I happened upon a rare copy of this early Almodovar film with high expectations - Almodovar is a prolific contemporary director, I enjoyed his 1988 film "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown", and I had read one or two very positive reviews of the film. Well, I must have missed completely the humor that the reviewers saw in this film. I just found it incoherent, tasteless, and boring. Yes, there are plenty of innuendos, people in drag, and crude sexual situations, and yes, these elements may have shocked audiences in 1982 (which was almost certainly Almodovar's intention), but much of the shock value has probably eroded over the years, leaving a limp storyline. Beyond that, the whole movie seemed very chaotic, none of the characters were particularly sympathetic, and for a "comedy" - even a dark one - I just didn't find this film funny. I suppose it is possible there is a VERY select audience for a film like this, but I'm just not part of that audience, and not sure that I want to be.


Czech movie goers may have enjoyed and rated this film highly because it was Czech, but I found it to be trite, tedious, moronic, boring, and insipid. Again, I suspect "ramping" in order to increase sales of this dog of a film. Amazon describes this film as being about a couple of fellows that refuse to grow up, but I will go one further--I think it is about two fellows that have entered a state of dementia and perform actions that make no sense to anyone. I have been told that one of the actors in the film committed suicide after the film, and I would believe it. When he saw his performance he probably realized what a gosh awful job he had done and realized that the only way to avoid terminal embarrassment was to make the "big exit", which I am sure was much more dramatic and a much better performance that he had done in "Autumn Spring." Don't waste your time or money on this pathetic performance. It's nothing but a dog in a manger.


I wanted to like this movie, but there is very little to like about it. It starts out with Jean Stapleton and a Randy Newman song in Iowa (Northwest Iowa, I guess), reminiscent of Norman Lear's Cold Turkey, which was one of the best movies ever made, according to people on IMDb. So far, so good. And the idea of the archangel Michael living at Pansy Milbank's motel on earth? Well, give it a chance, it's supposed to be a comedy. Okay, so far, so good. But Michael does things that an angel not fallen would never do, and that completely blows any credibility the movie might have had. The other characters in the movie don't have much appeal, either. Michael brings a dog back to life, and we're supposed to be in awe of that. The people make up corny country songs. In the end, Stapleton dances with Travolta. Big deal. If she was smart, she wouldn't even be in this movie. When it was over, I thought, "Gee, what a stupid, tasteless, boring, corny, sacrilegious movie!" It's not fit to be seen by children or anyone else.


Do you ever wonder what is the worst movie ever made? Stop wondering. I'm telling you, Michael is it!

It is not "heartwarming," "entertaining," or "Travolta at his best." It just sucks. If I had kids, I would let them watch Deep Throat before Michael!

A sold-out John Travolta, a washed-up and balding William Hurt, and an about to die any time now Jean Stapleton highlight this turd of a film.

But wait...you'll get to hear Andie McDowell sing! Yeah. Hollywood really s**t all over us with this one!


This movie makes you wish imdb would let you vote a zero. One of the two movies I've ever walked out of. It's very hard to think of a worse movie with such big name actors. Well...Armageddon almost takes it, but not quite.


This was more of a love story than one about an angel who comes down here to earth, although both angles of that story are given a good share of the movie.

If I took this movie to heart, as someone who knows and believes the Bible, I would have canned it pretty quick, but I don't think the general atmosphere was either mean-spirited or blasphemous. It was just ludicrous or just plain stupid.

I mean, John Travolta as a grubby angel? Smoking? Scratching his groin? Quoting the Beatles? A "warring angel" who knows nothing about Heaven? An angel who flirts with all the women? Yes, it's all absurd and certainly Biblically- incorrect.

I could tolerate all that but I don't know how many people, whatever beliefs they hold, who could stand a boring film which this turned out to be during the second half of it. It begins to drag when the romance begins between William Hurt and Andie MacDowell. Some of the dialog during that romance is so stupid it's insulting to any discriminating viewer.

This is another Nora Ephron-directed film. Man, I can't believe how many incredibly stupid movies this woman has either written or directed. At least she's consistent.


My website (theflickguy.org) lists "Michael" as one of the worst films of the modern era. The following is an excerpt:

"Everyone slums some time in their lives, this was Travolta's turn. I still don't know what the point of this terrible film was. Nora Efron has proved to be a competent writer and director, so what the hell happened here? The Archangel Michael takes a new spin here and is portrayed as a ham-fisted, chain-smoking sugar addicted fornicating slob whose biggest contribution to humanity (after sending Lucifer to hell) was that he invented "standing in line". Yes, how funny and charming. I don't find this offensive, I find it stupid. In its defense, I can say that the ending was ever bit unsatisfying as the rest of this painful attempt at story telling."


For the most part, "Michael" is a disaster  ten minutes of charm and ninety's worth of missteps.

Travolta and MacDowell do their best, frequently rising above Nora Ephron's numbingly banal script. But the film moves like a snail. And even within its fantasy context, the characters behave implausibly on a regular basis. (Reporters who routinely let the story of a lifetime  an apparent angel living on Earth  out of their sight?)

Someone forgot to tell romantic comedy maestro Ephron that William Hurt, brilliant in so many other films, is no Tom Hanks. The movie's "climax" redefines the word contrived. Ephron may be shooting for Heaven here, but unfortunately "Michael" is a long, long ride through cinema heck.


An insult to both poker and cinema, this movie manages to make the most dynamic, brilliant, and fascinating figure in poker history into an utter bore. Still a fun film to make jokes about, from the lame gangster movie clichés of the first half to the incomprehensible nonsense of that second hour. Hilariously, Stu Ungar wins all three of his World Series titles without playing a single hand on screen. His infamous dealer abuse? 1 scene. His coke habit? 1 scene. His incredible memory? 0 scenes. They couldn't even get any real poker players. What did they cover? A lot of high angle shots from inside a house in the suburbs. Oh, and a montage of Stu waking up every day and shopping for meat which doesn't come anywhere close to making sense. Why do I care so much about this little Sopranos summer camp trying to cash in on the poker craze? Because I think there's still a great film to be made about Stu Ungar waiting for someone willing to do it right.


Well, the movie was no terrible, but whomever created the screen play did not do a good job of even creating the essence of unger. This movie was slightly below average and did not tell the story correctly on one of the most interesting persons ever born. I suggest reading the book "one of a Kind" the real unger story. They left out huge parts of his life. They also at times did not understand the real caractor that he was. The actual facts of his life were at times out of order. And in the end they really did not portray the actual personality that he did have. So please don't watch the movie; read the book. By the way I'm not just some prick who feels you have to stay 100% to the real story, but they did not even come close!!!


Wow, i just witnessed one of the greatest poker tragedies and I'm not talking about the premature death of the great stu ungar. This film I'm sorry to say was terrible. Absolutely terrible. A true tragedy in filmaking history. Well maybe I'm being a little harsh but unless you have some interest in the life of stu ungar then don't even consider coming near this one. And those that do have an interest in his life will find that most parts were trivialised and made out to be great novelty scenes. I watched it because of Stu UNgar but nearly wanted to end myself like he did while watching this movie 4 stars for effort but unpleasantly painful


Having just finished reading the book "One of a Kind" a week ago, I was thinking "This would make a great movie, especially now, when people know a little about poker and poker players". I was totally shocked to find it while browsing at the video store last night. I had no idea someone had actually turned this into a film. I grabbed it immediately and watched with much anticipation. What a major letdown!

All of the intriguing things about Stu Ungar were skimmed over quickly, and instead I was left with a biopic that could have been about anybody. Ungar may have been a burnt-out jerk, but he was also a brilliant thinker that could read people instinctively. That is what made him so fascinating. Why not focus on that?

And talk about watering down the real truth. This guy was excessive about absolutely everything: drugs, women, gambling, starvation, sleep-deprivation. He gambled on sporting events from dusk to dawn, he would go missing for days while hanging out in crack dens, his body was perpetually emaciated, and yet, if he ever needed money, he could always beat just about anyone at will playing cards. Now that's a story!

Too much time spent on his childhood and personal relationships (although his ties with "Vincent" and his daughter were hardly touched on) and hardly anything about his drugs use (which was exorbitant), his insane gambling and his incredible card-playing abilities.

Probably too late now, but I hope someone remakes this film properly. I had no problem with Imperioli. He is excellent. The script just left him with nothing interesting to say.


This movie is a shameful result of what happens when:

A) It is written, directed and produced by an idiot. and/or B) It was rushed in production to satiate the poker/Stu Ungar craze.

The story from beginning is uneven. Vidmer spends too much time on Ungar's childhood and not enough on some of the legendary tales -- such as counting cards, his blackjack escapades, the roll of money as id. He also leaves out mentions of other poker greats such as chip reese, brunson etc. The movie is a complete mess from beginning to end.

If you want a more complete and accurate account, read the book One of a Kind. If you thought the movie was good, read the book and change your mind.


This movie attempted to make Stu Ungar's life interesting by being creative. What they forgot is that his life was plenty entertaining enough on it's own without having to make things up.

A short list of the inaccuracies:

1) Stuey was not sent straight to Las Vegas for a Gin Tournament to pay off old debts, he spent a good deal of time in Florida first, and only went to Las Vegas when he ran out of Gin games on the east coast.

2) Stuey never associated (or played Gin) with a casino executive (like the one played by Pat Morita in the movie.)

3) There was no magical turnaround in the buildup to the 1997 WSOP. In fact Stuey barely made it into the tournament as it was. He snorted Cocaine the week before even.

Either tell the story right, or don't tell it at all. 4 out of 10 stars for Michael Imperolli's credible performance (the only redeeming quality of this movie.)


Stu Ungar is considered by many to be the greatest poker / gin player of all time - an extraordinary self-destructive force of nature - tiny in stature, but a huge heart for the game.

What we have here is a kind of Hallmark film about the dangers of gambling. Sure, he wins, he loses, he blows it all on sex, drugs, and more gambling we get it, but where is the real play - where is what made him the greatest card player of all time.

Much too flat, and frankly boring in places, this gets a four because we get to learn something about Stu the man, but Stu the card player, nada.

Nicely shot and presented up to a point this is the perfect example of how not to make a film about cards: honestly, ESPN's coverage of the World Series is more watchable than this.

A waste of a great chance.


How does this movie suck? As a fan of Michael Imperioli's work on The Sopranos I picked this up at Blockbuster based on his name and a story that sounded like it had promise. It still does, but this movie doesn't fulfill it.

Every turn of the story is entirely predictable; I kept looking for the Lifetime bug on the bottom right corner of the screen. It's all there: the noble woman coming out of hard times, the guy failing to live up to his potential despite her best efforts, the kid who gets stuck in the middle, etc., etc., etc. The mysterious stranger's identity is what really made me want to throw stuff at the TV -- I would have been more satisfied with little Stuey waking up and realizing it was all a dream.

The filmmakers may as well have had a "The moral of the story is..." bit before the credits, since as another reviewer pointed out this thing really does roll like an afterschool special. Don't gamble, don't drink, don't do drugs, stay with your wife, spend time with your kids...come on, how about a little nuance? How about some interesting bad guys? Writer/director A.W. Vidmer should be singled out for special notice: not only is the dialogue leaden, the pacing (within dialogue and at either end of many scenes) makes this movie at least 45 minutes longer than it needs to be (and believe me, it feels like longer). The talents of Imperioli, Renee Faia and some of the supporting cast (Steve Schirripa, natch) are the only things that keep this from a "1" rating. All of their good work is nearly offset, though, by the atrocious job of portraying the boy Stuey. Not sure if it was a casting mistake (hey -- it's a mob movie, so let's cast someone from Blue's Clues who can't do anything but over-overact with a big fake grin...next let's cast the sullen, brooding kid in the Disney flick) or just awful directing but those scenes are really painful to watch.

I'd be interested in another filmmaker's take on this character and his story; it's a shame Imperioli has already been used up by this flick. Awful, awful, awful.


This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen. What a weak waste of Michael Imperioli's obvious talent. Disgusting film from start to finish. All I can say is, this director is no 'auteur'. You never once get inside the game, the character's head, the amazing talent with numbers the real Stuey had. The coke scene is bad enough to throw your shoe at the set, it might have been a great scene had it been shot for movies and not the stage, with the camera half way across the house hovering over a mirror with drugs on it while the drama is going on far in the background. The scene where he wins the big championship is just laugh out loud ridiculous. This should be screened in Film-making 101 - What Not To Do In Making Pictures.


20 people rated this a 10! That ballot box was stuffed better than a Christmas turkey! Speaking of turkey's, here's a traditional story hoping to piggy-back on the current poker craze - without success. Told entirely in linear flashback, and when I say "told" I mean TALKED TO DEATH, this film never let's a picture suffice when words can be used to exposit.

Stu Unger's childhood fascination with cards and his associations with hoodlums might sound like interesting movie material, but the director manages to suck the life out of them. At no point did I feel the least bit of sympathy for Unger, a genius at cards who threw it all away on other forms of gambling at which he was not so proficient. Of course, this leads, as we wade through THREE musical montages, to the inevitable downward spiral of drugs, loss of family, and finally his redemption (sort of). Big yawn!


I rented this movie hoping that it would provide some good entertainment and some cool poker knowledge or stories. What I got was a documentary type look at an average guys life who happened to be really good at cards. Do I want to see the romance with his wife? NO Do I want to see about everything that went on in this guy's life except poker? NO. Well thats what you get with this film. The acting is good for such a low budget piece of crap. The film never tries to break the mold or do anything original. It simply sleep walks its way through the script. The ending is disappointing and never really looks deep into Ungar's mind. Instead it focuses on what was already obvious. He was a drugged out card player with an average life not unlike any other average joe in vegas. The movie focuses on the aspects of his life that were UN extraordinary rather than the Extraordinary. The poker scenes in the entire film add up to about 4 minutes of footage. Ungar's achievements of winning the WSOP 3 times seem life after thoughts. A 10 year old could do a better job directing this movie.. or maybe it was the script being a piece of crap from the beginning that doomed this joke of a movie.

If you want to see a film about gambling watch Rounders. It at least has style.


This is probably the worst movie I've seen in a long time. Independent or not, solid writing is a must. Ditto for directing and acting. I know these actors can act (I've seen them in Sporanos and more...) but this movie is very bad, very bad. Maybe it's the script, maybe it's the director. Probably a little of both.....Probably a LOT of both! Technically OK, Just bad, bad, bad... I have a theory that the backers for this movie also own the Poker magazines, because I saw a very favorable review in one of the magazines. " Hey' we made it, so it's gotta be good, right?" Not so fast Bucky. I know it takes a lot of hard work and money to even get a movie made, much less sold and distributed, and for that I commend these folks. But the final product, leave a bad taste in my mouth.

P.S. I won a free rental and chose this movie from Blockbuster. Tomorrow I'm going to get my money back.


What could've been a great film about the late poker pro (pre-poker craze) Stu "The Kid" Unger turned into a disappointment.

You can tell the filmmakers were working on a short-string budget. Everything look filmed on the cheap. Timelines seemed a bit off to me.

Casting Michael Imperoli from the Sopranos was also a bad casting choice. He looked too old to play the baby-faced Stu, he looked way too healthy for a coke addict (if you look at footage from the 1997 WSOP main event, the real Stu was so skinny and he practically had no nose from too much cocaine so he wore those sunglasses to hide them), and I kept expecting Adriana to pop up and yell "Chris-tu-phur!!!"

Also they skipped over the fact that he had a son from Angie's previous relationship that committed suicide in the late '80s.

Every time I saw Vincent Van Patten appear, I kept thinking he was going to announce "Show tunes going off in Stu's head." like he does on the WPT.

If you're looking for real Stuey footage, check ESPN Classic because they rerun the 1997 WSOP Main Event every so often. Or try YouTube. Avoid this move like a bad beat.


What in the world! This piece of gambling cinema would have been suitable for the Lifetime Network. Michael Imperoli is a good actor but I think his portrayal as "Stu" fell short. The montages were unbearable and too many. The supporting cast, where are you? Whoever did the casting should be partially at fault. The cinematography was useless. A gambling story with an after school feel to it. Stories of this sort should be left for the Oliver Stone's of the world. It would still suck ass but at least it would be fun to watch. It was an attempt that lost it's wheels before the race ever begun. Mario Andretti in the 1982 Indy 500 came to mind.


First of all..I've seen better acting and more realistic makeup in porno flicks. How bad was "Chris Moltisante" as Stewie Ungar? On The Sopranos, Chris is not taken too seriously and can be considered comic relief. And then throw in "Bobby Baccala" as one of his Vegas cronies. It's just too much to take in a dramatic movie. Neither actor can handle a serious role and is better suited as a second banana for Tony,Paulie, or Uncle Junior. And I want to know who did the makeup for this disaster? I want that person to be MY make-up person over the next 25 years so I'll never age a day either. So that's all I'll write on this movie since it's not worth wasting too much more of my time.

Yes I DO know that Michael Imperioli and Steve Schirippa are their REAL names.


Maybe I'm alone here, but this is a crap show. I'm sorry but I was lured in when I found out about Lil' Bill O'Reilly (which I had no idea came from this show until months later, and has honestly since lost its appeal) but I gave the show a fair shot. Spike tries to hard to make himself into something he's not, which is to say, he tries to be human. Fox didn't even bother to hide the strings when they took him out of the box he came in. His sketches try to hard, he himself isn't funny, and the writers are struggling to write material for a no-talent host. There is too much good TV out there to waste your time with this show, and Fox.....Fox we had some good times, but you need to get your f$%*ing act together and come up with something original instead of trying to be just another "Me-too" network.


This show is like watching someone who is in training to someday host a show. There are some good comedy ideas and tons of mediocre ones. It doesn't look like the writers know the difference between what's funny and what's just weird or gross.

It has its moments. When Spike hosed down a neighbor who had been letting her dog soil his lawn repeatedly, it hit it's peak. But the hilarious moments are too few, and there's too many experimental comedy bits that miss the mark.

The show's better than, say, watching a test pattern or the QVC network, but it needs some better writers.

Reading the glowingly positive IMDb comments on this show, I am convinced that most of them were written by show staffers and by relatives and personal friends of Spike.

It just isn't very good most of the time.


Did the writers pay people to come up here and write positive reviews? I mean, really, it's a bit hackneyed, and Spike isn't that funny. He seems more like the serious guy trying too hard to be funny. There are so many mediocre gigs in this show; like once, the opening sketch was "Talk show, apply directly to the forehead," over and over. And another that featured Spike and another dude getting high, and it wasn't even funny. They didn't even do anything but sit around and laugh, over and over. Ha Ha! And another that featured Spike talking to a Korean guy who ate duck and told him that he had a pet duck. Ha ha! I mean, really, Spike just gets funny guests on his show, that's why people like this show


I viewed the first two nights before coming to IMDb looking for some actor info. I saw the 9+ rating which surprised me since I was not that impressed by what I'd seen. (As reference, I happen to believe Lonesome Dove was the best TV western ever. I grew up next to the MGM back lots in Culver City in the 50s and have a certain sense of reverence about the Western genre.)

So I saw the glowing first review and decided to read "more". There I found several reviews with 1 or 2 stars that summed up my feelings well about the lack of character development, poor editing, feeling that it was shot on the Universal back lot (MGM's is long gone), and overall impression that it was not going to come close to changing my feelings about LD. My impression is that the overwhelming vote of those who chose to write was "less than a 4.0".

This got me to wondering about the process that yields a 9+ rating. If the people giving the 10s and 9s do not take the time to justify their vote, is the ballot box being stuffed by people with a monetary motivation? I have long used IMDb as one tool to screen movies and thought it the best available. Now I am not so sure.


I'm not sure this review contains spoilers, but I'm playing it safe by indicating there might be. Regardless, it's unlikely anyone will watch this film who isn't familiar with the book.

There's an old wisecrack about laboring mightily and bringing forth a mouse. "Comanche Moon" is such a mouse.

The novel focuses more on the Indians than the Americans. In adapting it for TV, McMurtry and Osanna rightly reasoned that the audience would be more interested in the whites than the reds. Unfortunately, there's little in the novel that we don't already know about Gus, Woodrow, and their friends. So the movie gives us mostly a portentous prehash of what will occur in "Lonesome Dove". The Indians -- who have their own story to tell -- are largely relegated to the background -- so much so that someone who hasn't read the novel will rightly wonder why it's titled "Comanche Moon".

The novel has no overall story line, or much of a "point". This could have been fixed in the movie, by more strongly drawing the contrast between the Indians losing their lands and way of life to the encroaching Americans, who bring "civilzation". This opportunity was missed.

Unlike "Lonesome Dove", "Comanche Moon" has few extended scenes that develop character or relationships -- at least among the Americans. The extended scenes with the Indians have been largely removed or shortened. And for a (net) four-hour film, it is remarkably episodic and choppy. One gets the feeling the script was originally longer, and cut to reduce the production costs.

The screenplay comprises mostly clichéd dialog, aphorisms, and platitudes. Coming from the author of "The Last Picture Show", it's a startlingly bad script. McMurtry and Osanna had the opportunity to fix problems with the story and characterizations, but did not.

Some of the best dialog from the novel is missing or altered, for no obvious reason. For example, Clara (Cassie) shows her intense hatred of Woodrow (Jack) by condemning Gus (Ennis) for always running off to be with his "pard". That tart little revelation of Clara's sexual jealously is gone. Then there's the scene where the ur-dense Woodrow warns Maggie not to let Jake Spoon "compromise" her. The exchange in the novel is shorter and harsher; the film tones it down, and doesn't portray Woodrow as quite the socially stupid, emotionally frozen stone he is. (When I read that scene in the novel, I wanted to punch Woodrow in the stomach -- or worse.) There are other changes, some of them understandable. Inish Scull's eyelids are not cut off; to do so would like have required expensive CGI. But Buffalo Hump has no hump! (Perhaps it was felt unreasonable to ask Wes Studi to schlep around such a huge prosthesis.) And Buffalo Hump's character is "kindler and gentler". He is nowhere nearly as grotesquely violent as he was in the novels.

The only good thing about this near-turkey is Steve Zahn's remarkable performance -- not so much as Gus McCrae, but as Robert Duvall playing Gus McCrae. It is uncanny. He perfectly duplicates Duvall's mannerisms and manner of speech, without ever appearing "deliberate" or self-conscious. As was Duvall, he is wholly "within" the character. And he actually shows us Gus becoming "more Gus" in the third part.

The best thing about "Comanche Moon" is that it won't spoil our affection for "Lonesome Dove", not just a great Western, but a great American film.

PS: For those who think Rachel Griffiths was over the top -- that's the way she was in the book.


I must have missed a part of this movie... I found myself asking who is this? And, when did that happen? It seemed to jump around but I kept watching for fear I was missing something and it would all be explained to me. I loved Lonesome Dove but this movie made no sense to me at all. I did love all the actors but what happened to the rest of the movie? It made me go "what"? at the beginning of each part..As far as the scenery - I thought it was fine..It made me feel though like I was leafing through a book and leaving pages out.. The ending had me a little confused too although I imagine the boy was waiting for his father and was meant to leave you wondering if his father would finally come home to his son and be a father since his mother was now gone..I would like to read the book just to see what I missed in the movie..I don't expect this one to win any awards.


Agustus and Call really did Nothing? Why are they Hero's they did nothing other then get to places after the bad guys where dead. What was the point of this show? I was very very Disappointed. I expected more action, more story, and to see the birth of Heros and Great Deeds. Instead I saw very little, it seemed like Agustus and Call where just side story's for the great Indian Chief.

I'm not even sure that the history is even very close. They did very little to show why the Texans and Comanche fought against each other.

The only good part about this movie was Zhan who played Gus very very well and is a great actor. A lot of good story that could have been gone to waste. It was sad and I wish that I had not watched it.


I will give it a second chance but was very disappointed in the first one. It wouldn't hold a candle to the other series. It has a lot of meaningless dialog that doesn't add to the storyline at all. I agree with the others that it doesn't seem to develop a story that is interesting. It is slow and plodding and I only know what the Comanches are planning to do. Maybe it will all tie together in the second installment but I am going to have to force myself to watch it and find out. I am of apache heritage from the Texas/New Mexico area but I don't recognize much of what is happening. Maybe I am just ignorant of the facts but this isn't doing much to educate me.


the photography is good, the costumes are good, but the editing is bad. The various scenes are cut, or stopped at the wrong times, and the conversations are s-l-o-w and tedious. This slowness continues the entire show. It is a very tedious show to watch. . . . I believe that more scenes SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED, but that would make it a longer show. It is very slow-moving. The writers should have made it JUST a 1-night show, and not prolong our agony night after night. There is nothing else on, otherwise I'd change the channel (the first night). I feel bad for the Indians of the time, and am angry at the white-men for what they did to the Indians, but thats our history.


I just watched Lonesome Dove, Return To Lonesome Dove, Streets Of Laredo and Dead Man's Walk. All excellent. This sorry hunk of junk is cheaply done and poorly acted.

In the previous series, Captain Call and Gus McCrae come off as tough respectable cowboys. Despite the fact that Caption Call is played by a different actor every time each one quickly won me over. In Dead Man's Walk the boys are believable as the younger versions of the experienced Texas rangers. In Comanche Moon they are just a couple of chubby rednecks. I had to stop watching.

I suspect many of the glowing reviews for this show were written by the people who made this stinking pile. It's a sorry end to an otherwise great franchise.


Please do not waste six hours of your life watching this as I did. The fact that I did is not a very good reflection on me. The only redeeming acting job in this clunker was by Wes Studi. How a 'prequel' with similar roots can not even be in the same universe as Lonesome Dove is beyond me!! It was a disjointed, rambling, incoherent story. Plot lines were not developed, action scenes were almost laughable and the big ending (disappointment) was a fitting ending to this mini-series. Val Kilmer who I have thought as a reputable actor played one of the strangest roles that I have ever seen him in. His final scene in the show had to have been a filler by the director. I have been reading these reviews for years and this show prompted me to sign up!!!


Okay, so I forgot to watch and only caught the last episode, thinking it was the first or second. Honestly, I thought CM would have at least one more installment to resolve plot points. The Rangers are left stranded on the plains ("We'll have to eat the horses"), for one thing. Little Newt is bereft, for another. What a downer ending! But my biggest complaint, esp. if this was the finale, is that the episode had no suspense, no big climax, no dramatic confrontations. Even the last fight between Blue Duck and Buffalo Hump was badly staged. The whole episode had terrible pacing, which is what drives a Western. Steve Zahn was watchable, Karl Urban (a ringer for Johnny Knoxville) played Call like a man with a terminal case of lockjaw. All glowering looks and jingling spurs and jutting chin. And what's with the Rangers? They talked big, about cleaning up Texas, then milled around aimlessly in the middle of town, getting drunk. And how nice of Hal Holbrook to loan Val Kilmer his Mark Twain wig and stache! The set of Austin was like the fake Rock Ridge from Blazing Saddles, all facade. I admit I was drawn into the plot, but that's mainly cause there were many things I didn't quite get, thanks to coming in late in story. If I'd watched from the beginning, I might not have gotten to episode three. Now I have to go watch Silverado to cleanse my palette.


Having grown up on westerns and considering the present dearth of westerns on TV and at the theater, I was really looking forward to Commanche moon.

After watching two nights, and not another, it appears to be have been shot on a tight budget. Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones level stars are conspicuously absent. There is Val Kilmer, but what the heck is going on with him? Four or five buildings on either side of the street plus the Scull mansion make up the entire town of Austin. The capitol is never seen, only the inside of the governor's office.

The dialog is often times hokey, meaningless rambling. The plot line disjointed. Altogether, completely forgettable.


This is a poor caricature of "Lonesome Dove" - and Larry McMurtry.

I love your books, with "Lonesome Dove" among the top three. I have admired the way you view yourself, through your characters, with such unflinching honesty, balanced by never taking it all too seriously. I am, therefore, spoiled.

Why have you come to this?

"Comanche Moon" is not up to your standards. I see that you are credited with the screen-writing, but this is so unlike you, I prefer to think it is written by someone else.

The dialogue makes me claustrophobic, wishing someone would break out with a naturally stated sentence. The part about 'genius' was agonizing. McCrae was unrecognizable - chiefly because of the inane words coming out of his mouth.

Well, I miss Call, too.

The most important missing factors are Gus and Call and the men they are: their matter-of-fact courage; the underlying vein comprised of ethics and honesty; their lack of self delusion. Hard men leading hard lives with a certain undeniable grace.

Some blame has to attach to the labored direction here and throughout. All of the cast needed dialect AND dialogue coaching.

While I try to imagine Robert Duvall as McCrae, speaking this same dialogue, it comes off better - but not much. It tries to sound cowboy-of-few-words shy, sly-grin witty, but doesn't half succeed...

How can it be so different from "Lonesome Dove"? Can the writer have forgotten his characters? You have fooled some of the people, Mr. McMurtry - but not this one.


I, like many folks, believe the 1989 epic Lonesome Dove was one of the best westerns ever produced, maybe THE best. And, realizing that most sequels (in this case a prequel) are certain to disappoint, my expectations were low. Comanche Moon met that expectation with its marginal directing and acting, poor casting and frankly, a lousy script.

Lonesome Dove created western heroes of Captains McCrae and Call due to incredibly strong performances by Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones. Prior to living in Lonesome Dove, we believed they bravely fought to rid Texas of bandits and savage Indians during their rangering years.

If I had only seen Comanche Moon, I would think these two boneheads were a couple of incompetent, cowardly idiots. In Lonesome Dove, Call and McCrae supposedly chased Blue Duck all over Texas and never managed to capture or kill him. In Comanche Moon, a shot to Call's boot heel convinced him to settle down and raise cattle. There wasn't a decent fistfight or gun fight in the entire miniseries. The best punch was McCrea sucker punching Inez Scull, a funny scene but out of character for McCrae.

Where was McCrae's wit and charm? Clara's love for McCrae, a drunken, unshaven slob and philanderer was completely implausible. And Maggie's love for Call, a dispassionate and sullen loner, defies logic.

The cinematography was excellent, superior to the original. Credit goes not only to HD technology, but the cinematographer. The Comanche Moon miniseries was better than anything else on TV for three nights, but sadly that's not saying much.


I am seldom motivated to write a review unless inspired by the quality of the movie. In the case of Comanche Moon I was so uninspired I felt the need to warn others how bad this TV mini series is. Here are a few thoughts.

The Indians: They came across like they were in a Saturday Night Live Skit, making fun of how Indians talk. When McMurtry writes dialogue in his novels it reads so interesting; I am not sure how they ended up with what they got.

Gus McCrae: Looks like Festus from the old Gunsmoke Series. Acting is OK and the mannerisms from Robert Duvall's McCrae are right on, but the look is pure comedy cowboy.

Clara: Maybe you could use a little dirt or sweat on her next time. Ever been in Austin in the summer before Air conditioning? I promise you women did not look like that. Do you think they never saw any episodes of Dearwood?

Gov. Elisha Pease: Again whenever they are in the Governor's office it feels like a Saturday Night Live Skit, and the skit is bombing.

Woodrow Call: Call is the most reasonable character, of course He talks so little how can you screw up that? But hey, what about that hat?

Blue Duck: See above and include the fact that he isn't even a tiny bit scary. They should have gotten Javier Bardem to play the part.

The Rangers: Right out of "O Brother, Where Art Thou" I expected George Cloony to come riding up and them to break into a song.

Perhaps I am premature because the miniseries isn't completed but I doubt I will watch any more of it any way.

I would not expect anyone to be able to duplicate the enthralling feel of Lonesome Dove, but I watch this and it seems like they have no feel for the old west at all.


Was really looking forward to seeing a continuation of Lonesome Dove but this was total garbage. Cinematography was terrible. Shot way too tight. Was almost viewing the Grand Canyon through a stationary telescope. Editing was cut, cut, cut. Not even smooth. More like a bad student editor. Don't know if McMurtry did the screen play but the dialog was terrible. Really like Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holiday in Wyatt Earp but what in heck was he doing with this character in Comanche Moon??? I have no idea. Even looked like it was shot on a sound stage using the old Bonanza sets. How can the director of the original Lonesome Dove gone so wrong with this? Where was his head.............. Can't say much for the acting either. It's a shame to have messed up such a beautiful western that could have been but more like they rushed this one just to get it in the can. Have read other reviews and see that others felt the same way. Not even curious to watch the next few nights cause it would be just a waste of time like the first night was.

(2nd post)..................OK, since nothing else was on TV I must be honest and admit that I watched the last 2 nights of Comanche Moon. And I will be honest to tell you that I didn't make it to the end of either of the last 2 episodes because I fell asleep! I can only admit that I was watching the two main characters very closely and I could pick out some mannerisms that Steve Zahn did while portraying the character that Duval did such an excellent job with. So I must give Zahn credit for that. As for Karl Urban's portrayal....simple dead meat. Can only say again that I was very disappointed only because I cared so much for the original LD and like others .......have defended my feelings for a truly great western.


Wow...as a big fan of Larry McMurtry western tales and the Lonesome Dove series in particular, I was s-o-o-o looking forward to Comanche Moon. What a tremendous letdown. Maybe my expectations were set too high because of the all around excellence of Lonesome Dove...the story, the characters, the cinematography, the music...it all worked.

Comanche Moon by comparison comes across like a bad Saturday Night Live skit. The characters are completely colorless, the dialogue is babble and the plot meanders mindlessly all over the place. It seems like the actors are all reading from TelePrompTers. I couldn't relate to any of the characters, good guys, bad guys, not even the incidental characters. David Midthunder's performance stands out in particular. It looks like it was plucked out of an eighth grade middle school performance. I'm sorry, I'd like to find something positive to say about Comanche Moon, but I just can't do it. There's nothing there.


Lonesome Dove is my favorite western second only to The Searchers with John Wayne. I watch Lonesome Dove about every 6 months and never get tired of it. I have read all the LD books, although I cannot remember much of Comanche Moon. I too looked forward to this mini-series and decided to tape it on our DVR so we could fast forward through commercials. Unfortunately, I messed up and didn't record the first part, but decided to watch the other parts and try to pick up.

There is nobody that can ever compete with Robert Duvall or Tommy Lee Jones, and I was expecting to be disappointed and I was.

Although there were so many things that didn't ring true, the most apparent to me was when Nellie died the day before and Gus was out on the range, it switched over to Clara writing him a letter from Nebraska telling him how sorry she was to hear of her death. How in the world could she have known the next day way out in Nebraska? Additionally, it was supposed to be 7 years later after her leaving and her children looked to be about 6-7 years old, maybe a little younger, yet more time went on before they actually moved to Lonesome Dove, and in Lonesome Dove they had been there about 10 years or longer before leaving to Montana. When they stopped at Clara's in Nebraska, which probably took another 6 months on the trail, the girls looked to be about 10-13, since they were playing in the yard like little children. The math just does not add up.

I agree that the man who played Gus had a lot of his mannerisms and looked a little like Gus may have looked as a young man.

I am also a little confused about one thing. The captive white girl that they brought back - was she the one they captured when they raided Austin? They said she had been captured 25 years ago, but if she was the one captured in Austin, it was only 7 years later when this took place in the movie. Was she captured earlier? I remember seeing a captive girl after they raided the town and don't know if this is the same one. If someone can explain since I missed Part 1. If it had been 25 years, she would probably be over 40 years old when they found her since she looked to be grown lying on the ground. Also, the way they were ravaging her when they captured her, it is hard to believe she would have lived to go on to be married and having Indian children.

I have to admit though, nothing is worse than John Voight playing Call in the sequel to Lonesome Dove or the unbelievable marriage of Lorena to Pea Eye in the McMurty sequel to Lonesome Dove, which was never explained either. Also, the way he killed Newt off was I hear from spite for them doing the sequel with John Voight without his approval.

If anyone can clear up these discrepancies, I would appreciate.


I watched all three segments and am so disappointed in the story line. Zahn spends so much time mimicking Duvall he does nothing else in the show. And Tommy Lee Jones would never be so weak as a young man, unlikeable yes but weak never. We never see how or why they go to back to Lonesome Dove...which is a dirt hole in the original...why would they ever leave Austin where they are hero's...for doing nothing during the whole movie...I was rooting for Blue Duck by the end of the movie and he was totally miscast. There is no warning about how many segments there are...it just ends. This mini-series could have been "somebody"...tragic. It looked like it was directed by the Parrot and the Jag


It would be a shame if Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duval ever see this movie as they will probably be associated with it in years to come. "Oh yeah", the public will say, "'Comanche Moon', that's the mini series about the Texas Rangers and the Comanche Indians that starred Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duval. It was a real stinker and probably the worst movie they were ever in. I think it was a comedy but a not very funny comedy. I really don't understand why they agreed to be in it". That would be such an injustice as the original "Lonesome Dove" was a true western classic and this turkey is a real bomb and Jones and Duval will be remembered for it.


Parrots? PARROTS? I have been around this old earth longer than most and have seen nearly all the westerns that have have produced. Old West history is my passion. Comanche Moon is one of the most poorly produced, directed and acted stories I have ever seen. There was very little historical accuracy but then, it is obvious you were operating on a shoestring budget which

played a distinct roll in this insult to intelligence. I am happy that I TIVO'd this show. It was bad enough having to sit and watch the movie plus put up with the inane commercials. Once again, there was not one actor that came anywhere near convincing. I kept hoping it would improve as the three days progressed. WRONG! I'm ashamed to say I wasted 4 1/2 hours of what precious little time I have left.


The Jaws rip off is the trashiest of the all the Italian 'genres', and director Joe D'Amato is second only to the great Jess Franco in the trash film production stakes. Put the two together and what do you get? A gigantic piece of trash, of course. Unfortunately it's not trash in the good sense of the word either, as Deep Blood delivers more in boredom than it does in hilarity. To the film's credit, it does actually attempt something bordering on a plot; but to take said credit away from the film - the plot is rubbish. It has something to do with a group of friends taking of an oath (of friendship) and then some Indian curse that manifests itself into a shark. Or at least I think that's what was going on. Anyway, the majority of the film is padded out with boring dialogue and 'drama', and the shark itself - which lets not forget, is the only thing we really want to see - finds itself in merely a cameo role. Or not even that since most the shark is actually stock footage! Despite being a trash genre, there are actually a lot of fun Jaws rip-offs; but with this one, Joe D'Amato makes it clear that he couldn't be bothered to even try, and the result is what must be the worst Italian shark movie of all time. Avoid this dross.


This movie is crappy beyond any limits. It's incredible - a very bad ripoff from Jaws and other (better) shark movies. A really bad one - everything is really pathetic. The story is purest crap, actors are bad, effects very cheap, no creativity whatsoever. It looks like some really debilitated children took Jaws script and arranged it randomly, then its parents took their 8 mm camera and shot the movie with their neighbors. The music is really inappropriate, just some "elevator" music, bland and overly optimistic when nothing happens, then slightly less optimistic when shark is around or when children gets depressed (again listens to VERY LOUD elevator music). Carlo Maria (the author) should be so ashamed he should ask for his name to be erased from the titles!! The movie acts as perfect demonstration how crappy music will destroy ***ANY*** scene which is supposed to be thrilling. There is one major difference to Jaws though: In the beginning of Jaws there are comments about stupid people who try to kill shark with dynamite. Well, there is an attempt to kill a shark with dynamite. When this does not work, guys take an ***BIG LOAD*** of dynamite and spent like 1/4 of movie by placing explosives in some sunken ship. This IS really original way to catch the fish I have to admit! They use so much dynamite like they would try to kill a battleship (I would guess Bismarck class of battleship) or to dig another Panama channel. This is just incredible. I'm glad they did not try to use napalm-flamethrower or tactical nuclear strike to eliminate this bad, bad approximately 2 m shark. Well, there is mystic disappearing native Indian (who looks like German pensioner) too in this mess. This is not a movie, this is a warning example how bad the movies may be! As a warning it is useful. But the public should be protected from this crap. Most of Italian movies is bad, but this... this is really exceptional in the worst sense of the word.


This is the worst italian movie ever, quite possibly the worst movie of all time! Joe D'Amato is of course no cinematic genius but many of his movies are interesting and watchable. Unfortunatly this is not one of them. Its cheesy and boring....waaaaay boring. If you want a movie to MST3k, get Troll 2, if you want a movie to put someone into a coma, get deep blood!


Zzzzzzzzzzzz. This one came directly from the "Jaws" cookie-cutter mold, with some other bizarre cliches thrown in for good measure. I was interested in seeing this after finding a still from it in a book about Italian horror films, and wow...I guess I got what I deserved!

Very slow-moving and talky, much of this killer shark movie takes place on land, which isn't really that surprising. It seems like the only method they had of showing a shark is through shots of a shark in an aquarium. The shark is never in the same frame as any of the actors, and that's too bad...most of the characters are so annoying that you actually wish they would get eaten.

The "plot" concerns a group of four kids who meet up with a mysterious Indian on the beach one day while roasting weenies. The Indian, for some reason, gives them an ancient artifact that will allow them to track an ancient evil that assumed the form of a monster shark to attack their tribe...supposedly because they were too good at fishing the ocean and the ocean god was worried they would take all the fish. Or something like that.

It's a good thing too, because wouldn't ya know it...years later, a monster shark appears and starts gobbling up people in the sleepy seaside community. When one of the four guys are eaten by the shark, the remaining three are determined to kill the thing...especially since (big shocker here) the authorities have killed a shark and they think the threat is over. Yawn.

The obligatory death scenes are unbelievably tedious, and you can see them coming a mile away (my favorite was the girl who has a fight with her boyfriend while they're sitting in a van, then jumps out and says "I'm going for a swim," immediately to be gobbled up by the waiting shark). They had a lot of nerve calling this film "Deep Blood" since you hardly see any, just cloudy water. The actors handle their cliched roles like they're all thumbs, and there is even a hilarious subplot involving a greasy rocker-type bad boy who threatens our goody-goody heroes, then turns good in the end to help kill the shark.

It took me a really long time to find this film, it is rather obscure, so I don't think there's any danger of too many people wasting their time on this. However, if you should be lured into it...don't say you weren't warned!


I like to think of myself as a bad movie connoisseur. I like to think that the films most people label as the worst of all time I can easily withstand.

But...there are exceptions. I can only recall three movies I have had the misfortune to see that I have repeatedly used the fast-forward button for large chunks of the story. Those movies are The Mighty Gorga, Night of the Seagulls, and this little crap, Deep Blood.

In the world of Jaws ripoffs, this falls off the scale. Deep Blood doesn't have the realistic storyline of the original Crocodile, nor the incredible effects of The Sea Serpent, nor the commentary of Tintorera. No, instead we are treated to a handful of teens from any random failed '80s public access sitcom battling bullies and the local sheriff.

Shark attacks are realized by quick cuts of documentary footage with actors thrashing about in the water, occasionally with a bit of what appears to be orange-ish paint thrown into the water. Not a minute of original shark footage exists in this celluloid waste dump.

Normally, I, or somebody like me, would read a dismal review like this one and say "cool, I gotta find a copy of this!" That's the same thought I had when I read another viewer's review on this very site. How wrong I was.

So...from one bad movie fan to another...let this collect dust on the shelf...grab Up From the Depths or The Great Alligator instead to satisfy your need for something evil lurking in the water.


It's amazing that such a cliche-ridden yuppie angst film actually got made in the first place. The characters are so weak, and the acting so uninspired, that it's impossible to care about any of them-- especially Brooke Shields. The temptation to fast forward through the slow parts is almost irresistible. If you like this genre, you'd be better off renting "Singles," or "Bodies, Rest & Motion."


Brooke Shields -- in a departure from her "Suddenly Susan" duties -- plays a bitter divorcee who embroils three girlfriends in a "girls only" weekend in Palm Springs. The problem: Brooke is "unattached" and on the prowl, while her friends are all involved. Hence the title implications and emotional backlash their "amoral" weekend causes.

Despite a few laughs generated by Dan Cortese ("Victoria's Closet") and MTV "relationship authorities" Adam Corolla and Dr. Drew Pinsky, this is somber stuff for women only. D.B. Sweeney, Virginia Madsen and Jon Polito co-star.


I was pleasantly surprised with this one. It's actually quite interesting and engaging. The cast is strong, even Dan Cortese. Brooke Shields has come into her own as an actress. Black and White must have really set her free, 'cause I have never seen her in this much command playing a conventional character. If marketed right, could be a medium-size hit.


I loved this movie 10 years ago when I was about 16 years old. My biggest mistake was to watch it again, 10 years later. It's not the worst "I-wanna-be-a-pilot" movies ever, but it has so many flaws in it that you can hardly overlook them.

Queen's "One Vision" (along with the rest of the soundtrack) makes this film better than the average patriotic nonsense you usually get to see ;)

[****------]


I wrote spoiler alert, but there's not really much that can be spoiled. It's like spoiling rotten meat. This movie is probably the worst I've ever seen. Not because of the actors or the special effects, but because of the sheer number of mistakes, both factual and physical. First of all, the MIGs aren't actually MIGs at all. They're Mirages, and they're French. And how the heck can Doug's dad withstand the maneuvers his son makes to fight off the "MIGs" without a g-suit? And why would Chappy try to board his plane without a g-suit? And how could Doug defeat the enemy pilot ace with such ease? Anyway, I did not like this movie. And the worst part is that it has 3 sequels, the latest one from as late as 1995. Now that's scary.


as a retired USAF MSG (aircraft maint. spec), this has got to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. the fact that a teenager could ever get on the flight-line, much less get into an f-16 is ludicrous. the military spends millions on each pilot to make them the best in the world and this movie makes the air force and all its members seem stupid at best. yes, i know it is only a movie but it conveys a message to the younger folks that we are all idiots, and believe me, we are not. the logistics involved in setting up any type of mission are highly involved, even in the eighties, military computers were too secure to hack by any teenager, and the other flaws in this movie make peter pan more believable. sorry, to me, this movie has no entertainment value at all.


It's hard to believe that a movie this bad wasn't produced once, but four times! Most movies require a certain `suspension of reality' to enjoy, but this one takes it just too far. The basic scenario is an Air Force pilot who is shot down over a `Middle Eastern' country. The US government drags its feet in recovering him, leading the Pilot's son (Doug Masters) to attempt a rescue mission.

The problem I have with the movie is that it depicts the US Air Force as one colossal joke. In the movie you'll find that Doug and his friends on the air base manage to secure two F-16's, all the munitions, the fuel, the Intel for the mission, and so on. Security on this base seems to be a joke. Nobody seems to have a problem that a sixteen-year-old kid is fully qualified to pilot an F-16!

If that wasn't enough, you would think the producers would at least attempt to get the munitions right, since people like to see things `blow up'. Not so! Several times in the movie, Doug fires off AIM-9 Missiles on ground targets. AIM stands for `Air Intercept Missile', meaning a weapon used to strike targets in the AIR. He also fires off 15-20 missiles, where the maximum an F-16 can hold is 6 AIM-9's. The movie also lacks continuity. You'll see the aircraft configured with one set of munitions, and in the next scene, it has a totally different munitions package. Also, 20MM doesn't just completely destroy anything it touches! An F-16 will hold 500 rounds of 20MM, and it's mostly used for self-defense.

I could go on forever with plot holes, flaws, and outright wrong information from the movie, but I won't bore you. If you're in the mood to see a good Air Force movie, your choices are rather slim. Most military movies deal either with the Army, Navy or Marines. Until Hollywood can come up with an Air Force movie on the lines of `Saving Private Ryan' or `A Few Good Men', we'll be forced to watch movies like the `Iron Eagle' series.


This movie is the proverbial 80s flick that shows the viewer that as long as he or she tries at something, they can be better than the pros. The main character, Doug, showed off his skills in flying a Cessna aircraft, which somehow equated to being fully capable of flying a jet aircraft and being able to kill people. We all would like to have a few million dollars to play with... maybe make a good investment, donate, buy a few things, but the directors of this movie decided to make Iron Eagle... not once... not twice... not even three times; yes, four times. The thing to look most forward to are the multitude 'hollywood endings' in this movie. Just when you think the movie is going to end after a cheesy end sequence, there's another cheesy end sequence. Then another. Definitely a movie one must watch to believe... and maybe own just to remind oneself of how awesome the 80s must have been.


I have rarely laughed so hard at a movie. Notice that I laughed AT Iron Eagle, not WITH it, because this is probably the stupidest film I have ever seen (with the obvious exception of sci-fi monstrosity CyberTracker). You should also remember that this film is not a comedy!

Even overlooking the preposterous plot (the idea that a 16-year-old could walk into a US Air Force base, steal an F-16, fly to the Middle East and kill about a thousand people without anyone noticing is beyond belief), the film is full of ridiculous action scenes that make little or no sense. For example, at various points, Doug Masters uses a machine-gun on his plane to shoot a steel girder, a control tower, and a tent. All of these things explode in a massive fireball. Why? The enemy aircraft also explode in a strange way reminiscent of a paper aeroplane being blown up with a firework.

On the plus side, I did actually enjoy this film. Admittedly not in the way the makers probably wanted it to be enjoyed, but all the same I laughed at it and later bought the DVD. It's also improved by the awesome presence of David Suchet as the evil terrorist leader (maybe you'll recall him as mustachioed Belgian detective Poirot?) Overall, then, the film is a laugh and a light-hearted alternative to more serious fighter-plane movies like Top Gun. Even if it is just as subtly homo-erotic (check out the man-hug between Doug and Chappy. Something's going on between 'em!)


Don't bother to check for logic. There is none. But on the other hand, there are MANY really great movies that totally lack logic, so why bother?

I both like and dislike this film. I like it because the action sequences in the air are really great, you get to see a lot of dogfighting. I also like the F-16, which is a very cool plane.

But there are just too many goofs to make me really enjoy it. I guess it's not fair to wish for SOME sort of continuity, as it is hard to make a really good fighter film - but I also think there should be some sense of reason.

And I have a question: do they fly from California to the Middle East in F-16s without air refueling? I'd like to see that happening.


I Liked this move when I was a kid, but now that I'm older I can see how absurd the plot really is. In case you didn't read the earlier reviews it's about a teenager and an Air Force Colonel who steal two fully loaded F-16s to rescue said teenager's dad.

It does have some nice aerial stunts, even if the dialog accompanying then is basically teckno babel.

Some unintentional humor in the edited for TV version. When the hero's dad is being held by Iran, err I mean an unnamed country, and his captors ask him for a confession (relating to why he's being held, don't worry about exactly why, or what they want him to confuse to.) he says "Tell him he can take my confession and shove it down his throat.". However his lips and, more importunely, his gesture make it clear what motion, and part of the anatomy, he was really thinking of.


A teen-age boy, who is not in the military and has not trained to be a jet pilot, takes off for a foreign country to rescue his dad. If this is not ridiculous enough, he talks a Colonel in the Air Force into helping him get his hands on a jet [wow!]. To make the picture even more absurd, the Colonel risks his career and life by giving the spunky lad some hands on aid. They not only don't make Colonels like this anymore, but they never did. This sappy, corny film should be tossed into the air and blown away by a MIG.


I remember watching this for the first time in the 80's as a teen. Man, I've read the reviews on this trash and I find myself astonished by the voting. This movie does not deserve four stars!!! This movie is NOT better than Topgun. Topgun has its own problems; don't get me wrong. This movie should be banned just for its own stupidity. So many stereotypes, so many loop holes, so MUCH poor dialog. I cannot think of one redeeming quality of this vomit. This is not action/adventure. This is a bad joke on film. Kinda like watching Plan 9 with stock F-16 footage. This movie not only defies logic and common sense within the context of a military setting, it sends a disturbing message. The military is not going to save your dad from the imminent evil of the middle east b*****ds. So go out there and hijack a multi-million dollar weapon and blast him out of the sinister clutches of the backwards, Anti-American Arabs. Cuz you can't reason with those animals. This is a Bruckheimer flick without a budget. Bland direction, weak acting, lame music, idiotic plot, equals...Iron Eagle.


...But it definitely still only deserves 4/10 stars and no more. A moronic dumb kid's father is a fighter pilot who gets shot down by some Arab country. They never name the country in the movie, its really ridiculous, they just vaguely refer to some Arab nation, this movie is really ignorant like that. But Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds is in here, he is friends with the main character Doug Masters. Well, Doug Masters, who lives on an Air Force base, his father is an air force pilot, yet he fails to get into the air force academy, conceives of a plot (with help from his retarded friends) to steal two jets and go rescue his father. Yea, exactly - this is One of the Greatest Films Ever Made!!! Louis Gossett Jr is fantastic in his role. You can tell he basically wanted to smack the hell out of Doug Masters the whole movie. Well anyway, you can probably guess how the plot ends, I can't believe they made 3 sequels to this movie.


Without actually giving away my age, I saw this for the first time over 20 years ago when it first came out on video (maybe it was a beta tape??) and I was old enough to drink (barely) and perhaps I had had a few because I remember thinking how great this movie was! I have since seen it sober and have to admit it is a pretty bad film. As mentioned in other posts the plot is absolutely ridiculous and the poor acting just makes it worse. It's a poor attempt to fantasize that teenagers too, can be "Mavericks" (although I am surprised to find out it actually was to be released the same time (aprox) as "Top Gun", and not actually meant to be a poor imitation.) But for all it's worth - I do find myself watching it if it's on and I have the time. It's one of those movies you watch because it's just so ridiculous and tries so desperately to take itself seriously. Like that other "great' film - "Moment by Moment" with John Travolta and Lily Tomlin....don't get me started on that one!


I still can't belive Louis Gossett Jr. agreed to appear in this film. Everything about this move feels artificial, forced, and contrived. The air sequences are flat. The enemy characters seem like puppets. This is just a poor excuse of a movie. At least Top Gun had air sequences that looked good (the external shots anyway). The songs by Queen are cool, though. Rent Midway instead.


OK, the very idea is ludicrous.

1. Kids don't own planes 2. Kids don't race planes with dirtbikes 3. It made the Air Force look like total idiots 4. The kids father would not jeopardize his entire career to allow his boy to joyride with him 5. Neither would a reserve colonel

The sequels, I am sure were worse than this tripe. The soundtrack is about the only redeeming quality of this waste of celluloid. I am sorry but I just don't understand why in the world anyone would write direct and produce such unbelevable junk. The Iranian Air Force is lucky to filtch a couple parts for an ageing F-14, and this kid wrangles not 1 but 2 fully loaded and fueled F-16s? Gimme a break.


Jean-Hugh Anglade is excellent as the teenaged boy who wants to be a whore to please the man he loves, but the rest of this film is so bad--acting, writing, cinematography, and everything else--that Anglade's performance is wasted. Sad to see so fine an actor in such a garbage flick.


According to the blurb on the back of the DVD case; Jonothan Ross 'laughed until a little bit of wee came out'. I suspect that that has more to do with his being full of it.

I never watched the series for one reason or another, so maybe I'm missing some essential cues. As to this movie; I watched the first 45 minutes or so. I laughed once, smiled once, then reached for the newspaper whilst waiting for something else entertaining to happen. Nothing did.

Evidently intended to be a surreal spoof upon life in the post-Python, gross-humour style, this one falls absolutely flat. There's been a host of comedy series on television in the last few years, not the least of which were 'Bottom', 'The Fast Show' 'The Vicar Of Dibley' and 'Father Ted', each one engaging a group of bizarre but hilarious characters and sketches. Any one of these could knock this crap into a cocked hat.

If the series was anything like this movie; I'm surprised they got the funding. Happily it was one of those £2 Tesco bran-tub purchases and is now in the local charity shop.

The moral of the story is; don't believe the pundits, never pay top dollar.


This film was okay, but like most TV series it would of been better if it just made for television. The best and most loved characters only had five minute roles, whilst the three mediocre characters were all the way through the film.

Unlike most British movies that are based on television series, this film does kick off and it seems to be on to a winner, but the pace suddenly stops when the three mediocre characters are in the real world waiting to capture the three comedians.

The film then doesn't go anywhere when Hillary in a room with the captured Steve, Lipp masquerading as Steve, and Geoff somehow writing himself in to the Medieval times. Which made me think 'hang on? How come he doesn't need a key to enter in to that world unlike the Royston Vasey characters? The medieval scene was okay but Monty Python did it a lot better and of course funnier, with cameos from Peter Kay and Simon Pegg, both didn't say anything funny, Kay had a line and Pegg just sat up on wall looking bored.

What also grated me was that they seem to forget what happened in the previous episodes such as Hillary escaped to the Caribbean in the television in series 2, but in the film he's escaped from prison, and also Lipp is a paedophile vampire which wasn't mentioned at all in the movie, which was also quite disturbing when he's left alone looking after the children.

There were lots of plot holes and unexplained situations such as how did Geoff and the Dark One escape from the Medieval times back in to Royston Vasey? Like Series 3 it started of good but as the film progressed, it slowly went downhill and had a very weak predictable ending.

They would of been better off doing what Monty Python did and remade all their best and classic sketches from Series 1-3 and the Christmas special, and turned that in to a film which would of re-introduced the characters to a whole new audience, who can't be asked to watch the series or to tight to buy the DVDs.

Best advice is save your money and wait till it's on television..... Where it belongs.


Had the League been unknowns pitching this script, the backers would simply have turned around and said "no - you're not having the money - this is dreadful". As a fan of the League of Gentlemen, this is their poorest outing to date. Not particularly funny, not particularly entertaining, there are few laugh out loud moments. They do exist, but they are few and far between. I felt the format was tired and really dragging. The film refers to the writers being bored of the characters and it shows. As for being a film. I felt the Xmas special had better production value; the FX are generally pretty poor and it is clearly obvious that they didn't film in the original Royston Vasey (they filmed this on the cheap in Ireland). The musical score is weak and the dialogue is terrible. Also, the accents of the characters were largely off from their TV equivalents. Tubs and Edward, much underused (again), just didn't sound like themselves. Disappointing really, because I was hoping for something far more entertaining. This really was the League's equivalent of the 1970s comedies where the cast go to Spain...


I watched this film in the theater in Edinbourgh along with 3 other Americans and our friend from Manchester and we all thought this was a waste of time. We would have much rather spent an extra hour to watch vapid dialog of Star wars III that was playing down the hall than all of this.

Opening with one of the worst jokes I've ever seen committed to celluloid on the big screen, it did not take off with a bang. throughout the movie we got the feeling that the jokes were just trying too hard, the writers thought about the setup so much that you could see the joke coming 2 minutes beforehand, then when it came it was so lackluster that you couldn't even smile; I cite the giraffe cum-ming as a prime example.

The plot itself makes for some interesting thoughts in my mind, which entertained me much more than what was going on on the screen. I think a lot more could have been done with that angle (the two different worlds, the fish-out-of-water experience of the characters, the confusion and surprise as people try to comprehend and distinguish the characters and writers from each other.) But too much time is wasted with pushing this painful plot to the end with as much 'bizarre' and 'goof' as is humanly possible.

And to say the 16th century characters show any extra talent from the writers is an insult to intelligent writers and editors who possibly could have made this film a worthy 40 minute afterthought; but no, its a full length torture film of unfunniness.

As we were leaving the theater, which had VERY little laughing inside it, I overheard the young hip electro-clash British couple behind me saying "That was rather good wasn't it. You never really knew what was coming next." And the girl responding "yeah, quite surprising." and that was it. If this is what is meant to get out of British people from watching a comedy: no laughing for 90 minutes but a teeny bit of communication between two lovers at the end, then this film succeeded. But i have more belief in British life than that.

I've not not-laughed so hard at a comedy film since American Pie II.


I am a massive fan of the LoG. I thought the first two series provided some of the best comedy this country has ever seen and the third series, though different, was wonderfully dark and imaginative. The thought of seeing Tubbs, Edward and Briss on the big screen made July 3 something to wait for. Yet, somewhere, it all went horribly wrong. The writers had no story and no real ideas. The part set in old England showed the glimmers of genius that we know the League are capable of but these scenes did not fit well with the film. Geoff provided the best of too few, largely poor jokes and Lipp and Briss's performances were big let-downs. If you love the League, save yourself the time and money and watch episodes from the TV series again. And again. A massive disappointment.


Don't get me wrong, I love the TV series of League Of Gentlemen. It was funny, twisted and completely inspired. I was looking forward to the movie, the premise was interesting and I looked forward to see what they had done with the characters and where the bizarre storyline would take them.

It was a total disappointment, for starters the three weakest characters in the series were the leads and it only contained bit parts for the other characters (why not pick mickey & Pauline, papa Lazaro or tubs and Edward for the main parts!?). It was unfunny throughout, half baked gags and poor slapstick humour.

The real clincher was the plain ridiculous period drama / comedy (and i will use the word comedy loosely). It distracted from the main storyline and felt awkward, not to mention painfully unfunny. The direction of the movie is appalling, and often feels that the lines were delivered by the characters within one take. Very rushed.

Then - the three headed Plasticine-esquire monster. What the hell was all that about? plain ridiculous, it felt like the League of gentlemen tagged it on at the end.

All in all I found myself looking at my watch and sighing with disappointment throughout my experience of the film. What was once an amazing Television series has been tainted by a terribly unfunny film.

If i could give it 0 out of 10 i would. Do not waste your money seeing this.


Am i right in thinking i went to see the same film as everyone else .. this film was terrible. I'm a fan of all 3 series of the league of gentelmen and have always respected the originality of the writers, even when the format changed in series 3. This film however was a blatant half effort, the plot was extremely poor having the characters going into the real world made this film see more like the last action hero. There was about 5 moments in the film that got a mild chuckle but the rest of the time i was wishing it would end. This would have been better as a 10 minute short on the DVD .. it was more of an explanation of what they planned to do, and looked like some of the writers disagreed on the fate of the characters and they made a joke of this by killing him off in the first 30 minutes.

If your a true fan of the league of gentlemens ability to stay fresh then you'll hate this film. If you only watch it cause there was nothing better on TV then u'll love it.

someone back me up !!


It became apparent in the first 25 mins of watching this that the writers really wanted to make a feature length film and they probably certainly enjoyed the whole process, but then seemed to forget the fact that it needed a decent plot! If the best they could do was have 3 of the dullest characters enter the real world and have 'all sorts of amusing capers' then they should have left well alone! I didn't laugh once, and that whole "Adventures of Baron Munchausen/Time Bandits" thing going on in the middle was very, very poor! Convaluted, contrived and very loose. It just seemed like a whistle stop tour of anything they thought 'might' work just to drag it out to a feature.

Full of holes eg - the Royston Vasey characters needed the writers to carry on writing in order to save them, yet Jeff managed to write himself into the sub-story/time-filling William and Mary and era. If he could do this then why didn't they just carry on writing Royston themselves - duh?? And Herr Lipp's audition? What was that for? I mean what was the point? He did it, and we heard nothing else whatsoever about it?

My main point is, that while I loved the series, this was an ill thought out, seemingly rushed project. Put it this way, the plot was so poor that if we didn't already know the characters (and as a fan I had a certain loyalty to carry on watching), and we relied solely on the the story itself, this would have fallen flat on its face! At best it would have gone straight to video, and at worst would never have been made in the first place! Or maybe that should be the other way round?? Truly dreadful....


If you watched the series and love the league as I do then prepare to be disappointed. I went to the cinema with a group of die-hard league fans and we were all in agreement that this film wasn't as funny or dark as the three series before. In my personal opinion it was a money spinner. The writing was contrived and the plot confused - no not confusing just confused with what it was trying to do. It was self indulgence of the worst kind from writers who are far more talented than my pitiful criticisms. I hope the league at least can be honest enough with themselves and acknowledge this film as being inferior to the superb three series. I will not be buying it despite owning most of the league memorabilia.


As a massive fan of the three TV series, I was very interested to learn that LoG were moving onto the big screen. In my more honest moments though, I had my doubts about the likely success of the concept, and whether the writers would be able to sustain the high level of wit, comedy and horror that infuse the original series.

Unfortunately my fears were not unfounded, and the film was a huge disappointment. I struggle to understand the other comments on this site. Obviously people are entitled to their opinions, but the guys I watched it with, all agree with me, and they are just as big fans as I am.

The acting lacked conviction, but they are so good that even when not at their best, they are still highly watchable. The main problem was the plot - and the script. There were a few laughs, but not enough, a few moments of disgust, but not enough. Worst of all was the feeling of emptiness after walking out of the cinema. So rarely have I felt so utterly uninspired by a film and so unmotivated to discuss it with others.

I write this comment as a warning to other League fans - get a wide range of opinion on this film before going to see it. If you love League, you might be able to convince yourself that they didn't totally mess up their move to cinema. If you can't convince yourself of this, then you will have tarnished in your mind the otherwise spotless genius that exemplifies the TV series.

LoG at the cinema? More like log. (or little brown fish).


This review took longer to write than I took to watch this film. It's just plain bad. The plot is terrible in comparison to the TV shows. It is flat, unfunny and boring.

It is clear that the LoG ran out of ideas long before this film was green lit. Viewers should read this as an example of not knowing when to stop.

Bad editing, bad music, bad acting. Zero dynamism, zilch chemistry.

A film that doesn't know what it is, made without any love to some mysterious end that leaves you depressed and feeling kind of angry that so much money was wasted.

The LoG obviously were made an offer they couldn't refuse, or perhaps their egos have simply got the better of them. It's a bleak marketing push that perhaps would have been better when the LoG were fresher and more inspired.

I however, did know when to stop, and did.

Please! Someone try to convince me of this film's finer points!


very disappointing and incoherent - every now and then a germ of an idea would develop and be discarded in the next line - it had the feel of a film that had been cut and re-cut to try and make it work - I was bored and distracted all the way through, and I'm speaking as a huge fan of the series. Many of the jokes were unoriginal and tired, The medieval section went on far too long and the quality of acting was very poor - some on the tiny guest spots, like Simon Peg and Liam Cunningham did more in their alloted 30 secs than the main cast did in 90 Min's.

It's a shame, really.

The only really interesting thing was getting a look inside the little shed on Soho Square - which is something everyone who is ever in that part of London wonders about.


please re-watch all 3 series and do not go see this movie, the trailer is completely misleading and the 3 weakest characters in the series stretch a badly thought out 25min TV episode into the most painful 2hrs of my life, truly an awful film. tubbs and edward are in it for a few mins, micky has 1 line, and her lipp just reels out the same tired old puns, also mr briss's accent just changes about 5 times in the film tons of badly acted extras, and really a few laughs that they seem to recycle for 2 hrs i honestly feel this series has been completely ruined by this god-awful piece of crap..........batman and robin all is forgiven


I just don't get these reviews! I can't help thinking they are written by the sort of L.O.G fan who would worship anything they ever do without questioning whether it is actually any good.

I'm a massive fan of the programme but thought this film was a pointless project. I could forgive the ridiculous plot if I had come out of the cinema having laughed more than twice. At one point, I thought it might just me before I realised hardly any laughs were minting from the rest of audience.

I wasn't expecting much of a plot (very few TV comedies stand up to being stretched over 90 minutes) but thought the odd bit of classic L.O.G dialogue or visual joke (like at the start of each programme) would carry a film. After 5 minutes of the 17th Century plot, I was begging for it to end (little did I know it would carry on for the rest of the film). It just wasn't funny.

I was just massively disappointed and can't see history being too kind to it, even if a few die-hard fans write enthusiastic reviews.


***May contain spoilers***

I had very high expectations for this film, based on the trailer. I knew a bit about the real Ed Gein, so I figured this was a medium-budget Hollywood version of the real events. Man was I wrong.

First, the writing apparently came from an eight-grader who barely knew anything about Ed's history and cranked out the script in about 20 minutes. The movie completely passes over the most interesting facets of Ed and his relationship with his mother (not to mention what the real police found in his house) and decides to focus primarily on the young deputy who looks like he just wandered onto the set. Likewise, all of the male characters seem to be ad-libbing their dialog throughout the entire movie. I'm not exaggerating.

Don't even get me started with the historical goofs in this movie. Seriously, who the hell directed this? This movie is supposed to take place around 1957, but the cops are carrying modern side-handled batons, some of the stuff in the hardware store look like they came from Lowes, and when the cop gets to a payphone he dials 9-1-1 (didn't exist back then). Also, Ed was a small guy, scary like Anthony Perkins' character in Psycho (who was supposedly based on real-life Ed), not this burly dude who ended up looking way too much like the bad guy in Men In Black.

Another thing that really bugged me was the appearance that the makers of this film shot the whole thing in an abandoned, 3 building set. Because of the "clever" camera angles, you never see any actual town, and the interior of the sets looked like old, long-abandoned shacks. Pop a cash register on a saw-horse and bam!--instant hardware store.

I'm usually pretty forgiving of low-budget horror films, but this one just begs for it. All you had to do was include most of the real events (even embellish them!), pay five good actors instead of 15 crappy ones, and for Pete's sake take 5 minutes and think about the time period once in a while. My advice: Google Ed Gein, you'll be far more entertained.


I stopped watching this film half way through. It was just terrible! Boring, contrived subplots. A complete lack of the pathos seen in Norman Bates, Buffalo Bill, or Steve Railsback's portrayal of Ed Gein. A movie doesn't have to be historically accurate, but the true story of Ed Gein is so much more interesting than this third-rate melodrama that was completely made up for no good reason! Ed Gein as portrayed by Kane Hodder is a cartoon sadist. The attempts to show the trauma inflicted on him by his mother are just weak exercises in recycled style. And this movie wanted to be stylish, but it even screwed that up. Fortunately, there is a better film of this story. 2001's Ed Gein told the story efficiently, and offered a few real chills as we watched a sick man not in control of himself. Steve Railsback, who played Ed Gein that time, was already famous for memorably portraying another famous serial killer: Charles Manson. His Ed had pathos. His film is the one to see. Avoid this mess.


This was, without a doubt, the worse horror movie I have ever seen.... Forget the fact that the story had little to do with the facts of Ed Gein... Ed Gein's story is horrific & this movie ignored the facts and strayed way off course. Acting, on all levels, was pathetic. Story, again, for some unknown reason didn't go into the horrific facts. Could have been so scary if it would have stuck to the facts. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? TERRIBLE MOVIE! Steve Railsback version was much, much better. Don't waste a penny on this terribly made flick... And, why ignore the reality of the horrific events? That alone would make for a great story. Man, makes you wonder why this would ever be approved for release. Why spend so much money on a movie that will never make a penny (except for my wasted $5...


What a waste of time to watch this movie. Poor picture quality, poor sound, poor acting and definitely not based on actual facts. The deputy's "girlfriend" did so much overacting, as did the sheriff, that it was more comedy than horror. The deputy tries to make an emergency phone call by dialing 911...PROBLEM...in 1957 that emergency number was not in existence. That is just one example of glaring inconsistencies.

The "scary" aspect was way underdone. Just did not come across as horrific.

I did think that the actor playing Gein did the most admirable acting job in the whole movie. I could well see mental disturbances in his character portrayal.

Sorry...this one just does NOT get it!!


This movie was really bad. First they didn't even follow the facts for it. Half of the movie was made up and it was more about the deputy whose mother was one of Ed Gein's victims. The acting was horrible, except for the guy playing Ed Gein, but its not hard to mess up playing a weird guy. though i think it was horrible i gave it a three because they started it off with actual crime photos. that was the best part of the movie. As soon as the introduction of the movie was finished the movie went downhill. The writer of this movie tried to spice it up, but it didn't need to be. The story of Ed Gein is interesting enough without falsifying information.


There are many reasons I'm not a fan of fact based films, but more than any other is how the filmmakers give themselves creative license over the story. If they have such great imaginations then why not use that talent to make something original? Otherwise stick to the facts. This could have been an okay movie if only they had done just that. Ed Gein was an insanely frightening human being. It's been said if you were to take Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Leatherface, wrap them into one person, Ed Gein would still be sicker/scarier. So why can't someone make a movie about him that can convey this? When will they figure out that reality is ultimately scarier than fiction?

I've read books and watched news programs about him and, now I'm not a screenwriter or anything, but I believe there's enough documentation on Gein that it shouldn't take a whole lot to write a story about all these atrocities he committed without creating murders that had never even been documented. I'm aware that he was only found guilty of 2 murders but with all the evidence found in his home and barn there should have been plenty of other ways to put this film together rather than using the deputy's relationship with his Mother, and girlfriend as filler, and far too much of it.

I guess what I'm wondering is this... why at the end of the movie did I know more about the supporting characters than I did about Ed Gein? Why didn't we get to know his Mother, Father and brother and the relationships between them... what made him the psychopath he was... what abuse he endured as a child that may have contributed to the man he became? Instead, the only thing we got of his childhood were flashes of him as a little boy... running.

In the end I give it 4/10 stars. Thats 2 for the gore and 2 for Kane Hodder. Even though it was kind of bad casting in my opinion, considering Gein was a smallish man, and possibly effeminate and Hodder is anything but small and nowhere near what I would consider feminine. Maybe I was just excited because he was Jason Voorhees.


With a catchy title like the Butcher of Plainfield this Ed Gein variation and Kane Hodder playing him will no doubt fly off the shelves for a couple of weeks.Most viewers will be bored silly with this latest take on the life of Ed Gien.

The movie focuses on Ed's rampage and gives us a(few)glimpses into his Psycosis and dwelling in Plainfeild.Its these scenes that give the movie a much needed jolt.

What ruins this is the constant focus on other characters lives and focuses less on Eds.Big mistake here.

Kane Hodder is a strange choice to play Gein,but He does pull it off quite well,and deserves more acting credits than he gets these days.Prascilla Barnes and Micahel Barryman also show up.

3/10


I have watched this movie quite bemused. I am not sure whether it was attempting to be a horror gore fest in a Rob Zombie type affair or an exploration of real events.

In either case it missed its mark. It's not particularly historically accurate with characters being chopped and changed for the sake of the story.

The performances were neither compelling nor bad.

For me, I would have preferred a more psychological approach and this film could easily have gone down this route without spoiling the overall effect.


Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield is set in the small American town of Plainfield in Wisconsin during 1957 where loner Ed Gein (Kane Hodder) lives by himself on a farm after the death if his mother & brother. The local police have had a spate of grave robberies to deal with & when local barmaid Sue Layton (Ceia Coley) suspicions grow that something nasty is going on. Ed is a violent sexually deviant man who kidnaps girls & murders them, will the police figure the truth out in time to save Erica (Adrienne Frantz) the Sheriff's (Timothy Oman) daughter...

Written, produced & directed by Michael Feifer this was an attempt to base a horror film around the true events surrounding notorious serial killer Ed Gein & turns out to be pretty crap. The real life Ed Gein was only ever convicted of two murders & died in 1984 but several films have been inspired by him including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Deranged (1974) & Ed Gein (2000) with this fairly recent addition possibly being the worst Gein film ever. Even though Ed Gein was real next to nothing in this film is based on fact, Gein never had an accomplice, none of his victims were related to any of the investigating officers, there was no car crash victim, although Gein keeps his name other people have had name changes, the kidnapping & murder of the two women depicted here actually happened four years apart in reality but in this film it happens over the course of a couple of days & while here Gein is shown as a large hulking muscular man in reality he was a scrawny, thin, old & quite short. As a factual drama Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield is worthless & as pure entertainment it's no better with a deadly dull pace & feel to it, the character's are all boring & when he isn't killing someone Gein is shown working or just walking around & it's very dull. There's no suspense because we know who the killer is & it's just a tedious wait until he gets caught at the end. There is no real attempt to get into Gein's mind with the makers giving him no more motivation than him occasionally having hallucinations of his domineering mother.

There isn't much gore here, there's a scene with a woman hanging on a meat-hook, there's a really badly edited scene of Gein cutting a leg off, there's the usual jars of bodily organs & skulls lying around as well as a bit of blood but there's really not much here to get excited about. The film was obviously processed to bleach a lot of the colour out of the picture as it's not far off black and white at times, I personally think the lack of colour makes it even duller to sit through.

With a supposed budget of about $1,500,000 I can't really see where the money went in a very forgettable production. Although set in Wisconsin this was filmed in California. Kane Hodder is all wrong for the role of Ed Gein, just from a physical point of view Hodder doesn't look even remotely like Gein & he gives a pretty poor performance to as he just stares at the camera a lot making silly faces.

Ed Gein: The BUtcher of Plainfield is crap & it's as simple & straightforward as that. As either a factual drama or pure exploitation entertainment this is total tripe from start to finish with nothing to recommend it.


I would hate to have anyone watch this "inspired by a true story" movie and draw any conclusions about the true event. Few things they did get right were overshadowed by the things that were just not true. Ed Gein never dragged anyone behind a car, never met up with anyone at the graveyard and killed them, no proof he returned body parts to the graveyard. The things he did were awful enough, why try to make it worse?

This movie ranks among my 10 worst wastes of eye strain. "In the Light of the Moon" is a much better film on the subject, it is more factual and the acting is superior in contrast to this one.


I did a review for this director's fictional recreation about BTK. I had also seen this movie and it was terrible. Please save your money and time. This movie was terrible and this director is untalented. I do not understand how he is funding these movies. They are horrible. I have decided to make sure that I check who the writer, director, and producer are, and if this director's name pops up I will not waste my money. There is nothing worse than renting a movie on a Friday night, making the popcorn, and then realizing you have been duped by creative art on the front of the movie box. Stay away. So I guess I should make up some stuff to fill in the lines? I have always checked IMDb for reviews before, but I think I will not anymore. This is ridiculous. I have been corrected in my reviews far too many times. Not enough lines? You may cancel my account. Your site is a pain.


The story of Ed Gein is a disturbing and terrifying story. Ed was truly a messed up character and his legacy went on to inspire such 'greats' as The Tooth Fairy, Norman Bates, and Leatherface. How is it then that such a fascinating man has inspired such a boring melodramatic piece of drivel?? Ed Gein made belts out of nipples, bowls out of skulls, lamps out of skin, danced around under the moon in suits of human skin. None of this made it into the movie because they needed to give us a fictitious story of a ridiculously awful deputy and his rather homely, sex-starved girlfriend. This movie seemed to go out of its way to falsify history. What baffles me is that most movies stray from the path of truth to exaggerate history; this one seems to do it to minimize it. I just don't get it.


Old Ed was active back in the late 1950's He was apprehended 16 November 1957. The PR-24 Police Baton was invented in 1974. Yet the cops in the movie are all carrying the PR 24. Back then it would have been a standard "billy club" not the side handled PR 24. Sheeze, if you are gonna make movies do your research and get it right. Also it makes no mention of Ed's usage of the bodies. He tanned most of the skins and made various articles including a lampshade, a belt and several masks. He also had a large selection of "shrunken heads" that several local children knew about as he often babysat for them. He was found incompetent and committed to the Central State Hospital for the criminally insane.