iCarly is all that's wrong with the world. All the main characters but Carly's brother and Freddy are morally bankrupt.

Sam damages other people on whim. She breaks a kids locker and he is forced to pay a 100 dollars to fix it, and all she says is "Tough luck" and moves on to smash Freddy's cellphone. She just caused at least 300 dollars worth of damage and she is more focused on getting some food. What the hell?. The only time she's every felt guilt is when she made fun of Freddy on the show. And that's only cause Carly nagged the crap out of her.

Carly is the "I'm perfect, everything I do is nice." type of girl. Everything she does is for her own benefit and she is often shown only having remorse for herself. What's worse, she encourages Sam's crap. Sam ruins some of Freddy's clothes? She laughs. Sam ruins a kids grades? She shrugs it off.

Don't even get me started on the humour. The laugh track is played at every moment.

Sam: He's not that hot Carly: Yes he is Sam: Yeah you're right *INSANE AMOUNT OF LAUGHTER*

The shows humour consists around degrading others and saying obscure words and occasionally bantering on about trivial matters using similar sentences.

Not to mention all the 'super cool special techno effects' they do can be done in Windows Movie Maker.


Miranda Cosgrove is known for her debut in "School of Rock" with Jack Black and her role as Megan in the show "Drake and Josh" and she has become a fan favorite amongst the Nickelodeon public, so it isn't a surprise that Dan Schneider would create a show just for her. Unfortunately, it ends up being as bad as, if not worse than, "The Amanda Show".

"iCarly" is about three friends, Carly, Sam, and Freddie, who have become idols in the junior high community through a webcam show called "iCarly". Carly and Sam are the hosts and Freddie shoots and puts it up on the internet. Carly also has an older brother named Spencer, acted by the hilarious Jerry Trainor who is known for his work in "Drake and Josh" as Crazy Steve.

Well, let me tell you this. Don't believe the 8.3 out of 10 this show received because it is pathetic in nearly every aspect. Dan Schneider probably went through about 5 minutes of studying teenage interests because all I see is him saying "iPod? iPhone? iHome? Aha! Teenagers love anything beginning with 'i'!" and a majority of gigs that were used in "Drake and Josh", if not, then they are just really dry and forced jokes that don't even count on a generousity chuckle, such as "You want me to turn up the AC to 60 degrees?" "No. We want you to turn it up to 60 pickles!" Not only that, but if you look closely, nearly all the sets in the shows were used in "Drake and Josh" and "Ned's Declassified" that were simply spit-and-polished with random stuff to try and make it look different.

The scenes where the show is showing a broadcast of the iCarly network is just as terrible as the entire series itself. The dialogue in them is atrociously bad, which may be accepted by some since it IS just two friends playing around in front of a camera, but what's the deal with the really odd, humorless antics they do like "Random Dancing!"? And it just gets worse from there.

In terms of acting, Miranda and Jennette aren't at their best, by far. Nathan Kress, who played Freddie, isn't believable at times, but he does an okay job. The person who really steals the show is the humorous prowess of Jerry Trainor, who fits in his "protective older brother" role very well and his wide-eyed loud-mouthed acting can make for some pretty funny segments. Too bad they aren't frequent, because that might have given the show an extra star in my opinion.

Dan Schneider must have made this show for the sole purpose of giving Miranda Cosgrove her own cable-born playground to hop around and spew unfunny jokes and pathetic cue-card lines in every direction, because everyone else has exceptional talent buried underneath the poorly-done script and weightless acting. Dan Schneider did a great job with "Drake and Josh" so it's a real disappointment that "iCarly" is such a failure. Jerry Trainor's acting saved this show from a 1 out of 10 rating, but he alone can't save "iCarly" from being as horrible as it is.


Nickelodeon has gone down the toilet. They have kids saying things like "Oh my God!" and "We're screwed"

This show promotes hate for people who aren't good looking, or aren't in the in crowd. It say that sexual promiscuity is alright, by having girls slobbering over shirtless boys. Not to mention the overweight boy who takes off his shirt. The main characters basically shun anyone out of the ordinary. Carly's friend Sam, who may be a lesbian, beats the snot out of anybody that crosses her path, which says it's alright to be a b**ch. This show has so much negativity in it that nobody should watch it! I give it a 0 out of 10!!!


Flatland is one of my favorite books, thus I was looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, the film is absolutely horrible. The dialog is so bad it sounds like improv half the time. The new storyline makes me think they took the book and a couple of newspapers, threw them in a blender and used what came out for the screenplay. It's a disgrace to the book and independent film making. The only reason I even managed to get all the way through the film was my hopes that it'd get better. Unfortunately, it only got worse, climaxing in a really retarded ending.

That's not to say EVERYTHING about the movie is bad. The CG is acceptable, in a 1990's "Reboot" sort of way which I assume is what they were going for. And I suppose you can't go wrong with "people" getting chopped in half and gushing blood all over the place.


Well, I got and saw this movie based on the rather high score here (7.1 now), and some of the good reviews. Usually IMDb is a good guide when it comes to score, though in this case I was very much deceived.

The movie is a present-day detective story, with Vinnie Jones as the investigator journalist, who investigates the death of a construction worker. Mixed with this is a made up Dickens' novel (called The Riddle, set in the 18th or 19th century), which also deals with a murder story. Both story lines are connected through the discovery of an unpublished manuscript.

Sounds interesting? It could have been, however this movie horribly fails in a number of areas : 1) Acting. Mediocre at best, but it is watchable. No worse than your average UK sitcom, though for a movie one expects a little better. Especially with a score of over 7. 2) Music. The music used is simply horrible, it distracts and it is annoying. Especially the pub music, and the music which plays in the journalist's apartment. 3) Storyline. This is a big joke. There are gaping plot holes everywhere and even the obligatory love story is so unrealistic that it's almost funny. Furthermore, without going into any detail, I can safely say that the ending is absurd, and one of the worst pieces of acting and storyline of the year. 4) Camera-work. At times camera positions and views are distracting, and serve absolutely no purpose to the "story".

I'm a bit of a movie fanatic, and watch on average 1 to 2 movies a day, but this is easily the worst movie I've seen in months. Don't waste your money or your time on this rubbish.


What more can I add? This is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen. Terrible acting, a daft script, tediously slow pace - even visible microphones dangling from the top of the screen. I could go on, but I really can't be bothered. I watched this for 90 minutes before the sense of losing the will to live became too great for me.

I can only assume that the first set of comments and votes were from people associated with the promotion of this insult to British film-making.

And worst still, I had to buy the Mail on Sunday to get it :-) The only reason the DVD hasn't now been redeployed as a coaster is that it now takes pride of place in my Top 10 Worst Films Ever collection.

Definitely one to be avoided.


Words fail me for this appalling waste of two hours of anyone's life. The story is contrived to the point of complete incredibility.

The acting is leaden and so much of this is laughably dreadful. Vinnie Jones - so wonderful in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is unbearably awful and unbelievable as Mike Sullivan, journalist.

I honestly can't ever remember seeing a worse film. It's only worth watching for the appalling continuity lapses. After Jones is handed a huge beating he emerges without a scratch on him. His girlfriend upends a drink over him and he chases her, emerging from the pub bone dry. It's quite dreadful, made all the worse by the talented actors who appear in it.


A pretty awful film, I'm amazed the likes of Derek Jacobi & Vanessa Redgrave agreed to be in it, it's like an overlong episode from a poor TV detective series.

The biggest flaw has to be Vinnie Jones, he simply can't act, whoever had the bright idea of casting him as a leading man wants their head examining unless he put his own money into the project? He should stick to playing thugs, looking menacing & NOT speaking!

Also was central heating around in Dickens times as there were three big radiators behind his desk??

No wonder they gave this away free with a newspaper as no one would pay to see it.


Ever notice how so many really bad films attract so many 10/10 votes? Not much of a Riddle how that happens, but this is not much of a film. There are two ways of looking at it being given away in the Mail On Sunday.

1. It's free, so you can't complain about it to much. 2. It's free, so it can't be much good.

My vote is number 2. The free DVD in the Sunday papers things is a recent trend and some great old movies have been given away. They're ones that have been out for ages and have made most of the money they'll ever make, so it's a case of anything else is a bonus. It's the last stop for old films, not the first for new ones, so you can guess how bad this must be to skip TV and DVD rental.

The plus points are that Vinnie Jones does try hard and Derek Jacobi is good as Dickens. The minus points are a longer list. Trying isn't the same as succeeding for poor Vinnie and Jacobi's other tramp character is talkative ham that's gone off. The story is very weak. The Dickens story does not have anything to do with the film's murders and feels like another movie slapped onto the script to make people think it's a British Dan Brown without the religion. The supporting cast are either there for the money (Vanessa Redgrave must be really hard up) or because they are friends or girlfriends of the filmmakers. It is also very, very long for what it is.

Vinnie taking his priceless Dickens story with him in his jacket pocket everywhere is good for a couple of laughs, but that's it. Not funny and very not good even for free.


The growth of tax funds and sale-and-leaseback schemes has led to a raft of unsaleable films that are gathering dust in laboratories and vaults all over the British Isles because they seem to be made purely because they fit the financial criteria rather than had any potential audience. A lucky few get a week at a small screen in London before going to budget DVD, but The Riddle distinguished itself by completely bypassing cinema, TV or even the rental market to premiere as a free gift DVD in the Mail on Sunday.

It's all too easy to see why this ended up being literally given away. Aside from a couple of glitches (a boom mike is clearly visible in one shot) it's not particularly badly made, and while Vinnie Jones comes over like modern British cinema's version of Freddie Mills Mills as the greyhound reporter who wants to move up to the crime desk and the supporting cast veer from ham to vaguely passable, nobody's distinguishing themselves here by being either outstandingly good or outstandingly bad: mediocrity is more the norm here. The real problem is that like so many sale-and-leaseback tax fund films, it's a 'soft' film - there's no reason to watch it. It exists because the circumstances existed for it to be made, but it lacks pace or forward momentum. It seems to be aiming for the Sunday teatime telly audience (despite being shot in Scope) but doesn't cut it. There are a couple of okayish ideas in this determinedly inoffensive tale of a unpublished Charles Dickens manuscript and a couple of suspicious deaths in modern-day Limehouse, but the mystery element is so painfully obvious - as is the last-minute supernatural twist (you'll never guess who Jacobi's literate tramp really is. What, you guessed?) - that you're almost expecting the Scooby Gang or the Double Deckers to turn up to solve it.

It's a very misconceived film for all kinds of reasons: a few cast members are playing double roles when they shouldn't even be playing one, and the whole shock reveal of the truth of the Dickens manuscript is completely bungled because it's all narrated in the first person by Dickens rather than the supposed character of the novel. The main murder in the film is clumsily integrated into the main plot, with characters suddenly reminding Vinnie that he's forgotten about that one already, heralding an increasingly desperate final half hour that sees wicked developer Jason Flemyng's secretary puts some Rohypnol in Vinnie's drink so she can have her wicked way with him and leave incriminating photos behind "to make you look a git with your girlfriend," leading to him having a dream where he talks to Charles Dickens ("You're Charles Dickings" "What's in a name?"), who offers the somewhat less than likely suggestion that "You read too many books." But all that's as nothing compared to the finale, which falls into utter absurdity, with logic and common sense going completely out the window as it plays like some bizarre Jacobean revenge tragedy with handguns on the banks of the Thames, with two-day guest stars Flemyng and Vanessa Redgrave looking like they'd much rather be somewhere else (Mel Smith turns up in a one-day cameo, so it's clear that the film's 'names' are mainly there for an easy $10k or to meet their alimony payments). The film's final image is so utterly absurd and pointless as to almost make it worth watching, though.

One curiosity is a fairly prominent role in the first third for Vera Day, a sort of prototype Liz Fraser and one-time mainstay of 50s British films - the barmaid in Hell Drivers, the barmaid in Quatermass II - here promoted to pub owner, while standup comedian Kenny Lynch turns up briefly to give the best performance as an old school gangster. Oh, and the late Gareth Hunt makes his last bow as - oh the irony - a coroner...

Just to round out the package, the freebie DVD also included a trailer for the director's other film with Vinnie Jones, Bog Bodies, a naff-looking British horror with transAtlantic scientists and Vinnie in Elmer Fudd duck hunter outfit terrorized by a reanimated 2000-year old sacrificial victim from the nearest peat bog ("Be wewwy, wewwy qwuiet: I'm hunting dwuids"). I can hardly wait...

The one thing I can guarantee, however, is that every indie producer in the UK is going to spend the next few weeks trying to find out exactly how much the Mail paid for the license to press the DVD (they paid Prince £250,000 for his new CD). With so many British tax-shelter indies on the shelf and with money so hard to find at the moment, this could become an interesting fallback market for British flicks.


The riddle as a concept is an interesting idea, but i'm afraid is miscast, Vinnie if given the Hard man role is his element as in Lock Stock and Snatch. In this movie Vinnie plays a Newspaper sports writer (greyhounds to be precise),who during the course of the movie is easily is beaten up with ease and bundled over a balcony by a man who 10-15 years his senior. I'm sorry Vinnie is tough looks tough and has so to cast him like this is foolish. Trying to investigate the double murders of a friend and a drug addict found near the Thames. He takes on the role of policeman, whilst the real police are bit part players, interceeding with flashbacks from Charles Dickens.

When Vinnie is on screen his reputation precedes him he looks tough but does'nt in this part need act tough, snarling at the camera in parts. If you watch the Mean Machine, he is perfectly cast, and believable and does a very decent performance.

Getting back to the movie what confuses the matter somewhat is the flashback to Charles Dickens who is narrating a different story with characters who are also appear in present day, these two stories are it appears unrelated apart from the same actors are used.

The sound on the movie especially from Julie Cox is inaudible at times, and not really fleshed out what her role in the movie is short of Vinnies Love interest, she starts the film as a Detecive, but quickly becomes the Girlfriend.

The Death of the Prostitute is sort of answered but yet/not answered . Strip out the Charles Dickens stuff and you may have a decent movie.

Vinnie, is slowly becoming Britans Steven Segal, stick to the supporting actor role, your'e quite good at it.


I could not believe the original rating I found when i looked up this film, 9.5? Unfortunately it looks like I am not alone.

The film, is slow and boring really, one of the sad things is that if the film had been given a realistic rating of around 5 or 6 then the expectation would not have been so high.

Unfortunately, this was not the case, so when watching the film, and seeing the poor story and acting, I am left giving it a 3/10 score.

Vinnie Jones is superb in Lock stock, and also Snatch, and he plays a great hard man, however, he should stick to this role. Its a bit like when Stallone and Schwarzenegger have done comedy films, they just don't work.

Neither can he play lead actor, he plays better as supporting or otherwise. When he plays lead, his acting talents are too 'in view' and shown up as not really very good. Mean Machine is another good example of this.


It doesn't surprise me that the makers of this hopeless movie couldn't find a UK distributor, and then had to release it as a free DVD with a Sunday newspaper. The distributors could clearly see what the film-makers and the Sunday newspaper couldn't, that this was one movie that just wasn't going to recoup its costs.

Since it's a thriller about riddles, it would have helped if they'd picked a lead actor who could enunciate properly, rather than the mumbling Vinnie Jones who appears to pronounce "riddle" as "riell". And it would have helped if the dialogue hadn't been swamped by noisy locations or scenes flooded with distracting and inappropriate music. The plot is ludicrous: The lost Charles Dickens story supposedly helps our hero solve a series of modern murders, but so would a copy of Herge's Adventures Of Tintin, since the link between Dickens and Jones is more non-existent than tenuous. And we have the ridiculous premise that a would-be investigative journalist who lays his hands on a previously undiscovered Dickens manuscript, would take several days to read it, just so that flashbacks to Dickens can continue to be played throughout the movie, as if they had some connection to it. Which they don't. I mean, if you found a new Dickens manuscript, wouldn't you just go somewhere quiet and read it ? The film ends with one of those surprise revelations that have become mandatory since The Sixth Sense, but in this case it doesn't so much surprise you as insult your intelligence. If the film is suddenly going to turn supernatural at the twelfth hour, then revealing that Vinnie Jones is a robot might have been more acceptable. It might not have seemed so turgid if the film had been stylish, but it isn't. And in several places it appears decidedly amateur: There's a scene where a table is laid with a 60's jump-cut technique, but they haven't made sure that the person actually laying the table is completely out of frame between the cuts. Consequently, you can see things changing at the edge of frame, when you're really supposed to be watching things changing at the centre of frame. A good rule in movie-making is: If you don't understand how to do a technique then try something else.

The real riddle is why anyone thought it would be a good idea to make this movie in the first place.


The only Riddle in this film was how it ever got made. the British film Industry needs to make films people actually want to watch and not look to get Taxpayers money (a'la BBC) to keep Luvvies in their life style they have been accustomed to, with doing nothing for it.

the Film was every thing wrong with British Films it relied on stereotypes, it had to be about a London were people were either Posh and corrupt, Gangsters, Luvvies or gawd blimey jellied eel types, the story script was just pathetically weak, to the extent when the Police man pulled out his phone and the ring tone was the "Sweeney " theme I just expected it. The whole film was a happy shopper sweeney / Minder rip off.

the priceless manuscript I noted got left behind and lost on a few occasions and is something even I with my limited street wiseness wouldn't carry around in my breast pocket every where, to the beach and fights etc Saying that Vinnie Jones is likable which is about the only thing in the film, poor bloke.

When Derek Jacobi walked into the water at the end because he was Dickens, oh my god, what a load of crap, and I am being positive here


Its No wonder this was free with the Mail on Sunday, slow going, poor acting, and filming (camera flare, near start of movie, is not even artistic) = Straight to video, but not in this case, why not recoup some of your (Film production costs) by releasing it free with a UK Sunday newspaper, at least this way you get a captive audience, and recover some costs.

I have not given this film a 1 out of 10, due to the effort to pull some old actors out their shell, it was nice to see some old faces (Vanessa Redgrave,this an't no Blow Up), but Vinnie Jones as a lead, and I think he was better in Gone in 60 seconds when he did not speak.

This Film is dropping in Ratings every day,i think this will find its true mark at the 3-4 out of 10,in the very near Future


As I'm listening to my parents watch this (after I gave up 10 minutes into the film), they have absolutely no idea what is going on. When "Charles Dickens" stared into the camera, I half expected him to turn into a demon (yes, he looked like one). Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

This movie had various reasons I did not finish it: one, it was unbearably slow. I mean, seriously, it was SLOWW. You can only understand 10% of what is said, and the characters were poorly introduced.

If you have an English accent and you like a LOTTT of talking, no action, terrible acting, cheesy laughs, and the same music/sound effects played over and over and over, then this is THE movie for you...

1/10 - completely horrible.

Avoid at all costs.


Come on now. How did all of these talented actors/actresses end up in this mess? Was it some sort of blackmail/lost bet situation? Vinnie, you are a muscle man. Be what you were born to be.

The hot tub scene? The Scrabble scene? I was expecting to hear the "needle dragging over the record" sound at any point.

And what was up with him carrying around the priceless Dickens manuscript with him? Let's see, I'm drunk at a bar, why not pull out the priceless Dickens manuscript? I'm going to meet some questionable thugs down on the edge of the Thames, why not take my priceless Dickens manuscript?

Crapola.

Terrible. Avoid.


Whoever saddled this piece of drek with a title like Riddle deserves some kind of Award; there are dozens of riddles here like who conceived such a dire project, who funded it, who cast it, who persuaded Vanessa Redgrave to share even ONE scene with Vinnie Jones and so on. The most sane voice connected to the whole schmeer belongs to the person who decided - very, very wisely - that this was unreleasable and not even good enough to go straight to video/DVD which throws up yet one more riddle, why - if we rule out serious payola - did the Mail On Sunday get involved and deign to give it away. This has Golden Turkey written all over it and smacks of being shot in two days in somebody's garage and cobbled on to some library footage of London except somehow you KNOW that someone actually DID shoot this on location when it would have been kinder to shoot him/herself. Vinnie Jones and Julie Cox are not even cardboard cutouts more like tissue paper and I swear Pete Doherty and Kate Moss couldn't have done worse whilst Derek Jacobi is a grotesque joke and the plot moves with the speed of the Irish team sliding UP the Cresta Run. Apart from that ...


I didn't know anything about this DVD when I hired it. Had a quick look here at the comments but decided to keep an open mind. Obviously an independent film and low budget but that didn't worry me. I will watch anything with Derick Jacobi and as always he played his part well. What a pity no one else did. I had watched 'Atonement' a few weeks ago with Vanessa Redgrave and she was sublime. In this she seemed to just turn up to read the lines. In my opinion the main mistake was in casting Vinnie Jones. To be honest I saw his picture on the DVD cover but didn't notice that he got top billing. A sticker was strategically placed over his name! It was watchable and I quite liked the Dickens story alongside present day. Maybe with a more capable actor playing the lead this might have worked better. Still it was weak.


The fact that this film was distributed free with a certain national newspaper which I do not care for did, to a degree, put me off of watching it, but as I had come across a copy that a local charity shop was giving away for nothing I felt I could watch it with a clear conscience.

The film does have its moments, the evocation of the Thameside location is nicely done, but it does suffer, I feel, from a few too many faults. Firstly, Vinnie Jones is simply not convincing as the journalist. Whilst Vinnie himself is an interesting character, the truth is that he simply does not have the range of acting ability to pull off a role like this.

Secondly, who would carry around with them a lost manuscript that they have been informed is "priceless"? It seemed that everywhere Mr Jones went this manuscript went with him! Thirdly, the whole Dickens aspect of the story, whilst appearing to be important, gets in the way of what could have been an interesting film of corruption in high places. Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I really could not see the point of the story-within-a-story Dickens style. This added nothing to the film, and only served to confuse matters when things started to become interesting within the modern day story line.

The one bit of praise I will give the film makers is that at least they did attempt something a little different. I am all for British Independent films that try to be 'out of left field', but this is not a 'Red Road' or 'This is England'. What it is is a bit of a mess, and an over-long one at that. Yes, it entertains in part, but in the end it felt like two films merged together to make a whole, and failing both by doing so. (Also, I can not help think that I have seen something similar done recently on TV by Ian Banks, set in Edinburgh with a story concerning Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes).


What a shame that some good talent was wasted. This is a tedious and overly self-conscious movie, that could tell its story in half the time. Is that Derek Jacobi under that beard doing two roles? Gosh, who would have guessed.

The emotional payoff a the end was weak and unsatisfying. Certainly not worth enduring the padded length of the movie for. I felt quite let down.

The sound was dreadful. First, they used stock music. Second, it was so loud during some of the dialog, that the words were hard to make out. Only three sound crew, and a trainee? There were more people listed in the credits for either the accounting or the legal.

Some of the camera work was quite good though, and the actors did a good job with a mediocre script.

Not a good use of viewing time, at least for me.


This movie must have looked when it was being pitched at development stage and getting a Redgrave and a Jacobi on board must have excited the money men. All I can say is that they clearly did not have anything on that week. Jacobi camps it up in the way that only Jacobi can do and I thought that he seemed to more of the actor that he parodied in his cameo role in Frasier a few years back. Vinnie Jones is not exactly bad, he is just clearly out of his depth as a leading man. He is really quite amiable throughout and if this was a pilot for a TV series, it may have just got picked up. However, the scipt and the camera work were appalling. Quite why this "jounalist" and a press officer from the Met would ever work together is never explained. It certainly cannot have been because of the sexual chemistry, of which there is none. There is nothing wrong with a ridiculous and far fetched plot that you can pass off as original, but the whole thing is just so contrived that the two stories just do not make sense at all. It was like two stories confusingly edited in to one just to make up two hours. Go watch some paint dry for a couple of hours. You life will be more fulfilled than watching this rubbish


This film was pure trash. Not the worse film ever. If it were to be broken down, the acting was good enough to get the job done but the script was SO out there and so stupid that one was left thinking, "Where did my life go?" Even Vanessa Redgrave~ whom I love (and is the reason I watched this) was wasted. Utterly wasted. She didn't even leave an impression. The directing was so distant that non of the characters left me much of anything, but to see Redgrave leave nothing. Her part was nothing. She was good as a mean boss but that was it. Do depth and she's given depth to small roles~ see Venus and Atonement. I would not waste my time and was upset to have spent the $5 on this movie...I wanted it back. No returns. Skip the film. It'll only bring you grief...and boredom.


At the least some of the sitcoms that churn endlessly out of the US are honestly bad. This junk, however, portrays a "heart warming" parenty side to a clothes horse. Acting laughably "learnt" with glances and phrases delivered in the "I'm SO important and thin and beautiful" fashion. In the episode I just sat agog through, someone's "job" was at risk simply because a colleague had "placed" a phone call, slagging her capabilities off ... !! Really, this is the lowest of the low. What kind of damage does this foist on the watching masses, seeing only glitzy glam-puss people parading around "working". Utterly sick making. When the titles rolled, I thought, oh well, it provided jobs for the boys. You know who you are.


Baby boom was bad enough, basically making a series of every straight mans nightmare is worse. Yeah watched a few always made me feel better after a bad day, it reminded me it could be worse. Guy was rich successful, single(smart man), and dating celebs from singers to actresses, then his screw up of a cousin dumps his biggest mistake on him. In reality it would have been straight to foster care I'm sure, this was definitely a chic series. Oh and what's all the wining about the baby change, most the time it's probably a doll besides at that age it's nothing more than a prop anyways.

Any case I'm glad it didn't last more than a year.


This is an extremely competent movie technically. The camera work and direction are excellent and the acting is fine as well--especially the fine acting by Daniel Auteuil as the Marquis. I really thought there were no problems at all with these aspects of the film. Instead, I was a bit annoyed by the way the Marquis was portrayed, as it didn't seem all that honest and seems to be a very revisionistic view of history. In fact, in recent years, the Marquis has undergone a bit of a transformation to a defender of freedom with great insight, not the fat sado-masochist rapist he really was. In a way, this is highly reminiscent of the whitewash given in THE PEOPLE VERSUS LARRY FLINT--where these men are elevated to hero status. Even if you don't think that the Marquis' perversions weren't all that bad (they included rapes and extreme violence), his portrayal in this film as a "sexual social worker" in this prison seems pretty silly. Instead of the violent and selfish Sade, he spends a lot of time carefully grooming a young virgin and slowly helps her to explore her own sensuality. What a nice and kind man. In fact, now that I think about it, this performance reminds me of the man Maurice Chavalier played in GIGI (but without the singing)--a cute older man who loves the ladies. I strongly doubt the real-life Marquis de Sade would have recognized this character at all!

The film, surprisingly, doesn't have a lot of nudity, though what it does show is extremely explicit. Only a maniac would let their kids see this as this is a very adult drama. It's very well-made and pretty entertaining--just not all that truthful. The director admits that the film is largely fictional in the interview among the special features on the DVD I watched. So go ahead and see the film if you'd like--understanding it just isn't very good historically. During the 18th century, sexual libertines were quite accepted in France as they were pretty broad-minded, so despite what the movie implies it wasn't SEX that was the issue, it was the violence and rape that was (and still is) the problem.


The title is a misnomer:the movie depicts barely one year of the so-called "divin marquis" .Twas a hard time for him 'cause he was threatened by the guillotine :the quiet joys of the reign of Terror .

Historically speaking,the background is rather sketchy: "the fête De l'et re supreme",Robespierre's failed attempt to create a secular religion,his downfall ,a heaven sent opportunity for showing Doctor Guillotin's sinister machine at work (full speed).

As far as Sade is concerned ,it's a downright mediocre affair :he's waiting in a former nunnery with other nobles ,a golden cage if you compare it to ,say,Marie-Antoinette's or scientist Lavoisier's fates,and he exchanges futile conversations with a young virgin about death,love and other trivia.There's the obligatory "daring" scene but you've got to be patient because it's a long time before it comes on the screen.And anyway ,by today's standards ,can we call that risqué? Cy Enfield's "De Sade" ,which enjoys one of the lowest ratings of the IMDb ,is at least entertaining ,and Keir Dullea was a more credible marquis than the aging Auteuil.And it featured John Huston.


I was expecting to this to be hilarious and it was mediocre at best, the only funny character is, believe it or not Andy Dick. The timing was just horrible on most of the jokes & gags and the writing was bad, I mean I know its supposed to be like blaxploitation but it just did work. besides this whole genre has been beaten to death already, with all the austin powers movies & undercover brother, it just seems old, it also just feels like a rip off from undercover brother (which also wasn't hysterical, but a lot funnier than this). Also, for an comedy/action movie the direction was kind of bland. I don't know if this is going to be released in theaters, but it definatley is made for TV.


The Hebrew Hammer is a clever idea wasted, as the execution is weak. As if often the case with iconoclastic humor, it relies overly on outrage to generate laughs, which simply isn't enough. Poor-taste humor has two elements -- poor taste and humor -- and both are needed here, but the humor is pretty scarce. As a result, it is often painful to watch, all the more so because of good attempts on the part of the performers, particularly Adam Goldberg as the HH himself. The Shaft references are funny, though, but only to those who know those movies, and they certainly don't carry The Hebrew Hammer.

Another problem is that many of the jokes rely on knowledge of American Jewish culture, and many in the audience will simply not understand the jokes.


This film is dreadful. It has absolutely zero laughs. Hebrew Hammer (Adam Goldberg) sets out to save Hannukah from Evil Santa (Andy Dick). Perhaps a promising enough basis for a plot, in actual fact the film does not progress beyond this premise. While there are some (far and few) nice touches and the plot is relatively coherent, it is laboured, hackneyed and ultimately, mindlessly boring. This despite the fact that Goldberg, Dick and Greer (Hammer's client/love interest) all have quite considerable screen presence. Despite being played for what might be described as whacky over-the-top gags, this film is consistently middle-class middle-of-the-road muck. DO NOT waste 85 minutes of your life on this. (note- the music was good..!)


I saw the *star* of this movie on The Daily Show, and thought I might tune in (the movie premiered on Comedy Central, Then went into theaters). Oh Vey!

This makes "Shakes the Clown" look like "Citizen Kane"! Avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs. Not one laugh, not even a grin. This movie will make your face come out in pimples and your eyes burst like the last remants of "Raiders". I can't even think of a worse movie, be it "Manos" or "Ishtar". As the Pythons beckoned, run away, run away! Why did anyone green light this unless they used their own money? The horror is that there is not ONE good line, not ONE good joke, and only ONE bad thing...the making of this movie.

I feel that, if made properly, this would have been hilarious. As it is, I need a new pancreas for retching so loud. Damn anyone involved in this travesty.


I picked up this movie because it caught my eye as movie with a Jewish comedy focus - something I had not seen before.

I approached this film with an open mind, and was interested in the way it began. The opening is well put together, and the first half of the film gave me many reasons to laugh, and this is good.

However, the humor soon became repetitive, the plot became confused and strained, and I realized I was no longer enjoying the film. I have tried to avoid saying this, but the movie became rather "cheap" - not a bad thing for a comedy if the humor holds up, but it didn't. I confess that I may have missed some of the humour, not being Jewish myself, and having little experience with Jewish culture. However, considering how heavily telegraphed the bulk of the humour was in this film, it's unlikely I missed much.

The idea is a good one, and perhaps if a little more thought was put into it the film would have been watchable all the way through. I wish I could give the movie a higher rating, but strictly speaking it would have been better as a TV series or as a series of skits. There was just not enough worthwhile fresh material for a full-length movie.

One thing to say about the casting - the lead role looked as if it had been designed with Ben Stiller in mind, but I don't think the movie would have been any more worthwhile if he had been in it.


Technically speaking, this movie sucks...lol. However, it's also hilarious. Whether or not it's intentionally funny I don't know. Horrible in every aspect, it also is the only movie I know of that has 1) a fat kid being played by a slim actor in a (very obvious) fat suit, 2) an attractive 30-something actress playing a character who's supposed to be in her late 60's, and 3) the most compliments for plastic yard daisies ever. Don't take this film seriously, just watch it for laughs....a great party movie.


You can see that if the flick ain't directed by his brother, this is the best he can do. And sad to say, his best just doesn't cut it. "Ice Cream Man" is a very bizarre horror film, that's a real blast to watch if you're in the right mood. In the wrong mood, it has been known to cause people to lash out violently at loved ones, so please, watch with caution.

Clint Howard stars (Does anything really star Clint Howard though?) as the "evil" "psychotic" "bizarre" (Yes all in quotes, he's not quite any of these, but he's getting close) ice cream man, who tortures the local children with bomb pops that are really melty and ice cream that has chopped up humans and dogs in them. Ick.

Anyway, the plot's really just an excuse to show of the...well, the...um, well it's a plot. Oh wait, I know! It's an excuse to show off all the loser actor cameos! There's Jan Michael Vincent and Lee Majors II (The sequel?) as cops tracking the elusive man o' ice cream. And even Doug Lleyweln appears as a supermarket clerk.

Even better than that, are some of the bizarre goofs in the film. I really like the fact that for some reason, instead of hiring a fat actor to play the unhappy "fat" kid of the group, they just make this one kid wearing padding under his clothes. And the entire premise that anyone would by scoops of ice cream from a ice cream man. Who buys ice cream scoops from the ice cream man? Then there's the entire psychiatric ward scene, in which Jan Michael Vincent's acting ranges from mildly interested, to bored beyond the state of consciousness. These are the cops who also scour the Ice Cream Man's place for clues but manage to complete gloss over the ice cream truck (where, of course, the various bodies and such are kept). Oh well, better luck next time troops.

Howard himself overacts like he's making sure people two towns over can see and hear him. It's all just plain dumb. And fairly fun to laugh at in the fine tradition of The Pumaman or Gymkata. You'll have a GOOD laugh with the right sense of HUMOR. I love that one.


The only good thing that this movie created was that it made me hungry for ice cream, minus the dead body parts in it. The movie is one of the most cheesy I've seen in a long time. When the "Ice Cream King" dies in the beginning, I was laughing so hard because the kid took the ice cream from him and started eating it. His mom asked him to say something and should should have said "Leave me alone and let me eat the free ice cream so I can watch my acting career go down the drain at a young age." That seems about right for a line. Then I wondered why the ice cream prince was behind the bars of his ice cream truck. Was someone going to rob him of his twenty cents? I've never seen bars on a ice cream truck window. It seemed pretty stupid. You might as well forget about the acting because it is just awful. Forget about this movie and go down to dairy queen and get an ice cream.


A conversation about how Jan-Michael Vincent is a lush led me to foolishly re-visit this mid-90s DTV entry. A kid is traumatized when he sees an Ice Cream man gunned down in the 1950s and he grows up to be a psycho Ice Cream man (Clint Howard). Something happens and people disappear and end up in the ice cream. Blah, blah, blah.

Director Norman Apstein (credited as Paul Norman) made a career of doing porn before this and went right back to it afterward. That is what you get for having all murders happen off screen. And for casting a skinny kid as a fat kid and making him wear a fat suit. Just cast a fat kid! Also, there is a scene where Vincent stoically reacts to a group of escaped loonies surrounding him. He was either totally drunk and was frightened for his life or the filmmakers captured his "Have I really sunk this low?" shame full on. Despite being low budget trash, this did line up a few good names including David Naughton, Olivia Hussey, David Warner and THE PEOPLE COURT's own Doug Llewelyn. How you can make a boring slasher with that cast is beyond me.


Clint Howard, brother of more talented Ron, stars in this abysmally awful horror comedy about a mental case who serves ice cream to children and kills people. Striving to be a movie that's of the 'so bad that it's good' variety, this film misses that mark by a good mile and instead has to be seen as 'so bad that it's...well...BAD'. Wheter it's the constant 'shoe ad' cinema, the pillow stuffed 'fat kid', or the sleep inducing 'horror' that soured me on the film, i don't know, all I know is I loathed the film (and this from a guy who has a soft spot for B-horror films). Paul Norman choose to continue making films in the porn industry both before and after this, his only 'mainstream' film. A wise choice indeed as horrible acting, nonsense storyline, and ludicrous dialog are much MUCH more palatable while seeing a porn starlet do her thing. Funnily enough this turkey has absolutely NO nudity (another reason to steer clear)

My Grade: D-


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


First of all, this movie is gross to the point of nauseating, and my advice is to avoid it at all costs if you ever want to eat ice cream again. I tried watching it because it looked like it might be funny, but it soon became quite disturbing with the ice cream made out of body parts and surprisingly graphic effects. It opens with a boy named Greg witnessing the gruesome murder of an ice cream man (Greg subsequently goes crazy and grows up to be the title character) by what appear to be mob assassins. There is no explanation for this murder, making it the biggest WTF moment in the entire movie. Other, lesser WTF moments include the surreal asylum Greg goes to (featuring evil clowns), a woman speaking in tongues because she has been possessed by the Holy Spirit (what this has to do with anything I don't know), and the fact that Olivia "Holy crap has her career tanked this badly" Hussey is in it.

None of these are good enough reasons to watch it. The only reason is for the character Tuna, who is a skinny kid with pillows stuffed under his shirt so that he looks like a fat kid. For some reason this struck me as hilarious. I stayed up far longer into the night than I should have watching this movie just to figure out if there was some reason they couldn't use an actual fat kid for the role. Although I fell asleep before the end, I've gathered from other reviews that Tuna ends up losing the "weight." Okay, so they didn't have the budget to pull this off realistically. Suggestion to the director: how about making the character... not overweight?

That's it; if the prospect of Tuna has not interested you enough, there is no other reason to acknowledge this film's existence. If disgusting horror movies about ice cream are your preferred source of entertainment, check out the far superior "The Stuff" instead.


This is one of those movies you find when you stay up too late and only have basic cable. It's hard to believe this movie was made in '95, considering it looks like something out of the late 80s. Plucky youngsters with varied home problems face a demented ice cream man who's on a mission to make the best flavor ever: Soylent Cream!!!

This movie is extremely demented and is only scary in how creepy and absolutely, ridiculously gross it is. Actually, the really scary thing about this movie is the nature of the problems these kids face at home. The fact that these kids have no escape from their silent suburban sufferings makes any random loony loose in the neighborhood seem like a walk in the park.

The most laughable part of this movie is the fact that the stereotypical "fat kid" is so obviously a slim pre-teen with a mountain of padding under his baggy sweatshirts. I guess that either a) they hadn't invented/ couldn't afford a fat suit, b) the casting director was too lazy to find a pudgy child star or c) we are honestly supposed to believe that this child is starving and has an enormously distended belly.

So if you're up at 2 am and need something ridiculous and disgusting to rip on with your intoxicated friends, go ahead and take a look. Personally, I'd rather be sleeping.


It is often hard to decide what the best film is that you've ever seen, since this may vary by genre, preferences for actors/actresses, or even the mood you're in on a particular day! Having said that, this movie is by far, in my opinion, the WORST movie I've ever seen!! I thought the acting was terrible (was there any?), the plot was just idiotic, and the props were totally fakey. Could a lower budget production be created without being an amateur production? I don't think so. Even the friends I watched the movie with agreed that it was the worst video we ever rented, and to this day we still joke about the night we saw this movie.


After reading other reviews on this site, we weren't sure if we were going to be able to critique this movie because it didn't sound bad enough. However, 2 minutes into the movie, we knew we were in for another flop. No summer is complete without ice cream, but this movie served up a melted, sour, broken-bottomed ice cream cone (you know, the kind that leaves you sticky and dirty and looking for a wet-nap). The biggest problem with this movie was the plot. What was it? It appeared to be a psychotic ice cream man driving around the neighborhood. That's it. Nothing else happens. First of all, what are the qualifications for becoming an ice-cream man in this crap town? 1. Spend several years in the most ridiculous mental hospital known to man. This hospital was plagued with clowns, graffiti, fake plastic sunflowers, and oversized syringes to the head. 2. Have extremely poor hygiene and a mutant face to scare the kids away. 3. Make sure your truck is stocked with severed body parts, roaches, and don't forget the eye whites!

The actors in this movie are pure B-Movie caliber. Mixed in with a bunch of unknowns is, who other than....a trailer-trash version of Macaulay Culkin!! Even his bratty charm couldn't save this kick in the pants. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason for any of the murders in this movie. The whole concept of the movie reeked! Who would kill an ice cream man in a drive-by shooting? Gangsters? Fiends? Vanna White? Who? We are still struggling with this question.

Whoever was in charge of the wardrobe for this movie should be immediately blacklisted from Hollywood. Did they honestly think a pillow under a kid's shirt would make the audience believe that he was really fat? Did they forget about the arms, face, legs, and all other body parts? Second of all, this movie was made in 1995, yet the wardrobe seemed to be picked from a lame 80's movie, evidenced by the big brother's white, crotch-hugging high-water pants.

While we were watching this shotty production, we both developed severe cases of ADD. We found ourselves leaving the room to walk around aimlessly. At many points it the movie, we found that staring at a blank wall behind the T.V. set was more entertaining than the actual movie. We were stunned that this movie didn't make it to the Bottom 100. Afterwards, we took the tape out of the VCR and left it on the black top to melt like a sub-standard ice cream cone.


This abomination and the sequel ONE MORE TIME (no thanks) and the hideous Jerry Lewis disasters like Don't RAISE THE BRIDGE LOWER THE WATER (why not just flush instead) drove cinema owners to close their doors rather than be forced to run these films. True: in the 60s block booking of films was still enforced on hapless suburban and country cinemas... this means that in order to get a good film the cinema was forced to run woeful timewasters like these: I remember well in 1974 keen to screen FIDDLER ON THE ROOF or something good like that, I was bailed up in the United Artists booking office by some sozzled salesman who waved a sheet of flops before me and squinted, bellowing: "Now before we get to that one, lemme see ya date these ones first". which basically means: "book these duds and we will give ya a tired hit". This is how and why so many cinemas closed, forced to screen and annoy their waning audiences with these assembly line failures with lame comedians and bored talent. Cinema owners, exhausted with arguing simply closed, sold to a petrol station and saw the cinema demolished. These days the same type of films (eg: I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY) get banished to the 20 seat cinema 99 in a mega google plex instead. Not much has changed. FREDDY GOT FINGERED... anyone?


I bought this DVD for my young son who loves the ToyStory movies. I never expected it to be in the same league as the Toystory movies but what I got was just another lazy Disney cartoon, way below what I expected from Disney/Pixar. The story is unoriginal, the characters are dull and two dimensional, the animation is below par, even Buzz isn't that great. The movie could have been so much better. I especially hated the paint by numbers storyline. I know it's meant for kids, but even kids know when something stinks to this level lameness.

Although I did enjoy some aspects of the movie, I really liked the opening section of the movie, with the slag mutant monster, it just went downhill from there.


Man were do I start,everything about this Cartoon from the Episodes,to the Stories,Script, an Animation is to me the Stupidest,Dummest and Most Annoying Cartoon that Walt Disney Television Animation ever CREATED and MADE ,Im so glad that Both Toon Disney (2006) and Disney Channel to Stop Airing it in the U.S. as Of This May 2008.

Believe me it's A wise choice to skip this out cast and black cloud of A cartoon,if you watch it don't say I did not alert an warn you.

Your in for A Boring and Down right Dull and Confusing Time,I wish and pray I never even saw 1 Episode of this Cartoon Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command. If I could I would have the Part of my Brain removed that Remembers watching it,yes it is and was that Bad.


We sat through this movie thinking why is this or that scene in the movie, what does this have to do with the plot? We hoped that by the end everything would be slightly more clear. It was not to be.

I think the director in a fit of pique threw the script up in the air and then some minor (and vengeful) underling reassembled it randomly with no regard to the scene being filmed (possibly with scissors and glue-stick).

The film's motifs include: Communism bad? Nihilism bad? Poor parenting bad? Threesomes bad? TV bad? Coherent scripting bad? Deconstructionism good? It's really not clear.

Finally, no German water taxi would EVER have an unchained staircase that would let passengers fall in to the water. The abundant quantity of "achtung" signs everywhere is testament to this fact.


To begin with its a rip off of the Japanese film Battle Royal except it's missing the one thing that made BR unique, balls. It's a weak satire at best and as far as the real TV phenomena it attempts to comment on well everyone knows how warped and stupid that genre can be so why was this film made?


This is possibly the single worst film i have ever seen - it has no good features at all.

It looked as if it was made in about 20 minutes with the other time filled with title graphics.

The lead male transformed from deaths door to superman - eh you what

Other than that totally predictable and not at all interesting.

I left the cinema feeling cheated.

Needless to say i could not reccoemnd this film to anyone


This is possibly the single worst film i have ever seen - it has no good features at all.

It looked as if it was made in about 20 minutes with the other time filled with title graphics.

The lead male transformed from deaths door to superman - eh you what

Other than that totally predictable and not at all interesting.

I left the cinema feeling cheated.

Needless to say i could not reccomend this film to anyone.


*Spoilers ahead, but that shouldn't matter since i hope you wont see this one anyway*

If you planned to see this one i have to strongly advice you not to. Because this was one of the most wasted 1½ hours I've experienced.

First of all, this is an complete rip-off of the great movie "Battle Royale". It is as stupid as watching any lame American TV-show like "Cops" or "Candid Camera".

The plot are totally predictable. One challenger pregnant and another is a nurse, anyone doing some logic thinking understands in the beginning what should happen between those.

The concept is ripped as mentioned before and the movie lacks the violence necessary of making this movie enjoyable. I mean, the preggo shoots a guy in the back and no blood or not even any trace of the hit in the back.

I could go on forever without finding anything good about it, so take your money and get a copy of Battle Royale instead of watching this piece of crap.

1 out of 10, too bad i couldn't rate it lower. Almost makes Scream 3 a masterpiece..


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


I turned this off about 50 minutes into it! Whoever the moron was who decided to steal the idea of Koushun Takami's book(Battle Royal), & make it into a pathetic reality TV show scenario, deserves to be shot!

It has done the Film Industry a good turn though. Now Directors like William Malone(Fear Dot Com) can say "well at least it's better than Series 7" This piece of crap & Dracula 3000 tie for first place in the worst 100 movies ever made!

Be warned this is not a 'So bad it's Good'Flick!

This is a disgrace to Film Makers everywhere!

Never see this movie!


the people who came up with this are SICK AND TWISTED FREAKS how the hell can you exploit people like this? tricking people into thinking that this is real? which i probably don't doubt that it is... i saw this thing for the very first time today series 7 and it made me sick to my stomach i almost threw up. i just couldn't stop crying my eyes out for these poor people and if that woman really did have that baby you SHOULD ALL BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!!!!!!!!!! i have a 4 month old daughter and it is just absolutely appalling that would put a "real" pregnant woman in SO MUCH FRICKEN DANGER! you people are bloody ANIMALS and should be locked up for life allowing something like this to put on t.v. if this so called "reallity show" is for real then why isn't anyone being put in prison for allowing people to die and not doing a god damn thing about it. YOU ALL DESERVE TO BE FRIGGEN HUNTED DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I saw this film last night, a satire of the reality style programs that seem to be making the rounds at the moment.

What can I say. I absolutely hated it. About as interesting as watching paint dry and with maybe one or two only slightly amusing moments.

Maybe it had something to do with me definately not being a fan of the Survivor and Big Brother type shows, but if this had been a video/DVD or if I'd been watching at the cinema on my own I would have definately not endured more than the first 5 minutes.


This film is little more than an ersatz Verhoeven. The filming is supposed to be tele-realistic, but is simply sickening. The parody disappears after about 15 minutes to be replaced by a story which seems to take itself seriously. The Brechtian pauses for non-existent advert brakes are tedious, and even painful; undoubtedly there was no actual intention to render this film Brechtian, it was just an accident which happened like that. If you want to see a parody of reality tv, watch Celebrity DeathMatch - it's funnier and wittier, and most importantly shorter. I have rarely felt so much pain whilst watching a film. To be avoided like a rabid rabbit.


This film coincides with Mike Allred's comic book mini-series, "Red Rocket Seven" and tells the story of an alien who escaped to Earth to wait for "Astroesque" which ties into the book of Revelations and the apocylpse. This is only part of a bigger story (if the movie confuses you, read "RR7" too). You can easily tell that Allred is used to telling stories with pictures. The direction is very good and the effects aren't bad for a $500 budget. Unfortunately, Mike used many friends to play the roles and probably didn't have the heart to say that they couldn't act. Also, Mike is not showing his writing skills in this movie. His dialouge spoon-feeds the plot to you and doesn't let you enjoy the characters. This was actually disappointing considering his tremendous writing ability shown in his comic books. 4 out of 10.


ASTROESQUE (2 outta 5 stars)

I have no idea what the title is supposed... even less of an idea of what is supposed to be going on in this movie half the time... yet, it still kept me sort of interested. This is low, low budget film-making along the lines of "El Mariachi", filmed in 16mm... and, for what it's worth, the shots are very well-composed and visually stylish. Directed, written by and starring comic book writer/artist Michael Allred... I guess it's no surprise that the film looks good. Unfortunately, some of the acting is beyond bad... and the rest is competent at best. Allred himself comes off the best... but only because he doesn't actually speak much. He just strides around looking cool most of the time... or running from crazed rednecks who are trying to kill him. The sound is also pretty bad... almost as if it was unfinished in places... maybe they couldn't afford to pay for the music they'd planned to use? Strange, vaguely science-fictiony plot... similar in tone to "The Man Who Fell To Earth"... but most of the film boils down to a standard run-from-the-bad-guys and kill-them-before-they-kill-you plot. Ultimately too oblique to be successful but not without interest for adventurous movie watchers.


Michael Allred's comic book stories, particularly his work on Madman, usually are a great deal of fun. "Astroesque," Allred's no-budget indy film, is the opposite of fun.

Worst acting ever coupled with truly horrible dialog makes for a brutal cinematic experience. Pretty certain Allred understands WTF's going on, but he's the only one. Daring you to watch the entire mess isn't enough...defying you to watch the entire mess is more on target.

"Astroesque" is some kind of movie tie-in to Allred's "Red Rocket 7" comic book, which, ironically, is mostly unreadable. So if your "Astroesque" experience isn't terrible enough definitely track down the over-sized comics and continue the fun.

Felt sorry for Allred, who was totally out of his depth attempting a film. Also felt sorry for myself, what an incredible waste of my time and money. Please buy my VHS copy, which is available right now on eBay. Hurry up.


I don't know if I'm wrong or everybody els'es that says this movie is good are, sincerely I just wanna do a favor to people that has doubts about seeing it, renting it or even worse buying it(don't do it really!).

The trailers and very early previews might seem fun in some way or another but its not funny at all, it gets to fall in a series of you're-supposed-to-laugh-here scenes that tend to get in really bad jokes, bad very very bad acting, tasteless scenes, cheesy effects; this movie has it all, all wrong that is.

As final comment the movie would have been funny due to the basic concept, but believe me is really way far from that.


The commercials for RAT RACE made it look too juvenile for me to enjoy, but since my boyfriend adores this movie (and the soundtrack), I finally relented and watched it with him tonight. I make him watch David Lynch films and all sorts of obscure indie stuff (I recently forced URBANIA on him), so I felt I owed him an innocuous Hollywood product.

I didn't want to hurt his feelings, so I saved my bitching for y'alls. Yeah, RAT RACE has its moments, but a great deal of it irritated me. Let's start at the beginning. RAT RACE was marketed as a "family film," so I was a little surprised to discover that the first scene centered around a porno movie. (I can hear it now: "Mommy, what does AFRO WHORES mean?") This scene has no purpose in this movie other than to cram some naughtiness into a PG-13 movie.

And while we're still on the segments in the casino, it's pretty convenient that all the characters happened to play, within the same time frame, the slots that held the gold coins. What would have happened if they didn't? Would those millionaire gamblers just sit around and wait? And how did they get those gold coins in the slots in the first place?

But I'm belaboring a plot point that's necessary for the movie to exist, so I'll press on. About Whoopi and her long-lost daughter: they're meeting for the very first time, yet throughout their whole ordeal they don't discuss with each other anything about themselves. Why make their relationship such a presumably complicated one? Couldn't they have just been, say, a mother and daughter on vacation together? Why the business concerning a long-ago adoption? And why portray the daughter as a hard driving career woman chained to her cell phone who never again needs contact with her business? Did the screenplay just forget about this subplot and character trait?

This illustrates the main weakness of this movie - the characters are inconsistent and interchangeable; it's exhausting when everyone is equally zany and with no identifying traits. And another thing - the events aren't plausible. Oh, sure, the characters can do some quirky things, but the characters themselves have to be believable. Take THE NAKED GUN (another Jerry Zucker movie) for example. Frank Drebin has some pretty exaggerated moments, but everything he does is, in theory, possible in his world. (Jane is also funny, but it's a different kind of funny, which makes all the difference.) A character in RAT RACE defying natural laws by leaping onto a speeding train destroys any plausibility the movie may have; these clearly aren't real people, so why should I care about them?

Another problem I have with RAT RACE is a moral one. The characters obtain their modes of transport almost totally by theft. I know, I know, this is just a silly comedy, and the same actions didn't bother me fifteen years ago when I saw MILLION DOLLAR MYSTERY, but there's a lot of lawbreaking in RAT RACE, and it bothers me now. And I won't delve into the whole airport-sabotage sequence other than to wonder if the screenwriters didn't consider the real-life implications of such an action; was that scene funny before 9/11?

I'll skip over the distasteful bits concerning the heart, the drugging of one's family and the Nazis (whose buildup and payoff worked better in an episode of "Seinfeld"), and move on to complain about the acting. Rowan Atkinson started out annoying and ended insufferable; I don't know when I liked a comical character less. And the three Oscar winners need new agents. Whoopi came off best, but she didn't have much to work with (loved the copper perm and purple lipstick though); Kathy Bates' part was shrill but mercifully brief; Cuba, was...oh, man. Cuba, babe, please fire your agent! Following INSTINCT and CHILL FACTOR, this is your third strike (be glad I haven't seen PEARL HARBOR or SNOW DOGS) - it's time to give your '97 Best Supporting Actor Oscar back to its rightful owner (Edward Norton, for PRIMAL FEAR). An actor of your stature has no business running half-naked through the desert and being checked out by a transvestite Lucille Ball impersonator. Do you even read the scripts to your movies anymore, or are you reaching into a bag and pulling your next project out at random?

There's other small points that bother me (how did Grisham and the hooker get to the loot so fast?), but, basically, RAT RACE amounts to little more than your basic batch of character types being hindered by arbitrary obstacles on their way to a rather underwhelming and inexplicable ending. They give the money to charity? What kind of ending is that?!? Yeah, it's the "noble" thing to do. Never mind the probability of cross-promotion/licensing whores Smash Mouth (do they ever say no to selling out?) putting on a benefit concert in the middle of the New Mexico desert, but who would honestly do such a thing? Yes, they say it's the journey, not the destination, that makes a trip worthwhile, but there's no journey without a destination. If there was ever an example of a "wrong happy ending," this would be it. What a bummer end to a movie that, despite my nitpicking here, I did enjoy parts of (I confess to enjoying the bit with the cow and some of the Lucy stuff along with the character with the tongue piercing - at first I thought his indecipherable speech would run me up a wall, but he grew to be my favorite).

But as far as my boyfriend knows, I found RAT RACE quite funny and charming.


If you are a fan of slap-stick that has terrible writing, awful acting and cliche after cliche this one is for you.

 There is far too much to list for the reasons why this movie sucks. In a brief synopsis, people with a combined iq of 100 journey to New Mexico on a race for 200 million dollars. And yes they are all apparently super heroes, as they can do many things such as jump onto trains that are traveling 80+ mph, survive numerous car crashes, and endless instances of outright cartoonish roadrunner and coyote antics.

 If you are a teen, or dont want to think for a movie, this one is for you.. Not one actor outside of Lovitz is believeable at all.. Lovitz saves the movie from a 1 with the Hitler bit.

 2/10 (save yourself the 2 hours of pain and $4)


This movie received a great write up in Blockbusters 'coming attraction' I was looking forward to the release date,08/07/02. The plot sounds reasonable, the cast alone should have guaranteed a side-splitter, but whoa there; apart from the 'off the wall betting events' this was quite a bore.

This will never become a comedy classic, and I'm afraid it has done no help to the fine comedy reputation of John Cleese. Rowan Atkinson, now he was quite funny, in a Rowan Atkinson sort of way!


SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Demi and Woody are married, but they're poor. They meet Robert Redford, and he's REALLY rich. He takes a fancy to Demi, and since he's a gambling man he makes the couple an "indecent proposal:" one million dollars for a night with the little woman.

At this point you need watch no more of the film because you can put the details together in your sleep. Of course Demi is going to accept the offer. If she doesn't there's no first half of the movie. Of course it will affect Demi and Woody's marriage. If it doesn't there's no second half of the movie. And of course everything will turn out okay by the time the credits roll. If it doesn't, there's no happy ending for the sake of box office.

The absolute best thing you can say about INDECENT PROPOSAL is that Demi Moore looks good in a black dress. As for the rest... The script is incompetent, the direction amateurish, the performances negligible. I suspect Redford, Moore, and Harrelson blush and change the subject every time the film is mentioned. Do them--and more importantly yourself--a favor. Unless some one offers you a million... Miss It!

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


Only saw this movie late last night. I remember the hype of it's release and to be honest had I viewed it back then I maybe wouldn't have been so generous. I hate hype, it can ruin a movie. I think the movie glossed over the characters and put too much emphasis on Woody. He was good too - although kept wondering if he was stoned the whole time. It never went too deep. Redford was dark but not too dark and his character let me down in the end. To me he should have been more confrontational with Demi - throwing her out perhaps or telling her that she was paid for. After all he would have investigated them before he made the proposal - that's not shown in the movie, but no one in his perceived position would have made an offer to just anyone. He was cruel to the point of breaking them up and the last straw was the house and yet Demi fell for him? The passages giving an insight to Demi and Woody's relationship were the best part of the movie. There was a keen deepness that outshone the shallowness of John Gages character. He really could have been a lot stronger and as other people have alluded I think the movies draw-card was Redford and they didn't want tarnish his "image". I say what the hell Robert was old in this movie! Woody and Demi's characters were naive in a sense, but I think that was very intentional to draw you to their plight and champion their decision. But the reality is, they were losing their dream home and where did they go? Las Vegas? to gamble what little they had left and then accept a proposal from an insanely rich billionaire. I found their naivety when Redford was seducing them a little too unrealistic. The movie could have been so much more and other actors would have made a difference, but having said that on late night TV - it was enjoyable and I if you don't think too much - also palatable


This story had the potential of a good film. The difficult choice of love versus money and the angst and regret of making the wrong one. However the movie was ruined by the horrible miscasting of Robert Redford as the villain who offers $1,000,000 to sleep with Demi Moore. Like Redford has to pay for it. Redford's boyish good looks and All American charm just don't cut it as an unlikeable, threatening, boor. Redford's acting skillls are insufficient to make his character menacing. I can see it now, $1,000,000 to sleep with Robert Redford. OK says the lady but you will have to give me some time to raise the money. Jack Nicholson would have been perfect as the sleazeball.


A good example of the differences between American and foreign cinema can be seen in a film I recently watched on television: Indecent Proposal.

Indecent Proposal's two protagonists, David and Diane Murphy are played Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. I'm not sure if it was their total lack of chemistry or that they were not acting well, but why we should care so much whether these two stay together was beyond me. Love, affection, playfulness, attraction  none of these materialized on screen in their interactions together.

Since I knew that eventually Robert Redford would show up, it was clear from the beginning that the good part, the meat of the movie, would be the scenes between him and Demi Moore. Poor Woody Harrelson just could not muster any emotion at all for the film. He seemed to be holding back, preoccupied with his receding hairline.

OK, so fast forward. What idiots these two (Diane and David) are for thinking they can win back the $50,000 they owe by gambling. No acting faux pas there, just hideously bad, lazy, unforgivable writing. Of course they lose all their money. Surprised? I know I wasn't. Enter Robert Redford (John Gage in the film)  a romantic, perhaps emotionally frigid man, an updated Gatsby. A very good role and though not a great, great actor, next to those two, Redford looks like Olivier. He immediately falls in love and lust with Diane and we the viewers for once FEEL it. This is how to love a woman! Not David's way, trading gum mouth to mouth with Diane on a slimy pier. (Did I see that right?) As Gage, Redford wears a suit and tie in every scene. Yes it's meant to instruct the seemingly brain dead audience that here is a Rich Man, but he also looks damn good and by this point the brain dead audience appreciates it! Other wardrobe symbolism includes David's now-ironed shirts at the end of the film, signifying resolve, getting it together after a long interlude of forlorn wrinkled shirt wearing.

And what is it with California garden parties as depicted in Hollywood movies? Suddenly everyone appears British, complete with lacy dresses, three piece suits for the men, hats (HATS!) and of course the parasol. Yes Diane, her transformation to Rich Man's fiancée now complete, is there at the auction daintily twirling a parasol. Though she insisted that she couldn't be bought, she succumbed at last to the sexual tension. Here is where the film branches off into pure Americana. I mean, of course David and Diane will end up together, my question is: WHY? Diane was bored with David, why not let her ride the Robert Redford wave? And I mean for a good long while? How can she pull herself out of the sexual-romantic thrall of this sexy older man so easily just because Woody Harrelson brings his receding hairline to the garden party, sits himself down and looks Demi Moore in the eyes. That's just not how it goes. He was so WEAK.

But we must have our happy ending. We have to swallow the Moral Lesson. We're not sophisticated enough yet to have it otherwise. Director Lyn tried to make a Fatal Attraction for the juvie set, the young'uns.

In addition to garden parties in which there's nary an SUV, tee shirt, or baseball cap in sight, such films also feature a reliable public transportation system that connects far-flung California cities and municipalities. How else to symbolize the return to middle class or working class life?


This was one of the biggest pieces of crap I have ever had to watch. I mean, seriously. How would anybody else feel if they were in Woody Harrelson's shoes and your wife was even CONSIDERING it would be a good idea to sleep with the other guy even for a million bucks. After all, she was the one talking about it in bed and saying how it would be good for them since he can build his house or whatever with that money. Woody never fully agreed to it until she talked him into it. How CAN you trust her? Who the hell would actually even consider that if they were married? I don't care how desperate they were. That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. Then, he flips out on her. Apparently, he had no right to mistrust her, other than the fact that his wife just slept with another dude who is extremely rich and handsome. Oh and wait, then he's supposed to apologize to HER after she files for the divorce so she can be with the guy she slept with. Of course Woody has no right to say anything to her or mistrust her especially after she still has Roy Hobb's card in her wallet. Then, at the end of the movie, she's apparently so in love with Woody still and misses him so much, that she was not going to leave Hobbs until he made some ridiculously stupid story up to try to hint to her to leave, and she bleeping thanks Hobbs???? Are you bleeping kidding me? Was she under contract as his sex slave or something?? I mean what the bleep?? Oh and wait it gets better. She bleeping kisses him passionately before she gets out of the car. Yea, she's not a whore. Oh, thank you for letting me go, let me go make out with you one last time for good ole' sake. Smooch smooch, smooch even though I'm still married to a guy I left for a rich guy. I have never seen such a piece of crap in my life. How the hell are we supposed to feel good after that horrible ending? What was this movie supposed to represent? NOTHING CAME OUT OF THIS! This was the most pointless movie I have ever seen in my life. Two pathetic desperate people. If I were Woody, I would tell her to go drown herself in that body of water they were near. Apparently, he had no self respect. What the hell was Roy Hobbs thinking by taking this horrible role. I feel like puking after watching this. This movie was so bad, it was seriously laughable. I want those two hours of my life back that I wasted watching this piece of ****.


Mind-numbingly boring, utterly predictable and in the end simply laughable. That pretty much sums up the disaster that is Indecent Proposal. Starting with a decent premise the whole thing just unravels and becomes a complete mess. Basically the story boils down to the question, "would you let your wife sleep with another man for one million dollars?" Here of course the answer is yes because otherwise we wouldn't have a movie. Quite frankly, we'd have been better off if we didn't have a movie.

Our married (and financially troubled) couple are played by Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. They go to Vegas to get rich. Yeah, that'll work. Anyhow, a billionaire, played by Robert Redford, takes a liking to the wife and makes the million dollar offer. For one night with the wife he will give them financial security. The aftermath of that one night is what the movie is really all about. Unfortunately nothing in that aftermath is the least bit entertaining. The script is so predictable you can say the characters' lines before they do. The performances leave much to be desired. Harrelson would be better off sticking to comedies as this attempt at serious acting completely misses the mark. Anguish is not something he seems capable of portraying. And it is quite safe to say that Demi Moore will never have to clear space in her home for any Academy Awards. Why is she a movie star again? In a part that should be full of emotion she conveys none. Only Redford escapes mostly unscathed. He's appropriately slimy yet suave and clearly the best actor of the bunch. But he can't save this film. Awful script, lousy acting, plodding pace, zero entertainment...Indecent Proposal is downright awful.


Obviously, a number of agents didn't see beyond dollar signs when they signed up their clients for this 117-minute *omage* to the courtesan complex.

Sure, the film could have been alright, had the $1 million been left out of it. Seriously. The amount of the check doesn't matter,prostitution is still prostitution and no amount of "love conquers all" can change the fact that no marriage vows ever meant to imply "for richer for poorer, for pimping as in fidelity". Picture the story otherwise, though: 2 kids, flat broke, borderline "desperate" and completely stupid. They collide with wealthy business man. Kids' marriage is strained by imperfect times and the fact that the husband is something of a loser. Enter Mr. Tuxedo, oozing charm and stability -- a virtual magnet for the ticking biological clock -- and with him the wife's temptation, tensions, suspense. Whom will she choose? Maybe, under those conditions, I could actually care. As-is, frankly, Redford's selfish and manipulative playboy winds up the sympathetic character. A woman who will sell herself is just about what a guy deserves who will pimp out his wife. The indecent proposition makes the husband a TOTAL loser, deficient in every positive male characteristic, and makes the wife a cheap strumpet seduced by money rather than confused by another potential love, a woman devoid of moral center and self-respect.

All the impressive talent (acting, directing, cinematography) wasted on this film -- and it was an impressive amount -- couldn't save it from its splashy-but-too-trashy $1 million pitch line. If I see this turkey at one more bridal shower, I'm going to roast it! (Or maybe cross it with Titanic and pitch the tape in the ocean!)


This film has a premise that is good enough to get anyone talking, and a sure-fire conversation starter. 'Would you sleep with someone you dislike or don't know for one million dollars?' While the film had lots of potential, poor execution turns it into a b-grade soap-opera. The film has a great lead up, and after the proposal is made, we are really into the film, but then it falls dramatically. The last 3 quarters of the film is spent by characters whinging, complaining and regretting what they have done! The ending was so cliched it had me in tears! This has a very similar premise to 'honeymoon in vegas' which is far better. See that instead.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


This SOFT soft-core/sci-fi B-movie is what you'd have if you took an early Fred Olen Ray film and took out the fun. Or conversely, it's like an Uwe Boll 'movie' but without as much ineptitude. A young nubile chain-gang convict (C.C. Costigan) agrees to pose as a space marshal in order to stop wacky Kim Dawson's plans of...having everyone have sex with everyone else apparently (that vile fiend). Anyone who went into this film looking for serious science fiction, well you got what you deserved for not doing any homework on the film at all. First of all when did Kim Dawson EVER star in anything other than soft-core Skinamax level crap. For that matter take a look at the resume's for Costigan and the Director before you take a hissy fit saying you expected something else. Don't get me wrong, for a space/action/soft-core/titillation flick, this film is STILL not good, but if you expected something along the lines of "Contact", I DO NOT pity you.

My Grade: D-

Where I Saw it: Starz-on-demand (Available until December 8th, 2005)


I like science-fiction movies and even, low-rated, made for TV, bargain bin, movies I may still find interesting. Well, I found this one in a bargain bin and brought it as a selection to a movie night with a group of friends.

I was, literally, *emabrrassed* that I brought this movie.

Right from the beginning, the acting is bad, the story is bland and the plot is almost non-existent. All this leads right to what the movie really was: A soft core porno graphical movie.

The movie started with a woman prison where the prisoners are all sexy women working in some sort of mine. First clue that this movie is NOT serious: attractive women in a prison being forced to do physical labor. Yeah, right! Whatever. :P Once the "plot" continued, it was overshadowed by pointless scenes of people having sex. Halfway through the movie, my friends and I stopped watching, it was so stupid. The next day, I thought that I would give the movie another chance and watch the rest. I watched about another 15 minutes and gave up again.

If you are looking for a decent, science-fiction or even a sci-fi monster movie DO NOT watch Lethal Target! If you want to see a low-budget, soft core porn that is light on plot, then see Lethal Target.


Terrible movie. Just terrible. The start of this movie is like something out of a bad women in prison movie. Then it moves on to being a B-movie version of Aliens. B-movie in this case meaning the addition of gratuitous sex-scenes and women in lingerie. Oh and a lot of the footage is the exact same as used in two other movies by the same company (including the women in prison schtick). The only thing saving this movie from a 1/10 is that I have actually seen worse movies. Not many, and not much, but worse.


I challenge you to watch this film and deny the above statement. That is, IF you can stop looking at her practically flawless face. She also does a bit of fighting and a bit of shooting, but not nearly as much as I was hoping for. The film is extremely slow-moving and low-budgeted, though at least they tried to find an excuse for the spaceship being so underpopulated; nearly the entire crew is on "suspended animation", and the ship moves on auto pilot! And the heroine doesn't rescue any of them, or bring anything useful back "home"; it seems that tricking that evil lady into traveling through space was the only part of her mission that couldn't be more easily accomplished by the missiles that blow up the ship at the end. There are also some long but rather tame soft-core scenes, and a couple of "Alien"-rip-off monsters that kill about 2 people. *1/2 out of 4.


Its a space flick, or at least i think it is. you got half-naked female prisoners in a space prison and a monster on a space station using a virus to infect humanity through sexy encounters. Its Friggin Hilarious. The acting is so bad that space nuts looks like an Emmy award winning film. The story is simple. Space prisoner gets chance to reduce sentence by investigating a space station that lost contact with humanity. She finds a doctor "experimenting" with women and a angry of alien. She fights them, so on and so forth. Its a movie worth seeing it just to wet your pants with laughter. If you like Real sci-fi flicks its a no-no but its a great mood setter for the amateur film maker because i can guarantee their film is better than this.


This was one of the worst movies that I have ever watched. The story was about a woman prisoner sent into space to try and save mankind but what it actually turned out to be was that the prisoner was actually put on board a space ship with a nymphomaniac lesbian commander. All the story was about was having sex over and over again. There was no need for all of this footage - only to create a soft porn film. Of course we had to see the heroin of the movie having sex for about 2 minutes. I don't know what all this had to do with the actual plot of the movie -except I assume to get men to watch it. I gave it 1 out of 10 only because there was no other rating lower. Don't waste your money or time- it has nothing to do with science fiction but rather a movie for young adolescent boys to watch to see t&a. The creature was shown only more than half way through the movie and looked like the alien in the movie with Signorney Weaver. Poor excuse for entertainment.


I come from Bangladesh, and here, C.C.Costigan is a goddess of awesome sex. All kidding aside, a friend and I were awake in the middle of the night, watching movies on the Encore: Action channel, when we came across a series of sci-fi-esquire flicks. There was RoboCop 2 (not bad,...not bad at all) ... then Judge Dredd, (Stalone almost ruins his career) then a movie called Lethal Target. One would think the title "Lethal Target" could only be awarded to a really cool, and really cheesy Rambo knock-off. But nay, what is delivered is what I would like to call a "Semi-softcore, semi-pseudo action, semi-sci-fi film" ... actually, I think I can say that this isn't even a film at all. If it wasn't for the main character's sheer hotness, my friend and I would've turned off the movie as the opening credits rolled.

I have a few questions to the people (I wouldn't even dare say "professionals") who made this film. -One, In the future, why are they using the weaponry we used in 1999? Oh, wait, I get it, it's all that they could get their hands on,... right???... well then,.. why is the main character wearing what looks like a normal everyday linen shirt and a vest, kinda like what people wore in the late nineties? .... oh ... I get it ... in space, it MUST have been a fashion statement.... well, then... WHY,OH, WHY does the main character pull out a 3.5 floppy disk at one point in the film so that she can upload some bullshit ?! wtf !? ...we've progressed so far that we have space travel, but we still haven't progressed past 1.44megabytes of space..?

I guess I'm just asking for too much.

Question two, Let's just say...that yes... this is a softcore porn. Then why is there only ONE real sex scene, and why does it last for 2 minutes?

I mean, you're taking the REASON people are staying up in the middle of the night to see this crap (dare I say 'movie' anymore?) ... and whittling it down to 2 minutes. Hell, they should've just taken that sex scene and sold it to another porn movie, and they would've STILL made more money off of this "crap" than they did.

C.C.Cortigan is hot. And no offense to the actress, but she acts about as well as I do. and I'm mentally retarded, and only have one testicle... (C.C. Cortigan,...e-mail me ...we'll have lunch) I would write more, but I've run out of space.