Now what's wrong with the actors that took part in that crap? Michael Dorn should stick to the Star Treck merchandise. John Diehl, does anyone remember him in Miami Vice? Liked him there... Well, whatever - what can one expect from a movie with one of the lifeguards from baywatch in the lead? Nothing, and that's what we get. None of the characters is even likable, the special effects are hilarious (but not funny). The story is a (very bad) joke. There is no logic whatsoever for what's happening. I got the feeling that the film makers were trying some kind of "Attack of the killer tomatoes" kind of thing. Especially in the scene where all the important people were discussing national security in some kind of a closet...

If you happen to see it on TV, switch channels - your TV set will be ever thankful.


I've long heard that to get their start in 'legitimate' films, many behind-the-camera types work on porno films.

The people who produced and directed this monstrosity stayed too long.

Poorly paced, staged and written, it uses a lot of perfectly good talent (Diehl, Dorn, Eggert) badly.

Much sexual activity is teasingly implied here by the brassiere-popping host to the alien creature, but it never crosses the line...

You'll still want to shower afterwards, though.


Nicole Eggert was listed as the star of this, despite Micheal Dorn & Stacey Keach being much bigger stars than her.

Basically this is a bit of a spin on the "Alien lands on Earth" film. Eggert plays the girl who feels sorry for an Alien being chased by the military and takes in the runaway creature in her very sexy disguise. A bit of nudity and partial nudity, a pointless sex scene all feature along the way.

The film stumbles through a few obvious set-pieces and running jokes about being shown photographs. I quite liked the Star Trek jokes when Micheal Dorn had been taken over and he got a really cool death scene.

It was fairly obvious that Stacey Keach was going to be taken over and the film had quite a weak ending, it would have been nice to show exactly what kind of talent the Alien passed to Eggert.


The one thing that occurred to me after watching this drivel, was i would never get the time I used to watch this, back again. If you want to see Stacey keach and Michael dorn try and earn what must have been then, the down payments on a holiday home then stay tuned. Wooden acting, poor special effects, the only comedic highlight was whilst our alien hero was in female form and this is over as soon as she has done her obligatory b-movie nude sex scene within 30 mins into the movie. The opportunity to have made what could have been a decent movie disappears the moment Nicole Eggbert clocks the alien in a bar within 30 seconds, whilst the Police, Military and Joe public don't cotton on that the woman drinking coffee, dosn't use the cup handle and wears four jumpers at once. She must obviously be from another planet. Just where I wish I was when this movie was on.


This anime series starts out great: Interesting story, exciting events, interesting characters, beautifully rendered and executed. Not everything is explained right away, dangling a proverbial carrot before the viewer, enticing the viewer to watch each succeeding episode. But imagine the disappointment to find that the sci-fi thriller/giant robot adventure is only a backdrop for psycho-babble and quasi-religious preachy exploitation. If you want to hear "You're OK. It's good to be you." after being embattled with negative slogans and the characters' negative emotions, then this is for you. If you want a good sci-fi flick that is simply fun to watch, forget this one. Both the original, and the alternate endings were grossly disappointing to me. All that, AND this movie was too preachy.


This incredibly overrated anime television series (26 episodes, 25 minutes each) is about a 14-year-old boy (and two of his girl classmates) who pilots a giant robot to defend Japan against invading beings called Angels. There is very little explanation given to the Angels or why their numbers have increased in recent times, and they just seem to pop out of nowhere for no apparent reason (why not attack all at once instead of at spaced out intervals that are convenient for the humans you're attempting to destroy?). The robot fight scenes attempt to employ a variety of obstacles, but the action itself is poorly executed and boring to watch. Almost every episode seems like a waste of space where nothing of interest occurs.

Some might be intrigued by fans who mention the (very few) symbolic references herein, but that's all they are - shallow one-liners to religious or philosophical concepts that are randomly tossed in with zero craftsmanship. As a whole the series is incredibly tedious due to the superficiality of the characters, who are really nothing more than self-pitying crybabies. The psychology is pathetic, with hopelessly simplistic conflicts like "I hate my father" repeated over and over and over and over again with no progression beyond their face value. It's no understatement to say that these characters plunge this series from time-wasting mediocrity to anger-inducing garbage during the final episodes with their endless, angst-ridden diatribes of excessively repetitive psychobabble (some of which is totally meaningless).

I'm not kidding when I say that this series just got worse and worse as it progressed. Every day I'd look at the DVD set sitting on my living room table and say to myself, "Damn, I've gotta watch the next episode at some point. (sigh) I may as well slug through another one tonight." The real kicker was that the episodes were only 25 minutes long, yet they were somehow able to digress into a completely uninteresting borefest within the opening 10 minutes. This is coming from a guy who will happily sit through 150-minute films with glacial pacing, so my criticism of this series is most damning indeed.

Never in my entire life have I despised watching a series as much as "Evangelion." I had already purchased it based off of all the fanatical comments on IMDb, and I certainly wasn't going to let it collect dust after spending my hard-earned money. What followed was 10 hours of pure, unmitigated torture. My love/hate relationship with anime is turning into a hate/love relationship after this highly acclaimed disaster.

"Evangelion" represents everything anime should NOT be - massive quantities of dull, pretentious tripe under the guise of intelligent cinema. The universal acclaim for this piece of crap is simply unbelievable; and the ridiculous assertions by fans that this series as "one of mankind's greatest achievements" is probably the most stupifying comment I've ever heard on IMDb - and I've seen some doozies.


This has to be one of the top overrated anime shows ever made. And yes, I was even shown the "End of Evangelion" and that still made me hate it even more. Not to mention the countless rip-offs of this show!

I don't mind psychological and philosophy untertones, but Evangelion drags it out into the mud like nothing else! Not many of the characters seemed to be very interesting. The only ones that seemed to be interesting were Asuka, Misato and Pen-Pen. Other than that, mostly everyone else were a bunch of whiny crybaby losers. They need to go to a psyciatric center, not piloting giant robots against aliens called "Angels".

Even the mecha and alien fights did not help at all. Goes something like this:

"Well, there are these robots, and they are really cool because they bleed(!) when they get hurt, but they are not really mecha, but captured angels, so sometimes they go insane and don't do what the underaged pilots want, and they have to be controlled better...blah blah blah!"

I am so sorry, but I just cannot recommend Evangelion to anyone, anime otakus or not. To those who love this series greatly, fine you're entitled to that opinion, I respect you. But to thoses that have a "out of your mind" obsession to think that every one will like this series, you are more of an egotist.

I prefer "Macross", "Mospeada", "Run-Dim" and "Robot Taekwon V" myself.


Contrary to most other commentators, I deeply hate this series.

It starts out looking interesting, with mysterious aliens and giant robots, and I kept my hopes up until the very last episode. At the end of it, I still didn't understand what the alien attacks were all about (maybe I missed something, who knows?), and realized that I had sat through 26 episodes consisting mainly of the characters' own self-hating, selfishness and self-pitying. It actually flips between alien/robot fights and these dark, depressing blinking-on-and-off scenes where one or more characters can just say or shout "I hate me/you/it" 10-12 times in a row.

I can't really see either Shinji or Asuka (two of the main characters) showing growth or change. (Nor can I see any of the other characters learning or growing either, for that matter.) I wanted to kick them and tell them to get a bloody life during the first episodes, and the feeling didn't change during the last ones. Shinji truly possesses the kind of helpless hopelessness that makes people angry rather than charitable, and Asuka is such an infuriating know-it-all that I wanted to smash the TV screen every time she came into view. Oh, and more than anyone else, these two hate everything, and say it veeeeeeeery often.

I'm otherwise a big fan of animé and manga, and never before have I disliked one so much. I read that the series creator/writer wrote this while suffering from a depression, and I can believe that; it made me depressed to watch it. Is that the aim of this series? I'm honestly asking. Is it designed to make the viewer confused and annoyed? And if suffering from a depression, why just not write a book or biography about it, instead of mixing it up with aliens and mecha's? This alien war plot, as far as I could tell, lead to absolutely nowhere.

Finally, since I'm truly fascinated by how many people claim to love this patchwork of dead-end plots, I can't help but wonder how many of them actually find it good, and how many say they do because they've been told it is.


Kurt Russell (as Steven Post) works as a mail-boy for struggling TV station UBC (that's United Broadcasting Corporation); he is going nowhere at work, offering ridiculous projects like "Abraham Lincoln's Doctor's Dog" to studio executives - because Lincoln, doctors, and dogs are popular. Programming director Joe Flynn (as Francis X. Wilbanks) wisely rejects Mr. Russell's proposals, but has no idea how to pick a hit TV show. His secretary Heather North (as Jennifer Scott), who does double duty as Russell's girlfriend, has a chimpanzee who bugs the heck out of Russell when he wants to watch TV. Turns out, the monkey watches all the popular shows, and can easily pick the hits. Russell discovers the chimp's talent, and uses him to advance his own career. Understandably, things gets HAIRY for Russell and the cast!

Raffles the chimp (handled by Frank Lamping) performs well; Raffles does look bored and/or distracted during a few scenes, when the chimp is supposed to look interested; these could have been corrected with re-takes or editing. A mild satirical edge is present - imagine a monkey picking hit TV shows! AND, it's a monkey who gets a BEER during the commercials (drinking in a Disney film)! A look through the cast will reveal s bunch of fun TV actors to recognize and try to place. You could make a drinking game, in honor of Raffles' beer-guzzling, by guessing actors, and where you've seen them before. Here's a start - Hey, isn't that "Dr. Bellows" from "I Dream of Jeannie"? Down the hatch!

**** The Barefoot Executive (1971) Robert Butler ~ Kurt Russell, Joe Flynn, John Ritter


I sat through this movie this evening, forcing myself to stick with it even though I never cared about any of the characters or what happened to them, because the two leads, Gérard Philippe and Michèle Morgan, were major film stars of their era and I wanted to see them in "something different," which this certainly was. They both gave fine performances, but of distasteful characters.

Indeed, the whole movie is about a shabby little town in Mexico inhabited by almost uniformly distasteful characters (the doctor is, of course, the major exception). What Michèle Morgan ever sees in Philippe to fall in love with him is never explained.

This is supposedly based on a work by Jean-Paul Sartre. All I could think was that, if Sartre's work is anything like this movie, it must be a very mediocre attempt at imitating Camus' masterful novel The Plague, which dealt with a plague in North Africa.

A well-acted but uninteresting movie.


This movie sucked. The acting sucked, the script sucked, and the movie overall sucked. There were two threads in the movie that were not developed and the viewer had to do a bit of work to figure out what was happening.

I'm not saying that it needs to be spelled out, but you suddenly find things happening and being said as if you have the slightest clue as to what they are. Examples:

The heroine's negative comments about the hero. The audience is never shown how she even knows anything about the guy and how he is tied into her fiance's death. The viewer has minimal exposure to the guy's death as well.

Also, all of a sudden there is a scene with a bunch of guys loading up and cocking machine guns and that is all you see before cutting back to the other scenes. No explanation what-so-ever about the guns and the folks with them.

We gave it a 3 because we didn't feel like we wanted our time back. It was fun to bad-mouth the movie while watching it, so it at least gave us a bit of entertainment. ;-)


I've just visited Russian forum of our TV-channel that had showed this film. Well... 99 per cent of active Russian audience is disappointed. We wanted to see more true facts of our space achievements in this film. But authors had in mind something else... :( We are big and beautiful country with intelligent people living here. We are proud of all our space dreams, real achievements on the one hand in this field and in science on the other hand. So I'd like to ask authors: Where is our LUNOHOD? And where, the Hell our MIR station? Ah? I'm quite sure, that LUNOHOD events took place much earlier Armstrong's "walk on Moon". And to comment numerous technical and science mistakes - I really have no time and enough space here! Se our constructive critics in Russian forum on www.1tv.ru


Shocking!

In 1965 I saw Jury Gagarin alive. He was sincere, unpretentious and kindly, he was at ease and looked like well-educated and intellectual person. In this movie I saw a clown! The actor looks like dummy with affected gestures and mimicry. They made a cartoon! The real Gagarin was someone else! Don't believe in this movie!

I saw this movie after the movies like "Taming of Fire" and "Apollo 13" and after reading books "Rockets and People" by Chertok and "Korolev: Myths and Facts" by Golovanov. I was shocked by tiresome scenario, poor acting and producing, and a lots of inexactitudes of "Space Race".

The movie is the tedious rendering of well-known in Russia historical facts. A lots of interesting known facts of the space projects was not demonstrated. Some facts and details were perverted. For example, in 1945 Korolev was already not a prisoner (liberated in 1944), and in 1940 he was already not in Kolyma prison gold mine, but in special prison design bureau. Korolev was the designer in prison design bureau and he was not buried the dead prisoners. But in the movie Korolev worked as grave digger after 1940 (because jailer have shoulder straps on uniform). IMHO, the authors of movie have no profound knowledge about this part of the history and they can't to make interesting movies.


My comment is for the Russian version of Space Race named Bitva za Kosmos (Battle for Space) shown on Russia's First Channel on April 10-13, 2006. Bad translation could have ruined some details but I doubt it's the case. The number of factual errors is such that it's impossible to list them, especially in the first episode (the development of first missiles). Even the U.S. half of the film contains multiple errors and omissions. The audience is not told of any V-2/A-4 launches from the U.S. Three different Jupiter C rockets are launched with the same serial number 'UE' onboard. Apollo 1 is to be launched to the Moon, etc. In the Russian half, each and every person is ludicrous. Korolev is scared of NKVD, Glushko is saboteur and traitor, Mishin is alcoholic etc. Men as functions; no motivation, no life at all. Uniform and decorations are awful. Gagarin sings a frivolous song awaiting launch (I think this was added specially for Russian version).


Whether any indictment was intended must be taken into consideration. If in the year 2000 there were still rifts of feeling between Caucasian and Afro-Americans in Georgia, such as shown in this film, obviously there remains a somewhat backward mentality among a lot of people out there. It is rather hypocritical, to say the least, if everyone adores Halle Berry, Whoopie Goldberg, Beyoncé, Noemi Campbell, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, et. al., whilst out in the backs there persist manifest racial divides.

White grandmother suddenly gets black grand-daughter thrust upon her, only to meet up with black grandfather in a very white social backwater. The story is sweet, not lacking tragic overtones, and eminently predictable as in most of these kinds of TV films, though the final scene has you guessing............ will he? won't he.......?

Gena Rowlands in her typical style offers a sincere rendering, and Louis Gossett is a good match for her; the little Penny Bae fortunately does not steal the show.

A `nice' way of relaxing after Sunday lunch without having to force your mind too much, though you might just find yourself having a little siesta in the middle of it.


It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihäescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminicä la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit.


This guy has no idea of cinema. Okay, it seems he made a few interestig theater shows in his youth, and about two acceptable movies that had success more of political reasons cause they tricked the communist censorship. This all is very good, but look carefully: HE DOES NOT KNOW HIS JOB! The scenes are unbalanced, without proper start and and, with a disordered content and full of emptiness. He has nothing to say about the subject, so he over-licitates with violence, nakedness and gutter language. How is it possible to keep alive such a rotten corpse who never understood anything of cinematographic profession and art? Why don't they let him succumb in piece?


Yes, he is! ...No, not because of Pintilie likes to undress his actors and show publicly their privies. Pintilie IS THE naked "emperor" - so to speak...

It's big time for someone to state the truth. This impostor is a voyeur, a brat locked in an old man's body. His abundance of nude scenes have no artistic legitimacy whatsoever. It is 100% visual perversion: he gets his kicks by making the actors strip in the buff and look at their willies. And if he does this in front of the audience, he might eve get a hard-on! Did you know that, on the set of "Niki Ardelean", he used to embarrass poor Coca Bloss, by telling her: "Oh, Coca, how I wanna f*** you!"? She is a great lady, very decent and sensitive, and she became unspeakably ashamed - to his petty satisfaction! And, as a worrying alarm signal about the degree of vulgarity and lack of education in Romanian audiences, so many people are still so foolish to declare these visual obscenities "works of art"! Will anyone have ever the decency to expose the truth of it all?


Terminus Paradis was exceptional, but "Niki ardelean" comes too late. We already have enough of this and we want something new.

Big directors should have no problems seeing beyond their time, not behind. Why people see Romania only as a postrevolutionary country?

We are just born not reincarnated, and nobody gives a s**t anymore about old times. Most people dont remember or dont want to remember, and the new generation of movie consumers dont understand a bit. This should be the first day of romanian movie not the final song - priveghi! Maybe younger directors should make the move.


this movie begins with an ordinary funeral... and it insists so hard on this ordinary funeral feel that i lost interest within 5 minutes of watching, and started skipping scenes. it seems to me whomever made this movie is afflicted to the extent of becoming trapped in a permanent morbid trance, unable to contemplate anything else but death and destruction. well, i ain't one of the dark kids from Southpark, i want a movie that within 10 minutes gets me well into an interesting story, i won't sit and watch 10 minutes of nothing but preparations for a funeral.. my grandma on her last years was fascinated by funerals, perhaps she might have enjoyed this "movie".


I saw this movie twice. I can't believe Pintilie made such a fantasy movie. I'm also a movie/theatre director and I know what I speak. This is not Romania anymore, but I see the events are happening in the same period with the incident from 11 September. No story, no plot, nothing. No conclusion, no message, nothing profound, nothing hidden. Just empty images.

What most of Romanians don't know, this movie is for the french viewers, not for us. They really believe that is the reality in Romania. Also for teenagers. Pintilie should stop making movies. I don't really know if we can call this a movie, maybe a horror :) And we wonder why we've got such an image in Europe. This WAS a reality, but isn't anymore. A good friend of mine from the Brithish embassy said: "You have no idea what a long way Romanian people walked from Ceausescu".


I find it rather useless to comment on this "movie" for the simplest reason that it has nothing to comment upon.It's similar to a rotten egg which has nothing good to show to the world excerpt for the fact that it is rotten as other endless number of eggs have been before it. But since a comment is mandatory for such a grandiose insignificance ...

Filth is definitely the proper word to describe this movie created in the same manner as any other Romanian "movie" directed by Lucian Pintilie who insists to depict the so called "Romanian reality" following the Communist era (1990 to present days).

Under no circumstances recommended for people outside Romania as for the others (who lately find amateurish camera, lack of plot, lack of directorial / actors's quality etc, noise etc. as being trendy and even art-like) : watch & enjoy this "movie" (as I know you will) but do the other well intentioned IMDb members a favor, don't write an online review for it will misguide, irritate and in the end waste their time.

On the other hand this movie (among others) has some value whatsoever, an educational one for it sets the example for : "How NOT to make a movie."


It's very sad that Lucian Pintilie does not stop making movies. They get worse every time. Niki and Flo (2003) is a depressing stab at the camera. It's unfortunate that from the many movies that are made yearly in Romania , the worst of them get to be sent abroad ( e.g. Chicago International Film Festival). This movie without a plot , acting or script is a waste of time and money. Score: 0.02 out of 10.


Was there a single positive to this film? Critics who knew nothing of video games could spot the gaming errors made. No damage taken with damage clearly visible towards the beginning being a primary example.

And I may have missed something, but wasn't Super Mario Bros. 3 suppose to be a game that had never played before? Well if that IS the case, and I did not miss anything... how did Fred Savage's character, and even the girl, know so much about the game already? We're talking things that some people don't know about by their second or third play-through.

Beyond the factual and gaming errors there is the general low quality of the film itself. Nothing here is honestly very memorable. The kid wasn't even that good at playing video games in the footage they showed. A lot of kids I knew way back in those days were significantly more experienced. On top of all this the acting and storyline are just mediocre at their strongest points. The characters are bland and completely uninteresting, the 'Wizard' (the youngest child) is a very silent, completely dry child cliché of a little kid who almost never talks because of a trauma. It isn't that this is unrealistic, it's the fact that it had to be thrown into the movie to actually even begin to form a plot that would exceed even 30 minutes.

Honestly, the only value that is to be found here is that of a nostalgic nature. If you grew up with this movie you're going to like it whether it was good or not. It was about kids playing video games, and at the time you saw it you likely had an obsession with the NES as well. But unless you loved it as a kid there just isn't anything that's going to keep you interested, and very little that will prevent you from turning it off.

No sir, I didn't like it.


This is a review of The Wizard, not to be confused with The Wiz, or Mr. Wizard. The Wizard is a late-eighties film about a seriously silent boy's ability to play video games and walk during the entire opening credits. The Wiz is an unnecessary update of The Wizard of Oz, and Mr. Wizard is that guy that attached 100 straws together and had some kid drink tang out of it.

Now that we've gotten all that out of the way, let me say this: there's really no reason to see this movie. It's simply a 100 minute Nintendo commercial designed to capitalize on the Powerglove, the Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Brothers 3. I use the word "designed" in the loosest sense possible, because it seems like this movie was written over a weekend by a crack team of people who had never played Nintendo, and directed by a man with less sense of style than my grandmother. Maybe if the writer and director sat down and actually played some games together, they'd realize that they were about to film total rubbish and instead go to vocational school to learn how to install car stereos.

I hope that this has been an enlightening experience for you. It sure hasn't been for me. In fact, I think I might have lost a few braincells in the act of watching this movie and writing about it. Next time you're at the video store and you see the The Wiz, The Wizard and The Wizard of Oz all sitting there on the shelf in a pretty little row, give them all a miss and play Duck Hunt instead.


What a great actor to have in such an awful story...

The film and its production, however, is quite good, even though set in London but with exteriors in Bristol. No matter  see one cathedral, you've seen 'em all, sort of.

The story however...is about a man born with the power to wreak death and destruction upon anybody and anything, should he so wish. With just a passing reference to true life instances of telekinesis, the narrative builds a picture of a man misused and misjudged as a boy, a teenager and finally as a man; so much so, in fact, that he exacts vengeance at will, literally. Over time, he comes to the conclusion that the whole world is heading the wrong way and thus sets out to destroy the lot  just by thinking about it!

The trouble with the narrative, however, is that it tries to mix genuine scientific data about strange mental powers and merge it all with quasi-religious claptrap to produce a hodge-podge theory about it all. Mixing fact and fantasy in this fashion rarely works  and I'm afraid Richard Burton had to overact awfully on some occasions when trying to sound convincing. His very best scene, however, is when he gave his wife and her lover a verbal pasting as they left his home: sharp, witty and deadly dialog, delivered as only Burton could.

A good supporting cast helps to make things look and sound a lot better, though, beginning with Lino Ventura, whom I last saw in Garde A Vu (1981), as Inspector Brunel; Harry Andrews as Assistant Commissioner; the much under-rated Lee Remick as Dr Zonfeld; Derek Jacobi as a publisher, Towney, and a few other well known character actors.

I liked the way the story was presented, as flashback within flashback to fill in the back story and thus solve the immediate mystery of the attempted murder of Morlar (Richard Burton), the writer with the killer disposition. Up till that point, it was a good piece of visual detective work by Brunel and his English sidekick. Still, it was very predictable as it became quickly very obvious to me about the identity of the would-be murderer.

Then, they went and spoilt it all in the last fifteen minutes. If you want a clue about what that is, think Samson and Delilah (1949), from the illustrious Cecil B. de Mille, and how Samson got the bad guys in the end. And, the very last scene is just plain stupid. Why? Because there are at least a hundred ways that Morlar's rampaging could have been stopped, absolutely.

Shame, actually, because this could have been a lot better story and movie. I guess Burton really needed the money.

If you're Burton fan, then spend the time to see that scene I mentioned above. Otherwise, don't bother.


If 1977's "Exorcist II: The Heretic" did him no favors, it's hard to imagine what thespian extraordinaire Richard Burton saw in this drab exercise in non-thrills. You've seen it all before: Burton plays a writer who discovered at an early age he possesses the power to move inanimate objects through force of his mind (and you thought "Carrie" had no impact on Hollywood!). Though adapted from a novel by Peter Van Greenaway, "Medusa" plays like recycled goods, though the special effects in the cathedral finale are solid (if typical). Lee Remick is somewhat present as a doctor, but otherwise the supporting cast is extremely weak. Burton is hammy but weary...not even telekinesis could save him at this point. *1/2 from ****


It was pointed out in a now deleted post from another IMDb user that anyone who might see "The Medusa Touch" should be warned about a scene that's eerily reminiscent of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in NYC. But I hope anyone reading this will consider this warning. Despite an interesting pedigree (producer Elliott Kastner produced "Harper" and "The Long Goodbye"; co-producer Arnon Milchan co-produced the Oscar-nominated "L.A. Confidential" and screenwriter John Briley won an Oscar for "Gandhi") and an international cast, I found "The Medusa Touch" to be a heavy-handed, unintentional laugh riot. It was a poorly directed, horribly written and acted mess. It tried to capitalize on the 70s telekinetic thrillers genre. The movie fails on many counts. Please consider "Carrie" and the underrated "The Fury" (both directed by Brian DePalma). They were two entertaining and exciting thrillers that dealt with the same subject matter.


The Last Station, director Michael Hoffman's melodrama about the last months in the life of Leo Tolstoy, begins with fog and sleep. Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) lives with his family in a compound at Yasnaya Polyana, taking walks and writing and being seen to by his wife and the adherents to his "movement", people dedicated to his ideas of pacifism, vegetarianism, sexual abstinence and communal property who have gathered in a forest camp not far away. His wife, Sophia (Helen Mirren) wars openly with the head of his movement Chertkov (Paul Giamatti), who she claims in his efforts to convince Tolstoy to sign the rights to his works over to the Russian people is trying to steal the wealth that is owed to her upon her husbands imminent death. Observing all of this is Tolstoy's new steward, Bulgakov (James McAvoy), a naive adherent who is torn between his love of the man and concern for his wife.

Hoffman's script, which is based on the novel by Jay Parini, quite often veers itself into confused territory, building up a complex tangle of threads and opaque motivations that ultimately don't resolve themselves in any satisfying way. The scope of the film is grand, and its story should reverberate just as Tolstoy, whose beliefs foreshadowed in some ways both the Bolsheviks' and those of pacifists like Ghandi. It unfortunately doesn't, it's un-unpickable, building up with much gusto confrontations that are constantly ravelling off into nothingness. The three-way relationship between the Church, the faithful Sophia and the unbelieving Tolstoy, for example, is referenced often. In the last section of the film a mute priest in a magnificent hat even shows up, but the script never expands on this beyond awkwardly inserting it into the story as an attempt at enriching it or providing some semblance of historical accuracy. There are a ton of details in the film, but not enough attention is paid to most of them and as a result the film feels cluttered, overburdened, energetic but unfortunately pointless.

At its heart is the love story between Sophia and Tolstoy, and that story, as baffling and cramped as it is, is the reason to watch the film. Mirren and Plummer are, unsurprisingly, the best things in the film. Plummer's Tolstoy is vague, at once confused and resolute, apprehensive and full of joy and certainty. Mirren's Sophia is in full panic, in a righteous lather, forced to watch and expected to be mute as her husband gives away his time, his possessions and his money to people who are unquestionably devoted to him but also clearly in possession of their own agendas. They're great performances, all the more so given the vast gulf between the real importance of the couple's place in history and the script's ability to support that, both Sophia and Tolstoy seem willed into the film by Mirren and Plummer alone, both making the best they can out of what meagre material is there. Giammati and McAvoy, both talented actors, are unable to do the same and Giamatti's Chertkov seems neither a revolutionary nor a thief (and not both at once, either) but rather a cipher, a stand-in for a whole package of unresolved anxieties and aborted historical impulses. The scope of this thing never boils down to anything, it hitches along, getting by on the strength of Plummer and Mirren and not much else. It's interesting and pretty, but ultimately unrewarding. 4.5/10


The animation was good, the imagery was good, although not totally original, however, the story was too long, way too confusing, and over the top dramatic. After about an hour I couldn't wait to get it over with. With so many characters that have nothing to contribute and plot elements that either come from nowhere or go nowhere this movie really wasn't one movie at all and would have been better of as a short series or possibly two movies. If you like this kind of typical story maybe you will like it, but frankly, I've been spoiled by much more creative stories that actually have some sort message to tell. Go rent a Miyazaki film and watch it twice, you'll get way more out of it.


I saw this movie two weeks ago at the "festival des nouvelles images du Japon" in Paris. Though i wasn't expecting much from it, i have to say i've been disappointed just like many people in the audience... if i wanted to sum up how i felt, i'd say i've been comparing it to princess mononoke and nausicaa from the beginning to the end. Of course it's silly. But i couldn't help it. The stories are quite different, but the worlds pictured are very much alike. And from this point of view, "a tree of palme" definitely can't stand the comparison with Miyazaki's masterworks. Even if it's quite good technically, boredom remains... in the end its complete lack of originality makes me advise you not to care to watch it. I rated it 2 out of 10 (a bit harsh, i guess it deserves 3 or 4)


The teasers for Tree of Palme try to pass it off as a sort of allegory for a fairy tale with actual meaning, then immediately start raving about the animation. I should have known what that meant.

The main character, Palme, is a good example of the whole movie's problem. One minute, Palme is a humble hero in search of himself, the next a violent psycho with an unhealthy fixation on a girl he once took care of.

Like all of the characters in the movie, Palme is poorly defined. You do not bond with the characters at all, although Shatta has acquired a couple of fan girls. It seems that the writer was more interested in cramming all the drama and complexity he could into this movie than actually exploring his characters' motivations and personalities.

New, useless story lines were being introduced in the last fifteen minutes of the movie. The writer seriously needed to streamline his story. Perhaps he was trying to be epic, but it was simply too much information for a two-hour movie. However I can't help but wonder if a plot with so many dimensions and characters would have been better suited for a TV series or graphic novel.

In the last five minutes of the movie, I simply could not endure the sheer lack of quality any longer and began laughing at how contrived the characters, the relationships, and the whole plot was. I touched my companion and he started cracking up too, as did a young man seated behind us. We tried so hard to control ourselves, but we simply could not take the terrible quality of this movie.

On the bright side, the animation is incredible and viewers will find themselves admiring the lush backgrounds and charming character designs. The animation almost guides you; when you don't care about the characters, it tells you how to feel.


And a self-admitted one to boot. At one point the doctor's assistant refers to himself as Igor.

Working with the increasingly plausible idea that computers could be used to replace or reconstruct brain functions, this movie doesn't spend enough time exploring the premise. Most of the screen time is split between girlfriend-in-a-coma domestic strife and chasing down the brain donor's killer. It attempts to be a sci-fi/drama/thriller but fails to deliver on any of the three.

As a Frankenstein remake this one is missing everything that made the original good. Nobody calls the doctor insane or even threatens to kick him out of the hospital. The transformation scene consists of a coma victim opening one eye and the amazing computer that makes it happen isn't even shown. When the experiment works there is no praise, and when it starts going wrong there is little reaction.

Any suspense over who the killer might be is shattered by progressively showing him in the same room with all of the possible suspects. Finding the killer is as easy as opening one file and interviewing one person.

San Francisco as a setting is both overplayed and underused. The opening sequence hammers home the point that this is happening in SF, a cable car plays a significant role, the leads live in a hilltop Victorian, Pier 39 makes an appearance, and the final showdown happens at Golden Gate Park. More specifically along ten feet of cliff side at the park - just enough to keep the bridge in the picture at all times. Once the obvious scenery bases are rounded no other attempt is made to explore the city.

The acting is the only saving grace here. Keir Dullea shows a good range and pulls off a couple of genuinely emotional scenes. Suzanna Love portrays recovery from a coma well. Tony Curtis only gets a handful of lines and twice as many evil guy stares with most of the Frankenscience explained away by his assistant. The little blond kid hits his cues fairly well also.

I also gave it one extra star for the scene where the husband drives south from the bridge, it cuts to a U-turn in an unrelated parking lot, and then he's instantly back on the bridge driving north. It takes a whole lot of something - bravery, ignorance, deadlines - to try and slip that one by the viewer during the one single car chase.


I can't even believe that this show lasted as long as it did. I guess it's all part of the dumbing down of America. Personally, like David Spade said, I liked this show better when it went by its original title - "Seinfeld". What bothers me the most about this show, aside from the obvious, base sense of "humor", and general smuttiness, is the pretentious way the episodes are titled. Truly great shows are still funny after many, repeated viewings, like, "the one where Rob gets accidentally hypnotized", on the "Dick Van Dyke Show", or "the one where Lucy and Ethel work at the candy factory." In other words, it's an honor bestowed upon great programs by the viewers. That the writers and producers of "Friends" would have the unmitigated hubris to actually title the episodes, themselves, in such a fashion, before anyone's even had a chance to even see it a second time, speaks to not only the mediocrity and lack of original thinking on the part of said writers, but, also, of the stultified minds of their viewers.

You read the comments of some of these people and can only come to the conclusion that they live in a Hallmark Card-like Neverland, full of greeting card sentiment. The true meaning of friendship? I want to be a friend? I want to live in Manhattan? Wake Up. These people are supposed to be working in coffee shops and looking for work as actors, but they somehow manage to live in $4000/mo. apartments? Get real. All I have to say to those amongst us that want to move to Manhattan and live the idyllic New York life with your Rosses and Monicas, good luck with all of that. That New York doesn't exist for anyone making less than a serious six-figure income. But, good luck with all of that, anyway. Now, shut-up and pass the Soma.


TV does influence society...just look at the surge in popularity of cappucino shops after this shallow little piece of work debuted. Besides, real people who look as good as these people do don't have any problems.

Besides, does anyone really believe that these people can afford to live in a nice Manhattan loft considering what they do for a living? NBC just loves to insult the viewer's intelligence, even if they're just around Gump's level. I know a person who makes $100,000 a year as a web designer and lives in a tiny one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan that costs $2200 a month in rent.

I'd like to see a show called Phriends, where it's six ugly nobodies in dead-end jobs, living in a crummy neighborhood where sirens constantly wail and someone gets mugged every week...and then the landlord jacks up the rent. Now THAT I would watch.


I have a severe problem with this show, several actually. A simple list will suffice for now, I'll go into more depth later on: superficial characters, a laugh-track and boring humour.

If you don't wish to look at the rest of this review and are only reading it so you can feel superior (as if you see anything in this show I didn't) to a frequently irked teen from Canada I'll summarize: Friends sucks, not only because it is unfunny but because it destroyed the TV audiences for new, good shows (Arrested Development, Dexter etc.). Friends is as much to blame for reality TV, "Two And A Half Men" and "The King Of Queens" as the television executives. Now then, on with the review.

These characters have no soul, they are exactly the same in every way (outside of gender and hair colour). They react the same way in boring situations and are completely secure in their own bodies. Where is the conflict and the humour that comes with it? Why isn't Rachel storming out on Monica after Monica starts hanging out with Rachel's enemy? Why doesn't Joey contemplate suicide because nobody seems to take him seriously? Oh right, cause he's the dumb one and he's comfortable with that. This is the curse of having perfect characters: lasting conflict and (god forbid) personality becomes an impossibility.

The laugh-track is the one thing that should have died out right after it was born. Any show that has one is almost certainly the opposite of funny. How can I make such a broad generalization? When a show that claims to be "comedy" requires laughter from someone BESIDES THE AUDIENCE it must mean that the audience would not laugh without it. Laughtracks destroy humour by preventing quick comebacks. Humour becomes a construct rather than a free flowing entity (see The Office, Arrested Development).

This leads to my next point: the humour is boring. There is no way to make a perfect character anything more than slightly humorous (without a laugh-track apparently) simply because our everyday humour comes from recognition of our flaws. So what if Monica dated a 17 year old? She immediately recognizes that what she is doing isn't right and breaks up with him. There has to be some sort of conflict rather than an immediate solution. Maybe her mother finds out or one of her friends tries to get rid of him and ends up seducing him. That would be great, it would be like a custody battle! So now I've provided evidence for my position. Many of my friends love this show because they haven't heard of Curb Your Enthusiasm or Arrested Development, many of my friends hate this show because they recently started watching Curb Your Enthusiasm or Arrested Development.

I have watched very little of "Friends" in my life, but I have watched enough to spot huge flaws that make the show, in my opinion, completely unwatchable. If you've read this far, thank you, and I hope you at least start watching some of the shows I have mentioned.


I am stunned to discover the amount of fans this show has. Haven't said that Friends was, at best an 'average' sitcom, and not as great as others have made out. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the casting of Courtney Cox Arquette, David Schwimmer, Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston and Matt Le Blanc, then who knows whether this show would've lasted as long as it has done. I very much doubt that. Although as the series progressed, Friends got more progressively predictable, lame and boring that I couldn't care less about the characters- of whom are the most overrated in TV history- or of their plight, nor of who was sleeping with whom. And it went from being funny in the first four seasons to occasionally funny. And even when it had all these A-list Hollywood actors from the movie world, I still didn't bother to tune in. The writing in Friends became stale that I lost interest in this show from the sixth season onwards and as for the ending, well it was predictable to say the least.

What was annoying though was that this lasted for ten seasons, whilst some of my favourite shows lasted for only three, four seasons for instance and were eventually cancelled and taken off the air for good. The show should've came to an immediate halt by the time the cast wanted bigger salaries. In truth, as much as the series waned, it was the show that was bigger than the actors themselves, not the other way round.

When it ended in 2004, I was so relieved to see the back of this sitcom. Now, there is talk of a friends reunion show coming to our TV screens very soon. And yet, I for one will not be looking forward to it whatsoever.


It is quite simple. Friends is a comedy of very basic humour aimed at teenagers and young adults, with unsophisticated sense of humour.

It is also painfully obvious that towards the end, they were desperately trying to make it last 10 seasons, most likely so they could say they beat Seinfeld's 9 season run. The trouble with this is, Seinfeld had 9 amazing seasons with great writing, Friends had (and I'm being very generous here) at most 5 or 6 OK seasons and then 4 abysmal seasons.

It became a soap opera with recycled humour and recycled character traits that weren't that good so start with, then got worse at the 100th time you saw them. I find it so hard to understand why people rate this so highly. It is truly awful.


This is the worst show. Buntch of grown up acting like kids no humor nothing. Even Sesame Street has better humor and more adult than friends "Friends" may be the worst thing I've ever seen on television and I've been sitting in front of the tube observing Friends" simply does not stack up well to other, contemporary series. It lacks the smartness of "Seinfeld" and the wonderful self-ridicule of pomposity that is the hallmark of "Frasier". The characters in "Friends" seem designed to make them repellant dullards. This incestuous group of neighbors makes my flesh crawl.

The unintelligent show is completely without an edge of any sort. The characters are caricatures of caricatures and the writing is sophomoric -- though intentionally so. (It might be interesting to observe a writing session since the writers may have to slave to aim lower than their capabilities so as not to confuse the loyal friends of "Friends".)


This movie is just plain bad. Weak story , weak directing and below average acting. The thing that really irritated me was the blatant advertising - constantly - for a well known internet provider. It is obvious some scenes are written to do just that , advertising. This movie is a slap in the face to anyone who payed money for this.

Do not watch this, it not worth your time.


I don't believe they made this film. Completely unnecessary. The first film was okay. But there was no need for a sequel, certainly not after a television series that was already a sequel to the first film. This film feels like a soap-opera. The writing is so bad, it's utterly simple. The jokes don't come across, the acting is flat, it's shot like a soap, it lacks any direction. The first film had a good emotional spine behind it. Every character had a little arc. It was very simple then but somehow it worked and I could see the merit of that film. But this time around, there is no cohesive story-line. The characters are dull stereotypes and nothing interesting happens. One good thing: the Brazilian boy who plays Axel Daeseleire's son is pretty well cast. That was their one moment of creative success on this film. I hear they already shot a second television series as a sequel to 'Team Spirit 2' but please God, don't let them make a third feature installment...


Awful movie. It's a shame that a few of Flanders's top actors and actresses made such a lamentably poor film.

There is barely something changed since the first movie and the TV series: same actors, same prototype characters, same scenario (emotional complications, the team under emotional pressure but everything turn out tip-top after a predictable grand finale). Another constant fact in the work of Jan Verheyen is the exaggerated product placement (company logo's on the team's shirt and along side the pitch OK but two times a commercial (by one of the characters) about an internet provider is just over the top.

Meanwhile, rumour has it about the making of a second series for Flanders commercial TV station 'VTM' (coincidental or not, the station where Jan Verheyen is programmation manager since a few months)

To conclude ... and the golden raspberry award for worst foreign movie goes to ... Team Spirit 2


This movie is bizarre. Better put, it's "freakin' weird". I could give you a plot summary, or some hoity toity analysis, but I would consider it a waste of your time. All anybody needs to know about this movie is two young sisters, one incestuous relationship, homicide, post mortem mutilation, and one really disturbing infatuation. At the end of the movie you feel like you need to go take a shower to wash the filth off yourself, but not in a good way like after "Pulp Fiction" or "Fight Club". It's like you're a teenager (or high schooler being that i am myself still a teenager)and have just done something you A: wish you hadn't done, and B: hope to the Good Lord of Heaven and Earth that your parents never find out about. And nobody likes that. My advise is that rather than defiling your mind and by watching piece of wanton cinematic filth, just go waste your time on something a little less horrible and watch "Kazaam"(yes, I would rather watch "Kazaam" than "Murderous Maids", read into it what you want).


Anurag Basu who co-directed the flop KUCCH TO HAI made his debut in this film

The film was ahead of it's times in a way though it has a story not to different and it came closest to HAWAS which released 1 week before and luckily this was better and did a better business

The movie starts off well, Malika's guilt is well shown at the start though the scene with Emraan- Malika is too crude/vulgar

The scenes between Emraan and Malika are well handled and the twist in the tale where Ashmith confronts Emraan is brilliant

The pace moves fast and the viewer is kept on the edge but the second girlfriend track of Emraan isn't fully convincing

Also the cop track seems half baked

The finale is too filmy too

Direction by Anurag Basu is good Music is a winner, all songs were fab Camera-work was stunning

Emraan played his naughty streak very well, this was the role that gave him stardom and though he kept playing such roles and got annoying in this film he was superb Ashmith too was good in his role for once, He did a nice job and one of his only good performance and he looked good too Malika was brilliant in her role esp in the second half but her dial delivery was at times not up to the mark Sadly rarely she showed such potential in other films Raj Jhutsi is okay


This movie is a perfect adaptation of the English Flick Unfaithful. Ashmit plays the role of Richard Gere, Emran that of Olivier and Malikka the perfect cheating wife role of Lane.They have changed the second half of the film to adapt for the Indian masses.

Even then the movie has got the full traces of Unfaithful, though it couldn't catch up with the original. It was a cheap soft porn of the Bollywood lovers, where Mallika showed a lot more skin than anyone dared to show. Emran did more roles like this and was even nicknamed the serial killer. In the future if the Indian Directors plan to remake a English movie then they have to look into the feasibility of the plot with the Indian Censors. Though the film bombed at the box office, the actors got the undue recognition. In future the directors should be a little more careful in remaking a Oscar nominated film.

All said, this is not a family film, so take the extra caution while watching it at home with family.


If you want to see a movie about two utterly unsympathetic characters, this is the one. The acting is superb, both from John Cassavetes as the insane paranoid whom, as the saying goes, they REALLY ARE out to get, and from Peter Falk as his lifelong best friend to whom he turns for rescue. Big mistake, but since they're both amoral mobsters, and misogynistic bastards to boot, it's hard to decide whom to root for LESS. Only writer/director Elaine May could have gotten away with this one. I thought it interesting that in a lengthy interview with producer Michael Hausman included on the DVD, he disclosed that the two stars had "very different ideas" about the script, that the director was nearly impossible to work with, that the director of photography had impossible demands made of him, that the crew was constantly angry about being made to sit around waiting, and so on. This mood of one big VERY dysfunctional family comes across clearly on the screen.


(When will I ever learn-?) The ecstatic reviewer on NPR made me think this turkey was another Citizen Kane. Please allow me to vent my spleen...

I will admit: the setting, presumably New York City, has never been so downright ugly and unappealing. I am reminded that the 70's was a bad decade for men's fashion and automobiles. And all the smoking-! If the plan was to cheapen the characters, it succeeded.

For a film to work (at least, in my simple estimation), there has to be at least ONE sympathetic character. Only Ned Beaty came close, and I could not wait for him to finish off Nicky. If a stray shot had struck Mikey, well, it may have elicited a shrug of indifference at the most.

I can't remember when I detested a film as strongly. I suppose I'm a rube who doesn't dig "art" flicks. Oh, well.


Very outdated film with awful, cliché-ridden and mawkish dialog and a very poor construction. In addition, Cassavetes and Falk overact constantly. A pseudo "good movie". It takes no time to discover how catastrophic this intellectual turkey is. The first scene is a total bore, filled with histrionics and hysteric exchanges. The sound is horrible. Camera movements are without imagination as is the building of characters. No poetry, no subtle psychology, no interesting shots. The actors smoke constantly and we see ads for beer beverages. Very cheap, indeed. (one exception : Ned Beattie"s nice and simple way of playing the hit man).


***SPOILERS*** Let's start with the "good" of this film--the serviceable acting of Cynthia Rothrock and Richard Norton. The rest of the acting is awful (this isn't aided by the atrocious script). The worst culprit is the villain, Buntao, the head of an Asian crime syndicate (played by Frans Tumbuan). I was laughing my head off as he was expressing his "fury" over having lost a bunch of money; horrid performance. Patrick Muldoon isn't much better, and his "it's a hostile takeover" line (that's the remainder of the title of this film) was delivered about as badly as one could do it. There are no other main characters, but no other actor/actress distinguished him/herself in this film. We next come to the plot. This should tell you all you need to know: In the original "Rage and Honor," Cynthia Rothrock, who plays Chris Fairchild, was a teacher in the inner city. Now, she's a C.I.A. agent (or was it some other governmental agency--sorry, but this film was so bad that I don't even remember). Hmmm...I can imagine what that C.I.A. application process was like. Interviewer: What past job experience do you have? Chris: I was a teacher. Interviewer: Okay; you're hired! I only give it a "2" because of some decent acting and a nice plot twist at the end (though we know that Tommy (Muldoon), the secret villain, will be caught).


Two years ago at Sundance I loved Josh Kornbluth's directing debut-Haiku Tunnel. So I was looking forward to his brother (and frequent collaborator) Jacob's, The Best Thief in the World. This is a drama about a seemingly good kid growing up in a lower-class area of New York. The movie is not without its poignant moments. But at times it is as if Kornbluth is working way too hard to state the obvious: Life can be very difficult for some people. And life isn't fair.

More subtle, and more important, is our understanding that despite all of these somewhat abhorrent cultural underpinnings and the anti-social behavior they may spawn, these characters have no shortage of goodness and humanity. We can recoil at their language and their living conditions, but we are cannot discount their intent. And in fact, their struggles to maintain a family under such adversity has a certain nobility that most of us can barely appreciate. Kornbluth grew up in this neighborhood, and his compassion for the people is evident throughout.

Having said all this, The Best Thief in the World suffers from many painful flaws (including the title). The characters aren't very believable. The writing is uneven. And the plot-line is barely discernible. And for many the most disturbing is that Kornbluth uses two young black boys mimicking gangsta rap between scenes. To each his own: But while I don't question the potential realism of this phenomenon, it pains me to see 5-year-old children mf'ing and talking about having sex with a line-up of women. It's unnecessary shock value and is a forced bit of borrowed interest.


We know that firefighters and rescue workers are heroes: an idée reçue few would challenge. Friends and family of these and others who perished in the attacks on the World Trade Center might well be moved by this vapid play turned film. A sweet, earnest, though tongue-tied fireman recalls what he can of lost colleagues to a benumbed journalist who converts his fragments into a eulogy. They ponder the results. He mumbles some more, she composes another eulogy, etc., etc.

The dreadful events that provoked the need for several thousand eulogies is overwhelmingly sad, but this plodding insipid dramatization is distressingly boring.


I read one other review that expressed the view that Platoon was a never ending cycle of marines killing people, being killed, taking drugs and talking trash.

I don't agree with that because the film actually had more to it, but it a way, I can see what this person is trying to say: this had no real plot - which is a point i agree with.

It is self-indulgent Stone at his best. He really wanted to show, not only how war leads to death, but also how it is extremely traumatic on those who survive. Unfortunately, the film seems to over "glorify" this aspect and the grand finale is just way too champagne, grand-standing, Oscar-hunting "let's create an enduring image" for my liking.

The problem I have with Stone and other film-makers of his ilk is that they fail to understand this simply concept: depicting the terribly bloody deadly waste that war is DOES NOT PROVE OR EVEN REFLECT ON WHETHER it was an unjust or immoral war. We have seen the same thing emerge at the moment with Iraq. In case you're missing the point, let me put it to you bluntly: if you saw how truly bloody the second world war was and how destructive it was on the lives of the surviving soldiers, would you think it was an unjust war? If that fact alone doesn't convince you that it was an unjust war, then why should depictions of the horrors of Vietnam convince you that it was wrong to go to war in that instance.

Personally, I do not support America's decision to go to war in Vietnam, but i certainly don't subscribe to the "this war is wrong because people died and suffered" theory. I don't think that motivations are always wrong by default, just because war in itself is terrible.

This says nothing of the fact that the ending or the final big "twist" was a bit stupid. However, this is not Stones first oddball departure. Wall street was a magnificent film, up until the last 30 minutes or so when it made a dreadful "wrong turn." JFK is probably one of the few films Stone did that actually ended very well.

But it hardly matters in this one because there was very little plot up until that point of the film to twist around. And this is why i gave it such a low mark. It was virtually story-less and ultimately boring - unless you fell for the manufactured poignancy.


Platoon is to the Vietnam War as Rocky IV is to heavyweight championship boxing. Oliver Stone's story of the experience of a US Army platoon in Vietnam in 1968 is so overdone it's laughable. While most or all of the occurrences in Platoon did occur over the 10+ year span of US military involvement in Vietnam, to portray these things happening to one small group of men in such a short time frame (weeks) gives a horribly skewed picture of the war. In Platoon, the men of the platoon see all of the following in the course of a week or two: US soldiers murdering civilians, US Soldiers raping civilians, a US Sergeant murdering another US Sergeant, a US Private murdering a US Staff Sergeant, US soldiers killed/wounded by friendly fire, 90%+ killed or wounded in the platoon. For Stone to try to pass this film off as the typical experience of a US soldier in Vietnam is a disgrace. Two Vietnam War films I would recommend are We Were Soldiers (the TRUE story of arguably the worst battle for US soldiers in Vietnam) and HBO's A Bright Shining Lie.


I'm both amused and disgusted by the people who claim that this movie is so accurate about Vietnam, and WERE NEVER THERE. This movie is about as true about the whole Vietnam war as the Rodney King beating is true about ALL police officers. Yes, bad things do (and did) happen, but in general the people there are just like you and me. They have morals, they are not killing machines, they do not all do drugs. Atrocities were the exception in Vietnam, not the rule. They happened far more infrequently than the "hype" would lead you believe. Oliver Stone has a knack for making movies that show the Vietnam war as this brutal bloodbath, but are based as much in reality as Star Wars. If you honestly believe the stereotypes of Vietnam, do yourself a favour and learn the truth. Fact: the Viet Cong and NVA did far worse things to the South Vietnamese than ANY soldier in the US Armed Forces ever did. Fact: the soldiers in World War II treated the enemy far worse in general than the soldiers in Vietnam did, and they were WELCOMED when they came home. The fine Americans who served this country in Vietnam deserve our respect; though the war was badly fought from a political standpoint, no one could have asked for more from our soldiers, and it is a great disservice to assert that this kind of "mostly true" fiction is the way things really were there.


Oh my, this was the worst reunion movie I have ever seen. (That is saying a lot.) I am ashamed of watching.

What happened in the script meetings? "Ooooooh, I know! Let's have two stud muffins fall madly in love with the Most-Annoying-Character-Since-Cousin-Oliver." "Yeah, that'll be cool!"

Even for sitcoms, this was the most implausible plot since Ron Popeil starting spray painting bald men.


A group of us watched this film are were really disgusted. We were willing to forgive the fact that our favorite character Jo wasn't on (it's not like the writers/producers could do anything about that). The writing was poor, the script was sub-par. What REALLY annoyed us: 1. When the two guys realized they were both dating Natalie, they didn't just leave they put up with that stupid (and ultimately degrading) contest - but only because they were macho competing guys, not because they really wanted Natalie. 2. Despite being unable to choose between the two guys before the reunion, Natalie suddenly decides that she really loves one of the guys and is now ready to marry him? (and there was no foreshadowing that he was really a better guy, it's as if the writers flipped a coin and then just had her spit it out at some convenient point in the film). 3. Blair makes a point of talking about how she does not want children and then all of a sudden when her husband says he wants to have children, she blissfully agrees with him.


I tried. I really did. I thought that maybe, if I gave Joao Pedro Rodrigues another chance, I could enjoy his movie. I know that after seeing O FANTASMA I felt ill and nearly disgusted to the core, but some of the reviews were quite good and in favor, so I was like, "What the hell. At least you didn't pay 10 dollars at the Quad. Give it a shot."

Sometimes it's better to go to your dentist and ask for a root canal without any previous anesthetic to alleviate the horror of so much pain. I often wonder if it wouldn't be better to go back to my childhood and demand my former bullies to really let me have it. On other occasions, I often think that the world is really flat and that if I sail away far enough, I will not only get away from it all, but fall clear over, and that some evil, Lovecraftian thing will snatch me with its 9000 tentacles and squeeze the life -- and some french fries from 1995, still lingering inside my esophagus -- out of me.

Is there a reason for Odete? I'd say not at all... just that maybe her Creator thought that writing a story centered on her madness (one that makes Alex Forrest look like Strawberry Shortcake) look not only creepy, but flat-out sick to the bone. She first of all decides to leave her present boyfriend (in shrieking hysterics) because she wants a child and he believes they're too young. She later crashes a funeral of a gay man, and -- get this -- in order to get closer to him, she feigns being pregnant while insinuating herself into the lives of the dead man's mother and lover in the sickest of ways. Oh, of course, she shrieks like a banshee and throws herself not one, but a good three times on his grave. And there's this ridiculous business that she progressively becomes "Pedro" which sums up some weak-as-bad-tea explanation that love knows no gender. Or something.

I'd say she's as nuts as a can of cashews, unsalted. But then again, so's the director. And me, for taking a chance on this. At least the men look good. Other than that... not much else to see here.


I wasn't really going to comment, but then I figured I had something to say. I saw this film two days ago and, although I think it's not a complete waste of time (it might have been of money though, for the producers), it's obvious it has serious problems. It's got really good cinematography and (little but) nice music. A lot has been said about Ana Cristina Oliveira but, let's be honest, over what? She is not really an actress an she balances permanently between over-acting and preposterous under-acting. Her performance passes for good because there has never been anyone like Odete in any other film: crazy? sad? childlike? an impostor? no one knows, fellows. So she's kinda sorta dictating the rules here.

I thought this film was also a good example of the problem most Portuguese films suffer from: soundtrack. There is a permanent NO to dubbing and the result is this usual mass of noise that comes out of the blue. People in other countries may think Portugal is the noisiest of places. What thrilled me though, was that some of the dialog was dubbed but it didn't necessarily solve the syndrome. Bad dubbing too, I must say. It's strange to watch a film in which the first thing that strikes my mind on the first scene, when the first character speaks is: it's dubbed. And all this to say that the film has technical problems.

It also has script problems. It tries to be classical from the first to the last scene. There was a desperate fear of leaving things suspended and that shows. The writer was obviously trying to get everything straight and he does but... it shows!! All dialog is too expositive and there isn't one single piece of talk that sounds like a line from a film. It's all a little raw and slightly unpleasant.

Not that the film is a total mess, I must stress. I just think the good parts are so obvious that I prefer to concentrate on the bad ones.

Direction brings little to the weak screenplay. All shots are classical and un-innovative, but their beautiful. Great work from Rui Poças, by the way.

Now, what I think was THE problem, the one that keeps people from believing this story and laugh throughout the film instead of taking it seriously: The guy who plays the guy who DIES is obviously not an actor. Actually, It's a rather important role and I can't see why non-actors are cast for such parts. This guy is neither an actor nor a good-looking man. Which means the whole film rolls down the mountain, since we never believe for one second that this gorgeous woman is obsessed with him even though he's gone, and that his hunky lover who survives is actually having a bad time getting over the loss, when all we see of this character is apathy. Too bad. The world is full of beautiful people who even happen to be nice seductive lovers. The world is full of good actors who are also cute boys and capable of causing obsessions on people after they's gone. The world is full of great films and also of not that great films. C'est la vie!


Lethargic direction ruins an otherwise compelling period story that stars the wondrous Zhang Ziyi, in an excellent role as a woman who joins an extremist group in 1928 China, just prior to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and reunites with a former lover who is now working for Japan. Every bit of drama and forward motion of the story is sucked dry by director Ye Lou's somnambulist directorial style. Characters stand still staring at each other for long minutes, saying nothing, hand-held cameras hold forever on faces showing interminable reactions way longer than they need to, edits repeat the same reaction is triple redundancy. We know nothing about the characters as the story begins and are given little new information as the story progresses, only silence and static shots of lovers who don't speak, who interaction through silent dances but share no apparent emotional intimacy. A very sleep inducing film.


Claustrophobic camera angles that do not help the movie: Too long face only shots where you most of the time get the feeling that the lower half of the film is missing (that the screen is cut off), because there seems to be important actions going on, but you cannot see them. There is anyway already too much confusion in the movie, so these viewing angles make it worse and do not contribute to artful visuals.

I like artfully made movies and unconventional camera work. I can handle deep and slow movies. But this one is trying too hard to be something artful and fails in my opinion painfully.

Nothing to get attached to, to any of the characters, because they are not worked out well enough. To work out characters more is needed, than just minute long face shots, at least with this set of script+director+actors.

I wonder whether some of the not so good acting is due to the script and director or due to the actors.

I will stay away from films both written and directed by Le You for sure in the future.

What an annoying film even for someone who would be interested in that part of history, and for someone who spent time in Shanghai.


I was looking forward to seeing this movie after reading a positive review in the New York Times. In addition, I'm also Shanghainese so there was more than just a passing interest in the subject matter. However, after watching it, I was extremely disappointed.

The movie's pace was excruciatingly slow and monotonous. The director lingered on certain scenes for much too long. There was no passion or chemistry between the lovers. There was barely any dialogue. Dialogue was sorely needed to compensate for the lack of acting. At the end of the movie, you didn't feel any compassion for the characters. This movie was lacking in everything. The script was weak, the acting was poor, and the editing was non-existent. The director tried to emulate certain noir film styles but failed miserably. A good movie is one in which captures your attention, maintains it and is successful in concluding without you feeling time has passed by. This movie felt as though it would never end. Don't waste your money on this movie.


I am a huge Ziyi Zhang fan and will go to any film to see her which is what took me to Purple Butterfly. As much as I wanted to like this movie, I have to agree with many others who have commented on it. It is very confusing and also extremely slow. Because all of the film appears to have been shot with a hand held camera, significant portions of it are out of focus.

The film has very little dialog and what there is doesn't tell you much. There are endless scenes of people just standing around smoking cigarettes or sitting in a room staring at each other with no conversation. The way the film time shifts is also very confusing and hard to follow. Even having read a number of reviews beforehand and having a general idea what the film was about, I still had a difficult time understanding what was going on.

I knew beforehand that the movie was not remotely similar to previous Ziyi Zhang starring films but was looking forward to seeing her in something different but unfortunately I was ultimately disappointed. She never smiles in this film although admittedly most of the time she doesn't have anything to smile about. I could have done without the sex scenes as they were about as sexless and without any obvious feeling between the participants as you could hope to find.


The main complaint with this film is the fact that I CAN NOT tell who is who. No racism intended, but these Asians look all the same! I can tell somewhat of the story, but heck thats about as far as it goes. The peoples identities are not a mystery, if they were a mystery I would care about them. Instead I wasn't them off the screen ASAP.

Tons of wide shots and silent emotionless faces occupy this movie. Heck is it boring, not only do I not know these people, but they are just sitting there.

The production is typical Chinese John Woo, terrible video with blotched scenes. This looks only slightly better than Andy Lau's "Fulltime Killer" (Which was a great movie.) You would think with a decent budget they could at least make it look like 90s Hollywood. I didn't know the Chinese had these art-house beatniks.


Ye Lou's film Purple Butterfly pits a secret organization (Purple Butterfly) against the Japanese forces in war torn Shanghai. Ding Hui (Zhang Ziyi) and her ex-lover Hidehiko Itami (Toru Nakamura) find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict after a chance meeting.

I agree with the reviewer from Paris. The film substitutes a convoluted, semi-historical conflict for a plot, without giving the audience a single reason to care about the characters or their causes. The sudden time shifting doesn't help matters as it appears completely unwarranted and pointless. Normally I don't mind dark movies, but the absence of light, the bone-jarringly shaky camera footage, and the generally bad film-making techniques really make this a tough film to watch and stay interested in. I also agree with the viewer from Georgia that this film "has a chaotic editing style and claustrophobic cinematography", but I don't think that helps the movie. The backdrop to the film is one of the most potent events of the 20th Century, and I don't believe you can do it any justice by editing it as if it were a Michael Bay film. The overly melodramatic moments don't add to its watchability.

The actors are all suitably melancholy. Zhang Ziyi once again shows that she has an exceptionally limited acting range as she spends the entire movie doing what she seems to do best in all her films, brooding and looking generally annoyed. However, at least she adds some variety to this role by chainsmoking and engaging in the worst love-making scene since Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton in The Terminator.

All in all, a very disappointing film, especially seeing as how it comes from the director of Suzhou He. 2/10


I read comments about this being the best Chinese movie ever. Perhaps if the only Chinese movies you've seen contained no dialogue, long drawn-out far-away stares and silences, and hack editing, then you're spot on.

Complicated story-line? Hardly. Try juvenile and amateurish. Exquisite moods and haunting memories? Hardly. Try flat-out boring and trite.

This was awful. I could not wait for it to be over. Particularly when the best lines in the movie consist of "How are you? I'm fine. Are you sure? Yes." Wow! What depth of character. I guess the incessant cigarette smoking was supposed to speak for them.

As a huge fan of many Chinese, Japanese and Korean films, I was totally disappointed in this. Even Zhang's sentimentally sappy "The Road Home" was better than this.


Rex Reed once said of a movie ("Julia and Julia" to be specific) that it looked like it was shot through pomegranate juice. I was reminded of that as I snored through Purple Butterfly. This one appeared to be shot through gauze.

The story was boring and it was not helped that for large portions of scenes actors' faces were literally out of focus or would only come into focus after extended periods of time.

Also, everyone looked the same so it was hard to distinguish among the characters. I call this the "Dead Poets Society" syndrome.

There was nobody to care about, nobody to become interested in dramatically, and the movie shed no historical light on a very interesting period of time and set of circumstances.

A total disappointment.


Did anybody succeed in getting in this movie?

It's a total mess to me: a vague historical/sentimental context instead of a plot, a pretentious imagery as mise en scene and it lasts two hours!

Shame on those who wasted money here.


Plot = Melissa is a new girl in town, she's fifteen years old and her birthday is coming up in one week. Since Melissa is beautiful, every boy in town wants to hook up with her, but the few that manage to catch her interest mysteriously die.

To be honest the real reason I wanted to watch this film is because Dana Kimmel of Friday The 13th pt 3 was in it which isn't a proper reason why to rush out and see a movie. When I started watching it I realized that "Sweet Sixteen" isn't a very good slasher, it's really dull and boring and just doesn't go anywhere. After over an hour, only three murders have occurred and the story hasn't really developed in any possible way.

The movie is nicely shot with quite nice photography and good directing but just as with many other slasher flicks from the 80s, the movie suffers from being too dark at times. The acting is actually pretty good though and Melissa's character is easy to sympathize with, even though she's a complete slut.

The story line isn't completely rubbish but it's just way too dull to keep you interested, the only things that kept me interested was Melissa she was stunning and Dana Kimmel whose really sweet and cute in this movie.

All in all pretty dull slasher flick that doesn't go anywhere I'd definitely wouldn't recommend it to Slasher fans.


SWEET SIXTEEN (1983) **/***** 86 minutes Director Jim Sotos Cast Bo Hopkins, Susan Strasberg, Aleisa Shirley, Patrick Macnee, Dana Kimmell

Fifteen year old bad girl Melissa is new in a desert town and it isn't long before folks around her start dying off. The detective has to put together the clues with the help of his Nancy Drew good girl daughter played by Friday the 13th alumni Dana Kimmell. The local Native Americans are prime suspects since they seem to upset the prejudiced townsfolk. These events all lead up to the revealing of the killer at Melissa's sixteenth birthday party.

This below average slasher isn't too memorable. It has a made for TV feel, without much score besides the title character's own corny theme song which plays a couple times throughout. Lines like "the killer will turn us into coleslaw." Fit into standard eighties slasher screenplays. Marci calls Melissa a bad name then somehow immediately they develop a friendship. Apparently Marci sees how hard it is to fit in because Melissa knows how to wear make-up. This movie would be hard-pressed to be made today with the main character being fifteen and the director inserting multiple gratuitous close-ups of her. The social commentary on Indians wasn't developed enough to be taken seriously. I am too surprised at the fairly high rating this movie gets. Both Sweet Sixteen and Ed Hunt's Bloody Birthday had the potential to capitalize on that time honored tradition of the birthday party to create an intense sequence of carnage but I feel failed to deliver. But on the bright side releasing obscure movies like this on DVD gives hope that others will follow.


Melissa's sixteenth birthday is right around the corner and she's just discovering her sexuality with boys. But it turns out that all the guys that she spends time with all wind up murdered in this generic '80's slasher film. It's up to the local town sheriff Dan Burke (Bo Hopkins, The Wild Bunch) and his annoying mystery-loving goody two-shoes daughter, Marci (Dana Kimmell, Friday the 13th part 3), to get to the bottom of these killings.

This film focuses more on the mystery and melodrama aspects of the movie and less on the killings themselves and thus is able to differentiate itself from a lot of it's '80's Slasher brethren. It doesn't hurt that Alesia has a great body (I feel the need to stress the obvious with stating that the actress is over 18 and thus convey that i'm not overly perverted). On the downside, the movie is hampered with a few plot points that are underdeveloped and unnecessary, a grating theme some that is used a bit too often, and an ending that is a tad anti-climatic. But the good outweigh the bad (barely). Give this a rent, but I wouldn't buy it.

Eye Candy: Aleisa Shirley shows her tits, bush and ass

My Grade: C

Code Red DVD Extras: An intro by star Aleisa Shirley and Director of Intruder, Scott Spiegel; Both Director's cut & theatrical version of the film; Audio conversation with star Shirley and Director Jim Sotos; interview with Shirley, Sotos & Bo Hopkins; still gallery; theatrical trailer for this film; and trailers for Nightmare, Stunt Rock, Rituals, & Balalaika Conspiracy


I am very surprised to see such a high rating for this film, and of the few reviews that there are to be positive. I saw the movie and was pretty dissapointed. I didn't find it very enjoyable at all. It was slow, and lacks the entertainment value. Even the murder scenes are lackluster, with real close-up shots of generic stabbings that don't look good at all. And the supposed great twist ending is really not much, I did see it coming, and then the ending just seemed cliche. This movie may not get much mention, but by the little that it does get, it is overrated. I would not recommend this movie.


Murders are occurring in a Texas desert town. Who is responsible? Slight novelties of mystery and racial tensions (the latter really doesn't fit), but otherwise strictly for slasher fans, who will appreciate the gore and nudity, which are two conventional elements for these films.

Dana Kimmell (of FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3 infamy) stars as the bratty quasi-detective teen.

*1/2 out of ****

MPAA: Rated R for violence and gore, nudity, and some language.


This movie was in a sci-fi 50-pack a friend of mine got me for Christmas. It is very similar to the first Gozilla movie, and like that movie, has scenes with American actors inserted for no real reason. One interesting thing about the inserted scenes is that there's a Cold War tension portrayed between America and Russia. Like in Godzilla, Gamera is awakened by an atomic explosion and rampages across the world, paying close attention to Tokyo because no big monster movie is complete unless Tokyo bites it. All in all, this is an okay movie. Some of the scenes involving Gamera, particularly the scenes in Toly, are quite spectacular and have special effects that were pretty decent at the time. If you like Japanese giant monster movies, you'll really get a kick out of this one. I give it a 4 out of 10. Had this been the unedited Japanese version that I watched, it probably would've gotten a 5.


The original 1965 Japanese film "Gamera" http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0059080/ was essentially an updating of the darker, less kid-oriented Gojira (Godzilla)for 1960s sensibilities. Gamera, of course, is a giant, flying, flame-throwing turtle who literally consumes energy - not quite as big as some versions of Godzilla, but generally similar in most ways.

This version of the original film was edited and recut by the notorious Sandy Frank. And just like the Americanized version of Godzilla ("Godzilla King of the Monsters"), "Gammera the Invincible" gets more than just the spelling wrong. The American scenes are not nearly as ludicrous and annoying as those added to the great Gojira, but don't really add much to the story either because there is little follow up on them.

The film starts off promising, there are a few scenes worth of character development, and there are enough personalities to create some tension outside of the main plot. Once Gamera appears, however, the film begins to descend into a fairly run-of-the mill kaiju film.

The acting is good enough- even the American add-ons are OK. The directing is pretty good for this period and genre, and the special effects are not bad at all for their time (all miniatures). Some of the sets and backdrops are actually very good.

The biggest problem here, of course, is that there is little to nothing original about this film. Gamera, however, develops a much more unique personality in his later films - most of which are worth watching if you are a kaiju fan.


What's that there in the skies? Is it a plane? Is it Superman?? Errr, no It's a TURTLE!?! See, that's what becomes of the Cold War! Nothing but bad news and other issues! The Americans shoot down a Russian combat plane somewhere over Artic territory and the subsequent explosion defrosts & literally awakens the giant prehistoric turtle-creature named Gammera. He/she is not a very friendly critter as it promptly ensues to destroy everything and everyone on its path. The arguing governments finally decide to kill the ugly bastard with a brand new and super-sophisticated ice-bomb, but Gammera has another surprise in store The damn turtle can fly! The first time this happens results in a tremendously grotesque and hilarious sequence! Gammera lies on his back looking defeated when suddenly fire blows from his armpits and he skyrockets himself up in the air. How can you not love that? Then there's also a dire sub plot about an annoying kid who's able to telepathically communicate with the monster, but that's just not interesting enough. Flying turtle, people!! There's very little else to write about this Japanese (and American re-edited) Sci-Fi effort, apart from that it's an obvious and totally shameless rip-off of such classics like the original Godzilla and The Beast from 20.000 Fathoms. The effects and monster designs are extremely hokey and, unlike the aforementioned films, it never succeeds in creating an apocalyptic ambiance. Respectable actors like Brian Donlevy ("The Quatermass Experiment") and Dick O'Neill ("Wolfen") seem unaware of what film set they're on and even the original Japanese mayhem-scenes aren't very convincing. Gammera's very own and personalized theme-song is rather cool, though, so it gets one extra point for that.


"After the atomic bombs carried by a shot-down Soviet bomber explode in the Arctic, the creature 'Gammera' is released from his hibernation. The giant prehistoric turtle proceeds on a path to Tokyo and destroys anything in his path. The military and the scientific community rush to find a means to stop this monster before Tokyo is laid to waste," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

The re-produced for American audiences version of this, the first film in the "Gamera" series, adds English language material that is even funnier than the regularly dubbed Japanese fare. Clearly, the monster is following in the footsteps of "Godzilla". Taking his cue from ABC's faddish "Batman!" TV series, musician Wes Farrell's ludicrous theme song heightens the US version's camp appeal.

*** Gammera the Invincible (12/15/66) Sandy Howard, Noriaki Yuasa ~ Dick O'Neill, Brian Donlevy, Albert Dekker, John Baragrey


With the rising popularity of the now iconic Godzilla series, like with any hit cinema event, there was inevitably going to be a crowd of imitators trying to cash in on the success on the big lizard. With Godzilla came the dawn of a rising popularity of the kaiju (giant monster) genre. Many sought after success; a few gained it. One of the few that not only profited, but garnered popularity was Gamera, a giant turtle that could breathe fire in and out and fly by spewing flames from the sockets in his carapace as a means of jet propulsion. But unlike Godzilla, Gamera was marketed as a friend to all children, later fighting other monsters to save kids in peril, and thus Gamera became very popular amongst the kiddies. Unfortunately, that's about the only audience mainstream that the original Gamera series will have any appeal to. While the new Gamera movies directed by Shusuke Kaneko are marvelous, revolutionary monster movies, the original series, including the original, is nothing special.

The first Gamera movie, titled in Japan as "The Giant Monster Gamera" was clearly a Godzilla want-to-be. Even though the movie was produced in the era of color films, it was shot in black-and-white. Why? To imitate the first Godzilla movie from the 1950s. Gamera also attacks Tokyo. Because Godzilla attacked Tokyo in the first movie. I don't know much about the Japanese version, for the version I am familiar with the Americanized version, where scenes were cut and new footage with American actors were inserted (is it coincidence that the same thing happened with the first Godzilla film?) Now whether this adds or takes away from the film, I cannot say. But "Gammera the Invincible" is really nothing more than a ponderous bore that just plods along like the big turtle himself.

"Gammera the Invincible" is a very routine-orientated movie. The characters are from a stock of science-fiction standards, the story is inane, the monster has no real motive for attacking civilization, the acting is laughable, and so on and so forth. The only thing that differentiates it from the Godzilla series is the ending of the movie, but that's also a detractor since the plan that eventually halts Gamera's rampage is completely phony and ridiculous. Now the rest of the movie and many other entries in this genre also fit that description, but this is a direfully stodgy monster movie.

And although Shusuke Kaneko would later transform Gamera into an interesting monster with his trilogy in the 1990s, in the original series, Gamera was not an attractive screen presence. He was neither scary nor sympathetic. He just waddles around like a toddler, swaying with each step, and knocks miniature sets over. As usual, everybody wants to destroy Gamera except for a little kid (Yoshio Uchida who was lazily left out of the credits though he plays a 'central' role) who thinks Gamera is a nice turtle.

Most movies in the genre that "Gammera the Invincible" is a part of are easy targets for criticism and this one is subject to extra pressure. Even in the company of many other Godzilla-imitators, this Gamera film is not a particularly good entry. And as far as my cinema experience goes, the rest of the movies in the series are either just as boring or worse. Like Godzilla, Gamera would be filmed in color and go on to fight monsters. And like Godzilla, he'd get cheaper and cheaper with every film until it was time to revive the series and make him serious again.

It's peculiar. Usually I recommend people to stick with the originals and pass on the remakes. But in the case of Gamera, my verdict is just the opposite. I strongly encourage people to watch the 1990s Gamera trilogy directed by Shusuke Kaneko and to skip over the original series unless interested. The new films are inventive, well-made, exciting, and above all, fun. The original series is a long stream of boredom.


We now travel to a parallel universe where the appearance of giant prehistoric monsters flattening cities are part of the daily routine. It's the world of Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra Ghidrah and their kind - a strange world, and one made even stranger by the appearance of an unidentified flying turtle called Gamera.

Forever in the shadow of the monolithic Toho Studios, second rung Daiei Studios were more famous for samurai sagas than monster movies. In the mid 60s they decided to join the giant reptile race and designed a rival monster series to Toho's mammothly successful Godzilla. They wisely chose Gamera as their flagship - a giant turtle that shoots flames from between its snaggle-teeth, and spins through the air by shooting flames through its shell's feet-holes (and at one point you almost see the paper mache shell catch fire!).

The first Gamera film "Gamera The Invincible" (as it was sold to the US) is a virtual mirror of the first Godzilla film, only 10 years behind. American fighters chase an unmarked plane over the Arctic to its fiery demise - the nuclear bomb on board ignites and awakens the giant Gamera from its icy slumber. Feeding off atomic energy, it immediately goes on a rampage, and the world wants to destroy Gamera once and for all, but a little Japanese boy named Kenny, who has a psychic connection with the giant turtle and even keeps a miniature version in an aquarium by his bedside, believes Gamera is essentially kind and benevolent. He's like a little Jewish kid with a pinup of Hitler. "Gamera is a GOOD turtle," he pleads, then sulks, and puts on a face like someone's pooped in his coco pops. Miraculously the world's leaders listen to him, and so begins Z-Plan to save the world AND Gamera from complete destruction.

Released in 1965, Gamera was a surprising hit. The annoying infantile anthropomorphism actually worked on kiddie audiences in both Japan and the US, and the sight of Gamera on two feet stomping miniatures of Tokyo and the North Pole is gloriously chintzy. Most surprising of all is the longevity of the series: eight original Gamera films, plus a slew of recent remakes. Not bad for a mutant reptile whose only friend is mewing eight year old milquetoast - and if I hear "Gamera is friends to ALL children" one more time I'M going to crush Tokyo. Which appears to be an easy task in the parallel universe where children are smart and turtles are bigger than a Seiko billboard in the 1965 turtle-fest Gamera.


Flame in, flame out. That seems to be Gammera in a nutshell, a prehistoric creature who can take it and dish it out with equal abandon. I'm not a fan of Japanese monster films, but wound up committed to viewing all the flicks on the fifty film DVD sci-fi collection put out by Mill Creek/Treeline Films. It's a great value at about twenty five bucks, so at fifty cents per movie, it really boils down to an investment in time to watch some of the goofy offerings.

Gammera is riled from a centuries long slumber by a nuclear blast, and he's not happy. Like Godzilla, he takes it out on Tokyo, setting the United Nations into motion to try and come up with a plan to save the planet. They arrive at 'Plan Z', the hope of the world, and wouldn't you know it, there's a scene where a huge shed is shown that's called the 'Z Plan' building; that was a nice touch.

By the mid 1960's, this country still wasn't quite politically correct. One of the American military scenes at the Alaskan Air Defense Sector has General Arnold asking a female sergeant to make coffee. I guess there weren't any privates around.

Good old Gammera was quite the sight though, walking around on two legs and going for the flame throwing routine when challenged. That's why it surprised me how Plan Z managed to capture turtle man in the nose cone of a hidden space ship, whisking him off to Mars to save the world. High fives all around for the American and Russian team that made the save, now let's get back to the Cold War.

Like Godzilla, Gammera spawned at least a good dozen films, but having seen this one pretty much satisfies my interest in flying, flaming turtles. Especially since that DVD pack I mentioned earlier has "Attack of the Monsters" with a featured guest appearance by the Big G. It took all I had to make it through to the end of both films; it was such a relief to get to the final frame in this one that said 'Gammera, Sayonara!"