This film was bad. I believe Elton (or is it Mike) Wong starred in it. Anyway it was the Wong that didn't have that goofy grin and looks meaner. He plays a man who is hit over the head and suffers brain damage. He recovers and gets revenge. Gordon Liu is the only one worth seeing in this film, but he doesn't get to do much. But what little he does seems to make the

others pale in comparison. Also, the film has some cheesy rubber hawk that the Wong guy controls. This film is not worth renting or buying.


This was a movie that could have been great if there were not so many unnecessary historical inaccuracies and if the actors had been chosen or made up to look a little more like the real persons (not very difficult). Sissi did not go to Mayerling to see her dead son, she also did not die in the street; they carried her on to the boat and then back to the hotel, which was much more dramatic. I am not sure about the wedding night, but I find it exaggerated that a lady-in-waiting would undress the empress and leave her completely naked (and that in the 1850's) or that the emperor would announce very proudly "yes I finally laid her" to the assembled court. As far as I know this was done right away on the first night and nobody rewarded her as if she were a streetwalker. The saving grace of the movie is really Stephane Audran, excellent actress and true to character.


The figure of empress Elizabeth of Austria (1837-1898) is, indeed, mostly associated with Romy Schneider and the Sissi trilogy by Ernst Marischka (1950s) where beauty, gentleness, sweetness but also history are ever present. This was the Sissi, perhaps myth for some; however, a powerful portrayal. The spirit of the Habsburgs' grandeur as well as the spirit of the Bavarian simplicity and straightforwardness influenced much those films. Simply, they did have a soul. However, Jean Daniel Verhaeghe's film, though made 50 years later, appears to be a wrong depiction of the empress and her life. It seems to be an attempt to show something different, to reveal some realism as a cure to sweetness; yet, it does not occur to add a lot but rather deprives the whole story of much. Let me analyze that in more details.

September 1898, Sissi embarks at the port of Geneva. Accompanied by her court maid, she goes to visit Dr Mayer (Didier Bezace) whom she is going to tell the whole life story in order to find herself in this tragic life. The action consists of flashbacks to important moments in Sissi's life, yet these moments are chaotically presented and, therefore, someone not very knowledgeable of Austrian history may get totally misled or confused. Much attention is drawn on Sissi's bad marriage with the emperor Franz Josef. The scene of her wedding night is a failure. No one treated an empress like that (I mean undressing and payment). The focus on Sissi being misunderstood is right historically, however, the points that her views differ from the rest of the courtiers' are not the true ones. Where is her desire for peace? Where is her love to her nation? Where is her charity? Sissi appears to be rather very elegant, modern, liberal (from the 21st century's point of view). She foremost cares for her looks which is not true historically. Sissi had an inner life which is not showed in the film. "Once women will wear trousers" is a sentence said by her and occurs to be the image of the Sissi presented in the movie. Sissi detests monarchy, which is the film's noticeable criticism towards Austrian empire. Moreover, she partly accepts anarchist movements and, to my very surprise, she blames her husband, emperor Franz Josef, for the death of Rudolph, their son. Where is any mention in history that Sissi was present in Mayerling? Sissi's relation with Sophie, the mother in law, is better shown, however the scene of Sophie's death seems barely authentic and the conversation a bit of cliché.

Sorry to criticize so much but another crucial aspect of the movie which I find weak here are performances. Although Arielle Dombasle has her moments as Sissi, she generally does not suit to the role. She looks more like a "femme fa tale" than a tragic empress. Her make up is seriously inaccurate as well as most of her gestures as the empress. Malik Zidi is a bit better as Rudolph and may be regarded as the one raising the value of the performances, in general. Yet, Stephane Audran does no special job as Sophie: you simply don't get the impression of why she detests Sissi. She did despise her for the sake of Sissi's young age while crowned, for the sake of her behavior, lifestyle and her believes. Partly it appears in the movie but definitely that is not enough. But the greatest mistake is, I think, Julien Hans Capua as Andrassi. Andrassi was a count with pride, honor, patriotism...here, he appears to be a sort of libertine thinking only to make love to his queen. And the portrayal is so weak that this performance is very very pale. The accurate choice is Tatyana Ivanova as Catherine Schratt, she really fits to the role with her looks and her gestures. But, unfortunately, her role does not require much time on screen.

A good point of this movie are some costumes and pretty authentic locations. The port of Geneva is well presented and the moment of Sissi's death occurs to be a good surprise from the movie. It does not appear to be how it really was; however, the moment is good from the symbolical perspective...the empress walks and knows nothing that this is her final moment. That is how she must have felt about it, that is how one insane man destroyed a part of greatness of the world. Another good moment visually was when Sissi talks to her son Rudolph on Corfu. But these moments are rare.

In sum, it's not a good film. It distorts a very eminent historical figure, a significant historical time, it tries to cure the sweetness of Sissi trilogy but appears to offer nothing creative. Charm is gone, grandeur is gone and history is ignored! Not very worth seeking out! 3/10


In reality that happened: the royal mother in law and father in law lunched with the couple the day after the wedding and gave her the money in public. This troubled young Elisabeth so much that she never forgot the issue. We must remember she was only 16. She was so embarrassed that she kept a fear for sex all her life. Perhaps this began to appear as a trauma. Also the constant meddling of her aunt and mother in law. As you say, she kept all her children away from her, critiqued her teeth and manners (which she considered inappropriate for an empress), and when Sissi finally went to Venice with her husband and children, her eldest daughter died, and the mother in law blamed her for that unfortunate and premature death. She never recovered.


Truly a great leap forward in the perfection of painful cinema.

Everything about this film is bad. Acting (if it can be called that), lighting, sound, script (if there was one), editing, direction, camera work, it is all atrocious. There is not a single element that is done well. If I thought that this was intentional then I might give the film some credit but I can not believe people would set out to make such a horendous film.

This film is worth buying and screening to your worst enemies.


It was (foolishly) with some degree of relish that I sat down to watch what a friend had promised would be the worst/best movie experience of my life, the mighty 'Roller blade 7'. 2 years on and I'm still in therapy. Oh yes my dear friends it REALLY IS THAT BAD. They obviously got about 40 minutes of footage in the can and then decided to use said footage endlessly and repeatedly to brain-numbing effect. My only fear of the kind of post-apocalyptic world featured in this turkey is that somehow, some way, a print of this abomination would survive. Truly the living would envy the dead.


okay, let's cut to the chase - there's no way i can give this anything other then 1 out of 10; and yet you have to see it! The acting is bad, but is nothing like as bad as the script, which itself pales before the production values. Cardboard axes? yup, we've got then. Car floor mats painted silver and used as armour? here it is!

The film itself pretends to be artistic, but is just cheap; the same shots are used repeatedly - especially in the drawn out fight scenes; there is (thankfully!) very little dialogue, and there is much 'artistic' music to ram home the horror!

And yet all this awfulness is compelling - you have to watch it through just so that you can say you've seen it. I've not even got onto the barren sets, the 'plot', or the risible special effects; this really is the 'how not to do it' school of filmmaking. This must be viewed - spread the word, and let the world all join together in puzzling over what on earth is happening at the end

The best thing, though, is that they made a sequel.


This has to be the greatest practical joke ever. I'm amazed that all the other actors kept a straight face. I might be wrong but the impression I get from this movie was that they duped Frank Stallone and Joe Estevez into acting in this movie that has a budget of just under $40, depending on how much those nerf bats and spray painted catcher's equipment cost, create the most incoherent movie ever created, and sit back and laugh at the fact that Joe Estevez and Frank Stallone weren't in on the joke.

If by some chance they weren't kidding and they legitimately tried to make a real movie then I feel sorry for everyone involved in the creation. I've had quite a love affair with cheesy movies, but this movie is so bad I can hardly watch it. They repeat pointless "special effects" so many times that it's obvious they were just trying to cover up the fact that they only shot 30 minutes of footage. If I were forced to watch this movie on repeat I would bludgeon myself unconscious with my own hands after about one and a half times through. No offense to the great Frank Stallone, but I would rather watch Sylvester teach a fingerpainting class for 10 hours than watch that movie ever again.


For many years Ed Wood's Classic 'Plan 9' has been considered the worst film ever made. Forget it The Roller Blade Seven is infinitely worse. The cast is made up of famous peoples brothers and almost famous or has been actors and actresses. The plot along with the budget and script are non-existent. The running time is made up not in the classic Ed Wood style of using stock footage. Instead there is endless slow motion and repeated action. And as for The Roller Blade Seven aren't even seven of them!

You must see this film just to know how bad film making can really be. Giving independent film makers everywhere hope.


I bought this movie from a market stall three years ago.. I gotta hand it to you when I sat down and watched it.. I thought 'OK! This is gonna be another big action B-movie..' Obviously I was wrong.. While watching this film.. I began to realise that this movie was taking me to another planet.. full of cr*p!

I began to get really bored and fed up with this film.. Although I wanted to see was gonna happen in the end.. I really felt like it was really getting on my nerves..

The people behind the film may've brought some well known name actors into this project.. But what were they thinking..? Even these actors couldn't save this film..

At the end of the film.. I felt like this was a waste of money.. just buying this low life sucker of film for a small amount of money. A few months later, I sent the tape off to charity.. I didn't want to see it again..

Sorry! But if you're thinking of watching a movie and then nodding off to sleep.. I can highly recommend it you.. Me? I'll rather go on Pro-Plus and watch something decent..!

Disappointing 1 out of 10!


I knew that I was not about to see a quality film when this title was included in a 'B-grade video night' at a friends place. Despite the warnings, I was still surprised at just how bad this film was. It was fortunate that there were a lot of us there to share the pain with each other... The film attempts to tell the story of a dark future, one in which Hawk (a Mad Max type of character) heads off to rescue a damsel in distress. In reality, the plot is a thinly disguised excuse for the producers to promote their own philosophies on life (watch the end credits and the 'these people are not real' disclaimer at the end for a real laugh). The movie is frequently lacking direction, and fails to develop its characters to any degree whatsoever. What's even worse though is the editing of this film. The film repeats scenes (often 10 to 20 seconds long) up to 4 or 5 times in a row. I think that this was an attempt to emulate things like Jean Claude Van-Damme fight sequences, but if it is it fails utterly. The film would probably be about 1/3 of its length if we weren't forced to watch the main character move his head in front of the setting sun half a dozen times (yes, that's all that happens in that repeated scene). I give this movie my 'worst film I've ever seen' award. I doubt that it will be topped any time soon.


A post-apocalyptic warrior goes off to save some kind of Nun and on the way meets some cyber-punks on skates who want to kick his ass. This is one of the hardest to watch films ever, There are scenes with silence that seems to last hours before somebody comes out with the next badly written, badly acted line. There are action sequences that keep repeating - and we're not talking the quickfire 1-2-3 action repeat on a particularly good kick that was made popular by eastern directors, we're talking many, many repeats of long, bad fight sequences. This is incredibly confusing at first but then quickly becomes annoying as you're watching a 30 second sequence for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th time. Any kind of plot or vision is lost within the confusing continuity, the only thing thats keeps this film in the videoplayer (apart from the bet from a friend that i couldn't watch it all the way through without begging for it to be turned off and disposed off safely so it may harm no-one else) is the fact that although painful, this film is unintentionally hilarious, i'm not at all a fan of those "so bad that it's funny" type of films but at parts i was in tears. Other points to note are the quality of the sound and picture but this is forgiveable as it's obvious money was a major problem in the making of this film. Final verdict - King of the "so bad they're funny" genre, anybody having that kind of genre video night should get themselves a copy. Also lets not forget that it is actually the worst film i've ever seen.


My house mate and I foolishly purchased the video of 'The Roller Blade Seven' from our local second hand video shop in the hope of finding a bad film to laugh at. This film isn't even laughable, it's pathetically poor, worse even than Jack Frost 2-and that's saying something. The script, acting, production, stunts, sound, sets, everything is absolutely terrible. In some parts the actors haven't even learned their lines and are blatantly ad-libbing or in one case actually having the lines read to them off set and simply repeating them. Set in the post apocalyptic 'Wheel Zone',The film obviously consists of about 45 minutes of film, many parts of which are edited badly or repeated ad nauseum from various different camera angles to make the film longer. This gets tedious very quickly. The plot makes no sense whatsoever (It is apparently an amalgam of two books written by Scott Shaw), there aren't even seven of them, most of them aren't on blades, they're wearing roller boots, and it seems to me that mostly the film has been completely sold on the fact that there's about 3 minutes of female semi-nudity in it. The writer and star Scott Shaw obviously fancies himself somewhat of a Samurai and throughout the film performs some very poor stunts and made up sword fighting moves that look massively amateurish. Despite all this, his website states that the film should never be compared to a traditional film because it really pushes the boundaries of modern film making. My house mate and I were left speechless by the whole ordeal, and despite my frequent attempts to burn the videotape, she has decided it may be some kind of Ring-esquire video curse that needs to be passed on. If you see the video in stores, take it from me! Leave well alone!


This film is, far and wide and beyond any shadow of a doubt, the single worst and most contemptible film in the history of the universe.

It really *is* that bad.

Personally I have always enjoyed the guilty pleasure of a terrible film, and rented this one thinking it would be one of those. To my immense disappointment, it was not.

The script is delivered in a way that sounds as if they're reading the lines directly off placards, the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and the actual film looks like it was shot on a home video camera. I couldn't even finish watching it. It is even worse than "Witch Academy", and that's quite a feat in itself.

I cannot even begin to fathom how a director could shoot this film, and then still have the sense to believe it was decent enough to release.

Painful, awful, horrendous.


Looking for a movie for your Turkey Film Festival? THE ROLLER BLADE SEVEN is on my list of the ten worst films of all-time. The plot, the story of a post-Apocalyptic roller blading samurai warrior, is a convoluted hodge-podge of film references of everything from STAR WARS to THE SEVEN SAMAURI. The acting fluctuates from bland to abysmal. The scene where the villain tempts the old master is embarrassing to the point of jeering laughter. Frank Stalone's Black Knight reminds one too much of John Cleese's Black Knight in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL. (Word of Advice, Frank: When you stoop to doing a movie like this one, your career is over.) I chanced upon this little stink-bomb on a low-end cable channel and I could not stop watching. It is like watching a train wreck, you just can't look away.


I watched this film with a group of Nazis, a French Archaeologist and my ex-girlfriend on a small island in the Mediterranian.

When the tape was started, myself and my girlfriend were tied to a wooden stake at the far end of this cave like area. I told her to close her eyes and no matter what happened not to open them. The Nazi's and the archaeologist didn't close their eyes and after a few seconds started screaming. The Nazi's faces melted and the archaeologist's head exploded.

After a few seconds the video tape popped out of the VCR and landed back in it's box and the top snapped shut. Myself and my girlfriend were left unharmed.

Consequent to this experience, the video cassette was put in a wooden crate and stored in a huge warehouse of identical wooden crates, never to be see again.


Possibly the worst film within the genre in existence. It was announced as a comedy, but is simply tragically pathetic. I don't think anyone could have achieved anything more terrible and irritating if they were specifically requested to. It is toilet humour at its very poorest, I would avoid even watching the trailer. I only went to see it because it was announced that if you like Monty Python, you are bound to love this. Whoever wrote that was either biased or seriously deranged. I am still bewildered how one can honestly believe such a statement. Rarely do I leave the cinema, really it takes a lot of effort for a film to have that effect on me: this one did it in just 30 minutes.


I had seen Rik Mayall in Blackadder and the New Statesman, so I thought I'd give this film a try.

At around 4 pm I bought it, at around 8pm I started to watch, at around 8.15pm I fast forwarded the remaining film to see if there was anything left watchable for a human being with a brain... but there wasn't. At around 8.45pm I threw the DVD into the dustbin. And that's where this "film" belongs.

What ever happened to British humour? The humour so fine and witty, intelligent and artful that you find in Yes, Minister, Blackadder, Vicar of Dibley, Fawlty Towers or The Fast Show? The black humour Britain is so famous for? I don't want to insult anybody, but I presume even stupid children wouldn't find this funny. They deserve more intelligent fun. And Rik Mayall, you can do better, so please, do!


Being a HUGE fan of the bottom series i was really looking forward to the release of this film.I was eagerly anticipating a laugh a minute roller-coaster ride......alas.

Where to start on this mess?i think its a good start to say that its hardly richie and eddie on our screens in the first place as none of the jokes and one liners they usually deliver so well are funny.I was still waiting for the first laugh after a good 20 minutes of viewing.Many aspects of the story were pathetic and it was as if the film was full of those bad moments they rehearsed and decided to leave out of the final cut.

The overall sets and atmosphere surrounding the film is dark and dingy which i suppose is good if they want to portray the 'terrible' guest house the 2 buffoons attempt to run,but to me its just puts an even higher dampener on a sorry state of filming that should never have been created.

The acting,at times,is pathetic.Fenella Fielding is wasted as the loony Mrs Foxfur and i've seen Simon Pegg have much better outings.

I'd recommend Guest House Paradiso to anybody who is blind drunk because they might appreciate the terrible puns much more.But to any bottom fan who hasn't seen this film and is expecting true richie and eddie action you have been warned


The premise of Bottom crossed with Fawlty Towers sounds great! However, Ade Edmonson & Rik Mayall have managed to create a film that raises barely a titter. Ten years ago, Rik Mayall's mad stare and Ade's idiocy were funny, now they are just annoying.

The film had promise - though the most horrendous hotel in Britain is not a new idea - but failed to deliver. The saving graces were competent performances from Simon (Spaced, Big Train) Pegg and Helene Mathieu, and the film is only 90 minutes long. Sorry, guys, but you really have hit the Bottom


I have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.

The first 3/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.

The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).

To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on.


Wow, this film was terrible. It is as simple as that. It is actually the first time that I walked out early, as far as I can remember. This turned out okay, though: I had a very nice chat with two most charming girls while we all waited for the rest to finally give up on that crap they called a "movie".

Where to start. Bad acting, bad jokes. Faecal humour, which I simply cannot stand. Sorry, but snot, pee and scat are *not* funny. You have seen the title picture? That scene actually drags on for about 5 minutes, with the two "heroes" hitting and mutilating each other, which is supposed to be humorous all by itself. It is not.

Apart from body fluids, violence and cross-dressing, I do not remember much about this. At least not much good. I was really, really disappointed by this piece of garbage. Or let us be honest here: given that I am actually a big fan of "british" (i.e., black) humour, I was angry.

So, want my advice? Three words: do not watch.


The unthinkable has happened. Having first witnessed it a few years ago, I have had a film that has been my benchmark for awfulness and that film was called "McCinsey's Island". A family adventure movie with Hulk Hogan and Grace Jones (I'm not making this up), it plunged to new depths of movie making and is still the only film I've seen that made me wonder what else the film's budget could have been spent on. Like new schools or cancer-treating drugs. However, for sheer and unadulterated levels of crap, any film will be having to lower their standards even lower if they wish to trump "Guest House Paradiso" to the distinction of being one of the very worst movies I've ever had to watch.

Based loosely around the puerile but amusing TV show "Bottom", this film introduces us to two of the biggest losers imaginable. Richard (Rik Mayall) is a hotel manager, as unfriendly as anyone you can imagine and so twistedly lecherous as to almost ooze slime from every action. His buddy Eddie (director Adrian Edmondson) is an alcoholic waste of human life and together, they try to run Britain's worst hotel situated upon a cliff-top next to a nuclear power station. Between them, they indulge in cartoony violence (with sound effects) at regular intervals, steal anything remotely valuable or interesting from the fools who stay there and stare longingly at any woman at all. The plot, such as it is, involves the arrival of fabled Italian screen goddess Gina Carbonara (Vincent Cassel) who is fleeing from her wedding and attempts to lay low at the Guest House Paradiso, much to the astonishment of Richie and Eddie. And... that's it.

I used to think that the Carry On films represented everything bad about the UK film industry and God knows, we've spent so much time and money trying to escape that god awful legacy. We've had films like "Trainspotting", "28 Days Later", "Four Weddings And A Funeral" and the brilliant "Shaun Of The Dead" (also starring Simon Pegg) but this... this drags those films screaming and kicking back to the days of Sid James and Barbara Windsor's top flying off with the aid of a bicycle whistle. "Guest House Paradiso" is so low in its ambition that it insults you the minute you watch it. I kept watching, waiting in anticipation for the jokes to start but they never came. Just an endless stream of trapped knob gags, unimaginative scenarios that defy explanation, slightly amusing violence with frying pans and fridge doors and almost nothing raising so much as a smirk. Come the first ad break (it was on TV, you see) and I was ready to switch off but my loyal duties to you, my readers, kept me going. "I'm watching this so they don't have to" became my mantra so you guys better remember how much you owe me for this because this was about as much fun as having sand kicking into my eyes and being force-fed dog food.

Trust me, I used to love the "Bottom" TV show. The combination of suitably grubby acting from Mayall and Edmondson with OTT juvenile humour worked... for half an hour every week. Certainly not for an hour and a half, as Edmondson and Mayall indulge themselves in their little private joke and bore and depress the rest of the audience. Honestly, this makes Mayall's "Drop Dead Fred" seem like "The Godfather" and should you happen to meet either of these two people (who are pretty much solely responsible for the chaos on screen pretending to be a movie), feel free to swiftly deliver a boot to their testicle region. They'd probably enjoy it. Pegg and Bill Nighy (both as guests at the hotel) are dragged down with this sinking ship but at least they survived. Mayall and Edmondson should not be so lucky. The movie equivalent of Chernobyl and should be avoided as such.


Yep, this has got to be one of the lamest movies I've ever seen. It's utterly tasteless, has no style whatsoever, the story is so thin that you can watch television through it, and the whole film has so many holes you could drive an oil tanker through it.

Sure, I appreciate a good B-movie as much as most male white homo sapiens do. But this has got to be the worst I've seen. In fact it's so B that it lacks everything that makes a B-movie interesting.

The whole movie is based around such charming artefacts as the characters beating the crap out of each other, various bodily functions and the complete lack of sanity of anything on-screen.

It's not even funny. In fact it's quite the opposite. I found it even boring at times due to it's extreme predictability.

I find nothing good to say about this movie. It was a waste of time watching it, and I hope others don't do the same mistake. If you also pay for it you should get a serious brainscan done.


This should have been a short film, nothing more. The Length of 1,5 hours is much too long, because after 10 minutes you have seen almost every joke. It's getting more and more on your nerves untill you finally kick out your brain to endure that movie.

To do yourself a favor, don't mention to see that movie...


Apart from the fact that this film was made ( I suppose it seemed a good idea at the time considering BOTTOM was so popular ) the one thing that puzzled me about GUEST HOUSE PARADISO was what happened to the lighting ? There is absolutely no artificial lighting used in this film whatsoever , and I watched it on network TV so it wasn`t a case of watching a dodgy tape. In fact the film was shot so darkly it was impossible to see what the hell was going on . But if the dialogue was anything to go by that`s maybe not a bad thing


Herman has made northern drama his own with Little Voice and Brassed Off, but the formula falters in this ropey, flat and contrived tale of two teenage delinquents trying to get season tickets to see Newcastle.

Truancy, underage smoking and drinking, underage sex, teenage abortion, school bullying, drug abuse, substance abuse, depression, child violence, child sex abuse, shoplifting, housebreaking, auto theft, violent assault and armed robbery all put in an appearance here. None of these issues are explored, they merely serve to move the story along from one implausible situation to another. The film is not as acutely observed as Trainspotting, as poignant as The Full Monty, or as reflective of the times as Wonderland (from which it shamelessly steals music in an overly-manipulative manner). I suspect none of the filmmakers are from Newcastle, and have certainly never experienced the social problems the film references. I am all for entertainment, and Herman's track record shows he is aware of the need to balance the social message with laughs and tears. Quite simply, he comes up incredibly short here.

The film has a nice ending, but there are far too many flat, banal moments to sit through to get there. Nicely shot, not very well acted, and ultimately fails on three crucial points: script, script, script.


The film is set in Newcastle on Tyne in north east England, the town where I was born and grew up. The film is also fundamentally dishonest - the way it presents the town, the kids, but above all the men of the town. In this film they are all stupid, violent, thieving, thugs.

I suppose I could comment on the plot (predictable), the performances (competently unattractive), the direction (lazy and unimaginative), but to me that is all irrelevant compared to the director's insult to the town and its people.

Thus the invitation in my summary to the director and writer, Mark Herman, to leave the north east.


Contrary to most of the comments in this section, I have to say this film just barely escapes the definition 'rubbish!'. The only readers who seem to be aware of what a catalogue of clichés it is are those who, like me, live in the north-east and know at first hand what the area is like. I am totally sick of films that are supposed to be 'realistic', yet portray the working class (of wherever) as stupid, criminal low-lifes, but then excuse them because of their social background. And funny? I smiled briefly twice and laughed once, but that was at the incongruity of two boy actors with Sunderland accents supposedly trying to hide their Newcastle accents from Sunderland football fans! There was only one likable character in the whole film, and that was the senile grandfather played quietly but very competently by Roy Hudd -- the only non-Geordie in the cast.

As for the writing -- well, I just wonder what university sociology department the author studied at. He certainly had no ear for the local accent. And I too have never heard the expression 'Purely Belter' -- and not only am I a native, I'm a linguist who's written articles on the local dialect.

Don't waste your time and eyesight on this garbage. It isn't funny, it isn't realistic, it isn't entertaining, and it is fundamentally dishonest.


After seeing PURELY BELTER I came onto this site to review it , but not only that I also had to check out the resume of the screenwriter / director Mark Herman . As soon as his name appeared on the opening credits I knew that I had seen his name before somewhere and after checking I found out he wrote and directed the film version of LITTLE VOICE one of the most underrated feelgood British movies of the 1990s

PURELY BELTER is an entirely different kettle of fish . It's a grim stereotypical view of Geordie life and a very unfunny one at that . Everyone is either a wife beater , a single mother , a shoplifter , a drunk or a junkie . Since many scenes are set in a school the PE teacher is a sadistic bully and that's the closest the film ever gets to reality . Oh and everyone is very foul mouthed which adds to the grim unlikable atmosphere

I didn't like PURELY BELTER much while I watched and now that I know who Mark Herman is I like it even less . With LITTLE VOICE Herman proved you can make an amusing uplifting comedy featuring northern souls but I had to ask where his undoubted talent went in this movie ?


Two teenagers in the north-east of England are desperate to raise money and buy season tickets for their favourite football team. They go through a series of "comic misadventures" but come up smiling in the end.

The trailer for this film sells it as a comedy and includes most of its light-hearted moments. However, the tone is increasingly grim and the end result is a depressing story peopled with familiar stereotypes. The two "heroes" have no problems with lying, cheating and stealing. Their adversaries are a callous teacher, a pantomime villain of a father, a psychotic skinhead and a well-meaning but incompetent social worker. The other female characters are a drug addicted teenager, a pregnant schoolgirl and a battered wife who seems to be smoking herself to death. There are no likable characters, and the audience can only feel either pity or contempt. Local actors Tim Healy and Kevin Whateley both play against type as baddies, but the writing and direction of their characters are so one-dimensional that they have no more than novelty value.

Chris Beattie and Greg McLane give good performances in the two young leads. However, they are miscast, because they have the wrong accent. To anyone from the north east, it is obvious that they both come from the Sunderland/Durham area, and yet we are expected to believe they are natives of Newcastle. As a Geordie myself I can assure you that the accents are by no means the same. Take the phrase "Let the poor lad speak". We say "Let the pooa lad speek" while they say "piwer lad spiyk", with two distinctly different vowel sounds. This discrepancy creates a ridiculous double irony in a scene in Sunderland football ground, where the two lads are trying to disguise the Newcastle accents they don't have, and *pretend* that they come from Sunderland - which they clearly do. In a gentle comedy this kind of criticism might be seen as nit-picking. However, the film's bleak tone makes it clear that writer/director Mark Herman is aiming for gritty realism: that means "near enough" is actually way off.

I had hoped for humour and optimism from this film, and instead found tired old clichés. Tyneside is not a grey wasteland populated solely by losers, and in telling us it is, Herman should have known he would cause offence. It's interesting to compare the film with the same director's "Little Voice" - also largely downbeat and populated by one-dimensional characters, "Little Voice" at least has a talented heroine and doesn't wallow in misery to the same extent. I've heard "Belter" ranked alongside this year's "Billy Elliot", but that film is a vastly more enjoyable and life-affirming experience.

Incidentally, I may be just too old, but having lived on Tyneside for 42 years, I have never heard anyone outside this film use the expression "Purely Belter".


I think we are supposed to think what wonderful salt-of-the-earth characters. Unfortunately, this is lame and laboured.

As always with any production set in Newcastle, there are numerous shots of the Tyne Bridge and frequent attempts to show what great 'characters' Geordies are. The viewer is never allowed to forget where the film is set, as though the rest of the world cared about Newcastle and its inhabitants.

If you like well observed, literate and original work stay well clear.


Very strange. But meant to be. This director is his own man. Even through there are strains if Polanski, Bergman, and Kafka at least in the episode no 6, the peeping tom one. What made it all so strange, and reminiscent of the above three artists, was that it went all over the place, you never knew where it was headed, and could have ended anyplace, and finally when it did end, could have kept going. The ending is hardly a finality, nobody could tell you what these two characters would be doing in even the next frame. One other thing should be said about the director: No wonder Kubrick found him fascinating. There is a lot of Eyes Wide Shut in this episode somehow, in the direct approach to character, the realistic fantasy elements of both. A Kubrick placement of the camera without any of the stark effects, much more washed out, and hurried, not as fussed over. That said, back to the beginning, still this guy has his own things to say and says them well. Yet, for some reason, there is not a single scene I ever want to see again. But definitely did not feel ripped off in the least watching it one time around. But I did keep getting the feeling of three or four other directors ghosts moving through the parade, blurring everything. The caveat being that it was only episode six: the other nine might give me entirely different takes. But since this episode revolved around peeping, looking, the absolute domain of film, I will say this, he took none of the usual routes, definitely went his own way while carrying the baggage of a lot of good directors behind him.


Think of an extremely low-rent version of "Heathers," and you've got "Pep Squad." That sums up the flick in a nutshell. I must give credit where credit's due, though. The film has a nice visual appeal to it. I liked the cinematography, I liked the wild color schemes, I liked the costume designs. But without good acting, a film has no redeeming value. I'd rather watch a film with little visual appeal, with good actors and sharp dialogue (i.e.: "The Brothers McMullen" or any Edward Burns film). The actors either recite their dialogue in monotones or scream it out like they're in a bad soap opera. This is why I don't badmouth most mainstream actors. Let's face it, most actors who are mainstream are mainstream for a reason. If they're not "great" actors, they're at least competent. People badmouth Leo DiCaprio, but when was the last time you saw a movie where he recites the dialogue as if he's reading it off the page? It's a shame, because the director seems like he knows his stuff when it comes to mis en scene (sp). At the same time I can't totally praise Steve Balderson (the director). He did write the screenplay, which contains some horrible dialogue. He might be slightly racist too, since there's a black principal in the movie, who inhabits a culmination of African-American stereotypes.


With Pep Squad receiving an average of 4.7 on IMDb.com, no wonder Steve Balderson slanders this website so. But the fact is that Pep Squad is a poorly crafted "black" "comedy" (both words in quotation marks for a reason). It's a movie full of over-acting (Cherry, Beth's Mother), coupled with a couple of lethargic performances (Beth and Julie's boyfriend). A movie where you can follow cars from twenty feet away in a gaudy red Jeep and never be noticed. A movie chock full of not-so-appetizing cleavage and nudity shots that make you wonder, "Does the director think this is funny? Or clever?" Most of all, the characters are so paper-thin and poorly developed that the film becomes quite unpredictable, but probably not on purpose. Pep Squad can't decide whether to be a comedy, or a drama, or a satire (patriotic music, I get it...). The movie fails at being serious, because the idea of killing for any school position (this being Prom Queen) crosses the line into insanity (not to mention shots of flag burning and drive-by shootings, a poor attempt at being controversial and edgy), and fails at being a comedy, for all the forced and awkwardly placed jokes (big butt mama, "funky" black principal, and excessive cussing delivered poorly by the principal cast). Watching the documentary "Wamego: Making Movies Anywhere" only made this film more cringe-worthy, with praise lauded towards it by... the director and the director's father... hmmmmmm. Not a black comedy, or anything for that matter. I guess Kansas will have to wait.


This is a really really bad movie. That may seem like an oversimplification. A fickle, childish retort comparable to a petty unsubstantiated insult. The truth is, there is not enough I can say about the confusing senseless plot, the really atrocious acting (I'm talking nasty here folks), or the random images of violence toward women that make up the chaotic pastiche of radically horrendous film-making mistakes that propel this affront to all that is good and decent in the world of cinema, nay, human culture. Please, take my word for it, don't watch it... ever. I'm serious. Stop. You'll thank me for it later.


Saw the film at it's Lawrence, Kansas premiere. This wavering story about a group of disgruntled highschoolers killing off the competition for prom queen was just awful. It fails for many reasons - bad acting, bad script, no clear point. But mainly it just felt like the filmmakers said to themselves - "Hey I have some money, so let's make a movie!" - without really thinking it out. Sorrowfully most indie films that don't make it suffer from just that mentality. They just don't seem to realize that it takes more than money to make a good movie... or in this case, even a watchable one. With this film I do not feel ashamed to say, that if I didn't know some of the crew, I would have walked out. Simple as that.


I don't mean to sound pretentious here, but to call this the next cult classic is yet another example of the lowering standards filmmakers have for themselves. This movie is an offense to everything we hold sacred, and not in the good "artsy " way of offending. This film becomes the archetype for PAINFUL dialogue, delivered by even more pathetic actors.


...but I would be lying. A relative was a crew member, and we got to go watch the production of this movie for a couple of days (and I was an extra). I get to die and have a second of screen time, not that I plan on moving to Hollywood anytime soon. I just thought it was awesome to see how movies are made and be a part of it. Plus, I got a copy of the movie once it was finally released. They didn't have a studio backing when making this film so it truly was independent. Why the writing and acting is so awful is beyond me, but the main character "Cherry" is the director's sister so that could be part of it. But the cinematography was good. :)


PEP SQUAD is at a very low point with its confusing plot line and horrible acting.

First, let's tackle the characters. Cherry (Brooke Balderson) continues to hold an outrageous, boiling anger throughout the entire film, which is due to her overwhelming passion to become prom queen. However, it becomes completely unknown to the audience why Cherry wants to become prom queen in the first place. Before the nominations are even read off, she storms around the school with a constant disinterest upon being there, and shows no interest in the place or its students to begin with. Why does she care so much to be their prom queen? Brooke Balderson apparently presents an "acclaimed" performance but in reality just spends the entire time with an angry face, stomping around, killing people. Maybe it's just me, but I think if you handed any young actor/actress a script that only requires him/her to act insanely angry, you're not asking for much. You're also not allowing the character to develop very well.

Beth's character, played by Jennifer Dreiling, is even worse. Dreiling shows absolutely no emotion and no connection to her character whatsoever. When being harassed by her principal, she knocks him down (after several seconds) with no feelings of disgust or shock or anything equally traumatizing. Her lines are read like she is reading trivia off the back of a cereal box.

Throughout the rest of the film, the students in charge of his kidnapping sound more like they are planning a barbecue than deciding what they will do with their principal, sitting tied up in their basement.

Meanwhile, Cherry is off killing several female prom queen candidates, and no one even notices or cares. (Yeah, I get it, I get it, the whole town is worried about prom. Very realistic. At least you could throw in some funny scenes with the cops, but that might be asking too much.) For example, right after Cherry drives by the school and shoots down a handful of students, Beth is found being interviewed by the local media. The reporter mentions "the shooter" in a way that makes it seem like no one knows who killed these innocent students, but then one second later asks, "What do you think about guns in the hands of minors?" or something to that effect. Where did the reporter jump to such conclusions?

At the end of the movie, after Cherry kills the winning prom queen and prom is deemed over, with the media showing up again, Beth simply adds that "she understands (Cherry's) need to be heard" and walks away with her friends, smoking cigarettes in a calm, unaltered mood. No one is even strayed by the fact that they just witnessed a murder.

Not to mention the students constantly parking in a yellow zone, and no one seeming to care that there is a sudden rise in violence in the town, Julie living in a large house with no parents present, and the bizarre party at her house (Maybe I'm a little left out of the scene, but last time I knew, high school parties did not involve naked women artistically dancing in a pool of water while men bob for marshmallows and everyone basks in their "I'm so indie and mod" attitudes), Beth's parent's horrible acting with her mother acting over-the-top and her father simply nodding at everything the mother has to say (and not in an entertaining way either), along with stupid scenes such as the new black principal running after Cherry as she tries to shoot her with a gun. Yes. Very realistic.

The only compliment I can give this movie is that the photography is wonderful. The angles are flattering and the screen is very clear and crisp with each shot.

Too bad the acting and script aren't.


The 2002 version of "The Time Machine" is just the latest in a string of terribly disappointing Hollywood remakes that fall flat on their face despite extravagant special effects.

What a lousy, uninspired bland story, with no imagination. Why so totally rewrite such a wonderful sci-fi classic? Are today's movie audiences too hip for the H.G. Wells writing largely as is? The 1960 George Pal version told a much more endearing story, even with clunky low-budget effects, beach-party looking Eloi, and Morlocks that looked like Smurfs on steroids.

The 2002 version must have H.G Wells turning in his grave:

1. The idea that the time traveler is motivated by the desire to change the past and trapped in a time paradox is an old sci-fi cliché. This totally distracts from the love affair with Mara (what happened to Weena?!) that made the 1960 version so endearing. This sets an unfortunate and distractive tone early on that makes the whole movie dour. If Guy Pearce's character was so brilliant either he or his buddy Einstein would have realized the time paradox dilemma  not have it dawn on him 800,000 yrs in the future  from a Morlock no less, Doh!! What's wrong with time-traveling just for fun & adventure & curiosity -- as embodied in the 1960 version?

2. Only if you saw the first movie would you realize at all what Pearce was doing with the time machine when you first see it. The George Pal film carefully explains the whole weird idea of 'travel' though a 4th dimension.

3. The director goes out of his way to make Pearce's character look geeky, a worn out old stereotype of scientists. In the 1960 version Rod Taylor was a little nerdy too (at least around Weena) but managed to be swashbuckling, playful and charming.

4. Among the key themes of the 60's version -- abandoned in the remake -- is the idea that endless war leads to the bifurcation of humanity. Blowing up the Moon to destroy humanity is pointless -- and doesn't do much for science literacy. For over 4 billion years the Moon has suffered vastly more powerful asteroid impacts, which would make any nuclear device look like a firecracker. Yes, science fiction needs artistic license, but this is just plain dumb and meaningless.

5. Destroying the time machine is stupid too. Apparently our time traveler invented the neutron bomb to power this thing. Blowing up the machine to kill Morlocks is sort of a cop-out 'machina ex machina' Disappointingly, Pearce never comes back to the 1800s to tell his tale to his incredulous friends, a key part of the Wells story with the irony that in a week the time travels goes into the far future and back.

6. Having Morlocks running around in the daytime totally ruins H.G. Wells' wonderfully spooky, ghoulish portrayal of them as shadowy creatures of the night. A true cinematic opportunity lost. Also, Wells depicted the Eloi as frail and childlike. These guys in the movie looked like they could take on Morlocks, if they weren't such big baby wusses.

7. The one smart Morlock  kind of a bleached-out Star Wars Evil Emperor -- had potential, but is so lame and aloof he tells Pearce to take his machine and go home ?! Boy, what a dramatic high point! In the book the Morlocks steal the machine because they are so fascinated by it, and fight to keep it.

8. The goof ball hologram at the N.Y. Public Library is too much. It makes light of the idea of human cannibalism. the 1960 version simply had the "talking rings" that delivered a chillingly somber eulogy for humankind. Derailed evolution is serious stuff.

Its sad the wonderful effects in this movie can never make up for a weary contrived clunker of a script. Save the cost of a ticket & popcorn and go rent the DVD when it comes out (soon no doubt), at least you can fast-forward thought the dull parts, just like our time traveler.


H.G. Wells is spinning. No doubt about it.

Really, this would have been a decent sci-fi/adventure movie, if it hadn't been based on a classic novel and directed by the author's grandson. I kept hearing about how this would be the definitive version of the novel. What resulted was a pathetic and simpleminded bastardization.

The novel is a great sci-fi story but what a lot of people miss when they read it (probably because they read it when they're very young) is that it's overflowing with social commentary. The Eloi and Morlocks are a satire of the class distinctions of Victorian England, and the overall message of the film is that EVERYTHING DECAYS AND DEGENERATES, a satiric jab at Victorian complacency and their belief that their civilization would last forever. There's no love story, no romance with a beautiful Eloi woman....in the novel, the Eloi are 3-foot-tall childlike beings with a mental capacity not far above that of an animal. The Time Traveler does befriend an Eloi woman but it's clear he thinks of her more like a pet, and anyway she's killed before the novel ends.

This movie first tries to give us a totally stupid backstory as to "why he wants to travel through time." The treacly romance and the Lessons He Must Learn are enough to make film fans vomit.

The journey into the future is punctuated by a future disaster. OK, not bad, but it would have had more punch if we had been allowed to see that mankind just generally degenerates, as in the book. More a reflection of the times, I guess, as the George Pal version had a nuclear war take place.

The general story? Ugh. A total misrepresentation of the novel. The Eloi are too competent and warlike. The Morlocks are too intelligent. The UberMorlock is an embarrassment, and there's no setup. He just shows up in time to be killed. Yawn.

Samantha Mumba does OK. Guy Pearce is one of my favorites but he often seems confused and in pain. (Reportedly he broke a rib while filming this.) He also looks unhealthy and overly thin, as if he had been ill for a long time before making this.

A sad, sorry film version of one of the world's classics. H. G. Wells deserves better....MUCH better.


Guy Pearce looks like and acts like a Calvin Klein underwear model, or one of those bimbo guys who wear Levi's Jeans and stand in front of a herd of stampeding Buffalo because they realize that Buffalo like Levi's too. In every scene, Guy Pearce looks like he is saying, "Look at me, I am so pretty!" As a hero, his character is a total wimp. In every scene that calls for courage, Pearce gets the short end of the stick. SPOILERS: Yet, at the end of the movie, this wimpy book-worm character out-runs a pack of baboon-like Morlocks who can run and leap along the side of the walls (like Spiderman). Around the same time, the TIME MACHINE seems to cause a Nuclear Explosion of some kind that wipes out an entire valley. Strangely, even though Pearce and his gal-pal Mumba are about a foot away from the last Morlock that gets killed; seconds later Pearce, Mumba, and the tribe are watching the valley blow up from the safety of their mountain. Now THAT is FAST RUNNING!!! Jeremy Irons as the King of the Morlocks is great. He really makes the movie a lot better than it was. Mumba, the model-turned-actress is not very cute, and she does not do much acting in this movie. The scenes which take place in the 1900s lack any real atmosphere. Even though the period dress and vehicles are shown, the characters act like caricatures of how they imagine 1900s people would walk and talk. The original version of this movie was a lot better in this respect. The period characters were much more realistic, and they were much better actors. The original version of this movie made the PAST seem like the real base of the characters. This new version lacks substance and feeling. The scenes in which Pearce deals with the death of Emma and then fails to save her from her fate are very good. The issue of the Morlocks being cannibals is not very well explained, and it does not make sense that they have some large dark butcher shop filled with knives and cutlery, yet they are never seen using any weapons except for a blow-dart. Also silly is the giant pit full of water and bones. All through the underground, the Morlocks are all walking around chewing on meaty bones. So how can all those skeletons be in the pit? It seems like there are some Morlocks that Bar-B-Que their humans and eat them off the grill, and other Morlocks only like filleted flesh?? And where are the restrooms for all of these creatures? As I was watching the dozens of Morlocks who were gorging themselves on human flesh, it occurred to me that they must have a very advanced toilet & plumbing system, considering that they were tossing in lots of bones. All these issues were never addressed. At the end of the movie, Pearce is holding Mumba's hand, but you can see that he is eye-balling her friend, Mandingo. One other totally irritating thing about this movie is the non-stop LION KING music which is in the background. Once Pearce arrives in the future (802,710 a.d.); the LION KING music never stops, and every time the natives are around, there is that African Moaning Singer (Is it Peter Gabriel or Paul Simon?) that starts wailing and moaning over the LION KING jungle music. I watched the credits at the end of the movie, and the jungle music is not specifically identified, but I think that Elton John should probably look into this matter. Time Machine was a mediocre movie with some good FX. See it once, then forget it.


Worst. Movie. Ever. I can't believe they had to hire Jeremy Irons to give this piece of crap some credibility - and still failed. Did they think that if they stuck to the plot of the book that their target audience wouldn't be able to figure it out on their own? (probably). "Hey, let's make lots of things explode and give Mina big boobs, and have her speak in an adorably fake broken English. That'll make the morons watch." "But sir, that's not how the book went at all, I think we're mot being faithful to Mr. Wells' message." "F*ck it, we're going to the box office here, never mind some dead author's ideas on human nature. Also, let's add in Orlando Jones with some classic 'Black attitude' as a supporting character, and never mind the interesting conclusion to the book - Guy Pierce has to get some p*ssy at the end."


It's a Time Machine all right. It runs in "real time" for 96 minutes but it felt like 96 years. The first 20 minutes were utterly superfluous. Massive amounts of "dead" time throughout. What happened? When will something happen? Who cares? Apparently the film was made on a tight budget, I note for your edification the following: The Morlochs: nothing like saving a little money by reusing the sets and costumes from Lord of the Rings part I, hey? The "scary dude" in charge of controlling the Morlochs... The scariest thing these guys could think of was somebody wearing one of Gene Simmons: (of the band Kiss) old costumes??? Little-known fact: freaks of the future have perfectly manicured nails.

Save your money, save your time. Pass on this one.


After reading the novel which is about a one hour read, watching this film became a sad disappointing experience. Just as he did in prince of Egypt simon wells somehow managed to direct a script that took away all the drama and mystery out of its source material and turned it into this homogenized nonsense. Now I'm a sucker for cheese and camp but this movie made absolutely no sense. There was no joy in any of the performances or any humor. There were no thrills and that silly bookend with addy's character of filby throwing his hat in the air was the last hackwriting straw. I felt very violated when this movie was over and I still refuse to believe it was only 90 minutes it went on forever. I wondered how the studio and director could have OK'd such a lousy script but then my friend pitched the movie to me exactly as It was and I said wow that sounds great but what happened to the movie.


I was one of the many fools who were sapped out into paying for this at the theater, even though I payed 4 bucks for matinée (before 6pm) prices.

The remake's story was ho-hum, the CGI Morlocks were lame, the Eloi were rastafarian to mimic today's fads (no I did not think the chick was hot at all), the re-killing of the hero's modern girlfriend was somewhat cruel, overall just a sad, bad remake.

I'll take Rod Taylor, Weena, and the fat glowing eyed surfer Morlocks over this junk any time. My estimation is that many of the reviewers who like this awful remake are young kids, which does not account for either good taste or a true value of the old classics which are largely unappreciated by today's confused and ever-wanting-more youth.

When the 60s version came out (I first saw it in the 70s for summer fun) it was pretty damn impressive and still holds up. You don't have to have an over abundance of CGI in a movie for it to be better. Too much of this looks fake. I can't say enough of how disappointingly bad the Morlocks looked and they ran and jumped around like they were in a child's video game. 3 stars out of 10.


This movie sucked. From beginning to end it was predictable. There was absolutly no chemistry between Pearce and the Mumba chick. The plot went nowhere, floating off into oblivion. All of these led to the movie being very hilarious in its stupidity. And I wanted to strangle Orlando Jones, the guy just needs to go away.


If you loved the early-60's version of "The Time Machine", don't waste your time; as with last year's "The Planet of the Apes", this has been "reimagined", and not for the better. And, just as with "Planet...", its lead actor is woefully miscast and leaden; Guy Pearce, a terrific actor of great range, is all wrong for this role, giving a one-note performance that elicits zero sympathy; he's so dour and serious, and lacking in awe of the (supposedly) amazing things he sees that you don't believe for a moment that he's experiencing them. Worse yet, whose idea was it for him to resemble the love child of David Spade and Calista Flockhart?? A handsome actor, here he is sickeningly gaunt, which is, believe it or not, a major distraction. Frankly, the man looks gravely ill and is photographed cruelly. He shares absolutely NO chemistry with anyone on the screen, a direct result of a performance that is out of sync with anyone else's. Sadly, even with a proper leading man this movie doesn't stand a chance for it is fatally burdened with both a totally inept director - whole scenes go nowhere and are poorly realized - and a screenplay that is utterly inferior, scattered and at times incoherent - not for a single moment do you care about anyone in this film, for the single fact that there is NOTHING in the way of character development! In the original, you got to KNOW the Eloi, so therefore you felt for them, and felt their terror of the Morelocks; here, as the movie stresses several times, they are nothing but sheep and act accordingly. Unless you're a member of PETA, scared sheep are HARDLY the stuff of entertainment!

Samantha Mumba does as well as possible, in her movie debut, but, like everyone else in this mess, most especially Jeremy Irons (if he's the leader of the Morelocks [who look like rejects from "The Mummy Returns"], why then does HE look like Edgar Winter's long-lost brother?) is COMPLETELY WASTED. Also wasted was the money spent on the endless 'special' effects, which belie the $70M spent on the film; they are uniformly lackluster, obvious and unconvincing. And then there's the look of the film: poorly photographed, its art direction and sets are just "there" and its costumes are typical in design. There isn't an original thought or idea expressed behind or on the screen. Most of all, it isn't even fun! (The filmmakers use the now-ubiquitous Orlando Jones as "comic relief" but, as usual, Jones is irritating, and just HOW does his electrically-driven character survive in a world seemingly devoid of electricity?)

All in all, this is an empty, lifeless, dull, sterile and confused affair: didn't they ALREADY REMAKE "Planet of the Apes"??? (At least THAT had the fortune of some strong performances!)

*SPOILER!* The final insult (beyond a head-shakingly terrible, not to mention convenient, ending)? Not only do they BARELY feature the changing dress-store figures, they make even the time machine itself an anachronistic, gaudy glass-n-chrome bore! (If "The Sopranos" had a time machine, THIS is exactly what it would look like.) Pathetic...


The Time Machine starts in New York during 1899 where Professor Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) proposes to his beloved girlfriend Emma (Sienna Guillory) who accepts, unfortunately just after they are attacked by a mugger & Emma is shot dead & dies in Alexander's arms. Jump forward 'Four Years Later' & Alexander has built a time machine which he uses to travel back to the night Emma was killed in order to save her but she is still killed, only a different way this time. Alexander realises whatever he does, however many times he goes back Emma will always end up dead one way or another & he yearns to know the answer why so he travels far into the future to discover the truth. However after having destroyed the moon two new races have evolved on Earth, the human like Eloi & the monstrous Morlock's that eat the Eloi. Alexander decides to stick around & save the Eloi.

Directed by Simon Wells who is actually the great grandson of author H.G. Wells who wrote the original The Time Machine book on which the original The Time Machine (1960) film was based & it is in fact the 1960 film that producer John Logan's script is based upon here rather than Wells original literally source. While all three share the same basic story & ideas this remake adds the subplot about Alexander's fiancé Emma being killed & that's the reason he invents a time machine rather than just because he is clever & he can. The script is a mixture of sci-fi, action adventure & drama none of which really grabbed me or engaged me that much, sure there are a few pretty special effects, a few nice action scenes & the moment when Alexander's question is answered regarding why he can't save Emma is actually quite intelligent & makes sense it never really captured my imagination & I was never really moved by it either. The time travel aspects of The Time Machine feel very similar to Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1992) in the sense you can't change the past but at the same time the future is not set only The Time Machine isn't anywhere near as good a film as Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The character's are alright although I thought Guy Pearce just looked too young to be a brainy scientist capable of inventing a time machine & there's never any real explanation behind it's mechanics either as it's like one moment there's no time machine the next he has invented & made one & it works perfectly. I reckon the Back to the Future trilogy offer far more thrills, laughs, excitement & general entertainment value than The Time Machine ever does & while I will stop short of calling it a bad film since it moves along at a decent pace, tells a reasonable story & has it's moments I wouldn't call it brilliant or even particularly good. There is also a cheeky little reference to the book & original film which are both name-checked here.

The benefit this modern version has over the original is the development of special effects & in particular CGI which leads to scenes of time rapidly passing around Alexander in his time machine complete with huge buildings being built, new ridges, canyons & mountains being formed & a elaborate pan back which ends up in space as we see passenger rockets orbiting the moon. The effects work is good, there are one or two moments that look a little below par but generally speaking the effects are good. I saw The Time Machine on telly & the station playing it badly pan and scanned it so the left & right edges of the frame were cut off the screen thus cutting off part of the year on Alexander's time machine dial so I actually didn't know what year he went to. Apparently director Gore Verbinski took over the last eighteen days of filming as Wells was suffering from 'extreme exhaustion' while the IMDb says that the time machine itself was the biggest & most expensive prop ever built for a film at that point which I find hard to believe & Guy Pearce broke a rib during a fight scene but like a trooper carried on.

With a supposed budget of about $80,000,000 the production values are high with a lovingly recreated period New York & good effects work although amazingly The Time Machine was nominated for an Oscar for best make-up but lost out to Frida (2002). The acting is mixed, Jermey Irons puts in a good performance in a terrible make-up job that has him looking like a reject from a Lord of the Rings film while singer Samantha Mumba makes her big screen debut here & is simply terrible although Guy Pearce is quite good & fairly likable.

The Time Machine isn't a particularly bad film or a particularly good one, just a somewhat unremarkable one that is watchable & passes an hour and a half but not much else. Watch Back to the Future (1985) again instead.


This movie is a disgrace. How can you take one of the greatest science fiction stories of all time and turn it into some kind of half-assed love story. The entire beginning of the movie was not in the H.G. Wells story and didn't need to be. Also the Eloi were done completely wrong. They did build houses or form any kind of real society. They didn't care about each other at all. That was an important part of the story. The way they had formed a world that was without hardship or complex emotions. They were barely even aware of the Morlocks. I don't know why this movie was made the way it was but some stories should be told as they are or left alone.


Do you know that they want to escavate the Moon for real?And in Geneve there is the debated project that could lead to make possible time machine?All i can say about this movie that is based on facts about future(at the time of the movie)scientifical projects but real. Hope the moon will exist not happen as in the movie. Now about the movie itself, I saw the original movie too, and I also read the book. The book I didn't like though, but the movie yes.I totally agree with a previous comment that this movie was depressing,unlike the 60's one.That was very good with force, this one was only a paralled future of what is good movie.


Having not read the original book or seen the earlier film, and indeed knowing nothing about the storyline of either of those or the current film, I came to this film with an open mind.

It's really difficult to know where to start a comment on the film, because the whole thing seems so confused. It seems like there is a point or a message or something in the film, but what that is remains completely obscure.

The effects were fantastic and very well judged. The idea was set up really well with the motivation for time travel clearly made out. However, it was downhill from here.

All of the time travel seems to have only the vaguest connection to the quest that was set out at the start. There are some nice ideas, but they seem to be isolated occurrences that really do not flow and make the film seem disjointed and lost. At one point one wonders whether the main story in the film is the fate of the moon.

When Hartdegen arrives in 802,701 A.D., the film becomes very frustrating as he seems to be unable to discover anything of importance about the Eloi, and while it seems clear that there is something to find out, what it is remains annoyingly elusive. This is quite an odd change from the previous time travel instances and one wonders why all of this has suddenly been abandoned for what seems like a completely new story. So many things happen that there should be an explanation for, but there is no discovery. I really, really wanted to know what the film was "getting at", what there was to uncover, but to no avail. Having read a summary of what happens in the book at this point, it seems like there has been a very half-hearted attempt to render this in the film but it has been so simplified and "dumbed down" that the meaning and context is completely lost.

Just as we hope that we are finally to discover where this is all leading, the film suddenly takes another significant change in direction, and becomes a mindless action film without any real action. It is as if by this point the director has simply given up bothering to put any meaning into the film. By now countless significant things are happening without any explanation. Hartdegen fails to take the opportunity to return to the past on two occasions for no reason, and then suddenly loses all interest in time travel for no reason. The film comes to an abrupt end as Hartdegen decides to stay with the Eloi.

In summary, after a good start the film is very disappointing. Too much time is spent on Hartdegen's adventures before arriving with the Eloi. However, the worst part of the film is what I think is the most important part: the setting up of the situation with the Eloi. The whole point is completely missed, and this undermines the rest of the film. After this the film concentrates too much on effects and action and all attempts to return to the meaning and core of the film seem forced and out of place. With so many things happening without explanation, the film just seems to get lost and lose direction. However, the finale where Hartdegen decides he is no longer bothered about time travel is the most inexplicable of all.

Ultimately, the whole film seemed like a collection of unconnected incidents. The meaning and context was lost, although the gaping hole where it should have been was very obvious. What was so frustrating about it all, though, was that there was clearly so much potential here: it wasn't by any means a bad film, it just so easily could have been so much better. The start was very promising, the time travelling looked fantastic and would have worked had it not gone off on tangents, and Hartdegen's experience with the Eloi could so easily have worked had a few more of the right questions been asked, and had there not been such a temptation to "dumb down" and simplify. I just wish I had a time machine so that I could travel back in time and advise against the mistakes that were made.


This was one of the worst films i have ever seen. I'm still trying to get over how bad it was. Just because it has Godard's name attached to it, doesn't make it great. Beyond the fact it makes absolutely no sense, we see one insanely long shot of a traffic jam that is not stunning, unbelievable or anything of the sort. While this long shot of the traffic jam is going on you will be feeling probably more like making a pastrami sandwich than continuing watching it. Pieces of a supposed story, silly, stupid characters. What message are we suppose to take from this? It offers nothing and serves no purpose. The arrogance of the director in showcasing these puny, dull chain-smoking french people and having them sit around and converse for hours on end and then getting it passed off as art is truly astounding.


This is a polarising film. People either love it or despise it, it seems. Me, I despise it. The film comes from the same context as Lindsay Anderson's Oh Lucky Man, but while that is a masterpiece, this is just horrible.

Both films take Kafka's unfinished novel - America, for their inspiration and general ideal. America is a surreal story of a youth's travels through the country. Kafka uses the this character as a pure observer, one who does not change over the course of the journey (although the book is about 300 pages and still seems only a quarter finished, so we'll never know). Allowing Kafka to concentrate and comment on the absurd/surreal situations and surroundings. Oh Lucky Man follows this same template to show Britain through the eyes of Malcolm McDowell and Weekend does the same for France.

Both films are also hugely Brechtian, using various tricks and techniques to point up the fact that this is NOT REAL, this is confabulation etc. But the difference comes where Oh Lucky Man uses the constructed film to convey the absurdity of life and the class system, Weekend uses the constructed film to bludgeon us to death with ideological polemic. Because Godard goes further than Anderson in his Brechtian principles, we end up with two principle characters in which we have no investment, at all. We're forced to spend 90 minutes with them, yet we couldn't care less about them. Deliberately so. But in doing this, Godard leaves us with a film that is entirely about his own message, which, in the first half of the film is provided through relentless and overbearing symbolism, and in the second half through a series of long speeches directed to camera. Combined with unpleasant and unnecessary scenes such as the really horrible pig slaying, far worse than any of the off camera violence of the car crashes.

The end result is like listening to a student political apparatchik droning on and on and on about his views whilst repeatedly kicking you in the head so that you get the message. The problem with Brecht is, if you alienate the audience too much, then you've alienated them from what you are trying to convey. Which always seemed self evident to me.

The parts that really stick in the craw for this movie though, is the contrast between the extremely sexually explicit verbal description of the threesome at the start and the off-screen comical rape in the middle, which, even if it could be viewed as allegorical, completely destroys the film's faith in itself and it's characters, what little of it existed in the first place. It's so French with a capital F, it hurts.

Watch Oh Lucky Man instead. That is a work of genius. Weekend is a work of pretension.

Two stars, and only for the traffic jam scene and the piano scene, which are just hints at genius, although they actually make the end result more frustrating and unsatisfying as without them, this is a bad film by the worst most pretentious director in the world, with them, well it's obvious that this is a damn good technical director making the most intellectually pretentious film in the world. Somehow that's far worse.


If you like me is going to see this in a film history class or something like that at your school, try to convince your teacher to see something else. believe me, anything is better than this movie. it is slow paced, confusing, boring, poorly constructed, gory, gringy, do I need to go on? It's message is good, but I have seen them been handled better in several other films. The acting isn't even any good. This movie is just even more awkward, as it start off as being funny (not intensional though)because of it's surreal story, than at the end, just becomes uncomfortable to watch.

I honestly feel like 1 hour and 40 minutes of my life has been robbed. Why would anyone want to watch a girls describe a threesome for 10 minutes, than watch them drive through a traffic jam for 20 minutes, listen to a hippie who can make sheep appear, witness a sort of rape, than see the female lead role eat her husband.

Honestly this movie deserves nothing but a 1/10. And if your not happy with my preview,seriously I'm an open minded guy and I like movies that protest through symbolism, but this movie was just awful. make any excuse you can, to avoid this film.


I saw this film in a Cinema-Club in Germany in 1970. Most of the attendees were from the local private school at which I was teaching. I had seen a few Godard films previously while I lived in France, and, though they hadn't been my favorites, I could at least make sense of them. Being able to speak French helped.

The fairly innocuous beginning of "Le week-end" soon turned into a kaleidoscope of images, very well, maybe too well photographed, that soon made no sense to me. For me, films, like books, must have some clear sort of meaning. This didn't for me. I suppose I'm not "into" artsy films. Images still haunt me from the film. To this day I refuse to eat rabbit meat, well-loved by the French. Those who've seen the film might realize why. Yes, the theme of materialism came through, but the cannibalism, the car wrecks, and all the other scenes of destruction and horror only sickened me. I'm not sure if I walked out before the end, but I certainly felt like it. I promised myself that I'd never watch another Godard film, and I haven't and never knowingly will.

My rating: nothing. It was the most disgusting film I've ever seen. Others may have been more inept, silly or stupid. I've forgotten those while scenes from this one will haunt me forever.


I work at the video store that rents this video in Lexington and I must say...it should have never been made. I even know some of the people who worked on it who regret doing so. Bad effects, horrid acting, bad script especially. I swear the dialog wouldn't have passed for the original PSX Resident Evil; it's that bad. If you want to know how not to make a movie, watch this film to learn a thing or two. If not, don't waste your time. And even the director know it sucks because he keeps coming in to try to get us to upsale the movie. No sir. I've watched two-thirds of the horror section and this rates even lower than Plan 9 from Outer Space. Even Ed Eood would have said, "Nope. That's too stupid even for me."


Once a month, I invite a few friends over for a "Retarded Movie Night". We look forward to movies that are either so bad they're funny or movies that know they don't have a plot and just show a lot of chests. Last night, we were unfortunate enough to have Zombie Planet as one of our movies. The cinematography is on par with what we're used to, but the acting was a different story. The lead role is played by a Johnny Depp/Rob Zombie wanna-be who couldn't get a role in a high school play, let alone a LOW-BUDGET horror film. Our indecisive hero, who couldn't tell whether or not he wanted to be a bad-ass this scene or a whimpering coward was one of the reasons why this was the first movie of 30 that I have ever had to stop early during a Retarded Movie Night. It had the possibility for greatness with a GREAT twist on the standard zombie infection, but they took it an entirely different direction based on Johnny Zombie. I personally would not recommend this to any of my friends. However, it's unfortunate that I already invited a few over last night to suffer through 80% of this movie with me.


Now, I'm a big fan of Zombie movies. I admit Zombie movies usually aren't all that good, but I like them anyways. Despite the crappy acting and worthless dialogues that occur in almost all Zombie movies, this one is by far the worst. See, there are a few ground rules with zombie-movies. 1. Zombies are suicidal. Tactics is seldom used, and NEVER do they act like a boxer. They don't dodge a blow to the head, they take it with a ugly smile. They don't try and hit you in the face, they grab a hold of your arm and bite it! 2. Zombies can't speak. Only in Evil Dead. Otherwise, they DO NOT SPEAK. 3. You don't fight zombies with melee-ranged weapons. You loose in a melee fight against zombies. Firearms are used. In this movie however, melee is the way to go, which is wrong. Very wrong.

It had NO redeeming qualities.

If you wish to see a Zombie movie, see one with an average score higher than 3 on IMDb.com


Just when you think that you've seen the worst the zombie sub-genre can offer, along comes another budding Romero and his team of no-talent mates to prove you wrong.

I've suffered the Zombie Bloodbath trilogy, endured Death Valley: The Revenge of Bloody Bill, sat semi-comatose through The Zombie Diaries, and laughed hysterically during Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence, and genuinely thought that amateur movie-making could sink no lower. However, having just watched Zombie Planet, a two hour long festering pile of drivel from writer/director George Bonilla, I think I have found the ultimate in awful zombie movies.

In this dreadfully amateurish effort, which is part Mad Max and part Dawn of the Dead (but ALL bad), Frank Farhat stars as T. K. Kane, a tough fighter who kicks zombie ass for a hobby, armed only with knives, a machete, some concussion grenades, and what he obviously perceives to be a really mean glare.

After a desperately unexciting opening sequence in which he takes on a horde of dodgy looking zombies, Kane teams up with a group of survivors who not only have to fend off attacks from the undead, but must also must placate a gang of vicious thugs who have taken control of the area (by searching for and handing over any valuables that they find).

Of course, Kane isn't the type of man to take orders from a bunch of z-grade post-apocalyptic bully boys, and he sets about teaching the bad guys a lesson (mostly by glowering at them in a threatening manner), only pausing to periodically rescue pals from zombies.

Featuring awful acting from almost everyone involved, a dreadful script, laughable effects, and shoddy production values, there is virtually nothing in this film to make it worth a watch. To be fair, I quite like the basic premise that the zombies are the unexpected result of a highly popular slimming drug that blocks cravings for carbohydrates (we learn this when one character conveniently explains the back-story to Kane, who strangely has no idea what has happened), but this is about the only vaguely interesting aspect of the whole production.

I have a certain amount of respect for anyone who manages to fund and make their own movie, but when the results are this poor, that respect is lost when they decide to make it available for public viewing. I would've kept this one under wraps if I had made it.


I live and work in Lexington, Kentucky, the town where Zombie Planet was filmed. I'd heard about the film forever ago, from various people who claimed to be a critical part of the production. Then, for several years, I heard absolutely nothing. Imagine my surprise when I found it sitting all by itself at the local video store, just itching for a rental. So, being the cinephile that I am, I decided to give these local filmmakers a shot.

Bad idea.

Zombie Planet is overlong, boring, poorly acted, miserably shot -- and that's just the good stuff. I tried my hardest to enjoy it, which included removing my brain and setting it on the table so that it wouldn't get in the way of the horrible storyline. Alas, nothing worked. Zombie Planet is so bad it's pathetic. And the very idea that they're planning a sequel leads me to believe that the director and his henchmen have listened to none of the criticisms I'm sure they've heard. Move on, you guys. Please. In fact, refrain from film-making altogether. Or attend a few classes on pacing, storytelling, and, well, basic direction.

Otherwise, for the love of God, hang it up.


Zombie Planet seems like an example of good ideas and laudable ambition overstepping budget. I thought the explanation for the zombies was real original and gnarly, and loved the dog munching in the exposition scene. The rest of the gore was effective in a low budget kinda way, but too spaced apart throughout the movie. The problem was that it was too long and anti-climatic. Sure, they had a intriguing, if derivative plot line, and a similarly familiar but cool setting, but a low budget zombie film really needs to be goretastic to make an impression and there just weren't enough red moments in this for me. I think there was surplus of cheap looking and bloodless fight scenes as well especially given the generally minimal grue. Plus, for a two hour movie, there's very little closure at the end, and though it kinda makes me want to track down Zombie Planet 2, I felt a tad cheated. So probably most worth looking for the two of them.


Set in the near future a dark stranger walks into some southern American city plagued by zombies. Settling with a group of friendly face inhabitants our stranger learns the harsh realities of city life. There are two groups of people; the upper classes who dwell safely behind the concrete walls of the city being provided by, at the right price, the state police. Then there are our friendly face inhabitants. These lower class folks live along side the zombies. There only means of survival is to trade goods, which they forage for during the day, with the police in exchange for tins of food. Our stranger discovers why his world is plague by zombies. A new dietary pill that suppressed the craving for carbohydrates was the foundation. The human race's desire to shed fat caused the down fall of society as we know it. These pills increased the desire for protein i.e. meat, even the pet poodle. However, there was one more grave side affect, after death people became reanimated with an even stronger craving for protein namely human flesh.

With what I feel is an imaginative introduction I felt that this film many realise some inventive material. What better way could explain the cause of the zombie race than by a contemporary idea of people's desire to make any sacrifice to change their body without the hard work of the gym? However, the imagination of this film soon stopped after this exposition. This film falls into the old trap of 'I can not imagine what the world will be like when society collapses'. When you watch this film you do not escape to a different world as you do when you watch Planet of the Apes (original), Alien, Mad Max or Texas Chain Saw (original). In this film the alternate society is define by people with hair dyed orange and green. Face paint and charity shop leather jackets. There is no harshness about life in this alternate society, just healthy faces and over made-up zombies. Films should allow you to escape not remind you that you need to clear out your wardrobe and take your old cloths to the charity shop.

Forget about some of the pitiful acting, or the over made-up zombies. This film fails because it is too polished, too congenial and too predictable. I have watch films like this since the early eighties. If you are going the make a film of this nature I suggest you need to watch again such films as Dawn of The Dead (original and remake), Threads or Fulci's Zombie to see and experience that feeling of desperation in a devastate society.


In the 50's, a gay photographer called Bob Mizer (Daniel MacIvor) founded an agency of male models, releasing a muscle magazine called "Physique Pictorial" and movie of men, and many of the models became prostitutes. "Beefcake" shows the rise and fall of this pervert.

Alternating footages from the 50's, testimony of many models and Bob Mizer himself in the present days, the director Thom Fitzgerald used this subterfuge to show naked men and lots of penis along 93 minutes running time, in a complete bad taste and very silly crap. I have never heard anything about this morally corrupt Bob Mizer and I do not know what AMG is. In my opinion, only gay and very specific audiences might like the theme of this boring and pretentious movie. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "Carne Fresca" ("Fresh Meat")


...left behind when the ostensible heroine's Venus flytrap makes any man whose sexual advances are forced upon her--ahem!--disappear. Fiona "This IS my career!" Horsey is an attractive enough screamqueen ingenué, although I found her acting chops to be suspect. With better direction, and a better vehicle, she might improve. Likely as not, her leading man, Paul "Mine, too!" Conway, never will, proving to be one of the most unlikeable, unattractive love interests I've seen in a film in recent memory. There's some nonsense involving Siamese twins, a frying-pan-to-the-head-obvious hot dog joke, a reasonable amount of bare boobies, production values in the low-budget-to-laughable range, scripting that would make Syd Field cry, acting that by and large only an Ed Wood could love, and camera-work a step above pedestrian. The vagina dentata gimmick might well have made for an interesting horror movie, but "Angst" botches the premise. Strictly for stoned-out viewing, and even then, you could do much better. Sturgeon's Law (or Revelation) still holds.


The main premise for this movie is every woman's fantasy: a vagina that kills and eats men. Well at least it is a fantasy for every woman who has ever had a fight against a man. What's that, 99.9999% of women? But don't worry it's not a gory kind of eating of men. It's more like a comical slurping them in, like a drain plug. There's no blood or parts left behind. So for blood, guts & gore fans, forget about this film, not much gore here.

The two main characters of the film are somewhat unrealistic. Helen is a good girl who becomes a prostitute. Meanwhile, Dennis is a nice guy who stalks Helen.

The story is already a little silly at this point, but then they throw in two more equally silly sub-stories that just send this movie into the bad B-movie territory. The first new sub-story is about Dennis finding new love with a pair of conjoined twins; and then eventually murdering one of them, and becoming a fugitive bank-robber. The second new sub-story is about Helen finding new love with a nice policeman who rescued her from a prostitution-related bad date, and decided he wanted to marry her. Dennis and Helen eventually meet up again at the end of movie in totally unbelievable circumstances, and magically Helen's murderous vagina is cured!


So umm this woman has a vagina that sucks people into it when they umm do it and there's this dude who like follows her around...everywhere....and uhh is umm in love with her and she cant love him back because of her thingy. Well her thingy starts talking to her...sort of...it just says feed me over and over and she tries to feed it hot dogs but that doesn't work because it ummmmm wants fresh meat?!?!!? So this woman heads to the red light district where she picks up tourists but only the really sleazy ones cause I guess they deserve it and after a while this dude comes looking for her and even though shes like right there he doesn't see her so eventually he gets involved with conjoined twins but he only likes one of them cause the other is a real hussy. This isn't bad good like I thought it would be cause like the novelty sort of wears off within the first 1/2 hour and it goes on for another hour. I think it killed off a few brain cells cause I sat through this whole thing and now im a little brain damaged. Either way man this is the worst man-eating vagina movie I have ever seen.


Am I the only one to think that this is a bad movie?

I admit that horror movies often lack things like a big story or good acting or even good special effects. But the way these deficiencies come together in this movie is surprisingly pitiful.

Miserable story: The idea of a raped vagina that takes revenge by turning into a man eater sounds quite funny, but what the writer made out of it is stupid.

Bad acting: The actors move like marionettes. They play and look like people, who really try hard but completely fail to act.

Bad FX: Especially the explosion of the Van looks unspeakably cheap.

It is surprising that a director who made some nice movies during his carrier changes over to such messy stuff.


Hello all--for what it's worth, I'm in a doctoral program on Indonesian politics and returned this semester after about a year's fieldwork, most of it in Jakarta.

I'm a big movie fan generally, so I went out as often as I could, and bought tons of local VCDs while I was there. This one I saw in the theater, since it opened while I was there, and, thankfully, closed soon after.

Who was the intended audience for this film? The spoiled wives and daughters of the Indonesian super-elite whose antics are weakly and ineffectively parodied? The vast majority of Indonesians who could never afford even a single dish, let alone a full meal, in the film's central restaurant location? Or gay Indonesian males, whose dilemma in the country's Muslim-dominated society is reduced to absurdly simplistic, how-to-respect-yourself preaching.

If all this wasn't bad enough, the soundtrack was either recorded or mixed so ineptly that even native-speaking Indonesians couldn't hear many of the lines.

In brief, if you're looking for a cutting-edge gay-themed film from a region of the world that seems among the least likely to produce such an animal, forget it. "Westler" from the early '80s, or "My Beautiful Laundrette," from the same era, succeed far better in putting a happier face on dealing with homophobia, and do so by showing not telling through incessant, wordy scenes.

Overall, an unfortunate waste of money in a country that still can't educate all of its children nor keep them healthy.


How can this movie be described? Oh yeah I've got it wretched!!!

I'm not big on chop socky, but this is just plain garbage. Anyone who would waste their money to pay to see it, is just too sad for words.


I was ready for a Crouching Tiger style movie and all I got was the worst movie i've seen in years. It was almost as bad as Baron Von Munchhuasen. Dead script. Dead acting. Dead everything.

Granted there was some good fight scenes but the positive side ends there. If this movie arrives in your house run screming to a phone and dial 911 and say, "Please help there is a movie in my house meant to force people to commit suicide"


Sure, it's hard being gay, especially in the south. We get it. Over... and over again.

What stood out was that the film makers focused almost wholly on the more "extreme" characters in these small town gay bars; the drag queens, the seedy sleaze of a bar long-closed, and on a guy who was brutally murdered for being gay, yet had nothing to do with either of the bars which were the focus of this film.

There were snippets of interviews from other people, people viewers would, perhaps, be better able to relate to. But they were glossed over, practically skipped, maybe shown in a glimpse in the background.

It would have been more interesting, to me at least, to hear the experiences of the more common gay men and women who were either enriched or otherwise by the experiences of a small town gay bar and/or the absence of that community.


Maybe it's unfair to dislike a movie for what it isn't, rather than what it is, but I approached this hoping that finally a filmmaker would make a movie about small-town rural gay men and women. Instead, the focus is primarily on the outrageous bigotry (big news!) of the locals (and those in outlying areas) and the really gruesome torture/murder of a young gay man.

So much time devoted to stupid people squawking about AIDS, sin, hellfire, and perverts. So much time devoted to the ghoulish preacher ranting about the Bible and gay people getting what they deserve.

I wanted to see more of the people that came to the "small town gay bar", not those who opposed it. In addition, the young man who was murdered isn't even from this town.

The whole movie works as a warning rather than a celebration, and it's very suspect.