Q: For the first couple of seasons, I thought The Apprentice was a highly engaging and exciting show. The combination between reality TV and a 16 week job-interview was innovative, and the producers of the show managed to keep the show relevant and not too "out there".

The new season 6 is nothing more than a big joke and it has absolutely nothing to do with business - at all. In the earlier seasons they used to put a lot more emphasis on the business-related tasks - now the focus is mostly in the boardroom where the contestants are expected to do EVERYTHING to keep them on the show (that means lying, trash-talking, backstabbing etc.). The boardroom can be entertaining to watch, but it's entertainment at it's low-point - Sometimes you wonder if you are watching a repeat of an old Jerry Springer episode. The tasks on the show are, at most, boring and mostly a showcase for the companies who are dumb enough to pay NBC for the publicity. And what is the deal about half of the contestants living in tents in season 6? That is just plain stupid and has nothing to do with business in real-life.

I have absolutely NO respect for any of the contestants this season, they all seem like idiots to me. In earlier seasons at least some of the contestants had a bit of integrity, now it seems like the contestants would kill their own mother to keep them on the show. It also seems like Donald Trump's massive ego becomes bigger and bigger for every season that pass by and to be honest, I can't see why anyone with a common sense would want to work for him. His rationality in the boardroom mostly doesn't make any sense at all and sometimes it seems he just like to trash people for what it's worth.

R.I.P The Apprentice. Please NBC, for God's sake, get the show off the air as soon as possible. It's just too embarrassing to watch. The Apprentice was once a great TV-show, but now it's just a big fat joke. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: What does the Marquis de Sade have to do with Egyptian archaeology and mermaid worshipping cults? Tobe Hooper tries to answer that question in one weird little film.

Genie is a young cutie who visits her nerdy archaeology father in Alexandria, Egypt. Genie gets caught up with a mysterious hooker (and blatant lesbian) who services daddy on the side. Daddy gets sent back to the site, where he uncovers a tomb with what appears to be a mermaid on it. Genie meets a descendant of the Marquis de Sade, and falls for a hunky Egyptian (providing the film's hottest scenes). Eventually, Genie finds out she is to be a sacrifice and the protracted and bloody climax gets going. Wrapped around this story is footage of the Marquis de Sade in prison, talking to a portrait of what looks like Genie.

Robert Englund is terrific as both the Marquis and his descendant. His acting abilities have always been sideswiped by his makeup requirements, so he is allowed to shine here. His best performance is still in "Killer Tongue," if you have not seen that yet.

The rest of the cast, including young Genie, are pretty and average. The script, however, is problematic. You will quickly learn that the Marquis scenes are completely unnecessary, except maybe the film makers had access to the cool set. The mermaid cult that eventually saves Genie makes no sense whatsoever. Who the mermaid is is never explained, and its link to Christianity (which is hyped throughout the film) is nothing. The film is very anti-Christian, as the archaeologist is a Bible spouting father, but likes to be tied up by the local prostitute. There are plenty of scenes of depravity and violence, but Hooper probably had little idea of what the screenwriters were trying to say. I know I have no idea.

So why am I recommending this film? It is weird. There is an extended sex scene. For the ladies, hunky Egyptian rides a horse completely nude. Englund is marvelous. Do you like snakes? This film is full of them. This is like Roger Corman with a bigger budget. Knowing Hooper somehow came up with "Crocodile" after this is rather sad. "Night Terrors" is not perfect, but definitely worth a winking, unserious look.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, some sexual violence, gore, profanity, female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, sexual references, and drug abuse.

OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Unfortunately, in cases such as these, there are so many conflicting stories as everyone tries to cast blame on to others that it is a near impossibility to get a clear picture of what really happened. This movie is a victim of such circumstances. The writers (too many of them) have decided to take ALL of the stories and give them to the audience to let them decide which version of the truth they like the best. As in the real life case, there is no clear answer, no conclusion, and the audience is left with a general felling of being unfulfilled (like coffee without the caffeine, or sex without the climax). Whodunnits with no whodunnit are generally frustrating and makes you wonder why someone didn't do research before they put it out there. At least tout your movie as a fiction if that is what it amounts to (and this does).

That is not to say there are not some great performances here. Kilmer (as Holmes) does an outstanding role bringing some humanity to what is otherwise an unsavory character. Kilmer, and the real life lovers and friends who consulted on the film, let the audience see a selfish, troubled human being who, though his faults were many and large, was loved and cared for by many people (except himself). Kudrow as Holmes's wife, only gives a glimmer of the dramatic actress she can be, but it is very noticeable and unforgettable glimmer. Bosworth's character was not as emotionally complex as she could have been and needed to show more inner conflict to give credence to what ultimately happened between Dawn and Holmes (she turned him in 6 months after they fled to Florida). Bosworth's apple-cheeked performance is at time annoying, at times touching, but shows none of the backbone the real Schiller must have possessed. The other characters fade in to the woodwork which is a pity. Lucas is a great performer who could have sunk his teeth in to this role had it been fleshed out for him. Even Dylan McDermott was surprisingly capable in his role of drug dealing biker.

The fault of this movie does not lie with this cast, but with the writing. Too many cooks spoil the soup, and this kettle, filled with so much promise, ultimately leaves you hungry. The story and characters may have been less than sympathetic, but in what movie of this ilk are they not so? Other movies such as 1989's drugstore cowboy starring Matt Dillon (who was reportedly asked to take this role and refused) worked with similar subject matter and mastered it to such a degree that you felt a kinship with the main character by the end of the movie despite what he had done. Van Sandt could have given James Cox and his crew a few lessons. Had someone bothered to try and find the truth, this would have been an intriguing story. As it is, you will find the accompanying WADD documentary more palatable (in the 2 disc DVD)and much more informative. You will realize from the DVD that Holmes was not a bad guy, but not a very good one either..as are most people. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive