This IS the worst movie I have ever seen, as well as, the worst that I will probably EVER see. I see no need to rehash what all the others have said previously, just be forewarned...

This IS NOT one of those bad movies you think you want to watch because you want to be able to make fun of it, its just plain BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD.

This movie is the equivalent to having a "pet rock" as your friend. You wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait for something to happen. Unfortunately, it never does. At least with a pet rock you knew what you were getting into. Lion's Gate completely deceives on this bombshell... No...this is a disaster. After watching this film, you would swear George W. Bush had his hands all over the making of this film... yes its that idiotic.

Stay away, unless of course you just want to watch the worst movie of all time. Its probably how Lion's Gate figured it would make some money off this piece of tripe.


Only adding to the chorus of people who deemed this to be 'unredeemable' I will state the following without repeating the obvious FLAWS plainly stated by some of the other commentators: The "film" is shot on video (what type of camera I don't know) but the cameraman had it on AUTOFOCUS(!) all the time, so that any slight movement makes it go In and Out of focus. In many of the scenes the actors themselves go OUT of focus for their scenes. This alone screams "Amateur".

I also noticed that out in the 'middle of the cornfield', you can hear the sound of the gasoline generator that is powering the lights ... loudly.

Also what is with that single lighting source that follows (and many times 'leads' the actors) when they walk around. It looks like a newscaster with that 'on camera light' that follows the people around like a spotlight. There was no 'credit' for lighting design/DP and I know why. The 'filmmakers' saw no need to have someone who actually knew what they were doing lighting this picture (note I didn't say "film"). So be prepared for a SINGLE glaring spotlight as the sole source of 'cinematic lighting' for most of the movie. UGhhh!!!

This is probably the most technically inept production I've ever seen commercially released. I "bought" this title because I like bad cinema. Usually it's so bad that you can laugh at it. This is just so bad that it's unwatchable. Plan Nine from Outer Space is "Citizen Kane" in comparison to this title.


This movie was so bad I don't know where to begin, apparently neither did the filmmakers. It starts off with a guy in his mid thirties to late forties watching TV. The news tells of a corn maze that's open for Halloween. He has a "vision" of God knows what and rushes off the save his kids who are walking into a cornfield maze and are somehow linked to this "vision" How you ask? I don't know, and as I said before neither do the filmmakers. They're simply visions of people's feet. How did he get these "visions"? It's never explained, we're just supposed to go along with it. He enters the maze to find his two daughters who are lost inside, and twice the girls he's looking for walk right past him, one time they actually run into him. What does he do? Does he chase after them? No. He stands there like an idiot calling for them when they just ran past. Do the girls stop? No. They run off then ask "Was that Dad?" Then someone dressed as demon jumps on the "star" (the Dad character) he beats him up in a pathetic fight only to find out he's a worker at the haunted maze. The police are called and after finding the "star" (which is a really bad term to use) they cuff him. They cuff his hands in front of him, so that he can find something to pick the lock with, which he does. First off, anybody who's ever been arrested knows that cops cuff your hands behind your back, and secondly why does this "average guy" seem to know how to pick the lock on handcuffs? Well he eventually gets away from the cops who give up and leave after a the "star's" wife sets off the siren in the police car as a distraction. By the way, it's now night time and all the workers running the maze have seem to have left once the sun went down. Leaving a man who attacked one of their workers and two missing children in the maze. Considering it was a slow night that these are their only customers, why not. Besides the cops apparently have better things to do as well. By the way, the "star" who goes by the name of "Walker", we figure out it's his last name, a name in which his wife even calls him by. Somehow he knows there is something buried in the middle of this cornfield maze and starts digging. I say 'somehow' because I couldn't figure out why he started digging in the first place. He finds a locket, what does it mean? Nothing to anyone who watches this, but to him it's some sort of clue to a crime. Somebody killed their kids in his "vision" and I guess that's what he's going on, real detective work. And by now he knows there's a killer loose in the corn maze, one he somehow knew was there from the start of the film, which is why he's looking for his girls. Every time we see the killer, or rather the killer's feet, we hear a weird robotic sound, like a sci-fi reject toy that changes a persons voice to sound mechanical. Why do we hear this sound? Is it in anyway related to...anything? Again, who knows? Certainly not the filmmakers. The peak of all the bad acting and bad dialog was when "Walker" yells out "Hey you, Mr. Bad Man...I'm gonna get you." Another time his wife is attacked by the "Bad Man" at the entrance to the corn maze, which like I mentioned before is oddly empty of any employees or policemen. The "Bad Man" calls "Walker" on his cell phone to tell him that he plans on killing his wife and kids and him as well. "Walker" can only reply with "Hey. HEY!" before dropping his phone and running off. With no one on the other end to talk to, the killer drops his phone too, he drags the wife a few feet then leaves her alone for the rest of the film, losing the first opportunity to hold true to his treats. If this script wasn't written by a child I'd be surprised. Opps it wasn't. It was written, directed, and produced by the same guy. And not only that, he also did so much of the crappy camera work as well, where we get random shots of feet walking through the muddy maze and meaningless shots of the cornfield, that waste 90% of the film time. In the end "Walker" uses the cuffs to cuff the "Bad Man", who also seems to know how to pick locks with the same metal object that "Walker" had picked it with. Apparently there are lots of small metal objects just laying around this cornfield. But after the killer insists he's still going to kill the kids "Walker" kills the "Bad Man", and everything is right with the world again. Now in reality this makes "Walker" a murderer, he's killed a man who "Supposedly" murdered his own daughters and was trying to kill his. He knows this, not because of proof, but because of his visions. He never found a body, nobody else knows this guy was even in the maze. And the locket? He gives it back to the ghosts of the two dead girls. No proof. So he kills a man without any tangible reason. I can't imagine what the filmmakers were thinking with this one. It must have been a way to cover up a misappropriation of funds for the production company. I would rather watch the Blair Witch Project five times than see this film again. The actors should be ashamed. The director/producer/writer/cameraman should also be ashamed. In fact the entire production company should be ashamed. If there is anyone associated with this film, please reply. What were you thinking?


This is by far the worst ever 'horror' movie, no, make that any movie, I have ever watched. Shame on Block Buster for even carrying this type of crap. I never ask for a refund on any movie, but I think this will be a first.

The movie is so bad that I had to stop after just 15 minutes of watching it.

I had more fun watching any of the fuzzy YouTube movies than watching this piece of dropping.

The marketing dude for this movie must have some type of silver tongue to move this thing into an establishment as Blockbuster.


My spoiler is in my pants because thinking about this movie made me so angry I crapped myself.

Once you finish watching it, you stare at the TV set in confusion and horror. Then, there's a soft tap on your shoulder and a voice hisses, "You will die in seven days." You turn around, and one of your best friends is standing there with a look of absolute hatred for the one that suggested this movie when you were in Blockbuster.

I won't lie: this is the worst movie on the face of the Earth. I saw it with 5 of my friends all 18-year-old guys, and these were our reactions: -One person actually began crying and punching himself -One person screamed and passed out -One person stood up and staggered out the front door to reappear more than an hour later -One person simply blacked out (this one was me) -One person started babbling incoherently, as if he had both cerebral palsy and Touretts' Syndrome -One person went into a sort of catatonic trance and did not respond to our voices for more than twenty minutes

The movie really is that bad. There's one part where the retarded cameraman actually trips (while holding the camera), but the producers decided to leave it in. Seriously, you can hear him grunt and swear when he hits the ground. There's only one special effect, and it's special in the same way that a retarded kid trying to solve a Rubix Cube is special: the camera rotates so that the on-screen action (action, n. Some dumbass lost in a corn field for 80 freaking minutes) does a barrel roll.

Under NO circumstances should it be watched, and the movie itself even warns you of this fact. Do you know what the tagline on the back is? "Some warnings should not be ignored." I honestly think that the release of this movie to the public is a sick practical joke on the producers' part. That's not to say, however, that you should pass it by if you see it at the movie store - it would then sit on the shelf for some other poor sucker to see. Rather, buy every copy of it you can get your hands on and mail them to people that you hate.


Well, shuck me sideways. I haven't seen a home movie this bad since the abysmal 13 SECONDS or HALF CASTE. Someone should take away this guy's Sony Handycam! This movie proves that just because you can make a movie on your camcorder for $20, doesn't necessarily mean you should.

I remember that one of the things that Robert Rodriguez wrote in his book, "Rebel Without a Crew" was that when you set out to make a no budget feature, you have to use whatever assets you have at your disposal. Rodriguez says that you should take an inventory of all the locations and props that you can beg, steal and borrow from your friends. Robert Rodriquez was friends with the Mayor of some town in Mexico, so the Mayor let him shoot all over for free. What you got in EL MARIACHI was a movie that looked like it cost much more than the actual budget.

I'm sure that the director of this movie has a copy of that book, and he took that advice to heart. In this case, he was apparently friends with a guy who owned a cornfield where they put on a haunted house every year. Seems like a pretty good location for a scary movie, but it's hard to keep a cornfield interesting for 90 minutes. Not a single installment of the CHILDREN OF THE CORN series spent more than a few minutes in the cornfield. Hitchcock only spent about ten minutes in one in NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Take a hint, fella... cornfields don't make for riveting cinema. It would have been good if the director would have had more friends with more locations, because this thing gets pretty tedious after the first 15 minutes. This movie looks like it cost about $30. (or whatever it cost in admission to the cornfield maze).

Apparently he couldn't even find anyone to act in his movie, so he cast himself. Big mistake. Here's a thought, if you really want to make a movie, get an actor. So, as far as assets go, it seems like the cornfield maze is the only thing the poor guy had. Maybe he thought that was enough. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I KNOW he thought that was enough because the movie, before it captured the coveted honor of being the sequel to DARK HARVEST, was called simply THE MAIZE: THE MOVIE. Maybe this he's already planning THE MAIZE: THE MUSICAL or even THE MAIZE: THE MINI-SERIES.

Our Jack-Of-All-Trades (and yes, the Master of Nothing part of that saying is definitely appropriate here) plays a psychic dad who can tell when bad things are going to happen. Think of the character from the DEAD ZONE, but not anywhere near as good an actor as Christopher Walken or even Anthony Michael Hall. Psychic Dad has a premonition that his two daughters, who are at the corn maze with mom, are going to be killed. He rushes to save them. From that point on, the whole movie is spent watching Pyschic Dad run around in a cornfield, looking for his two daughters. He finds the two little girl ghosts from THE SHINING, and he helps solve the mystery of their murder.

Shot on a $200 Handycam. The director cast himself. Edited on iMovie. Improvised story. If that's not enough to keep you away from this a-maize-ingly corny catastrophe, consider this as a final warning... The WHOLE MOVIE takes place in a cornfield, boils and ghouls. Here's Ghoulie Guru's tip on how to save some money and still feel like you've seen this movie. Next time you see a cornfield, stop the car. Take a flashlight and go run around in there for like 90 minutes.


My friends and I have often joked about movies being in real-time. But this movie really is... They will literally show 4 minutes strait of nothing but a guy digging in the dirt with his hands. It has no-plot, and an incredible amount of gratuitous screaming. I honestly don't believe that it won an award for it's alleged suspense. If you are like me and saw the first film and loved it for it's horrible acting, accidentally hilarious one liners, and all-around low budget"ness", it won't matter; this is so bad it's bad memories might even rub off and taint any good memories you have of the original. You would be more entertained if you were staring at a blank screen.


This movie was horrendous it was sorta like accidentally watching a gay porn waiting for the girls but they just don't come....I waited for almost 2 hours for the damn scarecrows....they just don't come...instead it's just some dumb ass wandering through a dead cornfield with a camera it's a mix of Blaire witch and some bad episode of the twilight zone. And the best part is that as of October 23 2005 they started filming a sequel please don't be fooled by the box even though it looks exactly the same as the first dark harvest it's not lions gate bought the rights to the Maize:the movie and had the brilliant idea to release it as the sequel to the original dark harvest;which i thought was funny........the only thing they had in common was they were both shot in a cornfield....This Movie WILLLLLL not scare the crop out of you like the first one so just stay away!!!!!


Just above the box i am typing in now, i was required to pick a number between 1 and 10, and rate this feature film. Unfortunately there is no option for a number less than zero, and i have to put something. If i had my choice i would just put nothing, no number, because there exist no digits that express the worthlessness of this movie.

If you do decide to watch this film even after reading all of these horrible reviews, make sure there are no sharp or blunt objects in the area, this will help prevent you from trying to kill yourself in the middle of the film.

I don't know how this film was released to the public, it should be locked up and guarded 24/7 somewhere in Fort Knox. I am angry that this film was even available for me to watch. I feel cheated by humanity, i had no idea humans could be this cruel. Stalin, Saddam and Hitler got nothing on this douche bag Cowell.

Do not be fooled by the movie's cover. 1) There are no scarecrows, no one knows why there is a legit looking scarecrow on the front. 2)None of the characters on the back of case are even in the stinking movie! 3) The tag line says something about "new moon, more victims", there were no frigging victims no one even died. We don't know if the dam cop died, and i'm assuming the killer didn't die because it sounded like he was being hit over the head with a frigging whiffle ball bat.

Do yourself a favor and stay away from this movie, it wasted about 4 hours of my life. That's right four, it took an hour for me to watch it (i fast forwarded thru the 4 minute zooming scenes that reveal nothing in the plot), i stared at the television for about an hour after it was over, contemplating my life and the direction it was heading after watching this crap, and then i began to cry for the next two hours because i know someone out there will unfortunately see this movie and there is nothing i can do to stop it.


This...thing. oh god this thing. i can't even call it a movie. a movie is something that does something. goes somewhere. has some semblance of a plot or SOMETHING. i don't know how i'm doing it. i really don't. first i say dark fields is the worst movie ever. and i thought it was. then pirates of ghost island proved me wrong. and now, third time in a row, another film goes above and beyond the call of duty to prove me wrong.

(sighs) OK. Dark Harvest II: The Maize. lord this is awful. Let me break it down for you. Man senses daughters are in danger through some magical psychic powers he got from his Act II popcorn apparently and races to find them in a corn field. Of course this is the hugest cornfield in all of existence, being the size of the cornfields from Jeepers Creepers, Children of the Corn, and Signs combined. the main character, whose name is Shy (awesome name btw) then runs through a corn field....finds some ghost girls, talks to them, and...runs through a corn field. digs a while...and runs through a corn field. and the incredibly sad thing? i'm really not leaving anything out. That pretty much IS the entire movie. The only thing i may be leaving out is how he gets chased by two policemen who want to arrest him for... i don't know. pretending to be an actor. i didn't care by this point. He gets away and the police are -somethinged- by the killer offscreen. holy crap there's a killer? apparently yes there is as he's introduced nearly 4/5 into the movie. but wait! then he runs away for a while and there's, you guessed it, more running through the corn field and digging. Then there's the ending where he saves his daughters. huzzah.

The biggest problem with this movie is, it's boring. it's INCREDIBLY, INHUMANLY, TREMENDOUSLY boring. I can't explain how atrociously dull this thing is. nothing happens, the characters are as appealing as a root canal, and it's just an hour and a half of NOTHING. the ONLY good thing that came out of this movie was that me and my friend may have found enlightenment due to the near nirvana state this movie put us into after the effects of the drugs in our brain had to kick into overdrive to keep us alive. During the ensuing insanity, i found hugging a wall much more enjoyable and my friend found a new passion for laughing hysterically while flopping all over the floor as if he having a seizure. This is the sort of insanity this movie brings. it's not just bad. it's bad for your health. The cover looks awesome with a picture of an AWESOME scarecrow killer that i would totally consider dressing up as for a horror con, but this was THE most misleading box ever. DON'T LET IT FOOL YOU TOO! do NOT watch this movie. watch a better corn movie. ANY movie about corn is better. just don't let it get you! don't! a 0 out of 10


After sitting through the trainwreck that was the first Dark Harvest movie, I couldn't leave bad enough alone. Upon seeing that there was a sequel (or rather what I believed to be a sequel)I had to increase my pain level. Seeing that this had nothing to do with Dark Harvest, that should have been a good thing. We didn't get any killer scarecrows in this one, instead we got a jackass walking around a cornfield screaming out little things like, "Girls!" and "Can you hear me?" every so often. Plus we got two (four if you include the two girls that the director wanted the same effect as the twins in The Shining) obnoxious little girls who couldn't act. And the cherry on top of this mess would have to be the Corn Cop. I should have known this movie was going to be terrible when the dog got an opening credit. How I managed to stay awake through this movie, I'll never know.


The first DH wasn't that great, but I really didn't expect it to be. But this horrible movie was just beyond criticism. I really try to look on the bright side and give movies like this a chance, but I just could not find a real good thing about this one. I appreciate what Bill Cowell was trying to do, but this movie was just soooooo boring. The story of the movie really isn't that bad. In fact, it's somewhat original. But the movie form is really as bad as a lot of people say. In my opinion, this one ranks right up there with "The Off Season", and "Dracula 3000". I know a lot of people really trash and put down movies like this, but I really can't think of any other good things to say about it.


This has to be one of those times you come across a movie with a neat cover, my first impression, sweet, full moon, crows, a scarecrow holding a scythe. OK my impression (I had watched scarecrow on TV a weeks ago) perfect, a nice slasher film to start the evening with. ................... wrong, absolutely wrong I think 5 mins in I was gonna take it out, but thought I wasted 3$ on this so Ill finish it wheres the scarecrow, well Im guessing its the legs of the fisher man wearing heavy duty rain boots. you see that every so often. I was watching this thinking.... OK when are those brats gonna run into this dude, at one point I thought they died. but no.... I mean frig, their still alive. I only chuckled at a few parts cause of how badly staged they were. one was the zoom in part at the start. the director/actor/writer says, "remember I had that feeling, well I have it again" and it was either a zoom in or zoom out, to hell I'm checking back. but I guess the scene was supposedly shocking, I mean whats more shocking is his wife had the same shocked look.... OK... she believed him??? Im sorry but YEAH.... i didn't know he was psychic until I read the movie box to make some sense out of what I witnessed. not only that, they used pictures to make you think this movie is at least clear.

the other thing that made me laugh a bit was the, scream in the camera, to make it scary....... OK............... filming a girl close up screaming into the camera for 5 mins.......right..... I laughed cause of how pathetic it was these kids cannot act like the rest of the people in the movie.

to top things off the scythe must have got lost or something.... cause seems the bad guy had just a stick. not even an ax, someone should axe the dam production film

Don't fall for the picture, this movie is a piece of sh*t. I watched the trailer and guess what it has

GIRLS WHERE ARE YOU TALK TO ME and CORN


If you want to enjoy the money you would spend to rent this money, go buy a bag of ice and watch it melt. That's more entertaining than this movie.

Bill Cowell, shame on you.

Or if you wanna see this movie plot, go in a corn field, bring two of the most annoying little girls you can find, run around for a couple hours having the girls scream as loud as possible. Then send me the couple bucks you woulda spent.

I enjoyed the first Dark Harvest, after watching the sequel, I'm going to cry myself to sleep.


If you are looking for the feel-good hit of the summer, Dark Harvest 2 might just be your ticket. The production values of this movie are extremely high (looks as if it were filmed with a Sony Handicam and edited using iMovie), especially the sound effects -- they sound straight off of a "Spooky Halloween Sounds" CD! The scarecrow from the cover, although he doesn't appear in the movie and otherwise has no relevance, is terrifyingly realistic! From beginning to end, you'll watch as a man aimlessly searches for his daughters through a, pun intended, MAIZE! At the climactic ending of the movie you'll see, well...you'll have to watch for yourself.

What I'm really trying to say here is, don't come within 1000 yards of this movie. I rented it because I thought it would be a campy sort of "Troll 2" funny, but it's not. I cried after I watched this movie, because I realized I had spent money on it (and I found the $4 I spent on renting it). I actually fell asleep for 20 minutes and still knew what was going on.


My friend Zac rented this movie free of charge since his mom works at a rental store. I still feel ripped off, since I won't ever be able to get those 100 minutes of my life back. Having watched the first "Dark Harvest" the night prior to this viewing, I expected to at least see a crappy remake of the first film. Wrong.

There isn't a single scarecrow in the movie (unless you count the one of the cover of the box), nor are there any real death scenes. The movie got its R rating from an 8 year old girl screaming "god d**n" at her father.

There is no amount of tequila that could make this movie bearable. Believe me, we tried.


This movie was horrendous... It had absolutely nothing to do with Dark Harvest. And the DVD was very misleading because it showed a scarecrow and a scythe, neither of which appeared in this movie.

The beginning was a jumble of random scenes that, most of which, had nothing to do with the movie, except that they sort of show that the man is psychic... but not too well...

After the first 10 minutes of the movie there is an hour of just the man character looking for his daughters. It gets vaguely interesting when the daughters meet two girls who died the year before. But that's the extent of it.

And why, might i ask, was this movie rated R? There were two drops of blood and 4 curse words. And how on earth did it get into a video store?? This movie was poorly acted, poorly filmed, poorly written, and overall horribly executed.


This movie was really funny even though it wasn't meant to be! The acting was stupid and so were the voices. Pretty much all it was was some guy walking around a corn maze for an hour and a half. They threw in this stupid super natural thing that made it even dumber. It wasn't even like a normal movie, this weird creepy music was playing almost the whole way through the movie. What is it with corn maze horror films? Children of the corn was really scary I thought and I thought this would be something like it, but really it was just stupid. The main character guy just walked around aimlessly yelling for these two little girls. And then at the end he like kills someone or something. It's worth seeing if you're with your friends because it's really funny how bad it is, but if you're looking for a horror movie then don't waste your time


The idea for the movie wasn't too bad: a horror film shot in a corn maze on Halloween. The bad part was the shoddy camera work, the ten million shots of puddles and corn, and the hour and a half long walk this guy took in the maze. Oh, I'm sorry, the "maize." I picked up this movie because it reminded me of a corn maze near where I live, and I thought it was a cool idea for a movie. But taking everything into consideration, it seems that your average Joe could take the same idea and run much further with it. Bill Cowell's acting wasn't too bad, in fact, I would say it was pretty good. But the lack of talent from his co-stars didn't help his efforts. Here's to hoping his next movie will be easier to swallow.


What can be said about THIS? Truly one of the most mind-numbing experiences of my life. Your brain will attempt to shut-down as part of a primal impulse of self-preservation. I was left shattered from the experience of watching this 'film' and I took a good two hours to fully recover. This movie now joins Revenge of the Boogeyman and Zombiez as part of the hellish trinity of horror films. I certainly do not mean this distinction in a good way. I mean this in a terrible way. A terrible way.

This film has no redeeming features. Everything is appalling. Artless camera-work endlessly presents us with the ugliest setting imaginable, i.e. lots of corn, lots of mud. The story is beyond stupid. The script iswas there a script? The villain is severely unscary and wears yellow wellington boots. The kids are annoying. The lead man is charisma-free. And it has the audacity to go on for 100 minutes. Utterly without merit on any level, this is akin to torture. Normally such a statement would be an exaggeration meant for comical effect. Not in this case. I'll even say it again  this is torture.

At the end I was in a state of paralysis. This was brief thankfully. But once I recovered I decided I had to watch the 'Making Of' featurette. I had to understand. Maybe there would be a reasonable explanation for this atrocity. Was it all an elaborate joke? I watched the first 2 minutes of the 'Making Of' featurette and discovered that the writer/director was, to put it mildly, somewhat misguided. I also discovered that because I had taken time out to watch the first two minutes of the 'Making Of' featurette of Dark Harvest 2 that I was an idiot. Not a pleasant voyage of self-discovery. Life sucks.

Highly unrecommended.


Apparently this was an award winner. Apparently someone had a gun against his/her head and was force to nominate Maize: the Movie.

Or this must have been a mistake.

This is the most unwatchable movie ever made. The screening and the editing is the biggest horror of this movie. Two little girls get lost in a cornfield and get stalked by someone who can be heard laughing under his rubber mask. The little girls run into their hero dad, and then runs away from him, W.T.F.? The hero dad in the movie keeps losing track of them in the few minutes of watching this.

The girls obviously weren't trained actors, and had no common sense to them. They were so annoying and so infantile in the movie, it not even remotely comedic. Hearing them scream over and over again like a broken record was the reason why I got up and left. You can't even listen to this movie without nearly going into convulsions.

I can puke a better award winner than this garbage.


Apparently I am swimming against the tide of the glowing comments on this film. I have not seen it since I was 4 or 5 years old but there is one thing I remember distinctly...

The Bunyip was TERRIFYING!!! Nightmare inducing terrifying. With the creepy music and the little girl and kangaroo running/hopping away for their lives...

As a kid I also remember the animated Hobbit... no worries. Watership down? Didn't blink an eye. Dot and the Kangaroo? It still haunts my dreams. And I have several friends the same age who also think it was massively creepy. Maybe we can get a group rate on therapy.

In short: one freaky film for its time.


Code 46 is one of those scifi movies where the government controls who you are allowed to love, and in fact will punish you if you try to procreate with the wrong person. The haves and the have-nots live in completely separate territories, the powers that be can remove your memories, etc. We've seen this stuff before, but that's OK- no movie is 100% original. This kind of premise is always fun to contemplate. Unfortunately, just imagining such a future is more interesting than actually watching Code 46. The characters are boring and rarely say anything interesting. Maybe that's commentary on a dehumanized future, but it's still dull to watch. It's sloooow.

At times the imagery is nice, but usually (coupled with its "evocative" soundtrack) just looks like a glorified perfume commercial. Code 46 also sometimes uses the kind of television camera-work that I find annoying. You know, two characters talk as the camera artlessly "floats" on one side. Two seconds later it's floating on the other side of them in a vain attempt to keep your attention.

My friends liked this movie. If they tried to get me to watch it again, I probably would not do so unless they agreed to pay me $50.


Bad dialog, slow story, scenes that drag on and are absolutely pointless. I can't believe this much money was invested in such a poorly written film. The directing and acting couldn't save this bomb either.

50% through the movie and you're still waiting for it to start. They lay the foundation with the opening preface and then spend the next 40 minutes setting up NOTHING. You watch 40 minutes of footage that is absolutely directionless in an attempt to do what, I have no idea.

Much of this film is like watching a really bad french movie where nothing ever happens and the characters are just sort of dull, lifeless and egocentrics living without purpose or care.

Avoid this film at all cost. Anyone that recommends it is setting you up for disappointment and you will undoubtedly question their taste and depth.


Interesting concept that just doesn't make it. I watched the whole movie, but had to read IMDb comments to find out what Code 46 meant. If/when it was explained in the film, I must have been in a coma, or possibly brain-dead by then. I only watched it for Tim Robbins. The fact that I did not know any of the other actors should have been a tip-off. We all have to start somewhere, but this film should not be it. As to the 'anti empathy virus virus'-Holy Utility Belt, Batman! Where were The Joker, The Riddler, etc? Also, why are the women all so damned ugly? If I want to see less-than-plain stick-figures, I'll just walk down the street. The best part of the film was the car crash. It was totally believable, and not over-the-top like most movie crashes.


I found Code 46 very disappointing. I thought the concept was good and therefore had great potential as a movie but found that it didn't deliver. Code 46 lacked thought and structure and the storyline didn't flow well. I thought that Tim Robbins character wasn't well developed, for eg. I thought there should have been more info and thought put into his family life and not have it completely ignored as i felt it was. When they were first in violation of a code 46 it was suggested that they were not to know that they may have been genetically linked but all the technology was available to them, he took her fingerprint and therefore genetic details when he was investigating the fraud. I constantly found myself waiting for something to happen and the story line to develop and yet it never did. I felt that the film had great potential to be intellectually stimulating but turned out to be the opposite. Code 46 tried to be too clever and in the end just ended up lacking imagination.I would not recommend this film to anybody, the only good thing about the film was that it was relatively short.


This movie was released in all major cinemas in Australia. I watched the movie on the weekend of 7th AUG and I thought is was absolute nonsense (and I am using that word extremely litely). How it got released to every major cinema no idea. The plot seemed simple enough about the world being divided into subclasses and people needed identity cards and the actor Tim Robbins playing an investigator who goes to shanghai to investigate a employee stealing ID cards, which turns out to be the actress Samantha Morton.

You think from that summary the rest of the story should intertyne but it doesn't it just confuses the audience even more with different storyline that don't relate.

If you thinking of seeing this movie let me save u the trouble DO NOT GET THIS MOVIE.


I was initially excited about this movie and fully expected it to be a combination of Equilibruim and Farenheit 451. Unfortunately, I was continually disappointed in the lack of depth and interest of the plot and subplots. Midway through the movie, I divulged into poking fun at the characters and sets to avoid having to turn it off. I did enjoy the premise of a future with merged cultures and separation of the have's and have nots. What could have been an artful and intelligent look at the future is morphed into a plodding, semantic SciFi channel midnight flick with horrible acting, cheap sets and a final gratuitous shot of Tim Robbins vagina. Maybe he should stick to his socialist political ranting - it has all been downhill since Shawshank.


The film disappointed me for many reasons: first of all the depiction of a future which seemed at first realistic to me was well-built but did only feature a marginal role. Then, the story itself was a weak copy of Lost in Translation. The Middle-Eastern setting, man with family meets new girl overseas, karaoke bar, the camera movements and the imagery - all that was a very bad imitation of the excellent Lost in Translation which had also credibility. This movie tries to be something brilliant and cultural: it is not. I wonder why Tim Robbins even considered doing this film!? The female main actress is awful - did she play the precog in Minority Report? And why do you have to show the vagina in a movie like this? Lost in Translation didn't have to show excessive love scenes. R-Rated just for this? This movie isn't even worth watching it from a videostore!


I just finished watching this film and think it is one of the worst films I have ever seen. It was so boring that I found myself zooming through it at X2 speed and finished it in less than 30 minutes. I was not just disappointed, but angry that I had wasted my money to rent it. It ranks within the top five of the worst films I have ever seen, and I've seen thousands of movies! The plot was very confusing. Had I not first read the DVD sleeve cover, prior to renting it, I would have been totally lost throughout this film. I would not have thought that Tim Robbins, after having made such good films as "Shawshank Redemption" would have agreed to appear in this film.


If you are a weirdo who thinks it's "romantic" and wonderful to have sex with a woman who is the genetic equivalent of your mother, get her pregnant, and then have sex with her again once she's had an abortion AND not tell her that she is related to you, then you would like this movie.

Nevermind the fact that the guy is married and has a son at home - it makes it even more disgusting and deplorable that he has no conscience as to what he's doing. He can't do right by his job, his family, OR Maria. He's a loser. There is nothing romantic or positive about this movie - it is vile and incestuous.

It moves slowly and it leads nowhere for over the first half of the movie. I couldn't even finish watching this pathetic excuse for a 'romance'. I'm glad we didn't waste our money in the movie theater on this one. 0/10


We're in a not so distant future, globalization seems to have reached a high point, languages mixes with each other (although English prevails over the rest), races have merged, human clonation is a fact, and all the territory seems to have been divided in two zones: the one for the valid and the one for the non-valid... a brave new world (in Aldous Huxley's style) in which people are genetically filed and blood relationships are strictly forbidden (for health reasons that's the Code 46 of the title-). In such environment two souls that are destined not to meet fall in love with each other.

Winterbottom had an important story, with quite a big potential. A nice recipe that he ruins giving it a so slow rhythm, narrating it in a so weary way, removing any emotions... Coldness, that's all Code 46 transmits. Coldness and boredom. Not even the presence of Samantha Morton and Tim Robbins (both of'em play their roles wonderfully) , nor the visual and sound power of some sequences can do anything to save the movie. What a pity.

Code 46: what could have been and never was.

*My rate: 4/10


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***

I saw this movie last night at a screening. I started out already liking Tim Robbins and loving sci-fi. The first third of the movie was very cool. The score was good, the cinematography was interesting, the film maker's vision of the future was realistic yet starkly interesting nonetheless. I remember thinking to myself: "this is the most intelligently done sci-fi movie I've seen in a while". Then they just couldn't keep it together.

Although from the outset, there were a number of more "rough around the edges" issues with this film (namely the editing, and later some of the writing/plot development), these issues were forgivable. They became unforgivable once the movie sort of lost all momentum around the half way mark, and then the film just got tedious when you realized that it wasn't going to go anywhere at all.

Robbins could not breathe life into his character, but did the best he could. His female counterpart (her name escapes me now) was good in her role.

The main reason for the meandering of the movie seemed to be that the film makers could not decide whether or not to do a sci-fi movie or a futuristic love story. They ended up with neither.

Good:

Some of the cinematography: grainy, it felt like "21 days later" some times.

Very fitting for a futuristic movie like this.

I dug some of the location shots.

The music was cool.

The film makers vision of the future was realistic but still cool and interesting.

I liked the interactions with the other minor characters in the movie.

Some of the writing was interesting (early on).

The girl who played Maria Gonzales (name?? can't recall), she was good.

***SPOILERS BELOW***

A few questions/comments:

I felt that a lot of the futuristic things in this movie were convenient to fix a patchwork story. Namely VIRUSES. Obviously the virus they gave her at the end of the film that made her physically 'afraid' of him was just there so that they could stick in another sex scene and then she could uncontrollably report him for Code 46. Then they take him away and erase his memory and the movie ends. Classic 'dream sequence' cop-out ending if you ask me. ties up all the loose ends very neatly if you just make it all a dream right?

Was Robbin's character naturally good as intuition or was it the virus?

Why didn't they explore the myriad of issues surrounding the girl being a clone of his mom? That could have made some interesting story.

At first I like the salutations from across the globe in everyone's speech. But it became intrusive especially since their accents were not convincing. I get it, the future will undoubtedly be racially and culturally more androgynous, but it started feeling like an AT&T Global Networking commercial by the end of it.

If they were 'outside' how could they have gotten busted for Code 46?

'Cover' was never well defined. Sometimes it seemed as trivial as a Visa, and other times it was as vital as life or death. Again, loose definitions allow them to use it for gluing disparate parts of the plot together.

Okay, I'm starting to get to negative about it, so I'll stop. There were some cool scenes, and interesting things about this movie, but that only gives it a 4/10


I thought this film was a poor effort by the British film council - fell flat as hey, come on, Tim Robbins is an old guy and here is this beautiful young woman who falls straight for him as well. Like lost in translation its really hard to suspend disbelief in this context. It's a good looking film but lacks punch. When Tim Robbins is pretending to be psychic it looks like he has a small migraine. He looks uncomfortable and life less. The part where he is screening suspect employees at sphinx is laughable. If an investigator came to my factory the last thing I would do is tell him about my freckle fetish. It's obviously over-intellectual. Clumsy. The city is as it is, a convenient backdrop. They obviously picked the most futuristic city they could (shanghai) as a backdrop but the city never really comes out and effects the characters as in for example blade runner, where the characters of the city often intersect the story. slow as a wet week. No chemistry, real dramatic high points, so so plot.


There is nothing worse than science fiction crafted by folks who don't have a feel for it. Grasping at a concept which wouldn't be so terrible by itself (a future where cloning is common enough that it is necessary to make it a crime for you to breed with someone too close to you genetically) the screenwriter proceeded to allow his ill-suited imagination to run wild.

When Tim Robbins' character was able to guess a security guard's computer password simply by getting her to tell him one thing about herself, I knew I was in for trouble. This ability was later revealed to be due to Robbins having taken an "empathy virus", viruses being used to grant instant (or nearly instant) skill upgrades to their users. Robbins' love interest complained about her own experience with such a virus -- a Mandarin Chinese language virus, which allowed her to speak Chinese, but as she complained, "she couldn't understand what she was saying." Okay, first off, empathy, no matter how intense, isn't ESP. Without incorporating some sort of true mind-reading aspect (like an empathy virus which actively releases virions into the vicinity, infects nearby people, picks up bits of their memory, then departs for the original host -- which is, as you can probably tell, a smidgeon on the impractical side) you can't justify being able to determine a specific detail like someone's password just by "listening to the things you didn't say". Nor can you acquire the ability to speak a language without understanding what you're saying -- the virus can't infect your vocal cords and translate for you on the fly, because a virus can't *think*. To give you the power to speak Chinese, such a learning virus would have to modify your brain. It would have to encode the knowledge among neurons, and once it's in there, it's *yours* -- you certainly understand what you're saying, because you have to. To use your own brain to perform a task, you must understand that task (for the most part). Unless, of course, they movie is suggesting that the virus was deliberately designed to put in place some bizarre multiple-personality mental schism where some sub-personae of yours functions as a built-in, one-way translator.

The mélange of languages spoken by the characters is decent enough, although nowhere near remarkable enough to warrant all the love other reviewers have given. What's more, all the multicultural insertions in the world can't make up for a simple, frustrating fact: The dialog stinks! It's slow, it's plodding, and it's unnatural. Again, I'm sure adherents have convinced themselves that the dull strangeness is simply the result of an inspired genius creating a truly futuristic (and therefore subjected to linguistic drift) form of speech. I disagree. Good dialog is good dialog in any era -- and the same goes for tripe.

Lastly, I'll revisit the central concept of the movie -- the banning of sex with yourself. Widespread cloning is a nice, classic sci-fi topic. So is global warming leading to ecological devastation (which Code 46 also incorporates). Unfortunately, the two don't go together! If you have an ecological disaster cutting down severely on the available living area, you don't run around cloning people! You have population problems enough as it is -- you don't add to them by cranking out re-issues. Regular, old-fashioned sex-and-birth provides all the population you need, and cloning of any sort would be ruthlessly suppressed.

To be fair, the movie wasn't all bad. It had some nice cinematography. Perhaps if I had watched it muted, I could've enjoyed it.


I like to think that I can appreciate a movie that is a bit out of the ordinary, and I certainly love a good movie that makes me think.

If you like out of the ordinary movies that make you think, then look elsewhere. This movie is so bad and so disjointed that the only thing you will be thinking after it is over is how it is possible you wasted 90 minutes of your life watching this.

A movie of this kind needs a driver to get buy in from the viewer. Why are we interested in the main characters? What motivates these characters through their existence? Why do they make the decisions they make? This movie makes a very weak attempt at doing these and fails in the process. There is no chemistry between these two actors, both of who are superb in their ability to be comfortable in any role. So why did they fail here? I strongly feel that they didn't know what their motivations were either, and when an actor doesn't know, their audience can't follow.

In sum, I have seen macromedia flash videos that offered more in the way of provoking thought, at least I have more interest in the morphed hamster who likes the moon than why this married family man would risk it all for a "Code 46" violation.


Many times the description "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" is used and is right on target. Unfortunately "Code 46" lacks both sound and fury. A bit of fury would have been greatly appreciated. Tim Robbins character (William) is so lacking in passion that the idea of his falling instantly in love with Maria (Samantha Morton) seems almost absurd. These folks are so passionless that one begins to wonder if perhaps the water supply of this future world has been dosed with thorazine. There is a "Brave New World" sort of atmosphere to the film that is helped along by every scene being shot about 2-3 stops overexposed. Unfortunately this technique gets tedious and rather hard on the eyes. The cutesy mishmash of languages also grows tedious when there seems to be no apparent reason for its existence. Many futuristic, scifi films are criticized for being all flash and no substance. This film has neither flash nor substance. Its a code 6 all the way.


If I guess your "palabra", will you let me go through?- Asks William Geld, a Tim Robbins that keeps on acting like if they told him a fantastic joke and he is attempting not to laugh.

He is trying to get to a forbidden area. The woman stopping him continues blabbering: -Your "palabra" is Carrefour.

-How did you know?- the lady asks, surprised. He answers, in the name of Wisdom: -I was hearing when you weren't talking. :/

Yes, this defines the movie. This precisely. It doesn't matter if Carrefour is "road conjunction" in french, or if the Future is coldly bureaucratic and mixes languages. Or if Samantha Morton has nothing, nothing of Spanish (Maria Gonzalez being her name in the film) with her Irish, Scotish whatever tone.

It's boring and dull. If you fall in believing there are multiple symbolisms, you will buy the most bizarre, sickening love relationship ever, set in a future that may well be in seven seconds. I can guess this movie's palabra: it will be "painful".


An Epic Story of Hope constrained by budget and limited artistic ambition. Seeing as Terrence Malick produced this, I expected something haunting and lyrical. Instead, we get a typical Norwegian co-production ("Revolution" with Al Pacino, anyone?), where - quite possibly - good intentions are scuppered by a dreadful screenplay, and where many of the characters are reduced to stereotypes. The "me-Tarzan-you-Jane" English dialogue between the non-English-speaking protagonists is particularly cringeworthy  one could speculate whether Nick Nolte and Tim Roth ad-libbed their own, as they almost sound like real people. The story is loaded with implausibility: we are expected to believe that Binh can speak a smattering of English after having spent his entire life living as a peasant slave (his vocabulary, but unfortunately not grammatical command, increases impressively in the Malayan refugee camp, without the benefit of night classes). Coincidence is rife; I wonder whether an hour or two has been edited from the first third: he tracks down his mother in Ho Chi Minh City almost immediately - after bumping into his thirty year younger half brother, who nonchalantly recognises him! Mum gives him a gold locket (or something similar of great value) as they part, but this is never referred to again. His relationship with "Me Dead Inside" Ling is supposed to provide the obligatory "love interest", but feels as artificial as Leonardo and Cameron in "Gangs Of New York".

The voyage in the rust bucket of a boat does convey a sense of the appalling conditions that human trafficking entails. Indeed, the only time the film is remotely exciting and unpredictable, is the jerky, hand-held footage shot from the bridge during choppy weather conditions. (Incidentally, a boat cruise from Malaysia to New York via The Cape Of Good Hope and the African coast, without stopping for fuel or supplies, is certainly an epic journey). The beautiful shot of the New York skyline echoes Malick's use of magic hour, but I want to know why the Coast Guard didn't show up. Perhaps they were watching the Super Bowl, or something. Of course, Binh manages to track down his blind old Dad on a remote farm in Texas, with the same navigational flair he displayed in Ho Chi Minh City. I was impressed at how Nick Nolte could wander around digging fields and feeding horses on a large ranch without the aid of a guide dog or white stick. For demonstration of how a story about the travails befalling refugees could be structured and shot on a small budget, check out Michael Winterbottom's far superior "In This World".


"The Beautiful Country" is a big disappointment. It doesn't come up to my expectation. Bihn, a tall muscular guy, is a son of an American GI and a Vietnamese woman during Vietnam War. We were told that that he was treated "less than dust" in Vietnam in the early 90s, so he fleeted to America to seek his American father.

Sounds like a heart broken material? Maybe, but showing in this film. I find myself having a hard time to connect to Bihn emotionally, because the film is full of cliché and I simply don't understand or believe him. The writing of this film is a total failure. The plot is full of holes. It grabs some events on a needed basis trying hard to stir the emotion of the audience. We are not that stupid and it doesn't work that way. Let's see what the film is trying to do. So, you don't feel Bihn's boat trip (yeah, he was on a boat!) is hard enough, let's have a storm over night and let the ship shake a little. Still not touched? Fine! Get a little kid to suffer the heat, the hungry, the sickness, the violence with the adults on the boat, hopefully that will do the trick to touch the audience. Still not touched? You heartless SOB, let's... OK, I don't want to give any spoiler of the film, but you get the idea.

The film is really long and slow. It never tell us why Bihn didn't go to find his mom and dad, until the moment in the film when he left to look for his mom and dad. What has he been doing the 20 some years before he went to Saigon to look for his mom? And guess what? He has the luck and everybody will tell him where to find the person he is looking for, and he will find anybody without a scratch. I really think the Department of Homeland Security should hire those Vietnamese who helped Bihn. The beautiful country? Which one? Both Vietnam and America seem hell to Bihn.


Thursday June 9, 9:15pm Egyptian Theater Saturday June 11, 2:00pm Uptown Theater

Being loved and belonging is essential for most children. Those born to Vietnamese mothers and GI fathers often found neither. The Beautiful Country is the story of one such child, Binh, rejected by his rural village then struggling to find his American father. The film begins with green and wild country but descends into grimy sweaty ugliness and boredom. The considerable talents of Tim Roth and Temuera Morrison are wasted in pointless and ill conceived roles aboard the rusting freighter carrying Binh and is dying brother across the ocean with what appear to be stock shots of stormy seas. New York City offers slave labor and cliché characters. While very uneven from it's start the great curiosity of this film is the final segment. Nick Nolte is given top billing among the cast. I jokingly suggested he would probably be in the final scene only and was not far from the truth. As the journey brings Binh to Texas and his father the film takes on a serene and austere simplicity. A tenuous cohabitation knits these two men together into a family of father and son. The ninety odd minutes of garbage we have just watched is rewarded by a profound and subtle performance from Nolte as they slowly interact. The credits rolled and I was surprised to see the names of Badlands executive producer Edward Pressman and West Texas native Terrence Malick.


My wife and I never got into the movie.We thought it was way to sloooowwww and to many subtitles.I understood they needed them for Vietnam,but took to long to get out of Asia.She wanted it off I said it's going to get better.It never did yes they had a tough time trying to get to America,but I wanted to see him looking and finding his dad.Not at the end but forming a relationship.Did I mention it was slllloooowwwwww.I love to watch a movie to feel good not sad at the end.I know they don't make many good movies now days.I think action movies are the only ones to watch.I have been renting a lot from netflix and now blockbuster,maybe 20% are worth seeing.I don't kneed realism or facts just a movie thats fun and makes you feel good.Gary


As a child of the 80's like so many of the other reviewers here I hated the original V and V: the Final Battle. I own both on VHS and never hook up the VCR to watch them. I do remember not liking this short lived series very much, but I couldn't remember why, so I rented the first disc. By the third episode I had my memory refreshed. It's terrible. The writing is beyond horrid. It's not even FUN. They had a lot of material to work with here, but it seemed like they just didn't know what to do so they turned it into 'Days of our Lives with lizard aliens'. How cool and full of potential is the concept of Elizabeth the Starchild? All they could think of to do is grow her into a whiny, boring teenager to compete with her mother romantically? Marc Singer looked less embarrassed to be in Beastmaster II than he did when he was trapped in this drivel....point is, whether you're one of the younger folk who's just discovered V or one of us older sci-fi fans looking to rediscover some old fun, spare yourself and SKIP THIS!


Relesed from Troma (which is my favorite movie company)Unspeaksble is a messy horror film that can be interesting but very dark and twisted.

Unspeakable starts with a family in a car, they get into an accident which leaves a daughter dead and a mother deformed. the father eventually goes crazy and slashes prostitutes. He sees his daughter in other people. He kills for her. Meanwhile his now deformed wife is being raped by her orderly. These are sick people!

Unspeakable tries to be sick and disturbing and it does manage to do that as a good horror flick this is not. Most Troma movies have a sense of humor to them but however this one doesn't.


I really wanted to like this movie, because I love Troma and loved the trailer and loved "Ghouls," another of Ferrin's films. It did have some almost-good moments, like the oldies love song playing over the car crash scene, and a scene near the end where the protagonist gets some closure. But on the whole, it was just boring and mildly unpleasant.

The "unimaginable" shocks that Ferrin came up with were really predictable and worn-out. Poop, murdering prostitutes, incest. Could have still been good, but poorly done. Unsure whether it was trying to offend, amuse, or both. Ultimately did neither.

IN conclusion, we watch Troma movies because we want films with heart. This film did not consistently feel like it had heart. There were some good scenes, but ultimately it was dull and unpleasant.


I cannot believe that this is a film that I did not like. . . I usually find that I am open minded about all sorts of stuff. . . but this flick is just, well, bad.

I could deal with the subject matter if the script and story were better. I could deal with the acting if the camera work was better or if the characters were better established. . . I think it mostly boils down to script and direction though.

it was just bad.

i want to give this the lowest rating, but . . . I don't believe in that, at least this guy got off his tail to make a movie. . . so he gets four stars (just above the average rating which this has so far)


Unspeakable starts in Los Angeles with Jim (Roger Cline) & his wife Alice Fhelleps (Tamera Noll) arguing as they drive along in the pouring rain, unfortunately Jim crashes the car & his daughter Heather (Leigh Silver) ends up dead while Alice is turned into a wheelchair bound vegetable. Devastated by the death of his daughter Jim starts visiting prostitutes, he then kills them because of voices in his head. Erm, that's it really.

Written, produced & directed by Chad Ferrin I hate Unspeakable as a film. There are some films you occasionally see that move the 'goal posts' as it were in regard to everything you watch thereafter, some films are so brilliant that all other's will be judged by it while other's like Unspeakable for example are so bad that it sets a new cinematic low. This is truly one of the worst films I've ever seen & I am seriously surprised by the largely positive comments on the IMDb although I'm not surprised the the low overall rating on the main page, I not sure if I missed something but for a start Unspeakable has no plot, it has no story & a lot of it seems almost random. There was nothing in Unspeakable to maintain my interest or entertain & as a result became a test of endurance to get through to the end. The film tries to be shocking with some limp scenes of sexual abuse of a rent boy by a priest, there is a scene in which a disabled person craps herself, it splats on the floor & her dodgy male nurse starts feeling her soiled genitals, legs & underwear. If anyone can find such crap entertaining then I'll just cut my wrists now, the character's are some of the worst I've had the misfortune to know, the dialogue is hilariously bad with some it sounding like it came straight from some dirty faggot porno of the worst kind. It doesn't work as a horror as it's not scary in the slightest, it's absolutely hilarious & frankly insulting to claim that it is trying to be a serious drama about someone suffering a great loss & attempting to cope with it & overall I just think it's a pointless, rubbishy, badly made piece of crap from Troma.

Director Ferrin films like some badly made documentary, the special effects are terrible & are of the 'let's pour tomato ketchup on our actor's face & the audience will be convinced that they died a gory death' variety, there is no graphic violence at all apart from a suicide where someone sticks a knife in their own mouth. Considering the amount of prostitutes in Unspeakable the nudity levels are kept to an absolute minimum...

Apparently Unspeakable had a budget of about $20,000 & all I can say is where did all the money go? Oh, a quick note to the filmmakers, if your going to record sound live make sure you don't have your actor's deliver their lines next to a main road that half of Los Angeles seem to be driving up... The acting sucks, period.

Unspeakable is, in my opinion, total crap. It's probably not the worst I've ever seen but it's right down there & I can't remember seeing such a awful film recently. One to avoid unless your a masochist or insomniac.


I didn't want to write this movie off on the reviews and critics in the western world, I mean how wrong have they been about Asian cinema that has now become a staple diet of the Hollywood remake monster? Plus Jet L is pretty damn cool, and he's made some interesting movies in Asia. So with an open mind I was surprisingly averaged out by this movie.

There are good points. The story is very clever, using M-Theory as a base to bring forward the plot that there are multiple universes each with their own versions of worlds, and most likely you. Each time one of you is destroyed the rest share the energy and power amongst them. The idea that someone might try and purposely become the only version of themselves in all the Universes to find out if they become a God.

There's also Jet Li, and he's not a bad actor and pretty nimble as a martial artist, plus Jason Statham who is an all round good actor. As for the special effects, some of them are really cool, a mixing of bullet time, and slow motion with normal speed, very cool to watch in places.

The bad points? Well Statham's accent is appalling, and some of the effects aren't as comparable as others, so it's quite apparent that money was spent on some of the main shots and not on others that were probably deemed as too short on screen or they just plain ran out of budget.

A big sore point for me is the close cropped camera action that Hollywood has long favoured, something that Jackie Chan has often talked about. Filming fight scenes close up serves two purpose. It gives greater emphasis on a single punch or movement, making it look harder and more real than it really is, and it also hides what is going on around the camera lens. For example people holding a fake arm or the face of a stunt double, etc.

What Chan always said was that he tried to open out the camera and show the audience what was going on, let them see the people fighting properly rather than a close up of a face and a fist, cutting to someone falling into frame. Showing the whole picture is more effective, and it's more impressive.

So the close cropped shots were just more annoying than anything, you failed to see the impressiveness of Li's fighting skills, and you found it hard to see some of the action. Slow the cuts down and pan out the camera Hollywood Directors! The biggest problem was the story though, despite having such a strong base on which to build, they seemed to loose the sense of the plot and concentrate on the action scenes. There are some serious plot building and explanatory moments that are just totally overlooked and covered in the space of a few sentences, yet these could have formed some excellent and complex character development.

It just all held together too weakly, and not enough was made of the story. All in all, not a great movie and it's potential was badly spoiled.


I wanted to dog this movie, but somehow I can't find it in myself to do that.

Exhibiting a duality of fighting styles, it's Li vs. Li in a somewhat decent battle for supremacy.

This is one of those movies where the story carries the performances. Li's acting is extremely amateurish, hesitant, and stiff for most of this movie...right up to the very end. At first I tricked myself into believing he was just doing that for one of his two characters. You know, to show a difference in personalities. But it appeared to be inexperience or a lack of talent. It did get a bit better, more relaxed, toward the end. But that wasn't enough to save his performance. Jet Li's acting does improve as his career moves forward. I don't hate his acting. I just hated him in this.

I also have to say that the effects were very "B" class effects. What effects there are.

The story itself had great potential. It was uniquely creative, daring, and fresh. Unfortunately, either the budget was not ample enough to accommodate better lighting, effects, film quality, and some acting lessons, or the director just did not care enough to bother with these little details. He also did not bother with the SCIENCE in the science-fiction. A fact which was a great detractor to this film.

The fight sequences were a bit one sided, as he seemed to give more to one character and little to the other. But all in all the story line made for a very enjoyable attempt.

As enjoyable as this was, I couldn't help but think, all the way through, that this was just one of those movies that you can't help but watch it for what it SHOULD'VE been, rather than what it is.

It rates a 6.0/10 on the "B" scale.

That's a 4.2/10 (on the "A" scale) for having a good plot, from...

the Fiend :.


This movie was a thorough diappointment. There was no development of the story. Viewers were thrown into the story without explanation and left to fend for themselves in trying to work out what was going on. The action sequences were okay but confusing. They weren't The Matrix and they weren't Crouching Tiger. This movie is best left to cable tv where you don't have to pay to see it or convincing a friend that they should hire it and then go over and watch it. As a huge Jet Li fan, I expected more. How can someone involved with Once Upon a Time in China put his name to this one???


Post 1988 after the disaster GJS Amitabh's films lost the quality they had earlier

Barring MAIN AZAAD HOON released in 1989 which was a great film rest all films were craps mostly except HUM(1991) later in 1991

This is another of the crap Amitabh films people rejected in early 90's

The film he did like a friendship token to Shashi Kapoor who directed the film and he didn't take a penny The film also had Rishi and Dimple(again not paired opp each other after RANBHOOMI)

The film came in 1991 when Bachchan had 4 releases and 3 flops amongst them INDRAJEET, AKAYLA, AJOOBA

Ajooba came 2 years after TOOFAN and JAADUGAR both supernatural films which were rejected This is another type of crap Bachchan wears a mask and a Krissh type outfit and performs magic changing 1 person to a donkey.etc Of course being 1991 you can excuse the special effects but the film is too bad to be watched

Direction by Shashi Kapoor is not good Music is bad

Amongst actors Amitabh had become too old by 1991 and looked tired, his acting is okay but not on par with his best Rishi is okay Dimple is alright, rest are forgettable


If there's one word I can associate to this movie, its 'embarrassment'. It must be embarrassing to everyone associated with the movie, to actually watch it in a theatre. Everything - the script, screenplay, dialogues, song lyrics, direction - shoddy, lousy.

Saw this movie when I was a kid. Liked it then, mainly because it was a fantasy, a superhero-movie. Its a not-so-explored genre in Hindi cinema. The attempt deserves credit, but that's all there is to it. Sashi Kapoor seems to have been in a great hurry in making the movie. Can't understand the reason behind casting foreigners as Hindi-speaking characters, who can't even get the sync right (nothing to say about the dubbing). The screenplay is terrible. The editing even more. If one follows the dialogues closely, one can detect grammatically-wrong sentences (which completely alter the intended meaning). Nothing special about the music.

The biggest embarrassment must be for the Censor board. There are a couple of nip-slip scenes in the movie, one of which is absolutely clear (so much so that I can't even think of a metaphor). The director missed them. The editing team missed it. And the censor board missed it too. So much for the no-indecent-exposure-on screen motto. The officials probably fell asleep while watching the movie.

Can't think of why Amitabh went with the role. It might be because he was a good friend of the Kapoors. But the role hardly has anything for him. With wonderful roles in Hum and Agneepath behind him, he couldn't have followed it up with a worse one. There are a couple of heroic scenes, really worthy ones. But otherwise, they're embarrassingly unbelievable (arrow-catching for instance.. it probably could've been better with CGI, but it was '91..).

Dimple and Sonam do not exactly set the screen on fire. Shammi Kapoor and Rishi Kapoor give an inspired performance, but their scope is limited. Amrish Puri is his usual self in the role of a fairy-tale villain (letting out the villainous laugh every now and then).

On the whole, an interesting concept. Could have been a lot more better.


A complete zero out of four. One worst sums up Ajooba: awful. Actually, more words come to mind: ridiculous, third-rate, and terrible. This is one of Amitabh's worst movies ever, he prances around in a cheap leather jacket and equally cheap tinsel foil Zorro-style mask with what appears to be wings on the sides.

The movie is set in ancient Persia or Arabia and is characteristically un-historical for an Indian movie. As stated above, a leather jacket from K-Mart with velcro straps did not exist 400 years ago, unless all my history teachers were wrong.

Rishi also does his patented cross-dressing in this movie. Far from being funny, it is very embarassing to watch. What could possess the son of the legendary Raj Kapoor to flay the memory of his house like this on screen?

On the plus side, if you want a real laugh, go ahead and watch this film. The glaring inconsistencies in the plot and costumes are no match for the awful dialogues and shoddy acting.


How pointless, hideous characters and boring film. Saved by brief sex scenes, mad witch, gorgeous desert island and Brooks body. The plot is tenuous, the characters are shallow and unlikeable. Having said that I did manage to watch it all, mainly because I was totally transfixed by the jiggling and kind of hoping that her character would come good in the end. The film was well shot, well directed but perhaps the casting let it down in some ways. Disappointing. Really summed the review up in the first line but this website dictates that you need to write 10 lines minimum. It would be better to spend the time watching another film.


A holiday on a boat, a married couple, an angry waiter and a shipwreck is the reason to this films beginning.

I like boobs. No question about that. But when the main character allies with whoever happens to have the most fish at the moment, mostly by having sex with them and playing the role of the constant victim, my anger just rises to a whole new level. Take two guys (a husband and another man), put a pure bombshell woman in the middle of them, ad a deserted island, subtract all her moral issues, ad a whole bunch of moral issues to the men and mix it in a big bowl of arguments, fish and a zippo lighter and you will come up with a piece of junk movie like this.

The acting is, I would say, good. There are some bloopers but not many as far as i could see. The main female character makes me sick. This is due to her lack of moral values. The man with the most fish get's her attention. Even though one of them is her husband, she sees no problem with being unfaithful with (Manuel) the other man because "I must do it to survive". How can you justify having sex with another man for fish when your husband is 30feet away? And he won't even benefit from it? The female character has absolutely no problems to justify anything that she does. If she doesen't get approval for her actions, she's a victim.

I recommend everyone to see this movie. This is the kind of movie that will make just about everything else you see this year a pleasant movie experience.


I can only assume the previous posts came from execs at the production company...

Attended the UK premiere last night. Zane and Brook attended (they probably knew I was gonna be there) and are undoubtedly stars, but what a turkey of a film. I felt sorry for them at times, when the audience erupted in laughter at what were serious 'thriller' scenes.

But perhaps I was missing the point. Perhaps an element of tongue-in-cheek was intended. If so, pure genius. If not, career genocide.

On the plus side, Zane always shines, and Brook can actually act a little. As the other half said (as we ran out the cinema, avec broken ribs), they can be forgiven for this film as they both seem like nice people! The scriptwriter, however, should be marooned.


Yes, bad acting isn't only one thing to mention. Bad script,not so bad music. Unfortunately.

Nice girl and nice boy with perfect bodies and super teeth just isn't enough for me and for you too.

First thing in the morning after crash they go to swim to the sea, to have some fun !!! Smiling ...

They find everything in the sea. I mean things like fishing-net, knife, scuba dive things, ropes, bottles, husband ...

Woodoo stuff , are you kidding. Stupid. They are so happy on the island, they are going to die, and they are happy. Love, peace. Love. Just stupid.

Terrible, skip this one please.


did anyone notice?when miss brook went skinny dipping,she left the water wearing white bikini bottoms and yet had previously taken it all off to join cabin boy.this could have been a good film without miss brooks phony accent and a year on the island please.how come that Kelly looked always clean and ready for a FM photo shoot.what started out with premise turned in to soft porn.and billy Zane come on,you cant be that hard up for film offers.check out dead calm.also when the people took her away ,how come she scoffed her face and after all that time didn't feel like throwing up.i suggest billy find decent scripts,Kelly stick to photo shoots and cabin boy play the son of Zorro in a future sequel.


If you make a suspense movie it is kind of important that the "villain" not be more sympathetic than the "victim". And this fails miserably. It was so terrible and frustrating to watch that I was actually moved to register and comment. OK, so the husband is rich and cocky. There are worse vices, and the cabana boy and wife display plenty. The husband is a jerk because he - um, didn't approve of the cabana boy physically assaulting that woman - the witch one which had absolutely nothing to do with the plot BTW. The cabana boy threatens the husband and repeatedly attempts to seduce the wife. He then forces himself on her - which the woman finds so hot she stops thinking rape and starts thinking she wants him. Uh huh. The misogynistic, inferiority complex thoughts the director displays are just revolting. It is one thing when a fine film like American Psycho deliberately tries to get us to empathise with the villain but in Survival Island I felt like I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy but the director failed to make him unlikeable and instead made us hate his victims. What was he thinking???


It is playing on SHOWTIME right now but is going to be released as a movie called THREE or has been released for 2006. Mess ups include a supposed nude body comes out of the waves with her bottoms on. You can have fun finding the others. It was a decent stranded, hungry, cold, crazy person video but that is about it. And of course what would a movie be without sex. The lady has a nice body and the men are pretty, but the story is the same as Swept Away or A Savage is Loose type with some blood. Wonder if the movie studios know they made a big booboo and already released this show and now gonna release it as THREE. Billy Zane should have worn a top hair piece or shaved his head completely. Juan Di Pace is awesome and there is a couple good sex scenes. There is a voodoo woman that loves the character Di Pace plays and in real life her name is Di Pace too. Not aware of any connection but probably kin or married.


What the heck is this about? Kelly (jennifer) seems to drop all moral behavior as soon as she arrives to the island. She finds this Juan P (Manuel) existing and exotic, though she witnessed when he slapped his ex in the face, which he also justify later on in the movie, right or wrong? These two guys are the first to find each other on the island. Kelly are totally lost in every sense and the great Juan P can fish and built a somewhat house. Mr handyman. They seem to have a great time. Then Billy Zane (Jack, Kellys characters husband) shows up and of course, two days without knowing what his wife has been doing whit this gorgeous Juan P, he is a little bit jealous. Billy Z is the stereotype rich guy and maybe not the nicest man in the world. He dislikes Juan P (for hitting his girlfriend at the pier, who can blame him? Hes also is arrogant, but he paid loads of money to rent that boat and Juan P who is the waiter/everything cant even fetch him a beer whit in 20 min. Wouldn't you be upset? Yet Billy is probably the guy you want to punch in the face if you meet him. But at the same time, he is, not to be blamed for, suspicious about the scuba goggles Manuel has. Kelly and Billy just lost some dear friends! How convenient he just happens to have them, no matter what!). However, for some strange reason Kelly likes this girl hitting Manuel and starts to hate Billy for being jealous. OK, Billy is overreacting, thats for sure, but Kelly isn't doing much to convince him either. She spends more time with Juan P and even wants him to sleep with them since hes been so nice (and even though Manuel yelled at her and calling her things for asking him some intimate questions. But Kelly is SO forgiving...). Yeah right. And then she starts to have sex with this Juan P. It should be said that Kelly and Billy seems to have a working relationship before this island incident, at least, they have intimate sex on the boat and talks like people do when they like each other. Now, you can think that this scenario is possible. But for real, is it? Are you cheating your husband after two days on a coconut island just because hes jealous and acts like a drunk in the bar? (i wouldn't disagree if there relationship was really bad but the director doesn't give much hints if thats the case). For Christ sake, Juan P hasn't really shown himself being a good person. Catching some fish and built a wood house to get into someones panties, is that showing a good side? Not trying to befriend Kellys husband in anyway (which would be very simple by letting them be alone most of the island-time, simply be respect) He doesn't care about their relationship (and Kelly cant figure that one out), he just want to have sex with Kelly. Kellys character is just not trustworthy (if she was stranded with Billy and another attractive girl, wouldn't she be upset or what?!). Or maybe she is? Billy Zane plays a not very nice person, and Juan P isn't actually much better if you really think about it. And poor Kelly is so confused, and believes having sex with Juan P will solve everything because her husband is so strange and so aggressive towards poor Juan P? So... for all of you who reads this... What do you think about it? If you where the Kelly character, would you consider cheating on your husband, knowing one day you'll be back in real life, and all of a sudden Billys maybe not that horrible person after all. Hes just too jealous. And if you where Billys character, what do you say, is he totally wrong in his behavior? And Juan P character what do you guys really think of him. One thing is for sure. Manuels exist! Ps... The voodoo thing is so totally wrong here! What the heck was that about?! Seriously! Anyone tell me?


Thankfully I watched this film alone, enabling me to fast-forward through the worst scenes (aka most of the film, actually). OK, some of it is not all bad, with partially good photography (even some of the under water scenes) and at times not too bad directing. But it still doesn't save the incredibly poor script and way worse acting. Additionally, when I don't find the movies "hottie" to be all that, even the wannabe-sexy love making scenes get dull. Really dull! And for the drama: You know it's always a bad sign when you get to dislike all of the characters so much you really don't care who lives and who dies.

If you still haven't gotten tired of the reality series Survivor, you may find something to your liking in this movie. If not, stay well clear!


"Three" is a seriously dumb shipwreck movie. Masquerading as a psychological thriller, it's closest relative is the monumentally superior "Dead Calm" (also featuring Billy Zane). "Dead Calm" provided well drawn characters to root for in the form of Sam Neil and Nicole Kidman's grieving parents attempting to re-define their relationship on an ocean cruise. They end up being terrorised by Zane's adrift psycho-killer. It provided sharp, increasingly ratcheted suspense, a scary feeling of claustrophobia in open seas as the cat and mouse game of life and death unfolded.

"Three" suffers from poorly drawn characterisation (the audience doesn't care what happens to any of them), a stupid and unnecessary voodoo plot device, a total lack of suspense or excitement and some thudding, hammy performances from the principal players. Zane in particular goes way over the top in an irritatingly mannered fashion. In "Dead Calm" he was menacing, wired and seething with barely controlled sexual violence. Here he is bombastic, petulant slimy, and unravelled. And where does he get his seemingly inexhaustible supply of dry cigarettes and cigars? And how come his lighter stays full of juice for over a year? Ms Brook is very picturesque, stunningly pretty, but both her chest and rear appear to have been wildly over-inflated by some sort of life-raft pump. They do, however, succeed in acting with more skill and conviction than the rest of her. Dramatic actress, in the purest sense of the term, she is not. The guy playing the voodoo-hexed Manuel, the third component of this sorry triangle, could have been replaced by a lump of driftwood - no one would notice. In fact, judging by his complete lack of ability to deliver dialogue in any meaningful or dynamic way, driftwood represents a potential improvement in the casting stakes (excuse pun).

Plus sides: the scenery is nice and the cinematography (above and below the water) is credible.

I'm guessing this had a very limited (if any) theatrical release or went straight to rental and retail DVD. The reason for this is it's not very good. If you want something decent along these lines, get "Dead Calm." It was made by people who knew a bit about cinema.


First off, I just watched a movie on SHOWTIME called Survival Island. It says it was a 2006 movie with Billy Zane and since I like him and couldn't sleep I thought I would check it out. Looked interesting. Watched it, and decided to look up on the IMDb who was this new face Juan Pablo Di Pace and OMG I could not believe it, this movie has been renamed THREE and will be a new movie?? It is playing again in 1 hr and 30 mins on Showtime Channel again and this date is May 28 and EDT or Florida time. You can check your showtime listings by title and see it. I wont get into details so you can see the movie but at one point there is a lady in a white bikini that goes into the water taking it all off, you see her naked body.... when she runs back out of the water you see her bottoms on. Funny, there are a lot of other mess ups too. I can't believe by coincidence I decided to look up this movie... Go figure! Wonder if the people renaming it sold it to some movie studio to put out but it is already playing on Showtime, ha ha. Good laugh. I give it 1-1/2 stars. C-, D+ movie.


How much do I love this film?! Now I'm not a fan of bad films, but I do love a film that is so bad it's good. This is one of those. Juan Pablo Di Pace has a great butt, looks fab on screen, and definitely doesn't make a bad turn at his acting debut (I believe). Billy Zane is suitably mean and moody, though I still constantly feel that there is something more in him. I felt it in Titanic, the look on his face when La Winslet spat on him for example, totally broken, shocked, and put-down ... fierce! Kelly Brook is a pretty face ... no seriously, I think that's it! It's worth catching this to see one really hot guy, some big bra fillers from Brook, nasty growling from Billy, laugh at the dialogue, revel in the scenery and madness of the whole affair ... I'm gona go watch it again now - yes, I bought it!!!


By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). "Three" AKA "Survivor Island" keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.

In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals.


this is the worst film I've seen in a long long time, never mind the fact that so many useful things keep appearing on this island "how convenient!!!!", the acting is beyond poor from the outset, its like one of those really badly scripted soft porn films on channel 5, a complete waste of time, and i cant remember the lead actors name but i cant believe he still gets work!!! I've never seen him act "I've seen him in lots of films... But I've never seen him act. here are a few of the blaringly obvious errors, apparently petrol lighters still work even when they've been soaked in sea water!!! also according to this film you can walk into the sea naked but come out wearing bikini bottoms (I'm guessing the camera man and editor were students)there are plenty more errors but I'm ranting now, besides its no so much the errors as the cast the script and the whole film avoid at all costs


In a nutshell, skip this movie, it's that bad. In short, this movie is about a weapons factory where secret weapons are being developed. Because they make bad things, they aren't popular so to speak. A new female CEO comes in to clear things up, and make sure the reputation of the company will be improved. She does this by leaking company confidential information to the press... Do you believe this? Furthermore she starts to fire people she has never seen. Incredible uh? A pacifistic group tries to destroy the company's mainframe, because there are the blueprint located of those secret weapons. This mainframe is located in the bottom of the building hidden in a kind of vault. Of course the movie would not be complete without the mad scientist and a robot which is the ultimate killer machine, which resembles like an 'Alien' from the Alien movies. The mad scientist likes the female CEO.

The mad scientist instructs the robot to kill everyone, and so protects his job, rise in chain of command, and make the movie interesting. The pacifists team up with the CEO and another person of the board of directors to escape from the robot. Further down the line they agree to blow up this evil computer mainframe, whilst avoiding the robot. They also discover that the factory was developing a part man, part machine soldier. They can erase a persons memory and replace it by a veteran soldier's one. One of the pacifists is transformed in such a soldier and will hunt the killer robot. I guess the mad scientist also wrote the script of this movie. This super soldier looks and acts much the same as Robocop, though not as funny.

It boils down to this. People are running, being chased by a killer robot, are hurt by it, but they do not seem to troubled by that, besides limping a bit, and of course the female CEO is the leading character of this movie, and cannot be killed, i.e. survives every attack, explosion, you name it. I won't bother you by the chase, let's skip to the end. They have lots of weapons, yes the pacifist too and they know how to use them. When they're at the roof of the building they empty all there weapons upon the killer robot. They step into an elevator which is used to clean outside windows. And then the female CEO knows some magic as well, at the roof she was complaining about being out of bullets, and like magic the gun is reloaded. This way she can shoot the cables and let the elevator plummet 70 stories or so, and let it stop right above ground surface by pulling the brake. And to top it all off, the police is waiting there for them. The robot jumps after them, and kills the cops. Hilarious no? The robot chases them down the vault where the mainframe is, and when finally the robot is so close to her, that he can touch/kill her, it stops. Because the mad scientist did not want her to be killed. A better name for this guy would be the idiot scientist. Although he is the one who made this movie watchable. At this moment I was already pulling for the killer robot to finish them all of, so the movie would end.

I cannot believe that this movie rates this high, and this is why I wrote this comment. Avoid this movie like the plague. It's a monster, and I'm not talking about the Death Machine.


i just got done watching this movie and i have to say, it was a good film, i loved some of the good guy's and i loved the killer robot but the movie had some hole's in it.

the name's of the people in it was kind of..stupid..i think people should of sued the maker's of this movie for how lame it was at the end..the first half hour was good but then it just dragged on and on then i was happy..it was over...but still loved the the killer robot and some of the movie's good guy's in it.

i think it was the best two buck's i have ever spent because i do like stupid b-movie's like this one and come on..it is a b-movie everyone.


Maybe the subject was good, but put down to a script it fails in pace. Maybe the author was trying to obtain something slow-paced like Alien, but instead of being haunting, this movie turned out just boring. Technically good, anyway, a pity for the lack of tension.


This film promised a lot, so many beautiful and well playing actors but with a plot that had virtually NOTHING to say. So many potentially promising conflicts between the family members that could have been developed and elaborated but it was all dropped and not taken care of. There was no story to be told, just a show off of acting, technique, beautiful scenes - that were all EMPTY. But again, the acting was excellent so many of the individual scenes were entertaining, but as you became increasingly aware of the lack of underpinning ideas, even the acting lost its sense. So from the promising start you became increasingly disappointed as the non-story went along.


Tedium as only the French can do it. I checked my watch for the first time 7 minutes in, and with 143 minutes left, I also considered walking out. I won't even try to discuss the incoherence of the "plot" or the inability of the characters to be personable because at about 1 hour in, I realized none of this mattered. It was not merely self-indulgent or pretentious, it was a vacuum. A soul-sucking vacuum. This film has no saving grace, no enjoyable character, nothing funny, and nothing sad. It isn't smart enough to be drama and there's no moment that's in the slightest bit farcical. The most intriguing thing about this movie is how it has managed to get mostly glowing and positive reviews. I was tricked by those reviews, but you don't have to be, gentle reader. All I want for Christmas is my three hours back.


I can't remember the last time a movie was so boring that I walked out. The Weatherman and The Island were both so bad that I thought about it but I even stayed to the end in those. This movie was incomprehensible, not funny and just went on and on and on. Like some other commentators, I wondered if parts were just French humor that I didn't get or if the characters were serious. I finally just gave up and tried napping because I didn't want to disturb my husband if he was enjoying it but he noticed and let me know that it was OKAY if I wanted to leave and out the door we went. He would like to know how it ended...if Denevue lived or died etc...(I don't even care).


What a waste of great acting talent. This is a shame because with Catherine Deneuve, Mathieu Amalric, Emmanuelle Devos, Chiara Mastroianni, and Melvil Poupaud (not to mention others less well known in America) that's a lot of acting talent to waste. This film by Arnaud Desplech was a terrible disappointment. After having enjoyed his "Kings and Queens" and this film left me completely bored and frustrated to the point where I actually left before the movie ended. The movie wandered around its central storyline (involving Catherine Deneuve's illness) getting sidetracked by every peripheral storyline and supporting character that appeared on screen. The movie also gave us too little character development to understand why the different characters disliked each other so much (this was a story of family dysfunction) so that the dearth of coherent narrative became even more critical. Finally, the soundtrack (which ranged from hip hop to Bach to Mendelhson's Midsummer Night's Dream) was at odds with the emotional temperature of the movie and further obscured any emotion the viewer should have been feeling at the time. The photography (the director often began scenes with a mainly dark screen, where our only sight is through a small opening, making feel as if we are watching through a peephole, that then expands) was also pretentious and inscrutable.


Time travel is theoretical, so I can give the script some leeway.

I also understand the concept that by changing just one variable, you can potentially change the way history unfolded.

What I cannot understand, however, is the way the change in time unfolded. We are subjected to a series of "timewaves" which progressively retrograde planetary evolution. While this is a convenient plot device, as it allows our heroes enough time to resolve the problem, it makes no sense whatsoever. Surely, if you change a variable, and that variable has significantly, or even completely, altered planetary evolution, then by the time you come "back to the future", the evolutionary process has already been established and there would be no need for waves? After all, why would a change that happened 65 million years ago need to wait until now to be effective? The fact that the moth was projected forward in time may give it some credibility, but the life of that moth 65 million years ago was significantly altered, ergo, any change to evolutionary history would have begun then, and not be dependent upon a return to our current time.

To solve the problem, the team goes back in time to prevent the change in variable from ever happening. By doing this successfully, we see that the changes to evolution never happened, and that no-one even remembers the events! Surely, what works for the solution should work for the original change? I like a good rollicking sci fi adventure, but unless it is set "in a galaxy far far away" it needs to have at least some grounding in theoretical possibility to make it truly entertaining.

Good premise, bad plot, reasonable acting and, in all fairness, just a twist on Jurassic Park.

Not on my "watch again" list.