I went to see Krrish wanting the same impact that Koi Mil Gaya had on me. Unfortunately, I expected too much. Krrish did not have the heart that Koi Mil Gaya had.

Let's talk about the two leads, Hrithik and Priyanka. They didn't click, in my opinion. I would've much rather seen Preity play a different character and come back in the movie. She and Hrithik really worked in the first film. It was because of them that the first movie really worked. Not to mention that Priya, Priyanka Chopra's character wasn't very likable in the latter half of the movie. She came across as very selfish.

I also wanted to mention Preity Zinta. I had the impression that she was going to have a role in the film. I knew it wasn't a long role, but I expected more than 2 seconds. Which was what we got; literally. I even read somewhere that we would be seeing her in a new look with a sari and everything. Nope. Didn't get that.

SPOILERS:

In fact, in the end of the movie, after finding out Rohit didn't die after all and they all go back to their village, Nisha's the only one missing. If Nisha had to die, the least the writers could have done was not have Rohit turn up alive. To have those two separated just destroys the memory of the first movie. Such a tragic ending for them.

The movie also dragged on! So much! The movie doesn't really pick up until the last 30 minutes. And this is out of a 3 hour movie!!! There were too many things that Roshan tried to incorporate in the movie and overall it just didn't work. The romance came out flat (which didn't help since the character of Priyanka wasn't very likable, you begin to think: why would I want the hero to end up with her?). It's not like the Rohit/Nisha pairing in the first movie. In the first movie I really, really wished that Rohit and Nisha would end up together.

Also, another thing working against this movie is the fact that unless you've been living under a rock, you've seen a Hollywood superhero movie in the past decade. As a result, you can't help but see all the elements that Krrish ripped off from those movies. From Batman's mask, to Neo's trench coat look, to Superman's secret identity, to Spiderman's powers etc. There's not an ounce of originality to it. This may not have been so bad. After all, Koi Mil Gaya wasn't exactly original. We've all heard of the E.T. comments. But what saved that movie was that at the end of it, it wasn't about the special effects, but it was how much heart the film had. It had it in spades! The music also didn't live up to expectations. Rakesh Roshan unfortunately didn't deliver this time. Except for the number at the circus, the rest of the songs just made the film drag even more! There's a saying that the ending can make or break a movie. In my opinion, it broke this one. I won't explain, but you'll understand if you go see it.

As for the good things (that didn't outweigh the bad in my opinion): Rekha was very good in this movie, and if the movie had any heart at all, it came from her. The martial arts scenes were the only action scenes that really impressed me. Good work by Hrithik Roshan to make it look so impressive as if he'd been doing it all his life. Other than that, the movie showed flashes of brilliance, but unfortunately that's all there was. A big disappointment. I should have just waited until it was out for rent.

But really, my biggest grievance about this movie, (on top of all its little flaws that added up) was that it just ruined the first movie. It discarded the Nisha character so easily she may as well have not existed. I thought that the Roshans tainted the memory of Koi Mil Gaya for the sake of trying to rake in the audience from that movie as well to go and see Krrish. Krrish could have very well worked (with some tweaks here and there) as a completely separate movie. It was an underhanded marketing scheme.


I saw the trailer and was moved. It was a different type of movie to what Bollywood was doing and looked very exciting; yes...The concept wasn't any good, the whole sequel to ...don't even remember the name...I know it was a copy of E.T....

So the trailer was very dark and grim with the fight scene in the warehouse looking very good and the song 'Pyar ki ek kahani' was refreshing. I've never been this excited for a Bollywood film before...And so I watched it.

It was a mixture of Payback, Superman, Spiderman and lord knows what else. The poster was a copy of Daredevil and Priyanka was very annoying, while the end was just awful, the warehouse fight which I looked forward to was awful..I mean Spidey's fights are pretty spectacular but c'mon!....

The only good thing was Pyar ki ek kahani...th only good thing.


Average cast. Predictable plot. And a happy ending... Uhh.. What kinda movie is this supposed to be anyways? Too lame to be a thriller, so let's say it's one of those semi-suspense flicks. Pretty standard film all in all that really has not much new to offer... If you don't have anything better to do, you might as well watch this.


But despite the sometimes overly violent scenes, I think it great that the show is marketed towards little tots like my nephews because only children that age can be naive enough not to read into the wise-cracking and very subjective manner of the show. Okay the main idea is; Martin Mystery (the title character) and his step-sister Diana take assignment orders from their M.O.M. (Mistress of Mysteries) via a secret center. Upon receiving their new assignments each new episode, the duo go about fighting the glob goo spewing vermin that threaten the earth, but not before Martin ruins any new experiment M.O.M. is working on in her office each time they arrive to take their assignment. In one episode, Martin decides to go snooping around the center and in the process awakens a giant cave man whom they soon name "Java" (after Java man of course) and teach him the ways of the new world as they add him as a new member of their team.

Reasons you might now want children under the age of ten watching include:

1. Incest - There's this weird unshakable feeling of incest going on between Diana and Martin, IMHO.

2. Violence - Diana physically assaults Martin in nearly every episode.

3. Ignorance - The writers tend to be ignorant about other people's cultures, therefore reinforcing negative stereotypes.

4. Frightening Images - some of the monsters the siblings have to fight can be unnerving and not to mention, scary!

Just to mention a few. It airs on Nicktoons in the US.


Under most circumstances I award films that can't be appraised honestly a neutral 5/10 score, and there are many reasons for doing so. Extensive cuts, abominable presentations, impenetrable dubbing, re-editing by distributors who were too clueless to just leave the movie alone, and content that is too oblique for traditional critical appraisal.

"Dracula & Son" has all of that going wrong to begin with, and then some. Currently the film only exists -- as far as I know -- in an abominable, unfunny, disheartening 78 minute fullscreen hack-job recycled from a Columbia Pictures Home Video release from 1982. I adore Christopher Lee and have a thing for bizarre, offbeat, low budget European genre films. To say this movie sucks misses the point, however, that what we are seeing in the 78 minute English print is NOT the movie that was originally made in 1976. Until that turns up, this will have to do. Ugh.

History tells us that the film was shot in France and Yugoslavia in French with the multi- lingual Christopher Lee first speaking his lines in English on camera which he sportingly dubbed into French himself for the original 96 minute version. For whatever reason, Columbia Pictures (who picked up the movie for distribution in Britain & America) then had a voice actor re-dub Lee's voice back into English all over again when they finally got around to releasing it in the new world in 1979.

Not only that, but as seen in this English print everybody's voices have been re-dubbed by what sounds like American voice actors who liked to do tons of cocaine, thought they were unbearably funny, and got a kick out of "Young Frankenstein", with lots of dork-rod Brooklyn accents for Dracula, his nebbish son (Bernard Menez, looking confused most of the time), their fetching French love interest (sexy Marie-Hélène Breillat), and everybody else in the movie ... all of whom are obviously French, and do not look like they grew up on Flatbush Avenue. Just watching the movie for the first time is an extremely painful experience, and it's only after multiple forced screenings that some of the gags have started to become even mildly amusing.

A bit more research, however, reveals some interesting information: "Dracula & Son" is in fact Christopher Lee's final performance as Count Dracula to date. The film's basic story was apparently adapted from a novel of the same name. And this was the 2nd horror/comedy vehicle for it's co-star, Bernard Menez, for whom this was a 2nd try at mixing vampire thrills with a sex/comedy twist and starring a former Hammer Films bigwig after 1974's even more obscure "Tendre Dracula", with Peter Cushing in his only screen appearance as the Count. Which is a better film because they had less to work with, had to push themselves, and came up with more, where it seems with "Dracula & Son" they had more money, more access to locations & talents, and less disciplined results.

So I am not sure what to say about this movie. It's impossible to really judge it based upon what's left to see now after 30 years of neglect & abuse. How about this: You should probably make a point to see it for yourself, and if you find yourself not disliking it too intensely, be pleased. Hopefully someone will restore this to it's complete length, there's no way to really assess the film as it exists now. But something just tells me that even then it would still suck.

3/10


I think some Academy Awards should have been given out for this one, to Peter Graves, Lee Van Cleef, Beverly Garland, Sally Fraser and the rest for managing to keep straight faces through out the 71 minute running time of this Roger Corman camp classic.

There are nine of these vegetable Daleks from Venus left on that planet and they've been keeping up communications with earth scientist Lee Van Cleef. Van Cleef's a scientist who the world has seemingly passed by and he's been convinced that the arrival of these creatures who are possessing superior intellects to rule the Earth will usher in a golden age.

They move like the Daleks on Doctor Who with the same general shape accept they got banana like feet and crab like claws. The one that comes to earth on a stolen satellite has to live in a cave above a hot spring to simulate the Venusian climate. And he's earmarked eight control devices for some selected key people, one of them being Van Cleef's scientific colleague, Peter Graves.

It was acting of the highest caliber for this group of players to feign fear at this ridiculous looking monster. The monsters on the Power Rangers look more frightening. And Van Cleef and Garland's confrontations with the creature in the end will have you rolling on the floor.


Basically "It Conquered the World" is the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" meets "The Day the Earth Stood Still"  and the quality of those two movies only underscores how pitiful this one looks by comparison. I'll give Roger Corman credit for being the best director who ever regularly worked at American International  not that that's saying much for him  and for at least attempting to work serious political and social commentary into a few of his movies, including this one. Ideologically, "It Conquered the World" is a hard-Right propaganda piece (much the way John Carpenter's 1983 "They Live" took the central premise of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and used it for liberal-Left propaganda) in which the Venusian strategy for conquering the world is exactly what the Right of the time said the Communists were doing  targeting political, scientific and military leaders, recruiting them and using them to subvert the country by stealth  and Lee Van Cleef's character is clearly supposed to be what the Right of the time called a "Com-Symp," someone who wasn't an active Communist but so dangerously iconoclastic he was easy prey and all too willing to do their dirty work. But any attempt Corman and his writer, Lou Rusoff, might have been making for serious political commentary is subverted (pardon the pun) by the sheer ludicrousness of the appearance of the Venusian alien. (The makers of the first "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" showed great wisdom in avoiding any shots of the alien invaders in their natural form.) Maybe the upended half-cucumber with toothpick arms isn't quite as risible as the diving-helmeted gorilla who conquered the world in "Robot Monster," but that's damning with faint praise; the ridiculous monster takes what could have been a decent piece of half-serious science fiction and turns it into pure camp.


If you like thinly veiled anti-communist propaganda, pathetic poorly done special effects, and loads and loads of boring mindless dialogue, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, avoid this putrid pile of pistol packing paranoid pontification.

I especially love the scene of the base general just casually taking a walk in the woods near the base(as if the base commander would have the time go on a simple hike while the base was under lockdown).Also the woman scientist being treated so subserviently by her fellow male colleagues(hon, I know you have three phds, but could you just go and make the coffee).And Peter Graves final speech smacks so much of Mccarthy era propaganda, its not even funny.He warns us to be ever vigilant to guard against those outsiders who would try to control us, and change our way of thinking... OH NO!!its the republicans,they're coming...they're almost here...RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!


Produced and directed by Roger Corman. Very low budget. A monster that to look at is laughable, not fearsome. A story line very much like so many to follow. An entity from outer space comes to our world and needs to enter human bodies in order to conquer it. A once respected scientist(Lee Van Cleef)has the ability to communicate with the invader and wants to be part of the super intellectual take over. His best friend (Peter Graves)is a rocket scientist that unknowingly provided the invader from Venus a way to arrive on earth.

The movie of course poses a frightening event in an innocent time. Mr. Graves plays his role very calm with little emotion to speak of. The rest of the cast seems way over the top. The cast includes Beverly Garland, Russ Bender, Sally Fraser and Dick Miller.

If the appearance of the monster was left to our imagination, it might have been more thrilling. But we get so disappointed without a creature of some sort to fuel our fears. It came and it conquered...well, conquered for almost an hour.


Peter Graves gives the most dramatic speech of the 50's at the very end of this flick. Fast forward to 60 minutes (of a 70 minute movie) to catch all the action and the harrowing conclusion of..."It Conquered the World"!

"He learned almost too late...that man is a feeling creature. And because of it the greatest in the universe. He learned too late for himself that men have to find their own way to make their own mistakes. There can't be any gift of perfection from outside theirselves. And when men seek such perfection, they find only death...fire...loss...disillusionment; the end of everything thats gone forward. Men have always sought the end of toil and misery, but it can't be given. It has to be achieved! There is hope, but it has to come from inside...of the man himself."


OK, what were the filmmakers smoking when they made this?

The only positive about this film is Beverly Garland. Other than that, I still shudder at the confusion I felt as the film prodded along (quite slowly). Apparently, some guy is in chaoots with an alien from Venus and these cheesy bats help convert humans into unwilling slaves. Really cheap-o budget here, atypical for B movies and even has a young Peter Graves who's stirring speech in the end will confuse any Nobel scientist. You also have incompetent army guys, conspiracy against humanity, unjustified spousal death, unwarranted use of makeshift flamethrower, and lots of screaming and fleeing in terror. The scene with the cop shooting some innocent storekeeper was quite amusing.

"He learned too late that man was a feeling creature and because of it the greatest in the universe..." ...next time on Biography!


This is a truly terrible low-budget movie, although according to director Roger Corman, the even lower budget remake was even more terrible! There are basically three reasons for watching this awful flick. First, at only an hour and 10 minutes, it's relatively painless. Second, you get to watch familiar actors Peter Graves and Lee Van Cleef. The former tries to actually make the movie work while the latter suffers through a thoroughly embarrassing role. Finally, you get to see one of the most amusing monsters in film history, a giant rubber killer turnip. At least it didn't look like Crash Corrigan in a monkey suit, so you have to give Corman credit for being unique!


As usual Dacascos displays some excellent moves and great style in the fight scenes. The choreography ain't half bad either. However, thats the only compliment I can come up with for this movie. The dialogue will have you cringing and the plot is extremely weak and full of holes.


This time Mark Dacascos is the headlining kickboxer who destroys the company that killed his friends. Seems like the Negall federation has killed off champions who refuse to join (Including Sasha Mitchell's character David Sloan) of course this leads to a final confrontation between Mark Dacascos and James Ryan. Redemption:Kickboxer 5 is the only film of the series that I had never saw prior to my ordering of the Kickboxer 5 pack. This particular entry for some reason never played on USA or TBS like the others did. After watching the final product it's not hard to see why. First off the David Sloan killed off in this film looks so unlike Sasha Mitchell (Why didn't they use Geoff Meed who bares somewhat of a resemblance?) that I refuse to acknowledge that this indeed has anything to do with Kickboxer 1-4. I must admit that I rated Kickboxer 1-4 higher than I normally would due to my nostalgia at the time, I would get home from my gas station job and plop down on the couch and that would be on TV much to my delight. Redemption:Kickboxer 5 doesn't even have that to fall back on and indeed there is hardly any kickboxing at all to be found in this super lousy sequel. Dacascos has natural screen presence and James Ryan has his moments as a bad guy but I prefer ass kicking in favor of witty exchanges and therefore this movie adds up to less than nothing for me.

1/2* out of 4-(Awful)


This killed the whole Kickboxer series. I can't believe they said that David Sloan died in the beginning of the movie. Tong Po wasn't finished yet, because he ran away in part 4. The real Kickboxer Series Saga didn't end. If they made Kickboxer 5, it should have been about the Sloans again. I was so angry!!!! They shouldn't have called this Kickboxer 5. They just wanted Kickboxer fans too see it. If you are a Kickboxer fan, don't watch this one, it has nothing to do with the other Kickboxers. They should have called this movie something else. Why did they call it "Kickboxer 5". It's probably a good martial arts flick, but it shouldn't have been the sequel to the Sloan Saga.


Fans of Kickboxer 2, don't seem to mind that a character so important to the original (and played by such a presence as Van Damme) was killed off so easily and cheaply. But I see a lot of them raising a stink over David Sloane getting killed off. Basically they told us to "get over" it and "accept" this little wimp as the new kickboxer. David Sloane was a little weakling with no muscle that had no place in these movies. In all the sequels he would becoming back as the lead and people would think him as the "kickboxer". I loathed him and couldn't stand that his character was now the star while Van Damme's character was dead. Now, finally he's killed off and good riddance.They put in Mark Dacascos who really should have been in the sequel. He's a real martial artist with a strong build, unlike Satcha Mitchell who's a skinny B-grade actor, with no physique. I was actually glad to see David Sloane die as I never felt he deserved to live off Kurt's success. Now the David Sloane fans feel like all the other movies were pointless as he was going to die anyway. Well that's how us Van Damme fans felt in the sequel. They felt it was still a good movie despite being without Van Damme, well we fell this is a good one despite no Satcha Mitchell. I hope you feel as angry and annoyed as we were now that David was killed off so easily and cheaply as Van Damme was in the sequel. So enjoy this movie, cause David Sloane is never coming back! Accept it and get used to it!


WTF!Why did they ever make another Kickboxer without Van Damme? 2 and 3 were OK, but still they still don't compare at all with the first. Terrible fighting scenes.They should of left it alone after the first.Making 2-3-4-5 was very disrespectful to the original.(A CLASSIC)I think Kickboxer 4 just made Tong Po look so stupid and weak.In the original he lost to Van Damme but he still was a bad mofo.In 2 and 4 they made him like look an amateur.I know Van Damme ain't a great actor but his action scenes make up for that.Sasha Mitchell on the other hand is a terrible actor(acting scenes and fighting scenes)If your gonna make a sequel u better make it better then the first if not don't make it all.


this is the most stupid movie i have ever seen. why would you take a successful movie series and make a sequel featuring no one from the cast of the other movies and give it a storyline that completely has nothing to do with the last four movies. i was totally appalled by this movie and only finished watching it because i was a kickboxer movie fan. to my belief id guess they only called it kickboxer five to bring attention to this horrible film. if you read this comment do not buy this terrible sequel. its a disgrace to the rest of the kickboxing films and in my opinion kickerboxer 5 should be removed from the title leaving it to be called only the redemption.


Mark Dacascos delivers the moves and his usual workman-like acting job in this utterly predictable martial arts revenge flick. James Ryan is appropriately evil and vicious--until he just caves before our hero. But little, not even the location filming in South Africa, can save this by-the-numbers film, especially with a climax that is...well, just not climactic.


Kickboxer 5 isn't the best movie out there...it is by far not the worst.

The Kickboxer franchise missed its superstar Van Damme after Kickboxer. Though most fans really enjoyed the sequels with the charismatic Sasha Mitchell (David Sloane) who was good at fighting and good at comedy and despised the beastly Tiger Tong po character from 1 and 2.

This title has neither Van Damme, Mitchell or Tong po. We can also forgive KickBoxer 4 from switching the tong po character star Michael Qissi, though this movie barely connects to the kickboxer franchise, the only connection is a weak Six degrees of separation to the character of David sloane which is obviously mentioned to justify the title.

The movie seemed like a very poorly produced title to try and make a bit of a profit from the cult following this series has, as well as to appeal to the straight to DVD audience/market.

Costs are now down due to the removal of Mitchell. The shooting location of South Africa confirms how the costs were kept down, The lead actor Mark Dacoscos seems like a talented Martial Artist and stars in this movie with Geoff Meed and james Ryan. The action is Very good and fast paced, a small concern is the fact that all the stars appear to be doing other styles of fighting instead of Kickboxing or Muay ti.

Overall the movie ain't to bad. It is a let down compared to the other Kickboxer films. I believe the title grab of Kickboxer 5 was more a money grab to receive more profits, when without the references to the Sloane family and the Kickboxer name as well as a bit more drama/character development this film could have easily Stood Alone and Made the same money without the kickboxer name.

Overall 4/10


this movie represents the slowest and most boring of the franchise(so far)i also found it pointless and even more devoid of any real story than any of the previous entries.there's some action scenes which are not bad and Mark Dacascos has some good fighting mood and i like his fighting style.he seems able to carry a movie all right,but the movie doesn't carry him.i did like the inclusion of James Ryan (from "Kill or be Killed"(1980) and "Kill and Kill Again)(1981)as the villain of the piece.he makes a pretty good villain and also has a very cool fighting style.but the problem with this movie,besides the hackneyed plot,is it is mostly just a bunch of endless foot chase scenes.in my opinion "Kickboxer 5" is a 4/10


Dishonored is the third of three films that the director/player team of Josef Von Sternberg and Marlene Dietrich and the second for Paramount when they were imported from Weimar Germany. After the great reviews she got for the Blue Angel and Morocco, it was hoped they'd keep up the good standards of those two. Sadly they didn't.

Originally Dishonored was planned for Gary Cooper and Dietrich to be re-teamed from Morocco, but Cooper could not stand Von Sternberg and flat out refused the role. So what did Paramount do, they got a guy who was more incongruous as a Russian and definitely not a sex symbol who Marlene would throw her life away for, Victor McLaglen.

The film has Marlene, a war widow in 1915 now just getting by as a prostitute in this before the Code drama. She gets recruited by the chief of Austrian intelligence, Gustav Von Seyfertitz, to get the goods on Field Marshal Warner Oland whom they suspect of treason.

She does the job, but then falls for Oland's Russian contact McLaglen. I can't go on any more with the script, but the theme of this film was written by Burt Bacharach and Hal David forty years later, What I Did For Love.

Marlene carried this one on her back more than the other two where she had a good story to help her. She's sexy and alluring as all get out, she has to be because if she wasn't the audiences would have been rolling up the aisles. As it was McLaglen as a Russian must have brought a lot of birth. He's as Russian as Chris-Pin Martin.

Dishonred is for Marlene's die-hard fans only.


After THE BLUE ANGEL and MOROCCO, DISHONORED was a bit of a come down for me, in my opinion it is the one film that Dietrich made with Joseph Von-Sternberg that has the least meaning, Publicity hyped it up because it was released at the same time as MGMs MATA HARI with Greta Garbo, unfortunately for Dietrich she was no match for Garbo and MATA HARI wins hands down. DISHONORED is slow, Dietrichs costumes are awful and sloppy and her acting is at its worst, even Von-Sternbergs famous lighting and Visual brilliance is not there, i am highly surprised that it was a hit at all.


I watched the show first time around in real-time, and have finally watched it again on DVD (over the course of a few months).

The mytharc from seasons 1-6 made a lot more sense than I expected. My low opinions of the alien story were artifacts from the final 3 seasons.

The show peaked around seasons 3-5.

It never recovered from the absence of Darrin Morgan.

In s7, creative exhaustion hit, hard. The wit & originality was gone - along with the Syndicate! Rule #1: there is no drama without conflict. Your PROtagonist MUST have an ANTagonist. Killing them off for a cheap thrill killed the show.

The season 9 "Super Soldiers" arc was lame in the extreme. The Skeptic/Believer structure of the show was also handled poorly - turning Scully into the believer, and Doggett into the skeptic was daft. All it would have taken was one episode - have Doggett see an alien with his own eyes - a "Road to Damascus" - and have him become a believer - acolyte - of Mulders. As Groucho Marx said - "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" That would be credible, and we could have followed his personal arc. Instead, it takes Doggett TWO FREAKING YEARS to accept the obvious, by which time the show is dead.

Were all of the final 3 seasons episodes bad? No - several were well worth watching - but overall, the experience was dispiriting. 8x6 "Redrum" was one of the more original...partly inspired by the movie "Memento", I think.

In Season 7, episode 9 "signs and wonders" at 8 mins, 25 seconds a boom mike operator is visible fully in the left side of the shot, in WS. If you can't keep the boom guy out of the frame, then you have a systemic problem with the show. This might have been excusable in an earlier season, but the 3:4 WS issue was well known by this time. I can't imagine how they allowed such a basic mistake to occur. Not a good omen. At that point, you realise that the Slide has begun.

Another beef: the final 3 seasons killed off critical characters (or saw them disappear for no reason): Krycek, CSM, blonde UN lady, etc. Oh, they all suddenly reappear for the final episode, but for no good reason. Where were they? The show had lost all respect for continuity. You'd think that, given Duchovny's absence, they'd have leaned on these characters more not less - another sign of CC's lack of common sense.

Another irritant: an absence of great villains (antagonists). Krycek and CSM were interesting because they had MOTIVES. You could sense that they were more than just twirly mustache baddies. CSM believed that he was good (a trait of first class baddies). He was evil, but human, with human failings. What do we get in seasons 8 and 9? Kirsh. The phrase "one dimensional" springs to mind. Could this character be less interesting? His sole reason is to be a road block, nothing more. Lazy, lazy, LAZY!!! TIRED, exhausted, tedious characterisation. Of course, he redeems himself, but only in the final episode, and for no apparent reason. Just another gob of phlegm in the face of the audience.

Speaking of 1D characters, Cary Elwes. Were we expected to take him seriously, or was he comic relief? The lone gunmen were scarier than his character.

Yet another irritant: why the ghosts in the final episode? Krycek is suddenly Mulder's guardian angel, in defiance of 9 years as his arch enemy? He's the killer of Scully's sister, or has CC forgotten?

X is back as a spectral visitor - he would have been plausible as a spirit guide instead of Krycek. Why not have Krycek as a spirit demon, taunting Mulder, if they wanted him as a guest star? This isn't rocket science, you know!

X is clearly a ghost, yet hands Mulder a corporeal piece of paper? WTF?

The lone gunmen I could have handled, as Mulder's absence from their funeral was crass and very unheroic - but after Krycek & X, this felt contrived - pandering to the audience, and ultimately not respecting their intelligence. The currency of death was also cheapened - characteristic of too many US TV shows (I'm looking at you, "Heroes").

When you have a property like the X-Files, you have to raise the stakes over time. This was done from seasons 1-6. The only path that makes sense is to show us more, not less, over time. Tease, yes, but RAISE THE STAKES. What we get in the final 3 seasons is less, less, and less. Burt Reynolds as God? I had to shower after that atrocity - not to mention the $$$ that must have been blown. One would think that CC would have realised all this prior to the second film - but no. Even after 7 years or R&R, he has learned nothing. Only a full scale war against the aliens or a first class monster episode would have sufficed. Instead, a sub-mediocre offering like the final TV episode was provided. Truly sad...George Lucas syndrome, it seems.

If I had his money & clout, I'd hire a talented young writer and have them do the heavy lifting. However, in Hollywood, EGO is all. Better to do it yourself and fail, than have someone else do it and succeed.

Note to CC and Lucas: LEARN HOW TO DELEGATE, for FUN & PROFIT.

The next time I watch the show, I'll restrict myself to seasons 1-6, which were magic of the first order. The bulk of the final 3 can safely be consigned to the memory hole, where they so richly belong.


I just finished reviewing all 9 seasons of the X files (while watching the 8th and 9th seasons for the first time) and i guess that my comment is not only about the last episode but also about both last seasons.

The first thing that i realized is that at least for me the show was based on agent Mulder and his special non-romantic relationship with Sculley, the last 2 seasons totally ruin that, Mulder mostly isn't there and when he is the he deals with the romances with Sculley and their baby. Although i think Robert Patrick (agent Dogget) is quite good he is still no match for David Duchovny as an actor. I find the last 2 seasons lack the great acting and the great sense of humor there was in the first seasons (especially 1-6).

The last 2 seasons really turned one of the greatest series to just another sci-fi series, and thats why i think it would be much better the show would end with the ending of the 7th season (mulders abduction by the aliens). That would save us the 2 seasons that took the show down and also would be a great point to a sequel movie if there is ever gonna be one.


This, the final episode, was perhaps one of the biggest disappointments I have seen on-screen to date.

The episode's premise was promising: Mulder, on trial for the murder of a man who cannot die, depends upon Skinner and Scully to back him up.

Unfortunately, what was a good idea quickly degenerated into a parade of characters from the show's better seasons, throwing in Krycek, Gibson Praise, Marita Covarrubias, etc. for no discernible reason except as a poorly-contrived...what? Plot point? It's like a clip episode only so, so much worse.

Then Mulder's on the run, Scully joins him, Krycek throws Smoking Man--who, by the way, has been hiding at an ancient Anasazi village?????--down some stairs and (apparently) kills him, and the episode ends with Mulder and Scully in a motel room, on the lam, with all their allies dead or wanted by the FBI. None of the fans' questions are answered (nor hardly addressed), and the whole thing has a very confused, "I'm-sick-of-this, let's-get-it-over-with" feel to it. There was so much potential, even after the last three seasons of pure garbage, and it was squandered.

Le sigh, the fans now must content themselves with watching Seasons 1 through 6 and hoping that, should Chris Carter make another movie, he dismisses Seasons 7, 8 and 9 as a drugged dream sequence. That would be the only honorable thing to do, seeing as how horribly he mangled this would-be happy ending.


I didn't want to believe it but seeing is believing. The finale to the best show ever turned out to be crap. First of all at least half of the episode is wasted on talking about things we already know. The Mulder trial is unrealistic in every sense, it's childish and poorly executed. We learn nothing new. In non-trial scenes you have Mulder & Scully hugging each other all the time - the most unfortunate fact about this is the total destruction of Scully's character. She used to be strong, independent and smart - now she's depressed, whiny and helpless who can't do a single thing alone. Bringing CSM back felt a bit forced but William B. Davis saved a lot. And at least he had a few good lines.

Mulder's quest for the truth turned into something childish and uninteresting during the past two seasons. That's the biggest mistake the writers did along with the fact that they destroyed Scully and what she used to stand for.

Can't think of a worse way to end a show.


The Postmodern Life of My Aunt is not a comedy, as the ads, and the poster, would suggest. Instead it's a depressing story of how a woman's life slides downhill.

I had other problems with the film as well. As someone who has lived in China for seven years, I can definitely say Siqin Gaowa seemed too dowdy to be a Shanghai woman, and Chow Yun-Fat looked too suave and sophisticated to be a middle-aged Mainland man. I also didn't see the point of the young boy's character, although I guess it is an Ann Hui trope (if that's the right word) to have a character's story told through the eyes of a kid. He was a real cypher, and was barely in the film at all. How could he even know that stuff about his aunt? Using the child's perspective in Song of the Exile worked well, but not here at all. I also couldn't buy Vicki Zhao Wei in her role, and her appearance and back story came so out of the blue that it almost seemed like a joke.

All in all, a big disappointment, but I wouldn't have been so upset about it if the film's advertisements didn't make it look like a comedy. I really dislike when advertisers pull people into a film under false pretenses. If it is a tragedy, fine, advertise it as a tragedy. Just don't mislead audiences.


The A-List Chinese-cast could not save this movie to get bored after one hour. Since the stories around the aunt are not connected with each other it's like watching 5 movies in a row. The story is just not good enough to keep the audience interested what's happen next. The music is to heavy to a "supposed to be funny movie" and does not support the story at all. It seem's the writer who wrote the award winning movie Peacock as well is better in writing sad stories. Yun Fat Chow & Siqin Gaowa play nice but there is no magic you can feel between them. A astonishing performance (unfortunatelly to short) gave Shi Ke as a poor mother with a sick kid in a hospital. Unfortunately for Chao Wei; her performance came last when you already lost interest. If you really want to see a funny Chinese movie with a great story watch "Crazy stone".


In 1972, MGM was in dire financial straits (like most of the major studios, after trying to come up with another "Sound of Music," and squandering millions in the process). MGM hired TV-executive James Aubrey in a desperate attempt to rescue the studio from oblivion. Aubrey responded by drastically cutting the budgets (and quality) of MGM's film output, and instead concentrated his efforts and the studio's remaining assets on the creation of a vulgar MGM Vegas hotel. Meanwhile, no one was around to run the store on the studio's film output, and "They Only Kill Their Masters" was typical of MGM's theatrical output during Aubrey's Reign of Terror. A cheapjack mystery no better(and in most ways worse) than the average TV movie-of-the-week, this abomination was especially horrific in unintended ways. For one, it was the last movie made on the memorable MGM backlot (soon to be bull-dozed and sold to realtors). Secondly, it reunited two of its top stars of the not-so-distant past, Peter Lawford and June Allyson, who starred in the memorable musical classic "Good News" filmed on that same lot 25 years earlier. To add insult to injury--SPOILER ALERT--an unhealthy-looking Lawford played one of the murder victims, and guess who the killer is? None other than poor Ms. Allyson, playing a homicidal lesbian whose motives remain as murky as everything else in this slapped-together disaster. Congratulations to Mr. Aubrey for cannibalizing the heritage of MGM, its wondrous backlot, and its rightful boasting that its contract players at one time constituted "more stars than there are in heaven" (look closely and you'll glimpse some other stars of years gone by--Ann Rutherford, Edmond O'Brien, etc--wasted in the wreckage). An all-around vile concoction that might have desecrated our memories of MGM for good, had not "That's Entertainment" (a compilation of MGM's greatest stars and musical numbers that became such an unexpected boxoffice hit that it spawned two sequels) come along 3 years later and put June Allyson and Peter Lawford together again exactly where they belonged--back on the (then-demolished) MGM backlot, singing and dancing up a storm to "The Varsity Drag" finale excerpted from. . . not "They Only Kill Their Masters".. . but the one-and-only collegiate musical classic "Good News."


This 1972 film is the first and probably the best of four, varied 1970s movies by the same writer about sensationalistic small-town murders solved by the local police chief against the backdrop of quirky town regulars and a casual romantic interest. The others are: (1) Isn't It Shocking (Alan Alda, 1973); and (2) The Girl In The Empty Grave and (3) Deadly Game (both Andy Griffith, 1977).

Here, Chief Abel Marsh (James Garner) returns from a Los Angeles vacation to read in the paper about a local woman's death while he was away. She was found dead at the beach, with her pet Doberman "Murphy" beside her and its bite marks on her arms. Marsh finds some suspicious signs at her house and learns that Dobermans strike for the neck, not the arms. So he has the woman's body exhumed and autopsied. He discovers that she was drowned in fresh water but dumped in the sea. He also learns that she was pregnant. Her ex-husband (Peter Lawford) tells Marsh that she ended the marriage because she was in love with a woman. Although the killer stripped the victim's house of evidence, Marsh finds in some litter on the floor a photograph of an unidentified nude couple running toward the beach, away from the camera. He takes in Murphy. He also starts a romance with Katharine Ross, who plays the assistant to veterinarian Hal Holbrook, husband of June Allyson.

Marsh arrives at the victim's house to meet Lawford. Marsh finds the house in flames and Lawford unconscious inside, before being slugged. There is a nice scene as Marsh uses the phone in the house (his car tire and radio cord were slashed) to call for a fire truck and ambulance, only to have to sit outside and watch the house burn down and Lawford die, because the assailant, who took off in Lawford's car, blocked with the car the "one-way tunnel" between the town and the house, delaying the reinforcements. Further deductions lead Marsh to a suspect, who drugs and eludes him in an implausible scene (why would Marsh take the bundle from the suspect, tying up his arms, instead of handing it off to the owner, who was standing right there?). Marsh pursues the suspect and gets closer to the killer, with limited help from the bungling county police and apparently little or none from his own men. His relationship, such as it is, with Ross, falls apart due to his work on the case, at least for now.

Unlike Alda, Garner is credible as a police chief. He uses a gun, breaks up a bar fight, and comports himself with authority. Unlike Griffith, Garner plays the role straight. The supporting cast is good, even if not as well-used as Alda's. There is more plotting and detective work in Garner's than the others. It strikes a better balance between serious and light elements than the dreary Alda or silly Griffith versions. Garner's has pleasant music and some good use of locations.

But problems spoil fuller enjoyment of the movie. The plot depends on Marsh not being able to distinguish a 30-year-old woman from a 55-year-old woman. Why did the careful culprit leave the crucial photo behind? And there is no explanation for how the case could have initially been so badly mishandled (mistaking cause of death for bite marks, instead of drowning). The director seems to go out of his way to present early scenes as unpleasant and loud (Marsh banging incessantly on the police car horn outside the station; a waiting room at the vet's with countless barking, jumping dogs; sickly lime green counter trim and wallpaper in the victim's house; Marsh clumsily knocking things on the floor there).

Garner acts so sullen and cynical that he lacks his usual charm and energy. Marsh's catch-phrases "Neat," "City folks," and "When you know where not to look, that tells you something about where to look," feel overused and phony, not natural. Marsh wisecracks about "triple bourbons for lunch," gleefully brings a second full pitcher of beer to his table, and always has a bottle handy. Nothing is made of this. Although likable, attractive actors, the relationship between Garner and Ross is hasty and unexplained in how it begins and especially ends, with excruciating, slow-paced scenes in which he, doing tight-lipped slow burns, and she, inquisitive and confused, take forever to say nothing. Lines that are supposed to be significant are incomprehensible (suspect tells Marsh, "You're shrewd, Abel, but you're not very smart"). Marsh is too rough with Ross and with Murphy.

There is little depth to the characters or relationships. Allyson is a mere stick figure plot device, with only a brief glimpse early and a few coarse, bitter lines ("She was a bitch."; "If you're so smart, you find the car."). The victim is left obscure. Marsh's deputies play no meaningful role. The running joke of the gung-ho county police's incompetence is taken too far when it causes a death.

The plot relies on sensationalism and innuendo rather than clear, satisfying explanation. The killer's confession is nearly incoherent (".There was nothing left of him. Nothing of me. I had no choice."). The movie seems to exploit homosexuality and "threesomes" as plot gimmicks. It can be crude and offensive, as when Marsh jokes to Ross' question about why he is still single, "I'm a faggot. Have you seen the women in this town?"; Ross remarks, "I guess dykes don't use the pill."; a deputy laughs hysterically when discussing with Marsh a young woman who had part of her anatomy bitten off by a guy with her in the back seat of a car that hit a bump in the road; Marsh mutters in response to Lawford's new teenage-looking floosie girlfriend's question about whether there are motels in town with vibrator beds "in the box," "In the box, neat....City folks."; and dirty old townsmen quiz Marsh about "Did he get much?" on his L.A. vacation.


It was better than it should have been. It seems like it was first slated as a movie-of-the-week but then an fading MGM figured to score some box office bucks with the gimmick of this being one of their last movies shot on a studio lot. Casting MGM veterans in small parts helped some but, this being a detective movie, Jim Garner has to carry it all the way. Which he does with his usual aplomb.

It's a movie of its time. It's a small-town murder mystery with a back story which might have come from a Playboy or Penthouse fiction piece; the type no major studio would have looked at just three years earlier (it was made in 1972), let alone in MGM's heyday.

Faults aside, this movie has its interesting plot twists ratcheting up what little tension there is, so I was hooked until the end. But a loose-end or two are never answered - where did the fresh water come from? And if it was from the bath tub, was any fluoridation found? What happened to Peter Lawford's girlfriend? In one scene she's waving hello with her generous bust; in the next - a crucial one involving PL's character - there's patently no trace of her nor does anyone ask. Eh?

Hal Holbrook and Katherine Ross form the remainder of the troika of leads; Holbrook as the county vet and Ross as his long-haired, long-legged assistant from New York. In other words, she's really there to become romantically involved with Garner's character (a cinematic must.)

Harry Guardino's county sheriff brings in his boys when things get tricky but to no any real effect except the last scene. Garner's character never feels the case slipping away from him or the noose tightening as with Humphrey Bogart's Sam Spade in 'The Maltese Falcon.'

June Allyson has a cameo, bringing in yet another plot twist. A better screenwriter and/or director would have put her in more of the picture. Her brief presence lights up the screen far more than the rest of the cast combined - maybe she should have played the detective.


Fall Time is an incredibly absurd crime drama that fails on most levels. David Arquette, Jason London, and Jonah Blechman star as three teenage lads who decide to play a prank on the grownups in their boring 1950s backwoods town. Normal, run of the mill teens would TP town hall, put itching powder in the school principal's undergarments, or short sheet each others beds. These bright sparks decide to stage a phony assassination outside the local bank, where, just by chance, two real cons (Mickey Rourke, who phones in his performance, and Stephen Baldwin) are about to hold up the joint. The prank and the robbery go the way of a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup ("you got your practical joke in my two-bit heist!" "No, you got your two-bit heist in my practical joke!") and mayhem, torture, gunplay, and a homo-erotic subplot take us the rest of the way. Though someone clearly spent a lot of time making sure the period details were right, someone else--presumably screenwriters Steve Alden and Paul Skemp-- larded their absurd story with too many handy dandy coinkidinks. The film also suffers from a portentous score from composer Hummie Mann, which elevates the final scene--involving a fresh baked pie from good ol' Mom--to the overdone levels of a Richard Harris and Jimmy Webb collaboration. Fall Time also features the world's least believable sex scene (involving Sheryl Lee). This is one of those American indies that thinks it's being deep, but merely buries itself in pretentious tomfoolery.


**WARNING MAJOR SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW**

3 stars out of 10

I had the choice of this film and another film to watch this evening, and unfortunately, I chose this one.

If I hadn't previously read some reviews here on this film, I wouldn't have had a clue what was going on, as it was, the film was somewhat confusing.

Part of the problem was the characters, except for Florence, played by Mickey Rourke, all dressed almost alike. Okay, I'm not good at telling people apart at best, and when they're all young men, about the same ages, general build, and height and all wearing very similar suits, my ability at identifying them goes waaaaay down. I know that plays into the plot, but it also added to my confusion as a viewer.

The film also failed to clarify why the characters were doing what they were doing.

First we have the three young men, who are borderline still boys, who are wearing suits and hats and driving one of the lad's father's black Cadillac, without permission. Beautiful car - as this film was set in the late 1950's, back when cars were cars, if you know what I mean.

The boys think it would be great fun to pretend to shoot someone and then stuff him in the trunk and drive off - shocking numerous people who will witness the incident. One of them is to play the part of the man who gets shot.

However, their prank goes awry.

Then we have more confusion. Like why does Leon (Stephen Baldwin)hold the two boys captive and torture them? Why doesn't he just drive off in the Cadillac and carry on with the planned bank robbery? I never understood that.

Why the bit with a gangster coming into the bank and pretending he's with the FBI? Was that the way Florence thought he could get away with the money without being pursued by the police, or what?

Then we have a totally unbelievable sex scene between one of the boys and a female bank employee, following him kidnapping her and waving a gun at her. Yeah, the guy was nice looking, but gee whiz I'd think making out wouldn't exactly be the first thing on their minds given their tense situation, and the fact he has some cuts and bruises. The cops are out looking for them, and they've double-crossed some dangerous criminals.

Then when Florence finally shows up out at the fort where Leon is, Leon, who has already been blubbering, which seemed completely out of character for him, does still more bawling around, and Florence sort of comforts him in a rough kind of way. So were the two of them lovers, or what?

We discover Carol is really Patty, and then she hops a freight train?! She didn't even know she was going to be out there by the train tracks - after all the original plan didn't involve driving out to the fort. So what was her original plan? Or did she just see an opportunity and take it?

Whoever decides to watch this film, I wish them luck in getting more out of it than I did.


Man, how I regret wasting my precious time on this film. Fall Time is so awful that I kind of feel ashamed to have it in my DVD collection. Not for long though Don't be fooled by the Sundance nomination (how this piece of junk achieved it is a mystery) and the promising cast: Fall Time is an annoyingly bad film. Its plot is contrived, the developments of the story border on the ridiculous and to top it off the acting is poor. Even those actors who proved elsewhere that they can do much better (Mickey Rourke, Sheryl Lee) fail to impress.

When you feel that it is a movie that you are watching and not a story that you could immerse yourself in, when you see sweating actors instead of characters or cheap sets instead of real locations you know that the illusion you expect to get from a film will not arrive this time. Try as I might I would be hard pressed to find a single redeeming feature in this film. I only gave it 2 stars to reserve 1 for the absolute black holes of cinema. Avoid it like the plague!


Assassin Hauser's (John Cusak) mission is to whack a Mid-Eastern oil minister, whose name happens to be Omar Sharif (Neikov), in the country of Turaqistan which is run by American interests. Hauser poses as Trade Show producer to allow him to get to Omar.

Sometimes a satire can be so overdone it becomes most annoying. Here it does too much: the government, politics, music, war, people not generally accepted by society, and did I mention "war." And, that is what we have here - a most annoying movie that borders on a very bad nightmare brought to life. I am still asking myself why I continued with the DVD. Also, there are so many Cusak family members in this that John Cusak appears embarrassed by the family just being there, or is that just me?

It used to be that a John Cusak movie, while a little offbeat, was, in the end, rather good. Not here. Believe that John Cusak had a hand in the writing and producing of this mess. Make of that what you will.

There is too much going on in the movie accompanied by constant gun-fire, bombings, and shouting that you really cannot focus or was that the point? Probably. It just takes too long to set up the hit, which is largely forgotten until the last 15-minutes. In the meantime we have meaningless banter among all in the cast. And, chemistry between John Cusak and Marisa Tormei? I don't think so, but you know: the boy  girl thing and they needed something to take up more time.

Yes, for what they were supposed to be, (offbeat and annoying) the performances of Duff, and Kingsley were good. But, when I saw Dan Aykroyd's character, in the beginning of the show, sitting on a toilet taking a dump, I knew the rest of the show would go to the tank as well. I was not wrong. I am sure some will sing praises of this effort, but if a rose is still a rose by any other name so, too, is a mess

I now remember why I continued with the DVD. I was hoping that the story would somehow level out and save itself. Never did.

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes.


I really wanted to like this, but in the end it's a poorly made film with too few laughs.

The politics are spot on, it's gonna offend the hell out of republicans but that's what it's designed to do. That alone gives me reason to chuckle.

The problem is, it looks like it was made in a REAL hurry (like about a week). And it contains a stupid subplot about some bimbo singer, which seems to be completely off topic.

Turiqistan is obviously Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other number of countries the US has f**ked with since the 50s. The humour is a little dark (amputees dancing with prosthetic legs made by Tamerlane corporation) but it IS on the mark, especially with the corporations cashing in on the reconstruction ("democracy lite"!)

However like a lot of satire criticising the US, it seems terribly heavy handed and laboured. I guess it's running counter to so much bs propaganda so it has to bludgeon people over the head to make a point. Who knows. I prefer more of a nudge, wink approach - a bit of subtlety. But that's just me.

Anyway I might watch it again, perhaps I missed something.

I'm hoping "W" is more on the mark.


War, Inc. - Corporations take over war in the future and use a lone assassin Brand Hauser (John Cusack) to do their wet-work against rival CEOs. A dark comedy satirizing the military and corporations alike. It was often difficult to figure out what exactly was going on. I kept waiting for things to make sense. There's no reason or method to the madness.

It's considered by Cusack to be the "spiritual successor" to Grosse Point Blank. I.e., War is more or less a knock-off. We again see Cusack as an assassin protecting *spoiler* the person he's supposed to kill as he grips with his conscience. To be fair, John Cusack looks kind of credible taking out half a dozen guys with relative ease. The brief fights look good. The rest of the film does not. It's all quirky often bordering on bizarre. War Inc's not funny enough to be a parody, and too buoyant for anyone to even think about whatever the film's message might be, which I suppose might be the heartless ways that corporations, like war factions compete and scheme without a drop of consideration given to how they affect average citizens. Interesting, but the satire just doesn't work because it's not funny and at its heart the film has no heart. We're supposed to give a damn about how war affects Cusack's shell of a character rather than the millions of lives torn apart by war.

John Cusack gives a decent performance. His character chugs shots of hot sauce and drives the tiniest private plane but quirks are meant to replace character traits. Marisa Tomei is slumming as the romantic sidekick journalist. There really isn't a lot of chemistry between them. Hilary Duff tries a Russian accent and doesn't make a fool of herself. Joan Cusack just screams and whines and wigs out. Blech. Ben Kingsley might have to return the Oscar if he doesn't start doling out a decent performance now and again. Pathetic.

It's not a terrible movie, but in the end you gotta ask "War, what is it good for?" Absolutely nothing. C-


Even the first 10 minutes of this movie were horrific. It's hard to believe that anybody other than John Cusack would have put money into this. With a string of anti-military/anti-war movies already being destroyed at the box office, it's almost inconceivable that a studio of any kind would want itself associated with this script.

At first, it may have seemed like some kind of politically motivated derivative of Grosse Point Blank with Akroyd and Cusack(s) all over again. But only about 90 seconds into the movie, it becomes obvious that this is a talentless attempt at DR STRANGELOVE.

I liked so many of Cusacks movies that I thought I would risk seeing the DVD of this one. I have to say that I don't know if Cusack is sane enough for me to even watch another feature starring him again unless somebody else can vouch for it. Cusack seems to be so irreparably damaged by his hatred for George Bush and the Iraq war that he is willing to commit career suicide. Tom Cruise was never close to being this far gone. Not even close.


Quite possibly the worst movie that I have ever seen. When has Hollywood ever made a successful movie that attacked Republicans? Why don't they learn. The Dixie chicks haven't. These Lefties live in their own elite bubble interacting among themselves; oblivious to the fact that most of America is much further right than they are.

The best Hollywood productions are not partisan and are rarely political at all.

Dan Akroyd's imitation of Cheney was bad.

I would have thought Cussack could have landed better movies.

It wasn't funny.


Just utter trash. I'm a huge fan of the Cusacks, this being the sole reason I watched this movie, but the only reason I can see for their presence was the reprise, in complete and depth less quality, their exact roles from Grosse Point Blanc. Apart from that, the films' role as a political satire fails miserably as being too obvious for even the most moronic out there to serve any purpose. And to bill it as a satirical satire would be just plain insulting even to chimps. Imitation is, apparently the highest form of flattery, but seeing as though this is nothing near Grosse Point Blanc and in the same league as meet the (watch if your a moron) Spartans in terms of political satire, lets leave well enough alone and let this one fade into the obscurity it absolutely deserves.


With this cast and budget you will expect more.

John Cusack has made a number movies that border on the strange, yet still work. Neither he, his sister, nor Sir Ben could do anything to save this travesty of trite poorly written garbage.

The movie is nothing more than a series of sight gags and poor ones at that. The plot goes nowhere, the writing is contrived, senseless and the characters paper thin. If you think of a movie as being three dimensional where the story and characters bring a depth to the imagery, this stinker comes across as flat as steamboat mickey.

Dan Akroyd's appearance in this brought back memories of another truly awful movie, 1991's Nothing but Trouble. Frankly this movie is the type of project that kills careers and gets agents fired.


First things first: I'm not a conservative. And even though I would never refer to myself as a liberal or a Democrat, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one. I think it's safe to say John Cusack and I would probably see eye-to-eye on politics, in fact, I'm sure we'd become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great Adam Curtis' BBC docs are. My point is this: don't discredit this review by thinking I'm not a part of the choir Cusack is preaching to in War, Inc. There's no question WI's politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic, but the problem is, the tailoring is substandard and the the film Cusack co- wrote, produced and stars in, fits worse than a cheap suit.

As they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cusack, his co-writers, director Joshua Seftel and even the actors involved, no doubt had every intention of making an anti- war film every bit as biting and funny as Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, unfortunately for the viewer, they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

The current state of US politics, foreign policy and the war "effort" is already absurd and, as a result, tragic, pathetic and, regrettably comical -- just watch The Daily Show and see for yourself. The bottom line is: you can't write material as funny as what the Bush administration provides us on a daily basis, so why try to compete?

The main problem with WI is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. To get it done, Cusack basically cannibalized Grosse Pointe Blank (one of his best films), changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of Naomi Klein. Most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to Halliburton, the Neo-Cons and the US occupation of Iraq, are imaginative, clever or funny. The writers are so blinded by their own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. The trouble is...it isn't. By now these ideas are yesterday's news and unless you've been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance, denial and sheer stupidity (read: a right-wing Christian), these jokes insultingly simple.

Perhaps WI would work if it was more nuanced, subversive, offensive and fattened up with detailed research/insights into the Occupation. As it is, the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad, with so little finesse, subtlety or satirical wickedness, they did little more than make me groan. Homer Simpson once said "It's funny 'cause it's true" and The Daily Show proves this every night; War, Inc. however proves that just because it's true doesn't make it funny. The bottom line: hyperbole isn't required when it comes to lampooning US/Neo-Conservative politics...it's already a big enough joke.

http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/


This film tried to be too many things all at once: stinging political satire, Hollywood blockbuster, sappy romantic comedy, family values promo... the list goes on and on. It failed miserably at all of them, but there was enough interest to keep me from turning it off until the end.

Although I appreciate the spirit behind WAR, INC., it depresses me to see such a clumsy effort, especially when it will be taken by its targets to reflect the lack of the existence of a serious critique, rather than simply the poor writing, direction, and production of this particular film.

There is a critique to be made about the corporatization of war. But poking fun at it in this way diminishes the true atrocity of what is happening. Reminds me a bit of THREE KINGS, which similarly trivializes a genuine cause for concern.


I wanted to see an action comedy with a satirical twist (as this film was touted) but this one failed me miserably. For me, the plot was a bit confusing to follow and I rapidly lost interest. I feel so sorry for John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff for getting involved with this movie. I'll remain a fan of all of them but only time can heal my feeling over this one. The one thing I can say positively about the film is that Hillary played Yonica's character so well that I didn't even recognize Hillary; it took me a few scenes to realize that it was her. Luckily I rented it for $1 through Red Box; had I paid to see it in on the big screen, I would be really fuming!!


Of course Basil Rathbone makes a wonderful Sherlock Holmes, George Zucco is as good as any Moriarty and Ida Lupino is a great victim. While the lovable bumbling Nigel Bruce has come to epitomize Watson, he has nothing in common with heroic Dr. Watson created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, except maybe that they are both doctors. True fans of Sherlock Holmes can only cringe at Bruce's interpretation.

The Plot also has none of the mystery of Sherlock Holmes. Moriarty gives away almost his entire plan at the beginning leaving Holmes without a single deduction that the audience has not already made long before. The true genius of Sherlock Holme's stories is watching Holmes take a number of small clues that lead to implausible deductions which when afterward explained by Holmes seem completely and utterly reasonable. I still wait for the definitive Sherlock Holmes which takes the original stories and makes them as exciting on screen as they are to read. If that is what you are looking for, this movie is a flop.


Ju-On The Grudge 2: 3 out of 10. When horror franchises go back to the same well they often attempt to at least make superficial changes in the main character's circumstances. (It's Jason but he is in 3-d. It's Jason but he is in New York. It's Jason but he is in space.) Now I'm not suggesting these efforts actually worked. (Leprechauns in Space or Children of the Corn in the ghetto are two abominable examples but I have to give the Halloween people credit when their main killer Michael Myers went off to do Wayne's World)

However at least these franchises made the appearance of some effort. Ju-on the Grudge 2 is actually the fourth or fifth Ju-on movie depending on who is counting. And it is the exact same house and the exact same ghosts and the whole grudge part makes even less sense than ever. (Even the Amityville Horror series had the decency to leave the damn house eventually) To make matters worse we have had approximately 100 white screeching ghost chicks with black hair Asian horror films since the first one.

It seems like every Asian culture is raping their heritage to come up with their own home grown spook. (Strangely enough one of the recent knockoffs I saw Thailand's Ghost of Mae Nak used Final Destination death scenes rather than the black haired white faced knockoff to get scares. Even the Johnny come lately realize that this genre is spent.) The ghosts once again are the marshmallow boy and the scary woman with hair of death. The movie is shot Memento like completely out of order. Needless to say this does not help matters. The death scenes are generally not shown but suggested which can add to the confusion. By the time you figure out what is going on the movie is half over. Some effective scares but the wig bit in the middle and the Omen stuff at the end had me laughing with disbelief.

Large amounts of silence and a ridiculously slow pace will challenge even the most caffeinated viewers to stay awake. The main characters don't help as they are pretty boring and lack any personality or spark.

Ju-On the Grudge 2 is the same movie as the others but with less. This sequel is for a fanatic or completest only.


I bought this on DVD at Christmas without having seen it previously. I did the same with "The Grudge" and it was a great experience; my friend and I (23 and 21 at the time) were so scared we had to watch "Finding Nemo" to calm us down. I refused to watch "The Grudge 2" on my own, so waited for the same friend to watch it. Now, two friends (25 and 23 now) have never been less scared in their lives. I've been more scared by toy commercials than this film. It just seemed far too contrived and too similar to the first film. Bits of it were good, but instead of being scared we just said "That was good". This film is a big let down, let's just hope the 3rd one gets the series back on it's feet.


sorry it's really movie i couldn't understand at all first of all the name's were very strange to me then the plot was very confused the relationships between the characters of the movie another mystery what's happened to the mother is she died ? a lot of questions which you will never get an answer to them it's really so bad but still the main idea of the movie is not so bad this haunted house and whoever connect with it is disappeared by somehow i think i like it maybe the language has it's effect my mother tongue is Arabic and as you know we all used to English but Japanaise is very unfamiliar . It could be .the end of it was so mysterious don't get the meaning of this young girl with the mother and why she killed her


I have to admit I haven't seen Grudge 1, but I have seen The Ring so I understand that Asian horror films are a bit different. But really, this film was terrible and not the least bit scary. Incomprehensible is a better descriptor. Corny, predictable and dull, yes.

The plot just left me going "what?" as you had a succession of undeveloped characters getting bumped off in disjointed "future-past-future" sequences that just left you scratching your head. Large chunks of the film went unexplained - such as the whole schoolgirl extra storyline, why ghost-woman-and-boy were targeting people who hadn't even been in the house (boyfriends, schoolgirl extras etc), why the hell ghost-woman-reborn-as-evil-child waited five or six years to kill mum on a whim....etc, etc, etc....

Sorry, this one just left me thankful we hadn't paid good money to see it at the movies.


The first film Ju On: The Grudge, is personally one of the scariest films I have seen so I had high expectations of the sequel. I was sadly disappointed.

Ju On: The Grudge 2 really was a pointless exercise in film-making, that starts off poorly, barely keeps it's head above water in the middle & completely falls apart in the final third, it appears that the good ideas were used in the first film.

Sure you can get away with a lot in the world of horror but too many of the plot twist were just comically absurd & the whole Chiharu sub-plot was completely irrelevant to anything else in the film & didn't need to be there.

The whole rebirth concept reminded me a lot of the first Ringu sequel(Rasen) & guess what, it didn't really work for that series either but I did think that one it's own Rasen was a better film than Grudge 2.


Baffling 'dysfunctional family' drama from Canada darts around in time yet fails to give us much to go on. Newly-skinny young man returns to his parents' home after a ten-year absence to attend his sister's wedding (to a man he has always harbored a crush on); relationships in the household are sketchy, however, as the man remembers his childhood as an overweight kid who once attempted suicide (and was apparently rescued). Thom Fitzgerald wrote and directed the picture with a thudding hand (and a barbed tongue, which I'm not sure is supposed to be funny). His touches of surreality are interesting, and there's always a promise here of the scenario becoming much more provocative, but too many questions are left unanswered. As for the "hanging garden" of the title: it's a cheat, with limbs kicking and flowers dying in stop-motion. Fitzgerald wants to prod the audience in a certain direction, but he doesn't have enough talent as a writer (nor the eye of a perceptive filmmaker) to achieve satisfaction on any level. *1/2 from ****


Based on reviews that I've read I expected something other than this bitter dose of misanthropy. The roles are pastiches that are so over-played as to be wearying. The plot line proceeds in a grueling and gruesome hatefulness to a foregone conclusion. Not a redeeming moment to this turkey.


This movie is nervous and uncomfortably over-acted. A story of hatred like such is not at all surprising nowadays. But the director seems too restless to do a good film.

I have seen many of gloomy movies and liked some of them, but not this one.


They're trying to kill the president (again!) and this time they're using dolphins. No kidding. Whoever thought that getting Buck Henry and Mike Nichols together to make an action film hopefully lost their job, as The Day of the Dolphin is silly and boring, to boot. Dolphins were all the rage in the seventies (they're really intelligent, they can read minds, they can talk) and now that most of those theories have been debunked we're left with this curio.


well, I just got through watching this one. I have to say that this movie has to be one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. The plot moves badly and the acting is just...well...bad. Don't waste your time with this one folks.


Starting with the positive: X is pretty to look at and has a great premise - the two opposing sides that make up the narrative have valid reasons for doing what they do, rather than the "we're good and they're evil" style of anime plot writing that is very common. Try as I might, those are the only redeeming features of this movie.

X may be an incomplete manga series at the time of filming, but that doesn't mean you can release an incomplete film. Trying to squeeze too much into X has meant that a lot of it doesn't have any point - while the characters are easily distinguishable in terms of their powers, they don't do enough to actually mean anything to the audience. The narrative just runs along at breakneck speed, hoping to distract the audience through constant fight scenes. While I appreciated the mortality rate of the characters in X (as opposed to the cliches of being beaten down to a pulp but then coming back and winning) it was just like watching meat through a grinder - I didn't care when they went in and didn't care when they came out.

The metaphysical imagery of X is also very peculiar, mixing a lot of Christian iconography with rivers of blood and gore. It was something different, but different doesn't mean good in this case.

My final gripe was that the closest thing this movie had to a twist was simply unbelievable. It flew in the face of what little characterization had been created, then the film ends not with a bang but with a half-hearted sigh. It left me wondering if I had missed something vital, but not caring to endure a repeat performance.

Pretty but very pointless, X wasn't worth the rental.


X. A stupid film with a pointless title...in fact the whole movie is pointless, but there is no reason that the film should have been called X. Basically, while watching it with three good friends of mine, I forced myself to fall asleep. It worked for about ten minutes until my friend woke me up and said, "If we are going to watch this, then so are you. If we have to get through it, you do too." It seemed like it should have been on that show Mystery Science Theater 3000. Pointless fighting, with overdone gore. Someone cuts their finger it squirts everywhere. Limbs fall off for no reason and when they cut someones head off, they hug it, which is not as dumb as it is disturbing. Just a waste of time, breath, money, paper, life, and a space a Blockbuster. One of the worst anime's let alone movies I have ever seen.


I'd say this review was going to be a spoiler, but...well, to be honest, it's a slasher movie. You know how it's going to go.

Friday the 13th: the Final Chapter features a small family made up of a relatively young mother, the movie's "innocent" girl, and a young video game player and mask-making prodigy (a young Corey Feldman) that lives out into the woods. A bunch of teenagers rent the house next door for a night of debauchery. Jason Voorhees, being a slasher, wasn't adequately killed last time, so he gets to come back now. The non-character teenagers in the house, like most people in this film, exist only to increase the body count and have no discernable character traits except for degree of sexual experience, which is enough to get them all killed by the end of the film, playing straight by the rules.

This episode of Friday the 13th follows the slasher cliches to the letter, but the only times suspense is even attempted are during a few "false scare" scenes early in the movie and in the final chase sequence. The actual killings just aren't all that scary--Jason murders again and again. It's a badly shot, poorly lit, trashy fast-food slasher with wretched acting. You can pretty much not only call every death, but from time to time predict the exact manner of the death.

As far as gore and T&A go, Friday 4 delivers, but in that "fast-food" style. As a result, it doesn't even hold a lot of fun for slasher fans. It reeks of lack of effort, and really wasn't entertaining as teen-killer fare goes. Avoid it--you'll find a slasher that does it with more style pretty easily.


This movie is awful, I saw it when I was kid and it did not scare me at all, in fact it bored me. I watched it again recently and I am pleased to say even as a kid, I knew my horror movies. I don't know why it is hailed as one of the better 'Friday the 13th' movies as their are far superior ones such as part 3 and part 6. Corey Feldman is one of the reasons that the 80s is looked on as a cheesy and tacky period in Post Modern history and once again he blew it in this movie. The guy who keeps laughing at the silent movies is probably the worst bit of casting I have ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the series but this one is a real let down. Don't be fooled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


[Includes a "spoiler"]

Strangely enough, it is not often that Jason himself puts up an appearance in the fourth entry of the series. Why he is absent from such a large chunk of the film, I cannot be sure, but from a financial point of view, isn't that a bit counterproductive? After all, that's what the fans pay to see, Jason killing people, isn't that right? His absence reveals the movie for what it is: a bad teen melodrama that happens to guest-star Jason.

Most of the characters are so annoying that we actually root for Jason to kill them, and so he does, but not nearly soon enough. That's the problem here; there's not enough slasher action to sustain such a thin plot. The result: a major bore.

Granted, Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover have some appeal. Makeup artist Tom Savini obviously had a hand in the script, as Feldman is portrayed as a child prodigy with an interest in special effects. Glover generates some sympathy as a lonely young man. Savini himself does a good job crafting Jason's gruesome demise. However, these elements aren't enough to prevent the film from being a tired rehash.

By now, it is useless to comment on the fact that Paramount lied when they said it was the last. Jason simply can't die, and we must live with that fact of life.

* (out of ****)

Released by Paramount Pictures


This fourth installment had many to think the series was over with the death of Jason, but just wait until the sixth Friday. It sure was fun watching this one and seeing a young Corey Feldman put a temporary end to Jason with good gore, action, and suspense.


Sorry, guys, I'm just not feeling anything coming from this series as it goes on. Whereas the first two installments had a personal feeling, like the filmmakers had left their personal signature proudly on their excellent work, PART 3 and this one are obviously done to make money and nothing else.

There are a few good things about this sequel, though: I liked seeing Crispin Glover, who is always interesting, and Corey Feldman is pretty cool until the last 20 minutes, where he annoys the hell outta me. Once again, a group of horny teenagers travel to a lake (is it even Camp Crystal Lake? we never know!) for a vacation and get killed by Jason, the supernatural killer who seems to survive everything and get stronger in every sequel. Here, he's like Superman, which is a little too much for my tastes. Sort of like how Michael Myers became a walking muscleman in HALLOWEEN 4-6. The only noteworthy acting kudos go to Glover and Feldman, everyone else can be forgotten. The final girl, Trish, does not pack a wallop and once again, there is no character development. While the horny teens are more likable this time around, they're not that much more likable. Good gore scenes, though, done by Tom Savini.

FINAL CHAPTER holds several very good scenes that stand with the best of the series and does create an atmosphere that was notably missing from PART 3, but is still pretty bad. What's worse is that money forced this "final installment" to be evidence that horror is the most untrustworthy genre when it comes to pleasing the viewer. I still wholeheartedly recommend PART 2 as the best of the series.


Pretty decent cast -- John Garfield, Wallace Ford, Selena Royle -- but the film is no more than routine. Garfield is a gangster who has just committed a payroll robbery. On the run, he takes refuge in the working-class apartment of a girl he just met, Shelley Winters, and her family -- Mom, Pop, and kid brother. His identity is discovered by the family and he quietly takes them hostage, holding a snub-nosed .38 on them. But what's he going to do with them? How is he supposed to get away with the dragnet out for him? Mom and Pop are quietly repulsed by him, but Winters is attracted and evidently spends the night with him, intending to accompany him on his getaway. He sends her out to buy a car with part of the payroll money but comes to believe she didn't buy the car. Instead, she's betrayed him to the police. In the end, she's forced to shoot him at the doorway to the apartment house. He looks surprised, says, "You never had no love for me," stumbles out the door, only to discover before he collapses that she'd been true to her word. There sits the car. And Garfield plops into the rain-filled gutter.

Mostly -- throughout the movie -- they talk. Then they talk more. Then they go on talking more. Garfield's character emerges as embittered and cynical, self pitying, angry at those who have betrayed him all through his life, beginning with his mother.

But he's not very smart. He allows the family to go out in order to show up at work or run errands, as long as he has one member at home for a hostage. While the rest are absent, in a burst of generosity and hope, he has an elaborate turkey dinner prepared. When they return, he beams with pride and tells them to dig in. But they remain silent, and Mom produces some left-over stew, which they proceed to spoon out without enthusiasm. "I don't get it," says Garfield. "What's the mattah with the toikey? Ga head -- cahve it up." Pop tells him solemnly, "This is our dinner. The turkey is YOUR dinner." Garfield is dumbfounded. "Huh? Oh -- I GET IT." (Finally.) It could easily have been a radio play, still popular at the time (1951) or a live TV show from Playhouse 90. The budget is low and the story skeletal. Usually they find room for remarks about how this is going to be the hottest day of the year or something. Here the patter is limited to remarks about the future, about good character, about responsibility, and they lead nowhere.

I usually find John Garfield's performances likable -- another lower-middle-class guy from New York -- but never magnetic. Shelley Winters usually gets panned but I don't know why. She's never bad, and often better than the script calls for.


Possibly attempting to do for the world of finance what she'd done to nuclear power in "The China Syndrome"(1979), this Jane Fonda melodrama is a poor investment for any serious movie fan.

The story is very hard to follow and poorly constructed with shallow characters. The story is not terribly easy to grasp for the average person in my opinion and not presented to the audience clearly enough-nor well enough to garner much interest and/or curiosity. Fonda appears bored, while still trying to appear smart and glamorous, in her role. Kris Kristofferson is simply a case of very bad casting. Despite some efforts to make him physically appear like a big-time banker, he comes off flat and stiff in his role. Whether talking down a bank president or talking Fonda into bed, all his lines are delivered in a blank monotone style that conveys nothing. We also are never given much background or motivation for the events and doings of the people wandering about this epic of high finance. Fonda and Kristofferson's first meeting isn't much of an icebreaker, yet the two are bedding down together by their second or third encounter.

The film is directed by Alan J. Pakula and it looks much like other works for him. Secret meetings in parking lots and suspect late night boardroom conferences may appear to be the things that make up a good thriller, but here they are simply padding between the great nothingness that amounts to two-hours of dull slow paced cliche filled dialog from weak characters that you never grow to care much about. The movie's heavy-handed and overly-dramatic musical score makes many scenes nearly laughable.

There's little to recommended beyond those morbidly curious to see a bad movie, which is why I obtained a copy of it. On that level, it does pay a modest dividend.


The short side of the story is that this has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Rythme-wise, the movie is dead. It makes you feel like you are attending a lecture on economy at the university. And to think that I watched the movie because it was described as a "thriller!"

The story portrays an Arab plot to shake the foundations of global economy using the simple concept that there is alot more "printed" paper money than there is actual value out there in the world.

First of all, the movie is offensive to Arabs. If this movie was made now, civil rights groups and Muslim/Arab groups would be all over it, in one scene, Jane Fonda says (about taking a loan from those Arabs): "I feel like a beggar asking them for money, and I HATE it!" and Kristofferson comforts her by saying: "You and the rest of the world!" This is an out right racist statement that wouldn't slip so casually as it did in 1981. Aside from that, the movie protrays Arab customs rather poorly, on one side, the director of the movie is keen on showing Arab rich people sitting on the ground and eating with their hands from one big plate (to somehoe portray primitivity) and forcing Fonda and Kristofferson to do the same (which doesn't happen in real life, they give guests plates and spoons if they need them), but the director makes a bigger slip of showing them shaking hands with Fonda and sitting right next to her in the dinner. That would not take place in the same societies that eat with their hands from the plates.

Other omissions are plenty as well, portraying Arab countries and cities as vast areas of desert lands and tents doesn't portray what the Arab world looked like in 1981.

From an acting stand point, Fonda is not too bad, but Kristofferson is awful. His "cowboy" acting style really misses the target in this one. The image of a banker who talks like a cowboy, behaves like a cowboy and tells his boss in the bank that if he doesn't hang up the phone he would smash his head.. This image is just not real. The way every night fall in the movie almost always ends with Fonda and Kristofferson making love is also not real for two people well over fourty as the movie portrays. So, you feel like the roles were written in a naive way. Not much attention was put into seeing how the characters fit into their perspective roles.

Overall, this movie is not worth renting on video even, I would suggest waiting till its out there on TNT or TBS or something, in fact, it's not worth such a long review. (:-)))


This is the only movie I've ever walked out on; I even held out through Caligula! Boring, made no sense to me at the time and I could see no hope of redemption, so I left and waited in the lobby with a magazine for my date to finish watching the film. He understood it and enjoyed, but I was lost from the opening credits. Perhaps the fact that he's in business & understands computers and accounting principles helped his level of enjoyment. I felt akin to a foreign-language speaking person thrown into the middle of some major conference where I was not only expected, but required, to understand and follow what was being said.

As previously stated, I'm an eternal optimist when it comes to movies; I fervently believe that they HAVE to get better. I knew this one was a lost cause early on. "Rollover" rolled over and played dead for this viewer. I wish I could have whacked it with a rolled up newspaper.


One a wet evening, I decided to pop down to the DVD machine around the corner to pull out a DVD for the whole family. Phantom Below looked promising so I decided to take it.

What a disastrous movie. 90 minutes of pure agony. The cast is poor, the script is bad and the visuals are pathetic. You expect to watch a movie about a submarine, in reality the shots of a submarine are limited. Instead you are presented with computer animated shots of submarines, torpedo's and the like. They must have really saved on the computer animations because they look as if they come straight out of a cheap third rate computer game.

The inside of the U-boat is also completely unrealistic. The studio shots remind you of 70's movies, they are so fake.

There are some pretty good U-Boat movies out there. This one certainly doesn't rank among them. Don't waste your time watching this one.


From the very first sound (a cartoonish attempt at an active sonar "ping") by a synthesizer sampler, this movie was riddled with mistakes and inconsistencies.

The opening "ping" could have been avoided by a simple phone call to Pt Loma, California to ask for an email attachment .mpg of an actual "ping" for the all-important opening of this movie. Who in their right mind would produce a movie without subject-matter expert advisers.

This entire movie was pitifully flawed. I could overlook budgetary constraints but to have the ship's Captain stand before his men and determine that a torpedo that had just exploded nearby was launched from a new unknown class of submarine; that's just too much. He deduced this without any sonar data, no intelligence, and no evidence that the attack wasn't carried out by an anti-submarine aircraft or even an enemy frigate or destroyer. Heck, he didn't even know there was anything shadowing him only a minute before!! One the other hand, the National Enquirer readers will eat it this Twinkie up and the folks that vote based on the Daily Show or the Colbert Report will wonder why it wasn't nominated for an academy award.

I don't understand why these Hollywood marshmallows don't just ask a man to look over their script to cull the nonsense.


From the plot to the props, to the horribly tasteless computer generated graphics, right down to the acting, this movie was really flawed. On a positive note, I will give credit to the writers/directors/producers of this film who attempted to tell the story of our Navy's submariners. However, next time, please take some additional time to conduct the proper research on proper wear of Navy uniforms. In this age of Google and many other search engines, this information could have been easily obtained, and the realism truly brought out in your art. Instead, the uniforms created numerous distractions from the plot. If all else, U.S. Navy Sailors, like myself who wear the cloth of the nation, when viewing a portrayal of our duties, deserve to see them portrayed correctly. Anything else, my friends, border heavily on disrespect.


Following the death of Peter Sellers, the Pink Panther series seemed to have little future but director Blake Edwards still managed to grind out two further entries. The Trail Of The Pink Panther was mediocre but it had funny moments; The Curse Of The Pink Panther is a stretch too far. This - number seven in the popular series - is a feeble comedy in which the plot is poorly contrived, the actors look totally indifferent, and the comic moments are tired rehashes of scenes from the earlier films. It's no exaggeration to say this is the worst of the series.

Dreyfuss (Herbert Lom) is assigned to use a super-computer to track down the world's greatest detective. Once found, this awesome detective will be entrusted with the task of finding the missing Inspector Clouseau. However, Dreyfuss has no intention of helping in the hunt for Clouseau (you may remember from earlier films that Clouseau drove Dreyfuss to the brink of insanity). Thus, Dreyfuss deliberately misuses the computer and finds the worst detective in the world - the inept New York officer Clifton Sleigh (Ted Wass). Sleigh travels to France and follows a trail of clues hither and thither, accidentally surviving numerous attempts on his life and getting into all manner of wacky situations as he closes in on the truth. Along the way he crosses swords with various characters from earlier Pink Panther films, before it is finally revealed to the audience (though not to Clifton Sleigh) what actually became of the hapless Inspector Clouseau.

There are a few compensations amid the general air of indifference. A certain famous film star, billed as Turk Thrust II, makes a guest appearance as Clouseau near the end, and has a funny cameo role mimicking the mannerisms that Sellers had brought to the character. Henry Mancini's music is as catchy as ever, and there are infrequent sight gags which are fairly amusing (e.g. the scene where Wass sits on a giant rubber duck, only for the beak to poke out suggestively from between his legs). On the whole, alas, The Curse Of The Pink Panther is a very poor film. With a running time close to 2 hours, the film needs more than a couple of amusing gags and a good cameo appearance. Long before the end (heck, long before the middle!) it becomes a tedious affair, and as the plot unfolds one increasingly wishes that the final credits would hurry up and put an end to the misery. After this, Edwards gave up on the series until, in 1993, he belatedly added one final flick entitled The Son Of The Pink Panther.


Blake Edwards directed three panther-films after the death of legendary Peter Sellers (1925-1980) - the original Clouseau and a master comedian. "Curse of the Pink Panther" (1983) is the middle one of 'em. I have no idea why he had the nerve to make a laughing matter out of the fact that Sellers is gone and respect his immortal memory little enough to continue the saga. Was he in the need of some more money (I doubt) or was he just missing a good hobby? If his intention was to make the audience happy, he failed.

I think "Trail of the Pink Panther" (1982) wasn't all that bad yet. It was fine entertainment but mostly because of the funny leftover scenes with Sellers in 'em. The last two panther-flicks sucked pretty hard because they had absolutely nothing to got to do with Sellers anymore. I remember I actually liked "Curse of the Pink Panther" when I was a kid. That doesn't tell much of anything, kids like lots of crappy movies. Of course I was old enough to miss Clouseau but it didn't bother me that much.

From today's point of view I miss Clouseau even more and like the movie even less. Still, surprisingly "Curse of the Pink Panther" isn't all that bad because I can still watch it without throwing up and I'm sure that's something everyone can't manage to do. There's couple of good scenes here and there and I can still enjoy it because of the old team: David Niven, Robert Wagner, Herbert Lom, Joanna Lumley, Capucine, Burt Kwoak...they're all here to fill the enormous hole Sellers left behind.

What troubles me most is this Ted Wass guy. His failed attempt is to be some kind of a modern Buster Keaton. Is he actually trying to be funny? Who is he anyway? His clumsiness works a few times now and then but he's millions of light years away from the stylish act of Sellers. The cameo of Roger Moore was probably the only really nice surprise this movie had to offer. My rating: 3 out of 10. Ten years later Edwards felt he had to direct "Son of the Pink Panther", awful conclusion to the essentially great series of movies.


As I watched this movie, I asked myself if Blake Edwards could watch it and laugh out loud during the whole thing, or if he got as bored and tired with it as I did.

The classic Sellers Panther movies contain many laugh-out-loud sequences. For me, there is only one in this movie, a nice little scene that happens outside the Chicago airport. But by the way, if Sleigh is a NY cop, and he's going to France, why the heck does he have to go through Chicago???

Moore's cameo is nice. Almost makes you wonder if the idea was ever there to carry on the series with him.

If you have to see it to flesh out the whole series, go ahead, but don't expect much...