D'Amico

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't Oscar-caliber either, but it wasn't bad. Basically, it's like watching Under Siege meets Broken Arrow meets 'insert cheesy train movie here'. It was rather disappointing, in a way, to not see Genesse do a few more of the martial arts moves he made his name for, but hey, we take what we can get. Then again, this film was overall a disappointment for anyone who is a fan of Genesse. While normally a good actor, the character was written so badly it was actually painful.

The movie has it's problems, I don't deny that, but as a low budget action, it's not half bad. The only truly sad thing was that the villain was far more interesting than the hero. None of the characters really had a personality (saving the creepy little guy with the coke bottle glasses that he so obviously did not need), but it was an amusing way to spend 94 minutes.

What it boiled down to for me, in the end, was that this was another film from Nu Image. They're relatively cheap to make, usually have some decent actors (Bentley Mitchum got my nod here -- Bryan Genesse's character had so little personality it's impossible to rate him in this movie), and generally prove to be amusing enough to be able to enjoy a re-watch. Actually, they're the kind of films that get better with a re-watch.

I paid $4.99 for it. I got my money's worth.

First I have to say one thing...this was never intended to be a film. In the late 1990s, FOX decided to capitalize on the success of 'Cruel Intentions', and create a television version that would show the characters lives had they met years earlier in a private school. It was intended to be both a remake and a prequel. Only a handful of episodes were ever filmed of this Canadian/US joint venture, and due to the disturbing nature of the show's quality (ranging from incest to gratuitous sex/violence/language to bestiality), it never aired a single show. So rather than scrap all the footage and waste the actors' time, they strung together parts of it for a direct-to-video film.

That said, I don't care for it. It is too 'mature' for a television show, which explains why it was censored before it ever hit the air, despite being highly publicized to air on both CTV and FOX. The writing also doesn't work to keep the interest of either a movie fan or a television fan. The actors are doing the best they can with what they are given, but none of them were able to turn what they were given into something interesting. Although it was amusing how they suddenly renamed Sarah Thompson's character Danielle (she was originally named Annette because when they were creating the series, it was to have Annette as a school chum rather than an outside party).

It is interesting to see the movie just to see how they salvaged the television scenes, and added some 'movie favorites' to make it friendlier to movie goers. But if you're looking at this one because you saw the original, it's not a good idea to watch this unless you're willing to sit through repetitive lines, a virtually identical plot, and some unusual character changes. My kudos in this film have to go to Robin Dunne (who seems to do a lot of part twos...he also starred in the sequels for 'Skulls' and 'American Psycho') and to Sarah Thompson (who, thanks to this cancellation, was able to go on to a regular role on 'Boston Public', as well as numerous other guest spots and movie roles).

...I actually enjoyed the movie. I've always been a fan of Dana Carvey's, but as a general rule, I prefer his more...'realistic'...films. Namely, I liked 'Opportunity Knocks'. (So sue me, I'm a child of the '80s.) But while this movie had no storyline, no plot, and no really redeeming qualities, I actually got a laugh out of it.

I went into this movie expecting cheesy schlock...y'know, like 'The Animal', 'Little Nicky', 'Wayne's World', etc. Not bad, per se, just would never win an academy award. This movie was the cheesiest of the cheesy. But Carvey's character was just so irritatingly cute in some areas, that I couldn't help but laugh.

I would never add this movie to a collection, nor would I go out of my way to watch it again...it falls into the 'Zoolander' category of 'well, I saw it, it was kind of neat, but...I'd rather have bridge work without anaesthesia' category...but I did enjoy the one and only time I ever saw it. Probably because my expectations were so...I was pleased to find there was a little comedy in this movie.

Ah, well...back to the slice 'em and dice 'em horrors that keep my interest these days. Star rating? Well, Dana Carvey gives it a two. ;)

Okay, I'll say right off that I could possibly *SPOIL* the 'biggest' part of this...er...'film'. Well, if you can really *SPOIL* something this bad.

I consider 'The Item' the worst movie I ever saw in my life. Worse than 'Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey'. Worse than Vanilla Ice's 'Cool as Ice' (although ya'll gotta check that out to hear how he says 'horse'...that alone is worth the rental price).

Basically, a bunch of people pick up a box they're not allowed to open. What do they do? They open it. Inside is what appears to be a cross between the old children's toy (Glow-worms...you squeeze 'em, they light up and glow) and a moldy sock with some sort of nuclear waste poured all over it. That's it. Just this fluorescent worm-like thing that speaks in tongues and makes people kill themselves.

The irony of the whole thing is that without the cheesy sock, it could have been a good movie. The gore factor was pretty good (and when I rent horror, I want gore...unfortunately, I picked this from the 'bore' section). I could tolerate most of the acting. A couple of the characters obviously needed some psychiatric help, but that's not unusual.

But the sock. Unfortunately, due to the fluorescent sock, this movie sunk to the dregs, being rated, at best, with 0 stars out of 10.

How well I remember the shows from my childhood, with 'Belle and Sebastian' being one of my favorites.

'Belle and Sebastian' was a very nicely done, very non-violent look at a young boy (Sebastian) searching for the mother (Isobelle) who had left him long ago, and the Pyrenean mountain dog that accompanies him and protects him, and the tiny puppy he himself protects. Unfortunately, it would not fare well in today's world, where it's virtually a requirement that cartoons contain violence, bloodshed, sarcasm, and death. Very few are suitable for a wide audience, and the ones that are suitable are reruns from earlier times.

This was one of the best series of the early eighties (I also have some very fond memories of Osamu Tezuka's 'Astroboy'), and one of the very fond memories I will always carry with me of my childhood.

How well I remember the pilot...a little girl named Max escapes from a top-secret government facility where she has been bred specifically to be a super-human. One day, she escapes, but is separated from her 'brother', who she then searches for. It's fascinating to think that what is done in that government facility is possible...and amazing to think that one little girl on her own who has been super-enhanced can escape. Waitaminute...that was the plot of a James Patterson book that came before 'Dark Angel' even hit the screen. Hmm. I guess James Cameron couldn't come up with the idea on his own, or even a name.

The series itself isn't bad. It's not great, but if you don't mind getting mired in to a side-plot, then it's really not bad. The first few episodes of the show were the best, because it was when Max was still concerned about finding out about herself. Then the show seemed to dwindle...it's still well-acted, but some of the writing has suffered. Although it's nice to see that Michael Weatherly ends up romantically involved with yet another of his co-stars.

*** COULD BE A TAD SPOILERISH ***

This is a very disturbing neighborhood. There's Amaryllis Potter, the creepy next door neighbor who enjoys singing hymns in her spare time. Lawson Smith, the yuppie wanna-be golfer next door who has very strange notions of love. Lena Anderson, the nanny who desperately needs a green card. Ben Christianson, the father who used to give his daughter 'Hollywood kisses'. Karen Christianson, the mother who, for reasons unknown, wants to remove her children from the household. Ellie Christianson, the older daughter who is called Sasquatch at school. Inger Christianson, the younger daughter who doesn't seem to know WHAT'S going on. And let's not forget the cop who looks like William Shatner with eyeliner.

The whole movie revolves around what happens to the family after the mother is brutally bludgeoned to death in her own kitchen. The suspects? Pretty much everyone in the whole movie. They never actually show us who murdered the mother...we're left to assume the answer to that question, which is probably the correct assumption.

I don't know whether the movie was good or bad...but it was certainly creepy. Not because it was suspenseful, but because it was, well, creepy. This father obviously shouldn't have daughters. If you see the previews, you have an idea of how creepy the film is, but you have to see the film itself to get a grasp on the true creepiness. An otherwise good storyline is over-shadowed by incestual overtones. By the end of the movie I wasn't so much concerned with who killed Mommy Dearest, but by whether or not the father had already done something unforgivable with his younger daughter.

'Boys Don't Cry' suffers from the stereotypical Hollywood malady. Based on the true story of murder victim / con artist Teena Brandon, the movie glams up the ideal of who and what Teena Brandon was.

There is an interesting contrast between the movie and the book. In the movie, Teena Brandon is glorified as Brandon Teena, a martyr for the transgendered cause. In both the book and newspaper accounts, Teena Brandon is neither glorified nor vilified, but treated as she was: a young woman who stole, lied, cheated, and defrauded everyone she met in her life.

That is the failing of the movie. Teena was portrayed as a hero or a god, but she was a real person, with real faults, as were her killers. What happened was tragic and horrifying, and senseless. But just as one can understand why Teena lied to others about being a boy when she was really a girl (who never had any interest in really "being" a boy), one can understand why Tom and John would feel betrayed to learn that their "friend" had lied to them and stolen from them.

This movie is an excellent fictionalized account of a true life story. This movie should not be mistaken as true or accurate, any more than "Schindler's List", "Saving Private Ryan", or Monty Python's "Life of Brian", but it is an interesting watch. Pierce has taken a very "white trash" look at life, and portrayed it on the big screen. Undoubtedly one of the darkest, and most interesting, shows of the year.

This series didn't have even three original episodes. Everything was taken from something else, which explains in part why it failed so badly. Putting John Woo's name on the show didn't help -- especially when anyone who knew his style could tell he had nothing to do with it.

Canadian series' are typically low-budget, low-viewership dives, but "John Woo's Once a Thief" had potential. The two starring cast members, Ivan Sergei and Sandrine Holt, are both semi-talented individuals with a history of stealing the screen. Unfortunately, the non-existent plots and ridiculous story lines and dialogue helped kill this series pretty early. Supporting actors Nicholas Lea and Jennifer Dale both deserved better than filler time, and supporting cast member Vicky Pratt certainly deserved a spot in the opening credits, since her character was not only more interesting than BOTH the stars, she, unlike Lea and Dale, was given a storyline.

Anyone thinking of starting a series in Canada should take note of OAT's ending. This show was so low-rated, it barely finished the year intact. Only a few fervent Nicholas Lea fans (which is precisely why they hired him for the show), who followed him from FOX's soap "The X Files", managed to keep this show on the air long enough to finish the season.

I quit watching "Law & Order" for awhile after they fired Noth, but this movie did not live up to my expectations. The character of Mike Logan may have been wild, but he was always by the book. Letting Miss Taylor get away with the murder of her sister was far too unbelievable, almost as unbelievable as Logan falling in love with her.

While it was great to see Chris Noth back in the role he perfected from 1990 to 1995, this storyline really could have been better written. At least on the series Logan had redeeming qualities. In the movie, he bordered on obsessive compulsive with some sort of twin complex. Jerry Orbach and Benjamin Bratt seemed to be in the movie only to show that yes, it was connected to the series in a way. It's infortunate that a movie viewer had to be a regular series viewer to get some of the nuances, since the series itself is now bottom-dwelling with "The X Files" and "NYPD Blue" for the "Weirdest Soap Opera of the Year" award.

The movie had its plusses, with some of the well-used NBC guest stars such as Costas Mandylor and Ice-T (it was a wonder that Frank John Hughes didn't show up as well), but basically it was a cheap attempt to appease the L&O fans that screamed for justice after Noth's firing three years ago.

With these two movies coming out so close to each other, it's impossible not to compare them. "The Thin Red Line" succeeds where "Saving Private Ryan" failed. How, you ask? Here are the whys:

1) Realism. Although heralded as a fictionalistic account, "The Thin Red Line" is based on truths. This is one of the most realistic war films of the last thirty years, in that what happened in this movie actually happened. Yes, there is dramatization, but that is because people in this generation do not understand war because we have not experienced it. "Saving Private Ryan", which Spielberg claims is true, is only true in some pseudo-illusionist world. There is virtually no truth in SPR, except for the realism seen in the war scenes of the first twenty minutes. The other two hours never happened, but because Hollywood says it is so, for years people who have never taken a WWII history class or spoken to a WWII veteran will believe that SPR is the definitive war movie.

2) Schmaltziness. Although TTRL falls into the same trap that SPR did in hiring big name actors to play their roles, they kept it more realistic. SPR's cast was full of forty-something actors playing roles that should be played by young men in their late teens and early twenties. TTRL did have their older cast of famous actors, but for the most part, they were either late twenties or looked it. While no one could ever buy Travolta, Clooney, Nolte, or Penn as 25, Cusack, Brody, Mihok, and Haas not only look like they're in their 20's, they ARE. TTRL also has actors that were born after the VietNam War, which is a generation that SPR completely ignores, except for Leonardo DiCaprio look-alike Matt Damon.

3) Historical Value. Not only is "The Thin Red Line" completely more realistic than "Saving Private Ryan", it isn't something that took fifty years after the war ended to make. This is a very successful remake of a very hard-hitting war film that was made in 1962, from one man's memoirs about WWII. Malick has succeeded excellently in integrating the novel, the previous movie, and the glamourization needed to create a success with TTRL.

4) Characterization. This movie pulls you right into the war and makes you a participant. The characterization is excellent for its brief looks and sketchiness. Life isn't like a Hollywood movie. You don't learn everything from someone's rising sign to the color of their jockey shorts in a few short glimpses. In war, you don't want to get to know your comrades, because you know that there's a good chance that not all of you will make it, and it will hurt a lot more.

I don't watch war films as a rule because I hate the way Hollywood butchers and glamorizes the war. "The Thin Red Line" not only portrays an incredibly realistic scene of war, but it also shows why war isn't always the answer. Sure, there are some minor mistakes, but they enhance rather than detract from the movie. This movie is easily an 11, and a must-see for anyone who wants to see a REALISTIC portrayal of war. If you like "Saving Private Ryan", avoid this movie. SPR is a fanciful tale of lie and fallacy. "The Thin Red Line" will knock your socks off by the sheer realism and feeling to be found in it.

And I still can't see it. Plot? Comedy? Fun? I watched this movie when it first came out years ago and filtered it away in my "never see this turkey again". After reading some fairly good reviews on it, I rented it from the video store. I was right the first time.

It's not the stoner aspect that ruins the movie. It's the lack of storyline. You've got two geeky high-school boys, a hot-to-trot chick from out of town, and the "dowdy friend", who's far better looking than the hot-to-trot chick. This movie has every single cheap cliche of the eighties. The girls "belong" to someone else. Someone gets laid. Someone gets beat up. Dumb cop doesn't know what's going on. Surprise cameo by Taylor Negron.

Sure, there are people that like this movie. There are a lot of people that like this movie. But there are just as many that think Brad Tatum and Mike Kopelow had to be out of their minds to do this turkey. It's personal choice, and my personal choice was to suggest to my local video store that they toss their copy. After realizing I had been the only person to rent it in four years, they thought it was a great idea.

The whole point of the original "Silent Night, Deadly Night" is the pity viewers feel for the young boy, Billy. This movie picks up where that one left off, with his younger brother Ricky in a mental institution talking to a psychiatrist about his not overly stable mental history. The movie box makes it look pretty promising, but in reality, the movie is incredibly disappointing. Ricky's character is somewhere between his late teens and mid-twenties, and like the adult Billy in the previous movie, is an extremely muscular young man who has a strange obsession with the word "naughty". Eric Freeman is breath-taking in the role, grabbing the viewer and pulling them right into his insanity, but where most of the first movie was spent feeling sorry for Billy, the viewer spends most of this movie hoping Ricky gets his in the end.

The movie would have been a lot more interesting if it hadn't relied almost solely on flashbacks. The first half of the movie is mostly devoted to showing parts from the first movie. Why bother showing those? If people wanted to watch the first movie, they wouldn't have rented the second one. By the time it finally gets into discussing Ricky's current life, and why he's in a mental institution, most viewers have found something more interesting to watch. At least most of the victims in the beginning movie deserve to get theirs, even though I did spend the entire movie hoping that , finally, SOMEONE would kill that annoying Mother Superior. It's amazing the wonders a little therapy would have accomplished with this boy. Well, okay, a lot of therapy. The only thing that saves Ricky's character from being a total loss is Mother Superior's child-rearing habits. Her obsession with naughtiness and punishment would push ANYone to commit a murder -- preferably hers.

If you enjoyed this movie, you would probably also enjoy the "Halloween" series. Ricky's nasty habit of wandering around killing people at random sort of ruins both the character and the movie. Sanity is not a necessity in life, but a little morality would be appreciated. He walks around with this insane laugh that's very reminiscent of "Nightmare on Elm Street"'s Freddy Krueger. The utter lack of conscience in the character means that there is NO one in the movie that is even remotely sympathetic. It would have been a lot more interesting if Ricky had just woken up one morning and donned a Santa suit, pushed into insanity the same way his brother had been in the first movie, but while Billy's craziness was understandable and rooted in extreme childhood trauma, Ricky, who had every opportunity for a good life, is only nuts because he's just plain bad. This movie rates 3 out of i0, if it's lucky. It's one saving grace is that the deepest wish of people who watched the first movie is finally granted, and Ricky is able to finish what Billy set out to do years before.

Although this movie is soon established as having a supernatural bent (as well as a Pinocchio complex), it follows the pattern of excellence that was set by the original "Silent Night, Deadly Night". Each movie is gorier than the last, yet still manages to come up with interesting and unique ways to kill the victims. (Warning though -- do NOT watch this movie while eating, as it has probably the most disgusting death scene I've ever viewed.) This movie is rich with a vibrant, talented cast, including Jane Higginson (as Sarah Quinn), Brian Bremer (as Pino), Tracy Fraim (as Noah), William Thorne (as the child Derek), and the incomparable Mickey Rooney (as Joe Petto ).

There's a host of strange and creepy characters in this movie, from the toy maker Joe Petto, who has the eerie ability to bring things back to life, to his "son" Pino(cchio) Petto, who is just plain weird and creepy in addition to the fact that he hasn't aged in over twenty years, to the mysterious Noah, who shows up in the town, doing his best to buy out Petto's toy shop, and having a strange obsession with your Derek Quinn. Just when you think you've figured out who the "bad guy" is, the movie throws you a curve ball, and you're left to wonder who really is the "evil toymaker".

Altogether, this was an excellent film, having all the aspects of a wild horror ride. You'd think the story of satanic Santas and Christmases best left forgotten, but this movie proves that follow-ups can be just as thrilling as the original movie, even following the same pattern -- no one really lives long enough for you to get attached to them, and as the movie goes on, you feel more and more pity for the character you're beginning to suspect. And make sure you watch closely -- this movie has some interesting cameos that are too good to miss.

But so as not to give the wrong impression, yes, there are parts of this movie that could be better left unseen. There's a long, drawn-out sex scene with absolutely no point, and another sex scene (which ends in a fascinating new way) which could have been drastically reduced. But for the child in all of us, that still believes our toys come alive at night, this movie is a horrifying adventure into a child's worst nightmare. If you like this movie, you'll love the horror flick "Dolls", where the toys are much more than living toys -- they're people trapped inside of toys.

This movie is guaranteed to ruin the mental image most people have of a kind , benevolent fat guy who drops down the chimney with presents. The first in a series of horror movies set around Christmas, this movie is refreshingly different from many horror movies of the 1980's in that there is no supernatural aspect. This movie is incredibly gory, so a strong stomach is needed, but has some excellent "methods of death" I've never seen before in any horror movie, and I've seen a lot.

Although I was less than pleased with the rest of the series, I found this movie to be both intriguing and well-thought-out. I would advise viewers against building up attachments to any of the characters -- they don't tend to live very long. I wasn't angry with the killer, though, or wanting him dead -- instead, his background is so tragic, and the character himself so lost, that I found myself rooting for him. It's hard to hate a young man who has had such a troubled life.

The thing which is probably the most troubling, though (aside from the incredibly frequent sites of half-naked women), about this movie is the semi-negative aspect in which the Church is painted. Between the Catholic orphanage, the Santa slayers, and the inept local police force, this movie manages to portray every one of them as only one step away from torture chambers and half-wits.

The kind of movie designed to be watched with the curtains closed and the lights down, I give it an 8 out of 10. Robert Brian Wilson is excellent in his portrayal of Billy, the young man so traumatized by a childhood horror that he has a pathological fear (and hatred) of Santa Claus, Christmas, and anything "bad". Billy's not the only character where you feel something other than you would expect -- as much as you pity him, you dislike the nun in charge -- there is no character in the movie more deserving of a good killing than the Mother Superior who runs the orphange.

Without a doubt, the best movie of the year. This movie has it all -- action, comedy, tragedy, love, hate, violence -- and then some! When the movie seems to be getting just a little too serious, the writers will insert a great comic line. The casting for this movie was excellent -- John Malkovich is utterly convincing as the socio-pathic Cyrus the Virus, and Nicolas Cage is brilliant as the laconic ex-ranger. Monica Potter as Poe's wife brings just the right mixture of love and suffering to the role, and Landry Allbright's performance as Casey Poe proves that young actresses can be excellent actresses.

One would expect a film all about mobsters and hit men to at least be mildly interesting. Why not? "The Godfather" did it. "Married to the Mob" did it. Heck, even the spoof flick "Mafia!" managed to do it. All "The Funeral" will do is put your to sleep.

It's unfortunate in many ways -- there is an excellent cast in this film, and normally the actors are more than able to keep my interest, but the characters had no redeeming qualities.

Although many of the characters are well-written and very believable, there are too many holes in the plot and inconsistencies throughout the movie to save it from the hangman's noose. Wake me when it's over.

This had to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The only thing that makes it bearable is the fact that the actors do a good job. I couldn't find a plot in the movie at all -- it seemed to rely solely on cheap special effects and disgusting death scenes. There is no saving grace to this movie -- if you are dying of boredom and it is the only movie around, just let yourself go, because this movie isn't worth the time.

Without a doubt, this had to be one of the worst movies ever made. The direction was choppy at best, the plot so convoluted no one could follow it (what little plot there was), and the wonderful actors doing this film wasted both their time and their talent. There is no direction in this storyline whatsoever. This movie is only a vessel for gratuitous violence, sex, and drug use. There are no "good guys" in this movie, and no redeeming qualities. But there is a plus to it -- if you happen to have some sort of hallucinogen lying around, the movie is almost bearable. For an equally tasteless pro-drug flick, viewers should check out "Half Baked".

This is one of the movies that people will look back on and love! In a short period of time, the writers managed to make viewers breathe and live their characters lives. Everyone has their own personality in this movie, and they all get to deliver some great lines! The constant sight of topless women can get annoyingly repetitive, but that's overshadowed by the excellence of the rest of the movie.