FrankDamage

Essentially a film about "feelings" and "fools." You'll be scratching your head and asking a lot of questions throughout the film, but the biggest question (that will likely have no answer) is "why did I gamble on this film?"

To be fair there are a few "pearls" in the film, but simply not a sufficient amount enough to make up for what is lacking, of which there is A LOT.

Remember how I said there was no answer to the big question you'll be asking? Well actually there is and you can find it at the end of my first sentence in quotation marks. Welcome to the club.

While the numerous deficits/positives in this film have been well stated more than once; Writing = c+ Acting = b - Setting, scenery = A I think it should be noted that as long as violence (the kind where there is profuse, but not excessive, blood) is not off the table when it comes to watching "action" films and the like with your family (kids, or senior range parents, or both) then this might be one to keep on the back-burner when you're in a pinch for an indoor weekender. While there is absolutely no sex, or nudity, the vulgarity is at an almost non existent minimal and of the variety that might even pass the t.v. Censors these days. As the summaries and trailer imply, drugs are at the forefront of the plot device that fuels this slow burning, up hill rolling 'action' film, but are not used/abused by any of the characters and barely seen throughout the movie.

No, it won't win any/many awards and you'll probably have to strain to remember you even saw it within a few months time, but for all its shortcomings it looks well produced (aesthetically speaking) and once the action does get going it stays at a nominal and steady pace up to the end. You could do worse than this b grade "action" story about a good-hearted family man dealing with his own family issues whose world is suddenly turned upside down through no fault of his own. However if you are looking for any level of intensity from Jason Momoa that is even a shadow of the kind he delivered as Khal Drogo, you should probably look somewhere else.

Finally, ladies; yes, Jason does take his shirt off.

... he will undoubtedly be looking to kick his son in the balls for ever allowing the great film making name of Romero to be attached to this fiasco of a film.

First of all, I offer my sympathies to the currently living Tony Todd and wonder, "how dead is his career that he actually took a role in this?" While Todd delivers the only credible performance in this festering cesspool of bad acting/actors it shouldn't be the "selling point" as he seems to be doing his own 'zombie walk' of sorts, even though his role is that of a living survivor.

Todd is no 'Brando' by any stretch, but generally his performances are credible and suitable to the role, as well as effective to the story. In this case his role is minimal (mainly in the opening scene(s) and his delivery pretty much falters from the start and just nosedives by the end of the movie. I think anyone/everyone would see that his presence and name (much like the aforementioned producers namesake) is here to sell the film to fans. My advise would be "don't buy it and even if it's sent to you for free, send it back and demand a refund!"

Clearly the budget for auditions was in the double digits, but fortunately (for no one, including himself) fellow producer Stephen Luke offered his "talents" (and yes, this is a complete bastardization of the definition of that word) as the main lead. When the beautiful Raina Hein (2010 America's Next Top Model finalist) is finally introduced it gives little relief to anything other than the aesthetics. Still, I can't help wonder; with Hollywood's increasing obsession in making practically every female character in every show/film, no matter the genre, into some invincible super heroin, maybe Hein would've/could've been more convincing as the lead and carried the overall movie a little better? At the very least a little gratuitous nudity might have kept it from completely falling into (figuratively speaking) a shallow grave.

On the more positive side, Todd Vance (as Bena's dad) delivers the only performance, in one single particular scene, that might give viewers a chuckle. Yes, a single chuckle. Lastly, fight sequences towards the end seem over choreographed at times, but I've seen worse.

Directing, dialogue, writing and plot (along with subsequent "plot twist") are all as the Brits would say, "complete and utter rubbish." Uninspired, unimaginative and just plain lazy.

I honestly think I would've had a better time digging a hole in my backyard, then having someone bury me alive (don't try this at home kids) and video record me digging my way out, then watching that over and over and over again, than watching a single viewing of this dreadful, undead filled flop.

If zombie fans want excitement I'd suggest going to an open casket wake and standing over the body for a time slightly more than the acceptable limit for a complete stranger. It's certain to deliver a better bloodrush than this movie; which will likely only cause rigor mortis... and not in a good way either.

The DVD cover includes a quote that reads "the true story of the Ashland county murders." Naturally after getting a hold of a copy of this movie, prior to viewing it, I had to check reviews, relative info, verify factual data if any, etc. as I would with any found footage film that purports to be "true" in any way.

The TRUTH seems to be that there are in fact murders in Ashland county. In fact there are A LOT OF THEM. However, there seems to be no single case of hikers being killed in the woods, nor of any police being killed during the investigation of said crime(s).

My initial thought was, before any research or viewing, that perhaps someone took an actual unsolved case and simply embellished, or out right constructed the missing details that might, or could have happened, but again, THIS most certainly is not the case.

After reading the only critical (honest, not production personnel) review of this .... movie I thought to myself, "Well if there's a single redeeming quality here I will certainly find it," but once again, THAT was not the case.... well, almost not.

While the portrayal of Miller (by J.B. Miller) is a very very bad combination of an over the top William Shattner mixed with an over the top Jesse Ventura, the second interviewee (listed on screen as Anjelique Martin) gives the only credible performance throughout the entirety of this disaster. She convincingly delivered her testimony much like any witness you might find in a "credible" paranormal investigation show.

What was the case is that this "...found footage classic that was removed by youtube" was probably taken down because it is unbearably bad and I really want to stress the word UNBEARABLY to anyone/everyone reading this.

The only "contamination" you can count on when viewing this is to whatever good mood, hopes and positive attitude you might have had prior to the realization that there are no aliens who will be coming to give you an anal probe and relieve the pain and embarrassment you'll surely be feeling within the first THREE minutes of viewing.

Of course their failure to arrive won't be because they don't exist, but because its quite likely that if they do they are intelligent enough to remain light years away from even a glimpse of this abominable waste of video.

If you're wondering where you were going to get your next 'horror' fix with just enough LGBT inserted into the storyline to make it more contemporary, look no further, 7 Witches has got you covered. Provided that little nuances such as good acting and competent direction AREN'T in that same search, you should still be on the right track with this film.

Now don't let that very minimal subplot get in the way of your attempt to enjoy this. There's no sjw grandstanding, socio-political message, or even mildly gratuitous girl-girl action going on. If I had to guess, I'd say the only reason it exists at all is to more easily propel the story and have some minimally 'erotic' scenes of women kissing, to clip for the previews in the theaters.

There are actually several positives here. The story in and of itself is one that seems somewhat original (baring other 'family' flicks of similar genres) and the cinematography is more than pleasant, going so far as to be called "well done". We have capable camera work, as well as lighting and a script that by all standards of "independent", "art-house" or even major released films, should be at the least moderately passable.

The main problem with this witch's kettle is in the execution.

For all the stirring we get in this cauldron of suspense the final result is barely a sleeping potion. The most obvious 'ingredient' mistakenly substituted in this b grade brew of bedlam being bad actors instead of good ones. It is quite clearly the single glaring flaw in the entirety of the production and one that continuously bubbles over from the first delivered line to the very last scene.

View it for the many merits it does possess, but use the broom for sweeping (under the rug) because the 'magic' it needs to make this film fly won't be found here.

Don't mind my intentional grammar errors, just my idea of phun.

Seriously though, as I state in the title, this is more of a family adventure film, of sorts. No swearing, no sexual situations, or even romance. While it won't win any awards for the CGI it is highly dependent on, or Matt Daemon's acting (surprised?), it does keep the action and story moving steadily and I think young ("young" being a key word here) kids who spend a lot of time gaming, or are more accepting of films that forego many of the necessities of a great film for the more financial 'benefits' and imaginary allowances of those that use CGI with an almost reckless abandon, will probably have a good time watching and as I said, it's 'family' friendly.

Such being the case, it's likely that parents who may sometimes roll their eyes into the back of their heads at the mere thought of having to suffer through yet another animated movie, or worse, can breath a sigh of relief. You might even be able to talk dad into sitting through this one.

Though I grew up watching those Saturday morning Chinese martial arts imports as a kid and subsequently developed an affinity for those kind of action films, I never really got "on the boat" with Van Damme or his movies.

My father on the other hand "loved" the guy. So, when Christmas 2010 rolled around and I still hadn't found a gift for my dad, I bit the bullet and "suffered" through some of those (what I thought to be) way too serious to be taken seriously films he did through the late 80s and 90s in the hopes of finding one that we could re-watch together. I have to say some weren't half bad, but since he'd already seen most of them I looked for the most contemporary (at that time) movie Van Damme had done and stumbled upon JCVD (2008). This was when I really sat up and took notice.

For those who enjoyed this and have not seen JCVD (2008) I implore you to do so immediately (the subtitled version is best to my liking, but if dubbed is more your style, that is out there as well).

Much like JCVD, Jean-Claude Van Johnson carries with it the self deprecating and self aware exaggeration into Van Damme's actual life (aging action star playing an aged action star, etc), but with far more humor and a very obviously fictitious plot line that will surely offer more opportunities for action sequences in the series than the aforementioned film did.

The kind of nonsensical, physically brutal tedium and rigmarole that is portrayed as being a staple to the background creation process of his film career, which we saw a glimpse of in the 2008 film, appears to be something that will be a staple of future episodes if (and the GODS know it Damme well better!) the series continues.

I honestly believe that the creators of this series polled fans of the previously mentioned film to find the highlights and created what amounts to being one of the most entertaining pilots and hopefully continued series I've seen in a very, very long time.

Though Van Damme continues to perform in the kind of films that made him a star, I truly think his comedic work not only opens him up to whole other fan base, but is likely have some degree of therapeutic value to the star himself.

If as they say, "laughter is the best medicine" prepare yourself for an overdose when watching this series' pilot.

Forsaken is mostly a standard fare of classic western film tropes strung together to form a not so original story. Yet for hard core western fans it ends up being a relatively watchable one none the less.

People here have talked about the grandeur of the cinematography in this movie though what we get in that respect is somewhat minimal and not terribly impressive by any western standard. If you're looking for a western with cinematography to appreciate check out 2015's The Revenant (the acting is far better as well), or even the most recent remake of The Magnificent Seven.

I'm sure a lynch party will be formed soon after reading this, but I honestly believe the films' main draw here is the Sutherland father and son team. Regrettably I have to say, it's not that great of a match, at least not in this particular story.

While I am aware Keifer Sutherland built up a strong following with his television success, he really doesn't seem to play this character to that credit and what we get from him feels closer to the character he played in the classic late 80s movie Young Guns, all those years ago. Not to take away from Michael Wincott's performance as Gentleman Dave Turner in this film, but I couldn't help feeling during the course of watching that he might have been more suitable for the lead instead of Keifer.

It is simply the kind of clichéd story that just required a stronger lead (as well as screenplay) and perhaps some juxtaposed flashbacks of that lead's less civilized days. At least in this case.

Overall, fans of the classic western style won't be too disappointed, but at the same time, shouldn't really be very impressed either and if they are they probably haven't seen enough well done westerns.

IMDb doesn't allow 1/2 stars, so it bumps up to a semi solid 6/10.

An eye-opening look at the ever elusive and widely unknown, questionable and abusive practices of The Church of Scientology, by those who survived it.

Leah Remini (best recognized for the role of Carrie Heffernan in the long running U. S. t.v. Series, "The King of Queens"), who is a well known celebrity and one that essentially grew up throughout her entire life within the folds of this "church" (and made her separation from it very public in 2013), is our guide on the trepidatious path that lays between joining and leaving this well known religious organization, which has been described by many as a cult.

After my own brief secondhand experience with this consortium (a loved one nearly fell into the permanent clutches of these divisive tacticians after they utilized a technique which preyed on her personal childhood trauma) and its manipulative methods to draw people "in," I believe that anyone can see, through this documentary, how and why it could be so difficult for those within this sect to escape it.

Personal testimonies from Remini and numerous other former C. O. S. Members (which includes Mike Rinder, spokesperson for The Church of Scientology for over 20 years and member for over 40) give us an unprecedented view from behind the sanctimonious curtain which this religion attempts to conceal itself and its' injustices and abuses, within.

One will hopefully gain an understanding that many of these inherently good minded people can not be entirely faulted for their naive "goose-stepping" to a drum beat that carries/carried the promises of being a part of a greater and better picture, as they were and are regularly recruited in their most impressionable years.

Perhaps many who view this will also come to understand that that proverbial "drum beat" is also not limited to the Church of Scientology, but to virtually any and every authoritarian construct within the realms of our modern day society which portrays itself as 'a place to make the good-hearted better than they could be on their own' yet bleeds those same people financially and vilifies those who criticize, or examine it (the organization) too closely.

*Update & note - I originally rated this an 8/10, but have after a viewing of the full first & several episodes of the second season, raised it to 10/10 as my initial review was based on only the initial episodes.

The series continues to be fascinating & riveting as it has expanded to not only show the indignities, abuses, manipulations, divisive attacks, assaults & so much more that this megalomaniacal CULT has perpetrated upon it's members, but the manner in which it attempts to harass both Remini & Rinder in their pursuit of truth & justice against this diabolical faction.

"Groundbreaking" is not a word I've ever used casually in rl, or in print, but for a television documentary like this I'd say it fits perfectly.

This is a show that should be seen by EVERYONE.

Whether you've had personal dealings with the C. O. S. Or have simply encountered any of their naive youth soliciting "The Church" and it's non-existent miracles, or if you've only raised an eyebrow by recent allegations against a well known celebrity who has ties to the C. O. S. & wondered how they are keeping him out of the very hot pot of boiling water he should be sitting in as of this writing.

This is eyeopening, compelling & will hopefully set a "standard" not only for those who are serious about watching real documentaries that give MORE than a simple insight into things that are unknown to most, but for those who produce, create, or aspire to tell us about actual unknown & limited views & stories that they feel need to be seen & told, like the stories you'll find in this captivating series.

There is actually an interesting concept for a potentially brilliant film here, but the execution of everything from the script to the direction, editing, acting, camera work and sound makes that incidental.

While it is good to see that The Horrible Actors Guild of America is keeping people employed, it's clear that only Brenda Grippi shows a level of talent above those that would be due paying card carrying members of such a union and seems somewhat out of place in this production. Josef Niznik (Brandon) on the other hand, might serve as the lifetime president of said guild.

This appears to be a straight to vid "film" shot on video/digital medium. It's inconceivable that this movie might have received even a limited release in someone's basement, or garage. To cite the innumerable problems here (which include but are in no way limited to; zero chemistry between the lead and anyone/everyone else, less than chat cam level special fx, poorly written/delivered dialogue, etc. etc. etc) would take more time and space than this film deserves.

If you're a fan of terrible movies, and not in that ironic "it's so bad it's good" kind of way, or equate amateur, backyard produced youtube videos to a severely bastardized version of cinema avant-garde' then this might be the film for you. However, for the rest of us; I think that if a person can find a single redeeming quality in this other than what I've mentioned and can ALSO sit through the entire thing then you've probably got something well over the Dali Llama in terms of patience and nirvana might be near. Though you still won't find it in this D-grade movie. Keep close to a fallout shelter if you intend to watch this bomb.

Some people might paint the picture on this as "campy." While others might credit it with an "Ed Wood style" (apologies to Wood, who at least tried). However, the plain and simple truth here is that it's simply awful.

I imagine that a selectively edited version could have (or did) serve as an eye-roller for Elvira, or Rhonda Sheer's Up All Night, back in the day. Though without them to give us something of interest to look at in between breaks (trust me here, breaks ARE NEEDED) it will be difficult for even the most rabid "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" fan to sit through this.

Some interesting lighting and sparse topless scenes garner it a 2/10, but I'm being generous. Do yourself a favor and find some other THINGS to do, or watch, than this D movie.

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but I just wanted to point out the minor discrepancy from the original title to it's English translation. Literally the title reads, "To Enter to Live," though the actual way it would be conveyed, or should be interpreted should be more along the lines of "Ready to Rent" or "Ready to Move In." Two possible headings that those who have ever rented might be familiar seeing in the classified ads.

Though it seems to have received some rather harsh criticism (not entirely unjust) from some reviewers here, anyone who is thinking of watching this should know that it is a film made for television in Spain and IN THAT RESPECT, is far superior to almost everything you'll see on U.S. television in the horror genre and in many cases outside of it. I'd compare it to the old HBO series "Tales From the Crypt" but without the comic book nuance, or that ridiculous crypt keeper.

This film will probably not be well received by many jaded horror fans mainly because it does have a few annoying, "why didn't she!?" "why didn't he!?" and "why did they even both from the start!?" moments throughout the course of its 1 hour and 8 minute run. However, all that can't (or really shouldn't) supersede the fact that it is well directed, suspenseful and loaded with visceral horror from nearly beginning to end.

I'd be more inclined to give this a solid 7, but for the sake of other reader's expectations a 6 will suffice. Good story and plot that could've been executed better, but why not go in and take a look around for yourself? You might not even notice the peeling paint and it could be an inspiring stop on the way to something better.

While it's essentially a given misconception that many cinephiles drawn to specific and sub genres of horror and exploitation films (especially those made in the early days of the respective genre; ie. the '70s) must frequently trade quality in order to satiate their "sordid desires," I've seen enough films in the nunsploitation category to say with a definite certainty that "this is not true....in MOST cases." However in this particular instance the aforementioned cliché could be considered fact. "Behind Convent Walls" (as it is known in English speaking countries) is one of the biggest waste of film-stock I've ever seen.

The movie is almost entirely devoid of: 1) a plot of any kind, 2) decent acting, 3) an intelligible script, or cohesive a storyline 4) as well as capable directing. Not to mention, the editing seems to have been done by a mindless lummox with his eyelids sewn shut, who was randomly swinging a meat cleaver in order to make many of the cuts.

Now while some might be praying my initial statement bears some relevancy here, I can assure you that not even "the hand of God" could mask the lack of any negotiable "balance" or exchange, as it were. There is a single graphic scene that could be considered a blessing of redemption, but the remainder is little more than a few glimpses of breasts peppered (quite infrequently I might add) throughout the mainstay of this tediously boring abomination.

If self-flagellation is what you're into, then sitting through this damnation might be what you're looking for. Though I wouldn't count on either Jesus, or the Devil giving you any "brownie" points for watching it. They'd probably BOTH condemn you for your (poor, lack of) taste, after such a confession.

It's an interesting premise to be certain (perhaps one inspired by scenes in 2001-2005's "Six Feet Under," in some way?), but even with the acting merits of Neesen carrying the majority of the show, including Ricci's performance at times (literally at one point), I reluctantly think that its one that might be best buried. Though not at all entirely forgotten.

I too was among those who were delighted and perhaps even captivated with one of Miss Ricci's earliest "morbid" themed undertakings; "The Addams Family." As many may remember in that film, Ricci convincingly plays a very detached, seemingly indifferent and cold little girl. Though a relatively intelligent one.

In this story we see her portray a woman with the same characteristics, except for the intelligence. This could be seen as the first of several flaws in this film, due to the fact that her character is supposed to be an elementary school teacher. Though while such a position doesn't necessarily DEMAND that a person be caring, warm and loving, or an "Einstein" intellectually either, there are some minimal requirements to making the character a convincing one. Luckily for Christina in this movie, she spends the majority of the time playing a role that I now realize (after still being a fan for so many years) she seems best suited for; a corpse.

The character's initial lack of emotion and apparent detachment is later elaborated on through the course of the picture. However one particularly "passionate" outburst earlier in the film seems noticeably lacking later, when it would/should be called for most. None the less, her presence is again captivating throughout her scenes, but some might argue its more due to her costume, or lack there of.

Neesen's delivery as a kindly mortician who can apparently speak to the dead, is fortunately carried throughout the course of the story believably, even to expansion, as an integral point to the plot.

While Justin Long's presence in a serious dramatic role might by now be a staple for some, to me he will always project the image of a near-do-well buffoon. Perhaps this lingering impression is from some of his earlier roles and thus initially makes him appear ill-suited for the role required. Though I will now say he does a decent job here in shaking off some of that/those previous character type casts.

Overall the aesthetics, cinematography, direction and performances of the three main characters are good, to very good. However as touched upon in the title of this review, as well as my remarks on Ricci's representation of her character, there are several more holes in this plot than a small town graveyard might be able to accommodate.

Still with all said, it is worth taking a look at for the many merits noted. Of course fans of Miss Ricci's adult acting "talents" should be inclined to take one more look at "the body," because you never know when, or if, a Hollywood starlet will be buried. Figuratively of course.

...is where the director must have been during the filming of this mediocre movie.

We've all been there at one time or another and often don't recognize as quickly when it happens to us, but I always have to wonder when I see a film like this, where there's at least a relatively talented cast assembled, doesn't anyone watch "the dailies" anymore? If they did on this picture they must have been asleep at the time. Unless of course it was the act of watching them that put them there. Which is something that will surely be relatable to anyone who has, or does, view this film.

It would seem to open well enough. SEEM being a key word. We're given a stream of mildly interesting urban images that establish the setting and touch lightly upon a subtle style in the cinematography that might, that could and that eventually does, hint at the possibility of more colorful things (events)to come. However the switch to sepia by the time the title card is placed, along with the very telling opening song, are two signs of where you can expect to be by the end of this picture.

Some bland, out of focus, or obscured, sex scenes are intermittently sprinkled through the story. Though not entirely for the sole purpose of simply keeping your attention, but like the rest of the performances in this film, they too seem somewhat strained.

There's not really much more to say; the standard thriller technique of "finger pointing" at everyone and anyone, of course is present. On an up note; Jennifer Jason Leigh's performance and character are both more interesting than the convoluted story we are meant to follow. Though that may be prejudicial on my part, as I've always been fond of her talent.

If you're the type who likes to have a film going in the background while you're focused on something more important, but always get frustrated because you miss the significant points of the film, then this might be just what you're looking for. Personally, I wouldn't have felt any loss had this film remained "In the cut."

... to anyone's viewed video library (actual, or simply experienced). Not because of the subject matter, or the terribly unconvincing simulated sex (which is one of the only reasons anyone might be interested in this straight to video mess), or even the terrible acting. The real reason you'll experience that feeling of disgust will surely be if you attempt to sit through the entirety of it. Watching this rather sad example of how to waste an opportunity will be a greater test of the will than a junkie's first time going cold turkey.

Unlike many drug films that escalate to the point of feeling like a wild roller coaster ride into oblivion, this one moves with the agility of a snail carrying a load of bricks on its back.

It starts out well enough, for an obviously "bottom basement," financed straight to "D" grade video, that it is. The initial plot device is established, some sex is simulated (not very convincingly though) and the main character shows off her attractive enough body, fully. However everything up until the next "physical encounter" can be likened to a painful and tediously agonizing torture.

The end is predictable, the sex is painfully boring (the beginning is as good as it gets, no matter what you think will happen, or what actually does later) and excruciating long in coming and even when it does get around to what can be one of the only points of this film, its ridiculously uneventful.

Think of the scene where they detoxed Bela Lugosi, in the film Ed Wood and know that that will probably be what is playing in your head as you try to sit through this video. If this film was a drug it would be about as effective as talcum powder. Though at least with THAT, you might get a kick out of it.

Without going into great length about it, I happen to have experienced a significant part of my own youth amid kids on the street who were near identical to the two main characters you'll see in the film. From that very eye opening period in my life I can tell you that the film delivers a grim but honest and tragic realism that is rarely captured in American cinema.

Its not at all a contrived melodrama as some might expect, but a story of two kids who find themselves in desperation; surviving as they can and as they must within the coldest and most callous reaches of a world many may never know, but far too many undoubtedly will.

The characters and performances are believable and the script and story feels authentic. The pacing for these kind of dramas is never close to what it might be in the real world, but it gives us much of the information we need to feel the connection to our two young survivors, know their motivations and reasons behind their situations, yet still moves fast enough to keep things compelling and the story in motion.

If you have the opportunity to see this, by all means do. While its not quite near a "Christiane F" (1981), it is far superior to "Where The Day Takes You" (1994) and deserves a place among some the best films that depict the true to life struggles of children who are cast out, or escape an unbearable home life, only to be devoured by the streets.

*****UPDATED REVIEW******

I HAD ORIGINALLY rated this Cinemax "after hours" series a two. Based on a single lack luster episode (entitled "Help Me Rhonda" - I honestly could not envision myself, at the time, watching the series again after this)that I still maintain, failed to deliver on multiple levels.

However after recently viewing another earlier episode (ironically and by no planning of my own, CONNECTED to the previous episode I'd reviewed)I found it to be shockingly conflicting to the PREVIOUS episode I'd watched, as well as the subsequent review.

The episode "Behind Locked Doors" proved to well surpass my earlier designation of the "adult action" in this series as "feather core" and move well into the standard (albeit, still somewhat lack luster) "softcore" range and while the acting won't be winning any awards, it was far more palatable than the unfortunate assembly of actors had been apparently capable of delivering in the first episode I reviewed.

Overall the after hours fare in this respect lived up to and surpassed my most minimal expectations and the knowledge that it tied into a later episode (again, strangely enough the first one I'd previously suffered through) was an especially alluring and surprising bonus.

Being somewhat partial to a "presentably" made W.I.P. storyline (Jailbait 2014, anyone?) I felt compelled to give this series its day in court and revise my earlier rather scathing review.

Again, this is no award winner, but at least in the case of THIS episode, it delivered MORE than I expected and deserved a retrial and pardon.

Of note: I noticed the latest particular episode reviewed (premier ep.)was almost 43mins long where the later episodes are only in the neighborhood of 30mins. Comparably I'd say even an extra 12 mins could make a world of difference in both the storyline and plot. So let's just call this "probation," for now.

This film could have very easily been titled "Big Pun - The Rise and Fall of Rap Royalty" because in his day and even now, Christoper Rios, a.k.a. "Big Punisher," was regarded as a king. Not only by his loyal fans and the Puerto Rican community of the South Bronx, but by renowned and established artists, both inside and outside of the hip hop music scene.

Now don't think for a minute that in order to appreciate this documentary it requires that you be a fan of the music that permeates throughout it, or even a fan of the man whose life and rapid rise to stardom is its focus. Vlad Yudin has done an excellent job here in creating a film that allows even "outsiders" to see the very real and humanistic side to a music culture we may know little about and even allow us to feel as if their loss was ours as well.

Through archival clips and contemporary interviews with such high profile artists like Xzibit, Snoop Dog, Method Man, Redman, Chuck D, DMX and even actress Rosie Perez, Yudin invites us to not only view how one man seemingly became a legend overnight, but how that man lived after he did and how little (if at all) he changed to the people who knew him best.

In an industry rife with struggles to simply gain recognition as well as the insurmountable odds against ever coming close to the status that Big Pun did AND maintaining that notoriety well beyond the narrow space of his life, Yudin presents us with the details of how Rios did just that and overcame a host of prejudices he never even acknowledged, by simply being a master at his craft.

On February 7, 2000 a legend left us with his musical legacy and though I commented initially that this documentary could have been titled "Big Pun - Rise and Fall of (Rap) Royalty," I have to concede that to be an error on my part. If anything this film shows that while Big Pun did in fact rise like a rocket to incredible heights, even now long after death, he has never truly fallen in the eyes of those he inspired, impressed and influenced. If you take a look at this insightful biographical documentary you may end up becoming one of them as well.

This now infamous film, directed by Louis Malle, is without a doubt one that may shock and disturb many who view it. Even more so now than by the 1978 social standards when it was released. However, those who will not succumb to the possible knee-jerk and reactionary "puritanical outrage" that some of the imagery might invoke and can understand how it significantly contributes to the story itself, will come to witness an interesting and beautifully toned glimpse into the final days of legal prostitution within the red light district of pre 1920s New Orleans.

A young Brooke Shields delivers a convincing, yet subtle and sincere performance as Violet, the underage prostitute whom the story centers around. Keith Carradine's loose portrayal of famed Louisiana photographer E. J. Bellocq (who was an actual photographer of the time that captured images of the prostitutes in this particular district) was an excellent incorporation into the storyline and adds a certain sense of credibility to the film, in relation to it being set within the particular era.

The additional acting talents of Susan Sarandon and Antonio Fargas also do well in bringing this tale, based on the true accounts of a young New Orleans prostitute who worked in the actual Storyville district, to life.

It's so authentic in it's "flavor" in fact that it won the "Technical Grand Prize" at the 1978 Cannes Film Festival.

This sad and true to life film guides us through not only a more primitive time in American history; one when many children (not only those subject to lives of prostitution) failed to even have the option of any childhood at all, but through the eyes of innocence and all the love and beauty and memories that those eyes found even within what many would only see as the most unforgivable of environments for innocence, or even hope.

It's through THOSE eyes one must look to see the true beauty and love that went into the crafting of this historically memorable film.

This film definitely deserves a place in the history of cinematic film.... right there next to "The Attack of The Killer Tomatoes" and "Plan 9 from Outer Space." I really don't remember the last time I saw a movie this bad.

It almost seems that the same philosophy of "f*** it let's just push on" that is applied within the film, was applied to the making of it.

The cast is filled with talented people who generally make me laugh and I enjoy seeing on the screen (Jonah Hill, Steve Zahn, Alan Covert and Ashley Scott; who doesn't necessarily make me laugh, but is nice to look at) as well as a host of other memorable Hollywood veterans who all, more or less, deliver decent performances.

However, the script, the plot, the tastelessness of some of the scenes (MOST of the scenes) and the general lack of actual comedy in this wreck, would have barely made me chuckle if I'd been hitting the bong myself.

Though I saw the film for free, by the end of it I was ready to demand my money back.

Yeah I know, I didn't pay a dime to see it, but somehow I still feel cheated.

As another reviewer mentioned, I too was unaware that there was an additional 13+ minutes edited from the televised version I had seen so often on WPIX Channel 11 in New York, so long ago as a child. That is until recently. Finally having viewed the full version as an adult, I can speculate with some understanding as to why it might have been cut from the public broadcast (though I've searched for info regarding the specifics and come up empty). That not withstanding, I highly recommend watching which ever version you can find of this funny and well made classic.

Though some more critical viewers may find many of the gags passé and/or corny in this day age, when it was released it was well received by movie goers and critics alike in such notable newspapers of the day as the New York Times and Motion Picture Herald.

Those of us young and/or old who can appreciate the type of comedy that originated during a more innocent era, should be happily delighted with this classic comedic gem from the '40s.

I distinctly remember the ridiculous amount of hype surrounding this re-incarnation of the beloved Japanese classic, prior and during its theatrical release. Sadly as well, I remember falling victim to it myself.

I'm certain there are countless reviews that go into the Infinite reasons of why this is so bad, so for me going into yet another tirade of such things as the terrible script, lack luster performances, poorly sized perspectives (in one scene the monster crawls through a subway tunnel, in the next hes stepping on sky scrappers), etc. Etc. Would be redundant. Suffice to say, it is one of the most catastrophic bombs since the dropping of "Little Boy". With apologies to the Japanese people for making what surely seems like a callous comparison to the actual devastation on Hiroshima; I hope the knowledge that in someway this could be seen as an indirect and small form of vengeance, gives some comfort to someone, somewhere, because it certainly offers none in its viewing.

If you choose to witness this horror, you should do so knowing full well that it would be easy for anyone to classify such an act as a masochistic one and the humiliation you will feel afterwords may not be of the type you can live with the rest of your life. Take it from someone who actually shelled out money to see this,if the monster could actually defecate, this film would be about the size of it. Though I believe this stinks far worse than that might.

...is what this film might be referred to when they look back over Mr. Cronenberg's otherwise illustrious career of thriller and horror films.

I remember watching Scanners as a young child of 7 or 8 and the indelible impact it made on me. Not only in my future love for film, but in terms of some of my perceptions at that moment and of horror films in general, that I would come see in the future. One characteristic I distinctly recall being aware of, even at that formidable age, was a certain type of pause, silence, or dead space, that was present in the film. It's something very characteristic of '70s films and also a technique that's been cultivated and used in varying degrees by directors such as Kubric, Wes Anderson and of course Cronenberg.

In Cronenberg's films however, it tends to aid in giving a "kind of" b-movie feel to the work that usually enhances the terror, or anticipation of forth coming terror, without compromising the quality of the film itself. This film is the first I've seen of his where it was not used, but still comes out feeling like a b-movie. Which in this particular case was not helpful to the film.

While the storyline is plausible (some time ago an actual person in the witness protection program brought unwanted "mob" attention to himself as a result of a confrontation, though not a "heroic" one, in the town in which I live) a great deal of the acting is not.

To start with, Viggo Mortensen does a very good job initially in his role as Tom Stall, however the subsequent transformation that is needed later in the film, never really seems to manifest as convincingly as is required. Later in a passionate scene between he and his wife, it seems that it is intended to somehow establish a kind of appealing savagery to his character, but it just doesn't do enough to cement what we are supposed to believe about him by that point. Even with all that's already taken place.

Another flaw comes in the casting of William Hurt as Stalls' brother Richie. As much as I generally enjoy Hurt's performances, he's simply not convincing in this role.

Overall as a fan of Cronenberg, or as a fan of thrillers, one might want to take a look (if you can do it for free). However, don't go in expecting much and you won't be disappointed. The biggest mystery in this "History" is the reasoning behind all the hype this picture has received. Violence yes, but one of Cronenberg's best? Not by as long shot.

Interesting premise with lots of potential, but in the end it comes up just as shallow and pretentious as the "mysterious river" that carries the three main characters on their confusing and unrevealing journey. Not that it doesn't offer up some revelation, but its no great surprise once we get there; as we're given ample samplings of what's to come during the tediously slow and clumsy progression. We briefly wade through a few cultural topics, but sail past them quickly without any illumination to the viewer who may be unfamiliar with the region's history.

At times through its very conflicting music it alludes to being a horror, or thriller film. Though after the rhythmic escalations peak it leaves us falling out of the boat into the murky waters of little more than the overblown ineffective drama that it proves to be.

In addition, too much anger is generated by 2 of the two dimensional characters and there's really nothing that can be either seen, or imagined that would make us sympathetic to their undefined "plight" and angst. It's also unfortunate that the one character who should generate the most sympathy simply doesn't due to bad acting and directing.

I really did want to like this as I frequently enjoy the exposure of the various cultural subtleties and styles within the "foreign" films we are so very privileged to be able to freely view in my country. However, much like the two sides of the river I was very conflicted in doing so. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a "foreign" film that I didn't enjoy to some degree. Although I certainly won't be able to say that again after viewing this.

Maja Weiss has primarily directed documentaries throughout her career and though I haven't seen any of them I'm going to chance saying that she'd probably be better off sticking to what she knows. Because although what we see here may be obviously foreign to many of us, it seems even MORE SO to her.