I have read several reviews that ask the question, "Why was this film made"? I myself found that question looming in my mind as the hour and twenty minute feature seemed to drag near the middle, only to give off the sensation that it was picking up steam at the end, when in actuality it was doing nothing of the sort. So, "Why was this film made"? I think that is a great question for those watching Heftig og begeistret to ask themselves. This reviewer is proud of director Knut Erik Jensen for giving us this powerful image of hope, brotherhood, and inspiration with this all male choir, but I do not think that Jensen did enough to bring a gripping story to the table. Let me pose this question to you, "Do audience members need more in a documentary than just a straight forward story to maintain interest"? My answer is yes, and this is where Jensen failed. Heftig og begeistret was a good documentary, but it was far from great. Jensen did a horrible job with the story and dedication of the subjects. It was great to hear the songs, but over time, those songs seemed dull, overwhelming, and a bit precocious. From the opening scene where our men are singing their hearts out in a blinding snow, I knew that I was hooked, but as the film developed I lost interest. Why? Jensen never took us, the audience members, to the next level. He kept the playing field level and ultimately hurt the overall tone of the film. Was this a movie about the music or about the men in the choir? The world may never know.

Again, I would like to state that Jensen did a phenomenal job of finding an interesting story about this group of men who have definitely seen hard times and how they coped with that through music, but it was as if the all male choir were a bunch of the most boring men ever created. Jensen gave us the music superbly, but it was the characters, the subjects, that I knew nothing about by the end of the film. In the mix we had a 97 year old man who still had his driver's license, we had a large man in a tub singing classic American songs, we had old men who were once heartthrobs in their youth, we had some tension between the youth of the choir and the veteran singers, and we even had an ex-drug addict that had only been clean for eleven years. Did Jensen develop these interesting stories at all? Nope, he left them on the table. It was obvious that these singers were willing to talk further about it (see the political man who missed his political days), but Jensen seemed to clear away from those heartfelt moments and head straight back into interesting places that he could have the choir sing. To me, the music was defined at the beginning of the film, I wanted to be introduced and hear the stories of these individual men. They were all captivating, yet Jensen seemed to ignore them completely.

By ignoring the major subjects of this documentary, Jensen became unsuccessful in creating any sort of tension towards the end. Without giving the ending away, I felt like Jensen was coloring in the lines. Instead of being bold outside the lines, he chose to create no moment of sympathy, emotion, nervousness, or sadness. Jensen took our subjects from point A to point B to point C without asking us to become involved in any way shape or form. I can see how national sentiment had made this film into a huge success in Norway, but for everyone else watching (i.e. ME) more was necessarily needed. I wanted to feel for these guys. I wanted to know if they were going to do well as they traveled, or just find themselves loved in their own city. There was no story, mostly in part to no development of the subjects. When you watch modern documentaries (oddly, this film was made in 2001), you want it to play out similar to any Hollywood feature film. You want suspense, realism, and drama, alas, with Heftig og begeistret you get nothing of the sort.

Overall, I must ask the question again, "Why was this film made"? My final answer Alex, is that Jensen wanted to show how troubling times and a changing economy can still produce happiness in even the coldest places of Earth. I think that Jensen wanted to show human dedication and how something as simple as singing can unite a population. With that said, Jensen demonstrated that perfectly in this film, but he did not create a good documentary. When you make a film of this nature, I feel that you must look within the group, examine the choir participants and hear each one of their stories to bring about an ending that will grip your heart. The only thing that this film gripped was my attention span as it attempted to leave the room at rocket speed. Again, I do not want to sound negative about this film because the music was excellent and the men singing did bring about a feeling of honesty, but I needed more. With documentaries becoming a bigger staple of the film community, one expects a bit more than what Heftig og begeistret handed to us. I want to see reality and people, not just another song and dance routine!

Grade: ** out of *****


Heftig og Begeistret (Intense and Enthusiastic) is a documentary-like story of a male choir up in Berlevåg in the very northern part of Norway, where the weather is cold and hostile, the days are dark during the winter and the towns are faced with young people moving to the more populated parts in the south of Norway, where the climate is warmer and there are more opportunities.

The most beautiful part of this movie is the humans themselves. The people in the choir, who are aged from 30 to 95, all have unique, colorful lives and are very enjoyable beings. They are characterised by the harsh climate and the recession of the North and have adapted to the way of living required. Throughout the movie, we learn a bit about many people in the choir and we follow them through songs, some events in a church and on the harbour, and in the end, a trip to Murmansk.

The outside environment filmed in the movie is very beautiful and characterised by the Norwegian nature. The scenography is also natural and taken directly from the choir and from the peoples lives that we meet. Thei r livingrooms, the bathroom, the kettle on the oven; there is nothing artificial about this movie, not the people, not the environment, not their music and not their feelings. Everything is as real as can be.

It all loses out though when it comes to giving a story. It is very beautiful and real, but why do we see it? Is it because of the songs? Is it because of the nature? Or is it simply just to see a story about Berlevåg Mens-Choir, about their life and some of the trips they have. The message, if there is any, is that this small society copes with life through such social events like the choir. The choir have kept the people together for many many years.

It is all nice, but being as popular as it has been, seen by almost 200.000 in Norway, there is something wrong. There is no beginning or end to it. Nobody gains or loses anything, nobody reveals any message or tries to convince the audience of that this is good or that life up there is great. Why was this movie made?

I am sorry. It is a nice movie about good people, but compared to the average European, Scandinavian or Norwegian movie - this does not deserve a 9 out of 10. It is closer to 4 out of 10, and that is what I will give it.

If you see this movie in a theater, you should expect the average age on the audience to be around 55-60. It has reported to be consistently high in all theaters. Maybe this is also the reason for it receiving such very high praise in the news and good grades also on the IMDB: It is a movie about elders, for elders. It is a movie of "I regret nothing in my life", and a story saying that living in a small town like Berlevåg, might be a nice life too.


Creepy facemasks and slasher movies have gone together like cheese and chives throughout the lengthy lifespan of the cycle. People often assume that it was John Carpenter that started the trend, but as is the case with many of the genre's clichés - the Italians did it first. Movies like Eyeball, Torso and Blood and Black Lace were the originators of a hooded maniac in a murder mystery. There were also a couple of American pre-Halloween slashers that warrant a mention. Classroom Massacre, Keep my Grave Open and Savage Weekend clearly pre-date 1978, whilst The Town that Dreaded Sundown is widely regarded as one of the first teen-kill movies.

Carpenter's seminal flick may not have been the maiden masked nightmare, but it certainly started the competitive race between directors to unveil the spookiest disguise for their bogeymen. Over the years we've seen some memorable contenders, but my favourites would have to be: My Bloody Valentine's maniacal miner, The Prowler's sadistic soldier and Wicked Games' copper-faced assassin. I'm also keen on many of the killer clowns that have made an appearance throughout the category. The final scene in The House on Sorority Row has to be listed as one of the best and The Clown of Midnight also ranks highly amongst the greatest madmen's costumes.

A leather mask was probably the last type to be used in a slasher movie, probably because they are widely linked with sexual perversion, which of course doesn't exactly make for a scary disguise. But in later years both Blackout and this obscurity decided that fear could certainly be incorporated with a gimp suit. Here's how the later of the two fared

The screen lights up with the rush of blue sirens, as cops race to the scene of a hostage situation. It seems that a stressed-out gentleman has possibly had enough of being cast as an extra in cruddy low-brow turkeys, so he's decided to hold his wife and kid at gunpoint. Detective Shine (David Clover) manages to wrestle with the gunman, but unluckily for him he looses the fight to grab a loose pistol and it looks like it's the end of the road for the grey haired officer. Fortunately he is saved in the nick of time by some precision marksmanship from Lisa Ryder (Donna Adams), the California Police Department's hottest female law-enforcer.

Her heroic encounter earns the brunette a promotion to Detective first class, and its a feat that is heavily envied by her male counterparts. Meanwhile a leather-clad maniac is jollying around town slaughtering hookers and dumping their bloody corpses on street corners. Ryder and Shine are put on the case of the murderous gimp and their first call of questioning is a sleazy back street photographer called Michael Walker (John Mandell). Lisa is such a top notch inspector that normal Police regulation doesn't seem to apply to her, so before long she's dating the cameraman even though he's suspect numero uno. When the bodies continue to pile up around the city, she decides to go undercover in an attempt to flush out the S & M madman

If anything, Zipperface effortlessly sums up all that went wrong with the slasher genre towards the end of its rein. What started as a great stepping-stone for up and coming filmmakers and thespians had been reduced to a sewer of cinema faeces by movies with flat direction, zero suspense or shocks and talentless mediocre actors. The boom years of early eighties splatter flicks managed to conceal their lack of strong dramatic line-ups with gooey special effects and exciting directorial flourishes. Unfortunately, by this point in the cycle titles like Rush Week, Deadly Dreams and The Majorettes had seemed to be produced in a conspiracy to put the category where many of the aforementioned feature's characters ended up. In an early grave.

Donna Adams doesn't even vaguely convince as an officer of the law and her inexplicably idiotic behaviour - which includes doing a striptease for a top suspect in a nationwide murder investigation - is more mind numbingly pathetic than you might ever expect it to be. Mansour Pourmand couldn't direct traffic and the wide majority of the cast members would struggle to get a second reading for a radio commercial. I searched and searched, but found nothing here of merit or note.

On the plus side, if you manage to keep the TV turned on until the end then you may be fairly surprised by the killer's identity. To be honest though, I doubt that by that time you'll even care. And another plus point? Well, erm.... the disc is perfectly symmetrical, which means that you could use it as a matt to place your cup of tea upon?? Aside from that there's really no other reason to go out and buy Zipperface. Bad bad bad and not in a good way, this is 90 minutes of my life that I could have spent more constructively by plucking my chest-hair. Abysmal.


Wow! This is the movie that should be shown on TV at Two in the morning on Cinemax for all those insomniacs (lord knows they'd probably pass out from boredom watching this movie) Terrible acting, the killer is quite far from scary, I've seen clowns at carnivals that were scarier. Lot's of unnecessary 'skin' in this film, pseudo-porn scenes which are just horrible in more ways than a million, a gawdy soap opera style script which really hurt the movie and the director really had no flair for whatever genre he was trying to create with this film. I could see a group of teenagers with their parents camcorders doing better work than this. I don't think there is a part of me that could recommend this film to anyone...


The first thing you should know about "Zipperface" is that it was shot on video, so it has that peculiar "home-video-ish" look that is terribly distracting and makes it hard to take this seriously as a "real" film. And "Zipperface" indeed looks as if a bunch of amateurs got together for an attempt at a "real" serial-killer thriller. It's not quite that, but it's not as bad as it looks, either. Having a woman as one of the two detectives on the case puts a spin on the exploitation genre. Dona Adams gives an appealingly amateurish performance in the role - her obvious inexperience in front of the camera somehow works for her. Plus, she puts up a GREAT fight against the killer at the end. The red herrings appear ludicrous at first, but ultimately they work - I guessed the killer INcorrectly. And you have to wonder if perhaps Tarantino had seen the Zipperface guy when he came up with the idea of "The Gimp" for "Pulp Fiction". (*1/2)


Zipperface is the kind of experience one waits an entire lifetime to avoid! Mansour Pormand ranks as one of the worst film directors of all time! If, however, you love bad films, see this at all costs!


The series does not start as it means to go on. Although it's first two seasons are crammed with incredibly average episodes, as well as numerous duds, afterwards the pace picks up and one of the finest space operas is born. The first ever episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation is remarkable for two things: it's hugely enjoyable introductions to all of the main cast, and Marina Sirtis' peculiar accent which would later disappear. Seeing how it all began is very satisfying, and viewed in mind of the rest of the series, rather moving actually. Otherwise it is a very mediocre episode featuring Q, and some giant jellyfish. That's right.


I have been a rabid Star Trek fan since 1966. Still am. One thing I learned from Star Trek is that the special effects are secondary to the characters. Encounter At Farpoint fails in its mission.

Superbly produced.

POORLY directed, written, acted. D.C. Fontana really blew this one. This episode is so embarrassing the master tape should be burned.

The first half of the first season didn't fare much better.


First of all, even IMDb is slacking with this movie, as the list of cast is VERY "gappy". Even main characters are missing from it like Buddy for example.

Now back to the movie. I love watching movies, but this one tortured me throughout the whole 82 or however many minutes. It was HORRID. Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. And the reason why it bothers me so much, is because I was quite excited about seeing it beforehand.

The plot line itself is good. It could have been a great film if done properly and with careful casting. Golden Brooks was a HUGE disappointment. I now see that the only role she can be good in is the loud, fun-loving, energetic sexy chick she plays on Girlfriends. Melodramatic roles are not for her at all. She basically killed her character, Rachel.

I love some of the cast, like Deborah Cox, Mel Jackson and Darrin Dewitt Henson, but even they couldn't save this catastrophic movie. Of course it is only my personal opinion that I can not stand Hill Harper as a man, and he didn't help me get to like him more here either.

Golden Brooks' voice bothered me so much that I actually had to force myself to finish watching the movie. It seemed like she whispered throughout the whole joint. The director I won't even waste board-space on, he did such a bad job. The editing, photography/camera focus and just about everything about this movie was SAD. Not to mention the dialogs! Absolutely unreal and many times straight hilarious (when it was supposed to make you cry and search deep within yourself).

As I said, it could have been a very nice movie, but it was seriously messed up. I would NOT recommend it to anyone, unless they are cinematography major and want to see a 'What not to do' example for their future work.

Have a great day, Everyone!!!


I caught this on HBO under its category of "Guilty Pleasures", and I would agree that I felt guilty (and pleasured) watching it. One, it's trash, and really raunchy trash. Two, the plot is slow and predictable and once you learn "who did it", you think, "So what?". However, I must admit to being enough of a male chauvinist pig to want to sit through what is obviously a poor movie, if for no other reason than to see Peta Wilson get completely naked a number of times. Do I feel dirty for having watched it? Yes. Am I sorry I watched it? No. So, there's the contradiction between being a lover of good movies and a lover of the female anatomy, even when in a poor movie. Sigh!


I have read the 28 most recent comments by various people regarding this movie and was surprised that no one mentioned the fact that the first victim, shown on the bed with the "missing eyelids", as the camera pans up and away from her face, blinks! Yes, BLINKS! I recorded it as it came on HBO this past weekend and when I saw this I literally had to replay it several times, focusing on one eye at a time to make sure that I was not seeing things! Of course, after that, it was hard to take the movie seriously although there were a few interesting and intense scenes with Julian Sands. Very disappointed and give it a 4 mostly due to the fact that the 1st victim blinks in one of the last frames as the camera pulls away from the body/face. Too bad.


This film tried, but ultimately it was a waste of talent. It tried to hard to be "sexy." I'm not putting down the works of such actresses as Ellen Barkin and Peta Wilson (who will find something besides TV's "Le Femme Nikita" worthy of her talents.) I just didn't find, even in Ms. Wilson's so-called near-seduction scene with Mrs. Barkin any real emotion, even though I know the thespians tried very hard to make the scene work. If the sexual elements of Wilson's disturbed sex victim didn't touch our heart (which it didn't even by an ending it didn't deserve), neither did the murder element of the plot. Perhaps it was the script or perhaps the direction, but I didn't feel for anyone in this movie, and without this feeling, a movie doesn't work for me. If you are interested in a movie about lesbianism, there are a least two films on either side of the specturum to check out: 1.) The gulity pleasure of "Bound" which works well in a noir setting; and 2.) The more honest, and touching story of a lesbian growing up in Hell's Kitchen called "All Over Me." It's a well-defined indie from the mid-90's that handles that coming-of-age issue with feeling, not forced sexuality. Both would be a better rental than "Mercy" which has next to nothing.


I got about halfway through this movie and was very disappointed. It was just flat out boring and completely unrealistic. I can get past being unrealistic in a lot of movies, but not when it's supposed to be a crime drama thing. The evidence collection and interview processes were just plain oddball. I started fast forwarding to see how it ended. And then got bored with that and just turned it off and returned it. The main character, played by Ellen Barkin, just wasn't believable at all. Peta Wilson acted very well in this film, but her character was way out there and there wasn't anyone for her acting talents to play off of that made it work.


...than you easily spot the biggest fault of the movie. What was the motive? The details of the murders were used, but never explained. I guess the team got too much into the atmosphere, which is great, but the story is definitely lacking. There is no thread to follow. I guess if that was done properly, the movie would've lasted a bit longer, but it would've been worth it, at least for me.

Casting is very good, I loved Wilson as the vulnerable Vicky.

Not much more to say, really. But I really wish they've concentrated a bit more on the less obvious.


Mercy the movie, actually starts out as a somewhat decent film, and ellen barkin does give a strong performance. But if you have read the book and actually got to know the characters and cared who done it the movie just does not compare. It is always hard to brink a book onto film and unfortunatley this one ends up failing...... 3 out of 10


This one is a bit more stylish than the average erotic thriller and Peta Wilson is a very sexy presence but it plays like they lost a few pages of script somewhere. Subplots come in and out of nowhere, the connections between some of the characters are murky and the killer's motivation is unclear to say the least. Maybe they could get away with this in a porn version, but here some more clarification is needed.


As much as I love Ellen Barkin (who is really underrated) I have to boo this movie. If you can't tell who did it AND why in the first half hour you obviously have never seen a psycho-sexual thriller or have never watched 20/20. It's like the filmmakers and actors didn't care that they way they were shooting it and they way they were playing the characters would be a dead giveaway.

Overall, this movie serves to turn-on the dirty perverts who like to mix violence and sex. Not a fun movie to sit through, although if you like Ellen Barkin it's nice to see her place a tough lady.


This contains some spoiler information, but the movie is not worth watching anyway...

Why Ellen Barkin and Peta Wilson agreed to be a part of this debacle by writer-director Damian Harris is beyond me. The story is full of unrealistic police investigating techniques, which includes going to a party with a suspect and inviting that suspect over to your house and getting intimate with them. The tale also features a male psychiatrist who seems to have nothing but female clients - and he sleeps with them all.

Even more over-the-top is the notion that the female victims to a horrendous S/M crime belong to a large, yet secret, group of S/M lesbian executives.

Full of bad editing and continuity errors, the film is sterile in all of its ritzy locations - including Barkin's detective salary apartment. And the lame dialogue is fit to put one to sleep.

Damian is a bad writer and a bad director. He tried and failed miserably to create a noiresque atmosphere at times. Furthermore, he couldn't get Ellen Barkin to give 110%. I firmly believe she realized the film was pathetic and gave up trying.

Standouts were Peta Wilson, who wasted time studying with a Dominatrix for the part. The highly under-rated character actor, Marshall Bell gave his absolute best as always.

And since Damian couldn't deliver on any level, it was hard to feel emotion for any of the characters.

Most importantly, he doesn't know much about the real world of BDSM and chose to create the typical "Hollywood Reality" of gorgeous men and women who are perverted and dangerous.

Save your time, money and braincells and pass this one by.


Very slow, plodding movie with a confusing story line. The movie's only hope of keeping the audience interested is the gratuitous nudity thrown in at regular intervals. Ellen Barkin is miscast and her looks do not hold up when she is on screen with the much-younger Peta Wilson. Not sure what this movie was about.


Let's get right to the heart of the matter...This is a terrible movie. The story is confusing, the supporting cast is laughable and the lead Actors look like they were forced to be in it. The story asks us to believe there is a underground lesbian sex cult where members are being murdered by their psychiatrist who just happens to be a transvestite. Ellen Barkin investigates the crimes and develops a crush on Peta Wilson whose job it seems is to be the cult recruiter. The sex scenes are equivalent to bad porn and when Barkin and Wilson kiss, Poor Ellen looks like she's in pain. Barkin's Talent is totally wasted in this B-grade sexploitation piece of junk and I hope she gave her agent the pink slip after landing her in this film.


This was a sordid and dreary mess. I needed a shower when it was over. It goes something like this- some socialites are murdered and a woman homicide detective is assigned to the case. She discovers that the victims belonged to an underground lesbian society, and she befriends an associate of the group who may have relevant information. Since the detective is an attractive woman, of course she is horny and intrigued (which reveals much about Hollywood and its psychosis about women). What's surprising is that none of this is very sexy or interesting, just depressing and yucky. Ellen Barkin gives a respectable performance as the lead detective, and Julian Sands provides unintentional laughs as a cross-dressing psychiatrist, which is why it escapes a one-star rating.


"The James Dean Story" is introduced as "A different kind of motion picture," explaining, "The presence of the leading character in this film has been made possible by the use of existing motion picture material, tape recordings of his voice and by means of a new technique - dynamic exploration of the still photograph." The only "tape recordings of his voice" noteworthy is one short recording Mr. Dean make while visiting his family in Indiana; he wanted to record any family recollections of his great-grandfather Cal Dean, intrigued because he played a similarly named "Cal" in "East of Eden". Dean asks if Cal Dean was interested in art, and learns the relative was an auctioneer. James Dean was interested in art and had warm relationship with his family, obviously. That's the only 100% accurate revelation in this documentary. James Dean was interested in art and had warm relationship with his family.

An amazing "screen test"/"outtake" from "East of Eden" appears near the film's end. It's a black and white scene between Dean (as Cal Trask) and co-star Richard Davalos (as Aron Trask). Dean is at his mesmerizing best. If this scene appeared only here, and no "East of Eden" film was completed, this documentary would be an essential, high rated film. But the scene, a perfect "10" in isolation, should be considered an "East of Eden" extra. Dean's "Traffic Safety Film" is also worth seeing.

There are the expected interviews with family and friends. My favorites were the guy (Lew Bracker) going through a box of stuff Dean left with him, and Dean's family. There wasn't enough from Aunt Ortense and the letter from Dean to his little cousin was very nice. More reading of Dean's letters would have been welcome. Dean's unidentified writer friend seemed to have a better thesis for the film; filmmakers might have considered developing it as a main focus.

Robert Altman's direction of Martin Gabel's reading of Stewart Stern's script is dreadful. What were they thinking? Perhaps, filmmakers can be forgiven due to the closeness of Dean's passing. Don't expect "The James Dean Story" at all. This movie is more about Dean's effect on people (both the fans and filmmakers) than the man. It is very clearly an early piece of the James Dean myth-making "legend". Tommy Sands sings "Let Me Be Loved". The narrative refers to Dean as "He" with a god-like air. The shots of Dean's family seeming to "know" the moment he dies are truly wretched.

** The James Dean Story (8/13/57) Robert Altman ~ James Dean, Martin Gabel, Richard Davalos


A coming-of-age story about a teenager rebelling against the church and her minister father in a small Norwegian village. The countryside setting is picturesque but the story is rather pretentious and plodding, with much of the film devoted to quoting scriptures. It's like watching a religious propaganda movie. Theisen, who has made only one other movie, is pretty good as the sensitive young protagonist, as are Sundquist as her strict father and Riise as a woman that Theisen is fascinated with. The film aims to be fresh and charming but feels rather stale and tired. Director and co-writer Nesheim, who has worked mostly in TV, is not up to the task.


Without doubt, one of the worst films ever made. Sluggish and without structure, tension or story, the film coasts on the thin premise of "putting together a show". Conflicts are resolved within two or three seconds of their inception and dialogue is random and incidental. Everything is put together in a slapdash order and often "Stepping Out" feels more like a deleted scenes reel than an actual movie. The film seems to exist merely as a showcase for gaudy and totally random Liza musical numbers. Shelly Winters can be seen in the far superior octo-epic "Tentacles", and the REAL Liza can be found in the Showtime release of "Queer Duck: The Movie".


I was sitting at home and flipping channels when I ran across what potentially sounded like an interesting film. I like Destruction type movies and decided to watch it. I don't know why but I ended up watching it the whole 2 hours. We have seen this type of movie I don't know how many times.

Back in 1998 - 2000 there were dozen of films that dealt with global destruction of some sort. The best one on my list so far is Deep Impact which was more believable than this one. Here are my problems with this film: 1) cheap special effects, like something out of the old computer. 2) no background information or explanation on weather patterns. If you are going to make a movie about weather, at least have some decency to entertain the viewer with technical details. 3) How come only 2 or 3 people figure out that the storm is converging on Chicago... no more experts left in the field? 4) where are some interesting characters? I truly don't care for anyone except maybe the pregnant woman. I felt that there was no character development. 5) no thought provoking moment what so ever and factually incorrect theme. And this is only the first part of the film. I bet the conclusion will show us few destruction scenes and a search and rescue operation just like it has been done many times before. And judging by the special effects in the first part of the movie, I can only imagine what we are to expect. Of course, at the end, the main characters will survive and life will go on... how original


I hope that Matt Dorff's original script for this was much better (there are signs of it - dialogue that should happen well before big f/x scenes (to introduce characters) that would make sense much earlier, is jammed in later in the time-line; perhaps the original script was for a longer running-time. But maybe not -- in any case, this reeks. Every character is uninteresting, and *everybody* speaks expository passages as if they are speaking the word of god. There are characters that are entirely expository -- Dianne Wiest's "Secretary Abbot" is just awful, explaining things to her assistant (and incidentally us), in endless speeches that NO ONE would say to anyone, ever, in real life (when she isn't explaining things to her assistant that she already knows, her assistant explains things to HER that SHE already knows._ There are characters who are entirely one-dimensional -- the evil power company guy; the pilot who will just NOT SHUT UP about his personal life and concentrate on his job. The "well-meaning" power-company superdooperuber hacker-guy who can crash

*everything* in Chicago (including the phones) -- and then gives the oh-no-what-have-I- done speech (but not leave himself a back door?). The crusading reporter who abandons her principles at the drop of a hat? The power-company shift supervisor who ABANDONS HIS POST in the middle of the worst crisis in Chicago since the Fire -- with no consequences? Hospitals ABANDONED by the doctors and nurses during the crisis (I'm not kidding, that's in the movie.)

Oh yeah, and it's filled with Hollywood morality clichés -- generally women are good, men are evil, unless influenced by a woman (the ultimate is the punk with the gun -- deprived of a woman's influence, he literally goes insane); an evil stupid act (like what the reporter did with hacker-bozo) is all right, so long as you 'mean well'. Evil men die, capitalist evil men die as horribly as possible, everybody else lives (well, except Randy Quaid). And did I hear someone say that the nuclear electrical power generating stations had to shut down because there wasn't electricity to run the safety systems (think about that one)?

There is one ray of sunshine (if you'll pardon the expression) -- Randy Quaid basically plays his character from "Independence Day" (you know -- "Hello boys - I'm baaaack!") -- this time as a storm chaser with an infinite-range SUV and superdooper batteries for his camcorders. Nevertheless, they kill him -- mostly, it seems, so that the audience will appreciate that tornados are pretty dangerous things (kinda shallow, that.)

Give this one a pass.


A wasted effort. On the surface it's a typical disaster movie: we're involved in the lives of a few people who get caught up in the Big Event. However, the script is so awful and there's so much explaining of the characters' background within the dialogue that we feel we're being treated like morons. Even Sesame Street didn't explain the origins of Mr Snuffleupagus or how Mr Hooper died: we can work it out. Someone thought that entering 'Enron' into the script would give it currency when discussing power companies. The acting is by and large bland, with the exception of the older performers (Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy), and after the first hour, I couldn't care less about who the storms took out.

But maybe there are the special effects to watch. Sadly, no. Even on a 20-year-old TV set I could see one tractor and trailer were computer-generatedbadly. Maybe there are budgetary limitations, so I can forgive that one. Footage of a plane trying to land looked pretty real, but I kept telling myself I had seen that before. This site confirms it: it was from an earlier film, Nowhere to Land.

So in summary, the only good bits are from another film, and when you see the best action sequences compressed into a 30-second network promo, it makes Category 6 look quite good. My advice: rely on your network to do some good 30-second clips, watch them, and save yourself two nights.


If you thought Day after tomorrow was implausible, wait till you see this.

Okay so the premise of most disaster films is usually a 1 in billion event occurring, compounded by other circumstances. In this case, the even is the joining of two huge storm systems. Fair enough so far. Oh but hold up, no, the "event" is the sabotage and subsequent destruction of the power grid.

Next throw in loads of human interest elements - in this case a cheating husband, a psychotic gun-wielding boyfriend, a rebellious daughter, a hacker with a point to prove, a senator trying to push an agenda, a reporter trying to stand up against "the man", and a pregnant women stuck in an elevator.

Finally add a handful of taster events to add excitement.

Jeez if the director tried to fit in any more meaningless plot lines, there would have been no time less for the actual disaster, which, given the pitiful state of the computer graphics, was almost certainly the intention.

Jeez, if you can't even model a truck convincingly, you really should not be taking on twisters, exploding power stations, Las Vegas getting ripped apart, or destroyed oil stations.

In case you didn't already gather how appalling this movie is, let me just add that all three bad guys get killed in separate, and wholly ungratifying, implausible manners, that stunk more of moralising that good film-making.

I'm have no problem with first month film students writing jaded, hackneyed, cliché-soaked scripts, but for god's sake, that doesn't mean anyone has to make them into movies!

It manages to make the abysmally implausible 10.0 Apocalypse look not quite so dreadful. Avoid them both.


Anyone who complains about Peter Jackson making movies too long should sit through this CBS "event". There's about 45 minutes of story padded by 2 hours of unnecessary subplots, featuring bland by-the-book TV drama clichés. Bad science is a staple for crappy weather disaster movies, so I'm not going to complain about that. Silly science can be fun to watch if it's executed in an amusing fashion. What kills this movie is it's 10 subplots... all of which could be excised without destroying what is supposed to be the central plot. The one character that is entertaining to watch in Category 6 is Tornado Tommy, despite being a very annoying stereotype.

Note that I also didn't bother commenting on special effects. Their quality should come as no surprise.

Not recommended.


I expected this movie was originally supposed to show before the election. CBS's last shot at throwing a dig at Bush. This movie was just awful yet I'm still watching it. **Minor Spoiler** I think CBS got the same people who "provided" the memo's to do the semi cut in half sequence. What is with the bad boyfriend storyline? Can the acting be more contrived or the dialog more like a Ed Wood movie. Who ever came up with this script please do us a favor stop writing. If you want to see decent B grade disaster movies then see Earthquake, Flood etc. Avoid this mess of a movie. Hint to CBS avoid showing us this crap. Give us re-runs of CSI instead. Better acting and more believable.


This movie is something horrible. I was laughing all the time. I was forced to stop in some scenes because my mom thought it's not polite to laugh when people are dying, but in this movie, even death looks ridiculous. Especially when Tornado Tommy is sucked into one tornado.

Explosions of cars thrown onto buildings by the forces of wind look like ones from the old school side scroller game called R-Type. Dialogues are very bad and I am interested how they managed to persuade some of the actors to play in this movie. It is simply amazing how such bad movie can make it into the TV.

Only real reason to watch this movie is to have some fun of nonsense and absurdity.


This movie has to be the worst film I have seen. There is a reason it was made to be a MOW (Movie of the week). The continuity was all wrong (palm trees in a Chicago setting even though it was filmed in Toronto, Canada), the effects were left to be desired for the year of 2004. HELLO. "Lord of the Rings" had better CGI than that. But I guess they also had the money for it. The budget will for sure affect the outcome but anyone that calls this MOW more than a 2 needs to go back to Film and TV school. Next time remember that care and time make a classic not rushing for a tornado box office or TV smash hit.

Also, I know networks can reuse footage from old networks or affiliates but using 80's footage for 2004? I have a hard time buying that.


Contains Major Spoilers, on the off chance you would actually care about the story line.

OK, we have storms that destroy a city and a computer hacker who clobbers the power grid.

Predictable schlock from the start, and if that weren't enough, the 5 second action bumps between the movie and the commercials kill what little suspense there might have been. For example: will they make it to the airport in time? Things look dim as we go to a commercialand the action shot before the ad shows them bouncing around inside the plane! Well, I guess they're gonna make it after allbut then again, they had to because they're good guys.

The acting wasn't any too impressive (exception and welcome relief: Randy Quaid as Tornado Tommy) , the effects were kinda lame, the bad guys got it, and the good guys came through. The real disaster of this movie was the script, especially the ending. Not only did they wrap things up happily as quickly as a soap opera given 24 hours notice of a cancellation, but they glorified the hacker as well-intentioned. So he caused a bazillion deathshe meant well. And, of course, an uplifting final TV report about people coming together. Barf. It was everything I expected from the commercials, and I'm glad I wasted my time watching it. It will make great conversation at the lunch table tomorrow.

Is CBS insulting us by making this? Surebut we watched it, didn't we? Did you count many ads there were for home backup generators during this pig?

Here's hoping for the next Plan 9 from Outer Space (which gets better with each viewing). This isn't it.

1 star.


What i hate most in this garbage is the arrogant attitude of the film makers and network execs who foist this nonsense on the public because they really think the audience is so stupid, so undeserving, so tasteless as to deserve these kind of cons. There is an inherent entertainment is seeing disaster movies and with the magic of today's CGI effects artists are given powerful tools to explore what before was denied them. With that allure we sat down to watch some mayhem and destruction. Well, guess what, the only mayhem we saw was in the ads touting next Wednesday's episode. What a let down! But wait, there was even a bigger one. The script itself was the bigger disaster! And then there was the direction and the flaccid acting by everyone involved in this turkey. But we knew this before right?! We knew that effects alone do not an entertainment make, but yet the network bozos who Okayed this TV movie didn't care about that because in their mantra is the everlasting line "never underestimate how stupid the audience are". These guys must actually live by this motto, and I am so fed up of it. No wonder the audience has abandoned US drama in droves and pitched their camp in reality shows. at least in those programs no one is trying to make it look like anything different from what it is: intellectual pornography. Well, Category 6 is worse than that because it assumes to be different and "original". Yes this was a disaster movie alright but the disasters are not what they advertised!


The only reason I know this film exists is because I wanted to see what Nancy McKeon had been up to since The Facts of Life ended. When I searched her name, up came this relatively new TV movie. After much investigation I managed to locate a copy & was thoroughly disappointed with what I viewed. D Grade acting, poor script, terrible FX - it was like watching a toned down, more stupefied version of Day After Tomorrow that went for 3 hours. Despite the long running time the characters remain fairly under-developed, we do not care about them in the slightest & in most cases are longing for their demise. Combine that with terrible lighting & cinematography & you have a real disaster of a film. How they con-viced so many "name" actors (i.e Dianne Weist, Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy) to appear in such trash is mind-blowing. In summary - I want those 3 hours of my life back!!!


This one was truly awful. Watching with fascinated horror, I kept on asking "why have they done this?" That is, taken all the scenarios out of "The Day after Tomorrow", "The Perfect Storm" and "Twister" and remixing them in a three-hour miniseries, directed by long-time junk TV director Dick Lowry, with every disaster movie cliché known to man and not an ounce of real suspense. Many of the cast were unknown Canadians and location filming was done in Canada, Winnepeg doubling for Chicago, so no doubt tax breaks had something to do with it. Although some ambitious special effects were attempted, the execution is so poor no decent spectacle is achieved. The actors may be a competent lot; the script is so bad no-one had a chance to show it, except perhaps for Randy Quaid as Tommy the Tornado chaser, who went right over the top and was quite amusing.

Believe it or not, the producers have since made another one of these Canadian disaster turkeys called "Category 7  the End of the World" which was very tastefully shown on CBS in the US a few weeks after Hurricane Katrina. How could the network of Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite do such a thing? In prime time? PT Barnum "nobody ever went broke underestimating public taste" is proved right once more.


The first two hours of the televised version are full of character and plot exposition -- after an early brief sequence of Las Vegas being hit by tornadoes, the action doesn't really start until the second two hours. Still, some character relationships don't become clear until the second part. The actors turn in competent performances, but nothing special (however, better than those in "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York"). An exception is Randy Quaid, whose character is superfluous and incredibly annoying. The plot is a pretty standard mix of parts of "Independence Day", "Speed", "The Day After Tomorrow", "Earthquake", "The Towering Inferno" and several other films. You can predict what will happen next, and come close to predicting the dialog, word for word. The special effects are unbelievably bad. Despite the effects in "Twister", the tornadoes in this film seem less realistic than the one in "The Wizard of Oz" and other effects were obviously done for less money than such series as "CSI" and "Cold Case" spend on the totality of a single episode. If you have to see a made-for-TV disaster film, see "The Day After", "Asteroid", or "Special Bulletin" instead -- you'll get better plots, acting, and effects.


What is this!! its so bad. The animation looks so terrible , it looks like a ps1 type game. The actors are awful, they just cannot act to save their lives. I sat through all of this film an then at the end I was annoyed when I realised I had wasted 3 hours of my life. I've not heard of this film, did it ever actually come out in the cinema or did it go straight to DVD? A girl got shot?! What is up with that, it was just a stupid film. They totally copied 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Its got to be one of the worst films i have ever seen. I would definitely recommend to people to not waste their time with this. You could spend your time watching 'The Day After Tomorrow', its a lot better. Well thats what I think of the film. Actually why have I wasted my time writing about it, ah dam!! Its really annoying me, its wasted 3 hours and 10 minutes now.


I think "category 6: day of destruction" was very unrealistic. The digital effects where like a children's cartoon.

The actors didn't act realistically, for example, when the girl was shot she acted like she got tomato sauce splatted on her.

The movie was boring but I watched it because it was on.

The only interesting character was Tornado Tommy, he was funny!

Please keep the special effects real.

I liked the comment: "What did we do to p.i.s.s-off Mother Nature?"

I don't know what else to write to fill up the 10 lines. What else can I say the movie is so boring, I think my comment will be equally boring.


I can't believe I actually spent almost three hours of my life watching this. This must be one of the most unbelievable, predictable and cheesy television movies I have seen in a long time. I was hoping for some good special effects and action, instead I spent the entire time rolling my eyes and yelling "OH COME ON!!!", at the screen. The dialog is shallow and obvious, the acting strained at times and as the story moves along, isn't it just funny how EVERYTHING happens at the same time... Not to mention the obvious and nauseating ending... Now I've seen more than my share of disaster movies, I am a big fan actually, and think that often they can pull off completely unrealistic stuff as long as it's done in a fun way, but this is definitely not it. This is just an insult to intelligent viewers everywhere. What were they thinking when they made this movie?????


What a mess--and I'm not referring to the "destruction" in the title. I could go on about the hackneyed plot, the lousy effects, the (actually notable) cast grimacing as they deliver the worst lines of their careers, etc. I'll just say there weren't any palm trees in Chicago the last time I checked, and leave it at that.

Hmmm...need ten lines to get this posted on IMDb.. OK, well, I think a DVD release with outtakes could be interesting. Maybe Dennehy will reveal what favor got called in for him to appear in this thing. Maybe Dianne Weist will show us the bag of money it must have taken to get her involved. Maybe CBS execs will apologize...


This made for TV film is about every cliché you can come up with for a disaster movie. The only problem is it isn't very well done.

My brain is still insulted from the scenes in which Brian Dennehy is supposedly looking at a computer monitor looking for weather pattern data and showing on that monitor are stock footage scenes of weather turmoil ala The Weather Channels commercials. Why would watching local news footage of a washed out side-street give insight to global weather patterns? You got me.

Also interspersed through out the first two hours are some of the worst CGI effects known to man. Watch for the semi truck and the airplane that look like they were rendered on a Commodore 64.

All the foreshadowing in this "movie" is done with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, the dialog is forced and I can't think of a likable character that I want to survive the second half.

The character I hate the most is the stupid wife who's husband is cheating. Maybe if she lifted a finger at anytime during the show instead of being a helpless woman who stands in the the same 10 square feet of the kitchen all day her husband wouldn't be sleeping with the PR rep for a rival energy company. She is so helpless, in fact, I want to put her out of her and my misery. I hope everyone in this "movie" dies in the second half.


There have been some great television movies in that past. Epics such as "Roots" and "Lonesome Dove" come to mind. Category 6: Day of Destruction will not be remembered for advancing the cause of made-for-TV movies. A laughably bad story, surpassed only by the horrible screenplay, Cat6DD, as I like to call it, inspires more sympathy for the actors involved than terror in nature that the movie was supposed to bring out. That sound you hear during the movie is supposed to be the sound of wind, but instead it's actually the careers of Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy, and Thomas Gibson (Greg, of the Dharma & Greg duo) plummeting faster than houses and trucks and cows can fly away from one of the 15 tornadoes we see in the first 5 minutes of the movie. The movie was advertised as "nature gone amok," instead we get a lame story about how 15 different weather systems conspire to produce 150 degree days in Chicago, then a blizzard the next day from a hurricane that was in the Gulf of Mexico that combined with a storm system from Canada but actually had it's origins in a jet stream changed by global warming.... ENOUGH!! It didn't matter what the story was, the acting was terrible, the words the actors said were dumb, and 13 scientists throughout the country had coronaries after hearing the dribble that came out of the movie. I didn't care what happened to any of the characters, the special effects were sub-par, even for made-for-TV standards, and the story lines were pointless. All in all, I really really dislikes this "TV event."


I wish I had read the comments on IMDb before I saw this movie. The first 1 hour was OK, though it did make me wonder why everything was centered at Chicago and why no one reported any weather anomaly from outside US. Isolated acts of nature (of this magnitude) are unthinkable. But beyond the first 60 minutes, the movie just drags on like a never-ending story. The screenplay is horrible. As for the actors, very poor choice. Only the people hired to run in panic stick to their roles. But I do have to agree that this movie has got some good 'special effects'. If you rented it on a DVD and would want to watch the movie, despite the reviews, then play it on maximum speed your player would allow!


Well to start off I was like, wow this is new, so when is the film starting, and out of this in between stuff. But it never ended. The film is just one big in between! And after 10 minutes of waiting for something to actually happen, apart from water splashing around, I just started getting angry! There is nothing in this documentry and nothing will be learned. Completely BORING and RUBBISH!


CRYSTAL VOYAGER is a strange documentary about an eccentric surfer living in Australia. An American by birth George Greenough has surfed and photographed himself, friends and recently, dolphins, in Australia for 35 years, all using various re invented cameras which he either straps on his back, board or boat. In the mid 70s he teamed up with Surf Mag editor and budding film maker David Elfick to create this visually interesting tale about this life and photography. The 75 minute feature CRYSTAL VOYAGER is the result. Even in the 70s audiences were a bit puzzled by this film, neither surf-ing movie nor surf movie, because George swims about on a children's zippy board, not a real surfboard.... it offset the tedious droning of George (occasionally so dry or droll that it was actually funny.. like almost setting himself on fire or falling over something) with a spectacular 'you are there' power glide through a wave that ran for 23 minutes all set to Pink Floyd music. In 1974 when the Sydney Opera house opened, it also contained a cinema. Crystal Voyager was booked in there as an arty-sporty OZ pic and by default became a hit: as the 'opera house tickets' cost far more than a movie ticket, audiences flocked to see this film as an excuse to 'have been to the Sydney Opera House'...so the film did record business as a low budget attraction to locals and tourists who wanted to tell neighbors that they had seen a show 'there'. This created this myth that the film was a huge crowd puller and the reputation spread. As a result it was teamed with the fantasy cartoon FANTASTIC PLANET and had a trippy run through the UK and Europe as a double feature. I ran it at a coastal cinema in the 70s and the crowd was rather nonplussed about it all. Recently George has re emerged Lord Of The Flies style with another well photographed sea adventure called DOLPHIN GLIDE that offers viewers a dive and swim with the wild dolphins of Byron Bay. It is an eccentric 20 min short with an even more eccentric 20 min 'how George did it' short. Each were met with a collective yawn by both the media and the pubic in January 2005.... all of which makes CRYSTAL VOYAGER a 'you had to have been there' fluke all those years ago. However at a special Oz Surf night at an outdoor cinema last year 2000 people turned up....but then 2000 turn up every night to see anything there during this summer season of films.....so the damned thing fluked another box office binge. How many actually enjoyed it is very much open to debate. Again they were more than likely just plain puzzled by this mad film with an astonishing reputation. Elfick however, since 1975, has gone onto a stellar career as a major producer and director of many lauded Australian and international films. Look up NO WORRIES or STARSTRUCK or UNDERCOVER or RABBIT PROOF FENCE or LOVE IN LIMBO for clear and present applause at his achievements. George, however, is still floating around out there somewhere droning away and looking for something else to film, or drop a camera on.


Although it's been hailed as a comedy-drama I found "Crooklyn" to be mostly depressing. It's hard to imagine how Spike Lee could look back affectionately on so much chaos, petty cruelty, irresponsibility and mean-spiritedness.


The Texas Revolution of 1835 to 1836, including the periods preceding and immediately following, is depicted in this mediocre 3-hour made-for-television film, whose only redeeming value is bringing light and paying homage to Stephen F. Austin, the so-called "Father of Texas" whose life story had long been overshadowed by that of the legendary Sam Houston. The rest of the film is simply the usual "Santa Anna is a tyrant" storyline and with a weak attempt to show the Mexican perspective with a fictional Hispanic character displaying stereotypical Latin machismo. Combined with short low-budget battle scenes, such as the Alamao and San Jacinto, this film is recommended only for real history buffs who who do not come from Mexico. To its credit, the Mexican uniforms look accurate and the romantic subplot (another love triangle) doesn't take up too much screen time. Overall, this movie depicts the violent secession movement by Texas' Anglo-Saxon racial minority to be a positive and just revolution against Mexican tyranny as personified by the general Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the so-called "Napoleon of the West".


I rented this movie to get an easy, entertained view of the history of Texas. I got a headache instead. The depiction of history in this movie is so comical that even mad TV would not have done a better job.


I should have realized that any two-video set being sold for only $6 would be bad. I even read the reviews before watching this film, and that still didn't sway me. I loved the book, and I knew it couldn't be as bad as people said.

Yeah, it is.

A patchwork of film, video, and what appears to be stock footage combine to make a three-hour tour of one chapter of James A. Michener's epic novel. Well, the time period covered was one chapter, but I don't remember many of the situations actually occurring in the book. The packaging on my copy of the movie gives Maria Conchita Alonso top billing - though it turns out that she is only in one speaking scene. On the second tape.

The actors are to be commended for playing their roles well, despite a smarmy, overwrought script. They are to be insulted, though, for accepting the roles in the first place.


This junk bore as much resemblance to the novel as a pickle slice does to a cucumber. The film makers took the Alamo section out of the book, made it into a movie, and said it was based on the book. Hah! Wonder what they did to induce Mr. Michener to endorse this piece of fluff? It was just another Davy Crockett, flintlock rifle, Santa Ana, 13 days of glory collection of poppycock. I almost started rooting for the mexicans, just to get the damn thing to end. And what was that scene where Stacey Keach was trying to get James Bowie to let him look at the knife? The sexual innuendos he used were juvenile and unnecessary. They could have used the film they wasted on that silliness to put in some real dialogue. This show was an embarrassment to Hollywood. Or can those clowns be embarrassed?


This movie is supposed to take place in Milford NJ. I know the house that it is based on as well as the person. As you see at the end of themovie, she was killed in the world trade center incident. I know that, because I was one of the police officers that helped with the identification of her remains. (She was the only one in our area lost). The nudity in the movie went a bit far. I am not a prude but the actors could have filmed the scene with the two woman without actually showing the whole thing. This movie is in poor taste and I cannot see how her family would give there blessing to it. This is an insult to the person whom it is based on.


This straight to video cheap flick is based on a true story. I don't doubt it. Doesn't mean it's particularly interesting (unless you are one of the main characters who actually lived though this experience). A young woman named Angela buys a great, big old country home really really cheap. Well, as we all know from watching Horror movies, when you buy a big house cheap it usually means it's haunted in some way, shape or form. In fact, the second the house is being handed over to Angela the wise guy kid who lived in the house up to now takes a moment to "introduce" Angela to one of the ghosts! Nice guy, huh? Angela gets in touch with a psychic and a paranormal expert and tells them that her house is haunted and invites them to come over and see the ghosts for themselves. They come to a party and sure enough there are ghosts walking around, sitting on the couch, hanging in the garage and trying to seduce people in the bathroom. A few friends sleep over the night of the party, see the ghosts and vow never to come back in the house again. (Check out the girl who deadpans "I'm so scared. I'm so scared." totally emotionless. If she was so scared why didn't she get up, turn the knob and leave?!) The ghosts don't really do anything menacing aside from show up (And there is no blurriness or aura about them. They look just like regular people). They steal celery from the kitchen, move chairs around a la POLTERGEIST and one bisexual female ghost seduces Angela, who, get this, doesn't seem to mind! This scene plays like the kind of soft-core porn you see on the SPICE channel. (Ummm...not that I'd KNOW! Hahaha). The actresses aren't your typical porn stars though. They should hit the beach and the gym more. When Angela'ss NOT making love to the dead she gets mad at them and stands alone in a room screaming "Why won't you leave?! This is MY house! Get out!" They don't leave. I couldn't help but think of all the times I've heard psychic Sylvia Brown on TV saying that if you have a ghost in your house you should calmly rationalize with the ghost and say "Look, you're dead. It's time to cross over to the other side. In other words, get out!" According to Sylvia Brown, as long as your not hostile and nasty about it, they'll leave! This movie looks like it cost about $50 to make. It has a really cheap feel, and bad acting. I could have made this movie with 5 friends and a camcorder.


I think the best way for me to review this title is to split it into its pros and cons.

PROS: ~ they turn into wolves rather than plastic/cartoony monsters. ~ the chase of the wolves through the forest ~ "Cash Machine" by Hard-Fi being played

CONS: ~ some parts of the script makes you cringe (for example the terrible part where the woman escapes the 'games' of the "Fortunate Five" boys, and there's about half an hour of "Dear cousin" and a round robin of "Yes, see, we know Gabriel's law") ~ the diving transformation is ridiculous ~ the obvious and ridiculous ending ~ Aiden being told thousands of times to leave, and then goes "if you cared about me you would have left me" ~ the obvious characters ~ the unnecessary parcour ~ the completely unnecessary slashing of the arm by Aiden ~ cringey speeches by Gabriel

You see what I mean.

I adore werewolf films, and I tried watching this a few times to see if I'd like it better but it just made it worse. I think I'll just read the book and see how I get on.

Don't bother with this unless you have a 12 year old brother or sister into spooky things. Anyone over that age may suffer and want their hour and a half back.


I read the book after seeing the movie and didn't care for it, finding it somewhat trashy; but trashy books often make good movies, and this one certainly could have. The story of a teen girl's exploration of her attractive power over boys, which she finds as irresistibly stimulating as it is doubtfully controllable, and which has an even tighter grip on her than it would on a normal girl because it affects her through her werewolfry--this story would have an obvious appeal to the young audience for which movies are made: an appeal of one kind to girls, and of another kind to boys: and I don't understand how the movie makers could be blind to that and turn the story into one with little appeal to anybody.

To begin with, take the title (which is the best thing about the book): it's drawn from a Hesse quotation, also used as an epigraph, about a person running in fear and tasting both blood and chocolate in his mouth, one tasting as bad as the other. This is a wonderful metaphor for the heroine's state: torn between her human and wolf sides, savoring each but equally fearful of both. The movie dispenses with the epigraph, and instead introduces the character working in her aunt's chocolate shop! I can understand how the book's title might have suggested to the movie makers the erotically charged chocolates of "Like Water for Chocolate," and led them to want to link the same symbol to werewolves. But they didn't; so why is it in the movie? In the book the characters are in high school--or in and out, as with the Five, a teen gang who favor black jeans and T-shirts, and fall somewhere between being the heroine's nemeses and her pet peeves. In the movie they've become decadent twenty-something clubgoers. In the book the heroine is 16, just of an age to be discovering how her sexuality operates on the boy she wants, as well as on herself; she's the one who initiates the contact, then steps back, re-initiates, and so on. In the movie she's no longer a girl but a woman, and the guy is no longer a high school poet on the fringe of campus life but a fugitive from the law (and a comic book artist, to boot), it's he who comes on to her, in a manner as unattractive as that of her wormy cousin. She initially puts him off, but then gives in, as he's confident she will: hey, you know you want it. I would have thought a female director would have taken the chance the book offered to show a female protagonist in an uncompliant, proactive role; but no.

In the book the heroine's clan is driven from their home because of the Five's delinquent behavior; in the movie it's because she went for a run(!). She's a great runner, prone to kicking off from building walls, and both she and her clanmates scale buildings in a trice; very like heroes of martial arts movies and very unlike wolves, or anything resembling them. In the book they don't turn into actual wolves, but things bigger than wolves; in the movie they're just ordinary wolves. In the book they metamorphose in "Howling" style, with crunching of spines; this is one of the things that make the heroine aware of the pain her body brings her, as well as the pleasure. In the movie the werewolves have become magical acrobats, taking great swan dives and transforming in mid-air, shimmering yellow like Tinker-Bell; it looks cool, means nothing.

In the book the clan is a slightly white-trashy family that has relocated from West Virginia to Maryland. In the movie they live in Bucharest but all talk in different accents, none Romanian. In the book nearly the whole pack want to lead normal lives and agree that to insure that--and indeed, their survival--one necessity is to keep their true nature secret from humans. And so the characters keep saying in the movie; yet the head of the clan is some kind of underground boss--but apparently not a crime boss, since he despises criminals--and has a standing deal with the police, who supply him with "meat" for the pack. This seems a big exception to the rule of keeping humans from knowing; but maybe the police are considered safe because of their known tolerance for eccentricity and cult murder.

At the end of the book the heroine learns she can't be something she's not when, in her effort to live a divided life, she gets stuck between the human and animal states, unable to be all one thing or the other. Her boyfriend isn't sure or strong enough to accept her for what she is, the pack can't risk having him around, and the two are forced to separate. In the movie she rescues him like Lassie, and they drive off to Paris (why Paris?), in an ending that's smiley-faced but not really happy, since the conflicts between their natures--between _her_ natures--remain unresolved.

But the difference in the movie that hampers enjoyment the most is that whereas the book characters behave conventionally, within the realm of young adult novels, those in the movie for some reason have been made as annoying as possible. Every other line is a threat or some other kind of oneupsmanship: you'll be sorry; you don't belong here; you won't get rid of me; I gave you your chance; etc. I prefer to steer clear of people who deal in that way.

There have been many good vampire movies, never a good werewolf movie. Had this one stuck to the book, it might have been the first.

But no.


The movie blood and chocolate is NOTHING like the book. The plot has totally changed and whoever chose the cast needed to read the book. First the girl is not an introvert Aden is. Vivian was the one that chased Aden. Her mother was to have survived and be the one after Gabriel. Astrid was the one that did all the murders along with Ralf an ex of Vivian's. Gabriel is not old. He is old looking. And Aden DID NOT get Vivian in the end, Gabriel did. The title came from Vivian comparing kisses from Aden (sweet like chocolate) and Gabriel(delicious like blood). She picked blood because it promised more and he understood her more. That reminds me, Gabriel is not against humans like in the movie. He just avoids intimacy with them because they hurt him in the past. Really the book is sooooooo much better than the movie. But if you want o see running, a dating montage, and a lot of jumping. Then this is the movie to see.


The best thing about this movie for me was that Bryan Dick played Rafe and made me -melt-. Rafe and all his gorgeousness made the movie worth sitting through, even though I itched to get up and scream. I have never seen a hotter man.

-ahem- But that's not the point.

The title? That is indeed what it is. They took the beautiful story written by Annette Curtis Klause and threw it out. I will, in all my anal-retentive glory, point out what was missing, what has changed, and all else wrong with the movie.

Sit tight and here goes:

-Apparently, RAFE is son of ASTRID and GABRIEL, and apparently, ULF is no longer ASTRID'S child, like in the book. AND, as I recall from the book, RAFE and ASTRID were LOVERS.

-ASTRID is apparently BLOND, as opposed to the notably RED HAIR described in the book. I believe the book said that she looked more like a FOX than a WOLF. And the movie also shows that ASTRID is VIVIAN'S aunt.

-WHERE DID AXEL GO?

-VIVIAN is 19. In the book she was 16.

-VIVIAN and AIDEN meet IN HIGH SCHOOL which they both attend in the book. VIVIAN goes to see AIDEN because of his poem 'Wolf Change'. But, according to the movie, AIDEN beat up his dad, escaped, and now lives in Romania, and draws Graphic Novels. This made me go 'What the F**K.'

-There is no 'Kelly' in the movie. WHERE WAS THE KELLY IN THE MOVIE. The KELLY in the book, however, hated VIVIAN. And she also dated AIDEN after they broke up. Vivian even gets tipsy in the book and trashed her room.

-GABRIEL bears a striking resemblance to a Columbian Drug Lord in the movie. And he sort of sounds like one too. His acting was very good, but his appearance threw me off.

-VIVIAN had NO parents in the movie. Her father and mother and 2 other siblings died in the movie. Yet in the book, when she comes home one night, her MOTHER, ESME is sitting on the couch, after fighting with ASTRID over GABRIEL. And VIVIAN has no siblings. Only her father died in the book.

-AIDEN accepts VIVAN for what she is. This REALLY got me. He kills RAFE in the creepy church, confronts VIVIAN, and she saves him from the others wolves, except AIDEN shoots her, so they saunter off to find medicine, and then they try to leave the city together. WTF?! In the book, AIDEN freaks out when she turns into a wolf, and cries like a chick, throws stuff at her, and so she panics, and jumps out the window. Then he makes up a story that he tried to break up with her, and she threw a chair out of the window. That doesn't sound accepting to me.

-AIDEN wants her to runaway with him. In the book, he wants nothing to do with VIVAN after she turns for him. Nor does he lovingly hold her face and say she can control it. He cries like a woman because he is SCARED of her.

And the final indignation...the one that nearly gave my three best friends and I HEART ATTACKS IN OUR SEATS:

-In the movie, AIDEN and VIVIAN run away together, and VIVAN has killed GABRIEL. As in she SHOOTS him. GABRIEL dies. In the *BOOK* not only does VIVIAN not kill GABRIEL, I do believe they END UP TOGETHER. As in, she doesn't end up with AIDEN, she ends up with GABRIEL. WHAT THE HELL.

Small things were noticed too: Ulf's red hair which he gets from Astrid has been changed to brown in the movie, and Vivian works at a chocolate shop.

A horrible shock; I am ashamed. The book really wasn't hard to follow. If Disney can use a random H!School, why couldn't the directer have found a random H!School?

*sigh* I was really looking forward to this movie, I loved the book, it's sad that it didn't follow it one bit. I give it a 2, only because (as the top of this review states) Rafe (played by Bryan Dick) was dead sexy, and Agnes Bruckner did a wonderful job. AND, they kept the poem from Steppenwolf

With love,

Caitlin


This movie was boring. Very much like Underworld, only even less interesting. It's not much of a werewolf movie and no where near a horror film. The lead couple were boring. I totally didn't care about Vivian and Aiden. And there was so little character development that I didn't care about any character in the film. The plot was paper thin. The transformations were basically nil. I did like the wolves themselves, might as well have have done a wolf documentary, I would have liked that better. I wouldn't recommend this movie. I didn't find it fun or interesting. It just drags and everyone in it is a boring drag. This movie could win an award for how not to make a werewolf film.


There were only two redeeming features about this movie; the beauty of Bucharest and its architecture, and the way they depicted the transformation from human form to wolf form. Forget about the plot or storyline from the book - they're completely absent from this movie. In fact, about the only things carried over from the book are the names of the main players. Even then you'll barely recognize the characterizations. If the film makers had made a good movie, even though unrelated to the book, I wouldn't have been so disappointed. Unfortunately, they did not. The plot and storyline are typical of low budget horror flicks, the acting is wooden, and the directorial efforts mundane. Oh yes, the way the loup garou bow to their leader is pure hoke. I suppose a nod of recognition is due for the animal handlers. The wolves were beautiful animals and well managed in their roles.


The only reason i didn't delete this movie after 20 min is because we already wasted 20 minutes on it...

the only and i repeat the ONLY effect that they used is a weird kapoera (from India?) jump on a half meter wall/trash cans, i mean, effects doesn't make a movie but... sheesh.... me and my friend hoped the entire movie for some real effect (a huge wolf?! something!?>!?!) but noooooooooooooooo... all we got is a jump! on a 0.5 meter wall + they used pharmacy's ..... and they found guns?! in the pharmacy?! i mean what the hell? oh i forgot, there was another effect- contact lances as green eyes! every 10 min we shouted "the only thing that can save the movie from the disgrace is a giant wolf who kills them all!!! besides that the script was so awful that you don't know who you would like to die first. you actually pray (and i mean PRAY!) that the "good?!" guy will die, hopefully in the beginning.

make yourself a favour and send letters to delete the movie from every archives in the world.


My first impression when I read the synopsis for the upcoming movie was that it was going to be very, very different from the book. The movie trailer said that the movie is supposed to take place when Vivian is 19 years old after her parents were killed in a fire in America. She meets Aiden, an aspiring graphic novelist. Working in a chocolate shop in the day, she must accept that she will never be normal, because every full moon, she becomes a loup-garou--a thought-to-be mythical creature that can be closely compared to a werewolf.

Most of the little changes didn't sound too bad to me, even though I am a fan of the book with the shared titled by Annette Curtis Klause. I knew it would be different, but I wanted to see it to support the book, thinking that an age change, a setting change, and a few little occupation changes wouldn't impact the storyline as a whole enough to make me want to tear my eyes out of their sockets and leave myself bleeding on the movie theatre ground.

The movie unnecessarily killed off many important characters, one being Esme, Vivan's mother, right off the bat in the fire that was supposed to have killed her father. I pushed that aside and ventured forth into the movie, weary and slightly annoyed. Running through Romania, the camera angles were decent, the scenery was beautiful, and the music was... interesting... but it left me with the impression of, "Why does Vivian look like that, and why is she wearing a hoodie?" Jumping to later parts of the movie, I must say that I am surprised that the screenplay writers seemed to support incest in a way and rather than sticking to the character relationship from the book between Vivian and Rafe, the leader of The Five now became her cousin through her (surprise!) Aunt Astrid, who, in the novel, was the bitter and hated rival of Vivan's mother, and, might I add, no way related to either of them.

To top off character distortions, Gabriel had somehow become the leader of the pack and obsessed over Vivian being his mate so they could fulfill some nonexistent prophecy. Not only did his physical appearance take a complete 180 from the description in the book, he was, apparently, also the father of Rafe. Yes, that's right, it's a nice little incestuous knot of wolfies all bundled up tight.

Little things that irked me were scenes like the forest hunts. There was a red-head that stood out from the rest of the crowd, the one who "kissed their enemy" before their prey was set free to run and be hunted. Why was she there? Why did she look like Astrid? I suppose my mind is not vast enough to understand why such a character had to exist in the movie without any explanation as to WHY she existed other than to kiss pretty victims.

I loved how the Amoeba was completely cut out of the movie. I loved how legally entwined Aiden's past was, what between the supposedly dramatic scene where he was telling Vivian about how his father wanted him to learn self-defense, and then beat his father up "in self-defense" to make him seem like such a tragic character.

Character 180s are a lot of fun when they are completely unnecessary. At the end of the movie, I felt as if some person skimmed over the novel, scribbled down half the list of character names, drew a few connections here and there, mentioned that Gabriel was a bit of a jerk, Vivian fell in love with Aiden, he fears her when he finds out she is a loup-garou of the legends, and "somebody" is "killed by a silver bullet" and there is some sort of happy ending because Vivian finally feels accepted by somebody who loves her for who she is.

I gave this movie a 2/10 because the camera shots were relatively decent, and the casting could have been worse, but as far as directing goes, why do the loup-garous leap into the air in human form as if they want to fly (with their arched backs and penchant to leap from high places), shimmer briefly, and then fall onto the ground as wolves? The only aspects of this movie that even had me watch it through to the very-sordid, sorry ending were the wolves, the beautiful scenery, and the eye-candy boys.

All-together, I must say that in order to enjoy this film at all, one must be ready for misconceptions, strange happenings that are not always explained, incestuous innuendos, and have either not liked the book, or have not read the book.


OK, to start with, this movie was not at all like the book. I read the book when I was 13 and since then it has always been my favorite. When I'm waiting for a different book to come out, this is the book I turn to to fill in the time. I have 3 copies for god's sake. anyways, I knew this was not going to be anything like the book but come on! They could have done a little better than this. I mean seriously if I wanted to watch American werewolf in Paris or London than I would watch those movies. They took a perfectly good story and twisted it around into a copy of a story that has been told over and over again and quite frankly I'm tired of watching it. I mean hello the best part of the whole f*****g (sorry) story is she ends up with Gabriel. He doesn't die. What was that about? And he's old in this movie. Gabriel is supposed to be only 24 not 44 da** it. Awww. And Astrid who the he** came up with the idea of Astrid being Vivian's Aunt no no no no. Astrid and Vivian hate each other. Awwww. Anyways yeah that was my little rant seriously pi**ed off. hope this helped.


From the makers of Underworld, we have, by far, the worst werewolf movie I have ever seen. It is basically a reconstructed version of Underworld, yet lacking vampires (not a big deal), cool effects (a BIG deal), and generally just about everything that can possibly be done right to produce a decent film dealing with lycanthropy (the biggest deal of them all!). A twenty-something lycanthrope chocolate maker named Vivian is currently residing in Romania ever since her family was hunted down and executed in front of her years ago in America for being werewolves. There, she belongs to a small society (or pack) of werewolves and is apparently chosen to unwillingly wed the pack leader, Gabriel, whose son - some toad with a British accent - takes it upon himself to hunt outside of the pack. They have apparently been discovered in other countries prior and want to remain settled in Romania by avoiding negative attention, so of course, such activity is considered forbidden. Vivian ends up falling in love with an American artist who is oblivious to her involvement with the group of blood-thirsty predators. When they end up discovering the secret relationship, things get messy when someone is killed and the human is forced to participate in a deadly tradition in which he is set loose in the woods and is hunted - giving the pack a chance to transform into their "wolfy" selves. All this really consists of is a big leap before they light up and land as a wolf. Very cheezy effects. The entire movie is like a tamed down Underworld with some drippy, romantic montages and very little action. Watching this in the theater, I could not wait for it to end. A devastatingly boring disappointment. Avoid!


***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS****

I was super excited to go see Blood and Chocolate with my friends. I couldn't wait because the book is one of my favorites. But as soon as the movie started, I couldn't believe how different it was. At first I was like, okay, so both of her parents are dead...maybe it'll be okay. But then came the rest of the movie. By the time it was over I was furious. Nothing was correct but their names and the fact that Vivian fell in love with Aiden. By the end of the book, Gabriel was my all time favorite...and then the movie goes and turns him into a complete heartless idiot?! The movie also showed the shifters, or werewolves, as these vile, evil creatures were as the book shows them as just wanting to fit in and keep their pack safe. They would never kill humans for the fun of it.

If they wanted to make a movie like they did, they should have given it a different title and named the characters different. Because then I would go out and watch it again and buy it, but when I think about it all I can see is the bad. You couldn't pay me to go see it again or buy it.


I'm going to talk about this movie from two different perspectives here. First is from the view of if someone sees the movie and never read (and may not ever read) the book. The second is from someone who has.

(Movie without book) From a movie standpoint, it was an okay movie. Nowhere near as good as either of the Underworlds but much better than UltraViolet. And I'm not just talking plot line either. The visual effects were iffy in many of the parts, though the wolf transformation was very nice. The characters has very little development and Vivian didn't even seem to truly care that her "love" was killing off what was left of her species. Some of the other characters could have had more air-time, like The Five. The plot was way to similar to Underworld for my tastes.

(Movie WITH book) As many have stated, other than the title, character names and a few minor parts, the movie and the book are nothing alike. In the movie, Gabriel was a lot older and was the father of Rafe (thus Astrid was once his mate). In the book, Gab was about 24, never mated with anyone since wolves mate for life (Astrid is trying to win his affection) and Astrid was the mother of Ulf, not Rafe. Another important thing is the location. The book took place in Riverview, Maryland. Also, why they moved from West Virginia is very different. The movie has it being Vivian's fault and her entire family was killed due to it. In the book, the original leader of The Five, named Axel, killed a girl from their school. Hunters tracked down the wolves and killed many of them (Viv's father included), forcing them to move. Also, Viv's mom, Esme was a major character.

One thing from the book that would have made the movie better would have been the "bitch's dance". For those who don't know, it's the ordeal where all the bitches (females of the pack) fight to see who is the one to be the mate of the new leader (since earlier there was a fight for the males). Vivian won it, trying to save her mother from Astrid (who is a horrid evil woman in the book) and thus was supposed to mate with Gab. There was no prophecy! Anyway, if you've read the book and you liked the book, I highly suggest NOT seeing this film.


I never read the book. Now I don't really want to. I had no clue what this movie was about when I walked into the theatre. I still don't really know what point it was supposed to get across, but I do know that a good two hours was wasted from my life. Two precious hours I can never get back.

The storyline was so predictable, it's laughable. Werewolves...or something...a very Romeo and Juliet type plot. I predicted the endig within five minutes into the movie. And I was correct.

The acting isn't horrible. The only two cool characters in the movie were the British cousin guy and the Rambo-graphic-novel duder. The other characters are too...the dialogue is very bland and predictable.

The absolute WORST part of the movie is the transformations between the "humans" and the "wolves." If you wanted something kick-ass like Van Helsings, you're gonna be really upset. Imagine ballerina's, a bright light, then a wolf. Yep...that's about it.

Just avoid this movie. Period. Especially if you've read the book, because you'll just wanna punch babies.


When HULK hit theaters in 2003, it wasn't long before DVDs of the old Incredible Hulk TV show popped up in an attempt to cash in on the craze. We saw a similar occurrence a year prior when Spider-Man cartoons appeared on DVD to coincide with that hero's big screen debut. Companies leap at the opportunity to ride on the financial coattails of a hot brand.

So the fact that this picture never surfaced on the shelves of Wal-Mart as its featured heroes clobbered the box office in the summer of 2005 says a lot. I guess everyone involved would just rather forget. To be fair, THE FANTASTIC FOUR is not as bad as everyone says. Let me rephrase that. It's not as unentertaining as all of its negative reviews might suggest.

Veteran television actor Alex Hyde-White (no, you don't remember any of his roles) leads the way as Reed Richards, the brilliant scientist who, along with his crew, gains bizarre powers after an outer space mishap. He's left with the ability to stretch and contort his body to outrageous lengths. His future wife, Sue Storm (Rebecca Staab), can suddenly turn invisible, while her brother, Johnny (Jay Underwood), may now ignite himself at will. Then there's poor Ben Grimm (Michael Bailey Smith), the lovable lug whose body morphs into a mass of craggy, orange rock.

Just as the friends are becoming accustomed to all of this, they are called upon to rescue the world from certain chaos. It seems Reed's old colleague Victor von Doom (Joseph Culp) is living up to his name, and that villainous Jeweler (Ian Trigger) isn't exactly helping old ladies cross the street, either. Can our heroes save the day? Of course they can; like any superhero movie, it's just a question of how and when.

What's striking about THE FANTASTIC FOUR is how amateurish it is in virtually every aspect. The dialog is so lame and tired it sounds like it was written by a junior high drama class. The acting is so unpolished it makes a third-rate afternoon soap opera look like Shakespeare. The special effects are surprisingly good considering the minuscule budget, but there are still some positively embarrassing moments. When The Human Torch fully ignites his body, for instance, the entire movie briefly turns into a cartoon. I can just hear that production meeting. "Oh, no one will notice. They'll be too intrigued by the action!" I mean really, a cartoon? At least give me a mannequin on fire held up by a string! Prior to that, the scene in which the foursome come to on earth after their spaceship crashes is pure teens-in-the-backyard fare. The crew simply found a field and lit a vaguely-spaceship-like object on fire. That's the only remnant of such a major disaster?

Of course there wasn't a whole lot to work with in the script. There is a fairly coherent story here, but it's all so simplified. When Reed and Ben decide to go into outer space, they simply drop by the Storms' house and ask if they'd care to join them. Is it really that easy? Don't these sort of things require, oh, I don't know, years of training and expertise? Not in the world of these writers, who seemed to be inspired by the underrated genius on display in FULL HOUSE reruns. But as bad as that may be, nothing can compare to how painfully clichéd Dr. Doom is. He was pulled right out of those awful superhero cartoons from the 1960s, right down to the evil laugh and slamming his clenched fist down on the table to punctuate his remarks. No comic book, least of all Fantastic Four, has ever featured a villain so obscenely one dimensional.

Ultimately, THE FANTASTIC FOUR is saved from being a complete turkey because it's just so damn innocent. You can tell the people involved, as little talent or experience as they had, really tried. They didn't know the final result would be so embarrassing. They were under the impression that this was their big break, that people would flock to the theaters. It bears repeating that they had virtually no money to work with (and I'm sure half of that was eaten up by the cool Thing costume). All things considered, they did well, and for its many flaws, the finished product is a fair amount of fun for comic book fans.


I am almost a two decade old human who's been reading comics most of my life. I'm not a huge fan of the Fantastic Four, but I'm fairly familiar with them. In 1994, Roger Corman (B-movie legend) produced the first, I think, feature length Fantastic Four film. The result was such pure schlock that it was never given a release. Still, copies exist, mostly on the net and at conventions. If you're looking for a laugh and can find a copy do yourself a favor and check this thing out.

The film basically retells the FF's origin and an encounter with Doctor Doom and a villain named The Jeweler, essentially the Mole Man with a penchant for petty larceny. As is the case with these comic book movies, everything has to tie into everything, so the FF play a vital role in Dr. Doom's creation, and he and the Jeweler play a vital role in theirs.

First, I'd just like to mention that despite everything that went bad in this movie, I actually sort of liked the guy that played Doom. He doesn't get many decent lines, but when he does he hits them. The armor looks pretty good too.

As for the rest...it's a dirty, dirty mess. Bad plots, bad acting, bad effects, bad everything basically. Boos especially to Jay Underwood, bringing new meaning to the word overacting as Johnny Storm. He's not overacting, he's ultracting.

As for the FF, well they all sort of look right, and Sue's played by a very attractive actress, but they just don't seem like a real team. For one thing they have no reason for Sue and Johnny to go into space. In an early section Ben and Reed go to visit the two, Johnny's like 8 and Sue's about 12. It only stands to make their eventual romantic pairing a helluva lot creepier. The Thing costume looks more reptilian than anything else, not very rocky, and the only time the Human Torch is really a Human Torch he looks like the Silver Surfer tinted red.

I could type for hours, but I think the scene that best sums it up is a climactic encounter featuring the aforementioned not-so-Human Torch. He's racing a laser beam, and he eventually destroys it with a punch. Yes, a punch. A laser beam. With a punch. Then he flies around and goes "Yippeee!" a whole lot, whereupon the camera tilts down and he flies back TOWARD EARTH. Evidently Reed the intellectual forgot to inform Johnny that fire doesn't exist in the vacuum of space. This and many other scenes operate like Looney Toones, if the character doesn't know they are over a cliff, they don't fall.

I laughed, I cried, I was glad it was never released.


I gave this a 2, and it only avoided a 1 because of the occasional unintentional laugh. The film is excruciatingly boring, and incredibly cheap. It's even worse if you know anything at all about the Fantastic Four.