IN: Review: I've had a lot of experience with women in Russia, and this movie portrays what a lot of them are like, unfortunately. They are very cunning, ruthless, and greedy, as well as highly unfair. From the robotic sex, the hustling for gifts, to the lies and betrayal, I've experienced it all in Russia.

I know what I'm talking about. And here are my qualifications: Here are the photojournals of my three trips to Russia in search of a bride. It includes thousands of pics of many hot Russian girls I met, black comedy, scams I was privy to, and the story of my mugging and appearance on Russian national TV.

http://www.happierabroad.com/Photojournals.htm

It's like Reality TV. You will love it. I spent a ton of time putting it together. So check it out. The Russian woman that Nicole Kidman plays is a lot like the Julia and Katya in my photojournals.

My 3 bride seeking trips in Russia happen to be very exciting and would sell, so why don't they make a movie out of my bride seeking adventures in Russia? However, there is one factual impossibility in this film, and that is the way which the guy orders his bride from a catalog and having her arrive at an airport. It doesn't work that way at all, so I don't understand why the media likes to perpetuate this. There isn't a single Russian bride introduction website that works this way, and I challenge anyone to find one that does. The fact is, you can only order the Russian lady's CONTACT INFO (email, address, phone number, etc.) from the website. From there, you correspond and then visit her, and if you want to bring her to your country, you start the immigration process at your INS office, and wait months after that. That's how it works in real life. You can't just order her to arrive at your airport. US Immigration would NEVER allow such a thing to happen.

WuMaster

- I got everything I wanted by going abroad! You can too! http://www.happierabroad.com
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Sleepwalkers are creatures who drain the life force completely out of humans to survive...but they can only use virgins (it's not explained why). Charles Brady (Brian Krause) is one such who needs to feed his mother Mary (Alice Krige). He goes after likable Tanya (Madchen Amick). Will she escape?

On one hand this is a GREAT horror film. Fast-paced, plenty of blood and gore and a nice, twisted sense of humor. There are plenty of in joke references for horror buffs (Castle Rock is mentioned once). Also Krause is excellent (who would have thought he could act after "Return to the Blue Lagoon") as is Kirge and Amick. But I find this film annoying.

It was written for the screen by Stephen King and it's maddeningly vague. The sleepwalkers are never fully explained. Where are they from? Why are they called that? Why does the son have to feed the mother? Why do cats hate them and can kill them? What are their powers after all (at one point Krause makes a car disappear AND change color and style!)? Why do they need to feed off peoples' life force? Why does it have to be only virgins? Why is the son having sex with his mom? None of these are explained leaving the story confusing. It's really too bad because, those questions aside, this is an excellent horror film. Excellent makeup and special effects too.

Fast, gory and lots of fun. If only the script were better. Also a fairly explicit sex scene between Krause and Krige was edited (you can tell) to get an R rating. I can only give this a 7.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: With part reconstruction and part direct shooting, the directors made a formidably limpid documentary on a coup d'etat against President Chavez in Venezuela, organized by a foreign secret service and fully supported by the wealthy Venezuelan minority, the political opposition, the Church (a cynical laughing cardinal) and the US government. It was another chapter in the history of US foreign policy, which Steven Kinzer calls 'Overthrow' or 'sowing democracy American style'. In fact, this foreign backed intervention was not only a coup d'etat against President Chavez, but also against the democratic majority which elected him.

That this is a brilliant documentary is mightily confirmed by the violent reactions for and against it on Internet. As Saint Augustine said: 'Men love truth when it bathes them in its light; they hate it when it proves them wrong.'

This movie is a must see for all those who want to understand the world we live in.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: After apprehending the man responsible for the murder of his boss, Deputy Sheriff Thomas Jefferson Geronimo, III, is assigned the task of taking the killer back to Italy. On the way, however, the plane is diverted to Malta. Not long after landing, the killer escapes. Now, and with little help from the Maltese police, Deputy Sheriff Geronimo is out to recapture a murderer. But will his "shoot first, take names later" brand of Texas justice work in a foreign country?

Let me get this out right up front, I've seen Final Justice both with and without the Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary. I've seen the scenes that were cut that help make the movie a more coherent whole. And I've seen the cut-up TV version that was used for MST3K. Having said that, I've got to admit that I much prefer the MST3K version. Why? Because Final Justice is one lousy movie. The MST3K commentary helps make it much more palatable. On its own, it's a real snoozer of an action movie with corny dialogue (often delivered with such thick Italian accents that it's impossible to understand), bad acting, weak direction, gigantic plot holes, and most everything else you'll find in a bad movie. And if most of Final Justice wasn't "so bad, it's good", it would be one terribly dull movie on top of everything else. So, yes, I enjoy the often very funny MST3K commentary over the bad movie on its own.

My main sticking points with the MST3K commentary and with most of the reviews I've read on Final Justice, however, involve the criticisms of Joe Don Baker. The main weaknesses in Baker's performance actually have nothing to do with his size or the wardrobe choices of his character or any of the other jokes flung in his direction. Instead, I think much of it is has to do with the poor decision to cast him in the lead in the first place. Joe Don Baker has always struck me as a decent enough actor, but he's not the kind of guy I would call an "action hero" by any stretch of the imagination. He's more of a sidekick as he demonstrated with solid performances in a couple of James Bond movies. Or if you really want to blame someone for the problems with Final Justice, point your finger at director Greydon Clark. Clark's resume can't begin to compare with Baker's. So I say, "Lay off Joe Don Baker!"
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative