The first question is: how many talentless idiots it takes to screw a movie up? Answer: one is more than enough, if he writes the screenplay and directs it. The second question is: did anyone teach the actors to handle guns properly? Answer: hell no. I wonder if Kristy Swanson got hit across the face with hot brass - because it damn seemed so! The third question is: how many times we did the "super secret government agency conspiracy gets uncovered from inside" plot? Answer: a good couple too many! The fourth question is: are Michael Madsen and Ron Perlman overrated? Answer: in this movie, sadly, yes. The fifth question is: can a pair of boobs save this movie? Answer: even three (Kristy Swanson's pair and the director/writer) didn't.

God... If I see the (most probably) assassin getting her guns ready for a hit, and then the morons from prop department give her a completely different set the first bloody thing in the goddamn movie, the "suck" meter hits the peak. Time from beginning of the movie to me switching the TV off: fifteen minutes. Just a little bit more than it took me in case of "Alone in the Dark".


When Kristy Swanson gets an attack of the guilts about what she does, she wants out. Unfortunately, Madsen is her immediate superior in a company where "giving two weeks notice ain't an option."

As a teen killing vampires, Kristy did a very good job. The valley girl image seemed to fit. But as an assassin on the run...well, keep running Kristy. Run, run far away! This film is not a concept that hasn't been done before, but it HAS been done better!

I didn't want to watch the rest of this film, but I felt I should if I wanted to give a review of this movie. I've always liked Madsen, and his character was a bit predictable, but this movie was definitely a waste of time both to watch and make...no wonder it never got released theatrically!


Kristy Swanson plays an elite hitwoman who is supposed to have knocked off a TV reporter for a group of bad guys,but once she sees this poor fellow at home playing with his kids she decides to junk the whole project and the TV reporter's life is spared.The hitwoman's life is up for grabs as the people who wanted this reporter killed now want her dead for not following through with her assignment.Such is the basis for a movie called Supreme Sanction.

Supreme waste of time is more like it.We see Swanson's character beat up,pummel and kill men far bigger than her.And she always one two fifty steps ahead of the group of murders who can't,for some reason,do away with this super hitwoman.Having one woman do away and beat all these men,makes the movie seem so gay.It is too predictable once you figure Swanson's character is going to win out anyway,thus making the film boring and inept.

Kristy Swanson is decent actress,who in her younger days was always sexy and easy on the eyes.Supreme Sanction is not one of her better efforts however.


First I have to say that I have read everything about this subject and I know it inside out, and I was excited about finally seeing it, too. But you have to read only the book this mini-series is based on to realize that it's not the true story of what really happened almost 90 years ago. It's loosely based on the facts, the rest is taken from the scriptwriter's imagination. And unfortunately these changes are anything but successful and mostly totally unnecessary.

Where do I begin? Vita and Violet didn't use the names Mitya and Lushka until their affair started, and during it Violet also called Vita Dmitri and Julian. It was Violet who chased Vita with a dagger when they were teenagers. The 'seduction' scene when their affair started Violet was much more passive than represented here and certainly didn't kiss Vita first. I could go on and on, these examples were all included when the series was only just started. Besides all these alterations from the facts, the characterizations are also all wrong. At times Vita behaves like a mad woman. Especially the scene where she saw from the newspaper Violet's engagement announcement is just ridiculous. Vita kept her surges of emotion inside. It was Violet who was temperamental and let her feelings (good or bad) show. All Vita did when she read it was that she nearly fainted, that's all. Being a gentle nature, Harold avoided confrontations in real life, but here he is sometimes pretty stern and accusing. Harold and Vita always discussed their intimate things in letters, not verbally. And Violet... I know that this series purposely concentrated on Vita and Harold, but that doesn't mean that all the other characters have to be mere puppets on the sidelines. Here she is totally one-dimensional character, and the lines gave to her are mostly embarrassingly shallow. Actually she was intelligent, gifted, quite an extraordinary woman who has rarely given the credit she deserves. I have always thought her much more interesting person than Vita. In this series her unhappiness, loneliness and her problems with her mother are totally ignored. Viewer has also little clue of her background and family, what kind of relation (and marriage) with Denys Trefusis she had or how hard she battled over Vita. Vita was the only love of her life, her raison d'etre, and if Harold suffered during affair, so did Violet. After it her life was in ruins, and it took time that she could pull herself back together again. Statue could have acted the role of Denys, that much depth his character has. Lady Sackville-West is just a badly drawn caricature; an annoying chatterbox with exaggerating french accent.

The series ends to the totally badly written scene in Amiens, and that was the end of this affair, according to scriptwriter. No, it continued a whole year after that, and it's ending was much more lingering and sad than what was presented here. But what one cares about the stupid ending if the whole series has been stupid from the start. I have to give some credit to actors, they tried to make best of those roles given to them though Janet McTeer as Vita is the only one who really shines through. One can't complain the settings either. All complaints go to director and most of all, scriptwriter. Instead of insightful character studies, there are too many sex scenes and bland conversation. Many of the scenes are too long, some are pointless and don't bring anything to the story line. On the other hand many details are shortened or omitted altogether. Especially there should have been more information about Vita's and Violet's youth, and how their friendship developed. This is one fascinating story which would have deserved a much better adaptation. Maybe someday someone will do it. At the moment one can make much more of this story by reading the actual book or Violet's letters to Vita, which are brilliant stuff.


I have neither read the book on which the movie is based, nor the letters between Vita and Violet. If I came to this movie with any expectations whatsoever, it was maybe that the Bloomsbury group (including among others Virginia Woolf, and which the Nicolsons were part of) would be depicted. It wasn't, which however wasn't a problem for me. What I am wondering about is how the people behind this movie managed to make it, in my opinion, so very uninteresting and repetitive and most of the characters flat, in spite of great material and some very good actors. The script is simply not good enough. I agree with the criticism of my Finnish neighbor - too many pointless sex scenes (but only between the women, while there is nothing explicit whatsoever concerning Harold's numerous love affairs), too many pointless scenes in general, too little information about the background of characters. It seems odd considering the quality of the production - on the surface it seems a really ambitious piece of work, but the script holds of course the most weight and that is where this movie fails.

Vita's relationship with Harold struck me as unconvincing, although both of them act really well, especially her. The way they kept declaring their unconditional love for each other in a rather sappy manner I thought, well, simply unconvincing. It makes a lot more sense that it should have happened through letters, as tmmvds points out I would also have liked to know where the nicknames came from - the Russian ones* as well as Mar - why ever is someone called Vita given the nickname Mar? It might be small stuff, but it matters in contributing to the bigger picture.

*I watched the movie with English subtitles on, and where it should apparently have said Mitya, it said instead Medea. That might explain my frustration with the nicknames to some extent - I could not understand why Vita's should be Greek while Violet's was Russian!


Lance Henriksen got paid something to appear in this. I hope it was a lot.

Former US National Champion gymnast, Kristie Phillips starts as Charlie Case, a gymnast-turn-secret-agent (because it's very common that munchkin gymnasts become government spies...)

There's a truly hysterical opening scene where Charlie's uneven bars routine is sabotaged by an eastern-bloc competitor. What follows is one of the most ridiculous stunt scenes I've ever witnessed....and they want you to take it seriously! Don't worry...she sticks her dismount.

Everything after that is just a messy, dreck of a spy movie. Watch the first fifteen minutes for the campy-gymnastics stuff, then run for cover.


Lina McLaidlaw is a bright, solitary young women who falls unexpectedly in love with Johnnie Aysgarth, a highly eligible bachelor with a penchant for losing money. They get married, but almost at once Lina is subjected to Johnnie's addiction to lying, gambling and getting into debt. Despite his flaws, she is unable to resist his charming manner, until she starts to suspect he may be harbouring murderous thoughts toward her ...

This is a good movie, well-made, with an attractive cast, a good script and possibly the single lousiest ending in movie history. Okay, that's maybe going too far, but not by much. Lots of films change the ending of a book (Great Expectations, The Shining, etc) but the last two scenes of this one not only manage to be horribly lame, but also render the entire preceding plot completely meaningless. The story is about a woman whose husband is driven by his greed and moral lacking - and what she knows about him - to kill her. It should end (as it does in Francis Iles / Anthony Berkeley's book Before The Fact) with him attempting to murder her. The reason it doesn't is that the studio forced Hitch to reshoot the ending, one of the first examples of the godawful process of preview audience testing. Hitch was canny and did what he was told (this was only his third film in Hollywood) knowing that if he played the game, sooner or later he would gain creative control of his films, evinced by his masterpieces of the fifties. But that still leaves us with a turkey of an ending. This is a great shame because it really is a very good movie with an intriguing theme - does anyone really know their husband or wife that well ? The script is excellent, with many off-guard moments (such as when Lina's father dies and Johnnie assumes she's crying about it), a finely-judged performance by Grant (who never played a villain again) and fine photography throughout, culminating in the famous glass-of-milk shot. Fontaine won an Oscar for this performance, although personally I prefer her confusion and vulnerability in her earlier victimised wife role in Rebecca. I would like to rate this movie higher, but I really can't forgive that ending; this is what happens when movies are made for money, not love, which I guess is curiously the theme of the film itself. Look fast for Hitchcock's cameo as a man posting a letter.


This is unique in films of Hitchcock's that I've seen, in that I didn't really enjoy it.

In fact, I actually found this quite predictable and annoying.

Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine are a newly married couple. He's the kind of "lovable rogue" character that you've seen in many films, without ever being lovable as far as I am concerned!

In fact, it was a barely believable relationship at best, and at times seemed particularly false and implausible.

Unable to hold down a job and trying to live an opulent lifestyle, Grant is led to borrow money that he cannot pay back.

Fontaine is convinced that he is trying to kill her in order to get the money she is insured for; and presumably what her late father was worth.

Average and rather uninteresting all round actually, but as usual you can see the influence on films that have come at a later date.


There is no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock was a seriously talented director. Many of his films are undeniable classics that have stood the test of time and are highly watchable to this day. This list could include The 39 Steps, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, and a few other films.

However, "Suspicion" is not aging well at all and is really so unwatchable that it seems to me that it was probably a bad film even by 1941 standards. The list of scenes that work well could be listed on a matchbook with a crayon. The script is loose and ridiculous most of the time, but the acting seems so forced and wooden and borderline amateurish throughout, that it is almost unbelievable. Joan Fontaine tries to shore things up but she is on a slippery slope and Cary Grant doesn't provide much assistance. His acting is so bad at times that I have seen better performances in high school plays or college Theatre Experience classes where a Chemical Engineer is acting for the first time with no formal training.

After about 30 minutes of watching this film you may find yourself reaching for the DVD sleeve in the dark to see if you accidentally picked up some kind of special edition version that was cobbled together without any editing.

The subject matter is serious, yet the film has a silly and trite feel to it that just seems so out of place you become numb with perplexity.

"Suspicion" is basically unwatchable and another very very very overrated BAD movie.


Joan Fontaine is swept off her feet by the suave Cary Grant. After their marriage, she realizes that her husband is very irresponsible and owes a major gambling debt. It appears that Grant tries to scheme his best friend, Nigel Bruce, out of part of his life savings. Bruce ends up murdered and Fontaine suspects that her husband will try to kill her for the insurance money. This drama drags on to an abrupt and flat finale.


I don't dislike Cary Grant but I've found his performances annoying in enough films to notice; this, Arsenic & Old Lace and Bringing up Baby. I don't dislike him in North by Northwest but I really find that movie unbearably silly. On top of that I find the endless raving about Grant's class tiresome. I don't have a clue what his class does for the viewers who herald it. It doesn't do a thing for me.

In the behind-the-scenes feature included with this DVD Patrcia Hitchcock says that Grant was her fathers favorite leading man; I think he was wrong. Jimmy Stewart was a better leading man in a string of better Hitchcock movies.

With it's ruined ending this is really half a movie and doesn't bear discussion, and can't support the high ratings it's getting. Even if the movie had it's ending intact there's not much to it. Fontaine is a completely unsympathetic sucker. She has to remain numb, inactive, and unwilling to contact anyone but Johnny for the whole movie, in either ending, for his ploys to work. That's not much to work with. Cary Grant begins every line with "Monkeyface..." until I wanted to strangle him. He says it about sixty times. It's positively grating. Hitch's technique here is shockingly shallow. An endless succession of rooms/sets have a phony skylight projected on the rear wall as a spiderweb effect. And a light-bulb in a glass of milk may make fans excited, but it can't save a movie this poorly made.

Peter Bogdanovich should retire if he does one more Hitchcock/Cary Grant imitation on a DVD. I think that's his whole career now. As soon as I saw him, I thought, oh crap, here comes an imitation that only he's impressed with. Instead there were two! oh joy!


Spoiler warning!!!

This is probably my least favourite Cary Grant film. I spent most of the time thinking: ignore him, leave him etc. Is he trying to kill her? Should we assume that after the end, when he persuades her to return home with him, that he will kill her after all? I see from checking in a couple of books that this is a reading that some viewers/critics have taken. Finishing early is after all a more reasonable way to film a book, than to change the ending - and this is a more unreasonable change of ending than, for example, in Altman's The Long Goodbye. Unlike Hitchcock's earlier example of making the murderer not the murderer because a star has been cast (when Gosford Park refers to The Lodger, Ivor Novello's murderous habits are not mentioned) the book's ending is not definitely ruled out.

In Robin Wood's Hitchcock's Films Revisited, he writes: "As one mentally 'swiches' from ending to ending , the significance of every scene changes, the apparent solidity of the narrative dissolves, the illusion of the fiction's 'reality' disintegrates, the film becomes a 'modernist' text in which the process of narrative is foregrounded." I enjoy playing intellectual interpretation games as much as anyone else, but unless the film stands on a straightforward reading, then it fails. This one fails. Even after considering the fatal glasses of milk that recur in a few Hitchcock films.

An annoying quibble. The year is 1941. Nothing in the film says that it is set in the past. Beaky (Nigel Bruce) keeps his money in a Paris Bank, and goes there to do financial business? Does he not know that there is a war on? Indeed, were there still any flights from Croydon airport? Is he on good terms with the Nazis? How come it is never suggested that the Germans shot him as a spy or something.

A curiosity. When Johnnie and Lina have dinner with Isobel, the mystery writer, and her brother, the pathologist, there is a fifth person present, who is never explained nor introduced - a woman in a tuxedo. The credits say that she is Nondas Metcalf playing Phyllis Swinghurst. Is this not an example of how lesbians were coded in '40s films? Are we to take her as Isobel's lover? The books that discuss overt and hidden gays/lesbians in Hitchcock (e.g. Robin Wood again) do not include Phyllis Swinghurst.


This film spends a lot of time preaching against marijuana. However, the plot and visuals are so insane that it seems more like the poster-child for LSD.

Plot: The heroic struggle of Michael as he battles his drug addiction while being subjected to the humiliation brought on by the likes of Winnie the Pooh and Papa Smurf.

Yea, yea, there's a good message, but it's obscured by the fact that the writers have taken a rather stale PSA idea and tried stretching it into 30 minutes. This includes a song sequence, where you're told that there's a million, rational ways to say "No!" such as "I can't smoke pot, I have homework!"

The writers can't make up their minds what to do with the characters they've brought in royalty-free. At first we see they all have to hide from the human characters, but within five minutes we see them all running around in plain sight without anyone noticing. Soon they begin interacting with the human cast, and the only one who's even slightly disturbed by this fact is not the drug-abusers, it's the little sister who talks to her teddy bear (Pooh, by the way.) Further, there's the little drug demon floating around. Because you know, pushers don't give kids drugs. He too is ambiguous - while he might be symbolic of Michael's addiction and hence is not supposed to be seen by other people, he laters goes and haunts little Corey to get HER into drugs. So I guess he's...uhhh.....moving on!

The whole plot finally culminates in some insane sequence in which Michael is in what would appear to be the Saturday Morning Carnival of Souls, aka a theme park from hell where the various cartoon characters beat him up and ignore him and stuff. For example, Miss Piggy eats him in a sandwich and spits him out. If the writers were not high when writing this, I must recommend they try getting high because they can't get crazier than this. Of course, the film ignores the fact that Michael's been having highs for two years by this point, so why this tripping sequence would frighten him is beyond me.

I realize I'm completely whaling on this film, but I actually just saw it again because I went through the trouble of tracking it down on eBay because of it's sheer infamy of being a BAD cartoon. The level of unintentional humor is is brilliant. Take this scene for example - Michael's dad is rooting through the fridge for a beer. He notices many of them missing and mentions it to his wife. The ever-observant Mom tells him "Don't worry, you probably just drank them last night watching football." While we're obviously supposed to be learning that Michael is drinking beer (in addition to the pot and crack), we instead read further in and realize - Hey kids, it's okay to have chemical dependencies as long as you're a grown-up! Scenes like this are worth the tiny price tag of this film. Oh yea, and the fact you get to hear Simon the Chipmunk say "Marijuana."


If there's one thing I want to distinguish myself from all the other great reviewers here, it's that I am the Queen of Finding Strange Movies in Thrift and Dollar Stores. That said, you can't possibly imagine how happy I was when I found this one.

I can even remember that Saturday morning when *every* station simulcast it, so you were stuck if you wanted to watch something else (then again, I guess that was the idea). As a kid, I didn't know if I liked the way all the different characters were stuck together (there are some crossovers that just do *not* work). But I guess the special had it's intended effect. Don't do drugs because you will have nightmares about the Muppets.

Now, if you watch this as an adult, on the other hand, you will be treated to the *strangest* anti-drug movie this side of "Reefer Madness". I think I'll just leave it at that before I get into trouble.


Water shows the plight of Indian widows in the late 1930s, says in the end that the problem still exists largely by giving statistics in the end, refers to Gandhi several times in the movie before finally having a scene depicting him and does nothing extra ordinarily innovative or new in the movie. Yes, the cinematography is pretty impressive but that cannot be the soul of any movie for me.

India has had several problems like many other nations but it has got rid of many of these problems at large. What if a movie is made on racism in America in a particular year which ends with 'x number of Americans still experience racism today'.

a) How would it be relevant, and, b) How would it be some thing so extra ordinary being depicted in cinema.

A view I read from a Deepa Mehta interview was that this movie is being interpreted as a voice for the marginalised every where. From reviews I read every where, the common thing I am hearing is how the director did a great job and was brave in bringing a problem to the world. The movie is more about a specific problem a society faced (and has got rid of through reforms at large).

I do not see any thing earth shattering about the movie. Moreover, the movie lacked soul and shifted between the plots of Chuiyya and Kalyani. Sarala, the young Sri Lankan actress, portrayed the role of Chuiyya superbly and that was the only thing which impressed me about the movie, sadly.


I am a big fan of Deepa Mehta's work, especially Fire and Earth 1947. Unfortunately, this movie of hers lacks _all_ that is needed for a good film.

The movie attempts to showcase the plight of the widows in India in the early 20th century and the new wave of ideas of their rehabilitation around the same time. Shown with a child widow as a central character, although the plot too banal from an Indian standpoint, it could still have been a very powerful movie. Alas! the movie lacked both the sensitivity of Fire and the intensity of emotion in Earth 1947.

Even if one assumes that the story is a given, although there are hundreds of things I would have liked different in that as well, the movie making is especially unfortunate. Everything is said. Everything is shown straight. Absence of sensitive implied sentences. Absence of things left unsaid. I just couldn't believe that this was a Deepa Mehta film.

There were some very standard Hindi movie characters - like an old widow with her own vested interests, or a father who has double standards of the highest quality. Can one not write a script without having these old-style standard Indian movie characters?

Many people acclaimed Deepa for making a movie and proving a point against hindu fundamentalists. Well, I agree that she took a bold step, but should one not worry about the quality of movie, or is it being a controversial one an end in itself? Its obvious, that if you start with a story as in Water, you will end up feeling the pain of the widows in consideration --- It doesn't take an accomplished director to achieve that. And the movie had nothing more than that!! So where is Deepa's contribution to the film?

And talk about acting etc. - pathetic!!! Lisa Ray has a pretty face, an extremely pretty face - but thats where it ends. She can't speak Hindi; she can't emote. John Abraham is no better. Most widows seem unnatural. The saving grace are Seema Biswas and the young girl. They are fabulous.

And this was a period film - but the Hindi dialogues suck big time. Even there utterance is also as unnatural as it gets. No rustic accents!!! No local slangs. No nothing. The only thing right was probably the shooting locales. I thought that the set of the vidhwa-ashram was reasonably real. The overall blue tinge in the whole movie is also apt.

But all and all, don't watch this movie. You _won't_ get anything. There is nothing in the story, or direction. If you have to watch it watch it for the little girl's acting.


Deepa has again tried to bravely bring out a subject that no one wants to talk about. The story line is OK, cinematography is outstanding, screenplay and acting are way below average. I guess the blame is to the citizens of Uttar Pradesh in India from where her original set was destroyed in 2000. This resulted in a totally different cast, I just wonder what a spectacular movie it would have been if it had the original Shabana Azmi, Nandita Das and Aamir Khan. The current actors Lisa Ray (who's just good for squirming in Bombay Dyeing bedsheets) and John Abraham are pathetic, need basic lessons in acting. Seema Biswas, Raghubir Yadav and Kulbushan Kharbabda have saved the movie as much as they can. The kid had done an outstanding job. The editing and the flow of the movie is also not something you would have expected from Deepa. Great subject, sends out a strong message about a practice which is still pretty rampant in rural India but falls short of the standards Deepa set for herself in Fire and Earth. Watch it once...when its on DVD, don't bother paying $10 to see it....well its out beats the average Hindi movie any day


Copy cats have copied this movie from a 1974 Hindi movie called "Call Girl"! "Call Girl" had an identical story line. The way in which the protagonists fall in love, then rebel and the climax all same in both these films! "Call Girl" is better than Water, at least from the story telling point of view. It was not as agonizingly slow as Water! Water on the contrary does not progresses at all. The aim is perhaps to make the audience sympathize with Kalyani for ever! Are Indian film makers any better than just being great copiers these days? Well they call it "being inspired". In their language it is: "getting inspired (without any citation that is!)"! :)


Deepa Mehta, Arundhati Roy and a host of other so called intellectuals get the title of intellectuals because of the fact that they love portraying India and hinduism in a bad light...and Deepa Mehta makes her money from it anyway. Anyway Hindus are too gentle or scared to protest the way muslims protest so anybody can take any liberties with Hinduism. And it is a fact that during the 1930's women in the west were also illtreated when they were widowed...just that nobody likes to point out anything bad about the west or anything other than India and Hindus. She paints an inncorrect portrayal of India and the situation of widows there. Nowhere is it mentioned that child marriage is illegal. She ended the movie saying there are 34 million widows in India. Of course among a billion people, there will be that many widows. But how many are living life she has depicted in the movie?? Deepa Mehta finally is selling India and poverty to make dollars. How pathetic....


Pathetic NRI Crap.....Appeal to all who are not Indian's....This is the WORST of Indian cinema,made by the worst piece of NRI trash.....The story is boring and clichéd (the way NRIs and westerners view India).....Go for it if u want to be bored to death.

The movie deals with the plight of widows in India before independence.A lot of it is true even now in remote rural areas but not to the extent as depicted (maybe because its a period movie).....

There are plenty of other Indian movies directed by extremely talented directors that are worth savoring...This one is a definite miss...Watch a documentary instead or look up information on the net if you are genuinely interested in the plight of the downtrodden in India.

I wasted my time.


What about Scream Baby Scream is supposed to make me not feel like a fool for buying it? I bought it because, God help me, I'm a sucker for old B-cinema even as worthless as this. Nonetheless, Something about this movie irritates me, it's probably Janet, Janet comes off cold & snooty, seemingly, with the intention of coming off as deep and noble, with a look on her face that screams constipation, she can't seem to agree to anything her uptight boyfriend wants. I'm glad that this is her only role. What really irritates me is that this is a 1960's gore film gone terribly awry, and as we all know, awry is Floridian for "zero gore". It's like the director started with a Herschell Lewis style but backed out of the gore scenes when his wife found out, so instead we end up with one dull conversation after the other, and basically, a whole lot of irritating nothing. In other words, we end up with Florida Bore. Joseph Adler should be embarrassed. Janets boyfriend, Jason is almost as ridiculous as she is, this guy has something negative to say about absolutely everything, come to think of it, he's probably the least likable good guy in horror history. The only thing this movie really has going for it is that it carries that 60's/early 70's B-gore vibe that you can find in stuff like Undertaker & his pals, Blood Freak, or most anything from Herschell Lewis. Even Rodney from the Gruesome Twosome is in this, I Ithought his caveman comedy routine was irritating, most everything from reel to reel is stupid, even the trip scene was stupid. The only positive thing at all is the small amount of beach scenery, but that mostly includes Janet whining about life not being perfect. In the only real ironic twist, Scream Baby Scream gets even less interesting once the story finally gets started, around the 45 minute mark. If you happen to be indifferent to whether or not your entertainment is watchable, but are offended by the color red, you might not hate this. Why does Troma distribute this? Wouldn't this be Something Weird Video's area? Scream Baby Scream very well may be the worst in Florida horror/gore of its era, but, I suppose, underneath the unlikeable characters, and the incoherent plot, lies potential. Scream, Baby, Scream really just seems like it should follow the Blood Feast pattern, so, to steal a quote from Janet, "If it doesn't fit, I throw it out". 2/10


Maybe you have to be a former hippie to fully appreciate this, because aside from some dated fashions, music and dialogue, it doesn't really have a thing going for it nowadays.

Four fun-loving college art students enjoy carefree days of painting nude models and riding on motorcycles. They take acid in one scene and go to a zoo. A sign flashes on the screen that says "Do Not Feed The Animals," and suddenly they're in a cage laughing and hanging from a chain tire swing (?!) An evil artist (Larry Swanson) tells (in flashback) how his art career was almost ruined because of a crippling hand disease. He sends out zombie henchmen dressed in black to kidnap people, then injects them with a serum that distorts their faces. He's trying to create some new form of abstract act (I'm guessing here, the details given are a bit fuzzy, to put it mildly). Meanwhile, Jason (Ross Harris) sets out to save the day after his friend Scotty (Chris Martell) is killed and his girlfriend Janet (Eugenie Wingate) is kidnapped. I thought the zombie make-up in ZOMBIE LAKE was awful, but wait until you see it here! It's by Douglas Hobart, the star of DEATH CURSE OF TARTU. A small role is played by Brad Grinter, the director of the Z-classic BLOOD FREAK, which is much, much more enjoyable than this deadly dull turkey (aka NIGHTMARE HOUSE).

Useless trivia note: The 1984 Regal video release features the wrong cast (for THE BRIDES WORE BLOOD) printed directly on the video label!

Score: 1 out of 10


...Or is this another way below the bottom-of-the-barrel masterpiece? Preferably both! Somewhere between 1969 and 1972 came a host of several horrible horror movies that are all but lost again. Nothing more needs to be explained, asked, or screamed out loud. If you followed closely at my writings about CARNIVAL OF BLOOD or GURU THE MAD MONK, then you know what's in store with SCREAM BABY SCREAM. The title sounds cool; it's just the weak script that should have gone someplace else! Even so, this is hands down, the most dreadfully written piece of cinematic mastery ever worked on film!

If you thought this is an early slasher (which benefits the average IMDb user to write up another comment), better luck next time! The real truth behind the script has NOTHING to do with the movie, which supposedly tells of a blue-faced psychopath out to "kill" and make some ugly facial sculptures on his victims. It feels like you're watching another early "SCOOBY-DOO" episode. My favorite scene is the monkey cage where the four young hippie teenagers play in. And hooray for an actress under the name "Eugenie Wingate" for giving us the worst facial makeover, ever! 1969 has never been this bad, but it is!

Try finding this 30-year old rarity at a bargain basement for five bucks; it makes the perfect novelty item for going back to those psychedelic days of flower power, bad fashions, and trashy music! Interesting note: SCREAM BABY SCREAM is also listed in Troma's film archives on the company's website. Only time will tell when this reaches the top of the Bottom 100 List along with a few more early 70s cheapies; gosh knows they NEED to!!! PLAN 9 is history!!!


Have you ever watched a film, when after it's conclusion, your left pondering what in the world it was all about? Well, say hello to "Scream, Baby, Scream". It's not that the story's complex or anything like that, it's just that it plays out in three completely different modes...1. A fun 60s drug movie...2. A much overplayed soap opera...and 3. a horror flick (with very little to "Scream" about). Much to my surprise, I've found out that it was written by one of my all-time favorites, Larry Cohen. Well, I guess even the best have to learn through trial and error.

Playing out much like something from H.G. Lewis(only with lesser fx), this "bad" film does have it's perks. For most of it's short running time there's a pretty cool jazz score to be heard, and there are a couple of memorable scenes...one of those being where a group of kids decide to experiment with acid and take a nice long motor bike ride to the zoo. The camera tricks the director uses to indicate their hallucinatory state is just plain retarded, but amusing. Trust me when I tell you, there's no need to run out of the house to catch this one!


I found this movie at a XXX store for $1 on VHS. The interesting thing about it is that Camp Video bought up the rights to it and slapped on a 1986 copywrite date in the credits. Anyways, enough of odd facts.

This film is absolutely not scary. To even call this horror or a "thriller" is laughable. There were only maybe 5 minutes at most of what you would call horror in this 80+ minute film, and that consisted of the acting, because it was HORRORible! All puns aside, the writing for this film was absolute garbage as well, just as the special effects and makeup was laughable. No wonder this is such an obscure film, probably the director has spent the last 35 years scouring the country for all existing copies of it and burning them in one big pile so no one else could be subjected to it.


Why remake the original "Assault"? To my mind "Assault" was Carpenter's true masterpiece. It had all the elements good Carpenter movies contain. External threat on a small group of individuals. People taking the challenge because they are forced to do so. Isolation! Just remember, the guns in Carpenter's original made no sound, being thus a lot more threatening than conventional devices. And now this remake. Concentrating on "main character I"s psychology and on his relation to main character II (the evil but honorable). The anonymous threat in the Carpenter movie replaced by a rather conventional conspiracy/corruption background. The "remakers" just didn't understand the main plot of the original. And thus produced something pretty ordinary.


Assault on Precinct 13: 3/10: Let us forget for a moment that Assault on Precinct 13 is a remake of a classic action movie. Taken completely on its own merits Assault is a debacle.

Lets start with the Rio Bravo style scenario. About a dozen people are trapped in a decaying police station in Detroit (If the Detroit location is giving you Robocop warm and fuzzies stop right now. It could have easily said Topeka in the opening credits and nothing would have changed. In fact the last bit in the forest would have made more sense.) Surrounding them are our bad guys; corrupt cops.

Now I know what your thinking. Corrupt cops? Were the Nazis and drug cartels busy that weekend? Of course these are no ordinary cops. These guys are right of the cover of the latest Tom Clancy video game. Yup we have body armor; helicopters; laser sights; night vision goggles the works. So we have thirty S.W.A.T. members/Special Forces armed to the teeth verses 4 cops (drunk mind you it's new years eve), 2 girls in party dresses and half a dozen criminals.

So how do our heroes defend themselves? Truth is they can't. They all should be dead within ten minutes tops. (Not to mention the characters inside have an annoying habit of walking past the windows.) Now an illogical scenario is no reason to completely pan a movie esp. a B style action film. However with the exception of Laurence Fishburne and Ethan Hawke all the other characters seemed to be comic relief. (At least I hope they were)

While Ja-Rules and Leguizamo's characters are bad enough. It's Aisha Hind's minstrel show that takes the cake. Rarely has a more stereotypical African American character appeared on the modern screen. Her performance resembles a frat boy in blackface and drag acting ghetto.

In the original Assault a gang member takes over an Ice-Cream truck and drives around the neighborhood shooting little girls in the head. I have had an irrational fear of ice-cream trucks ever since. After this Assault I have a perfectly rational fear of remakes.


I'm sure a lot of guys will love this movie. The only woman who shows any "balls" (unfortunate pun regretted) is made to look, talk, and seem like a guy, the other 2 women are portrayed either as sexual objects with one thing on their mind- sex / being sexy, with sex as their only attribute and skill (Iris) - or as freaked out pretty little princesses who's neurosis negates any strength and professional authority they had before all hell broke lose (Doc). The only strength Iris has in the end is the result of some advice from a big strong man. Besides my negative gut reaction as a feminist, I have to give the camera work props- and Ethan Hawke is great in the very first scene. After that his performance loses steam. Empty entertainment for a brain that wants to take it easy. At least the film skims the subject of the duality of good/bad in the criminal mind.


It's New Year's eve, a cop-killer (in the form of, Laurence Fishburne) end up at a precinct that's closing down due till snow. When the people are layed siege on, cops have to team up with cons to survive. This re-make of the John Carpenter classic just had to add a few beyond stupid plot twists, take out all the tension, and add a horrid John Lequizamo to the cast, didn't it? The first film was thrilling, gritty, and a joy to watch. This one is more Hollywood, clichéd, and painful to behold. The only thing I took from this movie was OCD can be very annoying...VERY. The ending song is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad.

My Grade: D-

DVD Extras: Commentary by Richet, Demonaco and Jeffrey Silver; Delet scenes with optional commentary; 5 minute "Armed and Dangerous" featurette on the weapons expert; 7 and a half minute "behind Precinct Walls"; "Plan of Attack"; "The Assault Team"; 12 and a half minute behind the scenes featurette;, Trailers for "Unleashed", "White Noise", :Seed of Chucky"

Miscelanious: I got this at Best Buy and it came with a bonus disc including the first 2 minutes of "Cry Wolf"; a 10 minute first look at "Unleashed"; the trailer for that film; and a Fuzion interview with John Leguizamo


Los Angeles, 1976. Indie film brat John Carpenter, fresh out of film school and with one film - his class project's no-budget spoof of 2001 called Dark Star - under his belt, finishes a gritty actioner called Assault On Precinct 13. The story of an almost deserted police station under siege by an unseen LA gang, it was a minor hit on the drive-in circuit and garnered small praise from the few critics who cared, but it hardly set the film world on fire, unlike Carpenter's follow-up smash Halloween (1978). On Precinct, Carpenter was still learning how to exploit his almost non-existent budget by using lower-shelf actors, keeping the action to the one hellishly small location, and moving the film along at a tight pace with a combination of editing, intelligent camera work and switched-on genre savvy.

No-one wants or needs to be hungry in Hollywood anymore, particularly if the week's catering bill on the 2005 version of Assault On Precinct 13 is more than the entire cost of the original. It does translate into a certain kind of laziness on a filmmaker's part - you have a stupidly large union crew, a studio and a marketing firm all doing your thinking for you. Which is why twenty years after watching Carpenter's film I can still see every glorious moment, from the small girl gunned down in cold blood while buying an ice cream, to the relentless pounding synth score. A week after Assault 2005, I remember Larry Fishburne's unmoving ping pong ball eyes and little else.

"Forgettable popcorn actioner" fits the top of the poster perfectly. It's New Years Eve at Precinct 13, a station closing down with a skeleton staff to see in its final hours. On call is Jake Roenick (Ethan Hawke), an ex-narc now deeply troubled and hopped up on Jack Daniels and Seconol after his partners were iced in the opening scene; Iris (The Sopranos' Drea de Matteo), a nympho with a thing for criminal types, and Jasper (Brian Dennehy), a crusty old timer one scotch away from retirement. As in Carpenter's Assault..., a bus with four heavy-duty criminals is rerouted to the Precinct. All boozy eyes are on gangster kingpin Bishop (Fishburne, still beefed-up from his time in the Matrix) who has narrowly survived an assassination attempt from an undercover cop and plans to blow the lid on the endemic corruption in the organized crime unit led by Marcus Duvall (a tired-looking Gabriel Byrne). Soon the phones are out, the power lines are down, and both crims and police find themselves heavily armed with a serious police arsenal and consumed with paranoia while waging war against a task force of Duvall's corrupt cops sporting white balaclavas, bullet vests, infra-red bazookas and more high-tech gear than the Skywalker Ranch. This, we're expected to believe as the helicopters buzz around the top of the police station shooting rockets into windows, is a clandestine operation to cover Duvall's tracks. He may as well have taken out billboards on Hollywood Boulevard.

As with the recent Seventies genre reworking Dawn Of The Dead, Assault 2005 takes the barest plot essentials of John Carpenter's original and, to quote the Seventies, "does it's own thing, man". The main question is - why bother? John Carpenter's 1976 is a cult favorite among genre buffs, but is hardly branded in the public's collective consciousness. Carpenter himself was busy reworking Howard Hawks' classic western Rio Bravo into a tight, claustrophobic urban thriller for only $20,000. French wunderkind director and rap producer Jean-Francois Richet, a self-professed fan of John Carpenter's work, seems less concerned with making an homage to either Hawks or JC - although the script is peppered with references to cowboys and injuns - and seems intent on squeezing in as much flash and firepower as the multi-million dollar budget can withstand. The result: some tense moments with hand-held POV cameras, an unexpectedly high (and bloody) body count, a few neat plot twists, but essentially a B-grade urban actioner with a much inflated price tag. As for name-checking Carpenter, it's pure conceit on the part of the filmmakers that doesn't pay off.

To Monsieur Richet, I say bon voyage, and I wish you luck on your music career.


I don't think it's necessary to outline the plot for you, because the site and other users have done a superb job of that already. That said, here's my take. This is by far the worst movie of 2005, and there have been some really, really bad ones. I don't even need to go into detail because there is NOTHING redeeming about this movie. Bad acting, bad plot, bad directing, bad special effects-you name it. If it doesn't stand alone as the worst film ever made, it's tied with some other piece of crap. I'd be embarrassed to have my friends know I was in this movie. But hey, most people that are gonna see it will do so no matter what reviews it gets, so more power to ya. When you feel the gaping void between your neurons two hours into your evening, don't blame me.


This movie definitely made me laugh but that doesn't mean it was exactly funny. Well, then again, me and my friends had a lot of fun watching it.

I doubt there is anything about this movie that hasn't been done at least twice before, just like the plot itself. All of the characters are overused movie cliché cardboard-box roles that don't even require acting skills; accordingly, such skills are not delivered. We have the corrupt cop, a ruthless killer who claims to care about his men and their families whilst caring nothing about people he shoots in the forehead at so close a range as to have blood spat on his face. We have the "worn-out cop on the edge" so nicely pointed at in the discussion boards of this movie; we have the old one-day-away-from-retirement-cop who just about everyone must have immediately identified as the most likely man on the inside, since he had most to gain and he didn't utter a trustworthy word throughout the movie. About as see-through as a glass house on a sunny day. The big black gangster king was a copy of all previous big black gangster kings in movie history (they could've just called him Marcellus Wallace), but just slightly tougher and more ruthless, because something has to emphasize that we also know Laurence Fishburne from actually good movies. Then we finally have the HIGHLY EDUCATED doctor who can't think of anything reasonable to do as soon as the situation differs from her ordinary life and who spends the majority of the movie sitting in a corner helplessly trying to figure out how to hold on to the weapon she was given. NOT USING IT.

The whole siege story is not interesting, not original (having been used twice before), and this movie manages to add absolutely nothing interesting to it. There is the initial probe, then the laying of the siege, then the assault, then the escape attempts. Meanwhile a bunch of strained, stressed, freaked out cops and thugs manage to hold off a Police assault team with high-tech equipment and the quite important advantage of VISION. Then again, in deep night, with the power cut and with a snow storm raging overhead, there is definitely a lot of light coming in, so who really cares about night vision.

But the best part comes right at the end. In the first scenes showing Precinct 13, we see it is situated in an outskirt of an industrial city; factories and office buildings surround it on all sides. From this point, the besieged walk maybe a hundred meters in a sewer and where do they end up? Some alley ending right in the middle of a forest! A FOREST! Where did that forest come from? Who decided to lay a pine forest in the middle of an industrial area? How is this forest, in the last scene, suddenly on a hill over the city in question, while in the scenes inside the forest it looked deceptively FLAT??

From here I leave the judgment to you, and to your common sense. Go and see this movie if you're looking for an unintended good laugh, I can really recommend it.


The opening scene keeps me from rating at absolute zero. I wish the entire movie was as gritty and real as the intro.

In order to enjoy some movies, a lot can be forgiven,(hand guns with 60 shots, hero's with super human powers, all women are gorgeous AND half naked) but Puuuuleeese this "Assault On My Intelligence 13" is so far fetched that I'm surprised the cast showed up for a second day of filming.

Firstly, how did these guys get to be cops? Based on stupidity I guess. How do the main female characters justify being half naked in the middle of winter in Detroit or wherever the heck they are. As a matter of fact no character reacts to the elements whatsoever in this movie. No windows, no electricity(which miraculously returns unexplained)during the storm of the century and they are all comfy as bugs in a rug. What technology exists which disables all cell phones, radios, and brain function. This must be the same power which causes Maria Bella to walk from her disabled car knee deep in snow with no coat and hardly any dress.


The original "Assault on Precinct 13" is gritty, witty, and - perhaps most importantly - short. This remake is mercilessly padded out and talky. Worse yet, the African-American hero of the first movie is here replaced with handsome white boy Ethan Hawke, which makes this "Assault" less progressive than the 1970s one. God, how I miss John Carpenter and his improbable plot line and his weird sense of humor. I even miss his B-list actors, who are leagues better than Hawke and company.

I can't say I care for the new villains in this version - they stretch what little credibility the story ever had to the limit. The female characters are useless, the criminals are all generic hoods, and Gabriel Byrne gives another of his bored performances. The music's all wrong, too - it's bland action stuff that actually detracts from the tension. Simply awful.


Assault on Precinct 13 is the absolute dumbest film I've seen since Charlie's Angels 2. The shame lies in the fact that they had a good cast and a good premise to work with.

SPOILERS ............................................................. I know they've said this movie is a remake descendant of Rio Bravo but did the writers of this film actually watch Rio Bravo? Besides the fact that Rio Bravo is a western classic, the premise of the film was that the sheriff (John Wayne) had to keep a prisoner accused of murder from being liberated by his brother and his gang. No one wants to liberate anyone in Assault on Precinct 13. They want EVERYONE dead. So, my first question would have to be, WHY NOT JUST BURN THE WHOLE PLACE DOWN FROM THE START? Why "assault" the place at all? I know the contrived plot turn was suppose to be clever and shocking but it didn't make sense and/or was presented properly. If the veteran cop was in on it from the start, why the need for this whole movie? If the veteran cop suddenly cut a deal at the back door during the siege, how did he even get the chance? As soon as he appeared at the door he would've been shot and they would've had their entry point. It's all just FUBAR.

What part of any city can an all out war take place at a police precinct (complete with helicopters and massive explosions) but no one notices?? However, as soon as there's a fire they have to "leave before the fire department shows up"?????? How did they plan to cover up the chaos that was happening outside?? Police issue bullets in the walls, bullet casings, footprints, equipment usage, and the fact that there were going to be no bodies of "Bishop's men" to be found? How about those police snipers? How could they possibly miss so badly so often? I like the fact that when the two detainees tried to run, the snipers were foiled by two tiny mounds of snow. As if it's not possible to shoot a high powered riffle through a pile of snow.

The set up was interesting although ridiculous but the movie just went off a cliff when they decided to kill that particular character with a bullet to the head for absolutely NO REASON at all. I know the makers of the film were going for shock but all they got was disgust at the cruelty and the anger of the audience. Don't you think that part of the reason why this thing is bombing at the box office is the fact that word of mouth has everyone telling friends and family to stay away from this one? That particular scene has to be a big part of that word of mouth (that and the fact that every plot turn is dumber then dirt). The conclusion remains steadily stupid as the villain pauses to deliver an Austin Powers-like diatribe instead of killing the helpless people who he has finally captured. I know several people have mentioned the closing scenes that take place in the woods of Detroit city (>snicker<) but why did Ethan's character just wander off in to the woods in the first place? He doesn't even look to see if the SUV with the secretary and his friend gets away? They just cut to him prowling slowly in the woods, pistol in hand. GACK. I could go on but won't. All I can say is that you want to avoid this stupidity at all cost.


This was perhaps the worst movie I've seen in a long, long time. Forget that it's clear no research was done regarding Detroit (forest in downtown Detroit! Bwahaha!!). The writing was horrible, the premise completely implausible, and quite frankly, the characters were embarrassing. I cannot for the life of me understand why seasoned actors would stoop to such a low and participate in something this god awful. Now, I have never seen the original and don't know if this movie pays tribute to it's original form. It's my understanding that the original was not set in Detroit. Why they would deviate from that without researching details about the setting only tells me that it was more than the cast that was looking to pay the rent.

Don't waste your time on this junk, unless you're from Detroit and wish for some comic relief.


I am a huge fan of the original Assault On Precinct 13. The ice cream scene haunts me to this day. I'm 33 now and I still remember being horrified by it as a child. When I heard they were remaking it, I thought it might be good but when I saw the film, it's 100% not the same film. It's not a remake. It's a bad stolen idea. It was completely ruined. The cast, Maria Bello, Laurence Fishburne, Ethan Hawke, Gabriel Burne, John Leguizamo and Drea De Matteo are all great actors but even they couldn't save this film. It was just wrong. Even the setting was completely opposite. And how in the hell did no one in that city notice that there was a war going on next door? Why didn't help show up sooner? Stupid. No sense.


Is it just me, or is this an AWFUL film? I'm going with it's an AWFUL film...

Knowing full well that it's a guy flick (usually defined as full of car chases, crashes, gunfights, explosions, etc.), I still expect some small degree of credibility. If I can't somehow believe in the premise, the film WILL NOT WORK. Thus, we come to the problem with "Assault on Precinct 13."

Not one for spoilers, I never report details of the plot. However, I will make an exception here, because the plot is SO inane. Bad guy is jailed in Precinct 13. Bad guy's buddies want to bust him out. Surprise. The bad guys' buddies are actually corrupt cops. Brooding, troubled, but heroic young cop saves the day while romancing the girl. UGH. Yes, it really is THAT simple, and that dumb.

"Assault on Precinct 13" takes place in Detroit. Not a bad setting for crime and corruption (I spent 3 months there in late 2004, so I know what I'm talking about). Even so, it's outrageously violent and insulting to the police and the citizens of Detroit. I have spent a lot of time in downtown Detroit, but I cannot imagine how the final chase wound up in the downtown Detroit forest. I must have missed it...

There are NO refunds for watching bad movies. Save your money. There were too many good films in 2005 to waste even $3.00 at Blockbuster on this one.

FINAL RATING: 1

(Only because I have seen worse films.)


You expect it to be juvenile but you at least expect a complete and coherent movie. What a waste. I am extremely disappointed, not at just having watched a bad movie, but at having such a great concept be tainted by a common movie that we've all seen before. If this crud makes $1 over its budget, The studio would be wise to declare victory, round up all available copies, store them deep within the nuclear waste repository under Yucca Mountain, and then never make another movie like it again. Most of this movie will keep you thinking, "This is not what I wanted to see." This film appeals to the unintelligent and maybe to teenagers. It's a true shame because most movies are made for that demographic. I had much higher hopes for this film.


I accidentally happened upon this movie when I was looking for something to watch while eating lunch. I actually turned to the WE Network because it said it had the last 20 minutes of some movie about the importance of "sticking it" for some gymnastics team -- I figured cheesy goodness. Well, I got cheesy alright.

First, I missed a good 20-40 minutes at the start of the movie. Luckily, most of it was recapped fairly quickly, especially in the bedroom scene where Crystal admits that she felt responsible for the death of her rapist.

I love Jenny Garth and will watch her in just about anything. She's just so pretty, and I want my lipstick to look as perfect as hers always does. She looks great throughout this movie, and doesn't really age over what seems to be more than a decade.

Overall, I felt bad for the actors as I watched this movie. All of them tried to sell their parts, but all were so poorly written that it was a constant struggle. Frankly, I was surprised to see Terry Farrell and Mitch Ryan (Greg's dad from Dharma & Greg) in this.

But the writing was not the worst part of this movie. About a half-hour before the end, her mother dies, and when they show the headstone the death date is 1979. Having missed the beginning, I had gotten the impression from the wardrobe that this was taking place in the 80s. Not one leisure suit or bell bottom in sight. Shame on the person who did wardrobe for this film! Don't get me wrong -- all the outfits in this movie were beautiful, but they were completely wrong for the time period. It almost makes me wonder if they told the wardrobe person that it was a period piece.

Bottom line -- good for a laugh or to feed a Jennie Garth fix. :)


I haven't seen many movies worse than this one. The story line, the dialogues, the acting: it's horror! The story just jumps from a to b to c without any logical steps in between. Every time you think you've missed something, but no: that was the way it was intended to be. And why on earth is the character that Jenny Garth portrays so in love with that no-no loser guy (who actually now plays in the movie Cinderella Man with Russel Crow!)? O well, it's no Spielberg, of course... I have to write ten lines to get posted. This movie really isn't inspiring enough to write 10 lines! It's a romantic feel good movie with a lousy story, so if you're up for that: you'll have a ball.


This person is a so-called entertainer who has to resort to profanity, vulgarity, and slander to try and make others believe he has talent. I have often seen comics use a little of each with effect but when all you can say is laced with it, it is a sign of a drug affected warped mind. Makes me wonder where his twisted and fried brain will be in a few more years of abuse. Poor man!!! I admit I could not watch all of it - too stupid for words. The amazing part of this is that somebody actually believes he is a philosopher!!! No wonder self respect and decency are dwindling and perversity is rising. Could it be that the UFC might have been a factor in his deadened brain?


Joe Rogan's whole act is profanity laced with bile. He is a pot smoker who entered Fear Factor, thinking it was a joke. He said he would egg people on because he did not know how stupid people were going to be. The producers of the show he explained were going on the premise of playing pranks on unsuspecting contestants to see how far they will go. The level of evil involved is a little twisted. Mr. Rogan's special is just filled with the rants of someone who is too good for regular human beings. I found him to be offensive and his stuff can be heard by more talented comedians such as Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock. Rogan even does a five minute set on the N word. Overall, ignore this special.


This is a truly awful movie. The jokes are few and far between and the pacing is a down right endurance test. The only thing funny to come out of this production is it's comparison to the classic film "This Is Spinal Tap."

Avoid this film as if it were one of the plagues of the Bible itself.


If Jacqueline McKenzie and John Lynch weren't such talented actors this film would probably be even worse than it actually is.The story of two mentally disturbed people who fall in love and have a baby is an interesting one,and well worth exploring.However on the negative side,the plot becomes increasingly over the top as the story progresses,and the music choices more and more bizarre,so that by the end I found myself laughing when I know the director intended for me to be crying.


On the Opening night of the San Francisco Silent Film festival I was quite excited to see films that are historical and well not common. The guest speaker who opened this film created a sense of hype towards the obscurity, and how this film is underrated. The sci-fi part of the film was very interesting and fantastic for its time, but i'm not sure if it was due to the fact it was shown directly after the Brilliant 1928 "The Wind" or if it seemed that Russian filmmakers take after what Russian novels are famous for (hundreds of characters, tangled plots) but I know for certain that the dramatic parts, as in the parts on Earth, made absolutely no sense, were boring and I became lost within about twenty minutes. Maybe it was the acting but I found myself convinced as to why this film is "unknown and underrated": It's boring, there is no plot or basic story and the acting is horrible. This certainly is no "Battleship Potemkin", however I will say that Russian films do not make a real good effort in lightning up what life in Russia is like.


I have barely managed to view the entire film... Only after about 85min out of the movie's 110min did the journey to Mars begin, and then there were 5min left for the closure. These 85 long minutes were VERY boring and didn't contribute anything to the film. When finally reaching Mars, it wasn't much better plot wise. It all could have been fitted into much shorter running time and nothing would have been missed.

What I cannot understand is the piece of trivia saying the because of the film new-born Babies were named "Aelita"... Why would someone want to name his/her baby after a villain, who despite having only one eyebrow, apparently has 3 breasts???

The only interesting thing here is the sets and costumes for the Mars scenes. They are an interesting experiment in Constructivism, just as "The cabinet of Dr. Caligari" was for Expressionism, five years earlier.

I give it 4/10 for the great looking design...


A dedicated Russian Scientist dreams of going to Mars. He eventually gets there but it takes the whole film before we are able to have a laugh at the Russian style of Revolution in Mars.


This film is strange, even for a silent movie. Essentially, it follows the adventures about a engineer in post-revolutionary Russia who daydreams about going to Mars. In this movie, it seems like the producers KNOW the Communists have truly screwed up the country, but also seems to want to make it look like they've accomplished something good.

Then we get to the "Martian" scenes, where everyone on Mars wears goofy hats. They have a revolution after being inspired by the Earth Men, but are quickly betrayed by the Queen who sides with them. Except it's all a dream, or is it. (And given that the Russian Revolution eventually lead to the Stalin dictatorship, it makes you wonder if it was all allegory.)

Now, I've seen GOOD Russian cinema. For instance, Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin is a good movie. This is just, well, silly.


After watching Avalon (which was decent only because of the very nice digital fx), and several anime films written by Oshii, including Jin-Roh (which is fantastic) I decided I should check out the Oshii cinema trilogy box set. Being that the Red Spectacles and Stray Dog are related, I will comment here on both. And let me tell you, it was one of the biggest wastes of money I have spent in a while. I first watched Stray Dogs and then The Red Spectacles. I am sad to say that these films are quite possibly the most boring two movies I have ever seen. For only about 10 minutes in each film do you get to see some action between the the characters, who are only dressed in the "Panzer Cop" outfits for a few fleeting scenes. The rest of the time you will see some very drawn out scenes filled with boring dialogue in some less than impressive locations. I really don't understand the motivation behind these two films at all. I love the Wolf Brigade outfits and the idea behind the plot, but the films themselves leave much to be desired. I would suggest NOT watching these films, and certainly do not buy the box set like I did, unless you enjoy wasting money. Oh, and if you are wondering what I think about the 3rd movie in the set, Talking Head, I couldn't even bring myself to watch it before I purged the box set from my DVD collection via eBay at a $20 loss. If you want cool Japanese live action, check out Returner, or Ichii the Killer or the Zeiram series.


Red spectacles

I loved Avalon, I think This director has made some awesome demented visions of the future. This film however was boring pretentious crap. The opening scene showed great promise for what the cover art and description promise a surreal live action amimae style future noir. I feel I got that with Avalon.

With Red Spectacles I was only driven to feel a uncomfortable to desire to what the hell the point was. The film barely made sense to me and I could not care less about the people in it. This would all be ok if the film was effective art. While the opening scene looked interesting and the scene with the giant robot-suit person holding the giant machine gun in the rain looked cool, it did not watch the film worth watching.

Thumbs down.


I guess this is in the public domain as its out on DVD. First off, this is a feel good propaganda movie to be shown to a wartime Aussie audience, so its not to be considered a serious retelling of Tobruk. The first half to 3/4 is very dry stuff set in Australia, I guess like many American war films where the recruits are getting together, oh man its soooo long. Than we get to Africa and Tobruk, pretty bad, low budget stuff. The battle scenes on the DVD copy I watched were almost completely black. See it if you must, but be prepared to use the fast forward as I doubt you can take it after a few minutes. I enjoyed the cheesy Italian "Battle of El Alamien" a whole lot more, also Richard Burton did an African theater war flick that was good "The Desert Rats", this movie is just a real period piece and should have stayed in that time, does not hold up well today (I doubt it was highly regarded back then either). I say the same thing about my American counterpart war flicks so don't take it personally Aussies (I love Australia, been there twice!).


What You Need In the run up to 'What You Need', every episode since 'The Lonely' had been a winner to some extent. This episode is the first major failure since 'Escape Clause'. The Serling script is again based on someone else's materiel, a short story by Lewis Padgett. As with 'And When the Sky Was Opened', Serling altered the content significantly, removing a scientist and his machine and inserting an elderly peddler.

'What You Need' works best when it is being sweet. The opening half, in which the peddler provides customers in a bar with objects they will need in the near future, has a gentle charm about it that may have worn thin throughout an entire episode but works well in the time frame it is allotted. Sadly, the main plot which it sets up is full of gaping holes. The minute Steve Cochran's performance as a two-bit thug becomes the main focus the episode falls apart. Cochran's part is an underwritten stereotype and his flat performance highlights this flaw. His exploitation of the old peddler is dull and predictable and the revelation that he will murder the old man is totally unconvincing, making the whole slippery shoes scene seem completely false. Ernest Truex is good as the peddler, bringing a magical, mysterious but warm edge to the character, but he's not good enough to help the floundering script.

To make matters worse, the weak script is also full of inconsistencies. For instance, we learn that the peddler's power to provide people with what they need stems from an ability to see into the future. So how exactly does this allow him to produce a pen that will magically pick winning horses. That seems like it should be a little outside his realms of power. Also, for a man who can see the future, the peddler certainly acts surprised to find the thug waiting for him in his flat. There are many more holes that can be picked in 'What You Need' but it's hardly worth it when the episode is so thin that you can see through it anyway.


I don't mind some adult humor, but this feature was just downright dirty. The first 10 minutes consisted of Pryor swearing at some guy taking pictures, followed my even more profanities. I don't know what happened between that time the the last 5 minutes because I walked out. After seeing this I never looked at Richard Pryor the same way again. And to think that he actually went on to host a childrens' show.

If profanity and tasteless, unfunny dirty jokes make you laugh, then you'll probably enjoy this. But if you're an "old-fashioned" type, then don't bother.


This may not be the worst movie to ever win best picture but its up there. Well on second thought this is probably the worst film to ever win best picture. Still though you would expect it to be a worth while film. That in fact though if questionable as well. The film contains almost no depth and is just "fun" after "fun" if you want to call it that. At first its very interesting but it seems as if everything is exaggerated on so many levels.

The acting was not spectacular to watch but it was quite interesting seeing Charlton Heston in his first lead role. I found many of the characters like the tone of the movie annoying after awhile. Who I did like a lot was James Stewart as the philosophical clown. He to me saved the film in that he gave it a much needed extra layer. Sadly though after Stewart there was not much else.

The directing of the much respected Cecil DeMille was non existent to me. I found the movie corny at times and his use of Betty Hutton was a mistake. The look of the movie was very good at times but it did not generate that magical feeling that classics need to have. The writing was actually pretty good considering how shallow much of the movie was.

From movies like this did the term "Hollywood Trash" come up. There is no depth, no valid attempt at drawing emotions out of the audience and simply no artistic value to the film. Then of course the many holes in the plot throughout. This movie was consistently annoying and frustrating. I even had a sense through this film that much of what I was watching was not only and inaccurate depiction of circus life but instead the opposite of how it really is. Why this won best picture is beyond me but its not like the first or the last time the Oscars will and have made a mistake.


In a year when "Singin' in the Rain" and "High Noon" were released, this overstuffed turkey somehow won the Oscar for Best Picture. Half the film is nothing more than circus performances. The other half is soap opera and melodrama. Heston and Wilde both overact, although they are models of restraint compared to the annoying Hutton. Playing a self-centered trapeze artist, Hutton acts like an overzealous high school student in a badly produced school play. Grahame is the only cast member to turn in a decent performance. DeMille has no interest in telling a good story, only in creating an overlong spectacle, not matter how dull.


OK, here's the short of it... this movie is full of corny dialogue, over the top acting, and a threadbare script.

There are moments that intended to be very dramatic but simply come off humorous because of the over the top acting and poorly written lines. I couldn't help laughing at moments that were meant to be very serious. The bright spot in this movie is the circus. Seeing the circus in its heyday was certainly a treat.

There are moments that come through as good. But then it nosedives right back into B-movie territory. I was tempted to stop watching it several times.

I certainly don't know how it won best picture, however. It must have been a slow year!


I used to always love the bill because of its great script and characters, but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. If you look at promotional pictures/posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging/kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. This proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing Police drama to an average type of television soap. When i watch it i feel like I'm watching a police version of Coronation Street or something similar. I have to say i still like the bill as I'm interested in Police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that The Bill used to have. I want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over.

As for the script and characters they have both gone downhill, most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and I'm not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren't, its just that they lack the tough looks, personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble.

Overall being one of the only Police programs on television these days, The Bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch, but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible, unreal television soap.

Recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved - 2/10


Ravi Chopra wrote this film 40 years back, wanted to cast Dilip Kumar in the lead

The film finally was re-written and made in 2003 and hence the subject looks dated and too superficial at times

Like the reason Amitabh-Hema separate is too superficial even the way the youth are shown is too bad like Gulshan in AVTAAR

The message though comes well but things are presented in a clichéd manner Salman's character is the worst, looks straight out of a storybook while the climax speech of Bachchan is good and also the final of not forgiving the sons is good

Ravi Chopra does a good job Music is decent, the songs sung by Bachchan stand out

Amitabh excels like always, he has played an elder stern father earlier but here he plays a victim and portrays it well His last speech is great Hema is good in her part Aman Verma stands out Samir Soni is okay, Naseer and the rest sons and wives are decent though Divya Dutta stands out Salman Khan is fake, Mahima is okay Paresh and Lillete are lovable


Two days ago I got a chance to watch this movie on Cable (TV-Asia). I have been very disturbed since then. The movie "Baghban" has been very successful in portraying only one side of the real life. It is highly partial towards parents. Have you ever thought of other side (kids)?? There are few parents in this world who just give birth to their kids but don't give right parental care. I am a victim of that. Why do you (parents) want to have 5 kids in your life if you are merely making only Rs 2000 per month? I was made to work on streets along with my siblings. I have no idea how I managed to reach IIT from there. It has been a long time since then but still I don't believe. Now I am a research scientist here in USA. I have provided all the necessities to my parents along with care by my two brothers who stay along with them. They could not provide basic things to us when we were kids. I find this movie very resentful. Its very partial. It has hurt my sentiments very deeply. I strongly urge the producer/director of this movie to look at the Indian society in other point of view also and make another movie. I can be reached at john_simension@yahoo.com


This movie truly shows the farce and hypocrisy of Indian society. What it tries to show you is only ONE side of the story. The other side of the story is the hidden emotional and mental abuse of Indian children which this movie does not show.

"Indian Parents" are culpable for the following: a. Destroying the individuality of the children by making them completely dependent on the parents at a very early age. Such children grow up to be Adults only in physical looks but remain children in minds. Since everything has been provided to them by their great Indian parents, They children automatically do not feel the need to work hard at something or learn the basics of human communication with other human beings apart from their parents.

B. I can show you so many Indian parents who try to prevent their kids making friends, going out or prevent them to do anything which starts making them to grow into adults.

The reason why they do is the same selfishness. Indian parents "expect" their children to take care of them when they grow old. They do no savings for themselves and once they reach the age of 50...They cry out LOUD......We have grown old now and so we are dependent on you children since we have done the GREAT SERVICE of bringing you to this world and taking care of you and making you intellectually weak.

Most of the Indian parents at the age of 50 have dilapidated bodies and health and are financially completely insecure. Most feel that they ABSOLUTELY have no need to take care of themselves since they "expect" their kids to take care of them.

In the west the opposite of that happens. People start planning at the age of 20 about their retirement and once they retire they are financially secure.

Indian parents do NOTHING of that sort since like I said they have brought the kids in the world and what better investment at that?.

I am a victim of my Indian parents (i am sure there are countless other Indian kids like me), who have grown up physically but are still struggling with their lives on THEIR OWN and they continue to have pestering 50 year olds who cry out loud for HELP all the time.

This movie shows only ONE side of the story.....UTTER piece of JUNK


Watching "Baghban" is the movie equivalent of trying to eat one's way out of a vat of saltwater taffy for nigh unto three hours. This Indian film is a sticky sweet, sentimental soap opera that starts off like "King Lear," moves on to "Romeo and Juliet" in the middle section, then heads back again to "King Lear" for its tear-soaked finale.

Raj Malhotra is a bank accountant who seems to have everything a man could possibly want out of life: a wife who adores him, a family who loves him, and a job from which he is about to retire after a lifetime of faithful service. Even though Raj and his wife, Pooja, have been married for 40 years and have four grown sons, they still act like a couple of love struck newlyweds, cooing and sighing, batting their eyes at one another and whispering sweet nothings into each other's ears almost to the point of nausea. In fact, the whole bloody brood is so happy, loving and harmonious that they make the Von Trapps look like a dysfunctional family in comparison. The parents and children joke together, laugh together, even perform elaborately choreographed, "spontaneous" song-and-dance numbers together (like many Bollywood productions, "Baghban" is a drama interspersed with a great number - in this case, far too great a number - of musical sequences).

Anyone who knows anything at all about storytelling is aware that such unadulterated bliss can not be allowed to go unpunished for long, and that all that joy is merely the prelude to some awful catastrophe destined to come crashing down on the heads of our unsuspecting revelers. Knowing this, we spend the first hour of the film in fearful expectation, wondering just what form that disaster will take when it does finally arrive. The thunderclap occurs about an hour into the film, when Raj announces to his children that he and their mother have decided to move in with one of their families, leaving the choice of which one it will be up to the kids and their respective spouses. Suddenly, like King Lear discovering the vipers hidden in the familial bosom, Raj finds out that his children are not quite as loving, selfless and eager to share their homes and lives with their parents as he had originally thought. Understandably horrified at the prospect, the kids, in order to foil their parents' plan, come up with a scheme in which Raj will go live with one of their children, while Pooja will live with another; then they will switch off until, eventually, each of the children has had a chance to host both parents and then the cycle will repeat itself ad infinitum. Much to the chagrin of the kids, the parents accede to the plan, even though the two are deeply in love with one another and have never spent any time apart. Thus, the second and most of the third hour are spent with the two aging (albeit married) lovers pining away for one another, while their ungrateful, insensitive little brats do everything in their power to make their parents understand how unwelcome they are in their homes.

One of the major problems with "Baghban" is that it lacks subtlety in both its storytelling and direction. The love that Ray and Pooja feel for one another, as well as the almost giddy closeness of the family unit, is laid on so thickly in the first hour that the film almost collapses under the weight of the sentimentality. Then, virtually without any warning, the screenplay turns on a dime and converts the kids into callous, self-centered monsters and the parents into passive, whiny victims of that callousness. Raj and Pooja are a little too long in the tooth and a little too self-reliant to be doing the dreamy-eyed, pouting, unrequited love bit, more appropriate to lovelorn school kids than the parents of four grown children. The purple prose style, in which every emotion is underlined and highlighted, leads to intense overacting and a heavy reliance on corny reaction shots and melodramatic music for punctuation. The musical numbers convey a certain liberating joy in the beginning, but they go on for so long and turn up so frequently that they quickly lose their effectiveness and serve only to pad out the material to unendurable proportions. At least a full hour could be excised from this bloated production with no discernible harm being done - and quite a bit of good. There really is no reason why this film needs to drag on for a punishing three hours. Most egregious of all is the seemingly endless harangue we are subjected to an the end, a speech in which Raj (who has somehow managed to turn his experiences into an award-winning bestseller) lectures us all on the verities of parent/child relationships for ten straight minutes at the very least.

"Baghban" is a sappy, corny saga, filled with more sugar and goo than a king-sized box of See's chocolates. Sample at your own risk.


this is a movie which reminds me of avatar- starring rajesh khanna from the 80's. the issue of parents-kids divide is interesting but was handled in a rather unoriginal manner.. the characters were not developed fully and the kids seemed to go from being extermely loving ( in the first 15mts of the movie) to being totally unconcerned about the parents,, this transformation was not credible to say the least..they sld have explored this a little more. amitabh and jaya were miscast as this helpless old couple.. firstly amit was not too convincing in this role,because he just did not look like he should be helpless, i mean why not just go back to work where he is wanted instead of being w/ kids who didnt want them.. hema was not convincing as a 60 yr old either... she didnt look a day over 50.. then the whole isssue of the book baghban winning the booker prize begged credibility.. all in all, a movie that handles an important issue but cld have been made better, i give it 5/10


It's hard to make a bad movie with the "underdog finally succeeds" sport theme, but this movie succeeds admirably. My mind boggles at how pointless and boring this film is.

I guess the director couldn't decide whether this was about the runner or the coach. It ends up being about neither. Ultimately, who cares? Neither character has a likable personality. There is nothing in the movie to make you care about anyone. Even the "bad guy" isn't really bad. (I think he's in two scenes, and seemingly is on some kind of barbituate. ) I think he asks her, once and politely, to leave the coach and train with him. Then later he kinda' sorta' asks her to move in with him. that's it. Conflict! Tension! What will she do? !!

-And what's with the depiction of running? Has the director ever SEEN an actual marathon? Christine's form is so incorrect it's absurd, as is the form of the supposed "champion" she competes with (A character with no lines. -Maybe they could have hired, you know, an actual RUNNER?)

-And the speed the run at is beyond comprehension. Were they running or speed walking? It's actually laughable. I can literally walk backwards faster then they were running in the big race. Maybe it was too hard to move the cameras at real speed?

Another absurdity: (spoiler, I guess) At one point in the big race, the two women in the lead inexplicably fall, at the same time. What they fell on is a mystery. Maybe they both just got exhausted and fell down? -And then they get up, but don't start running again for maybe 30 seconds. Oh yeah, very realistic. This ridiculous event doesn't even add any tension, since the other runners are not close, and besides at this point you have been numbed into a state of catatonia.

-I especially enjoyed how all four of her male teammates, highly trained athletes all, drop out of the big race due to charlie-horses, or pulled tendons, or something just as improbable.

But who cares? This movie has almost no tension, no resolution, nothing. Some woman runner with absolutely no personality is discovered by an old, boring coach with some past failure that is barely hinted at. They train a lot. She is not happy. They train some more. She wins da big race. Woopie.

My description is actually more interesting than the actual movie. I just saved you 90 minutes. Avoid this one like the plague.


Well, I only caught the tail end of this film on HBO, just the final 10 minutes or so, but I must say that it contains probably the most laughable depiction of distance running EVER put on film! I'm a serious distance runner and a dedicated fan of the sport, and I've sat through many painful demonstrations in movies before. However, nothing could have ever prepared me for what is shown on screen in the final 10 minutes of this movie, it literally defies belief! The depiction of the runners is even more ironic considering that African runners completely dominate the sport, and they are elegant and graceful. The female protagonist shuffles along like an overweight pregnant woman, and her "highly trained" male supporters are no better. Well into the race this alleged world class runner is surrounded by pudgy, overweight people, many of whom are WALKING! I find it interesting that the director decided to have her lead the female competition, yet near the end she is shown passing people who look like they're staggering along on two broken legs! Are we to believe that this amazing stellar athlete has only overtaken a crippled person at the very end of the race? Maybe the director just thinks that female runners can't run faster than 12 minute miles, and he has obviously never heard of athletes like Paula Radcliffe or Tirunesh Dibaba.

Even if you aren't a running fan you'll be astonished by the insanely inaccurate portrayal of running, and this movie is only watchable as unintentional comedy. Here is a note to the director: The next time you decide to make a movie about a sport, it might be worth it to hire at least one person who actually has observed that sport in action.


Maybe it gets better. I wouldn't know. I made it through the first twenty minutes or so before cutting it off and entering a period of mourning. It was obvious that the plot itself was a familiar one. A man, Paul LeMatt, a professor of entymology at Columbia, drives with his dog to a small town in Ohio in search of his ex wife, Diana Scarwid. There he encounters people who either ignore him or are hostile. Oh, they may smile but there's something going on underneath.

That sort of arrangement is home turf for movie makers and viewers alike, and it's pregnant with possibilities. You can turn out a neatly drawn commercial success like "Bad Day at Black Rock." Or it would have made, and probably DID make, a nice "Twilight Zone" episode.

The cast includes some seasoned performers too, as well as some formerly prominent names. Kenneth Toby, a veteran of science fiction, is the superficially amiable motel manager. Diana Scarwid can give an impressive performance, as she did in, say, "Silkwood." For some of the others, their range is limited.

But it's poorly directed and shabbily written.

Example of shabby direction. That dog of LeMatt's is disliked by Kenneth Toby, right off the bat. So when LeMatt walks out to the street, Toby sneaks up to the window of his room, peers in at the dog, and something zaps. Cut to LeMatt in the street. He hears his dog howling away. Then a POV shot of presumably the dog zipping along towards LeMatt then past him while the wind blows and LeMatt gawks at the camera. Cut to an identical shot -- coming from the other direction! Whatever the camera represents, whatever LeMatt is staring at, is never shown. Maybe it was nothing, because suddenly the wind stops and LeMatt is alone in the street, looking a little bit puzzled. "You should never have brought that dog in the first place," remarks a smiling Toby from the porch. Question: What the hell is that scene all about?

Example of shabby writing. Well, TWO examples. (1) If you were to sit down and write a stereotypical waitress in a small-town diner, without the exercise of any craft whatever, you'd come up with an expressionless babe with her hair piled on top of her head, chewing gum, sauntering among the tables. Right. (2) Anything resembling believability is thrown out the window in favor of special effects. LeMatt's car chugs to a halt, then explodes while it is waiting to be fixed at the garage. Chugging to a halt: believable. Exploding: supernatural. Not even Edgar Allan Poe would endorse such an event.

And the invaders themselves? Think of a modest masterpiece like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Something is going wrong in Dr. Kevin McCarthy's small town, and it takes half the movie for the mystery to be unraveled, and all the time suspense is building and doubt is growing. Here, twenty minutes into the movie, a stranger walks into a motel room and tears off his plastic face, revealing a pulsing, light-emitting, naked brain. The pregnancy is aborted.

I won't tell you the ending because I don't know what it is, nor do I care. I suppose it had something to do with insects because why else would Paul LeMatt be an entymologist? (By the way, who's handling his classes?) But I'm not even sure bugs were involved. It's entirely possible that the bug business was adventitious. The writers may have made him a specialist in insects and then forgot all about it. It wouldn't surprise me.


I love movies, all genres, and from big dollar spectacles to small indie projects. But even making allowance for this piece of junk being 25 years old and its attempt at homage to the 1950's it just suffers in almost aspect, by which we judge films.

Throughout the movie, I was reminded of several "student films," I've had a chance to watch, efforts where creativity is required to fill gaps where funds are needed.

All in all, chances are there are much better uses for 90 minutes of your life.

2/10


Where to begin.... This hideous excuse for a motion picture makes "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look well thought out. The music? It's culled from every single overwrought piece of PD shlock in existence. The focus? Hell, doesn't matter if in one shot there are thirty people standing in the road; the new angle shows a lone Packard with a waitress posing for Argosy Mag shots. Paul Le Mat, Diana Scarwid, Louise Fletcher, Wallace Shawn: fine actors who must have all been starving to death at that point in their lives and the director lured them to sign on with tempting bits of cat food. The production budget must have skyrocketed to well over fifty cents with the addition of The Space Alien Phallic Transportation Machine which, for a time, must have meant that the Oscar Meyer Wiener Mobile was not available. When Bad Movies Happen to Good Actors


There is somewhere in here the makings of a decent if routine SF story. It is thwarted by several factors. First, the actor is just awful. Even the competent actors are awful. The dialog is wooden and stilted. The plot plods along predictably. This seems less like a finished movie than actors going through a walk through. Extremely disappointing.


I must say, I found this movie very disappointing. Yes, I know Maltin gave it 3 1/2 and others think very highly of it. But, well, the opera sequences were god-awful. I take it Jeannete MacDonald is an acquired taste. Yes, in the short sequences I have seen her with Nelson Eddy, she is immensely preferable to him. But on her own...God, I dislike opera and despise operetta, and she is basically intolerable. At one point I had to cover my ears. Gable is just OK, and Tracy is thrown away. The plot is annoying in the JM never simply tells Gable she loves him and the opera and why can't she do both? Instead she suffers silently (or not so) with the compromises she makes. The supporting cast is distinctly unmemorable. Besides the star three and Jack Holt (and I suppose his mother), they all are just background and forgettable. The EQ sequence is the only thing that saves the movie. And just. Yes, it is fairly spectacular and moving. But the "oh God is great" seems very contrived. I immensely prefer "In Old Chicago" as far as old time disaster spectaculars go. Spare yourself on this one.