Edgewood's "Ice Queen" is an unusual sort of horror, in terms of premise, villain and setting, but combined with an interesting and attractive cast, make for a very cool (excuse the pun) film. Without giving too much away, a prehistoric woman is discovered, and brought back to life, except she is a seemingly mindless creature bent on destruction, who just happens to crash land with the doctor who knows all about her in a small ski-resort town, which becomes buried in an avalanche at the wrong time. Essentially, one could label this in the "monster" sub-genre of horror.

However, what sets it aside from many other monster films is a terrific cast, most all rather inexperienced actors, but they portray their characters well, and certainly as characters that you can actually care for. They are never boring, and you know a lot about them. They have issues going on in their lives, which often come to blows during their fight for their lives both against the avalanche and the monster, dubbed appropriately the Ice Queen.

Harmon Walsh is an absolute hottie, but he's also a terrific actor making his debut here as Johnny, the hero who finds himself with a big problem (aside from the Ice Queen) when he gets drunk and sleeps with another girl, Elaine, leaving his girlfriend, Tori, rather upset. But Johnny is also very smart, and keeps his head under the pressure that he and his friends find themselves in. Noele Reno plays Tori, rather tame compared to the other vibrant characters, but she gives a good performance. Jennifer Hill on the other hand, who plays Elaine, gives a sassy performance, she's fun and has great hair. In fact, at times you may wonder if Johnny will actually leave Tori for Elaine. Rounding out the cast are Daniel Hall Kuhn as the scientist who knows all about the Ice Queen, he gives a "interesting" performance in more ways than one (look out for his mating ritual with the Ice Queen, eek!), Tara Walden is excellent as the bossy Audrey whose fight with the Ice Queen is great, and both Peter Wyndorf and Demone Gore are very good as Johnny's friends Devlin and Jessie. Ami Chorlton doesn't get to say much as the Ice Queen, and due to all the make up she wears is unrecognisable.

With most horrors you can easily predict who is going to survive, unfortunately that is also the case here, for there is such a great group of people that one might find themselves hoping that they all survive. Obviously made on a low-budget, it certainly shows, but that is nearly a given with these sorts of films. However, "Ice Queen" is still a quality film with a different feel to it than other similar monster horrors, with a great cast and some very cool moments (pun intended).


It says it is a thriller. I'm not sure I agree with it.

It's like Big brother but every day the contestants are psychoanalyzed.

It's insane. It has a lot of nudity but it's all in a good taste.

The whole film has been shot with infra-red cameras except the game show host.

The film was originally conceived in 1992. There was a book before that. I saw an interview with the director Nick Peterson/Virtual Alien where he said that the only reason he didn't sue the makers of Big Brother was that George Orwell should first have the copyright on the TV show.

Full mark for the music score!


It was originally called "Map of the Universe".

The book came out in 1994.

Then there was the TV show: 'Est' and parts of it are in the film.

"EST" is just a series of people living in the dark for a period of one month.

Like in the film they are all filmed with infra red cameras.

They sleep, eat, shower, go to the bathroom all in the dark.

The winner is the one who won't crack up and remains in the house for one month.

All the contestants live in separate rooms.

They can't see. They like 'blind'. It's crazy.

The music is frightening.

Was "Est" a medical treatment from the sixties?

I first heard of the word "Est" in a David Bowie song about his brother, "All the Mad men" from "The Man who sold the World" album.


It's actually more than like Big Brother. It was like in a sect. The difference is that cameras are everywhere.

All the contestants have to live in the dark for a period of one month. They are virtually prisoners.

In fact, to add to the reality of it the director never informed the actors that the actual filming would be done in the dark.

This caused a lot of problem.

After a day of filming in the dark, one of the actors went completely mad and smashed a camera.

He refused to go on and left the set.

Soon after his lawyers threatened to sue if they didn't remove him.

I wonder who it was. Anyone knows?

They had to remove another actress who was shot in the nude, in the toilets and in the bathroom having a shower.

She had second thoughts about the whole project.


This has been taken from the novel "Map of the Universe". Some of the chapters are "Est" (the game show), "In and Out of Planet Earth" and "Writing on the Wall". Some footage of "The Complete Map of the Universe" has been taken from the first two seasons of the TV show: "Est" and some footage from the other two feature films.

Although I have to admit that it makes for great entertainment, the treatment of the contestants surely contravene the Geneva convention. Forget about the prisoners in the War on Terror, 'Est' is completely insane. The contestants become patients and they have to be cured. It's a sort of a psycho warfare on the contestant's brain. It's totally insane.

The Doctor responsible for this in the film is Dr Kelvin but he is invisible and is only heard once. This means that the film director Nick Peterson is responsible for their treatment. Most of the actors and members of the team who worked with him on other films have complained about how strict and demanding he is. He wants full commitment and he always get it.

If the result is great then it doesn't matter what the method is.


What is not too clear is if the TV show inside the film has been made with real actors or not.

It says that it is different than the TV show "Est" but some of the sequences are the same.

I have seen some of the clips of "Est" reality show on the web. They even had one with a dog! The dog was locked in the dark and kept for a month. The dog became gradually completely dominated. I have seen clips of "Est" with contestants asleep for a few minutes. If that was a preview, how long do they sleep inside the TV show for? It might be therapeutic to watch people sleeping for hours in the dark, especially if some are in the nude.

Real or not real, "Complete Map of the Universe" is great. A CULT film! Does anyone know where to buy the full TV series of "EST" on DVD? It's not currently on Amazon.


The film is just a documentary of the TV show. I have seen the TV show and it was awesome. I worried about myself because I can admit having seen this show. It's like watching some animals in a cage.

But the animals are being tortured or they are forced to do their own torture.

It's scary. I'm not sure what the guy or who ever got the idea for this show wanted to do. It's hard to see what the difference is between the "Est" TV Show and the film. It's the most insane show that I have ever seen. Nothing seems to make sense. Some of the clips I have seen online are much more crazy and extreme than on the film. The contestants are agonizing. One of them is lying down on the floor in its excrement. I don't know for how long the clip went on for only 3 minutes.

At the end someone came in (in the dark with special glasses) and helped but the contestant must have been left for a long time in that state. Was it all real? Was it part of the TV show?


This film is available on DVD -- as part of the "Treasures from American Film Archives" collection released this year. The collection has lots of gems on its four disks but "The Battle of San Pietro" alone would make it worth the price.

I watched this 30-minute documentary of one of many battles in Italy shortly after having viewed "All Quiet on the Western Front" for the first time. I thought the Milestone film was brilliant but it was this Huston documentary that made me cry. I don't know whether it is the matter-of-fact narration (by the director), the sight of all those G.I.s, or the Italian children that got to me but the sum of it all was almost overwhelming. Very highly recommended. 10/10


i recently saw the approx. 40min version of this film and i must say, knowing what is missing from the 32min version, that it is indeed far more impactful and superior. images of more fallen soldiers in white body bags appear and reappear throughout to the point of it being a reocurring theme. i'm sure it's just as brilliant without the extra footage, but if you can, try to see the extra footage. while i have not seen the true original (running approx. 50min), i'm quite positive it's even better than the one i was fortunate enough to see. a great documentary film all-around (even if some of it was staged).


Gustave Klopp does a lot of dreaming. Born with an incurable "design flaw" (narcolepsy), stress causes him to fall fast asleep. So, understandably, he sleeps through most of school, being a teenager, dating, marrying, numerous jobs and having a mortgage.

But his sickness finally provides meaning to his life when he starts turning his dreams (heavily influenced by his father's love of American action movies) into comic books. His therapy group of misfits love his stories, but his therapist, his wife and his best friend all have ulterior motives and Gustave has to wake up to reality, or lose everything.

The film is quirky, funny and populated with eccentric characters with big dreams and thwarted ambitions. A surreal comedy that is also poignant and cruel.


(Sorry about my English dude i am french)I would hesitate between 7 and 8 mark. but does it matter ? The film is a highly emotional ballad through ordinary lifes. Poelvorde is a truly good actor to me : he has the ability to play ordinary guy but he transform them into heroes! the emotion he can bring to his scenes is terrific. The man has a true quality for generating emotion on screen. The scenes with Jean-Claude Van Dame is beautiful, even though this actor is sometimes laugh at, he appears as an angel in this film. Leny the worldwide karateka champion needs this icon to find a sens to his life. Some people think this is bulls*** : i say one should never laugh at the power of a dream or an idea when it is really the sens of someone life ! I advise you to watch this film if you are not a "mainstream only" !


Don't misunderstand me. I liked the movie.

At first I was disappointed. I was mostly examining the flaws in the acting , the poverty of dialogues etc. And then, I don't know how, I was enjoying the film very much.

The way I see it, Poelvoorde's evolution in cinema is always aiming to get closer and closer to the poor simple guy, struggling to get a sense to his life. In that one we have three. Two are best friends, the third is Gus' wife. I won't spoil the story since I think it deserves to be seen, but they managed to give a true picture of very particular yet totally second-rate lives.

Despite the apparent poverty of the situation (except in Gus' dreams), there's a lot going on, many clichés and references to Tarantino's movie making as well. And Van Damme is perfect: a counsellor for a dumb clueless guy who thinks he's the best karateka in the world. I think he's got his place there too.

Pretty hard to get a clear opinion on this, there's a lot of mixed messages ... Once again I won't recommend it for people used to mainstream movies.

I gave it 8 out of 10


Narco

Highly promoted by the young and trendy Guillaume Canet, I wasn't overwhelmed of joy when I decided to check this movie. First film of a French talented duo, it tales the weird story of a narcoleptic guy, victim of his illness, his greedy wife, and die hard buddy, Lenny Bar. His only redemption will be only found in his talent of writing comic books But somebody has already spotted this skill, and try to abuse his work. First good thing, everything is fast and good. The humor is like the Simpsons' : sharp, efficient, precise and numerous, as numerous as the bullets shot in the bull eyes of the human behavior. The actors are tremendous, funny, and cool, especially the very good and talented humorist Benoit Poelvoorde. I have bought the story and laughed so much. Please do rent this comedy classic for the next decade.


After Atomik Circus, the hyperactive Belgian Benoît Poelvoorde is yet again jumping with young directors and writers in a crazy movie with lots of pace, plenty of ideas and references, a lot of humor (JC Van Damme laughing at the image of himself that was built and then that has spread to all french-speakers in the world after several interviews and comments he made when on drugs again and again, several crazy TV appearances saying stupid things absurd semi-philosophical metaphorical sentences in a very pedantic tone while they meant nothing because he was stoned etc...) and some critics made about current society with wit, discretely etc...He succeeds at making his crazily pathetic character very touching and above all hilarious as always...

Fantastic cast : Guillaume Canet, Zabou Breitman (= two directors ), Benoît Poelvoorde as Lenny Bar (there is a game of words with this name in French so that when you pronounce his character's surname + last name it sounds as if you've said : "the boobs"...Stupid right now but funny during some scenes in the movie...LOL!), Guillaume Gallienne of the "Comédie Française" (from 'Monsieur Ibrahim' which won a prize at the Mostra de Venezia with Omar Sharif and introducing Pierre Boulanger...), a small but very funny part for Gilles Lellouche's girl Mélanie Doutey as a girl who only sees half of things, a funny part for Lellouche himself as one of the bounty hunters/ice-skaters twins next to Léa Drucker (who has played in each of Aurouet & Lellouche's two short-films...), François Berléand is good in this kind of cynical roles as always, Jean-Pierre Cassel (yep, Vincent and Cécile's father...) is coming back stronger than ever with both this movie and the great but under-rated "Virgil" in which he was even better...etc...

Oh and don't blink to catch Guillaume Canet's 6 years wife at the time (they're not together anymore) make a small kind of cameo appearance as a nightclubber at some point in the movie...LOL

Just go see it!


Firstly I have to say that this is not your usual stereotype Jewish holocaust movie: It goes much, much beyond any ideological rhetoric, to deal with Human condition.However, you have the Concentration Camp as a background for one of the best contemporary playwrights (arguably The best!) to create and develop his masterpiece .It is worthwhile to know that Arthur Miller persisted in his demand to put Venessa Redgrave in the the leading role, in spite of all the threats and protests of JDL.Here, she presents one of her most magnificent performances as an Artist trapped in the most dehumanizing conditions one could imagine.The dialogue is absolutely superb, and the actings are quite decent.A must see.


Playing for Time deserved theatrical release, but as TV fare, perhaps among the finest, ranking up there with The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman. Being a Jew, I received a lot of flak for applauding Vanessa Redgrave's magnificent performance, but one needs to separate the art from the politics. While physically Ms. Redgrave does not at all resemble the real Fanelon, one can't help feeling that she captured the role. My only criticism is the newswreel type footage used to depict the moving trains. First rate movie


This is a wonderful, powerful and very moving picture. This is one of the best WWII films surrounding the victims of the Holocaust. The dialog and acting throughout is superb! I too am aware that the Jewish Defense League didn't want Vanessa Redgrave playing the main character for political reasons. There should be NO politics in acting, just the right actors for the right roles. Ms. Redgrave is definately the right person for the role. I don't know all about her personal politics and don't care when it comes to seeing a movie like this one. Her commitment to this role is absolutely mesmerizing. I even heard that in addition to shaving her head for the role, she used a safety pin to injure her lip instead of just letting the makeup people fake something. She bares her soul in a way that few actors can. Jane Alexander is also very worthy as the Director of the orchestra that Fania(Redgrave) is a part of. If you get a chance to see this on tv, don't miss it. I am fortunate to have taped it when it originally aired. Some video stores may also have a copy. Remembering the past is a way to make sure it is never repeated- if you see this movie, it will be one more vivid memory of why we should never forget.


I was more impressed by Vanessa Redgrave's performance than any female performance , in any medium. As a musician prisoner in a Nazi death camp, she exceeded any of her other brilliant performances. Aside from Vanessa, the movie should not be missed and hopefully released again.


This made for tv movie should have been made for the big screen.

It was a great story and had such moving performances. Linda Yellen should be making feature films. I'll always be looking out to see if it will be rerunning on tv.


One of the most haunting,soul-wrenching dramas I have ever seen, made much more so because it actually happened! The cruelty & unfeeling actions portrayed by the German officers gave me the feeling that I wanted to scream! It was so gut-wrenching. It is a movie we all should see lest we forget the reign of terror inflicted by the horror's of war.


It has been years since I have seen this on TV. Being Jewish and understanding the holocaust, I love this movie with Vanessa Redgrave. I just wish it came on TV more. The visuals were excellent, the plot very real, and it was an absolute delight to see how well it was portrayed.


I was in this movie (I was Marisa Berenson's stand-in) and Arthur Miller was on the set almost every day. As was his wife - taking pictures. Talk about a living legend. I regret, to this day, that I did not get his autograph (although I did get Vanessa Redgrave's and a few other's). Just being in the presence of this man was an incredible experience. What a privilege it was for a "small town girl" to experience this. It lives through me to this day - my daughter (born long after my experience on this film) is very interested in the Holocaust because of my experience on this film. My best wishes go out to his family. I don't think - in our lifetime - we will EVER experience a talent such as his. He will be missed!


Never will I forget this made-for-TV movie. It should be professionally transferred to DVD medium! With sub-titles in various languages so that more people worldwide can enjoy it.

The acting was fantastic. The impact of the script was unusual for any movie, most of all for a made-for-TV one. I have never forgotten any of the scenes or the characters --- and I am NOT a movie fan! Nor am I Jewish, and I am too young to relate to WWII events. After reading that Redgrave was anti-semitic, I am even more impressed with her acting. It was flawless, as was the acting of every supporting character, including those playing the Germans.


This is a great movie and I've seen it on TV. I cannot understand why there is no DVD or video -- except that Vanessa Redgrave once told me that he movie was "banned" in the United States because of her support of the Palestinians.

I told her I had seen it on TV and that her last scene at the liberation of Auschwitz was extraordinary.

Another reason I liked the movie was that it was the first film even to mention my personal heroine, Mala Zimetbaum, about whom I have written.

My story about Mala can be found at: http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?id=15


does anyone have a copy of this film as i would be grateful to purchase it......have been looking a long time !!! if a copy is out there i will gladly cover any costs incurred to make & send it to me. the content of this film is truly a must for all to see. so revealing of the hatred endured & the unprecedented will to survive.i appreciate the work these actors portrayed of the human spirit to survive !!!!!!!!!i am drawn to movies with the content of the holocaust......the devastation endured & the strength to worship & honor their faith... literally in the face of death is a tribute to believe in one's faith no matter the cost, to remind the world that hatred for others must not be tolerated !!


This is probably the best film of its type I have seen, I have watched the film twice and can not understand why it has not been released on general release, DVD or video. I understand it was a TV movie but it is a classic film and I would like to purchase the film so that others can watch with me. I have spoken to countless people about this film and everyone remembers the film. It is a sad, emotion filled film. The end scene brought tears to the eyes and I am surprised that it is not scheduled for viewing more than it is. I commend this film to all, in the hope that someday it may be released for sale to the general public.


When I saw this movie in 1980 I thought it was good. I remember the JDL wanting it banned because it had Vanessa Reedgraves in the title role and she had recently been photographed with the PLO holding up an AK47. However, her part in this movie was flawless. She and several of the supporting actors must have starved themselves to look so skinny and forlorn. There is one scene that is especially riveting. It occurs at night when one of the starving prisoners comes to Vanessa to express her love for another prisoner. To me it represented the displacement of impending extermination with a feeling of passion for another person. This is the same irrational runaway of internal emotions that impels someone to leave his wife and family and run off with another person, male or female. This feeling has been described as uncontrollable, ie. beyond conscious control.

Also, we have one very beautiful Nazi Guard. She is shown shooting someone in cold blood, but she also expresses deep human concern for the members of the orchestra and for children.

Joseph Mengaler is also portrayed in this movie. He is responsible for keeping the prisoners alive although we know from history that he was brutal in his experimentation on prisoners. The part is played by the actor who was the father in the TV series Alf. Toward the end one of the guards tells the fleeing prisoners that if they go left they will fall into British hands but if they go right they will fall into Russian Hands. Also, we are shown the guards being rounded up and taken out in trucks. If the Russians had taken over the camp this would not have happened as the Russians shot all the guards and made prisoners watch. This was especially hard on prisoners who had been befriended by guards.


'Playing for Time' starring Vanessa Redgrave first aired in 1980 and is based on a true story. A true story teaching the lessons of intolerance and the horrors of the Holocaust. In much the way Sharazod (the mythical wife of a King) would save her own life each night by telling her husband a story but never finishing the tale; in 'Playing for Time' the inmates of a death camp play music for the amusement of the guards thereby escaping extermination. But this is no myth it's a very real means of survival for desperate inmates.

'Playing for Time' is a great movie but gets a little boring. I found myself playing a video game instead of paying close attention to the movie.


Kate & Allie was one of my favorite shows when I grew up. It was also one of the few NYC based sitcoms filmed in New York City. Jane Curtin and Susan St. James play divorced best friends who live together after their divorces with their children in a Greenwich Village apartment. Of course, the apartment is unrealistically huge and is only affordable for the millionaires. The writing is genuinely funny and worth while to watch. It was one of the best comedies in the eighties. I remember when CBS's Monday Night was the place to be with shows like this on the air. Those days are long gone now. As for the rumors that they were supposed to be a couple, maybe that would be on television today. Sadly, it's not uncommon for sisters with their children to live together. I always assumed that Kate and Allie were more like sisters rather than best friends. Back in 1984, two divorced women living together with their children would not have sparked the controversy. They went to high school together and they dated men as well. Their arrangement was platonic but they were family without anything offensive. Maybe they should have written them as sisters to avoid the controversy. The network insisted the show ending with them going to separate beds at the end of each episode to avoid that speculation.


"Kate & Allie" wasn't just a typical sitcom. It has a certain level of importance in the History of Women on Television. Show creator Sherry Coben clearly wanted to tell the story of independent females making it in the city. And the program's producer/director Bill Persky was partially responsible for another iconic independent TV woman: Marlo Thomas' Ann Marie from "That Girl." You might say this scenario was one possible evolution of that character.

Kate McArdle (Susan Saint James) and Allie Lowell (Jane Curtin) were two divorced women with kids, who were friends from school. Kate was a struggling travel agent with her daughter Emma (Ari Meyers) and a ne'er do well actor as her former husband. Allie was a Connecticut Doctor's ex with two: Jennie (Allison Smith) and Chip (Freddie Koehler) and presumably a decent alimony settlement. In order to help each other out, they all lived together in a sprawling street level duplex apartment in Greenwich Village. Kate had a bedroom, Allie had a bedroom, Chip, the lone bit of male representation, had his room and the two girls shared a room. What was the rent on this place in the 1980s? There was a slight "Odd Couple" element to the story lines, as Kate tended to be free-spirited and fun, and Allie typically was conservative and more realistic/pessimistic. Their ex husbands would occasionally appear but the focus was always on the two women, the issues they dealt with and the problems they faced trying to have careers and raise their kids well and even sometimes have a social life in New York City.

The charm of the show was in the chemistry of the players. There was a real sense of family coming from the five regular performers and that helped to create a believability that came through on camera. Somehow though, when Ari Meyers left the program, the spell seemed to have been broken. In the episodes where Ari was no longer a part of the cast, the program seemed to lack something. Perhaps the writing suffered, and the story lines fell into more typical sitcom style areas. The setting also changed as the women moved from their homey/funky Village digs into some sterile skyscraper, and the show only lasted one season after Ari's departure.

This was one of only two prime time series that were shot in New York during this era of television. The other was "The Cosby Show." "Kate & Allie" filmed at the iconic "Ed Sullivan Theater," which has been home to "Late Show With David Letterman" since 1993.


All of those who would like to see this series again should be aware that it is currently playing Monday through Friday on RTN: The Retro Television Netork. It's a small syndicated network a lot like TVLand. Most markets that have it are carrying it as a digital subfeed, so you will need a TV with a digital receiver or a digital converter box to see it.

The network's website can be viewed at http://www.rtnville.com

Note sure what else I can say to extend this to 10 lines, really. Just wanted to issue a "heads-up" since I see that there are some "Kate and Aliie" fans reading this site.


I loved Kate and Allie.

I haven't seen it for years but I remember it being funny and smart, and the first show that had divorced women just getting on with things.

In '80s Britain if you were from a single parent household you were nothing but a criminal in the making! - this show was the tonic to all that stuff and nonsense, and I have very warm memories of settling down to my weekly slice of New York life.

- IMDb has a silly rule about having to have 10 lines of text before they'll allow you to post a comment, so now I have to ramble on although I've already made my point. So here you go. Ramble, ramble, ramble, ramble -


I love Kate & Allie but I really love Allison Smith. Not only as Jennie Lowell, but anything the girl does! I would really love to see Kate & Allie put back on the air so that I can enjoy more Allison! You gotta admit...she can not only sing but she's great all the way around! And the episodes where she sings...melt my heart! My favorite episode is where she sings "Goodbye To You" to Howard. Remember that one? She can sing to me anytime! And the one where Allie works for that TV station and Allison sings "Tomorrow" 150 times! Loved every last one! Laughed so hard and then fell apart when Allison started to sing. WOW! Anyway, just wanted to not only express my love for Kate & Allie but especially Allison Smith. Love ya, Allison! NHFOTOFREAK!


I used to watch this show when I was growing up. Although I don't remember much about it, I must say that it was a pretty good show. Also, I don't think I've seen every episode. However, if you ask me, it was still a good show. I vaguely remember the theme song. Everyone was ideally cast, the costume design was great. The performances were top-grade, too. I just hope some network brings this series back one day so that I'll be able to see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, when and if this show is ever brought back on the air, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.


"The 79th Annual Academy Awards" hosted by wacky and funny Ellen turned out to be a delight, and a ball of fun with the show running nearly four hours long. The skits and speeches from Ellen and the presenters was full of wit and laughter, and many of the speeches from the winners were touching and warming especially Forrest Whitaker's. And the awards went pretty much as expected with the only real surprise was Alan Arkin upsetting Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor. Helen Mirren's award for best actress was no surprise as everyone said she was a lock for her role in "The Queen", and Forrest Whitaker had been expected to win for "The Last King of Scotland", so it's a hail to the king and queen night victory. Really the most pleasing moment of all was Martin Scorsese's win for best director after five previous nominations, finally Martin you won! And to add icing on the cake Scorsese's "The Departed" wins best picture! Clearly "The Departed" was the best film of 2006 and certainly deserved the award for best picture. "The Departed" had a plot and twist of complex characters that any other film simply couldn't match. Overall a pretty good Oscars show, that finally paid tribute to a long over due directing legend like Martin Scorsese, it was finally Martin's time! Also a last note it was just fine to see legends Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton present the best picture award, and a shaved bald headed Jack now that's wild and freaky!


The Academy Awards of 2006 will be remembered as the year Scorsese finally won his Oscar and the year of evenly handed out Oscars and little real surprises. It's never fun when one movie completely dominates the awards, this really wasn't the case this year. The awards were evenly handed out and there was no big winner, although "The Departed" of course won the most important awards. But perhaps the biggest winner of the evening was the Mexican/Spanish movie "El Laberinto del Fauno", that took home 3 awards though not the most important (Best foreign language film) one. Nevertheless I think that Guillermo del Toro went home extremely satisfied.

Lets face it, 2006 wasn't the greatest year for movies. Sure there were some great movies released but not exactly the type of movies that will grown into becoming classics. There also wasn't really one movie or person this year that I hoped would win. I didn't really felt much for any of the nominations this year, with perhaps the exception of the more 'smaller' awards, like best visual effects.

The ceremony also wont be remembered as the most hilarious or legendary one. Nevertheless it's good to see that they brought back the show-element and the entire ceremony felt less organized and scripted. The ceremony felt like one big whole this year and was more personal and natural, with presenter Ellen DeGeneres actually walking between- and talking to the stars and taking part of the show elements, without feeling the constant obligation to constantly talk after, between and before the handing out of every single award. Normally there is a tense atmosphere, this year it was more relaxed, which was i think due to the presenting skills of DeGeneres and the flow of the entire show. Normally the comedy of the show is more of a spoofing caliber, it now felt professional and well thought out, with some fun moments with comedians Will Ferrel and Jack Black. But of course that all doesn't mean that DeGeneres also doesn't take time to make fun of some of the stars. I love the Oscars for that, it's the only time of the year you can say anything straight into the face of those persons, knowing that you can get away with it.

The award presenters were all good. None of them really did their best to make a lasting impression, which I take as a positive thing. I mean after all, this is THE evening of the nominees, not of the presenters. Most memorable the duo Jaden Smith and Abigail Breslin, with Smith messing up his lines but still staying cool and funny under it and continue with presenting. Not bad for an 9 year old, who obviously has his parents talents. Also fun was Robert Downey Jr. who wasn't too embarrassed to make fun of his own drugs past. Clint Eastwood seemed very nervous presenting and messed up his lines, which was odd to see from a person of his caliber and acting past, though he would claim it was because of he forgot his glasses. It was good to see that the old American Zoetrope-gang, Lucas, Spielberg and Coppola were the ones to hand out the best director award, which went to their old friend Martin Scorsese. It was the bald(!) Jack Nicholson that had the honor of presenting the award for the best movie of the year.

The evening didn't had that many big surprises. The acting awards went to the most predicted ones, with the exception of the best supporting actor award that went to Alan Arkin instead of favorite Eddie Murphy. No big surprise that Helen Mirren won an Oscar, which was perhaps the most in advance predicted winner of the evening. Same goes for Forest Whitaker who did the best speech of the evening, though he of course was also the one that could prepare himself the best, since it almost was a formality for him to pick up the award.

There were some memorable events the evening, such as Ennio Morricone getting an Honorary Award. Just like Scorsese, he should already had won an Oscar years ago for at least 3 of his works but nevertheless it was great to see that he finally got the recognition he deserved from the Academy before his death. Because lets face it, the guy is almost 80-years already and he has his best years behind him, though he himself would probably disagree with me. Morricone wasn't too happy in advance that he received this Honorary Award, claiming that it would look like as if his career was over already but nevertheless he seemed emotional and touched by this honor when he stood on the stage, next to his friend and interpretor Clint Eastwood, since Morricone himself (still) doesn't speak a word English.

Another highlight was Scorsese getting a standing ovation, not necessarily for his win for "The Departed" but more for his career and the fact that he finally won an Oscar, after being nominated 7 times already. Of course "The Departed" is not his best or most influential works, so it's sort of a double feeling that he won his long deserved Oscar for this movie. For him "The Departed" obviously was a movie for 'in between', who could had ever thought that this would be his movie for which he would win the biggest awards. But on the other hand I'm of course glad that he now will always be remembered as Oscar winner-Martin Scorsese instead of 8(+ probably) time Oscar nominee.

Too bad that the ceremony turned a bit too political at times with a too prominently present Al Gore. It was also weird to see Gore holding an Oscar, though the cause he fights for is of course a good one. Nevertheless, politics and Oscars should never mix in my opinion.

Not the best year for the Oscars but a memorable enough evening nevertheless.

7/10


SPOILERS

It really is about time for him to win an Academy Award. I mean, he directed Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and Casino, so it is about time for him to win. Anyway, this is a typical Academy Award show that has some very funny moments. There are some movies and actors that deserved to win an Oscar, but some did not. I also like the scene in which Ellen DeGenerous makes Steven Spielberg take a picture of her with Clint Eastwood. Also, the Departed won Best Picture.

This is a typical Academy Award show that is hosted by Ellen DeGenerous. The usual awards are given out. You know, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Screenplay, Best Animated Film, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Art Direction, Best Score, Best Song, Best Costume, Best Makeup, Best Sound, Best Short, Best Visual Effects, Best Foreign Film, and Best Documentary. Wow, that was a mouth full. There are also the usual Oscar surprises, such as Jack Black and Will Ferrell singing. Like always, also, this goes far beyond of how long it is supposed to be.

Overall, this is a regular but fun Academy Awards show. Some of the winners totally deserved it, such as Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest definitely deserved to win Best Visual Effects, and it did, but some did not deserve it. Pan's Labyrinth should have won best Foreign Language Film, and not the Lives of Others. I am also glad that Happy Feet won Best Animated Picture. There is one thing I would like to point out. Will Smith should have won Best Actor. I mean, he definitely deserved to win, but he did not! Anyway, some choices are good, some choices are bad, and this is like every other Academy Awards show, but they are always fun to watch.

9/10

Recommended Award Shows: The Emmys.


Perhaps I am bit a bit biased considering I have never found host Ellen DeGeneres all that funny and that none of the five films nominated for Best Picture (The Departed, Babel, Letters from Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine, and The Queen) blew me away, but for whatever reason, the Academy Awards this year were, well, pretty terrible. While I have always loved watching the Academy Awards, there are very few times where I have actually found them memorable, or at least worthy of the hype. This year was no different. In fact, this will probably go down in history as more of a disaster than anything else. I doubt five years from now, there will be clips of this year's presentation floating around since there were no memorable moments at all to be found here other than Martin Scorsese winning his Oscar for Best Director. The rest of the show, I actually felt embarrassed for those in attendance. Ellen DeGeneres jokes fell flat 95% of the time, The acceptance speeches were blah as always, and worst of all, Will Ferrell's musical number was one of the unfunniest moments in the history of television and that's coming from a Ferrell fan. Film historians can go ahead and forget about this one. 3/10


When I read that "The 79th Annual Academy Awards" started at 5 pm, I assumed that the lead-in started then. When I turned the channel on at about 5:50, I saw that they were well into the ceremony. Criminy! But no worries, I saw most of it, and I really liked it. I especially laud them for FINALLY giving Martin Scorsese what he's deserved for so long, for giving Alan Arkin what he's deserved for so long, and for giving Ennio Morricone what he's deserved for so long. Kudos above all to Al Gore for calling on the world to deal with global warming and reminding us that it's not a political issue, but a moral one (and I'm glad to see that Leonardo DiCaprio is part of the movement to curb global warming).

What do I think of Ellen DeGeneres as a host? Well, after Jon Stewart last year, I guess that anyone might seem a little weak, but I liked how she did (particularly that trick with Scorsese). Even if she's not the best host ever, she's gotta be better than Bob Hope.

I notice that Best Actress went to Helen Mirren - who's also deserved an Oscar for years - for playing a queen, and Best Actor went to Forest Whitaker for playing a king (the last one of Scotland, that is). Jennifer Hudson's win is the perfect slap in the face to "American Idol" (they kicked her off, believing that she had no talent).

As is often the case, the best parts are the montages. I liked that the writing montage included scenes from "The Shining", and the history montage included a scene from "Dr. Strangelove". Good that they included Robert Altman in the "In Memoriam", but I think that he should have gotten his own montage.

I bet that this ceremony must have really irked the right-wingers. Aside from the fact that a lesbian hosted, a lesbian won for Best Original Song (and for a documentary about global warming at that), honorary winner Sherry Lansing sits on a stem cell research board, and they gave some awards to "Babel" and "El laberinto del Fauno/Pan's Labyrinth" (both by Mexican directors). I hope that tomorrow night, Stephen Colbert - in his right-wing commentator persona - rants against the Academy for all this. In fact, they ought to have him host the Oscars next year; he would probably be better than Jon Stewart.

So, it was a great ceremony. Each of the Best Picture nominees received at least one Oscar. If Scorsese really meant that "The Departed" was his first movie with a plot, then it paid off. A fine few hours. But what did Cameron Diaz do to her face?


Last year I was worried that South Park might be losing it's edge, but last night's episode proved me wrong. Cartman Sucks is one of the freshest and funniest episodes to date. The episode doesn't deal entirely in the realm of original social commentary, but instead focuses on putting a twist on the classic story of Cartman pranks Butters.

Cartman has been having Butters spend the night at his house and while little Butters sleeps, Cartman does terrible things to him (like making him a mustache from cat crap, or sticking a tampon on his mouth). When Butters once again spends the night, Cartman does one of the stupidest things ever: he puts Butters' penis in his mouth and takes a picture.

The boys inform him that this makes him gay, and the only way to cancel this out is to stick his penis in Butters' mouth. While he is doing this, though, Butters' dad walks in with horrible assumptions. Cartman quickly flees, but Butters' father makes the horrible assumption that Butters is bi-curious.

Meanwhile, Cartman can't find his photo and assumes Kyle took it and will show it to the whole class for show and tell. He spends the whole night trying to stop Kyle, but when he comes to no avail, he decides he'd rather expose himself.

Butters is sent to Camp New Grace, where you "Pray away the Gay." At the camp, each child is assigned an accountabillibuddy. Butters, of course, has no idea what's going on and takes everything with the cheerful optimism that makes him such a beloved character. The campers continually commit suicide as they decide they'd rather go to hell now then be persecuted.

Cartman's storyline ends with one of the greatest laughs I've had in awhile, and the episode becomes one of the new greats. It really doesn't make any original statements on the issue of gays, though it has tackled this subject several times in the past. The basic message is that everyone should have the freedom of choice and religion is the great hypocrisy to freedom of speech: religion bans free speech.

But what I loved most about the episode was how Cartman's prank turned on him, and he went to such desperate measures to protect himself until he decides to expose himself. The picture itself is eventually seen, but Cartman is placed strategically in front of the screen to block any graphic elements. You get the idea though.

This is also the first episode to strongly suggest Cartman's sexual orientation. In past episodes we've had several indicators as to what his preference is: In the Condoms episode he watches Butters put on a condom; in the Simpsons episode, he claims to have gotten semen by meeting some guy in an alley, closing his eyes, and sucking it out of a tube; having tea parties with his stuffed animals; dressing up like Britney Spears and making out with a cardboard cut-out of Justin Timberlake; and so on and so on. Making Cartman actually come out of the closet would probably be a stupid decision on the creators' part, instead of just providing strong hints of what Cartman prefers.

Cartman Sucks may not contain a strong social commentary, but it basically is what I wanted: an episode more focused on an entertaining plot, rather then entirely on an issue. I half expected Ted Haggard to make an appearance, but the guys are leaving him buried for now.


The episode concentrates mostly on Cartman and Butters, and how Cartman's scheming mind and tendency to over-think things creates his own downfall. At the same time Butters' confusion and inability to understand people brings about a wonderfully innocent resolution to his situation  contrasted with Cartman's 'somewhat controversial' eventual humiliation.

The storyline promotes tolerance of homosexuality and ridicules the religious right's idea of 'conversion camps' ("A secluded camp where lots of bi-curious boys are put together; that sounds like a good idea.") Cartman's continued intolerance of Jews and homosexuality, and his strange fascination for art photography with Butters in degrading situations, gives him something of the air of a deranged Nazi, who is finally reduced to running crying to his mother. There is also a rather nice scene where the police officer patiently tries to take Cartman seriously, as Cartman reports the loss of the photograph of himself in a compromising situation and expects the police to help.

The penultimate scene, where Bradley is contemplating suicide and Butters saves him with a speech promoting tolerance, despite not really understanding what is going on, is one of the finest scenes in the show's history. A cynical show would have had Bradley die as a cheap joke, but when it becomes clear he will be all right it feels genuinely touching and far more rewarding. This is followed by the camp leader declaring ridiculously that "By the power of Christ we have saved this child." Sheer genius.


This is one of the funnier episodes of South Park.This episode is an example of how Cartman tries to mess around with Butters.What happens in this episode is that Cartman tries to make everyone think Butters is gay.So Cartman puts his penis in Butters's mouth.However Kyle says that what Cartman did makes him look gay and the only way to reverse it is if Butters can put his dick in Cartman's mouth(Kyle is joking).So Cartman tries to put Butter's dick in his mouth and Butters's father catches them.He sends Butters to a strict camp for people who are "bi-curious".Meanwhile, Cartman loses the picture he took of it happening and thinks Kyle stole it.Cartman Sucks is a very funny South Park episode.


As a huge South Park fan the only thing you are waiting for is Eric learning his lesson. As time goes by the viewer more and more abandons that faith. "Cartman sucks" doesn't 'hit' it, but it comes close to satisfying the urges of a fan seeing Cartman being humiliated by his own stupidity.

Frankly, I liked it! The more you know Trey and Matt (creators) the more you know about their multiple alter egos being represented in this show. Eric Cartman obviously remains a focus, and in this one he's getting it, but somehow out of his own fault.

Taking a picture of him having his penis stuck in Butter's mouth while holding his thumbs up may appear perverted in THIS context... But if you try to get into the minds of children, it may sounds reasonable. It works, as politically correct I'm trying to be in my awareness, this episode is not immoral or sick, no, it just shows a classical situation of misunderstanding that most of us have probably already been into. Definitely in a similar context but maybe in a similar feeling.

I liked it... All the time while I was confronted with these scenes I thought "Why not?"... He's just a boy (at least that's what we're supposed to know)!!!!


I saw this movie, as I think most people have these days, on the out of print Academy Home Entertainment videotape under the title Slashed Dreams. I doubt that is the original title, as it appears on the screen via a bad video effect, and appears to be blocking out the original title by being placed on a large green rectangle (probably Sunburst). The videotape dates from 1986, and since Robert Englund (who later played Freddy Kreuger) appears in it (albeit briefly, towards the end), the title is probably meant to suggest A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984). None of the actors' names are mentioned on the box, although my box was cut, so maybe the names just got cut off. "Slashed Dreams" is probably also meant to suggest slasher films, but this is at most a proto-slasher; nobody gets killed, and the only slashing is of one bad guy by another.

The video box suggests that the movie starts with a skinny-dipping scene, with the characters watched by someone with a knife, and then flashes back to how they got there. In fact, it's entirely presented in chronological order, starting with a bunch of young people in college. In a class, they talk about the meaning of life, and where people have their roots; "in the earth," one suggests, "in heaven," suggests another.

One of the students, Jenny, brings up her friend Michael, who'd dropped out of college and moved into the mountains. Her boyfriend doesn't think much of a dropout, and he doesn't like Jenny's lifelong brainy friend either. At a frat party, her boyfriend gets really belligerent, and Jenny and her old friend drive off to find Michael.

On the way, they get directions at a country store. The proprietor is found in a back room, rehearsing his night club act (he says), talking and singing on a microphone. He's a former radio star who's been forgotten (played by the crooner Rudy Vallee). He's about the most chipper old man to ever warn a couple of young people not to go in the woods! He presses some Licorice Nips on them, and tries to impress on them the need for a knife.

They pass on the knife, and make their way into the woods, where they encounter a bear, and find a cabin they think might be Michael's. It's made out of rather thin branches, so that it is possible to see right through the walls. There are also windows, and at least two large holes in the roof, so that when they say they wish they could lock the door, it sounds rather funny!

There's an odd sort of rape scene, in which one of the assailants seems to be at most dry humping a sleeping bag (and he couldn't get it up either, we learn), and the other also seems to be doing some dry humping, but also does some bruising face-slapping. Later, some strange advice is given to the victim, to "push the demons out" and to find some "truth" in what happened.

The movie ends with one of the characters taking a slim illustrated hardcover book down from a shelf in Michael's cabin, and reading: "Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding. Even as the stone of the fruit must break, that its heart may stand in the sun, so must you know pain.... And in the sweetness of friendship let there be laughter, and sharing of pleasures. For in the dew of little things the heart finds its morning and is refreshed." These are two different passages (on pain, and on friendship) from Kahlil Gibran's popular (more then than now, I think) book The Prophet.

Not much of a horror movie, and may not have been intended to be one. Between the opening scenes in the college classroom, and the reading from The Prophet, and some of the dialogue in between, it seems the filmmakers may have been trying to reach for something meaningful, but...


Well, the other reviewer was right when yelling out that "Slashed Dreams" is NOT A HORROR MOVIE, but it does feature some typical exploitation trademarks. The setting is somewhat similar to the classic "Deliverance", there's the constant menace of imbecile hillbillies and, of course, the obligatory bit of sleazy images of an attractive girl skinny-dipping. So I understand how this movie ended up in the horror section of video stores, but that still doesn't tell you how irredeemably BAD it is! For the first time ever, I really can't determine the "raison d'être" of a film. Seriously, what IS the point? Is this movie supposed to teach young people that it's okay to search for the meaning of life but still always watch out for rapists? If so, that's a pretty lousy and invaluable life-lesson! Or maybe this whole production is a hiking guide to promote the rural sites of Northern Californiabut, of course, always watch out for rapists. The plot involves a couple as they're on their way to visit a former college friend who exchanged civilization for a spiritual life in the Californian woods. For nearly a full hour, the camera simply follows them walking up mountain paths, climbing down rocks and sleeping next to a lake! Oh, how fascinating! All this time, THE most annoying songs can be heard; performed by probably the lousiest female singer in America! It's basically the exact same song repeated 8 times, but each time the stupid lyrics are different. Eventually two local idiots rape the girl but her "heroic" friends do very little to avenge her. Then the movie ends with the couple walking towards the sunset. Have they found the meaning of life yet? Who cares! In case you're considering to rent "Slashed Dreams" because it features an early role of Robert "Freddie" Englund, well, DON'T! He only appears in the last ten minutes and his character is the biggest weakling to ever hit the screen. I guess that, after starring in this completely pointless movie, Englund decided to exclusively play villains and evil monsters. Wise choice, Robert.


There's really only one good reason to see this film and it really only applies to heterosexual males with big breast fetishes, and that reason is '70s uber-hottie Kathrine Baumann, who appears here in her only nude scenes (to date), first skinny-dipping with future TV Dr. Strange Peter Hooten, then later getting (sort of) raped by James Keach. (I know it's totally politically incorrect for me to call it 'sort of' when, in fact, she is assaulted and the assault is sexual in nature, though apparently no actual penetration takes place as Keach has trouble getting it up.) This is a peculiar film. As several previous reviewers have mentioned, it's been misleadingly retitled (via cheap-looking video effects) as 'Slashed Dreams', with Robert Englund's participation played up in order to make a faux tie-in with the then-current 'Nightmare on Elm Street' series. To all you slasher movie fans out there, to avoid disappoint please note that this is NOT a horror movie, or a slasher movie; nor does it contain any notable violence other than some lame fisticuffs and an assumedly unintentionally comical hatchet-vs-knife showdown at the end. This film could, however, be grouped in that unpleasant subgenre of 'Deliverance'-inspired movies from the '70s where naive city-dwellers go into the wilderness where local inbred redneck perverts rape, sodomize and otherwise make them regret ever having left town.

It starts out on a college campus where students Baumann and Hooten receive a letter from mutual friend Englund, who has gone off into the woods and built himself a cabin, so that he can 'find himself'. Baumann's a-hole boyfriend (very convincingly played by Ric Carrot) senses the threat that the bulge in Hooten's pants represents to his relationship with Baumann, and he antagonizes them both to the point where they do run off together to look for Englund.

On the way there, they stop in a small town store to ask for directions, where they encounter proprietor Rudy Valee conducting one of his patented radio programs for a phantom audience. Instead of quietly backing out the door, they give him time to spot them and invite them in. Now, in an alternate universe, Rudy Valee would turn out to be the psychopathic killer, who would then proceed to stab Hooten to death and turn his pancreas into a hairnet while Baumann ran screaming into the night...but alas, this movie is nowhere near that interesting.

What follows next looks like a cigarette ad from Playboy Magazine circa 1973 come to life, with Hooten and Baumann wandering through the woods, climbing a steep gravel slope, encountering a bear, getting into a blueberry fight and generally bringing the film to a grinding halt (and it was only in first gear to begin with).

Eventually they find Englund's cabin, but he's not home, so they go skinnydipping. Since this is a PG-rated film, Baumann's strip-down is discreetly screened by a VERY INCONSIDERATE bush - but then she skips into the shallows and, because of how she's built, you can pretty much see everything anyway. Hooten soon joins her and then they are leered at and accosted by Keach and his microcephalic companion. Later, back at Englund's cabin (no, he's still not home), Baumann and Hooten finally get it on - and are awakened later by Keach and his buddy who've dropped by for some forced copulation. While a knife is held to Hooten's throat, Keach tries to accomplish the act, but has potency issues. His buddy then, in turn, is more interested in slapping the s--t out of Baumann rather than copulating with her.

The next morning Englund finally shows up, gives Baumann a little therapeutic pep talk (in which she actually displays more acting chops than she was generally credited with having). Later that morning the three of them run into Keach and his goon-buddy, there's the aforementioned fight, the bad guys are mildly wounded and flee. Baumann and Hooten head back into town.

That's it. It's taken me almost as long to type all of that as it probably would take to watch this entire movie, which runs under 80 minutes.

Oh, and be warned: far more horrific than anything you'll see on screen is the truly, TRULY awful soundtrack music by some unknown (and rightly so) female folk-style/soft 'vocalist' whose inane, excruciating, nails-on-blackboard screeching is enough to make one wish that Freddie Kruegher would show up and rip out her larynx with his patented claw-fingers. Now THAT would have made for a memorable movie.


1975's "Slashed Dreams" should be on a double-bill with 1973's "Caged Terror", another film that strived for a (pretentious) "deep, man" message and also featured a young, white heterosexual couple out in the woods, skinny-dipping (no frontal this time) and being terrorized by two creepy men. Both films also feature the man smearing something reddish onto the woman's face. Perhaps "Slashed Dreams" is the remake of "Caged Terror". How necessary.

The set-up is simple: A female college student with a boyfriend who loves her but, conveniently, is a major jerk, heads off to the woods with her saintly childhood male friend, of whom the boyfriend is jealous and so makes of at every opportunity. Deep in the woods is their college drop-out friend, Michael, played by post-Whitey, pre-Freddy Krueger, Robert Englund. He has built an almost see-through cabin in the woods and has apparently found the answer to life's problems and, subsequently, soft-talking inner-peace by doing so. (The jerk boyfriend also made fun of Michael, natch.) The film turns out to be a musical. As with "Caged Terror", there is not much of a story; therefore, there is much padding. An unfortunate selection of songs -- seemingly appearing every seven minutes -- were chosen to make the viewer feel happy or sad, depending on the scene. The songs are mostly sung by a female in ear-splitting fashion, and all of them give 70s folk music a bad name. In one scene, as the woman tries to follow the man up to a cliff, the weight of the camping gear on her back causes her to slide down the dirt. This scene is accompanied by a song apparently entitled "Animals Are Clumsy, Too", a light-hearted song that reminds us that for every time we find ourselves bumping our knee against a bedpost, somewhere there is a calf walking around with one leg stuck in a milk jug.

Since this happy young couple receive -- yet laugh off -- a warning about wandering the woods alone, it is certain that something bad will happen. And it does. And then the movie meanders along while the bad thing seems to go through the seven stages of grief. Michael finally shows up and apparently has discovered the ways of the Native Americans, and therefore brews up just the right tea for the traumatic occasion.

A poem found in a book seems to be the key to the film's outcome, and I was left saying "What??" It seems that, as in "Caged Terror", being the recipient of a certain act of violence is actually a GOOD thing for it elevates the victim to a higher plane, freeing her- or himself of physical and spiritual shackles, and leading her or him to a greater understanding of the world, and to a calming inner-peace. Not only does this film give ammunition to anti-70s folk music sentiment, but to New Age beliefs as well.

This is even less 'worth-seeing' than "Caged Terror".


That's right, this isn't a slasher film. No amount of positive thinking or wishing upon falling stars can turn it into one either. If you watch this, you should prepare yourself for the simple fact that nobody dies in this movie.

You might ask, "If not a slasher film, what is this?" As best as I could tell it was a feel good love story about a guy and a girl who go into the woods and are attacked by hillbillies. Also, the hillbillies rape the girl.

I know what you're thinking: What the hell?! Well, that's what I thought as well, but that is the premise. I'm going to go into more detail as this movie is so bad that it needs to be exposed to the cleansing light of day. Let me start with the characters.

Jenny: She is barely a character. She receives just about no character development. As she is definitely the star of this movie, this is a major flaw. She is raped in the woods. This leads to her learn some sort of empowering life lesson. Believe me, it doesn't make anymore sense in the movie than it sounds like it does.

Robert: He is Jenny's friend. He clearly has the hots for Jenny. He is very blatant in his attempts to put the moves on her even though she has a boyfriend. This movie is more than just a story of backwoods rapists. This is one man's quest to escape the friend zone. Does he succeed? Read on.

Marshall: He is a douche. There really is no other way to put it. He has a legitimate gripe about Robert messing with his girl, but he handles the situation stupidly. Option A, he could be cool and let the situation fix itself. (Jenny sees Robert as a friend, and sooner or later Robert would have figured that out.) Option B, he could give Robert the beating he so rightfully deserved. (Jenny probably wouldn't have liked that, but he could have played it off as his passion for her.) However, he goes with option C. He is a jerk to Robert. He is a jerk to Jenny. He is a jerk to everyone. This tactic isn't all that effective. You see this is in fact a seventies hippie film with a lot of vague philosophical themes. Marshall is essentially written as the frat boy douche. He is shallow and stupid. He doesn't get Jenny or her idiotic pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

Michael: He is an old friend of Robert and Jenny's. This is Robert Englund's character. He isn't in the movie for very long. In fact, he doesn't show up until the movie is almost over. However, I have to think that Englund's participation in this joke of a movie is what caused it to be distributed as a horror film. This character is essentially a harmless, kindhearted hermit who has dropped out of society for a simpler life in a pristine wilderness. You know, a loser.

Really tall guy: This guy is little more than an extra. I don't even know his name, but I think he bares mentioning. Maybe it was an accident, but scenes that feature him are shot so that he looks ten foot tall.

Shop Keeper: This is another very small character, but I would like to mention him for two reasons. One, he is basically that old guy in horror movies that warns people not to go into the woods. (This movie can't seem to decide whether it wants to be a horror film or not.) Two, the scene with him practicing some sort of routine in the empty room in the back of his store is the scariest that this movie gets.

The Rapists: These are generic hillbilly rapists. It isn't clear who they are or what they are doing in the woods. Evidently, they were just wandering around hoping to stumble upon a couple to terrorize.

If that sounds like a group of characters you can really get interested in, you are probably not that smart. Anyway, the plot goes like this. Jenny and her boyfriend have a fight about where or not her friend Michael is a loser. (He is.) Marshall tells Jenny that she and Robert should go to the woods and see Michael if she thinks he is so great. Then he tells everyone to leave his place. He says all this really petulantly. (Remember, he is a douche.) Jenny and Robert decide to go. Marshall and his friends (including giganto the ten foot man) follow them and try to stop them. It doesn't work.

The creepy old man in the store tells the couple not to go to the mountain because bad things happen there. They decide not to listen. When they arrive, they find that they're friend isn't there. (Isn't that always the way with hermits upon whom you drop in unannounced.) They go skinny dipping. (Yeah for Robert.) Hillbillies spy on them. (Significantly less yeah.) Later that night the hillbillies attack an rape Jenny. One of the hillbillies can't get it up. The hillbillies leave.

The next day, Michael arrives. He spouts some nonsense at Jenny. Robert sees the Hillbillies. He attacks them. Nobody dies in the fight. The hillbillies leave. Jenny reads a poem in a book she finds in Michael's place. It inspires her. She and Robert walk happily off into the sunset arm in arm.

That ending just doesn't fit does it? Anyway, that's all there is. There is no prologue, no apology. This film wasn't a horror movie. It was a sappy film about vague and sometimes downright stupid themes. Also, the film is permeated with what has to be the worst folk singing ever.

If you haven't seen this movie, don't bother.


If you intend to purchase or rent this film be warned that even though it will be in the horror section and the title, box art and description on the box will lead you to belive it is a horror movie, IT IS NOT A HORROR MOVIE. The movie may be horrible, but it is not a horror movie. It is a very weak drama about a young couple who go out into the wilderness looking for a friend (a young Robert Englund) that lives there. They are seen skinny dipping by two backwoods idiots (one played by James Keach in an early role)who later return to rape the female. You are probably thinking that surely now there will be a terrible price to pay for these two redneck morons as the couple will wreak bloody revenge upon them. You would be wrong. The boyfriend goes for a walk the next day and runs into the two dummys bickering amongst themselves and he goes after them with a small tomahawk but no blood is shed and the rednecks run off and everybody lives happily ever after. This is a boring, slow moving, poorly written and poorly acted film. The soundtrack is as lame as the rest of the movie as most of the songs remind you of the latter days of the Brady Bunch. I could continue berating this movie but why beat a dead horse.


Once upon a time there was this sincere, but painfully dated, hippie era melodrama called SUNBURST about life and love and the importance of getting back to nature to find yourself... Then comes the video boom era of the 1980s and a rising star emerging in the horror genre for playing a certain facially-scarred predator who kills teenagers in their sleep. I can see the distributors now... "Well we got the rights to this old movie full of simple-minded 70s philosophy that nobody's going to want to see now, but Robert Englund has a small role in it... Now get this, how about we put England's name on a horror-looking video box and re-title it something like, say, SLASHED DREAMS, that will make people think it's like another Elm Street movie?" Well that precisely what happened with this one. It's not a horror movie and there are only two brief scenes that could conceivably land it in the genre; the first is a somewhat botched gang rape around a campfire and the other is the "revenge" scene with two guys fighting with hatchets and knives that is cut short before any blood could be spilled when one of the characters decides to do the "sensible" thing... So by all means don't watch this thinking you're going to be terrified by a knife killer stalking a random, half-naked cutie by moonlight (the eye catching image on the video box).

Here we basically have a story of two good-looking California college students named Robert (Peter Hooten) and Jenny (Kathrine Baumann) falling in love. She's dating an immature frat bully named Mitchell (Ric Carrott), but decides to end the relationship because Mitch is a complete d--khead who doesn't understand her and makes one of his pledges do a pool-side striptease wearing female underwear and Mickey Mouse ears. So Robert and Jenny decide to visit a mutual friend named Michael Sutherland (Englund) who dropped out of college his freshman year to live as a hermit in a shack in the woods.    For the majority of the movie we get the pair visiting a general store to listen to the owner (Rudy Vallee) do a monologue and sing, trecking through the forest, trying to go up cliffs, merrily skipping through the fields and getting all mushy on us by giving each other gooey-eyed looks, snuggling and rubbing berries in each others faces. After a bear eats all their food, they do eventually arrive at Michael's lakeside shack only to find he's not home. They go skinny-dipping, get it on by the campfire and are then harassed by two obnoxious redneck goons (played by scriptwriters James Keach, would eventually marry actress Jane Seymour, and David Pritchard). The two half-wits knock Robert out and one starts to slap around and rape Jenny, but they pull out early and leave. So then Michael shows up the next morning, and the three friends work through the trauma. Basically Jenny is spoon fed some bulls--t about how life is sometimes cold and cruel, but you've just got to get over it and move on, which is probably going to come off as being pretty offensive to real rape victims. Robert does encounter the goons once more and basically rolls around in the mud with one of them for a minute to get out his frustrations. The goons run off into the woods and Robert, Michael and Jenny all laugh and give each other a big bear hug. The end.

So basically it's all a sensitive message movie about the virtues of being a simple-headed pacifist; a sort-of well-meaning but hopelessly naive antithesis of Sam Peckinpah's STRAW DOGS. Much of the soundtrack is composed of a collection of lame songs about how "animals are clumsy, too" and the world being full of "warm-hearted people with warm-hearted reasons" sung by some high-pitched squealer trying to emulate Carole King. The acting and nature photography are both OK. Leading lady Baumann (who has some brief nude scenes) was a former Miss Ohio and Miss America finalist who also appeared in THE THING WITH TWO HEADS (1972). The cast includes Anne Lockhart as Mitchell's ex-girlfriend and Peter Brown as a college professor.


I can now add this worthless thing to my worst 10 movies. It is about as thoughtless and ill conceived as anything put to celluloid. The plot and the motivations are bad enough. But there are so many distractions, I couldn't believe it. First, what's with the old gang. What about the young hothead boyfriend? Shouldn't he have shown up somewhere in all of this? Why even have him get into a confrontation with the lead. Then there's the guy they're going to see. It's Freddy Krueger, playing a nice guy who spouts philosophy. He's some skinny dork who went to the woods. What about the bad guys. How do you know, "We'll never see them again"? Shouldn't someone report the rape and get after those guys. After being accosted by the two, shouldn't someone's guard have been up a bit, just a little bit? How can one analyze something so idiotic? Suffice it to say, this isn't even campy funny. I think a good conclusion would have been an enormous meteor landing on the entire bunch. Oh. I forgot Rudy Valee. What the hell is he doing there?


Filmed in 1975 as "Sunburst" until it was released on VHS in the eighties retitled "Slashed Dreams" to take advantage of Robert Englund's popularity during the "Nightmare on Elm Street" craze, this seventy-four minute exercise in hiking and rape is an absolute waste of film and can't even be saved by the curvaceous Kathrine Baumann's wasted nude scenes. Written by Stacy Keach's brother James, who will always be Deputy Halik from "Moving Violations" to me, "Slashed Dreams" is about two life long friends, Jenny and Robert, who go hiking into the wilderness of Northern California to visit their mutual friend Michael played by Robert Englund who doesn't show himself until the final twenty minutes of the film. Why going to see Michael is so important to Jenny and Robert is never explained only that Jenny really wants to see him. Fair enough. The first forty-five minutes consists of the two traveling north and hiking through the woods. Sound like fun? It isn't. Nothing significant happens at all so why film any of this? While Jenny and Robert go skinny dipping they are spied on by two token hillbilly mountain boys Danker and writer/actor James Keach as Levon. Once the pair set their sites on Jenny's pair, well, what do you think goes through their minds? Later that night they return to rape Jenny. Enter Michael who says little and provides next to nothing as far as support except for some hippie rambling about "driving the devil out of your house". Way to counsel Freddy Krueger. Robert tries to redeem himself by fighting the rapists but, no shock here, he doesn't succeed. Afterwards Jenny comes to the realization that all is well. End of movie. What?

If this summary doesn't stop you from watching this mess than let me deliver the dagger to your heart in the form of Roberta Van Dere. Who is she you ask? She's responsible for singing all of the songs on the soundtrack and by singing I mean tone deaf caterwauling that is so annoying that I attempted to drive pencils into my ear canals. Her singing is so bad it defies belief that someone listened to her and said "you should do this professionally". Every song sounds exactly the same even her inappropriate howling following Jenny's rape. A cat thrown into a dryer would have sounded better than her. Do yourself a favor a leaf through and old Reader's Digest rather than waste your time on this crap.


SLASHED DREAMS isn't a horror movie, isn't a revenge thriller, isn't a romance, isn't social commentary, it's, well, not much of anything.

First the good news. Pretty much all of the people involved in this continued working and some did well. Robert Englund, of course, made the ELM STREET films. The editor went on to be nominated for an Oscar for DIE HARD. And the movie does have some parts that are fitfully entertaining.

The bad news is that it's dull. It's dull as dishwater and, at an hour and fourteen minutes, seems endless.

It's not a musical but it has songs, lots of them. Every once in a while the plot screeches to a halt while a young woman sings (fairly well) and then two or three minutes later the plot gets back in gear.

The script is the main culprit.

We start on a college campus. Marshall, a big shot in his fraternity, is dating Jenny, who looks as much like Ali McGraw in LOVE STORY (a college student named Jenny in that hugely popular film) as possible without hiring Ali McGraw. Jenny is friends with Robert, who is strong but sensitive. Jenny has gotten a letter from Michael, (Robert Englund, in a good performance), a man who, like Thoreau, has gone to the woods to find the meaning of life. In Psychology class the professor (Peter Brown from BIG VALLEY) and the students discuss values. Then the scene changes and we never see the professor again despite his prominent billing in the opening titles.

At a party Marshall humiliates a pledge and treats Jenny like dirt. Finally everyone, including nice girl Tina, heads out to visit Michael. After an incident of road rage Jenny breaks up with Marshall and only she and Robert go on to look for Michael. The other characters and subplots are abandoned.

After many scenes of driving they come to a small town and go into a general store owned by Rudy Valee, whose career had been revived a few years prior to this film by his work on Broadway in HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING and the film version of that show. Valee sings and talks about the old days of show business, then warns Robert and Jenny that they shouldn't hike to Michael's cabin because they might wind up being hunted. He tries to sell them a knife, they decline, and another subplot lies in the dust.

Rudy Valee's dialog would seem to set us up for a BLAIR WITCH ADVENTURE situation almost a quarter of a century before that film was made. Instead the story goes in more mundane directions. And Valee, seventy some years old, is the best thing about the film: this would be a zero star film but it got two for Valee and two for Robert Englund playing a nice person.

We watch endless footage of Robert and Jenny walking and walking. They climb a steep hill while a terrible song called "Animals Are Clumsy Too" reminds us how humorless what's happening is. They get to Michael's cabin but he's not home, so they go skinny dipping.

At this point screenwriter/actor James Keach realizes that he's given us tons and tons of exposition but the title SLASHED DREAMS is not appropriate to the soap opera romance he's written so he introduces two psychos to menace the lovebirds. Keach (who at this point in life looked a lot like Buster Keaton) plays one of them and overacts. The other one gets far less dialog. Hey, if I'd written this I'd have given myself the best lines, too.

Robert and Jenny get back to the cabin and have a firelit love scene, then the psychos intrude and do the things psychos are supposed to do in movies like this. They have no motivation for this, but the screenplay says they do it. Robert and Jenny survive but are much the worse for wear.

Michael arrives and they tell him what happened. Since we've watched random story elements from DELIVERANCE, DEATH WISH, and STRAW DOGS we figure that the third act will be bloody retribution. This would provide a nice character arc for these intellectual young people who seem so introspective in nature.

Instead Robert goes after the psychos with an ax and has a fight and they leave, and Michael tells him they won't be back. He has no way to know that, but it's what the script says.

In the cabin Jenny reads (I think it's from THE PROPHET, which everyone was still reading in 1975) about pain. Another skinny dipping scene, then the lovebirds start back toward their everyday lives sadder but wiser.

The closing titles run over a freeze frame of the lovebirds, Jenny's Ali McGraw style hair artfully backlit by the setting sun.

The romantic triangle on campus could have been a whole film. The idealism/materialism theme introduced in the campus scenes could have been a whole film. The old time entertainer leaving the bright lights of Hollywood to live in a wide place in the road could have been a whole film. The theme of a man turning his back on society to live a life of contemplation could have been a excellent film, with Jenny and Robert the snakes in his Eden ultimately forcing him to make a hard choice. The two (possibly inbred) madmen were a cliché in 1975 and should have stayed on the cutting floor.

I love horror movies, especially the Friday THE 13TH and HALLOWEEN types where I can shout "Don't go upstairs!" to characters and royally confuse my family because I watch movies with headphones after midnight and we live in a one story house. Watching SLASHED DREAMS I wanted to shout at the screenwriter, "Pick one story and tell IT!"


College students, Jenny(Kathrine Baumann)and Robert(Peter Hooten)decide to drive up to a certain mountainous spot where their school chum, Michael(Robert Englund, in one his first movie roles), went to live in nature away from the civilized world. A love blossoming between them, Jenny and Robert, through a rigorous journey to find it, come across Michael's humble abode and rest for awhile. While skinny-dipping in the river nearby, they are met by a couple of nutty backwoods hoodlums, Levon(James Keach, Mr. Jane Seymore;"Moving Violations" and "Wildcats") and Danker(David Pritchard)who later proceed to attack them into the night. Jenny is sexually molested and slapped around a bit while Robert watched helplessly with a knife to his throat before being knocked unconscious. Emotionally devastated by her attack, Michael finally arrives with Robert agonizing and full of rage. This will eventually lead to the eventual confrontation between the boys and Robert as Michael attempts to console Jenny, whose having a hard time coping with her mistreatment.

Insufferably lame, incredibly corny backwoods thriller(..absent the thrills)has college kids, removed from the comfort of home, thrust into a traumatizing situation regarding menacing backwoods weirdos. The film's supposed key rape sequence is rather tame and doesn't really feature a lot of sexual violence towards the victim, and it happens relatively quickly. The director pulls his punches and the the proceeding scenes afterward also lack any real bite. The villains arrive rather late and aren't even given much time on screen, their threat unable to really nourish in our minds. Viewers like me wanting to see an early performance by Robert Englund will also be truly disappointed as he doesn't arrive into the film until it's almost over, as Michael, his role is of comforting friend, trying to snap Jenny from her emotional turmoil. Thankfully for horror fans, Englund would find his niche as a menacing killer(..often a colorful fiend of some sort), not some gentle soul comforting victims, but, instead, causing the conflicts which terrorize innocents. Keach and Pritchard could've been memorable villains if they'd been given more time on screen, but they remain in the background because this film merely uses them sparingly as a dramatic device. The film is more of a drama about love and the trials facing someone corrupted, not the Deliverance type of terror tale this should've been. The premise shows lots of potential, but much of the film's running time focuses on our couple coming together thanks to a break up regarding Jenny and popular college boyfriend Marshall(Ric Carrott), their travel to Michael's finding his hideaway ,and falling for each other ..nearly 40 minutes or so in, one wonders if this is a thriller at all. The director spends ample time displaying the picturesque setting of the mountainous wilderness with Robert and Jenny having a great time in the process. When the "thriller elements" come into the film, they are given little precious time, leaving those of us, seeking something more worthwhile, wanting. I wouldn't say this is a terrible movie, just not the one marketed to those who sit down to actually watch a thriller. Even the brawl at the end between Robert and scar-faced Levon, which should at least make an impact, leaves much to be desired. The film's music tested my threshold but I made it through somehow. This film deserves a different title than the one it currently has...


"The Nutcracker Fantasy" is unlike any animated film I have ever seen. The puppet-animation, which looks remarkably similar to the later puppet-animation of Rankin/Bass, is exquisitely detailed and beautiful. The story is told in such a fantastic and mystical way that it leaves the viewer feeling a bit dreamy, confused and even disoriented. To tell you the truth, I have seen this film several times and still cannot describe it completely. But it's basically about a girl named Clara who receives a nutcracker doll from her Uncle Drosselmeyer and falls in and out of a fever-induced hallucinogenic state. Here she dreams of the nutcracker being attacked by an army of wild rats who are led by an evil 2-headed rat. The rest of the story goes beyond explanation but glimpses include the nutcracker doll coming to life and a kingdom where a princess, who exactly resembles Clara, has been kidnapped. It is a wonderful special that I enjoy watching every year on the week between Christmas and New Year's Day. "The Nutcracker Fantasy" features an all-star cast including Christopher Lee, Melissa Gilbert, Eva Gabor, Michele Lee, Roddy McDowall, Dick Van Patten and others providing voices for the puppets. If you can find a copy of this film, I highly recommend watching it.


NUTCRACKER FANTASY is weird, but once you realize that this is essentially a Japanese take on the now famous ballet, boy is it fun. This rarely seen Japanese-American co-production eschews sugar plum fairies and candy canes, as well as Christmas trees in favor of a dark, dreamy (and, need I say it, trippy) tone. It's almost strange to believe that this film was made by Sanrio, the folks responsible for the more light-hearted "Hello Kitty" franchise. (Some "Hello Kitty" figures can be seen at one point of the movie!) The plot, very loosely based on both the fabled E.T.A. Hoffman story and, to a lesser extent, Tchaikovsky's now famous ballet (snippets of the composer's famous score can be heard on the soundtrack) goes something like this: Clara (voiced by Melissa Gilbert), a pretty doll face of a girl, receives a mysterious nutcracker from her eccentric Uncle Drosselmeyer (Christopher Lee). Before long, our young heroine finds herself on a STRANGE (consider the emphasis on the word "strange" very closely) fever-induced adventure which defies explanation. The focal point of the film is Clara helping sad King Goodwin of the Dolls (Dick Van Patten) free his daughter from the sleeping spell of a wicked two-headed rodent, Queen Morphia (Jo Anne Worley). In the battle against Morphia and her army of mice, Goodwin's courageous guards-keeper, Franz (Roddy McDowall) is transformed into Clara's nutcracker doll. The last act of the film involves Clara struggling to find a way to break Franz's curse while dealing with Morphia's vengeful royal (b)rat, Gar.

What makes NUTCRACKER FANTASY interesting are its puppet animation visuals. Around the time this movie was made (1979), it was common to see stop-motion animated specials on television, most of which came from Rankin-Bass (RUDOLPH'S SHINY NEW YEAR comes to mind). The stop-motion process is complex: fragile puppets ranging from 6.3 to 11 inches high are shot on a miniature set one frame at a time, with animators adjusting each puppet slightly before the next shot. Director Takeo Nakamura and his team of 150 members total spent four years working on this movie, and their efforts are fully realized with the imaginative, and sometimes strange, results we see on screen. There are no computer-enhanced special effects in this movie; any flashy visuals are produced optically and/or through double or triple exposures. While it looks as cuddly and innocuous as a Rankin-Bass production, young viewers may be surprised to discover that the majority of the movie is photographed in shadowy darkness. There are some sequences, too, that border on the scary side, most of which involve Queen Morphia and her murky underworld kingdom. The most notably scary sequence takes place at the beginning of the movie, when a mean-looking "rag man" stalks the night streets of Minden town, searching for wide-awake children to transform into mice. (This sequence feels irrelevant to the actual story, although it does serve as a good warning for children who stay up late.) At two different points of the movie, live-action ballet segments are interspersed with the puppet-motion action; this makes for a jarring shift of visuals, but in the context of this movie, which basically sets in a dream world where nothing is supposed to make sense, it somehow works in its favor.

Just as uncanny is the soundtrack that accompanies the picture. As mentioned previously, select movements and dances from Tchaikovsky's immortal score can be heard, but the majority of the music mostly consists of Tchaikovsky-inspired compositions as well as some rather trippy 70's techno-rock synthesizers. There are even two pop songs (out of the four in this movie) sung by Marty Gwinn and Steve Bishop which seem strangely offbeat with the fairytale-like quality of the story--one of them sounds like it could be a Beatles number! Whether this was done for commercial reasons or to add another depth of bizarreness to the movie is unknown, but these abrupt shifts in musical styles could annoy purists expecting to hear an undistorted performance of the ballet score. Not that the music itself isn't beautiful. It's mostly easy on the ears and has some amusingly interesting remixes of ballet pieces. One takes place during a quirky dance sequence involving pint-sized sprites and colorful figurines dancing in a cloud-filled kingdom to a lively hybrid of the "March", "Reed Flute Dance", and "Sugar Plum Fairy" dances. It's strange, but fun.

Since the puppets in this movie were synched to the pre-recorded Japanese dialogue, there are some obvious missteps in the American dub, sync wise; some lines are either mistimed or don't match. But the English voice cast is certainly talented and deliver credible line readings (Christopher Lee is especially brilliant--he has multiple roles in the film and even sings two songs--handsomely, too); there is even a cameo by Eva Gabor as a kindly but eccentric gypsy fortune teller dubbed the Queen of Time. Michelle Lee, presumably a grown-up Clara, narrates the story from time to time.

NUTCRACKER FANTASY was theatrically released in America for a limited time in 1979, but ever since it has become one of those difficult to find anymore movies. Young children might find the pace off-putting (even at 82 minutes, there are lots of slow spots) and maybe a little too eerie, yet older kids and animation buffs should find this movie to be of interest. While its technical values aren't on par with some of today's more sophisticated stop-motion features (Tim Burton's NIGHTMARE BEFORE Christmas and CORPSE BRIDE come to mind), it still maintains a unique look and a strangely captivating heart for its audience. The movie itself may not be for everyone, but as an animated rarity, NUTCRACKER FANTASY might be worth checking out.


This is one of the most unique films I have ever seen, and unlike any other holiday fare out there. The puppets are magical and lifelike, the music is borderline psychadelic and the film as a whole is completely original (and comes complete with a cameo by Hello Kitty). It is at once both a lovely holiday film and an "Alice In Wonderland"-style fantasy, complete with moments that may be too terrifying for little children. This film needs to be remastered and released to DVD, it deserves to be discovered by today's generations.


I haven't seen this movie in maybe 18 years, but I've been searching for it all over the internet for a while now, and finally came across it tonight! I watched this movie over and over! I'm going to purchase it soon and I cannot wait. I loved the voices, the animation, the color. It was all so magical to me. I cannot wait to see it again! It's a wonderful take on "The Nutcracker Suite," a story everyone should be familiar with. I use to think it was a Rankin/Bass movie, just because it is similar to Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer and all other movies like that. I only just found out it's a Japanese film. I can't say whether other people would appreciate this movie, kids would. I think you have to be young to watch it, it would be so mysterious!


This is one of the all-time coolest movies I've ever seen. It may be quite bizzare, but the prominent themes of true love and sacrifice totally outweigh the weirdness, which actually just adds to the uniqueness of this film. For a fairly old movie, it's very well done. I definitely recommend this to anyone who has an extra moment to watch an excellent film.


This is a stop-motion animation movie about a doll that protects his master, a little girl, from rats, and the girl embarks on a fantastic quest that one cannot follow. SPOILERS AHEAD

It is obvious that this is just a cliched dream sequence from the start, but what is up with the "adult" doll marrying the little girl? And the aunt and uncle approve of this?

While this may seem like a fantastical flight of whimsy, it seemed to me that a bunch of film school students threw this together haphazardly. "Ok, you guys film an opulent palace, you people film a boring 10 minute ballet scene, and I will make an nonsensical war scene between rats and wind up soldiers. Gold!"

This film is an incomprehensible mess. "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" proved that an engaging film could be made using stop-motion techniques, but I guess the producers decided that a story was secondary to celebrity voices and hard-to-follow but beautiful animation. Not really a children or adult film. 5/10


I enjoyed this film. It was nice to jump PAST the point where Tarzan was discovered, to a point where he had left the jungle and returned to England for socialization. Casper is an intelligent, grunt-free version of Tarzan who returns to the jungle after getting a psychic call "home" from his shaman friend. The movie remained focused on the goal set at the beginning, to save the Lost City from a power hungry treasure hunter. I didn't feel lost or that any of the events were fluff. There is a nice display of magic which was presented well by the special effects team. All of the acting was well done and not overdramatized. I would very much like to see the story continued by this team of creators and actors.


I can't complain at all about this movie. It gave me everything I was hoping for. It's cheesy and fun! I grew up on classic Tarzan flicks and jungle movies. I watched various classic Tarzans including Ron Ely and Johnny Weissmuller. I never missed a chance to catch a Tarzan movie on TV as a kid. Tarzan and the Lost City recaptures that type of childhood magic. It entertained me from start to finish. Its flaws are part of its charm and only add to the fun. All classic Tarzan movies have flaws. So what!? That's part of what makes 'em GREAT FUN! Tarzan and the Lost City is no exception. It provides this classic jungle movie fan with plenty of entertainment value. It's great fun with a big bowl of popcorn and a cold beverage!


Being something of a Tarzan fan, it really isn't that hard to entertain me with the man in the loin cloth (except for the awful, near pornographic, movie with Bo Darek). And in todays world of cgi crapfests, this was a welcome return to real world adventures. It takes place in a real place the jungles of Africa. Has a real cast, no JarJar Binks to be found. And most importantly has a plot that goes somewhere. I think Casper Van Dien did a great job as Tarzan, and Jane March was excellent as Jane. The only drawback at all was the use of magic at the climax, it sort of negated any need for Tarzan to even show up (except to give us a few pics of eye candy). This film's drawbacks are minor when compared to those of other adventure films. It's got a lot of beautiful, and genuine scenery, which only helps to inspire the imagination. It is extremely family friendly, you can watch this with little kids and not worry about giving them nightmares or rotting their brains. Well worth getting on DVD and having an exciting Thursday evening with your kids, or parents as your own age my determine.


I loved this Tarzan movie, as it goes right away from the normal Tarzan movie. I liked that it has the same type of features that Tarzan of the past has had, but with a new look to head into the next generation. Casper Van Dien really shines in this movie, he has an amazing amount of energy, which this film needed. This Tarzan movie has a new twist, with old ways of life meeting the new way of life. I think it is a great movie.


Yes!! In the age of so many films that slap you in the face with so many f/x, it was refreshing to watch a movie with real people and real actors. The new TARZAN and the LOST CITY brought the character to a new level for a whole new generation.

Casper Van Dien was an excellent Tarzan and most important, Mr. Van Dien's performance was on target. I enjoyed the film and I am sure that you will too!


The movie is truer to the original Tarzan of E.R.Burroughs than almost any other one I've seen and I've watched them for over 40 years and have read 10 of the original books. Although the acting may not be first rate the story line isn't too far from the City of Opar book. I'd prefer more of the "savage, but civilized" side of Tarzan to be portrayed, along with less chimp and fake gorillas.