I know a lot of people would claim certain films as 'the worst of all time' but I think Redneck stakes a claim for this prize. A combination of quite dreadful acting from both Mark Lester and Telly Savales and plot progression that defies belief.

On Telly Saveles: was he drunk when he acted in this? He seems to play a slurring, laughing lunatic with no sense of conviction. Maybe he mixed his medication with his whiskey, I don't know.

On Mark Lester: A performance more wooden than a carpenter's workshop. His clipped British tones don't belong in this film; and his transformation from sheltered teenager to gangster's apprentice in 24 hours is mad. And the strip scene with Mosquito does not have any relevance to the plot at all; perhaps the director likes this sort of thing.

Plot logic: when Memphis and Mosquito ambush the car at the beginning, why doesn't Mark Lester's mother do or say anything to get her son out of the car, before the loonies drive it off? She just lets them all go, without saying a word!! On the other hand, Redneck has to be seen - you won't believe how bad it is otherwise!


In a world where humans can live forever you spend the entire movie wishing they would die. First off if you insist on watching this movie do two things first put it on mute, don't worry you miss a plot, hell they don't even talk for the first 70 min of an 87 min movie, after putting on mute you must now hit fast forward till the main chick dies don't worry even if your paying attention you won't know why or how she died. Once you get to the "good part" take it of mute. Oh, how will you know the good part, wait for an elevator scene with two morons in space suits with WWII weapons. These weapons won't seem like much till you realize that the first protagonist had a laser tag pistol and a bandoleer of CO2 cartridges. The only remnants of a plot take place between a glowing ball and a semi hot chick who looks like she was attacked by Wolverine. After listening to the "plot", you will wish they went back to not talking. Of the four people that are in this movie none of them can remotely act, not even a little bit, you will have better luck witnessing acting at a kindergarten theater.

To comment on the special on the special effects, let me just say "Wow", no really you will spend the entire movie saying to your self "Where did this movie's 1.8 million dollar budget go!" Seriously it will leave you in aw of the magnitude of ineptness. The best "sets" are basically windows wallpaper backgrounds. The Ships are basically flying wrenches, Wait some are barges that kinda look like whales . I have never heard so many made up words in my whole life. They have buttons on their wrist(large pedometers) that can put them in "fight mode" and super runing mode (makes them super blurry). This will seriously drain their power reserves but they find bits of wires to chew on to regain their strength. The explosions were less impressive than my fourth of July, I only had sparklers.

So the plot as far as I can figure goes something like this "mother" is a space ship captain and goes to the desert for a while rides a rocket dies. Then her daughter 6000 years in the future ( no I am not exaggerating) recalls her mother's memories through some sort of capsule. Anyways they jabber on for another 10 min and then the cause a big bang. Yes the Same "Big Bang" that started our solar system. It's explained how she goes back in time or something, it does not really matter it happened i guess. Roll Credits Seriously the whole script was mercifully on one sheet of paper, unless that actually detailed any of the dreadfully fight scenes.

After watching the credits I have now laughed more than I did the entire movie, the jobs the created like catering supervisor "galactius sarcophagus" and then the special thanks to George Lucas was just the best.

I really wasn't expecting that much for a movie I paid 99 cents for but seriously some body owes me for this. Most frequent comment heard after the movie "I want my life back". You have to admire that some but put time and effort in to this movie but seriously, why ?


Nothing to spoil here at all but this could be a SPOILER so beware.

Special effects were on the level of a video game -- about five years ago, or perhaps of the original Star Trek. The acting was just pathetic -- some cheesy looking blonde treking across the desert while a voice in the background droned on. And on. And on. This was the trek and drone half that I actually made it through. Progress is interrupted by a few fights. Ships blow each other up for no real reason that is apparent episodically. Again, it's not that there is a real fight that you would expect from a movie, more like a cheap video game. Boi-ing! Boi-ing! Ship explodes. Next ship. Apparently some of the ships are looking for the blonde. Here in the far future, ships must be nearsighted and astigmatic because many of them pass directly overhead of the stylishly dressed futuristic babe in black but never see her.

Then there are a couple of choreographed fights that look like something put on by high school kids. Again, the crude video game mentality is prominent. The combatants shift to "Fight Mode" by flipping something on their wrists, and a loud computerized voice echoes and flashes "Fight Mode". That must be a dandy design if you are trying to sneak up on somebody. Then you go to a big power station which looks just like a current day power line tower and plug in to charge back up. LOL, I'm not kidding, you can't make this stuff up, it's like watching a freaking video game from about 2000 only the acting is better in the game.

More trekking. Then she shows up at "The City". (Lame sound trek gets even lamer here.) She gets into a fight with a mech robot of the future who cannot hit her with his big gun, even though she runs right in front of him, about five feet in front of him. Obviously robots of the far future are about as useful as toaster ovens in a fight. She throws sand in its eyes and beats it to death by throwing rocks at it. rofl, I was at about 95% of tolerance by that point, my nausea circuits flashing red.

In the next scene she ends up strapped to a rocket with some rope. I kid you not, tied right to the outside of a rocket. This is supposed to be an advanced form of transportation. At that point I bailed.

This movie is an utter disgrace for a movie made at the present time. Just a freaking disgrace. There was a drippy story but the movie distracted from it -- somebody droning on about "mother" constantly.

I gave it a two because there were a few scenes which displayed some pretty nice artwork of a science fiction nature as background. Unfortunately the plot, acting, action, cinematography, and narrative distracted from this artwork and degraded it. No kidding.


This show was an amazing, fresh & innovative idea in the 70's when it first aired. The first 7 or 8 years were brilliant, but things dropped off after that. By 1990, the show was not really funny anymore, and it's continued its decline further to the complete waste of time it is today.

It's truly disgraceful how far this show has fallen. The writing is painfully bad, the performances are almost as bad - if not for the mildly entertaining respite of the guest-hosts, this show probably wouldn't still be on the air. I find it so hard to believe that the same creator that hand-selected the original cast also chose the band of hacks that followed. How can one recognize such brilliance and then see fit to replace it with such mediocrity? I felt I must give 2 stars out of respect for the original cast that made this show such a huge success. As it is now, the show is just awful. I can't believe it's still on the air.


First off, I just want to say that this show could've done well, way better than it's doing now. What brought it down was certainly the acting. Miranda Cosgrove, who acts as the main character Carly, looked almost worthy of her own show when she was on Drake and Josh. Unfortunately, iCarly was a big let down. Not only can Miranda not act convincingly enough, but she's incredibly stiff when she moves. She looks as if she's not sure how the character "carly" would move or stand. In the very first episode at the end when she throws the hat up, her arm doesn't ever leave her side from her elbow up. even when she was dancing she looked like a stick in the breeze. And the singing? The theme song was great, only because Drake had been in it, the music was pretty good and Miranda's voice sounded fake. I have to admit, the plot and settings are good, unrealistic, but hey, that's Nick. They're practically known for stupid lines and characters. But wow, is iCarly the worst of them all.


I bought this movie at a thrift store. Months before, my friend told me about it when we were talking about dumb movies we've seen. Once I spotted the cassette, I knew I had to have it. I watched it that night. I could tell it was going to be very cheesy and cheaply done. . . That's what drew me to it. I popped it in and I laughed the whole way through. I recognized Gregory (The Ice Cream Man), but I didn't recognize his name and I couldn't remember where I saw him. Later, while watching the Andy Griffith Show, Clint Howard (Ice Cream Man) was featured as an extra since he is Ron Howard (Opie Taylor)'s brother. I saw the credits and I gasped. I turned to my mom, who was also watching the show, and said, "That's the Ice Cream Man!!" She, too, gasped. This movie is great, but only for laughs and criticalness. It is the perfect example of a cheesy horror flick. If you feel like laughing as well as poking fun at low-budget movies, rent this video.


Despite the potentially fascinating premise, Series 7 is weak attempt at attacking reality television. Aside from its bargain basement production values, which present an eyesore 10 minutes in, the overall tone of the film is misguided. Several reviewers have attacked the acting in the film, but I think the real problem is this lame attempt to make the film into a farce. Aside from the fact that the jokes are not funny (a pregnant woman swears a lot, a young girl gets a bunch of guns), it doesn't gel with the overall tone of the film. Had the makers actually made Series 7 to bear a striking resemblance to actual reality TV-colorful yet hollow edits, lame sound effects, sweeping camera motions-maybe their point would have been more solid or at least more palatable. Instead Series 7 meanders through the already harried world of death and game show. You can just imagine the director slapping himself on the back for stating the obvious


SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:

Not good. The movie differed completely from the book(Not that the book was exactly a classic but it really was very good.)

I guess Demi Moore was OK. Actually, I don't really remember to much about her performance one way or the other. However the big disappointment wasn't with Ms. Moore.

WHY did whoever did the rewrite decide to suddenly make the millionaire have a heart? (I'm referring to him as "the millionaire" because he also had a different name in the movie then the book version-just another change.)

People who didn't read the book obviously won't know anything's different but in the BOOK version this guy is much more ruthless as well as complex overall. He is also fascinating. The fact that such a big change was made in the movie alters the whole plot. It was almost like seeing a completely different movie.

I know MANY movies vary widely from the books. But I also thought Redford's character was a bit of a wimp. This ISN'T Redford's fault(He's a great actor and could have played ruthless well) but without those qualities he becomes just another dazzled man in love hence the story becomes just another cliché love story involving 1 woman and 2 men. That wasn't really the point of the book.

This could have been a lot better. Even if I hadn't read the book version I wouldn't have liked this all that much, but changing so much around definitely takes it, for me, a few points down.


I'm no slouch at finding "redeeming social value." Whatever book or film people want to suppress, from Huck Finn/Heart of Darkness to, I don't know, Deep Throat or the latest hostage beheading, I sincerely wish they wouldn't. I'm not a lover of porn or of violence-as-entertainment, but what of them I chance upon I tend to see camera angles, cuts, pans, lighting, rhythms, nearly to the exclusion of fear or titillation, sometimes even missing filmmakers' or actors' intent. Even from footage that reasonable people may argue should never have existed, I always imagine there's something to learn. I wonder more at how a film does than about what it does. Maybe that's wrong of me. Wiser but harder than deconstructing unpleasant cinema, might be to see cuts, pans, etc., at one with and inseparable from no matter what content. I ask myself what horror filmmakers and church architects have in common. Add in political filmmakers, fascist and not. All manipulate with light, space, and sound in order to alter perception and mood. How different are their goals? How different are the goals of those who film real atrocities for use as propaganda?

When the original All Night Long (ANL) trilogy appeared on my shelf, I left it unwatched for nearly year. Curiosity had made me buy it. I sampled a few minutes of "1" the day it arrived, up to the awkwardly sound-effected street corner stabbing that seems really an attack on film viewers' sensibility, found it inept but effective. I'd have to come back to it, certainly, but didn't relish the prospect. Clearly this wasn't the sublime horror of Kairo, Cure, Angel Dust, Lain, the rawer but still traditionally framed horror of the first Evil Dead Trap, the overtly political work of Koji Wakamatsu, or even the brilliant crudity of early Cronenberg.

Maybe that word "attack" is key. Matsumura attacks not his characters, but his viewers. I can't watch these at this point in history without thinking of both Abu Garib (some of which I think I recall was evidenced on video) and the hostage videos, but also about Godard's torturers (in Le Petit soldat?) to whom atrocity is just a job, a fraction of a person's workday. And then there's the prolonged Northern California news story whose details I barely remember but can't entirely forget because it too entails "cinema," a duo of serial killers notorious, if suggestion isn't playing games with my memory, for having videotaped themselves torturing victims.

All three ANL entries are revenge cinema, vigilante exercises, but I'm attaching these notes ANL3 because it's the most ambitious and may constitute a turning point for director Matsumura. (I haven't seen the entries that followed ANL3.) Through the first two offerings, I imagined a camera fallen into the hands of one of those fringe kids from middle or grammar school who obsessively draw war scenes or other atrocities. (Or as if one of Matsumura's revenge-crazed characters had turned writer-director. Anyone watching these who hasn't seen Michael Powell's Peeping Tom would do well to see it.) But ANL3 seems to aspire to mainstream. Matsumura's protagonist grows carnivorous plants, allowing for some typically Japanese cool close-up nature shots. There's also, for the first time a Matsumura film, a traditionally erotic sequence: Kikuo's female boss sneaks up and begins to caress him while he's peeping at the love hotel's customers. Kikou finds himself unhappily sandwiched between. He's a middleman voyeur. The brief thrill comes from the layers of voyeurism. There's even a philosophical/poetic garbage sifter, a garbage voyeur who somehow makes me think of the poem repeated in Wakamatsu's not-at-all-what-it-sounds-like Go, Go, Secondtime Virgin.

I'm getting nowhere with this, and it's getting in the way of my commenting other films. Can't escape the suspicion that a few years on I'll walk into a Matsumura retrospective at my local film archive, maybe hosted by some learned character who's caught onto something I'm missing.

How much does it matter whether the director is or simply "gets" his lethally muddled protagonists? Does he even have to understand them? Maybe a director's job is just to spew it out, then let critics, sociologists, and the rest of us hash things out. Maybe directorial or artistic responsibility is a bogus notion.

My final struggle with this thing had me wondering what on earth a woman thinks watching these overwhelmingly male exercises. We put women through this over and over, from Star Wars to et cetera and et cetera and on and on and on and on, but is anything quite as male-skewed as the All Night Longs?


I fully agree with the previous reviewer. There's no chemistry between Spencer Tracy and Hedy Lamarr, and the focus of the film is on their relationship. Hedy Lamarr isn't at her best, and Spencer Tracy appears to be naive, simple and overly-hopeful -- both in love and life; an idealist role that played out best in 'Boys Town'. If you can make it through the ridiculous crowd scene by the train station...whoa...it's rather slapstick and not worthy of any actor in the cast. Not the best acting on anybody's part. Miscast and mismatched. Story is empty and various and disenfranchised input is apparent. Hedy Lamarr is her absolutely stunning herself, which is truly the best part of the film. Spencer Tracy can't match the sophistication of her beauty and wardrobe, and the film doesn't come off as believable for at least that reason.


What could be expected from any Adam Sandler-produced comedy, Grandma's Boy is predictable and so dumb it is sickening. Allen Covert stars as Alex in the film, a 35 year old pothead who works as a video game tester and has had to move in with his grandma and her two roommates after losing his apartment. Some usual plot turns occur: he has trouble adjusting to his new living situation, which in turn makes him have trouble at work, which is particularly bad because he is trying to nail one of the office's new consultants. Throw a weird boss, almost alien company star, really nerdy best friend, a few scenes at burnt-out pot dealer's place, a really big party scene, and an original video game Alex is trying to finish by himself into the mix you have Grandma's Boy in its entirety. Allen Covert does make a marginally good lead, Linda Cardellini is cute enough for her role as the just-one-of-the-nerds office consultant Samantha, and a few scenes do manage to squirt out a chuckle or two but none of that makes Grandma's boy worth much of anyone's time. Most of the supposed funny "jokes" or "gags" or whatever you want to call them are nothing but "humor" that would make anyone at National Lampoons embarrassed to watch, Joel Moore is incredibly unfunny in his role as video game mastermind J.P., and the entire film actually manages to be boring on top of not funny or substantial. Well, at least Grandma's Boy did something for someone: Adam Sandler was able to get a few paychecks to his out-of-work friends David Spade, Kevin Nealon, and Rob Schneider.


this movie has NO plot. it was SUPPOSED to be that a guy moves in with his grandma, and everyone thinks hes a loser and he has to redeem himself. but what happens after everyone finds out who he's living with? they have a big pot party at grandma's house. the climax of the movie didn't even relate to the rest of it. that whole plot was introduced within minutes of the movie's end. i can see how it COULD have related to the supposed story - that Grandma's VG skills redeem him - but that just wasn't there.

However, the movie was funny as hell and clearly relied heavily on the jokes.

"Her pussy smells like the great depression" "He just sucked his first titty...yeah for 13 hours" "It's for you...i think it's the Devil"


I'm a fan of good, plausible, action movies. And I'm a huge fan of the elite military units such as the Navy SEALs. Finally, I'm a huge fan of Michael Biehn. Sadly none of those allowed me to really enjoy this movie at the time. I gave it another chance more recently when I bought the DVD. Here's the problems with this movie in a quick list: 1. It's a poor mans top gun, for example including a virtual music video of the SEAL team playing golf with a soundtrack of "The Boys are Back In Town", which concludes with Charlie Sheen doing an inane chase to get his towed car back.

2. This is quite simply a Charlie Sheen movie, when Sheen was trying to be famous before he started doing stuff like Hot Shots. Reports I've heard indicate that Sheen was a baby on the set and it affected the roles and Direction the rest of the actors in the movie got.

3. Biehn is the head of the SEAL team yet Sheen seldom obeys him. Any SEAL showing the lack of discipline that Sheen's character does, or who endangered the team as he does, wouldn't even have made it through BUDS training let alone gotten on a team.

4. SEALs are cross trained on weapons. Yet in one part of the movie a SEAL has to "figure out" how to use a U.S. Stinger Missile.

There are a few good scenes in the movie. The assault entry at the beginning, Bill Paxton as "God", and some of the footage in what was supposed to be Beirut at the time. Overall though this movie is a loser.


Alexandra Maria Lara: A very beautiful and enticing woman, but not a good actress. In all the films I've seen her in, she appears to me as the exact same character. Whether it be in THE DOWNFALL, NACKT, VOM SUCHEN UND FINDEN DER LIEBE and now WO IST FRED! She always is (plays?) the young, good-hearted woman, who is a little naive and doesn't know how to handle the things happening to her. She disposes of a repertoire of probably five different facial expressions that she works with abundantly. I personally have a hard time believing that she could play a mysterious and slightly obnoxious character because it just isn't in here. So she's typecast as the nice girl next door, which she is, but, once again, she ain't up to snuff when it comes to acting. Til Schweiger: Same thing! The film: Downright stupid. As it was an American movie it would have been a great role for Adam Sandler who I don't like either. I wasn't offended by the fact that this is a film with handicapped people in it, I just thought that the jokes resulting from this weren't funny at all. I chuckled twice or three times but when I was halfway through it, I was just bored and annoyed and wanted this flick to end.


This film should be called adventures in Cinemascope. It is like the screenwriter and director tooks the Cliff's Notes page 3 outline and decided that this would be a great vehicle for a film about the Italian Alps. Rock Hudson is pretty good here, but the dialogue bears no resemblance to Hemingway at all. This is a made up version of Hemingway. Hecht, the screenwriter, is a hack. Watch the 1932 version with Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes. That is great cinema and was made by someone who understood Hemingway and the war in Northern Italy. Gary Cooper is very, very good compared to his performance in For Whom the Bell Tolls where he is stiff as a board and thinks he is in a western.

Anyway, if you are a Hemingway fan, do yourself a favor and do not watch this film. Your best bet is to get the unabridged audio CD and just listen to one of the greatest novels ever written.


This film truly was poor. I went to the theatre expecting something exciting, and instead was afforded the opportunity to hone my "guess the next plot twist before it happens" skills. Seriously, the plot was written with an extra thick crayon so everyone could see. Nothing was truly shocking. In fact, even the gore was met with such complete suspension of belief that it really didn't add up to much.

The excessive wise cracking and cops talking shop at the crime scenes made it seem all the more phony. And the scene where Lambert's character is struggling with the clues and reaches his "investigative epiphany" goes to great lengths to indicate the level of intellect expected from the audience - little.

Probably the most annoying aspect of the cinematography was the "X-Files" treatment: Every building in the film, whether it's the precinct building, or a house at noon, or a hospital, was suffering from a lack of any discernible lighting (not to mention a lack of 'patients' in the case of the hospital). I don't recall a single scene when someone flipped on a light switch. It sure would have been nice.

Mr. Lambert really isn't an Oscar-grade actor, so I suppose you have to take this film for what it's worth. In the end, I've reached the conclusion that the only thing that would make this film seem more entertaining is to watch it after watching "The Warriors". Otherwise, you're left with an effort that is dull and unoriginal, and nowhere near the equal of films of the genre such as "Silence of the Lambs".


Predictable, gory, over-gimmicky, mediocre. Don't waste your time - there are many much better movies out there.

Resurrection starts out OK but the plot quickly becomes repetitive. My interest level fell off steadily. By the end of the movie I was just glad it was finally over. The characters never fully developed. The cinematography is muddy and the quick change POV rotations - while impressive in 1999 perhaps, presently merely serve to label the movie as attempting to substitute gee whiz flash for plot and character substance. The film shooting gimmicks serve some purpose (convey tension and anxiety) but are constantly overused and ultimately become counterproductive. A shame overall - the film/story obviously had potential and the producers/directors and actors obviously have technical skill. A disappointment.


SHRIEKER is a Full Moon production. I knew what to expect (very little quality) but I didn't expect this to be as painful as SHRIEKER was to watch.

It's just awful. Bad acting, confusing script and direction. Annoying characters I wanted to kill. The whole thing was probably made in one week. I've seen episodes of CHARMED that were more complex and convincing than this cheapie.

It has the look and feel of an orphaned episode of a badly conceived TV series no one has ever seen. It was a chore to watch and I could feel my mind getting dimmer and dimmer by the minute. Watching a movie shouldn't be this much hard work.


What a waste of a great cast. Figured I'd check it out because it looked like a good stoner comedy with a lot of fairly well-known actors. What it turned out to be was a pointless collection of boring intertwining stories about several characters with minimal connections with each other. Characters who start off looking like decent people but end up with not a single likable or interesting characteristic among them. Calling it a comedy was a stretch as well...the only thing that made me chuckle was Jack Black's song, which was basically Tenacious D. I waited for something big to happen but ended up with nothing more than 97 minutes of my life wasted.


My mom and I went to see this film because my brother is serving in the U.S. Peace Corps in the same region in which it's set. Halfway through the film, I decided that given its failure to measure up to what it pretends to accomplish, the title is pretentious. The subject it deals with could have made for an excellent documentary, but because of its poor execution, it left me far less educated about the issue than I had hoped to become. I agree with laura-jane from Canada ("Powerful Message but Lacks Focus."). I also agree with the user who commented that this filmmaker's narration-free style is the opposite of that of Michael Moore, but I don't agree that it presents varying points of view and invites the viewer to decide for him- or herself. I do agree with one user's comment that "a lesson is better learned when we draw the conclusions ourselves"; however, our conclusions can't be anything but poorly founded if we are presented with little relevant information from which to draw them.

The main points of the documentary seemed to be that 1) The African people who live near Lake Victoria are very poor and suffer greatly. 2) The introduction of perch to Lake Victoria, inflicted by Europeans, ruined its ecosystem. 3) The communities surrounding Lake Victoria are financially dependent on the perch economy.

The best things I can say about the film is that it attempted to relate the perspectives of the average people in sub-Saharan Africa, which, unfortunately, is an anomaly among films, and that it attempted to portray poverty as the result of a dysfunctional economic system rather than a universal, inevitable phenomenon. I liked the irony it captured in the massive amount of fish leaving the country in the face of a famine. I appreciated the portrayal of how out of touch the U.N. team assigned to the region was with the people. Like almost all documentaries that don't have the word "women" in the title, this film fails to do a good job representing women's voices -- the majority of the talking done in interviews is that of men.

Maybe I need to watch the film a second time in order to catch some key points I might have missed, but I failed to detect Sauper's theory of the relationship between the introduction of perch to Lake Victoria and the unjust living conditions for Africans living near the lake. Furthermore, I could be wrong, but it struck me that Sauper could do well to improve his interview skills. Not only did the questions he asked and the responses he included seem to be arbitrary, but he seemed to have a real knack for making interviewees awkward and uncomfortable.

The most compelling development in the film is the suggestion that the exportation of perch now functions to mask the importation of arms and that the real economy screwing over Tanzanians is that of war, not fishing. Sadly, Sauper shies away from conducting a thorough expose of the idea (or at least extending the interview with the reporter who seemed to know what he was talking about in regards to the weapons importation) and cops out with a "decide for yourself" approach.

If Darwin's Nightmare was meant to dispel the myth that first world exploitation of the third world gives them "a chance for a better life," it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to depict how the weapons manufacturing industry in the U.S. and Europe is responsible for much armed conflict around the world, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to portray what drives people to prostitution, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to cast light on the inability of the U.N. to carry out its mission, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to say that meager income Tanzanians earn from the perch isn't worth the human cost of tinkering with mother nature to create a profitable product, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to imply that Tanzania would be much better off had Europeans never come, it didn't do a good job of it.


I cannot believe I actually set up a 'season pass' on my TiVo for this, apparently they had a good preview or something .. I can't imagine it though. After seeing about 5 minutes I thought to myself.. why am I watching this.. It is definitely not reality, and some of the worst acting I have ever seen on television.. I am a total addict of reality TV and there is nothing real about this. THE ACTING.. (if you can call it that) is awful.. The only ones that are almost 5% decent are the girls that are meant to draw viewers to the show.. although they would need to be a lot prettier to save this train wreck.. if they would have more lines they would probably change my mind as they probably have no talent either. This is obviously a very low budget production with 'actors' who are apparently very cheap. There is no way they could get a job in anything else. Someone needs to direct these people to a job in food service.. Maybe they could do that. Oh and by the way, Parco P.I. no longer occupies any space on my TiVo or TiVo's season pass list. Definitely the worst show I've ever seen.


Based on the 2007 spy novel by David Ignatius, Body of Lies tells the story of a CIA operative Roger Ferris (DiCaprio) who is sent to Jordan to track down an Al-Qaeda mastermind, all the while treading a narrow tightrope of loyalty to his Jordanian hosts and his manipulative American boss Ed Hoffman (Crowe).

Anybody who's seen the trailers could be forgiven for thinking the story revolves around double-agent action and the betrayal of Ferris by Hoffman, but the actual story is much more mundane. Instead we are served a tepid broth of ridiculous subterfuge as white pretty boy American Ferris moves with virtual impunity through the teeming streets of Amman Jordan with nary a worried look over his shoulder or the attraction of attention from the locals. Only during a scene where Ferris takes his new-found Iranian sweetheart out for tea does reality intrude as the couple are bombarded with glares from Jordanian men.

Compounding the film's problems are plot twists and turns which seem designed as nothing more than padding. Ferris flies to Jordan, Ferris gets expelled from Jordan, Ferris flies to Washington, Ferris flies to the UK, Ferris flies back to Jordan, Hoffman flies to Jordan, Hoffman returns home to take care of his kids  an on it goes. This is the sort of stuff you expect to see in an episode of The Amazing Race, not a spy thriller.

In body-punishing loyalty to his craft, Crowe gained an impressive 63 pounds of flab for the role of portly Ed Hoffman, thus joining the small select club of actors consisting of Robert De Niro and Christian Bale as thespians who've subjected themselves to massive weight gain or loss for their roles. It's too bad that everyone else involved didn't share Crowe's level of dedication to quality, for if they did, we'd have a far better film on our hands than this sub-par mess.


I really liked the idea of traveling between dimensions, and I even liked the Wade/Quinn tension in early episodes. Some of the worlds they created gave the main characters extremely interesting backdrops for their stories. However, as the show went on there were more silly disputes among the friends and less of a true bond. There was less wonder and excitement when they were involved in other worlds and more condescension. And every world had one of the characters falling in love. The writing just got boring and everything was way too over the top. Too bad it would've been nice to have a closely knit band of friends (a la Star Wars) traveling to different dimensions on TV for several years, rather than a tired band of knit pickers.


I'm only going to write more because it's required. However, the summary I put at the top is way too wordy for what this film was. You pretty much know who's in on it from the beginning. In spite of its attempts at plot twists and turns -acting 'talent' trying hard to have looks of shock and dismay when a twist happens-, you never really need to wonder 'whodunit' in this 'mystery'.

The more I write, the more I feel bad that I have to write so much in order to have a comment, but rules are rules. I really feel bad about saying this, but this is the lowest I've ever rated a movie... I think. It makes me wonder what I'm saving votes of 1 and 2 for. However, I thought this film deserved a 3, since I believe there was some talent in the film. Johanna Watts (or is it Watson) did a pretty good job. She was crying and distraught in one part and I thought she conveyed that emotion well. The man who played the character that was 'the drummer' did well, too, for his short part.

Many of the actors did an 'ok' job. But the lead actor, David -forget his last name (terrible with names)- was pretty bad. I think he must have thought he was doing dramatic displays for 'The Young and the Restless' or 'Days of Our Lives'. If you try, you can just picture him in a white lab coat, playing a doctor with multiple personalities on 'General Hospital'. It doesn't help that the movie is even shot like a daytime soap. Although, I'm pretty sure I could shoot this same movie with a camcorder; though without the obvious and soap'ish sound editing.

First time I ever thought the money to rent this movie was wasted. Though, I wouldn't watch it again, unless I was paid a large sum of money.


This takes place in 1920s Harlem. A black owned nightclub has to deal with gangsters and corrupt policemen.

Terrible vanity project for Eddie Murphy. It tries to mix comedy and drama and fails at both. The comedy simply isn't funny and the drama is boring and badly acted. You think a film with three comedy legends--Eddie Murphy, Redd Foxx and Richard Pryor--would be great but it isn't. There's nonstop swearing and the OPENING scene has a young boy shooting a man to death (this is shown as being OK). Also we have the beautiful Della Reese degraded into playing a madam. One of the "comedic" highlights has a long, unfunny and terribly vicious fight between her and Murphy. A boring, offensive and stupid mess. Not the worst Murphy movie but pretty close. A 1 all the way.


I wasn`t expecting much with HARLEM NIGHTS but I wasn`t expecting it to be as bad as it was . Without doubt the worst aspect is the obscene language , it really is awful the amount there is in this film and before anyone accuses me of being a wimp let me point out two things...

1 ) Amongst my fave films I would include GOODFELLAHS , PLATOON , RAGING BULL while my favourite movie of all time is APOCALYPSE NOW

2 ) My all time favourite American television show is the HBO prison drama OZ

so you see films and television shows with massive amounts of swearing don`t normally bother me but the problem I had with HARLEM NIGHTS is to do with the fact it`s supposed to be a comedy but it seems the production team came to the conclusion that an audience laugh everytime someone ( Especially if that someone is black ) says a rude word and decided to subsitute funny situations with swearing all the way through the film hoping to get a laugh. Well I thought I`d never start laughing and I didn`t


Eddie Murphy put a lot into this movie by directed wrote starred and produced this story about two nighclub owners in the 30s who try to fight mobsters and corrupt cops from taking over their club..a great cast in Murphy Redd Foxx, Richard Pryor, Danny Aiello, Della Reese, and a gorgeous Jasmine Guy that would make it worth seeing on its own..but the story just doesnt hold up interest or give the great cast enough to work with.. on a scale of one to ten..a 4


I rented the DVD in a video store, as an alternative to reading the report. But it's pretty much just more terror-tainment.

While the film may present some info from the report in the drama, you're taking the word of the producers - there's no reference to the commission report anywhere in the film. Not one.

The acting, all around, is pretty bad - pretty much all of the stereotypes of 'hot shot' bitchy foul mouthed government agents, each thinking they know more than everyone else. There may be some truth to it, but it really has a bad Hollywood stereotype smell to it.

IMDb's user community ratings & comments tend to be more right than wrong, and I have started to glance at the ratings before renting whenever I can.

I wish I had on this one.


We'll never know The Truth about 9/11. And this shoddy movie proves it.

I recently watched a YouTube report claiming there were no planes involved in the Twin Towers' destruction; that all the news programs were supposedly provided with same-angle shots of the Towers from a mysterious source (probably the gubmint?), and in that provided footage CGI planes were substituted for real-life MISSILES which actually hit the towers....

It's a compelling video, and though I am not a Wacko Conspiracy Theorist per se, I am still not sure myself whether actual planes hit anything that day (the Towers, the Shanksville field, the Pentagon) - because there is no plane wreckage available. (And what about those infamous "black boxes"? None recovered.) A million other theories abound, all of them courting a droplet of Truth awash in an ocean of speculation. But you'll drown in malarkey before you find anything truthful or worth speculating about in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, a no-budget movie that is trying to close the barn door after all the horses and jihadists have escaped.

Writer-director Leigh Scott is obviously a concerned American citizen who wanted to enlighten audiences on what the 560-page report might reveal. It would help if his movie had actors, instead of a guy who looks like David Duchovny, a chick who looks like Gina Gershon, a guy who thinks he's Russell Crowe and another guy who I'm pretty sure is trying hard to be Sean Bean. It would help if his camera operator didn't have Parkinson's; if the lighting director wasn't trying to save on electricity; it would help if his editor didn't have Attention Deficit Disorder, or if the soundtrack wasn't some tuneless new world order esoterica; and the looping should have probably been inserted when people were actually moving their mouths.

We can't even call this propaganda. It's too funny. And by funny, I mean unwatchable.

You can't squeeze an issue this complex into a two-hour film, but Leigh Scott tries anyway, including all those sexy catch-phrases we've grown inured to: bin Laden's intent to attack, purchasing weapons from Somalia, non-aggression agreement with Iraq, Mussawi attending flight school, weapons of mass destruction...

The problem is: we know it's all retrospect, so every discussion the concerned intelligence operatives have with each other reeks of fake hindsight all crammed into a neat conversation. Like contrived reverse engineering, everything pertinent is mentioned succinctly so that we can shake our heads in wonder at how incompetently all these branches of government screwed up.

There's a ludicrous interrogation scene with a lubricious bimbo beating up on a guy with tomato sauce on his face. Now - that would be considered torture if most guys didn't consider it a turn-on.

The tagline is: "What if the attack could have been stopped?" By this movie's account - and, we presume, according to the Commission Report - the CIA and other underground agencies were all set to capture bin Laden and didn't. Everyone involved with the "terrorism" reports (you mean you actually read these reports?) is so concerned we just want to slap them for their bad acting.

Yet the whole story goes so much deeper than the banal soundbytes the negligent Ku Bush Klan foisted on the American people after 9/11. We now know that even capturing bin Laden before the 9/11 attack would not have changed or achieved anything - the wheels were in motion with or without that Taliban figurehead whose involvement was the possible figment of someone's fevered imagination to unite America against a common enemy. Contrary to popular belief "they" didn't "attack us." As Ron Paul tried to elucidate, it was a case of Middle Eastern blowback - "they" were so sick of America planting their infidel feet "over there" that they brought the war "over here." So though George W. Death likes to tout the nonsensical, "We're fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here," in reality "Because we're Over There, the fight has been brought Over Here."

The 9/11 attack was not so much about the intricate planning of terrorists, as it was the gross negligence of the Bush administration, who we know (without the probing of Commissions) had all the intel from the Clinton administration onwards; information about terrorist cells reaching critical mass and their intent to cause chaos. But the Oil Idiot of Texas, who refused to read his Daily Briefings and would rather vacation at his Crawford ranch than spend one extra day at work, abrogated the duty he swore an oath to perform - protect the American public.

And then the scum who called himself president used the attacks brought about by his negligence as a political hammer against his own dumbed-down countryfolk to score a second term, shred the American Constitution and take America into a Fake War on the basis of a lie (WMD), with a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Strangely enough, the movie never treads near the Ku Bush Klan, offering no opinion or judgment, Leigh Scott wanting to remain neutral. Tell that to the raped and pillaged hundreds of thousands in the Fake War on Terror in Iraq.

Out of pure coincidence, I realized I was watching this DVD while wearing my "Bush lied. Thousands Died." t-shirt.


I like the concept of CSI, but the show is spoiled by some seriously wooden acting. The Medical Examiner has the best lines and delivers them in an arch, offhand manner that livens up the story. Unfortunately he has little screen time.

Also, why does Jorja Fox always look and act so utterly unhappy? I know that forensic investigation is a very serious business, but the characters, for the most part, seem to confuse seriousness with humorlessness and a complete lack of personality. I can't imagine dating either Sarah Sidle or Catherine Willows; what would you talk to either one about? I'm waiting for the episode when, at the end of a shift, Catherine picks up a remote control, points it at Grissom, shuts him down, and wheels him into a closet until the next day.


************* SPOILERS BELOW ************* "'Night, Mother" is the story of Jesse (Sissy Spacek), a divorced epileptic woman who calmly announces to her brash mother (Anne Bancroft) that she's going to commit suicide. This is a fascinating premise that is drained of all vitality and excitement. The brilliant hook turns out to be a cheat- the story that follows is lacking in substance, gravity and revelatory value. Where are the shocks and surprises as mother and daughter have what may be the last conversation of their lives? Where are the secrets revealed, the confessions and fantasies and regrets? They're here, but they've all been painted the same dull color that keeps emotion in the background and celebrates the 'genius' of playwright Marsha Norman at the expense of everything else. The result is not a film but an exhausting endurance test.

Let me preface my comments by saying I find Sissy Spacek to be one of the greatest actresses in the history of motion pictures, a woman so magnetic, so natural that she continues to surprise and amaze me after twenty years of stardom. She brings a touch of class and magic to everything she does, and I've seen her rescue more than one film from the recycling bin with her angelic face and vulnerable eyes, her soft voice and sweet smile. It was because of the great Spacek that I watched this film in the first place, and for one of her movies to be terrible it has to fail in a significant way. This film fails in two.

First and foremost the film is adapted so faithfully from the Pulitzer-winning stage play that it is claustrophobic and repetitive. The entire movie is a two-woman dialogue between Jesse and her Mother. What worked on stage- a middle-aged mother and daughter argue for two hours in small house- dies on film. A play, no matter how great, needs to be *adapted* for the screen it is self-indulgent and arrogant to believe that the dialogue is so perfect that not of a word of it can be altered. The screenplay for this film could have been shortened by thirty to forty pages, and a knowing screenwriter would have given the brilliant Spacek and competent Bancroft some *physical* sequences, some facial reactions, something to break up the wall-to-wall yak fest and prison-like single-set. It is no wonder that the screenplay was adapted by the original playwright Marsha Norman, who may know theater but reveals herself here to be clueless in film.

I cannot over-emphasize the effect the stage-play script has on the film. Watching Jesse and her Mother argue about Jesse's impending suicide is redundant and dull. The women walk from the living room into the kitchen into the den and back into the living room, where they start all over again. A tiny Midwestern house is not the ideal location for a single-set film, and the director never tries anything clever or original, never tries to break up the monotony with an exterior shot or cutaway or a flashback or *anything*. There's no music, no other characters, no other stories... just two women covering the couch cushions and arguing their opinions. The reverence given to the play is sickening even Shakespeare's most solemn classics get shaken up for the screen. The commitment to the original play seems almost spiteful it's as if the film was made only to document the dramatic treasure that was the stage play, with the audience an afterthought.

The other reason the film fails is Anne Bancroft. She may be a good stage actress but on film- where presence is 80% of performance- she rarely seems to fit. She certainly doesn't fit here, playing a Midwestern grandmother but looking more like Mrs. Robinson before her morning coffee. She chases Jesse around the house, looking more aggravated than astounded, and seems extraordinarily unsympathetic, even when her lines convey a loving- if flawed- woman.

Sissy Spacek is great as she always is, honest and open and so good that you actually understand and agree with her character's choice. Sissy lets us see that Jesse is a flat tire, a wrong turn of a woman who has had every bad break and made too many wrong choices. She's never had control of her life, and her suicide will be her way of finally saying "No more- this is where I get off." That's how she puts it anyway, and when Spacek speaks you listen. She proves in all her films that a good actress doesn't have to behave like a man, doesn't have to be all bluff and bravado and borrowed testosterone. In this and in films like "Coal Miner's Daughter" she quietly demonstrates a soft strength and quiet depth that is as impressive as it is hypnotic you can't help but fall in love.

That's why it was so hard for me to watch "'Night, Mother." Spacek is wasted in a stilted stunt of a film that never serves to engage or even distract. I would not recommend this movie to anyone except die-hard fans of Sissy like myself and even then you'll be disappointed. I do give the film an entire letter grade bonus for the ending, which is courageous enough to let the lead character do what's right for *her* and not pander to a hackneyed happy ending. GRADE: C


The beginning of the film is promising. When Jeanne Pollet(Anna Mouglalis) hear the story of the incident that happen on the day she was born that raise the possibility that she is the daughter of a famous pianist, André Polonski (Jacques Dutrone), she set to find out whether it's true or not, and giving the fact the she plays also the piano that's not such a remote idea. Jeanne meet André and his wife "Mika" Muller(Isabelle Huppert) and their son and on the way uncover the fact that there are some secrets in that family as much in her own.

O.K. we have seen this before and it has been done in a more interesting way than here.The character of "Mika" Muller is left with out us understanding her motives to her action and she is not interesting enough to care for her. The piano scenes look fake and the whole piano sub-plot doesn't add anything to the character's insight but serve as to make the film longer than it should have been in the first place.

In short a very disappointing outing from Chabrol, who can do better than this


The dominating conflict is between a couple of fine actors (Huppert and Dutronc) and the horrible script. Evidently, the actors lost, since the director/screenwriter Claude Chabrol eventually forced the leading couple to follow this worthless piece of sick imagination to the letter. Fortunately, the powerful performances by Huppert and Dutronc dramatically improve the overall quality of the movie, which miraculously gains the depth and humor. As for Chabrol's persistence in keeping the film bland and illogical, it reaches the climax in the final scene, which is so incredibly poor that you will wonder which pills he was taking himself while directing it.


UGH!...this is the worst Wrestlemania hands down....no good matches.....Hulk Hogan rears his over tanned bald head yet again in the main event, the spot light hoggin scum!....not one thing note worthy on this tape, oh..I take that back...this is Jim Ross's first WM...but other than that....it has nothing worth seein....a major bust...

1 out of 10 stars WOOF!!!


It's a shame that quality actors like Baldwin and Booth have to succumb to lousy stories and scripts just for the money. But, hey, it's a cruel world...

This is just another one of a long line of assassin thrillers that use all the usual narrative twists to try to make it appear more appealing than it is. Sure, it has some nice locations, it's a slick production, there is some good camera work and editing, and it's fairly well paced, overall.

So, what's the real problem? Quite simply, the whole premise is just totally unbelievable. However, instead of spoiling a rotten story for you, I'll let you find out what it's all about, that is, if you can get through it. I managed, but only because I like Baldwin and I kept hoping that it would get better.

It didn't. And, it had one of the most anti-climactic endings that I've seen for a long time. In fact, maybe never...

But, it's harmless fun, I guess, if you've got nothing better to do.


For a movie I was really looking forward to, I was very disappointed. I had no expectations of this being another Amadeus, but did expect a more significant portrayal of Beethovens last years.

The performance by Ed Harris was superb, but the story line was so weak that the film simply moved from one dreary scene to the next with no continuity.

The only enjoyable part of the film for me was the performance of the 9th, and from that point on I could quite happily have walked out without finishing.

I left feeling very dissatisfied and still have the feeling that something important was missed.


From Kreestos:

The dialog is terrible, awful, drivel. Acting poor. Many plot flaws. I don't recommend this at all.

From Wikipedia:

Artistic licenses The working manuscript of the score is attributed to two copyists [1], both of whom were male, not female as depicted in the film.

The copyists neither contributed to nor altered the score. In fact, they were berated by Beethoven for any deviation that occurred from the original score.

The movie is set in 1824 during the composition of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Throughout the movie Beethoven is shown to be hard of hearing but quite capable of understanding people who speak loudly. In reality, Beethoven had lost much of his hearing seven years earlier (1817). Beethoven never experienced permanent deafness; his condition fluctuated between total silence and terrible tinnitus. The Ninth Symphony was composed at a time when Beethoven's hearing had deteriorated severely. At this point in his life, most of Beethoven's conversations were facilitated by the use of notebooks. It can be argued, however, that he was also able to read people's lips, evidenced by his insistence that people face him when they spoke to him.

In the film, Beethoven makes an allusion to the Moonlight Sonata. This is an anachronism as the Sonata No. 14 "quasi una fantasia" was not named "Moonlight" until several years after his death.


My guess would be this was originally going to be at least two parts, and thus at least a quarter longer, because otherwise how can one explain its confused, abbreviated storyline. I was never completely lost, but I was often partially lost and usually unclear on character motivation. The movie feels as though joining plot points were dropped to squeeze it into its time slot.

If it were longer, it might make more sense, but it still wouldn't be much good. The movie's most interesting idea is of the war between Zeus and Hera as being a war between the male and female, but the movie drops the ball on this, making Hera's followers fairly horrible while not being clear on what Zeus' followers do or believe. The movie is also interesting because you don't see the gods and there's no real certainty that they exist. So it's got a couple of intriguing ideas, but it doesn't do anything useful with them.

Bad dialog, cardboard characters, and one interesting scene involving Hercules and his three antagonistic sons. Not unwatchable but also not worth watching.


OK we have 4 city electricians who find a mini nuke reactor, turn it in and fall into a parallel universe inhabited by a Giant spider queen also from a parallel universe, who managed to slip through with a few of her kin to take over the earth, but alas she is the only one left? If so why did not the rest of humanity join up and hunt her down. Also what happened to the military, no way a few billion plus round of ammo could have been used up and why hide out in a basement when a lot more defensible places had to available. Also not a dig on city workers, but how is it they knew what a mini nuke reactor looked like and how if they did not have one in the parallel universe, could they reopen the rift? Sorry but there was nothing likable about the movie


Webs starts in 'Chicago: Present Day' as four electricians, Dean (Richard Grieco), Ray (Richard Yearwood), Sheldon (Jeffrey Douglas) & Junior (Jason Jones) are about to disconnect the electric to an unused building scheduled for demolition. As they search for the relevant cables & stuff they come across a set of doors that according to the buildings blue-prints shouldn't be there, being nosey & all that they force the doors open to have a look & find a room full of computers & scientific machinery. As they mess around with some buttons a portal to a parallel universe opens, Dean & Junior accidentally 'fall' in with Ray & Sheldon following soon after in search of their friends. Unfortunately they've all ended up in an exact parallel Earth that has been taken over by a mutant spider thing that either eats people or turns them into mutant soldiers with which she uses to protect herself & do whatever she wants them to really. In a desperate bid for survival they team up with a few of the last remaining humans including the original inventor of the portal Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox) who says that with the help of our electrician boys he might (yeah might) be able to build another portal to take them back home...

Edited & directed by David Wu I thought Webs was pretty crap, it's as simple & straight forward as that really. The script by Grenville Case & Robinson Young is preposterous to say the least & has plot holes in it you could drive a tank through, for instance is this film really trying to suggest that a few mutant spider things no bigger than a couple of people in size took over an entire world? How did they do this? If this parallel Earth was the same as ours where the hell was the army? The police? All of our weapons? A few fragile looking spider things against literally billions of humans?! The whole flawed, stupid & downright naff concept constantly bugged me throughout the entire film. Lets not forget that there is a inter-dimensional portal to a parallel Earth in the basement of most buildings that have sat there undisturbed for decades & remain in perfect working order, right? Then there's the nuclear reactor the size of a briefcase, the fact one electrician can make it work perfectly purely by accident as he randomly presses a few buttons in a room that probably had 100's spread over dozens of pieces of equipment & what about the wonderfully thoughtful guy who sets an explosive bobby trap in his base without telling anyone, what if one of his mates had set it off & found themselves blown to pieces by their mates homemade bomb? You wouldn't be best pleased would you? What about food? Do they grow their own in little vegetable patches? I could go on & on all day long about how flawed, ill conceived & poorly written Webs is but I can't be bothered. The character's are clichéd & annoying as is the film as a whole which obviously doesn't help. The only half decent thing I can say about Webs is that it's short & it moves along at a fair pace but when all said & done it's still crap.

Director Wu has to take a large chunck of the blame here, for a start the film looks cheap & the editing that he is credited with is terrible. There's lots of annoying inappropriate slow motion shots that come from nowhere, the action scenes are almost identical & become incredibly boring very quickly. He uses that highly annoying quick cut technique along with a bit of the old jerky camera movement, now I don't know about anyone else but I hate this editing style as it just looks a complete incoherent mess. In fact I don't know a single person who does like this sort of thing & I'm puzzled as to why filmmakers think people do. Forget about any gore, just a few shotgun wounds to the spider zombie soldier guys & they don't have red blood anyway so it doesn't relate to reality in my mind.

Webs was made-for-TV, the American Sci-Fi Channel I think & it looks every bit as cheap, low budget & rushed as you would expect. It's all so bland, forgettable, flat & dull. The special effects are far from special & the spider thing lacks imagination when finally revealed. The acting was OK considering everything else was so poor & I still can't believe the sweater Grieco was wearing in this.

Webs is crap, I can't really say anything good about it other than I've sat through worse films & that's the sole reason I'm not giving it 1 star & a quick glance at the IMDb user ratings for Webs confirms what I already knew in that it has more '1' votes than any other & there is very good reason why...


Reeves plays Haji Murad, a hero in 1850's Russia.

This is a badly dubbed movie, with June Foray doing some of the voices. Unfortunately who ever was suppose to sync the voices to the lips was blind since the words never match the lip flaps. Anyone who says that Japanese films are bad have never watched this film.

The film's plot is instantly forgettable and so I've forgotten it in the time its taken the movie to end and for me to sit and write this down. Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the film is one of the many that Reeves made in hopes of moving away from action to more plot driven sort of films. It may have been a good thing for Reeves, but its deadly for the audience who have to slug through nooze fests such as this, where its all court intrigue with very little action.

In Reeves defense, he was a good actor, he just had no real luck in picking films that were any good. They all looked great, but very few of them didn't put the those watching them into a coma for the film's running time.

This film will put you in a coma. Watch it only if you have the need for sleep and all other gentler means have failed.


Slasher sequel (fourth SLUMBER PART MASSACRE film) concerns a group of nubile cheerleaders stranded in a mountainous cabin in the snow, being offed by a deranged killer. Typical slasher elements for hardcore slasher fans, gore, wonderfully gratuitous female nudity, no plot. Though it wears out its welcome eventually, even at its short length.

Original star Brinke Stevens makes a cameo, which only seems to be there for the sake of including her in the movie.


This movie is not that good at all.Its pretty stupid, pretty annoying, and very poorly done.I really only saw this film was because one of my friends said they hated this film.Although I didn't hate it as much as them, I still found it to be a pretty bad film.The only thing that is remotely good about this was that it was a little entertaining at times, and also I feel that if it had been done a little better it would have been equally okay.What I mean by a little better is that if it had been totally recast, not have had it looked like it had been shot for a film festival, and if the script had been improved it would have been a okay slasher film.Instead it isn't but instead what it is now, a crappy film.The acting is atrocious I felt as if I was watching a couple of teens act for like a Halloween show or Thrill ride or something.The kills are pretty cheap(as is the film itself), and basically everything else is low-class.Overall this film really is bad and you wouldn't be missing out on anything if you decided to skip this film.

3.8 out of 10 stars


There wasn't a 0 in the voting option so i was compelled to use the next available figure.

It is a sad day for bollywood when such type of movies which have star-cast actors is nothing more are than a bunch of juvenile acting, and an awful script.

This movie is nowhere near to be called a clone of Hitch. Salman khan with his usual take-off-you-shirt theme and Govinda with his in-humorous laughs. If somebody had told 2 decades ago that I would be writing a comment on Salman (after his success with Maine Pyar Kiya), I would have written him/her off.


This is another Bollywood remake of a Hollywood movie. Hitch...If I'm correct.

The film has some great moments which will have you laughing out loud which frankly only come from Govinda who has become a legend within Indian Cinema and will always bring his A game in terms of comedies. Another bonus is Rajpal Yadav; who is hilarious as the gangster who mimics 'Don', an Indian icon of cinema. Lara Dutta is a plus...I know I sound shallow but its mainly because I have a soft spot for her, she tries to be funny but its seems to be forced. Her acting is weak...but she still shines. Salman Khan is atrocious, he tries to bring the cool, charming depths but fails miserably, he over acts and keeps shouting for no apparent reason.

'Thats not acting mate, thats called being mentally challenged'

Katrina Kaif is just bad...not very good at anything. No charisma, no talent..and I don't see why people consider her pretty... The plot was far fetched and I had a hard time believing that Katrina's character was remotely attracted to Govinda. The only good thing is the music...'You're my love' was the best in the soundtrack.


Director / lead actor Dutcher revels in this look-at-me film, wherein he attempts to gain worldly acceptance for tarnishing the otherwise very upbeat world of Mormon missionaries. Some of the acting is fair. But some roles are unrealistic, i.e. the ominous (rather than fatherly) Mission President, etc. The film does give a fair look at how some missionaries may struggle with their faith, but the actual missionary program he claims to represent is far from his concept of it, in terms of being upbeat, cohesive, and inspired. The only inspiration I see in this film is Dutcher's self-inspiration. The film is slow and boring, and the shooting and screenplay look like a college student project.


Does anyone remember BRAVEHEART ? It starred Mel Gibson who also directed and was scripted by Randall Wallace . The film contains over 200 errors . Does anyone remember THE GREEN BERETS ? That`s the John Wayne western where the Duke saves a homestead called Vietnam from a bunch of injuns from the commie tribe . If you watch WE WERE SOLDIERS you can`t help but be reminded of these two films .

First of all what`s with that Scottish lament that`s played three times in the movie , four if you count the end credits ? I mean what`s the connection between Scotland and `Nam ? Maybe Wallace is using it in the vain hope that because BRAVEHEART was bombarded - Undeservedly I might add - with several Oscars then so might this film ? Whatever reason it`s included it really jars . Gibson plays Hal Moore as a cross between William Wallace and John Wayne and I was expecting him to say something like " They`ll never take our freedom - The hell they will " and it`s impossible not to notice other similarities with THE GREEN BERETS like the subplot of a journalist picking up a gun and turning into a warrior and Moore telling the journalist about guilt in a scene almost identical to the one seen in the Wayne movie

When not reminding the audience of other movies WWS also fails to stand on its own legs , it`s based on real events in 1965 but seems to lack an integrity needed to do the story justice , it never feels like 1965 and lacks a sense of time and place probably because it was filmed in America not Asia . Hal Moore might have brushed up on the French experience in Indo-China but if that`s the case then he was unique because the American military went out of their way not to read up on the French Indo-China war , indeed when asked about the previous conflict Westmoreland replied he had nothing to learn from the French " Who haven`t won a war since the days of Napoleon " so I was confused as to the portrayal of the NVA in this movie , when in 1965 the American high command , brimming with hubris held the North Vietnamese and VC in contempt . It`s like history has been rewritten in order to show the rice farmers of Vietnam are superlative warriors . They are , but very few Americans believed this in the mid 1960s<br /><br />There`s a couple of other things that confused me like how the wives back home get telegrams telling them their husbands are dead ? No bodies are shown being flown back to base and no one on screen is seen referring to who`s been killed in the La Drang valley . Likewise we`re not seen reinforcements arrive on screen so how do we suddenly see the Americans out number the NVA ? I put these down as directorial/ editing blunders on the part of Wallace who doesn`t strike me as much of a director , and his biggest problem seems to be communicating the horror of the battle . Take the scene where the American burned to a crisp is flown away screaming " Tell my wife I love her " . This should have an emotional impact similar to THAT death scene in PLATOON but here there`s no impact . In fact I found the scene cliched and patronising , and he`s not the only character to mouth the words " Tell my wife ... " while mutilated or dying , I counted at least two other characters use the phrase . Did characters actually say this at the battle ? I`ve no idea but since Randall Wallace wrote the script I do have reservations

I sat in shocked awe watching APOCALYPSE NOW , PLATOON and THE KILLING FIELDS made my eyes water , I laughed at FULL METAL JACKET , I kept looking at my watch with THE DEER HUNTER , and after seeing WE WERE SOLDIERS I felt totally patronised


I saw the movie after checking its rating on IMDb. Back then, it was at 8.0 and I thought, "wow! That must be a good one". I thought wrong. The beginning of the movie actually keeps what the plot promises, but then it goes exponentially down underneath its basement. I think without the character of Richie Nix, it might have been alright - although he is the reason the story line takes the course it does. The character is just too extreme for my liking, and hard to endure. Also, the journey the main character takes from the beginning of the story till its "climax" at the end is partly irrelevant and could easily have been omitted - the alternative is, I just did not understand the movie.

Although I must admit that it is "easy watching", and I had no problems sitting through the whole movie, when it had finished I was somewhat unimpressed by the ending. All in all, rather mediocre.


AWFUL wot more can i say i remember seeing it in the cinema (see how it sticks painfully in the memory)as a 16 yr old lad. Mark Hamill was the older generations skywalker and wasn't great at that, he was worse in this. Plus a dour soundtrack by Then Jericho AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH. There is one film equally as bad as this i saw in the cinema Arthur 2 on the rocks. Funny how that question "What is the worst film you have ever seen is?" is easier than "what is the best film?" which incidentally varies between The Italian Job (original), Untouchables, Casino, Things to Do in Denver, Goodfellas (getting a sense of what I like??? - this will fool you!) Finding Nemo, Pirates of The Caribbean and Moulin Rouge! Please Never Watch this film or it will stick in your memory too!


On top of the fact that Skylar is a complete douche bag and his cons are unimaginative, his schemes require way to much preparation to make any of his scams worth while. Without giving away any spoilers (as if it matters with this piece of crap) his cons are such a sham because it takes the effort of days and days of planning, and the use of multiple accomplices and an entire camera crew etc. just to scam someone into a service that would cost less than a hundred bucks.....in addition if you read in the credits they re-stage some of the phone calls etc. because they don't pan out...The whole concept of this show is bunk because all of his cons have the cost in both the crew and the effort of ten times the actual cost of the service he is trying to get for free...what is the con?


First of all, the title "DAILY" is a LIE.

Every "Daily Show" program opens with an on-screen visual of the date it was made, followed by a pause and the opening announce. On the many days when they are RE-RUNNING a Daily Show, they slip-cue the tape and OMIT the date and begin with the opening announce giving the false impression that the show is a new one. That's a lie. There is no mention of it being a rebroadcast. And that kind of crap is just a small indicator of how sneaky and deceptive this show is.

Furthermore, it's only on 4 nights a week. That's not quite "daily" - meaning Monday through Friday - another shortcoming but one I am grateful for.

It's sad to think that many clueless young people use this fake news program as their main, often only, news source. This leaves them woefully ignorant and much worse - badly misinformed.

Although it leans liberal-left, politically, this show can be amusing at times. However, its veracity is low. Facts and information are often cleverly twisted to fit the writers' agendas. It's often hard to tell where the facts leave off and the fiction and comedy writing begin. The result is pre-digested, reinterpreted information designed to persuade and influence. This is called "PROPAGANDA".

The remote interviews are heavily kluged in editing.

It really loses me when it bashes God and Christians - which it does all too often. However, you'll never hear anything vaguely anti-Semitic.

If Jon Stewart and company attacked anyone but Christians, it would be considered an offensive outrage. The names in the credits explain the source.


Well, this movie wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. I was expecting to give it one star. I chose to give it three. Why? Well, for a cheesy horror/sci-fi movie, it's not all that bad. Sure the characters are tacky (as is their acting - including a young Leonardo DiCaprio), the effects cheap looking, and the monsters...well let's just say that I've seen some more effective Halloween costumes in Elementary Schools... But there was something about this movie that made me watch it till the end. A little bit of humor helped out a bit I guess. And if you ever wanted to see an alien pass gas, this movie will let you live your dream. 3/10


Bad, a lot a crap. It copied simone, also a bad movie! Them flips when "loretta modern" sang was lame. That internet scenes made it worse. And Roscoe loves a "hologram"! Thats plain stupid! I give 0 stars! Because they copied, the plot was stupid, THE WHOLE MOVIE WAS THUMBS DOWN ALL THE WAY!


This isn't a bad movie. It's fun to watch for the first time. However it has absolutely no replay value at all. When you try to watch it again it gets so boring you have to turn it off. I give this movie a 6 out of 10.


I caught this movie on late-night TV. Honestly i saw most of it, and the whole time i was sitting in complete and utter disbelief.

Is there any genre that's more pointless than soft-core porn? If there is i don't want to know about it. Softcore porn combines all the horrors of porn (lousy production values, abominable acting, crappy scripts) with the coyness of sex-scenes in regular movies. So the end result is arousing nor entertaining. This movie also has the rather odd approach of a science-fiction setting, and it works horribly. All the sex is performed in some sort of virtual reality setting where the crew from the future learn about physical love. And yes, it's about as confused and silly as it sounds.

But there has to be some positive points though, right? Well, there is one... Krista Allen is amazingly hot. That's about the only thing that was less than awful in this movie. I don't know what it is about her, but she has an amazing sex appeal. The rest of the cast look like the standard porn-cast though. Rather unattractive women with poorly done fake breasts, and men that have spent far too much time in the gym toning themselves grotesque. Probably a gym in Germany as well judging by haircuts and clothing.

To sum things up. If you enjoy Krista Allens presence on screen you can watch this for the brief moments where she shows some of her seductive potential (most of the time she tries to articulate crappy lines of dialog though). If you don't enjoy Krista Allen then you might as well stay away altogether.

I rate this 10/10 for Krista Allens sex appeal, 1/10 for everything else and 2/10 for entertainment value since this is a unique crappy porn/science fiction hybrid that's not really like anything i've ever seen.


If you read the plot summary for "Mad Max," you've just ruined the first 1 hour and 10 minutes of the film. You've also found out that "Mad Max" takes place in post-apocalyptic Australia, which will be helpful because otherwise you won't have any idea what's going on. The film, made in 1979, tries really hard to be Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) only that film, in all its strangeness, actually makes sense and leaves an impact. This film does neither and ends up being a car/bike stunt-filled romp that crashes like every vehicle in the film does.

The first thing wrong with "Mad Max" is that it tries to sell itself as a revenge tale when no vigilante appears to take revenge until the final 20 minutes. If the first hour were condensed to 20-30 minutes and then the final 20 added on and then another hour added after that, "Mad Max would be a cool action film with a great vigilante protagonist. Instead, Mel Gibson has to wait around and act like a sissy for 2/3 of the film and then have a sudden epiphany to seek revenge. I've yet to watch the sequel "Road Warrior" and I have to admit I'm excited for it only because I want to know what he does next. This first film was mostly a waste of time.

George Miller does some great action stuff here, but his over-the-top symbolism is absurd and the unbearable cheesy reaction sequences every time a character discovers something horrifying like a burnt hand or what have you completely ruins those moments. Its a terribly cliché B-movie technique.

There is absolutely no thematic value or subtle critique of society in this film no matter what you might think. A great action sci-fi movie at least makes a point, but the gratuitous violence done by random, weird bikers doesn't say anything of value. Even the villain Toecutter feels modeled off Alex of "Clockwork" only uglier and completely unimposing. The PG violence just does not allow the violence of this gang to settle in and get a reaction from the viewer, it just cheeses it up if anything.

I'll give credit for the amount of stuff the film crew blew up and crashed into things and Miller does a great job making you feel the intensity of the collisions. Everything else is mediocre at best and then after an hour of mediocrity, you get something good and the film ends 20 minutes later. I'm just crossing my fingers "Road Warrior" will fulfill the expectations of where this film ends, otherwise that's more time wasted. ~Steven C

Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com


New York attorney plots to rid himself of his senile mother after meeting an attractive, available woman. Screenwriter Robert Klane, adapting his own novel (the kind of paperback kids would buy for the dirty parts), doesn't seem to have any knowledge of mental illness: to him, it's just an excuse for prurient comedy and scatological jokes. George Segal--who, in the 1960s, starred mostly in war and espionage pictures--had become, by this time, one of America's greatest sad-sack comedians; his nutty reactions and batty responses rival only his mother's inscrutabilities. Segal is paired well with Trish Van Devere, and their moments of connection (though also played for laughs) are really the only sequences one can gravitate towards. Ruth Gordon, lovable as is she, is simply around too much--and more of her amounts to less. This is one of the worst directed and edited films I have ever seen from so-called professionals. Promising scenes which ultimately don't play out for the full effect are haphazardly disconnected from other moments which flail around endlessly, causing the crass, rickety movie to self-destruct long before it's actually over. *1/2 from ****


This movie has some of the worst acting I've ever seen. Dennis Quaid's performance was high school caliber. While it's difficult to portray an off-the-wall character like Jerry Lee Lewis, it can be done. Just ask Jamie Foxx (although Ray Charles had more depth to his personality and musicianship than Lewis ever dreamed of possessing). The Phillips brothers portrayal belonged in The Dukes of Hazzard, and Alec Baldwin playing Jimmy Swaggart is a bit like Donald Duck performing Shakespeare. When Robert Duvall played a country preacher, I bought it. Baldwin never made me believe a single word. Wynona Ryder's part was the best, and she was mediocre. (And can anyone figure out how she was 13 when Lewis met her and still 13 more than a year later?) Some checking on the Internet reveals the essential facts presented by the film were true, at least no more fouled-up than most Hollywood bio pics. This film did badly at the box office, and it should have.


Poor old Robert Taylor. Other than THE FEDS, nothing much has gone his way - this almost-shocker is a wasteful ninety minutes and not much more. It's one of those cheesy detective-crime flicks with the narrative of the lead character the whole way through - usually that's reserved for comedies these days but this film takes itself way too seriously! A pity; Australian films, particularly in the 2000-01 periods, have been of exceptional quality overall - but I suppose there have got to be a few misses. Why even make a film like this, that obviously isn't going to be any good?


H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds by director David Michael Latt is a slightly less-than-average flick which isn't too bad if one considers the budget he had to work with - only $1 million. For this budget, the production value wasn't too bad - the best part of it is the visual effects (I was thoroughly impressed with the CGI considering the budget) and sound design. The less-then-stellar parts of this film are the story which is VERY prolonged at best (but again I think this is because of the budget they had - they had to prolong certain scenes to create the feature length 97 minutes), the acting (again it's because the actors had no story to work with), very few exceptional camera shots, and the music. However, again, I can let the negative parts go for the most part only because this film was made for a meager budget and still had good production value. Still you should,d see it for the sake of seeing how a low budget version of War of the Worlds CAN be made even with flaws. 4 out of 10.


I did not like this movie. I rented it hoping it would be something like the 10th Kingdom. I was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't. I also found it just plain nervracking. The acting was bad, the characters where unbelievable and the time jumps were crazy. I only recomend this film if your in the mood to see a crazy dude running around, but I'm sure there are better films with the same thing. I can't believe I wasted my time on this one.


Maybe it was the excessive weight gain Seagal had put on. Or maybe it was the horrible acting of Wayans in an action flick. Or was it the total lack of chemistry between the two leading characters? These and other considerations lead me to conclude that Seagal should have never made this acting nightmare. True, the story line was good. Yet, as an avid follower of Seagal's career and background, his physical appearance was inconsistent with his genre of clean, pure, healthy Zen Buddhist living, notably in his on screen discussions with Wayans. (Then again his real life affair with the "nanny" was inconsistent also!)

If Seagal wants to become a more diversified actor, then he should do what a fellow action figure did in "Kindergarten Cop"...put humorous material or situations in the script where the actor has no choice but to react in a comical way. Otherwise, leave the wise-cracks and the futile attempts at humor out of it while chasing a serial killer. Seagal is not a natural humor type of guy. It did not work.


Let me say at the outset that I'm not a very artistic person and that I don't "get" new art. That being said, this film is absolutely crazy, and in my opinion not crazy in a good way. Filmed entirely in black and white with a series of very loosely connected stories, Avida is a film for those who can look at modern art and say "wow, I feel the energy and passion of this painting." The only reason I give this film a 3 out of 10 is because I actually did manage to laugh at some parts, though mainly laughing at the sheer insanity of the film. Two of the characters throwing chairs on a lawn, as to do what these characters were doing, I have no idea. I wouldn't recommend this film to anybody.


Set in a post apocalyptic future, the new highlander is an effeminate little twerp named Quentin MacLeod, who is being mentored by a new Ramirez while his little sister tags along on their quest to thwart an evil immortal overlord. To do so, Quentin must absorb all the knowledge of other immortals before this overlord, Korton, does.

In short, this is pure crap, much like the Highlander sequels. Quentin is a fairly stupid character, constantly whining and moaning and bitching in a "woe is me for I am a reluctant hero" kind of way, and he never catches on to the fact that he's an immortal and can't be killed, at least not easily. Ramirez would have done better to ditch him and thwart Korton himself.


Charlie (George "Norm" Wendt) and Rhonda ("Just Say" Julie Brown) are a pair of cheerful, murderous aliens who become stranded on Earth and stumble upon a tiny western town. They become deputy sheriffs and dish out a deadly form of justice to speeders, murderers and others, while getting on the bad side of some of locals (led by Wayne Grace). Meanwhile, their sexy alien daughter (Anastasia Sakelaris) arrives in a skimpy/shiny outfit with her black human husband (Christopher M. Brown) to find them and TV reporters and government agents turn up to fill up time.

From what I can tell, this is a deliberate attempt to cover every possible genre (comedy, sci-fi, horror, western...) in one movie, and what a stupid, unfunny mess it is, despite energetic acting from the two stars. The script is downright atrocious.


The movie isn't too bad, up until...

The main problem is with the ending, so it's a pretty major spoiler...

For the time it was made, it's a beautiful movie, and does get a lot of it right.

However...

In the book, Sam succeeds and lives his dream, whereas in the movie, he gives up and goes back to the city, completely destroying the "you can do what you put your mind to" theme of the book.

This movie is a desecration, and instead of remaking classics that don't need redone, the Hollywood types who haven't any better ideas should do this one, right this time.


But I still enjoyed watching her, so I gave it a 3 instead of a 1. Her expressions are priceless. Some of the other cast members (e.g., Michael McKean) are really slumming, too. The cat himself is somewhat amusing. Aside from that, the movie is all cliche, culminating in a much-too-long car chase. (It's also at this point that the movie becomes unnecessarily crude, having been very "family" until then.)


`It's as if this town has the power to suck your brain right out of your head.' -Patti

Patti (Christina Ricci) is a sarcastic teenaged girl, bored with her all-too-average little town. Bored that is until a woman is kidnapped and she finds what she believes to be clues to the poor lady's whereabouts. Now, with the help of her precious cat `D.C.' and an inept FBI agent (Doug E. Doug) she must find her.

That Darn Cat is a bad movie. It is quite foolish and it has humor that often falls quite flat. There are, however, a few buds of talent in it. Doug E. Doug was good in Cool Runnings. His performance as `Senga' was really funny. Here he is wasted as the bumbling FBI agent. He does have a good scene when he imitates the cat, though. Micheal Mckean plays Patti's father. His character must be the most understanding parent to ever live. This poor guy has his expensive cigar crushed, gets arrested for picking up his own cat, and gets bitched-at by his snippy wife and STILL doesn't get angry at his daughter for causing all of his troubles. I wish my old man was like that. The only real good performance is Christina Ricci's. She entertaining as the ever-annoyed Patti, but her occasional very bad dialogue pulls her performance down. You might also recognize Peter Boyle (Young Frankenstein, Everybody Loves Raymond), the old lady from Wings and Cliff from Cheers, in this movie. This is a movie that all these actors would probably like to forget. Even the cat isn't very good... I really can't recommend 1997's That Darn Cat. Some young children (under 8) might enjoy it a bit, but every one else should look elsewhere. If you're looking for a good Christina Ricci movie, I suggest Addams Family Values, The Opposite of Sex or Sleepy Hollow. If a fun family film is what you're after, try Snow Day, instead.


I am really at a loss as to how anyone could give this movie a 10 (or even more than a 2!). It is full of bad lines, bad acting, bad slapstick, etc. I never thought I could see worse acting than the purposefully badly acted scenes at the beginning of UHF, but this was it. And just when you think it can't possibly get any worse, it does! Over and over again! You actually could have watched this in a theater? It wasn't worth free on TV! My 4-year-old and 1-year-old liked it some, but they wanted to see the cat more and the cat was almost never on.


Why is Guy working for Buddy? Probably because Ari was not around in 1995. Why does Dawn want to be with Guy? For access to Buddy. Why does she stay with Guy? I am not sure.

There are bunch of things about this movie that I am not sure about. But, Kevin Spacey is an excellent, verbal tsunami as Buddy Ackerman  and totally believable because he is a great actor.

Frank Whaley's Guy is certainly out of his element working for Buddy  he wants to write and make meaningful movies, not be a gofer that is verbally abused for getting Equal instead of Sweet & Low.

Michelle Forbes' Dawn, who also wants to make meaningful movies, seems way out of Guy's league.

The ending leaves a lot to be desired.


Ill-tempered, verbally abusive movie studio chief runs his male assistant ragged with nit-picking requests, keeping the young man firmly under his thumb with constant threats of unemployment; after a year of office-terror, the working stiff finally cracks. Writer-director George Huang has possibly bit off more than he can chew here. His "Swimming With Sharks" isn't a diatribe against Hollywood, nor is it a tribute to the hard-working underling...instead, it's stunt film-making with a twist, a one-trick pony with tunnel-vision. The surroundings don't look or feel like Tinsel Town (perhaps due to a limited budget), and we never get a sense of this stressful environment as a movie-making entity (it could be a realtor's office in the Valley, for all we know). Lead Kevin Spacey, who also served as one of the film's producers, gives a controlled and focused performance as the power-mad mogul whose ego is out of control; he does good work, and yet the character doesn't ring true. We learn so little about him and his acquaintances that his important position and high-ranking status fail to jibe with what we do see; who does this man answer to? what drives him beyond humiliating others for sport? what projects is he juggling aside from the one script we see passed around? The film is so emotionally stunted and underpopulated, it begins to seem like a stage-play padded out for the big screen--and yet one without enough characters or motivations in it. Perhaps Huang wanted to keep things simple, but instead his movie looks like a half-baked project which needed a lot more insight, humor, and atmosphere. ** from ****


Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA!

We've now been subjected to "Eastenders" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.

The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, "dead from the neck up" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything.


Well This was a complete waste of celluloid. The preview was promising but after watching the movie, it looked like the preview *was* the whole movie. No plot, no clear storyline, just some misplaced suspense. It looks like the director tried very hard to create an atmosphere of mystique and fear, but still there are gaps to be filled. Why the drugs? Why the number 11.11? (Btw. As Sarah enteres the library, the clock says 11.14) What's the connection to the murder on the parents? What's the role of this Rayden woman? Is she one of the children or not? Who are those children anyway. There is a lot of material lying around to create the ultimate cult movie like "the Omen" but the director just leaves them lying on the floor without digging into the story. Even "the Blairwitch project" was more scary than this one. All the gaps you hope to be filled like in "The Butterfly effect" stay open as the credits start rolling.. OK. Off to the next movie...


I would not recommend this movie. Even though it is rated G and is clearly for kids there is quite a lot of swearing (including the dreaded 'F' and 'S' words). This kind of language doesn't offend me particularly but in a kids film? Come on.

There was also quite a bit of implied sexual content, between one of the early adolescent male characters and any willing adult woman who came along - including a prostitute!

The acting was as good as it gets in this genre of film but the story line was very very cheesy and even my four year old remarked that it was 'stupid'.

Despite having Elizabeth Shue, this film is definitely not worth checking out if you haven't seen it.


I can't believe this movie has an average rating of 7.0! It is a fiendishly bad movie, and I saw it when it was fairly new, and I was in the age group that is supposed to like it!


"Chairman of the Board" is a ridiculously stupid film from the popular comic Carrot Top (also seen on the 1-800-COLLECT commercials). He plays a surfing inventor who comes upon a man who has a flat tire. Top helps him out and a few days later discovers the guy's died and has given his company to the comedian. Even if someone else was in Carrot Top's role, it still would have been bad. The jokes (which are constantly rigged throughout) are terrible and the idea of a romantic "plot twist" should have been discarded. DO NOT WATCH!!!


Masterpiece. Carrot Top blows the screen away. Never has one movie captured the essence of the human spirit quite like "Chairman of the Board." 10/10... don't miss this instant classic.


People don't seem to agree with me that movies can be bad and good at the same time. The same type of people that see a movie with Carrot Top on the cover, surfing through a frickin office and continue to watch the movie with serious expectations. Is Carrot Top funny? Of course not. Was this movie anything special? Of course not. It was a dumb movie and everyone assumed so simply based on what they know about Mr. Top. Movies like this, or Kazaam, or Killer Klowns From Outer Space and pretty much any movie Pauly Shore has ever been in are not meant to be taken seriously and because of this, they really shouldn't be considered some of the worst movies ever made. You watch them either expecting a dumb movie that's hilariously bad or you are like six years old and genuinely think Carrot Top is hilarious.

Please people if you ready know Carrot Top is retarded and you want to watch a serious movie and bother writing a serious review....don't watch this. Picking on this movie is like picking on a 5 year old for not knowing the alphabet.


a very mediocre film based on a superb series of stories and novels. I hope Somebody, someday will be able to film it the right way. In the meantime, look for the books (by A. Sapkowski), a very inteligent, postmodern fantasy. By now there should be a translation in english, there translations in german for sure.


I am speechless, honestly I cannot understand how anyone could have conceded to a script like this, cast anyone in the film let alone direct it. The fact that I am writing this review feels like an insult to my fingers, this film should be thrown in to the dustbin rather than be reviewed. I am disappointed in Flex Alexander for even thinking about accepting such a POOR EXCUSE FOR A SCRIPT let alone essay the role. OMG! I think I just insulted the word "essay"...uh yeah I did. Y'know what, the less said about this mindless drivel, the better. You have been warned, nobody warned me I had to experience the horror myself. WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK.