American Psycho is, as Scoopy said in his review, a dark comedy. One of the boring, conformist, shallow New York yuppie scum breaks out of the mold long enough to do something interesting -- he starts killing his friends and neighbors. While his peers are fascinated with testosterone contests over who can get a reservation at the classiest restaurants, or who has the classiest paper and ink color on their business cards, Christian Bale (as Patrick Bateman) finds relief from his boring existence in becoming a serial killer.

The production values in the film are fine, and there is a little nudity from three unknowns. If there is humor here, it must be Yuppie in-jokes that are lost on me. There is certainly not much gore, very little dramatic tension, and kind of an anti-climatic ending. This one is very low on my list of films to watch again.

Two things to mention today.

1.Volume O of the encyclopedia was updated today (N was just done a few days ago as well).

2. Charlie's Angels. All along I've been expecting this movie to be a hopeless disaster. Think disaster on the Mod Squad or Wild, Wild, West scale. But the insider buzz on this thing is that it's a great action picture with plenty of laughs, and a really big, expensive look. Damned if that don't beat all. Personally, I can't wait for the expected triumphal movie comeback of the esteemed French classical actor, Matthieu LeBlanc, acting this time without a robot or a chimp.

LeBlanc, as I hear it, appears in a very tiny part, and plays the exact same role he plays on "Friends". He is an actor who stars in action flicks. He's dating or trying to date one of the Angels, describing how difficult his action is, smug in the knowledge that he's manly as hell, unaware that she does the exact same stuff in real life with real bullets.

There is also a role for two other FunHouse favorites, those truly odd men, Tim Carry and Crispin Glover. Not to mention one of the legendary hardbodies of the late 80's, Kelly Lynch, who is now over 40. (Shock)

OK, I admit that I'll probably see this out of curiosity, but if Giovanni Ribisi shows up, I'm walking.

Let me be upfront in that there is no nudity in 12 Monkeys except that which involves Mr Willis, and I reckon you would be reading the dudes page if that were your thing..

Having said that, I want to talk briefly about the film. Willis is a convict of some kind in the year 2030 or so, who is sent back to the past to do some fact-finding about a 1996 virus that destroyed 90% of the world's population, and drove the rest underground.

The time travel methodology is inexact. He arrives first in 1990, then back to 2030, then 1917, then 1996, then 2030, then 1996 again.

Understandably enough, the people in our time think he's crazy, and after all of this shifting between realities, Willis himself isn't sure if he's a man from 2030 or a man from the 1990's with a distorted alternate reality. Hell, everyone keeps saying he's insane. Maybe he is. And what's even crazier is that he was born in 1988, so in 1996 he's simultaneously two people at once - the post-apocalyptic time traveler and the eight year old kid.

Don't get hung up on the time travel contradictions. There's really no solution. You can't change what has already happened. It happened. But filmmakers find time travel a handy device to portray alienation and carry certain SF concepts. Just let it wash over you.

As time goes on, Willis continues his pursuit of the mystery behind the virus, enlists some 90's people in his quest, meets some other mysterious time-travelers from time to time, and has to sort out the reality of the 90's from the distorted view possessed by the future.

The secret is in the imagination and the storytelling. Director Terry Gilliam is not short on either. He constructs a unique reality in the future, and an equally unusual one in Willis's dreams (after all, Willis has 40 years of life all jumbled up and lived over again, sometimes living in two identities in a single time period, so his dreams are understandably muddled, yet provide some clues for him and for us in very clever subliminal ways, as dreams might well do.)

In fact, has Willis the young boy already seen how it works out for Willis the adult, and for the world as well? Willis is badly confused because he can't shake his fears that (1) he's already seen the solution, but can't recall it, and (2) he might really just be the insane guy that everybody keeps saying he is, or (3) his dreams may be memories, or vice-versa

I very much admire Terry Gilliam's work. His imagination is boundless, and the worlds he pictures are no more impressive than the inventive camera angles he contrives. Although he's seen as a visual director, he draws better performances out of his actors than they have given elsewhere. And I really enjoy a movie which can transport me to its reality and bind me there.

Good job, Mr Gilliam!

Box Office: It grossed $56 million domestic, $101 million foreign. It was quite successful. (The budget was $27 million.)

IMDB summary: 7.8 out of 10. This film is rated 200th best of all time by IMDb voters.

Continuity errors!: I never noticed any of these, but there were quite a few tracked down by the movie sleuths.

DVD info from Amazon

Sound Track info from Amazon

I have spent more time in my life on this silly Jess Franco film than I would care to remember.

You can find earlier comments and non-DVD caps by searching under "The Loves of Irina". Tuna has also capped and reviewed the "Female Vampire" version (on DVD).

There are actually three versions of this turkey. One is called "The Bare-Breasted Countess". or "Erotikill"and is basically a soft-r basic vampire flick with neck biting and bare bosoms.

One is a medium-core flick called "The Loves of Irina", which replaces the scenes of blood sucking with ... um .. other types of sucking, including one brief shot of a penis in a mouth, and plenty of spread-leg shots.

The third is a hard core flick with full penetration, called "The Swallowers"

The DVD version is, more or less, the same as "The Loves of Irina", although the brief visible BJ has mysteriously disappeared.

This thing has also been released on video and shown in drive-ins under a bunch of other names, and I don't know which names go with which versions.

Franco wrote, filmed, produced, directed, wrote the music, and starred, all under different names, some of them women! (Talk about an equal opportunity employer. How many pornographers were hiring imaginary female cinematographers in 1973?) Heaven knows how many aliases this guy used in his life. Of course, if Spielberg made this kind of crap, he'd use phony names as well.

THE PLOT. A mute countess returns to her island home, and with her comes a rash of new murders. A silly poet can sense who she is and wishes to make love to her "beyond the mist", even though he knows it will be fatal. After she unwillingly kills her lover, the countess tries to drown herself in a pool of blood in order to be reunited with the beloved poet. Apparently she fails, because the last scene is identical to the first one. Although, frankly that plot summary is a SWAG, because I didn't know what was going on half of the time. Except during the sex scenes. That I could figure out. But why they were having sex, and who they were - that was another matter. A couple of scenes didn't seem to belong in the movie at all, and there is no cast of characters at the end.

What can you say? The corny recurring love theme in the manner of Michel LeGrand, the jazz piano score, the amateur actors, the poor lighting, the scenes that don't seem to belong to the plot, the irrelevant minor characters, the poor dubbing, the camera slipping when actors bump into it, the corny overvoice narration. Romay came off as the best performer in the movie because she played a mute and couldn't flub any lines. And worst of all is Franco's love of the zoom lens to make static scenes seem less static. Well, there are a lot of zooms up Lina Romay's crotch, if that redeems it for you. Maybe that's a valid use of the zoom lens. And young Lina also had a great chest. Otherwise, forgetaboudit.

* It does have a couple of interesting visual scenes filmed in the mist, but they drag on too long and aren't lit properly.

* The film has not been remastered or cleaned up in any way on the DVD, is scratched up and is poorer in quality than many VHS copies.

* In this DVD, there are "additional scenes" taken from the softcore version, but all hardcore scenes are notoriously absent. (In my mind, the archival value of having all three versions would have made it a DVD worth owning.)

* The only really strong feature is that it is the first widescreen version ever released to the home market.

I think Tuna liked it better than I did. Well, I guess he'd have to. So you may want to read his archived comments for balance.

As for me, I think it sucks - in many more ways that the director intended.

One from the TomCat today:

Barbara de Rossi (and Antonella Ponziani) in "Angela Come Te". This is a late 80's Italian movie, known as "Angela and Angela", directed by Anna Brasi. The IMDb lists it, but does not identify the cast or provide any other info.

As far as I can tell, it is about two women named Angela who are from Calabria. The older one seeks her fortune in the prosperous North of Italy, and meets the younger Angela when she returns home. The one who has gone North has prospered, but is basically lonely without a true love in her life. The other has stayed South and lived a simpler life. Their lives provide contrast, I guess. My Italian isn't good enough to figure out more.

Strangely, the IMDb says in its recommendations section that if you like this you will like a filmed biography of Montgomery Clift, presumably because they are both in Italian?

This and a 1995 French movie entitled "La dame du jeu" appear to be the entire career output of Ms Brasi.

If your Italian is up to par, you can find "Angela" listed here, and you will find further info and a plot summary here.

Adriana Lima

Emma Blocksage

Marinda Kaha

Melanie Thierry

Phoebe O'Brien

Amy Brenneman
(1, 2)

Gisele Bundchen
(1, 2)

Esther Canadas
(1, 2)

Angie Harmon
(1, 2)

Heather Locklear
(1, 2, 3, 4)

Let's put it this way...the star of the movie is Walter Koenig. That's right, Mr. Chekov. It's been a while since I've seen this one, and all I recall is that there are bad movies...and then there are REALLY bad movies. This one falls into the the really bad category. My memory is foggy on the plot (if any), but if I recall, the nudity scene goes something like this....Chekov goes to the moon and finds a alien base. He goes inside. As fate would have it, the Aliens who haven't been there in millennia have left the air on just in case any humans stop by. Chekov opens up a big box, and out pops an alien babe. They have sex.

"Moontrap"'s budget obviously wasn't spent on writing, but rather on special effects. Yup, Chekov's wig never fell off once!

In case you needed further proof that the human race is doomed by stupidity, here are some actual label instructions found on consumer goods:

On a Sears hairdryer: Do not use while sleeping.
On a bag of Fritos: You could be a winner! No purchase necessary. Details inside. (The shoplifter special.)
On a bar of Dial soap: Directions: Use like regular soap.
On a Swann frozen dinners: Serving suggestion: Defrost. (But it's just a suggestion.)
On Tesco's tiramisu dessert (printed on the bottom of box): Do not turn upside-down.
On Marks & Spencer bread pudding: Product will be hot after heating.
On packaging for a Rowenta iron: Do not iron clothes on body.
On Boot's children's cough medicine: "Do not drive a car or operate machinery after taking this medication."
On Nytol sleep aid: Warning: May cause drowsiness.
On most brands of Christmas lights: "For indoor or outdoor use only." (As opposed to what?)
On a Japanese food processor: Not to be used for the other use. (I gotta admit, I'm curious.)
On Sainsbury's peanuts: "Warning: contains nuts."
On an American Airlines packet of peanuts: "Instructions: Open packet, eat nuts."
On a child's Superman costume: "Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly." (I don't blame the company, I blame the parents for this one.)

Irag and a hard place

Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton meet up in Baghdad for the first round of talks in a new peace process. When Bill sits down, he notices 3 buttons on the side of Saddam's chair. They begin talking. After about 5 minutes, Saddam presses the first button. A boxing glove springs out of a box on the desk and punches Clinton in the face. Confused, Clinton carries on talking as Saddam laughs.

A few minutes later the second button is pressed. This time a big boot comes out and kicks Clinton in the shin. Again Saddam laughs, and again Clinton carries on talking, not wanting to put off the bigger issue of peace between the 2 countries.

But when the third button is pressed and another boot comes out and kicks Clinton in the privates, he's finally had enough, knowing that he can't do much without them functioning well. "I'm going back home!" he tells the Iraqi. "We'll finish these talks in two weeks!"

A fortnight passes and Saddam flies to the United States for talks. As the 2 men sit down, Hussein notices 3 buttons on Clinton's chair and prepares himself for the Yank's revenge. They begin talking and Bill presses the first button. Saddam ducks, but nothing happens. Clinton snickers. A few seconds later he presses the second button. Saddam jumps up, but again nothing happens. Clinton roars with laughter. When the third button is pressed, Saddam jumps up again, and again nothing happens. Clinton falls on the floor in a fit of hysterics. "Forget this," says Saddam. "I'm going back to Baghdad!" Clinton then says through tears of laughter, "What Baghdad?"