kynoceph

As Sci-Fi Channel B-movies go, this is a good one. It is neatly paced and doesn't drag, and the characters, although clichéd, are well-played and likable. The basic premise is that a very small, remote town in Alaska is terrorized by the appearance of a wyvern (a non-fire-breathing dragon, for those who care).

Don S. Davis appears in one of his last roles as the Colonel, a machine-gun toting, beer-sipping retired military man whose warnings that there's something weird in the woods aren't believed until it's too late. Cowboy Hall of Fame character actor Barry Corbin also appears as Haas, a redneck who comes face to face with the title creature early on.

Nick Chinlund, as the truck-driving hero Jake, is adequately rugged and resourceful, but the real charmer here is Erin Karpluk as the gutsy waitress Claire. She is captivating, no-nonsense, and naturally pretty, and brings an otherwise mundane role to sparkling life.

"Wyvern" also makes many sly references to the TV show "Northern Exposure." Casting Elaine Miles ("Marilyn Whirlwind" in Northern Exposure) in the role of a sheriff's deputy is a sure tip-off. Ms. Miles remains laconically funny as ever. The presence of the character of a doctor who is from out of town is another tip of the hat.

"Wyvern" is definitely a B-movie, no doubt. However, it's much more tightly paced and entertaining than your usual Sci-Fi TV feature. The cast also brings a sense of realism and believability by their refusal to overact. The wyvern itself, although computer generated, is decently done, and its appearance is carefully timed for maximum impact. You could find worse ways to waste your time than this movie. And keep an eye on Erin Karpluk; given the right roles she could emerge as an actor to reckon with.

One of the earliest productions that Cartoon Network ever made for themselves and in my view one of the most successful. Genndy Tartakovsky worked on this before coming up with "Dexter's Laboratory," and his offbeat art style and sense of humor are evident here. The show is also notable for the fact that Big Dog was voiced by Brad Garrett (later to become Robert Barrone on "Everybody Loves Raymond"). John Kricfalusi, creator of Ren and Stimpy, guested on several episodes and is credited with "tidbits of poor taste."

The characters basically consist of Big Dog and Little Dog, with a few recurring characters like Red (Little Red Riding Hood), the nerdish Kenny, and Hollywood (whose trademark line is, "Isn't that cute...BUT IT'S WRONG!!!"). The art style is deceptively simple and the plot lines are as well. However, little hidden surprises come when you least expect it, particularly in the form of Big Dog's utterly unexpected words of wisdom in various episodes, particularly in "The Rise & Fall of Big Dog," where Big Dog is somehow mistaken for an ambassador, and "Love Doctors," where Big Dog dispenses advice to the lovelorn Kenny.

Several of the episodes are classic in my opinion. My favorite has to be Vegas Buffet, in which Big Dog and Little Dog venture forth looking for the "Super Cheap Economy Style One Pound Hot Dog Buffet" and get caught up in gambling craziness, but almost all the episodes have something going for them. Some of the best satire and parody that CN cartoons has ever done is found here, especially in "Cartoon Canines," "Hobo Hounds," and "Let's Make a Right Price," as well as "Family Values." The comparisons to Ren and Stimpy are not quite justified, I think, simply because 2 Stupid Dogs is more low-key. The dementia of Ren & Stimpy is in your face, whereas 2 Stupid Dogs is, overall, gentler and more surrealistic.

Personally I think that this is one of the "lost classics" of 90's children's TV, right up there with Nick's "The Adventures of Pete and Pete" and "Rocko's Modern Life." A DVD of the collected "2 Stupid Dogs" is long overdue.

From 1997 to 2000, this was one of the best shows on TV. The interplay between the actors was topnotch; the show was involving, often both intense and funny within the same episode, and the large but extremely talented cast interacted to create some brilliant TV. These '97-'00 episodes are highly recommended, and fortunately they are in syndication on cable.

However, from 2000 on, it seemed that Kelley was either tired of the show or hated it, because the situations, plots, and scripting became evermore implausible and forced, sometimes ridiculous. The character of Lindsay was stalked by not one, not two, but THREE serial killers, testing the bounds of improbability (she wasn't THAT pretty).

Even worse, the main characters reverted to cliché. Lindsay was made into a shrieky neurotic, while Bobby became blustery and unstable. Eugene's character became bullying, obnoxious, and overbearing; Eleanor was thrown into the background and dragged out only to give this late version of the show some believability; Jimmy was once again reduced to a buffoon when he wasn't simply being used for wallpaper; and the lovely Lucy was simply dismissed altogether. Rebecca? She was disappeared so thoroughly you'd have thought a South American death squad took her.

The arrest and imprisonment of Lindsay for the killing of her third stalker/serial killer signaled the death knell for the show. Overwrought and over-dramatized, it began to lose viewers. Kelley then axed half of his cast and brought in James Spader as an extremely eccentric attorney to try to revive the series. Although Spader and new cast members brought moments of excitement, the damage had been done, and the show faltered to a halt in 2004, with some of the characters being brought over into another show.

Overall, despite the negatives I gave above, "The Practice" is well worth watching in reruns, especially the episodes before 2000. For the most part the cast did an excellent job, touching on topical issues with heart and conscience, and giving few easy answers. After 2000, though, the drop in quality is clearly evident. A shame, but such is life in television.

Thoroughly enjoyable fantasy film. The special effects are par for the era and the budget, but watch it for the storyline, which is strong and consistently interesting all the way through. The heavy use of magic and surrealistic plot twists (the hero gets beheaded and then puts his head nonchalantly right back on again later!) sets this one apart from the usual "giant monster" movie. Plot, pacing, and characterization are above average for this type of movie, and elevate it from being just another kaiju film into a truly enjoyable fantasy.

One of the more interesting things about this movie is that it apparently has a moral. The hero values honor above all else, and honors his obligations to his family, his friends, and his kingdom. Of course, in this case, sometimes one's honor requires one to turn into a giant fire-breathing frog, but still!

There are some elements in this movie that do remind me of Star Wars: A New Hope, as others noted, but I am not sure whether this means that Lucas drew from this film or not. I suspect he didn't. The plot (young man with special powers avenges his parents and saves his kingdom by battling an evil sorcerer) is fairly common. But still and all, who knows? George Lucas drew on a lot of movies to create "Star Wars" and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this movie had a little something to do with his work. However, "The Magic Serpent" deserves to be appreciated on its own.

I would love to see a better print of this movie with a better transfer to DVD, but from what I understand this movie is quite rare in the United States, and due to its lack of popularity, it's not likely to get the remastering/rerelease treatment. So get it when you can and enjoy.

I threw up in my popcorn it was so gross!! and then after the movie was over my girlfriend wouldn't make out with me even though I brushed my teeth. she just kept crying about how she was so sorry. I thought she was talking about me throwing up so I said "well, it's not your fault I threw up, don't be sorry." she kept saying "I'm so sorry" and I said, "well you can make it up to me by making out with me, hey I brushed my teeth," (I really did) and she yelled "not you stupid, Jesus!" and she kept crying and making this snorky noise that she does when she is crying. and kept talking about sin and stuff like that. she felt sorry for Jesus a lot. so did I but man, that was gross, it was worse than freddy or jason or even super troopers. so now my girlfriend won't speak to me and she reads the bible a lot, and now I can't eat popcorn because it makes me nauseous to smell it. thanks for nothing mel.

It's hard to criticize this film. The director spent time in jail because of the subject matter and the viewpoint of the movie. She is currently out on bail but could be re-imprisoned at any time. This makes it extremely difficult to say negative things about the movie; the idea that the director suffered for her art, literally, almost negates any criticism. But in the end, if we are viewing the movie as art for art's sake, we have to consider the movie for what it is artistically and not confuse it with the creator's sufferings.

It's easy to see why the film fell foul of the Iranian government. Iran is not the most understanding country in the world, and this film violates several Iranian taboos. It depicts Communist activity in pre-revolutionary Iran, it makes the fundamentalists look more than a little like gangsters, and one of its primary characters is a married man who fools around on his wife and almost lures the lead character, a pretty young 19-year-old, into

his philanderer's trap. These are all taboos in the fundamentalist regime of Iran, and depicting them onscreen is brave and honest. It also speaks honestly about the lack of life choices women in post-Revolutionary Iran have, which is also brave.

On the other hand, it has to be said that this is an extremely melodramatic movie. In spite of the setting and the story, I often had an unsettling feeling that I was watching a Lifetime TV production. You know the movies I mean: all men are bad and/or stupid, all women are good, and it's the women's job to somehow keep stupid foolish men from doing bad things to women, because men left to their own devices are just idiots who screw things up and/or cads who only want to break women's hearts.

The heart of the film is a "forbidden love" story that Bette Davis in her prime would not have hesitated a moment in playing. A young Communist falls in love with a prominent publisher, who neglects to tell her that he's married. His wife, who has been trailing the young Communist, reveals to her in an astoundingly melodramatic scene that her husband does not love her for who she is; he loves her because she resembles the wife's sister, a beautiful Communist revolutionary who died in the unrest of 1953. The young woman is then packed off to another town by the wife, who conveniently happens to be rich. In exile, she becomes housekeeper/nurse to an old woman and marries the old woman's son, who becomes a judge in post-revolutionary Iran.

The frankly histrionic story is framed by a letter that the communist-turned-good subservient Iranian wife gives to her husband before he departs on a trip to prosecute a case against a woman who has committed unspecified "crimes against the government." Her letter revealing her past is meant to inspire him to have mercy on the jailed woman.

There are flaws aplenty in this movie. It is histrionic without a break, on a high soap-operatic level, and it is completely aimed at women. The male characters are either thugs or heartbreakers, with little characterization of either. The women are almost all noble and good with only one exception. The love story at the center of the plot is so overwrought it almost verges on camp.

There are moments, though, when it breaks out of this trap. When the heroine tries to apply for University and is turned away because of her Communist past, the reality of life for women under what is essentially a fundamentalist Islamic regime comes clear. When the heroine's naive confidence in her Communist ideals meets up with the gang-member brutality meted out to those who diverge from the Revolutionary Iran mindset, the story becomes gripping and compelling.

However, unfortunately, these moments of truth are few and far between. Too much time and emphasis is placed on the love story. To be honest, if the love story part of the movie was in English, starred English-speaking people wearing everyday American clothes, and was set in a non-exotic location, I wouldn't have spent five minutes watching it. It was that hokey.

Overall, though, I think the movie is seeing because it is an Iranian woman's viewpoint of an Iranian woman's life. Despite its flaws it gives insight into women's lives in pre- and post-Revolutionary Iran, and a glimpse into a lifestyle that we here in the United States do not get to see. On that basis alone I can recommend it, but bear in mind that the movie, as a work of cinema, is basically and nearly fatally flawed. If it were not for the performance of Niki Karimi, who can make even the most hokey moments of this movie somehow believable, I wouldn't have been able to finish it. But if you give it a chance despite the histrionic plot, you may be drawn in as I was.

It needs to be mentioned this movie is in Farsi and is subtitled in English. Unfortunately the subtitles are in white type, which was a mistake, as it makes some of the dialogue hard to read, especially during daylight or brightly-lit scenes.

Things I learned from this movie:

1) Dirt never sticks to cavewomen, but it does stick to cavemen. Cavemen are, in fact, so dirty that it makes you wonder why cavewomen ever consented to be with them.

2) Cavewomen, by the way, are hot!

3) Giant Crabs will eat you if they have the chance.

4) Always be nice to dinosaurs if you can, they will become your friends and save you from a horrible fate.

5) Bondage is as old as man.

6) Bikinis are as old as man. (See also "One Million Years BC" for further details.) Also, they stay on under amazing situations, although only barely.

7) The words "Agoba" and particularly "AKEETA," were important linguistic developments in the history of speech.

8) In the time it takes a tidal wave to reach the shore, you have time to make a boat and fight over it with your arch-rival.

9) Never, never stand in front of a tidal wave, waving your arms about and trying to turn it back by magic. This will not work.

10) Cavewomen are HOT! Wait, did I say that already? OK, number 10 is: AKEETA!

In short, a priceless movie. Meaning that you should pay as little as possible to see it, but you should see it.

In 1978, when this movie came out, punk rock was raising its spiky head, and a lot of its spokesmen reviled the commercial rock of their day. If you want to know why, just catch this movie and sit through it if you dare.

The plot, such as it is, is wretched. The performances are unconvincing and unfunny, and the musical bits are contrived. The odious Jimmy Buffet, Bard of the Beergut Generation, is given serious screen time - doesn't that tell you everything you need to know? The live performance by Tom Petty is unmemorable, and Linda Ronstadt, well, um...she was pretty to look at.

The soundtrack, which was a major selling point for the film at the time, is loaded down with 70's smarm from "artists" like Billy Joel and the Buckingham/Nicks version of Fleetwood Mac.

The fashions and hairstyles are hilarious and embarrassing. Yes, kids, your parents looked like big dorks back then. Smarmy and clueless, loaded down with a soundtrack full of slick 70's California pop, this is the kind of rock movie that gave rock movies a bad name.

Entertaining show for kids with drop-dead-gorgeous JoAnna Cameron as a teacher who changes into the goddess Isis to fight evil. The show came on the air in the mid-70's, during what was then a public uproar over violence on children's television, so Isis defeated most of her villains non-violently and offered a moral at the end of the show. The show only lasted one season but was re-run for many years after that.

The show caught on in South America when it was rebroadcast there in the 1980s, and "Isis" has many Brazilian fans.

The show is mostly valuable today for the fun cornball factor and for the fact that Ms. Cameron, who bears a striking resemblance to Catherine Zeta-Jones, was a knockout who wore short skirts and had great legs. Neo-pagans and Wiccans will find much to raise an eyebrow over, as the goddess aspect is treated with unusual respect for the time and place the show came out.

JoAnna Cameron retired from show business in the 80's and went into nursing, specializing in geriatrics. Recently she has made appearances at science fiction and TV nostalgia conventions and by all reports is still a gracious and beautiful woman.

Most Nostradamus movies have him as an older man, a gloomy sort constantly predicting doom. This movie doesn't. Tcheky Karyo plays a very involved, interesting, and engaging version of Michel de Nostredame. I particularly liked the "vision" sequences, where he suddenly is dropped into the future to observe. I thought the part of the movie where he is confronted by the Inquisition was effective as well. The movie is flawed; it moves slowly, and finicky history buffs will find a few bumps. But overall this features a fine performance by Tcheky Karyo, beautiful photography and sets, and (I have to say) a sex scene with Julia Ormond that manages to be really hot and very tasteful at the same time. Summing up, "Nostradamus" has some strong performances, and a good (if slow) story. It kept my interest all the way through. I'm looking forward to getting it on DVD.

It hardly seems possible that there is someone who has not seen an episode of Doctor Who, even if you are an American like I am. I stayed up late many nights watching it on PBS. But I'll write this for those who haven't seen it.

As many have said before, the Doctor is a Time Lord from the planet Gallifrey, traveling through space and time, righting wrongs and getting in odd situations. He is always accompanied by a companion or two that he picks up along the way. That's all you need to know to start with.

Now probably you want to know where to start. I will without reserve suggest that you start with the Tom Baker episodes. He played the fourth Doctor and to my mind, with apologies to all the other Doctors' fans, he was the very best. "The Talons of Weng-Chiang," and "Pyramids of Mars," are two great places to start. The first gives you the Doctor with one of my favorite of his companions, Leela, and puts them up against a sinister Chinese magician, a robot with a pig's brain, and The Giant Rat of Sumatra in late 19th century England. The second puts the Doctor up against an evil archaeologist who unleashes a threat from another time and another planet on Earth. Both are fast paced, adventurous and fun. After that, if you aren't hooked, I can't help you, and you'll have to go back to watching Star Wars Part XXXIV or something.

In a former review, I complained that Doctor Who was not being made any more; that has been resolved, as has my other complaint about the episodes not being on DVD in the United States. This means that now there is little to no excuse not to watch Doctor Who, unless, of course, you are a curmudgeon of some sort.

This movie is not a literal reading of Washington Irving's story, and only the most naive moviegoers would expect it to be. What it actually is, is a very clever update of the classic Hammer horror film formula.

Hammer Film Productions produced excellently creepy British horror films in the late 50s, 60s and 70s, most of them involving Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing (or occasionally Vincent Price) and truckloads of actresses stuffed into "buxom wench" costumes. The Hammer formula was to take a well known story - usually something by Edgar Allen Poe - load it up with sex, gore, bosoms, and weird plotlines - and let it loose.

The presence of the venerable Mr. Lee himself at the beginning of this movie is a dead giveaway; this is Tim Burton's tribute to the classic Hammer Horror films. As such you're not meant to take it too seriously. Like the original Hammer horror movies it emulates, "Sleepy Hollow" is strictly for entertainment. Slightly gruesome entertainment, yes, but since when have horror movies been tasteful? And bear in mind the Hammer films were also criticized for the heapin' helpin' of gore they provided as well.

However, Burton goes Hammer one better by giving us a complex storyline that would be well-suited to a detective movie, with suspicion swirling around everyone. Johnny Depp's portrayal of Ichabod Crane is delightful. His Ichabod Crane is always balancing between wanting to fall over in a faint at the horrors he sees and wanting to investigate the weird happenings he comes across in Sleepy Hollow.

I never thought to use the words "sexy" and "Miranda Richardson" in the same sentence, but it happens here. Christina Ricci has been criticized in other reviews for giving a subdued performance, but her primary purpose in this movie is to look sweet (which she does) and fill out a corset and some low-cut gowns (which she also does to perfection). In short, she plays the same type of role as Hazel Court used to in the Hammer Horror films this movie recalls. That doesn't require acting skills so much as it does a soulful gaze and major cleavage, both of which Ricci has in abundance.

To sum up, this movie is a lot of fun, and should not be taken terribly seriously. Burton does manage to throw a few barbs at fundamentalist Christianity, and at times he seems to have a definite sympathy for what appears to be a version of Wicca that some of the characters practice. However, this is really nothing to get riled about; once again, refer to the Hammer Horror precedents for this movie (The Curse of Frankenstein, The Horror of Dracula, etc.) or The Wicker Man (another Christopher Lee film) for a similar sideways look at Christianity, twenty to thirty years earlier.

This movie works as both a suspense flick and a respectful but tongue-in-cheek tip of the hat to Hammer Film Productions. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. If you want a good evening of horror film fun, rent this, Vincent Price's "The Fall Of The House Of Usher," and "Horror of Dracula," and have yourself an evening of 19th century horrorifics. You'll be glad you did.

This movie isn't sure what it's about. It starts out being about Frankie Paige, a hairstylist who is suddenly afflicted with the marks of the stigmata (wounds of Christ) even though she's an atheist. It ends up being about the Lost Gospel of Jesus. Poor Frankie's problems start after she gets a rosary in the mail from her mom. The rosary was stolen from a dead priest, so within the first ten minutes of the movie you know that the rosary and therefore the dead priest has something to do with her getting the stigmata. This is called, "giving the plot away," and if you have half a brain you could predict what happens in this movie from there.

After this we see poor Frankie undergo all sorts of horrors as, one by one, she gains the wounds of Christ, and of course there's blood everywhere, and lots of whining about "Why me." Then comes Gabriel Byrne as a skeptical priest, and of course he's won over by her story and by her. The movie did not deal well with the relationship between Father Andrew. They fudged it by having a long dreamlike sequence where they sit and have coffee and talk while music plays and the camera cuts back and forth between them. This is supposed to imply that they talked for hours and got to know and like each other, but in reality it simply implies that their conversation was too tremendously boring to bear, and immediately after that conversation she gets the nails through her feet anyway, to keep your interest.

The rest of the movie is a hodgepodge of The Exorcist, The Omen, and excerpts/misreadings of the Gospel of Thomas (which, by the way, is a real book). The special effects are decent, and both Arquette and Byrne do their best to bring humanity to an otherwise lifeless script. Jonathan Pryce's villainous Cardinal is totally predictable and one of the most inept performances I have ever seen from him.

At the end of the movie, after they have spent so much time on Frankie and made us care about her, she just wanders off, wearing a bedsheet. I swear, that's actually how they get rid of her character; she gets un-possessed, and she just wanders off looking at her wrists wondering where her wounds went. This is heinously bad writing. The movie spends a lot of time getting you to care about Frankie, and then she just...wanders...off? Did she go back and become a hairdresser? Did she keep in touch with excommunicated Father Andrew and go out with him? Did she become a homeless person? Did she drop down a manhole? ANYTHING would have been preferable to just having her wander off into the foggy mist outside the rectory. It's just plain BAD WRITING. It shows contempt for the audience and for the characters, and poor Patricia Arquette, who really puts a lot into this character and in the end gets nothing out of it.

This movie is basically a complete failure; it builds up and builds up, and then the payoff is not only miniscule, but extremely unsatisfactory. It's not unresolved in an "arty" way, the movie is unresolved in a way that screams "BAD SCRIPT!"

In short this is a waste of time except for the special effects. If you're into watching Patricia Arquette thrash around and bleed a lot, and I hope you're not, you might want to watch this movie. Otherwise, don't even bother.

"Ren and Stimpy" was the cartoon that broke the mold and pulled cartoons into the present day. Along with "The Simpsons," R&S were responsible for reviving TV animation. Ren the chihuahua and Stimpy, the extremely stupid cat, undergo various adventures, none of which is easily explained. You have to see Ren and Stimpy to believe it. Some of their humor involves things like rotten teeth, belly button lint and "nose goblins," and they built an entire "Christmas Special" around Stimpy's case of flatulence, so these are NOT for the easily offended. But for many Ren and Stimpy are a benchmark of 90s humor. (Funnier than Seinfeld, as far as I am concerned.) Nickelodeon currently sells videotapes of the show, and in my opinion the earlier episodes (1991 to about 1993) where John Kricfalusi was still in charge of the show are the best. Later shows after Kricfalusi left lapse into standard cartoon fare with the occasional gross-out joke, but the initial episodes with John K. (as he is known) in charge are pure genius. This cartoon was highly influential in both animation style and subject matter, and paved the way for others such as Beavis and Butthead, Cow and Chicken (whose theme music even echoes Ren and Stimpy's) and South Park. The original episodes still stand up over time and will still be funny a hundred years from now. "Why does everybody want my ICE CREAM BAR!?!??" Tune in and find out.

Thriller of the decade...but which decade? I don't think this one would cut it as the thriller of the 1890s. Any movie that "stars" Ernest Borgnine is usually a disaster, and this is no exception. This is a really bad set of "tales" told by granddad Ernest Borgnine to his grandson, about the sorcerer Merlin coming to the present day and selling magical items which, ah never mind, you can guess where it goes from there. Sad, sad, sad, sad, sad. The only way this is bearable is if you watch it as a Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode.

Let's address the "it's too dark/scary for kids" issue. If we look at the original "Babe," we had one scene where Ma, the sheep, was killed by wild dogs. We had another scene where Farmer Hoggett was going to shoot Babe because he thought that Babe had somehow killed Ma. The opening of the first movie, which takes place in a dark slaughterhouse, is pretty grim. In "Pig in the City" we have an accident happening to Farmer Hoggett, which we are shown was not fatal. We have another accident happening to Flealick the wheelchair bound dog, from which he bounces right back and continues onward. We have the chase scene with the angry pit bull who almost drowns - until Babe saves him. Now how is that too "dark" for kids? The only person who actually comes to any harm in this movie is Mickey Rooney's character, but despite arguments to the contrary it's no more traumatizing to see Mickey Rooney carried off in a stretcher than it is to see poor old Rex muzzled and given tranquilizers in the first movie! I think there are a good many people who are overprotective of their children. The kids that I know who watched this movie loved it. Now, why is this movie the best one of 1998? It has a better plot, more likeable characters, and a better resolution than any movie I can think of from 1998. Period. All of the critics, except Siskel and Ebert (RIP Gene!) missed the boat on this one. Hello critics, does the phrase "magic realism" ring a bell? And what great images. When the chandelier falls and hundreds of electric blue balloons descend on the golden/yellow ballroom, and the little pink pig rises out of the mass of blue balloons -- the colors and contrasts of this one shot, and the way it was executed, is brilliant. The scene where Thelonius turns around and says, "But I'm not dressed!" - the scene where the animals slip through the children's hospital ward while one boy watches in wonder - these and many more images from the movie deserve close and careful study. These are the points I wish to argue from this excellent movie. I suggest that you not take any critic's word for it, nor should you pay attention to the overprotective whiners who would shield children from life itself if they could. Buy this movie and see for yourself. In years to come it will be known as a classic.

Of course this is a horrid movie, for pete's sake, it was made by John Derek, one of the worst actors ever. (He played Joshua in the Ten Commandments, and his performance there is truly laughable). Bo of course runs around topless or near topless for most of the movie, and has one expression: vacant. No one has yet mentioned Richard Harris' utterly deranged performance as Jane's dad. Harris acts as if he has drunk a case of Jack Daniels and snorted a pound of cocaine. He runs through the entire movie screaming, shouting, and gesticulating insanely, and when he's finally killed by the ALL-WHITE-PEOPLE CANNIBAL TRIBE (I kid you not) you cheer in relief. Another point of hilarity is Miles O'Keefe's pointless battle with an OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY FAKE rubber boa constrictor. All in all a truly dreadful movie, but still not as awful as Manos: The Hands Of Fate. See it at your own risk, or only if you have an unhealthy fixation on Bo Derek's breasts.

Stupefyingly miscast, Rex Harrison and Richard Burton attempt to act queeny in a pointless, depressing film about two aging gay men in 1969 England. For Christ's sake, they're both HAIRDRESSERS. That tells you everything you need to know about all the imagination and work that went into this film. Richard Burton is completely and utterly unconvincing as a gay man, and Rex Harrison seems absolutely lost, constantly squinting off into the distance as if he was looking for Eliza Doolittle, or at least a decent Pushmi-Pullyu. This movie is so thoroughly bad that it isn't even good for humor value. It oozes homophobia from every rotten frame, and the main message it seems to have is that homosexuals are loathsome people and should loathe themselves, in public, out loud, as often as possible, while prancing about with bad hairstyles. Watching Harrison and Burton play gay men will give any modern viewer the same sick cringing feeling you get from watching Stepin Fetchit say "Yassuh, Boss!" in old 40's movies. THIS MOVIE SHOULD BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS. IF GIVEN THE CHOICE BETWEEN SUICIDE OR THIS MOVIE, CHOOSE SUICIDE.

Sure you watched it when you were a kid, but chances are you didn't get the subtle jokes for the adults, interspersed with the bad puns for the kids. Revel in Mr. Peabody's demented version of history once more. Wonder why Dudley prefers to kiss his horse over Nell, and ponder why Snidely Whiplash is so green. Look out for subtle Cold War era jokes. Let's face it, you missed it the first time around. Now's the time to catch up with Bullwinkle, a true American cartoon classic, terminally underrated, but saved from oblivion at last.

This sequel is better by far than the original "Oblivion." The humor is broader, the pace is faster, and most of the movie is handed over to the extremely luscious Musetta Vander, who camps it up outrageously as the evil Betty-Page-style villainess Lash. Like its predecessor, "Backlash" relies on the plot cliches of Western movies, updated with Full Moon-style science fiction trappings. Musetta Vander steals the show here, but mention must be made of Julie Newmar's dreadfully campy performance as Miss Kitty and George Takei's demented, drunken town doc. Once more Meg Foster does the best she can with virtually nothing, and once more the rest of the cast is pretty much negligible with the exception of Maxwell Caulfield as the dandyish monster bounty hunter Sweeney. In short, a fabulously bad movie, and Musetta Vander is absolutely delicious. She dominates (pun intended) this flick! I think I'm in love...

What do you expect? After all, these are the people that brought you Jack Deth and the Trancers movies! It's an occasionally slow-paced sci-fi western parody. The acting is mostly dreadful, and the plot is telegraphed a mile away, but if you didn't expect that from the Full Moon folks, you deserve what you get. A movie best experienced with friends and vast quantities of intoxicants. Those of us who read comics in the 70s will get the "Man-Thing" reference, and it is a hoot to see George Takei telling a bottle of whiskey, "Jim Beam me up!" Meg Foster is totally wasted as a cyborg deputy, but she does what she can with a terrible role. I loved Musetta Vander as the S&M fantasy gal Lash. A good bad movie in spite of occasional slow bits and obvious plotting. MST3K material for sure.

David Schwimmer puts aside his likability for this movie about breast implant pioneers. He does a great job as a money-hungry, publicity seeking plastic surgeon with no ethics, no morals, and ultimately, no soul. Chris Cooper, as the member of the partnership team with some little conscience, is equally despicable and equally funny. The 70s references are painfully accurate and anyone who lived then will wince in recognition. A good, if not great, dark comedy, worth seeing just to see David Schwimmer playing a self-centered jerk. By the time his final scene rolls around, you'll cheer for his exit. Overall, not bad ; some sharp commentary, and funny more often than not.