick exploitation homage film" - anyone know of anything else out there like this? I would definitely recommend this film to fans of John Waters work as well as anyone interested in feminist or subversive art, hell, Anna Biller's art direction alone warrants at least two viewings. All in all I really enjoyed the film, I do wish I had been just a little bit fresher for the screening as per film festival requirements I had slept about four hours the previous evening and was still a bit hungover. I hope I get the chance to see this film again because I would not hesitate to make some phone calls and round up a posse, Viva is definitely a film experience that would make for some excellent post film discussion over drinks.

If I were to make a criticism about Viva It would be that I think the film could use a little more time in the cutting room to trim it up perhaps just a wee bit, given that I was watching a world premiere I will assume that what I saw was perhaps the "directors cut". Regardless, Viva really is an achievement on several levels and it should certainly solidify Anna Biller as one of the freshest new multi-talented directorial voices of today.


The demented genius behind A VISIT FROM THE INCUBUS strikes again. Seriously, though, what is VIVA? Caught this about seven months ago and am still trying to take it all in. I loved this film because I never knew what was going to happen next, despite it following the model of '60's/'70's sexploitation films pretty closely. The first few minutes are simply exhilarating. A young housewife leafs through a skin mag in her bathtub, gets herself ready for the outside world, and blasts off in some bad-ass muscle car, just as the wonderful piece of vintage loungecore music on the soundtrack reaches a crescendo. (At least that's how I remember it.) Sublime; I'm at a loss to think of a better opening scene. (TOUCH OF EVIL, studio cut, perhaps? It's too close to call.) Then we settle in for the long haul. The housewife is hanging out with her friends, a married couple. Things get inappropriate. How far will it go? Exactly what kind of a movie is this? That's really the question that VIVA dares the viewer to answer. I'm still not sure. Satire or pornography? Happily, the answer is yes.

The film is two hours. That would be hard to justify if it were just a slavish imitation of vintage softcore porn. Or just a spoof of same. Instead, it's almost a suspense film. How long has it been since an American film had me wondering who among the cast was going to disrobe? Who was going to disrobe NEXT? Who will have sex next? Will it even be consensual?! All those people constantly cruising each other. Predatory. With the color-soaked visual panache of Radley Metzger in Eastmancolor, but with a storyline from a Joe Sarno film where everyone thinks and talks about sex all the time, has weird, anonymous, masked sex all the time, and never enjoys it. Almost exactly like the adult world seemed to me in 1972. Plus deadly serious feminist self-reflexivity for the unwashed masses and nude dancers with their wieners bobbing hilariously for intellectuals like myself, courtesy of a nudist camp scene that is exactly like Blake Edwards WOULD have done it in A SHOT IN THE DARK, if Hollywood censorship had already relaxed, and he was on angel dust. And all the while, the deliciously arch Jared Sanford does his best to act dozens of naked people off the screen. Two hours was barely enough. Bring on the 70mm IMAX release, the three-disc DVD special edition with the signed and numbered lithographs, and the "Vote for Viva" t-shirts in every trendy mall novelty store.


Never before has a modern film so perfectly succeeded in capturing the look, style and feel of the 70's Sexploitation classics. Anna Biller's "Viva" is an explosion of color, humor and schlock done to the nines, besting attempts made by far bigger-budgeted flicks like "Austin Powers" and "Grindhouse" in truly recreating a bygone era. It's a true skin-comedy epic that delivers everything the gorgeous promotional art promises, and will no doubt become a cult classic among those with a true affinity for well-done homage. I watched this with some friends and there were times when we had to actually stop the DVD because we were laughing so hard! The prostitution and nudist camp scenes are simply unbelievable. Highly recommended.


I saw this movie this morning and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it all day. It was like watching a film made by Radley Metzger, Russ Meyer, and George Kuchar all rolled into one. It's a hilarious homage to the sixties/early seventies sexploitation pictures and Playboy philosophy, and despite the copious nudity and many references to sex, it's strangely one of the most innocent films I've seen in a long time. The performances, costumes and script as well as Ms. Biller's use of sets and color are mind-boggling and transform the movie into a camp masterpiece. Why did this go direct to video and not play the theater circuit? It would be perfect for midnight movie showings. I'm curious how she found funding for this film in this day and age and am eagerly looking forward to her next one. This movie is amazing!


Anna Biller's 'Viva' is two silly hours of campy,good fun. It attempts to satire late 1960's,early 1970's soft core pre-porn films (when they had wall to wall female nudity,but no actual graphic/explicit sexual intercourse depicted on screen). The acting seems to be lifted from early John Waters' films (Pink Flamingo's & even before). The set design,with it's use of pastel colours (as well as primary colours,as well)are a treat for the eye, as they seem to be lifted from period photo shoots of classic late 60's Playboy,as well as record sleeve covers from the late 1950's (especially the Martin Denny covers,with it's beautiful women & it's over saturated use of colour). Anna Biller,in addition to acting as the film's central female lead,Barbi,also wore several hats in the production of this campy period piece (she wrote,directed & edited the film,in addition to set design & even supervising a brief animation sequence,where Barbi is experiencing her first real orgasm, while on some kind of psychedelic drug).The plot concerns a young,suburban housewife who's loutish husband ignores,and eventually abandons her,only to leave her to experimenting with her new found sexual self,including swingers,hippies,etc. I guess if I have any real beef with this film, is the fact that it has several song & dance numbers that do little more than pad the film out to it's two hour (somewhat over long) running time. The song & dance numbers for me,could have been left on the cutting room floor which would have not hurt the film's integrity,one bit). Aside from that,don't go to this film expecting a dead serious Dogme like existential rant on how empty & shallow the human existence is. Just go & have some good clean (dirty)fun. No MPAA rating here,but has scads of both female & male full frontal nudity,sexual situations (both hetrosexual,as well as gay),and other adult material that would have landed this film it's dreaded 'X' rating back in the day,but would pull down little more than a R, these days.


In VIVA, Anna Biller, who stars as well as writes and directs, achieves what many would consider highly improbablea genuine sexploitation film that hearkens back to that genre's golden age of the seventies but is simultaneously an art film. Indeed, VIVA is so superbly crafted that it is sure to go down as a masterpiece of erotic cinema, alongside the likes of Metzger, Sarno, Oshima, Breillat and company. Biller has made a film that not only takes place in 1972, but is so painstakingly constructed that one feels it was made in 1972, only to be released this year from some "American International Pictures" styled vault.

If that weren't enough, Biller did the art direction and costumes. Funky wood paneling, avocado macramé, blue eye shadow, shag carpeting, rust Dacron leisure suits, Lee Majors/ Evil Knievel styled jumpsuits, orgies and shady photo studiosit's all here, but don't let all of the period accuracy fool you. Andrei Tarkovsky noted there are two kinds of filmmakers  those who try and (re)create reality and those who create their own worlds; Biller is clearly in the latter camp, and she has to create a world because that is the only way she can get at the truths about relations between men and women, desire, identity, and the ravages of history on individual life.

VIVA concerns the journey of a young married woman as she explores and in turn is tried by the sexual revolution. In the opening of the film the brunette Biller and her blonde sidekick cavort with each other and their respective husbands by a suburban swimming pool. While looking at Playboy, they pose for each other as much as for their husbands. I have never seen such natural eroticism in an American film. I have never seen such healthy erotic appetite between men and women on the screen. The wives enjoy pornowith their husbands in a group context without any hang-ups or condescension. There is no sense of dirtiness or shame, as if the figures in Biller's film occupy a libidinal utopia where repression had never been invented. The erotic energy bursts from the screen: for a moment anything seems possible with Eros unbound.

But Biller has much more than sex on her brainit's all a setup with us in the audience as bait. Of course the pleasure can't last, as the heroine does go on a journey after all. Biller's strength is in the tonal shifts; one moment she can be playful and fun, and the next moment deathly serious.

It is to Biller's credit that her treatment of the sexual revolution is so evenhanded. Even as she celebrates the pleasures of that thorny shift in consciousness that we call a revolution she never lets us forget that it came at women's expense; that men often dictated the revolution's terms. And at a more ontological level, VIVA explores the problem of the contradictions between men's and women's innermost desires. In the end, VIVA is a shining paradox: artificial distillation of sexploitation and realistic portrayal of gender conflict, a traditional dramatic structure with closure that raises many questions, a fun, almost farcical sex film that hides an intellectual seriousness about history. The effect becomes something for everyone. --Mitch Hampton


VIVA is the first great feature from underground queen of the B's (and Bees if you've seen her work!) Anna Biller. Culminating in four long years of production, VIVA reminds of early studio John Waters efforts filtered through her own Strange Guignol style (wherein lurid set color and mannered acting replaces Grand Guignol's gaudy excess of violence). Many will not "get" the tone and acting styles in this era of Neo-Naturalism, but for those accustomed to having preconceptions gleefully overturned about what is "right and wrong" for a feature film, VIVA is not to be missed. Hightlights for me include: amazing, psychedelia-drenched sets and uber costumes that made me wish the 1970's had ever really achieved such suggested heightened self-awareness; acting done in the "Distanciated" mode advocated by Douglas Sirk but reinterpreted to new depths by Biller; a truly remarkable perf by Bridget Brno as Anna's best friend & living Barbie doll gone Bad Girl (but in a Good Way); and an animated orgasm sequence that is as sublime as it is subliminal. For those who want what is wanting, VIVA is your ticket to ride.


VIVA is so good that most will likely mistake it for an actual example of the stereotypical 70's genre sexploitation flick it so perfectly mimics. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real thing never looked so beautiful, or was so meticulously composed, or lovingly rendered. Daring, quirky, personal, utterly unique, the film transcends and surpasses the works it pretends to send up. Anna Biller's new and original voice, and incredible artistry make this an unforgettable feature length debut. If you can look past the blue eye shadow and filmy vintage negligees, you may discern a genuine aesthetic master. An amazing technical achievement, like watching a feminine Guy Madden photographing herself for a vintage centerfold pictorial. Neither period exploitation nor modern commercial multiplex filler, this film will no doubt baffle many, possibly most casual viewers.


Like so many media experiments, this amateurish effort contains seeds of a very interesting social commentary. In the 5+ years since it was released, the premise has been made less outrageous by real world events in software development, and I found it less boring than the previous commentator for that reason, I imagine... The director clearly is a fan of Hitchcock, and it's too bad that the film was not better executed, but in fact, it is nearly a parody of pulp fiction, including the soundtrack screeching at us when we are supposed to pay attention. One can almost see the exclamation points and capital letters on a yellowing page.

I have to admit I found it rather entertaining for all these reasons and more. Sometimes the slick has less to offer us, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in deconstructing it for education purposes. Oh yes--and even though the seams showed and it creaked a lot, my heart rate went up, and I was reluctant to get up and take a break.


Despite its stereotypes, virtually 'no-name' cast and an obviously low budget I thought this film was alright; much better than I expected it to be. I was skeptical at first - the idea of a computer virus that can also infect people seemed a little ludicrous to me. But in the end, I thought the film handled the concept well (even if some scenes were a little clichéd).

The cast was quite good, and the two leads seemed to take their roles very seriously. I couldn't help thinking, though, that Janine Turner is a bit of a Geena Davis look-a-like. Maybe it's just her face or the make-up, hair and clothes she had in this movie but it just kept nagging at the back of my mind the whole time.

While it's not a 'must see' or a great film by any standard, 'Fatal Error' is an entertaining flick that will keep you watching until the end.


Actually, this flick, made in 1999, has pretty good production values. The actors are attractive, and reasonably talented. There aren't a bunch of clowns running around blasting away, expending hundreds of rounds, but never hitting flesh. Nor are there wild car chases/crashes where thousands of dollars worth of beautiful machines are uselessly trashed.

The interiors look respectably modern, architecturally, and the equipment looks up to snuff. Well, there is that high tech computer room furnished with what look like leftovers from a '50s electronics lab. And the pancake make-up on the corpses cracked me up. Not pancake make-up in the conventional sense, but what looks like dried pancake batter slathered over their exposed skin. This is supposed to support the idea that the bodies have calcified -- though how the virus would accomplish this transmutation is an exercise left for the student (viewer).

Ah yes, the virus. I would like to tell you that this is not the absolute worst premise for a sci-fi, horror flick I know of, but I can't. A computer virus that is transmitted via a television (or computer monitor) screen and becomes a lethal biological pathogen? Gimme a break. Warp drives a la "Star Trek" are one thing, but photons becoming viruses? This is so silly the desired "fright factor" just isn't realizable. The flick could have used one of those awful dream sequences where the dead come alive, or have a cat jump out of the closet, or something, because the viral thingamajig isn't doing it.

One presumes Robert Wagner has the same excuse for playing in this inanity that Lord Oliver gave for some of his later, trashy venues. He needed the money. No other comparison between the two should be construed,however.


In some ways, the concept behind the storyline was a rather interesting blend of several typical movie types in an interesting combination. However, no point in this movie was so obvious that it did not deserve lingering close-up shots. I felt as though I had been beat over the head with the so-called mysterious explanation for the disease killing people.

The writer appears to have simply lifted clichés from other movies as a substitute for writing lines adapted to actual characters. The actors did not help matters. No chemistry. I guess they were supposed to develop some kind of attraction if only for the reason that such is an essential element of these stories. However, the writers didn't work very hard to develop the chemistry. Sure, they're both attractive, but whether they're attractive to each other seemed to be an open question.

The confidence Turner's character shows in Sabato's developed far too quickly and for no particular reason. Sabato's character is supposed to be a discredited doctor who just can't seem to play by the rules. Think of the Jeff Goldblum character in "Independence Day." Usually, that kind of character is supposed to demonstrate some kind of talent or brilliance. Sabato's character does not. He's Cassandra with just the crazy and all the prophetic skills of a magic eight ball. He appears to be right by random chance.

The death scenes are comical. Every actor was really trying more than a little to hard to demonstrate the agony inflicted on them. The symptoms looked like bad claymation, sort of like that video from the 80s, Peter Gabriel, I think.


OK, the movie is good but I give it a 1 because the idea of a computer virus becoming an organic virus is pure fairy tale. This kind of crap just adds to those uncomputer savvy moron's paranoid delusions that a computer virus is exactly like an organic virus. First of all, strings of code and dozens of 1s and 0s add up to computer virus. An organic virus is much more complex, even though it's way tinier. Though, it's considered one of the simplest forms in the universe, organic virus's attach burrow into your cells and attach themselves to the RNA, then change your own RNA code. Explain to me how something like that could be processed from a monitor? Maybe the radiation has some effect on the user's cornea that turns your eyeballs into these viruses? I could see that, but obviously, the writer didn't think of that.


I've just lost 2 hours of my life watching this mindless plot. I could make a better movie with my cellphone camera. How do they manage to get actors to play in those movies?? Porn movies have better scenarios and effects... I wish I had those 2 hours back...

The only good thing about this movie is the cast. Even though, their acting skills in this one could not lift this movie to passable, the rest was just WAY too bad!

It's the type of movie that I'd recommend using to torture prisoners into scaring them straight.

Even worse, I saw a translated version of this flick...Imagine, a bad movie...with an even worst translation...Yikes!


A somewhat dull made for tv movie which premiered on the TBS cable station. Antonio and Janine run around chasing a killer computer virus and...that's about it. For trivia buffs this will be noted as debuting the same weekend that the real life 'Melissa' virus also made it's debut in e-mail inboxes across the world.


Colin Welland hacked this script from the B-plots of a thousand war pictures, in the process forgetting to write a story. This is the part of the war movie not quite as well done as the real show, the part you sit through only so you can watch tanks blow up. Here we get two and a half hours of that level of mediocrity. A Redgrave can do a lot without good dialog or interesting situations, but not everybody has such chops. This director, for instance, never rose above the level of his screenplays: if he had Waldo Salt or William Goldman at the typewriter, he was fine.

YANKS has faults endemic to John Schlesinger's latter work - primarily it seems to be suffering a head cold. Not as spectacularly awful as DAY OF THE LOCUST, it is nearly as dumb. Now it's slapstick silliness, now it's brutal gravity, now it's just dull. If the individual scenes often work, a general Hallmark cloy drizzles over all. Richard Gere is at his prettiest. The acting is all pretty good, some of it better than that. And it looks very handsome, mostly shot through filters for a sheen of period nostalgia. But I find the movie not very watchable as document or elegy, and not at all as entertainment.

The production is grimed with dissatisfaction, which certainly works thematically; it's about the "chin-up" attitude that replaces happiness in wartime. (If we believe Loach, Hodges and every postwar British director who never worked for Cubby Broccoli, not to mention T.S. Eliot, resignation is a British attitude not exclusive to wartime.) But theme and style are separate issues, and they do not compliment each other here. There's an almost interesting interplay between war-weary Brits and callow Yanks; almost, because nothing's investigated in any depth.

None of the love stories is convincing. This is the major problem. So the movie is, unintentionally I suspect, rather hopeless. That's fine, but you can't fly on intention. Regardless of subject matter, competence is always a virtue.


I'd say no.

The movie looks pretty. Some of the acting is good but at other times is way over the top. I did not find the movie suspenseful or scary and I'm not sure why anybody would, although some people seem to.

Roger Ebert and Peter Weir (both people who liked this film) sum it up nicely.

Ebert describes it as a film that is "free of plot" That it is a film that doesn't have any final explanation and exists only as an "experience"

Weir says that he worked very hard to have the audience lose awareness of the facts. He did everything he could to hypnotize the audience away from thinking that there might be a solution.

So if you watch this film you should NOT try to figure it out. Realize that it's NOT really a mystery and there is NO answer. If you try and apply any logic or reason to the film, you'll find yourself being frustrated. If you want to see it, expect a film "experience" but don't expect a clear story, realistic characters or a plot.

I found the film to be long, slow and plodding. The point where the three girls disappear is probably the best moment in the whole film, as somebody else noted, but one brief moment of entertainment in an otherwise ambiguous film is not enough.

I watched it thinking that it was a mystery. I watched the characters do odd things (like falling into fits of apparently simultaneous-narcolepsy) and thought to myself "What the heck was that?". I tried to use logic to piece together things that people did and said.

I obviously went into this film with wrong expectations. I thought there'd be a plot, I thought there'd be a mystery. I should have read Ebert and Weirs' comments prior to watching the film and I'd realize that there is no plot and that the director didn't want you to even think for one moment that there was the possibility of an answer. It is a film that is intentionally obtuse.

If you're looking for a dreamlike escapade or something to soothe you to sleep then perhaps this film is for you.

PS: This film is NOT based on any true events any more than The Blair Witch Project is. Search the internet for more information and educate yourselves.


At first glance you might think this wouldn't be a Paul film, but when you consider my love for picnics and the outback, maybe you'll realize this has many of the ingredients i love in a movie.

I picked this from "Quickflix" as it was a movie I'd kind of been interested in seeing. When we got it in the mail and Tara wasn't even keen to watch it, I started to have doubts. "Isn't it from the seventies", she exclaimed. We argued the pros and cons of watching it and then she agreed (or gave in, I don't remember).

"Picnic at Hanging Rock" is based upon a novel, which I thought was based upon a true story, which it turns out it doesn't seem to be. The novelist was always evasive when asked about the events, but it seems certain they never occurred. Annoying. Basically a bunch of school girls in 1900 go on a picnic to Hanging Rock. Four of the girls wander off. 1 gets separated from the group and returns to the others, frantic that she's lost her friends. A teacher then goes after the lost girls. When it gets dark, the remaining return to the school, horrified that they've lost 4 members. Search parties look for the girls over the coming week and find 1 girl, but the rest remain lost forever.

The movie is directed very well (Peter Weir) and is eerie at times, but it really loses intrigue after the half way mark. The cast is pretty weak, which didn't help at all. My highlights were:

-Vivean Gray, in her best work outside playing Mrs Mangel in "Neighbours". -The phrase "have you taken leave of your senses".

-John Jarrett, in his best work outside of "Better Homes & Gardens".

Lowlights include:

-No "real" picnic eg sandwiches, eskies etc. -The score. -The fact I discovered it's not based upon a true story. Not that I wish 3 girls and their teacher perished, just that I feel I've been misled for the last 30 years.


this show is absolutely dreadful, although Brooke burns is a nice looking lady, she does not have what it takes to present this show. it amazes me how stupid people can actually get. each test is either impossible or really easy, which makes it really stupid to watch. the game doesn't work at all. each contestant has to vote the person who they think is least likely to complete the test. when this is done, a contestant is asked why they choose the person. this is a very unfair process since this person will always get out, if the contestant succeeds. another stupid thing about the show is that not everyone has to do as much, a person can win the whole thing without having to say a word. i conclusion, this is a show that deserves to be cancelled.


The description was pretty honest in that the documentary covered both sides of the debate. My confusion is what purpose was accomplished with this? One side makes a statement, but doesn't back it up with facts and vice versa. I am pretty sure I have seen documentaries that have included "editorial comments" from a reputable source. For example if someone says "these are three reasons for X" no matter how stupid, the "stupid" VIEWER is going to say in their mind "I agree with this, what is the problem?" To the person who knows it is factually wrong says in their mind "I already knew this and we are not going to change this (possibly ignorant) person's mind. Why am I watching this?" Just listening to people's pain and disagreement doesn't help me much.


I knew nothing about this film before I rented it. I wish that there had been someone to take me by the hand; to warn me off. So now I'm here now for the rest of you. Don't rent this film. Slight redemption comes in the form of the two female leads, Lena Headey & Penelope Cruz. They are both simply exquisite -- but beauty does not a film make.


I wouldn't rent this movie. It's a complete wasting of time. Like a vacuum, the movie message just keeps sucking. The writer is persistently shifting the burden of his own psychological problems onto the audience's shoulders, and casually trying to push his old-fashioned beliefs of a 'fate' stuff into your mouth. Behaviour of protagonists is far from being natural, and everything rings hollow. Obviously, no one really loves anyone in this sombre dismal performance. (I actually have to add something, despite the fact that I said all. The reason of it is there is a requirement of 10 lines of the text as a minimum length for comments. I think this is not in a fair and good spirit of a web-site to make such a requirement since it violates the freedom of expression, like, I personally think I've already said what I wanted to say bout the film. ...Well, after I added this flame, I suppose there will be 'nuff lines to finally display my modest comment on the movie.)


But at least Transporter 2 was fun. Robert Patrick is the only actor worth watching in this film, and even he had some wacky forced lines that made no sense. If you've seen the trailer you've seen it all. I'm so serious! I've seen every B movie out there and this is a C for sure! Also being a Marine, I was at first blown away by how pathetic the "Marine" background footage was that they gave Cena. But about 1/3 of the way through this poor excuse for an action film, I was very happy that they had him wear a camouflage Army cover (hat for you non-military types) instead of a cornered Marine issue cover when he saluted that officer because neither he nor his character deserved to wear a Marine uniform. By the way, a high ranking officer would never salute a Sgt. first. It's always the other way around! Apparently there were no real Marine advisers on this movie set. Even if they had all the Marine details in order, the action was extremely stupid and I was left severely disappointed. Neither Cena nor Cena's character in this movie deserve to be called The Marine. One last thing. I've seen some people say the action is so realistic in this film. That is the furthest thing from the truth. I saw at least 300 bullets (I'm not exaggerating either) unloaded into the car Cena was driving during a chase and not a single flat tire as a result. Need I say more!?!


Now, don't get the wrong idea. I am a wrestling fan. However, this is a movie review. I review a movie on how I think of this. I'll tell you why The Marine is not worth seeing.

First off, the movie has a weak plot. Not exactly original. Kidnapped wife, not the best. We got a few talented people here. Kelly Carlson and Robert Patrick. However they are supports. Okay, can they save this? No.

I have to say without any anti-Cena and all honesty that John Cena is one of the worst actors I have ever seen. He is more wooden than a log cabin. His tough guy facials are hilarious. How did he get this role? And how is it that an experienced actor Robert Patrick have to play second fiddle? To Cena no less? Ouch. Cena's acting made the Marine hard to watch.

Also, When a movie sucks, the only resort to try and win over people is to....yep, explosions. Forget the plot, forget the story, forget the bad acting, as long as we have explosions, the movie is saved! Right? Right????

The Last Word: Utter garbage. How Cena nabbed the starring role here is going to be one of the biggest mysteries of the world. His acting is awful. The movie's script is lame, too many explosions, and did I mention Cena? I hate to say this, but Cena, don't quit your day job. Acting isn't your style.


Absolutely the worst piece of crap my brother and I have seen. The movie looked to be an interesting action movie early on, but became totally unbelievable and stupid as the movie progressed. It simply insults the intelligence of the viewer! People in the audience were laughing at how dumb, and I mean dumb, this movie was. The acting was horrible. The plot, what plot? The "marine" was indestructible. The bad guys fought among themselves and acted like a bunch of morons. After intense fighting scenes, the characters didn't have scratches or torn clothing. Everything was predictable. I honestly can not recall seeing a movie as bad as this one. The producer of this movie should be ashamed! Absolutely do not recommend wasting even a dollar at a dollar theater for this one!


I am a huge John Cena fan, so I'm not writing this just to pick on him. But "The Marine" is the worst film I've ever seen, and I've made a habit of seeing bad films.

*May contain SPOILERS* The short version: See John shoot. Shoot, shoot, shoot. See John run. BOOM! Run, John, run. See John drive. See John swim. Swim, swim, Boom! Run, swim, hit, BOOM, hit, hit, kiss - The end.

The long version: I'll skip the cheesy opening credits and the bizarre soundtrack (which at more than one point seems to be channeling Celine Dion). The movie was supposedly directed by one John Bonito; I wouldn't say that the movie was directed so much as it wandered along aimlessly, occasionally bumping into scenery. Even the scenery refused to "act" (Queensland, Australia is NOT South Carolina, Mr. Bonito). Mr. Cena ambles along through the famous jungles of "South Carolina," occasionally stopping to glance around, never conveying the slightest hint that he might actually be thinking something. Five minutes into the movie, I apologized to the friend I dragged along with me to see it. Ten minutes into it, I officially began imagining a completely different movie. By the end, I no longer cared who lived. I wouldn't have minded if the characters had simply begun shooting themselves, just so that we'd all be put out of our misery.

I wanted this to be a fun movie - I like a fun, cheesy action film as much as the next person - but this movie didn't even try. I was so disappointed ... Mr. Cena, you owe me $9.50!


As a real fan of action movies I was looking forward to a great action movie from seeing the previews however I found it disappointing. First, the whole story line with the Marine Corps is very unrealistic (don't want to spoil anything here), there a lot of big explosions, but acting is just very wooden. While I don't look for a heavy complicated plot in an action film, it is always helpful to have something to hold it together. The story line is very linear and predictable. In the theater I was in, the audience actually started laughing out loud at the predictability and cliché lines. So go for the explosions and the star is good looking (although we only see his body in one scene unfortunately) but don't expect too much from a movie produced by the WWF.


The Marine is just a silly film by WWE simply to entertain it's fan base and further it's empire.For one to judge The Marine you need to take into account that this film was intended to entertain action fans with a no brainer,cheesy,action,popcorn flick and as a popcorn flick The Marine succeeds.John Cena is actually a good actor and he played his invincible,heroic,one man strike force character to perfection as did Robert Patrick with his absolutely hilarious character.The Marine has the most unbelievable stunts and at some times they are almost unbearably bad.The fight sequences are great,very intense,very hardcore, but the explosions and special effects are brutally unrealistic and cheesy.The film also has some of the most annoying,campy,corny, dialog ever captured on film.It's so bad you feel like you're re-watching 1997's Batman and Robin.As a follower of pro wrestling I'm aware that John Cena currently has a love/hate relationship with WWE fans.Females and Adolescents love Cena while Males hate him.My guess is that The Marine was made in order to change male fans opinions by making an action film that generally appeals to them.However judging by the overall IMDb rating WWE failed to do so.I wouldn't necessarily say THe Marine is a bad film but it is incomparable and can't compete with mainstream action films like The Transporter,Crank,or District B13 however if you enjoy direct to DVD action flicks that have a thin storyline but some great action scenes like Special Forces or Belly Of The Beast than The Marine is more suited to you.It's definitely not the worst film ever made and I think for the most part it's because it doesn't take itself seriously and admits it's a popcorn flick.Overall The Marine is just silly action much like wrestling and much like wrestling the characters are whacky and at times unbelievable.


I've just stumbled on this movie and I thought "why not? Perhaps it's so bad it's funny" and I must admit it showed potential on that part. First thing you'll see is the opening sequence: John Cena in a Marine official suit saluting the audience, with the American flag as background. Enormous potential for a funny trash movie.

If you read some of the best reviews here you'll find a lot of hilarious comments like "John Cena is an excellent actor". "Pure '80 fun" and "This movie is what's so great about America". Those people are clearly girls or boys in their teens who've been fed with MTV bull, PS2 games and cheap CGI . Let's dimanstle them in a quick way

1) John Cena is an excellent actor. If this guy was serious, and the way he wrote it would imply so, then we're in dire need of some obligatory school lessons about funny action movies 2) Pure '80 fun. No, no it's not. The '80 gave us the finest cheesy action with Commando, Rambo 2, Die Hard and so on. Those were funny movies. This movie is abysmal.

3) Let me tell you that if this movie's what's so great about America, then America must really stink as nation.

Because "The Marine", an action movie starring John Cena, Robert Partick, Kelly Carlson and some other useless wannabe actors doesn't even try to be ironic or make fun of itself as it should; in fact, it tries to be a serious action movie. But let's make a quick summary to help you understand the atrocity of The Marine:

plot: clichéd as hell. Those who say "but man, this is a rad action movie, who cares about the plot??" are forgetting that ALL the good action movies have some decent plot: Predator, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Face Off, Hard Boiled (god forbid me). This has none: villains kidnap Cena's wife, Cena smashes everything including passing through a couple of houses while hanging on a truck, Cena rescues his loved one. All this crap would actually resemble Commando, but you have a lot of humor and gags there, absolutely necessary for an over the top movie. There's zero here.

John Cena: he's probably the worst actor you'll ever see. His face remains exactly the same plain thing during the whole movie; when he kisses his wife, when he's angry, when he's sad, when he's happy, when he's a douche. Go watch the first tree you find down the road, and that's Cena's performance in a nutshell

dialogues: ... movie's in dire need of some irony, but like I already pointed out, it tries to be serious. A series of one liners trying to be funny, but they're just lame as hell. It's not even unintentionally funny. It's just boring.

in short, don't even consider renting this crap for some laughs with your friends, you'll bore them to tears. Get Taxxi, The transporter or Snatch if you want tome dumb but ultimately funny action. It's a dangerous mixture of zero plot and acting, frenzied editing, bad CGIed explosions. It's just awful. But I don't want you to miss the movie intro with Cena's salute. Come on, it's ten seconds worth of your money


About 2 decades ago, people witnessed the age of when the action genre in films was at its finest. The world was given some of the greatest action entertainments ever (Terminator's 1 and 2, Die Hard, Predator, Robocop etc). And all of that was shamefully thrown away for the cheap rip-off's just so Hollywood can make a profit. And here we get WWE starting to finance and distribute films in hopes of expanding their fanbase and their publicity. And they start by throwing their superstar John Cena in his horrendous, over-the-top debut.

"The Marine" follows John Triton (Cena) who has been recently discharged for disobeying direct orders and he now has a lousy security job (but at the end, the problem of having a job he hates isn't even resolved, but what do we care?). Later on, a group of diamond thieves who are trying to evade the authorities after their latest heist kidnap Triton's wife. Triton decides to do the usual in a dumb action flick; he decides to go after them and take the law into his own hands. But the plot itself is too weak for us to care about what's going on. I mean the problem basically occurred by chance and coincidence when Triton and his wife just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time at the gas station. And all the plot elements don't mesh together very well.

And of course its action because the WWE wrestlers just want to prove their masculinity. And overall, the action sucks. There's explosions and gunfire, lots and lots of explosions and gunfire. But the special effects team must've been on crack because the blasts look like splashes of Sunny Delight, and the gunfire looks like it was made from a home computer with just that stupid orange X and the annoying sparkles that we see.

And the acting performance by Cena is atrocious and more wooden than a redwood forest. Robert Patrick as Rome is sub-par since he wasn't as threatening as he used to be in Terminator 2 and even in Die Hard 2 which he appeared in only 2 scenes. He's pretty much just spewing out dumb one-liners and acting goofy. All that, rather than the intimidating silence he's known for.

And the rest is just a bunch of badly timed jokes, dialogue and scenarios. Especially the part when Morgan is telling about his experiences with his camp counselor and Rome ordering him to find the generator. That part was WAY outta place, badly acted and awkward and it felt like it was never gonna end. And towards the end when Triton surely kills Rome in the blast, then after reviving his wife, Rome suddenly rises again with severe burns and then Triton kills him for good, VERY VERY B movie, if you ask me. And the "The Marine" is chock full of moments like those.

I didn't give this the lowest score because some of the fist fights here were alright and I liked some of the pop-culture references such as the ones to Terminator and Scarface here.

But don't waste your time, this is for John Cena die-hards only......


wow, i've seen something worse then cena's wrestling, his acting! wow....don't watch the marine...i went for the laugh factor of seeing cena play in a movie...but it wasn't worth it...they tried being funny, but quite frankly it was just pathetic....there were 43 explosions for crying out loud! bad acting anyone? when his wife thinks he dies, she doesn't even changer her facial expressions...she just shrugs it off like it's no big thing.

a very very stupid plot....an ex marine goes to a gas station with his wife...but little does he know...some jewel thief's are in that exact same gas station! they steal his wife, need her as a hostage, though they didn't really....need a hostage at all. and they walk through a forest, while cena gets whacked in the head with a fire extinguisher and a plank of wood for the only laugh factors of the film.

so we end off the film, with 20 explosions, and his wife chained up in a truck falling into a lake! and then...cena has an epic battle with the main villain everyone thought was dead! after 5 more explosions and much more crappy acting later, he beats him up and the whole place blows up with a huge explosion....he dives in for his wife....who is obviously dead at this point, brings her up, and saves her somehow....and in an ironic twist, john tritan says to his wife "shoulda gone to da beach" ohohohoh, hilarity ensued.

i truly want my money back, plus some extra cash just for how bad it was


This movie was absolutely pathetic. They obviously spent so much money on special effects they forget to hire some half decent writers for the script. If your a fan of nothing but explosions, shooting, and almost no plot whatsoever, this is the movie for you. The wife being kidnapped is so over used. The jewel thieves were good, but John Cena, you suck at acting in a movie, save the acting for the WWE. People who think this was a good movie are obviously philistines. If there were negative ratings, I would choose them. The Marine is fun if your in the mood for guns and big booms, but the acting was appalling, and the script was absolute crap. 1/10


This is the single worst movie, with the exception of "The People Under the Stairs" that I have ever seen. For many titles on IMDb, some comment on how intriguing a plot is. Well, that can be skipped for this film, because the plot is so ill-thought out that there might as well not be one. Why would a director waste time/money on: 1. Horrible "special" effects. EVERY single stunt was ludicrously cheesy and fake. Only a ten year old kid would enjoy them.

2. Dialog. It has to be the worst for ANY movie that I can remember watching. I mean, it's embarrassing. The writer(s) should be shunned from film-making forever.

3. Cast. Ridiculous does not do it justice. John Cena, WWE wrestler, is one of the worst "actors" of all time. First of all, no one cares about WWE. People did in the 90's, and only idiots who thought it was real enjoyed it. Secondly, his voice is so annoying and the dialog is so terrible that I wanted to see him die a horrible death every three minutes.

4. Concept. Honestly. Diamond thieves. GIVE ME A BREAK. Number two: hostage situation. It's so bad that I had to laugh.

5. The black guy. Not being racist, but he was the worst character of all of them. I mean come on, this movie is obviously projected to younger teens, but why do the stupid racist jokes have to come out of this guy's mouth? They aren't even funny! It all goes back to dialog. Second, the language. The foul language sounded so ridiculous because of horrible acting, and often didn't fit with the context. Again, this is why 13 year olds are stupid.

6 (and last). Overall crap. This movie sucks. Period. It is absolutely terrible. Do not, even if you are stuck in a cabin from the snow, watch this movie. Burn it. Throw it away. Anything. If you get it for Christmas, never speak to the giver again.

Bottom line: This movie sucked from opening propaganda to final stunt. If you want a good laugh, watch it. Because it seriously needs to be moved from "Action" to "Comedy"


Remember CRITTERS, the 1980s movie about small alien creatures that looked like balls of fur and they rolled all over the place when they attacked unsuspecting earthlings. These critters went through windows and doors, with their big teeth. When I watched THE MARINE and John Cena as the marine in question reminded me of that 1980s movie. First, John Cena has massive set of teeth. Second, we also see him repeatedly jump in and/or out of windows or literally crashing through doors and rolling in a ball formation into houses. That's all we see him do in this really awful action film. This is Cena's first major role and unless they make an official CRITTERS remake, I don't see him doing any more movies. Yep, THE MARINE was that awful.

But what memories about CRITTERS though. Thanks John.


This may have been the worse movie I've seen. I watched this movie on HBO today thinking that it was going to be an action movie. However, after watching it I'm not sure if it was meant to be an action-comedy like Rush Hour(which I truly think they weren't going for). Everything from the beginning to the end seemed forced in my opinion, including the horrible attempts for a laugh. The whole "rock candy" angle was odd, and didn't make much since and could have been left out. Or when the main villain was trying to get his cable upgraded with a sports package while trying to hide from the cops was just unnecessary. Every movie needs comedy, but these are all childish attempts that just didn't go with the flow of the movie.

The "Bad Guys" also are incredibly dumb, reminding me a lot of Marv and Harry from Home Alone. They ended up blowing up everything they left, killing people who they really didn't need to, kidnapping Cenas wife for really no reason, and just doing things real/intelligent criminals wouldn't.

If you want to see what I and many others agree to being a horrible film, or are a child 10 years or younger, than I suggest you pick this one up. However, if your looking for a good action flick, you clearly need to skip this one.


This movie brings a whole new level to terrible films. Everything is heavy handed, and when it seems that the filmmakers couldn't think of anymore ridiculous action sequences they filled it in with over-drawn, slow motion explosions, slow motion scenes of John Cena running, or slow motion scenes of a car flying through the air. And then there's the "comic relief," which mainly consists of Anthony Ray Parker's character whining about having to do stuff or telling some lame story that makes "Who's Your Caddy?" seem hilarious. The music seems like a guy on a soundboard was just making it up as he went along. The action, when it happens, isn't bad, and it would seem that the only thing John Cena CAN do (because he certainly can't act) is beat the crap out of people while grunting and growling like a caveman. If John Cena ever wins an Oscar (presumably the same year that gravity is disproved) it would be for the best animatronics in a movie, although I think that he still has less emotional range then that talking tree from "The Lord of the Rings." In short, John Bonito proves to be a talentless hack of a director. I can imagine him looking at the fully edited film and saying, "Oh, that's how it turned out? Oh well I still get paid." But the films vileness cannot completely be blamed on him. The actors (with the exception of Robert Patrick, who is fortunate that few people will see him in this nightmare of a movie) could be out-acted by third graders doing a play about vegetables.


John Cena's movie debut and last i hope, Cena's acting is actually fine to be honest so what makes this movie terrible? The Score is absolutely dreadful and i'd say this is what kills the movie. Yup the background music in this film is what completely ruins this movie it is cheesy and the whole film in general feels like " Made for TV ". If anything the WWE should just leave the acting to The Rock and Steve Austin who have proved they can act. You might notice some T2 references including the ending fight scene which just seemed to look like a copy of T2'S fight scene. watch out for tons of movie errors including this:

Continuity: At the gas station, after the cop's car gets shot, it shows the car having a flat tire. Triton proceeds to get in the car and take off, driving with all four tires fully filled.

Its so bad its enjoyable to watch but it is a pile of crap


Well what can I say. Someone played a prank on me. I am a known action flick buff and someone suggested I go watch the movie on the big screen. I did accordingly and soon realized that it was a joke played on me. I could not even sit through the entire movie and walked away after an hour or so feeling completely wasted. However I promised myself that I will wreak vengeance onto my tormentor. If someone knows a worse movie than this please let me know so that I can fulfill my revenge.

About the movie the less said the better. Hence I will not waste any more time on this and finally would like to warn all about this sickening movie.


Come on Vince. You're a Billionaire. Hire someone who can write and someone who can direct (not a guy who has never directed anything other than porn like you did with See No Evil) and a lead who can act. This was a piece of crap that never should have seen the light of day. Even as a popcorn flick this thing failed in everyway. Repetitive explosions (cena got flash burned to death every time there was an explosion in this movie). Lame as fights (cena takes out those two drug dealers his own size but is getting his a** handed to him by narrow assed Robert Patrick). Poor direction. The list just goes on and on. Of course with how little he spends making these films he's probably making money on them (or at least a hell of a tax write off/business loss), but eventually even his hardest core fans are going to get sick of bad films trying to sell themselves based only on wwe stars in the roles. well given the fact that any time you turn on the wwe it's the same guys in the same matches (can't even pretend to be interested in that anymore) maybe they won't?


The film is so unoriginal. And the plot has been killed long ago, the endings is anticipated from the beginning. The film shows crappy performance on almost all scales. The marine himself  portrayed as an indestructible, bullet proof, fire proof " terminator"- did very badly regarding the acting skills, and the plot is so lame and boring. The editing and screenplay is terrible, and who ever made this film is crazy about blowing things up. I truly regret the time I spent watching this, and I advise you not to see it. I also truly urge all those film makers out there, not to waste all that money on movies like this one, that don't add anything to the empire of the large screen.


This is one of the worst movies ever made. As a former Marine, I lost track of all the uniform and protocol errors they made. That being said, the horrible acting, terrible action scenes, and everything else actually made this movie fun to watch. I spent the first 15 minutes laughing so hard I just about died. Everything is so forced and stupid, with absolutely no point to it. With the exception of the guy from T2, every cast member was completely forgettable. This film made some of the earliest Arnold movies look well acted and directed. Don't watch this movie if you expect a serious film, but, if you have an hour and a half to kill, check it out, at least it will make you laugh.


This movie deserves a 9.5 out of 10 in the "Make fun of the movie with your buddies" category. In the real world of motion pictures, a 1 out of 10 is generous.

If you've gotten to this comment, then you've read multiple times by now how the main character is "bullet proof" maybe "flame retardant" or even invincible. Well, that's all true, but I expected that going in. There are far larger problems than that.

So, here are the top 5 problems with "The Marine."

5) Cena is NOT a badass in this film. He isn't a good fighter, he doesn't have any tricks or intellect, he's not even good with guns. He's a big, goofy jacked dude who ends up winning every fight despite getting his ass kicked for most of the movie. You don't "connect" with him at all. You don't see a bad guy do a bad thing and think "Oh man, I can't wait until Cena gets a hold of him." That never happens because Cena is never established as a badass in any way besides just being jacked.

4) You don't love the hero by the end, and you don't hate the villain. Robert Patrick is actually level-headed and likable as the villain. John Cena has no personality, no character, and no endearing qualities (besides just being un-godly jacked).

3) There are several subplots that are terrible, yet un-finished. You'll see multiple head-scratchingly bad conversations between characters, and when they're over, you'll ask, "what was the point of that?" In the end, you see that there was no point. No foreshadowing, nothing. Just stupid meaningless conversations that trick you into thinking they were important to the plot.

2) The main character does not change, or learn anything, or accomplish anything. He's completely static.

1) There's no reason for it to be called "The Marine." He pretends to be a marine for less than 5 minutes of the film. The rest of the time, they just repeat that he was once a marine in order to jam it down your throat that he's tough.


Went into the cinema with absolutely no preconceptions of the show - hadn't heard of it, or its sequel, and chose it because it looked like it might be good, brainless entertainment.

In the end it was just brainless. It really was. Plot loopholes aplenty. Illogical logic. Lame, flat humour, cheesy lines, uninspiring action. Everything was so obvious, so run of the mill, so pointless. Really, I couldn't figure out why this show was even made, let alone how it came to be "Japan's biggest live action box office hit".

Maybe the ending would've redeemed it - I wouldn't know. From about 15 minutes in I knew the movie was a bad idea, and despite valiant attempts to fight the urge, good taste prevailed and I walked out about 70 minutes in. I've only ever walked out on two movies before in my life, mind, so I'm not the type to often vote with my feet.

Looking at voting here people seem to think better of the show, but I know my friend and I who were both watching the show thought the same of it - very little indeed. This was a -1/5 (yes that's negative one) on my personal scale - not just a waste of money, I almost feel like writing to the show's producers for a refund.


Daughters of Satan (1972) stars Tom Selleck before he was a star. The basic story: Selleck buys a painting depicting the burning of three witches. One of the witches bears a striking resemblance to his wife. Soon, she and two other women begin behaving in a very strange fashion. Selleck is sure that his wife and the other women are the spirits of the witches from the painting reincarnated. He must find a way to save not only his wife, but himself as well.

While most of the movie isn't very good, some scenes work. There are even a few creepy moments. My personal favorite is when Selleck's wife is awoken in bed by a voice whispering her name. Another good scene is when the wife as a witch is stripped and whipped. Very well done. But, there are moments in the movie where nothing happens. It's almost as if the writers had no idea of what to do next, so we get to see exciting scenes like the wife staring at a window for 30 or so seconds.

Most of the acting is forgettable. Selleck is okay, just a little green around the edges. Most of the rest of the cast is really bad. The housekeeper is especially bad. Most of her delivery is just so unnatural.

The most annoying thing about the movie is the soundtrack. It has some of the most inappropriate music you'll likely encounter. The music never seems to fit the action happening on the screen.


If this movie was about a fictional character, the movie could stand on its own and be judged objectively. Unfortunately for the viewer, the movie is based on "facts" that are shaded very unfairly toward Ruben Carter. Many of the smaller facts were disregarded (Carter was NOT number one contender at the time of the murders, there is no proof at all that he saved a friend from a child molester in his youth), but some of the larger facts, like apparently being robbed of a decision to Joey Giardello because of "racist" judges, is inexcusable to those of us who have seen the fight on tape, and completely disrespectful to Giardello. Why Hollywood feels the need to make a hero out of someone who, at best, was in trouble and around trouble much more than any normal person should be (was arrested multiple times for beating women) is strange to me. Ruben Carter was never, by viewing his actions in the 60's and even now, when he refuses to speak to his son, a person that people can look up to. Everyone knows that Jewison can direct, and Washington can act, but why they chose this story as their vehicle is beyond me. Is Hollywood so much in need of a black hero that they need to bend the truth in all of their bio pics to make them believable? (Heres a suggestion How about Denzel playing a movie about himself? Now thats inspirational) Based on all of the inaccuracies in the movie, I would suggest passing on this one.


When I saw this movie I heard all the hype, and I heard how people said that Denzel deserved the Oscar alongside his Golden Globe and I believed he must have done an outstanding job considering Kevin Spacey was excellent. I was wrong. I realize that people say this not to anger the African American community (if they are not African Americans themselves). I always hear complaints on how African Americans are never nominated and how they should have won. Sometimes this is true (not as much nowadays) because Whoppi Goldberg should have won best actress for The Color Purple and the movie should have won best picture. The only reason this movie was so blown up the way it was, is because people see a movie about the (*SEMI-SPOILER*) hardships of an African American during a very racist time period and they automatically label it as a masterpiece.

Denzel Washington is an outstanding actor, but his role in this movie did not affect me whatsoever. I was bored with him in the movie, and his acting here was quite similar to his role in Malcolm X but not as good. The audience is supposed to leave believing this man, Rubin Carter, is a saint. People left the movies worshipping this man, this hero, and they went out and bought his book, making this hero of a man rich.

*SPOILERS* This movie tells the tale of a man who spent the majority of his life in prison mainly for crimes he did not commit. Of course the crimes he did commit (stealing mostly) was only to survive, nothing more. People felt sorry for him, even though the drug dealers and thieves probably amounted to as much for the same reasons but are looked down upon in society. Everything in this movie tries to portray this man as a saint (except for the obvious infidelity he had towards his wife and the aggression he showed the other man when he met his wife) but why wouldn't it-after all, it is his point of view. I do not like movies (especially Hollywood interpretations) that are based on "true" stories because they usually distort the "true" parts into something else, something not so true. This was his point of view and a Hollywood construction, yet everyone believed it was the truth unquestionably. Well I researched his past a bit before making any assumptions, and he was a very violent man. Not only that, there is still a possibility that he did murder those people. If you do not believe me, search for him on the internet, and read the articles some people have of him. The boxing match he claimed to have won so easily, was actually won by his opponent Joey Giardello and there are tapes to prove it. Besides that, there are many twisted and purposely left out facts in this movie. The supporting cast were the nicest people I have ever seen on the face of the Earth and their "nice and perfect" persona looked difficult to keep up.

This movie was a Hollywood version of yet another unfortunate true story that is still left to be told truthfully. Denzel's acting is stale, and the supporting cast's Mickey Mouse attitudes are annoying. The movie also begins very slow paced and is boring.


The problem with this movie is summed up in the very first scene where Rubin " Hurricane " Carter fights Emile Griffith for the world welterweight championship in 1963 . You might be surprised when I point out that Carter never fought Griffith for a world championship in 1963 though he did fight for the middlewight championship a year later against champion Joey Giardello who beat him on points with plenty to spare . You might also be shocked to know that Carter was never in fact much more than an average fighter who was well past his prime when arrested for murder so why this movie is making out that Rubin Carter would have been a boxing great if it wasn't for being WRONGLY convicted of murder I have no idea . At the very best Carter was a very mediocre journeyman fighter at best . Robinson , Hagler , Ali or Hearns he was not

Oh yes he was WRONGLY convicted of murder and just to lay it on with a trowel a very early scene has the sadistic warder from THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION telling the wronged but noble Rubin to keep calm because he knows a cruel injustice has been done but there's nothing he can do to help . Meekly Rubin forgives his captor because that's who Rubin is - A noble forgiving paragon of humility , we're only three scenes into this movie and we're weeping tears for the guy , in fact you have to wonder why such a great guy was ever convicted of murder when he was a decorated war hero with a chest full of medals and we don't have to wait too long because it transpires that the cops are racist . We know they're racist because the arresting officer states " Your black ass is going down " , but that doesn't worry Rubin because he defiantly replies " I know I'm innocent " and he is , such a pity that the twelve jurors were all white and all racist and decided he was guilty simply because he was black . Thankfully justice is served though be it belatedly when a bunch of Canadians expose this terrible miscarriage of justice and Rubin is set free . Despite having his best years taken away from him Rubin bares no hatred towards the people who set him up . Compared to Rubin Carter Jesus Christ was a bitter and twisted man . It makes Washington's performance as Steve Biko in CRY FREEDOM look like an amateur performance in a school play . Or so we're led to believe

This film is a total disgrace . It doesn't play hard and fast with the facts because there's little in the way of facts . As I pointed out he was never a contender for a world title so forget all the boxing scenes that suggest he was . You can also forget all about the racist arresting officer investigating the murder case because he's a composite character that includes at least one black detective so racism wasn't at the heart of the case . Rubin Carter was dishonourably charged from the army and never had a distinguished military career , the jurors in the case included two blacks and he was found guilty by a unanimous decision so having " a black ass " wasn't a motive for finding him guilty , he was finally released on a technicality not because he was innocent and there's umpteen other revisionist aspects to the story . If you read the FACTS ( Something the producers of this movie clearly haven't done ) of the Carter case you might not think he's guilty but you'll instantly realise that this story is entirely fictional . It's Hollywood rewriting history in the worst possible way . Okay there's an opening disclaimer pointing out that some of the characters are composites and some scenes are dramatized but people with no prior knowledge of the facts won't realise just how disgraceful this film is at changing facts into something entirely different

I have awarded THE HURRICANE three out of ten and it would have got even less if it wasn't for the good performances and some technical achievements in editing and cinematography


Denzel is about the only thing that is right in this movie.

Maybe once in an early stage this was a better movie. Someone decided to cut some action and plot points into the beginning of the movie, giving away most of the story line in about the first 5 minutes. That and ruining whatever build up in pace and rhythm the movie might have had before.

So first it confuses you and then it puts you off. The dramatization pushes beyond suspension of disbelieve.

Of course there is that feeling of great injustice and anger that movies like this potentially manage to instill in viewers. Granted, it does that so if you are looking for that ... knock yourself out.


This movie looks like it was made for TV . For years I waited for some movie to be made about Rubin Carter, because I loved to see him box at the old MSG, and to see this movie was very disappointing.I have alot of respect for Mr Washington, but he was awful and boring.There is really nothing good to say about this movie except I did like the song.


Fairly good movie, but not a true story.

Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was a notorius liar, a murder and was never found not guilty. New Jersey State just didn't go for it a third time as 20 years had gone. Carter got an offer in 1976: "Pass a lie test and go free". He didn't take it. This film should never have been made, but money talks. A lot of people have unjustly spend their lives in prison and undoubtedly more blacks than white. Why choose a fake story?

Jens


This is an OK film but lacks any real depth either emotionally or in terms of story telling.

The story is based on real events and this limits the amount of action to virtually none, also no real suspense.

Washington is believable in the lead but he is sleep walking through it, there is no scope to flex any acting muscles for him or the supporting cast.

The story simply falls a little flat, even having never heard of the title character the ending was obvious but unlike other films about such injustices this one has no emotional impact, you don't really care about him and the motivations of those on the outside helping seem more academic than concerned for his welfare.

There is an attempt to inject some emotion using the boy outside who hero worships Carter but this seems forced.

It's an OK film but instantly forgettable.


"Tropical Malady" from the Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Jury Prize in the last Cannes Film Festival, is a movie that really consume the inside, like a terminal disease. Every senses of your body will be over-excited, there is a TERRIFIC use of sound effects, that will render the tropical forest a living entity, intelligent, thinking, speaking. The contrast between the horrors and anguishes of modern time and the most charming folk legends , that awaken the most genuine human side from the bottom of our hearts is something quite unique and unforgettable.

It's hard to tell about the story without spoil it. Watch it, no matter what.


"Tropical Malady" by Thai film director Apichatpong Weerasethakul is a haunting film that at times seems impenetrable. The director has played a trick on the viewer by changing the mood and the pace right in the middle of the film. We are led to believe that the soldier and the young man that are clearly attracted to each other will go on to share a life together, but no, Mr. Weerasethakul takes us to the jungle where the soldier is trying to catch the elusive and beautiful tiger.

"Tropical Malady" has been promoted as a gay film, which in a way, it is, but basically it presents a mystery that is never solved, although we know that in this case, the soldier is so obsessed with his opponent that they end up respecting one another.

My only reservation with the film is the editing. It could have used a bit of cutting to make it more accessible. As a point of interest, films like this one tends to irritate viewers and one watches as how a theater empties out because people don't want to sit through any more. On the case of "Tropical Malady" no one walked out, which perhaps it's saying a lot for a film that can tax the viewer's patience.

The jungle scenes at night are magnificently executed and perhaps the director will have more success with his future undertakings as he shows a sure hand in his direction.


Tropical Malady, the fourth feature by Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul, is a film of astonishing lyric power that explores, in myth and reality, the nature of love. The film is divided into a conventional story of friendship between two men, and a mytho-poetic tale that takes the viewer into the middle of a dense Thai jungle. It is a strange and haunting tone poem that is as multi-layered as the forest in which it is filmed and may require repeated viewing to fully unravel. The opening story is about the tentative, playful relationship between Dong (Sakda Kaewbuadee), a shy young farmer who lives with his parents in the Thai countryside and Keng (Banlop Lomnoi), a soldier on furlough from the Thai army. The relationship has homoerotic undertones but they are suggested rather than openly acknowledged.

Tong is unsophisticated and appears uneasy in the relationship but never loses control, giving their friendship a charm and sweetness rarely depicted on screen, especially between members of the same sex. They go to a movie, participate in an exercise class, take a sick dog to a clinic, and visit an underground temple. Their relationship develops in simple gestures of affection. Keng gives Tong a Clash tape but later tells him that when he gave him the tape he forgot to give him his heart. He places his hand on Tong's knee but the boy turns it into a mischievous game of squishing his hand with his other leg rather than acknowledging its sensual implications. Keng asks Tong if he can lay in his lap and Tong says "no", then a minute later, he changes that to "no problem". A scene in which Keng mouths Tong's hand after he had urinated and Tong returns the favor with equal passion advances the sexual nature of their relationship but it is not consummated.

As Keng leaves for the country to resume his duties, the screen goes blank and we are transported into a land of myth and time in which a folk tale is being narrated in a jungle setting. Called A Spirit's Path, the mood suddenly changes to dark and foreboding. A narrator tells us that a shaman has transformed himself into a tiger and is terrorizing the countryside that Keng is under orders to protect. The soldier's mission is to subdue the tiger (Tong) and release the spirit of a white cow. The lovers are now the hunter and the hunted. Running through the jungle with tattoos all over his body, Tong is a naked man who can shape-shift into an animal at will. As Keng hunts his elusive prey, he begins to lose his grounding in the normal constructs of reality and the framing of the jungle scenes create an atmosphere of brooding surreal intensity.

Stripped of the pretense we call civilization, on the border between two worlds, Keng's life unfolds in a desperate vision, suggesting that we are the both the dreamer and that which is being dreamt. He talks to animals, sees ghosts, and receives advice from a baboon who tells him "The tiger trails you like a shadow. He is lonesome. Kill him to free him from his world, or let him devour you to enter his world." As the tiger perches on the branch of a tree staring at him, Keng knows that in order to save his life, he must be willing to sacrifice it. "I give you my spirit, my flesh, and my memories", he tells the tiger, and "Every drop of my blood sings our song A song of happiness. There do you hear it?" Beyond the shadow of illusion, Tropical Malady forces us to see in the dark. What begins with a wan smile ends in a fever of ecstasy.


How hard is it to write up a commentary of a movie that speaks to your senses? Actually, 'Tropical Malady' wasn't even a movie as much as it was an experience for my ears, eyes and my mind.

The movie is split in two halves that both tell the same story - a love story between a soldier and a countryman - one filtered through reality, one through mythology: the city where every action follows a rational and logical thread, and the jungle where there's no rule other than learning to coexist with nature and all events and emotions are primary and raw. In the second part, the country boy becomes the incarnation of a shape-shifting shaman and follows the soldier in the shape of an extraordinary tiger, as to mirror his forceful appeal and the soldier's wild desire: what was a polite, romantic and almost naive love story becomes a supernatural tale where all schemes and disguises are erased and all that's left is pure instinct.

There are so many memorable moments (the theater sequence, the descent into the temple) but everything that happens in the second half speaks to you on a totally different level. Words are replaced by jungle noises, sounds become messengers of peace or impending danger - the soldier (Banlop Lomnoi, who's beyond awesome) has to choose whether to give in to desire or tame it, kill the tiger or let it kill him. The visual impact of this part is astonishing - the tiger appearing for the first time, the branches shaken by the wind, a tree lit up by fireflies: the beauty of the imagery is almost epic.

Seriously, the movie deserves to be watched because putting this into words is almost like betraying its spirit. Awesome, awesome experience all throughout.


i saw this film today at the gay film festival in Sana Francisco. maybe the shaman smelled the soldier and fell in love with his dreams so he became what the soldier wanted so much to love, a boy, a sweet simple boy. a boy who would sing a silly love song to him, a boy who would wear his uniform, a boy would would kiss his hand BACK, a boy who would write back I LIKE YOU TOO. but because he wasn't a boy he had to leave. waiting in the jungle wondering and suffering WILL MY LOVE COME. the monkey was our guide and told the soldier the truth. the soldier was afraid tried to hide and run away; wouldn't it be so much easier to TRY and love like he had before instead of facing his love face to face. but he did, that look between the soldier and the tiger was LOVE


This film is a masterpiece.

It's form is so effortless that it's difficult not to feel like you're not watching a movie at all -- or at least -- in it's ultimate experience is more kin to cinema at it's purest.

One does not need to understand television to view this work -- or pop culture or magazines -- it is so heartfelt, detailed and organic with the celluloid acting as a cipher for ghosts to wander, lost and found.

One can not replicate this kind of experience by discussing it's genre..and certainly script doctors would have mild heart attacks trying to replicate its beauty and substantial finality as a work of great cinema.