I had the funny chance of seeing this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, four years ago. I must admit it wasn't as badly done as some other science fiction/horror movies of the time. The plot revolved around an astronaut that came back to earth with alien embryo's inside of him. Now the plot is quite weird, well if you can even call that a plot. (Seeing a space program run out of one building and an old pickup truck is drop-dead funny!) I'll admit it was horrible by today's standards (and 20 years ago)...but I can see myself 43 years ago watching and being charmed by this movie. It's not even close to the badness of Invasion of the Neptune Men, Manos: Hands of Fate or Future War.


This film is a total bore. Entrapment is way better in all aspects, plot, acting, stunts, etc. Plus the soundtrack is one of the most annoying I've ever heard. I was close to muting the film just to shut it up. 3 out of 10 stars ***


I am sure I'm in the minority (I know I am among my friends), but I found this movie long, boring and gratuitous. The fact that the role played by DENIS LEARY is the most likable character (the only other time I liked him at all was in "A Bug's Life"!) speaks volumes. Rene Russo's character was irritating beyond belief and Thomas Crowne himself was flat and stereotypical. To say he was two-dimensional may be a little generous. (No, the scenes with his psychiatrist did NOT help make him real.)

With the exception of two wonderful scenes (both involving the museum caper and NOT involving Rene Russo), this movie made me wish I were at home watching televised golf.


"The Thomas Crown Affair" is a terrible remake of a not-very-good movie, redeemable only for the topless shots of former supermodel Renee Russo.

That's it. The plot is negligible, Pierce Brosnan phoned in his part, and Dennis Leary (as usual) plays an annoying Irish cop, but I couldn't take my eyes off the beautiful Ms. Russo. There's an okay love-making scene on a stairway, a terrifically sexy ballroom dance, a topless beach scene, and a roll in the sack. Oh, and there's a painting stolen from a museum and a catamaran gets sunk.

But let's hope other directors recognize Ms. Russo's perky attributes and cast her in more, highly-visible roles.


I had a bit of hope for this hour long film made up of footage from old Poverty Row movies. Certainly it had the possibility to seem like more than a home video mass marketed to the world. Unfortunately while funny this movie still feels like a home movie, but with stock footage spliced in.

The plot concerns the planned reading of a will on a liner at midnight somewhere in the tropics. The ship sinks and well...thats the movie.

The film promises Karloff, Lugosi, Chaney and others being lifted from old movies to interact with new footage. We get that alright, but mostly we get lots of new video footage made to look like scratchy black and white film, in which new actors prance about. Old footage is inter-cut mostly to set the scene, but very little of the old and new actually matches so its clearly just a put on. Its not very convincing and is very disappointing for someone like me was looking for a better constructed film.

Still if you know and love the old Poverty Row films, (its very spoofy) this might be worth a viewing. I would warn against buying this but it can be had for about five bucks, the price of a rental) so the choice is yours (Though if you can get away with not paying for it do so).

Disappointing.


Take it from me as a camera man who worked for Republic Studios from 1946 to 1950 and then Warners Bros and Paramount from 1950 to 1993, this is a piece of crap. Sure it would be great to show it to your favorite friends at a house party but to try to sell this on a DVD is absolutely ridicious.

I have seen bad acting in my day but this is NO acting. The hero is almost laughable and he really thinks he is something judging from his comments on the specials. I hate to see his fan club. The old films did not jive with the action in many of the scenes. What the hell was that garden scene with three of worst actresses. I never seen a garden on a ship. They could not even emote. I would not mind it if they could have once ounce of acting but the only one was the guy with the Translvanian accent. I am sorry but this is not a clever film as some persons are stating. I would think horror film buffs would be insulted by this piece of film.


This isn't "so bad it's good"--It's "so bad, it violates the Geneva Convention's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment"! Only by reading the Synopsis can you even figure out the "plot" of this Straight to Video disaster. It's a hodge-podge of grainy stock footage spliced together with some of the all-time worst acting you'll ever have the misfortune to see. Comparing this incompetent, turgid, humorless mess to "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" is like saying that "Gigli" is like "Citizen Kane". The talentless cast are costumed in cheap, J.C. Penney "Goin' to Church" clothes, and there isn't the slightest attempt at period hairstyles or make-up. If you really want to see how this sort of "homage" can work, check out "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra"--It's clever, well-written, and best of all, performed by actual actors who aren't such agony to watch. For that matter, seek out the work of Phoenix artist Paul Wilson whose Sci-Fi short "The Attack of the 70 foot Courtesy Lady" leaves this film in the dust. The people in Terror In the Tropics look and sound like they were pulled off the street and given their scripts to read during the one and only take. This is an insult to Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney, and anyone else involved in the films they cannibalized to make this schlock-fest! Money isn't the problem--A lot can be accomplished with very little expense. A good script, decent actors, and above Z-Grade costumes and production design should have been a given before the so-called director created this stinky pile of cinematic offal. Let's hope the "promise" of a sequel doesn't come true--That was by far the scariest thing shown in the whole movie!!


being a fan of Bela Lugosi,Boris Karloff,and Lon Chaney Jr i had to see this.what tripe the only thing good about this is the clips of Lugosi,Karloff and Chaney Jr.along with all the vintage clips,that do not gel with the new black and white footage.not even close to Steve martins dead men don't wear plaid,that was done great.with all the technology we have now why was'nt this done better?if you are planning to shell out 5 bucks and some change,be warned this is really bad. but if you like Lugosi Karloff and Chaney Jr then watch their movies instead.even ed wood did better then this one.new actor mark redfield is pretty good as an imitation Bela Lugosi.the clips they use are; the ape,Mr Wong,most dangerous game,lost world,indestructible man. and devil bat.that notorious Bela Lugosi classic.i believe this production was very low budget,and it shows.1 out of 10.


Problems: 1) Although billed as "a loving tribute to Poverty Row," a lot of the old footage is not even from Poverty Row films-- much of it is from RKO's "The Most Dangerous Game," (1932), with some from the silent (!?) version of "The Lost World" (1926)!

2) Much of the old footage is just used as filler (the old shipboard footage) or as silent shots (for example, of Bela walking, looking or staring) often repeated;

3) Where is the pantheon of Poverty Row Master Thespians (Bela, Boris, Lon Chaney, Jr., George Zucco, John Carradine, Buster Crabbe, Tom Neal, etc.) emoting their lines as punch lines to the 'new' characters jokes (as in Woody Allen's "What's Up Tiger Lily?" or Steve Martin's "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid")? Even Mike Nelson's feeble commentary on the colorized "Reefer Madness" is funnier than this.

High Point: The long but extremely enlightening lecture by Gregory Mank which makes you give new respect to and admiration for Bela, John Carradine and George Zucco. That's worth the price of the DVD alone!


What a waste of time. I got about five minutes into it and became *very* antsy, and was soon fast-forwarding a bit, and pretty soon the desire to take my thumb OFF the fast-forward button was nonexistent. Actors Mark Redfield and Barry Murphy did very capable jobs, I thought, but no one else I saw gave anything like a good performance. Again, take this review with a large grain of salt because the movie was just so unbearable I couldn't make it to the end. Heck, I couldn't make it to the MIDDLE !!

I find myself unable to submit this review because it isn't long enough. Maybe this last sentence will put it over the top.


This film is enjoyable if you like poverty row, public domain films from the first half of the 20th century, or are a fan of amateur film-making. The film splices together public domain thrillers together along with newly shot scenes in which the "actors" (With the sole exception of Redfield doing a near dead on Lugosi rip, all of the "performers" are simply dreadful!) attempt to interact with the stock footage. The "New" footage is covered with digitally added film scratches, as is some of the already substandard old footage (??!!). As near as I can figure out the plot has something to do with a bunch of strangers being brought together on an island for a will reading(?) This film, while boasting a creative premise ala 'Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid', is a technical and creative wreck. In one dreadfully over long sequence and injured sailor on a ship describes an abortive trip to 'Fog Island', whatever that is! The "flashback" then incoherently weaves together old footage from totally different eras, and of totally disparate film quality. Unrelated scenes from 'The Lost World' (1925), The Most Dangerous Game (1932), White Zombie (1932), Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla (1952) and some other poverty row productions. This is done over an incredibly bad voice over which seems to have too much room echo as if the audio was recorded on a cheap home video camera.

The "filmmakers" seem to think that they are paying homage to the great actors of yesteryear by giving characters the surnames of famous actors (Carradine, Zucco, Ouspenskaya, etc..etc..). This tactic was done cleverly, as well as subtly in 'Final Destination' here it's just obnoxious! Bizarre, and painfully unfunny, jokes about Spiderman, Dracula, and Superman abound. Even the old as dirt 'Dewey, Cheetam and Howe' lawyer reference is used here-this was old and tired when The Three Stooges used it in the 1930s.

The film stock and audio, don't match scene to scene, and dozens of different sources are used for Lugosi. The finale effect is that he seems to be getting, older, younger, older, thinner, heavier, younger and older again minute by minute. Oddly the film didn't use this as a comedy subplot and squanders a good chance for comedy.

Truth be told though, It was great fun to watch this late at night in bed. Maybe thats what they wanted to happen!


After reading the mostly glowing comments about this movie I decided to rent it despite some suspicions of TV movies. I should have followed my instincts.

I tried so hard to warm up to the movie and find merit in it but I just couldn't. The story never draws you in or rings true and the acting is perfunctory at best and laughable at worst. Everything in this production is amateurish.

Always a joy to watch, Mary McDonnell may be the only performer to escape this disaster without damaging her career or reputation. I won't even bother checking the name of the leading man - hopefully he's back doing commercials.

Even poor Vanessa Redgrave, whom I adore and respect, seemed to be channeling Katherine Hepburn all the time appearing as if she were really drugged in the home. Maybe she needed the money.

If I can save one person from wasting 100 minutes on this tripe I will feel vindicated.


Naach A more detailed review can be obtained anywhere else in the web. This one is a good portrayal, although I do not agree with it entirely. Taran is a commercial guy and hence views from his angle only.

Ram Gopal Varma (RGV, seems like a political party) has created a marvel in Rangeela, so this one seems like a pale reflection of that one in some parts... I'm not even going to compare Urmila and Anthara.. both are good! The former has better acting talent, although the latter is catching up nicely.

Anyways, I like Anthara's character. She is true to her art, not touched by any unnecessary emotion and definitely not too practical. She is a dance scientist, actually she is so sure of her theories that even comparing her to a scientist would offend her. Hey.. Donald Trump.. maybe you gotta ditch Melania, here is Anthara and you've already built a Taj Mahal... ain't this easy? Abhishek on the other hand is a practical fellow, who wants money, power, fame, etc. Hence these two albeit were struggling to get a break into the film industry, cannot get along, given their different styles and approach to life. This is very typical, but what I like about the movie is that it says what an Abhimaan would say in its total runtime, in one scene! What's new? This movie takes a different angle to the film industry and how different people get into it. There is always something different about RGV's movies, this one is different too, it is way too slow for his standards. In parts, it drags one almost to sleep.

Noticeable It is tough to notice anything other than Anthara in the first half of the movie. I think this skin show was necessary for the dance sequences involved :-) Also, looks like Anthara is a pro in Yoga, she is way too flexible, almost like a Prabhu Devi. Aby Baby is improving as an actor with every movie. I am sure his filmstar blood is paying off rich dividends. The title song was really good, the music overall was above average.


In most parts a lethally dull venture, Naach is about this dancer/choreographer (Antara Mali) who regards herself as some kind of auteur, beyond the petty commercial compromises that people around her, including her actor beau (Abhishek Bachchan) build their careers on. Nice idea, only it turns out that she has the most howlariously bad concepts about costumes and dance movements, stuff rotten enough to make even the forces behind those ultra-cheap South Indian potboilers squirm in severe embarrassment.

The story follows a yawn-inducing predictable pattern...dancer and beau meet and have an affair (yes, sex included)...beau gets success, but she spurns his attempts to help her...beau throws attitude and they walk out on each other...dancer meets a most unlikely director who wants her 'to do what she wants'...incongruous effort bags even more incongruous popularity...beau's attempts to reach out are rebuffed until a climax where he bursts out about how he can't live without her...D-uh end.

Actually I didn't really expect this film to be much good. So why did I watch it? Because I have an Antara Mali fetish. She's an actress with IMO sufficient talent to reach grand heights provided she has the opportunity. Alas, her role in the film looks far better on paper than in actual execution, ironic for a film that's supposed to be about an uncompromising character. To give her credit she puts in a game effort, shining well in the few scenes that actually ask of her as an actress. I just wish the movie had been more worthy of her. Abhishek Bachchan also throws in a few good punches, the last scene salvaged somewhat by a simmering turn which pleasantly reminds you of his father.

Only recommended if you can sit through humongous piles of dogcrap for the return of a few grains of good moments courtesy the lead actors.


Ram Gopal Verma usually makes so-so cookie cutter formula fare, lifted from some Hollywood flick. His every film after Shiva is in the cookie-cutter genre. Occasionally, he makes a truly horrible movie like this one.

For the first 55 minutes, we are introduced to the only 2 characters, a struggling gymnast masquerading as a skilled dancer (go figure!) and a wannabe actor trying to strike it rich in Bollywood. They fall in love, zero becomes hero, dancer/gymnast gets no break, gymnastics, angst, the usual heartbreak, more gymnastics, angst, song, dance, angst, some more gymnastics, more ridiculous gymnastics and before you know it, you're fast asleep. And this despite the HOT SEXY HOT HOT SEXY HOT bod of the leading lady-cum-gymnast-cum-dancer.

But hey, you're not alone!! The editor, director, photographer, in fact the whole cast and crew are asleep thru-out the entire production. Only difference being they got paid to snooze while you paid money for this crap, so you lose. Ha, joke's on you. Don't feel sorry for yourself but for our poor broke gal as she tones up daily in her high-rise penthouse in the sexiest of leotards and exercise-wear. Puh-leese, when will the poor thang get a break, she's STARR-VINNNG?!

Antara Mali cannot act. RGV's lost his marbles. Abhishek tried hard but failed. No plot. No story. Nothing. She must've paid RGV handsomely to make this all-nonsense stuff in addition to free gymnastics lessons on his casting couch. What a super deal. No need for an acting career.

Such absolute rubbish can only be "Made in Bollywood" of course!


Naach would have won an Razzie for the Worst Film in 2004 (may be overall too) if it were global. When it comes acting badly (aka showing attitude/yawning/over (not) acting) Halle Berry is no match for Antra Malli. While the catwoman had storeline, supposedly hot actress in microscopic costume, and some action sequences, Naach had nothing at all.

One of those movies which makes me wonder why IMDb does allow one to rate a movie as 0/10. Yet again, I think that movie does not even deserve a 0. It has to be something negative or minus infinity.

OK what about the plot outline? It is a funda-giving, arrogant, full of attitude choreographer meet an useless, skill-less, loafer who aspires to be an actor tale. The story is so short that if just another sentence, IMDb might ban me for writing a spoiler. About the story-telling? Its like a bunch (sorry 2 people for the most part) of people moving in super slow motion. Don't try this movie if you have bought new DVD-player. You would end up believing that either DVD is in bad shape or DVD-player is struck. Not its fault at all.

At the end of it all, you end up giving some credits to the director. At least he realized that both Antra Malli and Abhishek Bachan (at least at that time) can't speak dialogues convincingly, so there are not too many dialogues in this movie. So, you can at least sleep your way through the movie, with some annoying noises from those Antra-malli song sequences.

Do watch this movie if you are new to Bollywood Cinema. Once you have tolerated this movie, you would be able to see any Bollywood movie and enjoy it.

There can't be worse 3 hour torture than this!


Leonard can write lyrics, but he sure can't sing. Nor has he had an original idea in his life, just a floater. From the looks of this nasty little puff piece (note that his publishers, McClelland and Stewart were involved in the production), he didn't know how to live, either. The woman he loves is only mentioned in passing and no woman is allowed to speak in this nonsensical advertisement. While Irving Layton was given a credit, the other poet interviewed, Earle Birney, was to remain nameless. I come from the generation just after Cohen, where all the boys seemed to idolize him. His lack of commitment was probably just calling to them. I hadn't realized what a disappointing poseur he was back then. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his age.

Whiny, little rich prince, and not one memorable line in his oeuvre. No dedication to social change, outside of the sexual arena.

You don't speak for my generation, Lennie, and not for my gender. Go back to the monastery and stay off the screen.

As for my local public broadcaster, I will let them know what I think of them wasting my time on this guy. Not a has-been, a never was...


The film begins in Latvia just after WWI. Being a history teacher, I knew that multinational troops occupied much of Russia during this time. There was serious concern about the spread of Bolshevism and the troops were there ostensibly to protect their nations' interests. However, some times they flew missions or had armed conflicts with the Communist army, as the nations involved really wanted to see the so-called "Whites" win. However, the Whites were deeply factionalized--some wanting the return of a czar, some wanting a republic and some wanting something in between. Because of these mixed goals and a lack of a real commitment by the foreign armies, the whole expedition was doomed and left the USSR after only a year or two. However, what I did NOT know was that German troops were also involved. This surprised me, as they had just lost WWI and weren't in the best shape to be mounting such an expedition.

This is the backdrop for the film, but it's also about a pro-Communist rich lady and her ill-fated love for a childhood friend who is among the German troops. She throws herself at him repeatedly but in each case he rebuffs her. So, she then sublimates these desires by various affairs. While none of this sex is all that graphic, this and the underlying reason the man isn't interested make this a rather adult film and one I wouldn't show to younger audiences.

While the setting for this film is interesting, the overall film is as gray and lifeless as any I have seen. I don't recommend it unless you are an amazingly patient person or you are really into overrated German films. I especially warn away anyone who suffers with depression, as it will no doubt make it worse. The simple fact is that there are so many better German films out there waiting to be seen--such as MOSTLY MARTHA, DAS BOOT, MOTHER KUSTERS GOES TO HEAVEN, WINGS OF DESIRE or ALI, FEAR EATS THE SOUL (among others).


This fantasy was utter garbage. I thought Michael Moore cornered the market on ridiculous anti-government movies, but this one was far worse than anything he ever did. No wonder critics of the British media complain it's driven by tabloid journalism. This movie is a left-wing loony's greatest fantasy come to life on the big screen. Anyone even slightly to the right of such rabid Bush-bashers should be appalled it ever got funding to be made. I'm sure it will do well in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, though. It's hard to believe that in these days of insane Muslims blowing up innocent commuters there is anyone in the U.K. who thinks Britain should surrender in the war on terrorism. I guess it's no longer the country I admired for standing alone against the Nazis nearly 70 years ago. All hail Neville Chamberlain and the pathetic policy of appeasement!


I read a lot of high hopes from readers of the book that this would be a faithful adaptation of Nora Roberts' story. Not having read the book, I don't know if this adaptation was faithful but I do know it wasn't good. Actually, the screenplay was the best part of the movie so kudos to Nora Roberts.

I planned ahead and watched Carolina Moon because of Claire Forlani. I've never been sure if she's a good actress. She's been decent in some movies, average in others and really bad in this one. But, Forlani wasn't alone. The performances were all over the place. Oliver Hudson was wooden and boring. Josie Davis was hammy. Then, amidst all this B-rate acting, there's Jacqueline Bisset! She didn't have a lot to do other than portray bitterness but, even sleepwalking through that, she was miles ahead of the others.

Still, Forlani remains one of the most breathtaking women in movies and I was not disappointed in that capacity here. I believe Forlani can be more than eye-candy but, until she turns in a good performance in a good movie, she continues to excel at that. And, I'll continue to faithfully watch everything she participates in. Fandom is fun that way.

This movie though, Carolina Moon, was pretty bad. In addition to the bad acting (fake Southern accents are really distracting) the direction was pedestrian. It wasn't horrible. It was just the boring made-for-TV caliber you're used to seeing on Lifetime.

If you're a fan of any of the stars you can probably enjoy Carolina Moon for that reason, as I did. If you're a fan of the book you might enjoy seeing the story on the screen, albeit in a lackluster form. Otherwise, this movie is unremarkable.


I watched this movie for the hot guy--and even he sucked! He was the worst one--well, okay, I have to give props to that freaky police officer rapist guy too, he was even worse. The guy wasn't that cute in the end, he had the most terrible accent, and he was the most definite definition of hicksville idiot that can't stand up to his mom for the one he "loves" there's ever been. Overall, and if this makes any sense to you, when I go to pick up movies at the video store, I think to myself as I read the back of a movie that looks so/so, "Well, at least it can't be worse than Carolina Moon." The most terrible movie, and the most terrible writing, acting, plot--everything in it made my gag reflexes want to do back flips. It was THE most horrid movie I will ever see, with Gabriela way up there too. I hated it, and trust me, if there was any number under 1 IMDb had for rating, I'd choose that in a heartbeat.


First, let me state that I have no idea who Nora Roberts is. So the book may have been great, but the movie isn't.

I have spent my entire life living in the Peidmont region of NC. I have never heard southern accents as ridiculous as the ones in this movie. I have lived in two small NC towns and Charlotte and Raleigh. On occasion, you will meet people with a strong southern accent, but I have never encountered a town where everyone talks like a bad imitation of Gone with the Wind.

In response to Gore_Won from the atheist community. Your comments reveal more about your warped psyche than it does about the movie. If we were to stretch our imaginations and pretend that there is anything realistic in this movie - which there isn't - then the truth is that bad people such as Tory's father will always find some justification for their actions. The author chose religion as a counter to Tory's supernatural abilities. Your supposition that "the true character of the Gospels" directs a man to beat his daughter is about the most perverse and misinformed interpretation I have ever heard. Before you start spouting off about the Gospels, maybe you should read them first.

Back to the movie. The dialog is flat, unnatural, and unbelievable most of the time. In particular, many of the things that Kade said to Tory are inappropriate and do not match the mood, context, or way they are said.

The "exciting twist" at the end of the movie is lame, predictable, and lacks any credibility. Some have also claimed that Jacqueline Bisset does a wonderful job in this movie, but the truth is that the bitter mother character is also a stale, predictable, one-dimensional character. Is that Bisset's fault? I don't know.

If you have a choice between watching this movie and a twenty year old rerun of the Muppet Show, I recommend the Muppet Show.


The story is about a psychic woman, Tory, who returns to her hometown and begins reliving her traumatic childhood past (the death of her childhood friend and abusive father). Tory discovers that her friend was just the first in a string of murders that are still occurring. Can her psychic powers help solve the crimes and stop the continuing murders?

You really don't need to find out because, Oh My God! This was so so so so bad! I know all the Nora Roberts fans will flock to this movie and give it tons of 10's. Then the rest of us will see an IMDb score of 6 and actually think this movie is worth watching. But do not be fooled. The ending was predictable, the acting TERRIBLE (don't even get me started about the southern accents *y'all*) and the story was trite. Just remember....you were warned!


A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother.


I don't leave IMDb comments about films but this.... this film was bad. very bad. I fast forwarded through most of it, stopping where I hoped the acting had improved since the last scene, only to continue with the fast forwards. Formula plot -- once the obvious murderers were discounted, there was only the one left. And that was in the first five minutes. Scene by scene it felt as though I'd already read the script before because there were no surprises, no mystery. The Tori character... bad bad acting. A true waste of time on DVD and a definite 'let's go to bed early' option if it's the only thing on television. If you watch this film, you will find yourself realising you'll never be able to get back the time you've just wasted.


'Carolina Moon' is an adequate made-for-TV movie about a girl with psychic powers who returns to the town where

she grew up in and where her childhood best friend was murdered. Turns out that every year on the same date another

young girl is murdered and Tori, played by Claire Forlani, must solve the mystery before she ends up dead. Claire Forlani (Meet Joe Black, CSI New York) is the female lead and does a pretty good job of it, ably supported by the rather delicious Oliver Hudsom and a still luminous Jacqueline Bisset. The script, adapted from a Nora Roberts novel, is bog-standard and the plot

is tediously predictable. That, however, is offset again by, like I said, the rather delicious Oliver Hudson.


This movie was nothing like the book.

Everything was mixed up or changed. Most of the movie was things that weren't even in the book.

This movie never should have been viewed. It was a great disappointment to me when I enjoyed the book so much and then to watch how this movie trashed the entire thing.

I would never recommend this movie to anyone that is a fan of Nora Roberts or J.D. Robb.

Honestly this movie is not worth watching with how off from the book is really is.


This owes a great deal to the plot of CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS. Although he is quite grown up, it is partly the story of a wealthy lad who is shanghaied as a crew member aboard a cargo vessel and becomes a man in the process. Moran of the title is a boyish young woman also brought up on a vessel owned by her father. When the cargo burns, she and crew members are evacuated to our lad's ship. However, the captain has smuggling on his mind and his intentions are not honorable where Moran is concerned. The inevitable ensues - our lad falls for the mannish Moran and she for him. In the end evil is subdued and the lovers are united. Some interesting dialogue points out that Moran belongs to no man -"and no woman." (A nod to Sappho here). Dorothy Dalton is appropriately sexless as Moran and not too attractive either. Valentino does well in a romantic, action role. His sexy build and physique are shown off to advantage and the role is quite a masculine one. He is very appealing. This is no great film but it passes the time. What it really showcases is Valentino's beauty and sexiness.


Trekkies is really not a movie about Star Trek fandom. It's a freak show about those Star Trek fans who have no sense of reality. As a freak show, it's fine. But it is a mistake to think that this movie gives you an insight into Star Trek fans. Most Star Trek fans cringe at what this movie shows.


This is by far the worst British comedy ever, how it made it past the first episode let alone the pilot is beyond me. The acting is weak from the main character played by Ben Miller to Sarah Alexander (from the fantastic coupling)right through the cast. The plot/story lines were unfunny and very very predictable using many worn out ideas. A very painful series to endure but sadly put in a slot between two excellent shows. describing it as Britain's answer to ' Meet the parents' does a disservice to 'meet the parents' and is as about as fresh as an old shoe that has a run around with the family dog. Britain should have learned that rip offs from other countries never work from looking at America's sad attempts at doing so.


Although this was the first Hunter S. Thompson documentary I have seen it was average at best despite the involvement's of huge star appearances such as Johnny Depp, Bill Murray, Gary Busey, and a few others. I was let down by this and yet it was still a little interesting. What kept me watching was some of the old clips from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Where the Buffalo Roam. Not that good mostly because of the old guys rambling and things any fan would already know. I still think they were milking it because it could have been compressed down by at least half. Still if your a fan I would you'll like anything that has to do with hunter. best regards


Deep Sea 3D is a stunning insight in to an underwater world only a few have had the opportunity to view first hand.

From the opening sequence when a wave rushes towards the audience momentarily engulfing us in the ocean, the filmmakers make full use of the IMAX format. A jelly fish field appears to fill the whole theatre, a shark powers towards us, predators pounce from behind rocks and devour their prey. It is a beautifully captured under sea feast for the eyes.

Our ears on the other hand, are not given the same treatment. The film is narrated by Hollywood stars Jonny Depp and Kate Winslet. Both sound so ridiculous it positively spoils the enjoyment of the visuals. Depp sounds slightly bored whilst Winslet sounds as if she is reading a bedtime story to the village idiot. I was shocked that an actress of her status could have pitched her performance so wrongly. The script is fairly silly and contains very little depth. The soundtrack is filled with strange, unrealistic sound effects which I assume are meant to be funny but in fact detract attention from the material which should have been allowed to speak for itself.

Danny Elfman has provided an excellent score which gives plenty of impact to the ups and downs of life under the sea, when it is allowed to play out without the silly bubble sounds or crayfish footfalls which pepper film.

The film is a technical marvel but with it's childish script, annoying narration and misplaced sound effects it cannot be taken seriously.


Honestly, on the subject of the death penalty, I could take it or leave it. The problem I have with this documentary lies in the fact that it is a complete love-fest for the murderer, with absolutely no sympathy for the family. The Execution of Wanda Jean, with it's completely one sided view, only reinforced my view that she should have been executed for her crimes. It tried to argue that she was mentally retarded, but nothing in the video supported that view. She seemed uneducated, but so did her entire family, but that doesn't mean they were all retarded. I can completely understand if someone is opposed to the death penalty, but to completely ignore the crime, as if it didn't happen, and try to put Wanda on some moral mountain top, is offensive in nature, and that's not the side of the issue I would be associated with.


The main portion of this lightweight musical story is located at fictional Midwick College, which Peter Kendricks (Peter Lind Hayes) attends due to the largesse of stage actress Grace Hayes, his real-life mother who fills the same role here, and who manages to supply his love interest through her secretary Mary (Healy) who is his real-life wife. Drably directed from a weak script, and additionally hampered by excessive cutting and poor editing, this film does provide some treasures among its eight songs, including the title number, and has nice turns by soprano Healy, Benny Rubin as a snack shop proprietor, and the dynamic tap dancing Roland Dupree.


Having some idle time before going to work, I looked at my "50 Movie Pack Comedy Classics" DVD collection and picked the most obscure title in the pack: Zis Boom Bah starring a forgotten Grace Hayes. "Classics" is obviously the operative word here since most of the titles I've never heard of and I suspect they're all in the public domain. Anyway, this movie also stars her son Peter Lind and his wife Mary Healy (who I just found out is a New Orleans native from the state I live in, Louisiana) with Benny Rubin as a malt shop proprietor and Huntz Hall, taking a break from the East Side Kids, as Peter's buddy. The plot, about a vaudeville mother trying to turn her rich carefree son into a responsible one with him unaware of who she is, is for the birds and doesn't have many funny scenes though I did like Peter's celebrity impersonations and his dance with Hall in drag. And the songs and dances are entertaining in themselves. Rubin, however, is all over the place with his confusion of the American vernacular of the time and almost everything concerning him makes no sense whatsoever (though I did like his funny dance). Since this was only 61 minutes that I'm sure played on the lower-half of the double feature bill, I'll be charitable and give this one a 3 for the few entertaining bits that I mentioned enjoying.


Oh Gawd. I want to time travel back to Monogram Studios and throttle someone in their 2 room front office for this sloppy musical. It is one watt above flat-lining for 60 of its 61 minutes and then actually shows (for the one thin minute, spread in milli-second blips across the hour) that there is real life talent being badly photographed.I just don't see the point of going to some trouble to actually make this film that could easily be energetic and actually funny and allow lethargy to be the main thing on view. The weird storyline shows cranky vaudeville trouper Grace Hayes bulldozing her blowsy way into a college where her rat-bag son is rich college clown. She's gonna fix his playboy ways, no matter what.Her real life son (weird looking) Peter Hays plays her screen son. His real life wife plays her secretary. Talk about nepotism. I suspect this talent package was almost the raison d'etre for Monogram financing this back-lot musical produced by resident schlockmeister extraordinaire Sam Katzman. As with other Monogram musicals it just looks more like a reason to film recent new furniture purchases and light fittings in order to show off to other studios that Monogram Pictures are 'lavish' in their B grade ways. Have a ghastly look at SWING PARADE OF 1946 for genuine evidence of this: they just constructed this gigantic nightclub set then found an excuse to film actors and musicians running all over it. Story? None. Anyway ZIS BOOM BAH is more BAH than BOOM. Where was Gale Storm and Mantan Mooreland when Monogram really needed them? Probably standing at the boom gate of PRC Pictures wondering if it looked safe to enter there. Junior jive hepster Roland Dupree springs to life to rappety tap his teen legs around two wobbly dance numbers, especially in the 'big show' finale set in the new and expanded malt shoppe/club set. The usual crumpled curtains are loosely hanging on the back wall, and the stage set of mis matched drapery even has one dark main rag that is yanked back and forth as each amateur sequence elbows past the previous one. The chorus girls and their very plain looking partners in this finale just look like Monogram office staff borrowed (from typing and carpentry) for the morning of filming. They have absolutely no dance talent and are so ordinary on screen... ALL the girls look like they are all called Joyce. There is even a costume calamity where they wear frilly hot-pants...on one leg only. It is all so awful and crummy...and actually annoying when one more tweak up by all concerned would result in ZIS being actually FUN. The one strangely interesting thing is the dialog delivery between Grace and her son/daughter in law: it is so casually delivered that it actually works in spite of the script and logic. She has a very life like presence which is the only thing that allows the ridiculous story to be slightly compelling. The Dupree kid is the real star. He can actually do something...in spite of looking like a tubby Liberace tap dancing teen... You read that right.


The stage star Grace Hayes stars in this obscure little film. After years of being on the stage, she is going to visit a small college town to check up on her son who is being raised by his grandfather. The kid doesn't know who his mother is and when she sees him in a local malt shop, he's a boorish jerk. Part of the problem is that he is a college clown the other part is that he's really spoiled.

Interestingly, it turns out that Mom is really quite wealthy and has been not only funding her son's life but is a hefty contributor to the college. So, she has the idea of forcing the young man to mature. She talks to the man who's raising Peter and has his allowance cut off completely--hoping he'll rise to the occasion. It also turns out that she puts the screws to the school because she thinks all these kids need to stop playing around and be more responsible.

Now here's where it gets pretty dumb. To show that they know the value of hard work, she hires a bunch of them to sing and dance at the malt shop she just purchased. Talk about contrived!! What happens next is like a long and not particularly good talent show or perhaps a poor man's version of a Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musical! I'd suggest the kids try to do something else to earn money...or perhaps sing and dance until people pay them to stop! I know I would pay them.

Considering that the talent is far from talented, Peter is a bad actor and his change from lout to responsible adult is almost instantaneous, the whole thing is a bit hard to take. Not a very good film by any sane standard, this is an obscure film that should have stayed obscure!

By the way, it is interesting that Ms. Hayes' son in the film, Peter, is actually her real life son. The only problem with that is that Peter Lind Hayes is a truly awful actor. He's not handsome enough to be a leading man and he comes off as either dull and uninteresting or downright obnoxious. In particular, all the stupid impressions he does are really bad and he has the charisma of the gelatin that you scrape off Spam. Despite this terrible performance, he did go on to have a reasonably successful acting career. Who would have believed it if you'd seen him in ZIS BOOM BAH--because here, he's about as welcome as the Bubonic Plague!!


This feels very stilted and patronizing to a great extent. The whole plot is extremely forced - especially the "gallant" effort to save the college from ruin, and the moralistic overtone (especially by the leading lady) grates a bit.

But there are one or two comic moments that do help relieve the boredom, and the dancing is quite fun (especially for alleged amateurs - ha, ha!)

The shop proprietor and the young guy doing spectacular tap dancing were particular highlights. And I liked Peter Hayes impressions of Charles Laughton and Ronald Coleman as well.


I will never, ever forget watching this show around the age of 13. Even at the young age I remember thinking, "This is a Baywatch rip off show without the one thing that makes Baywatch tolerable. The girls in bathing suits." Nonetheless I was too small in those days to be the holder of the remote in my house. The high point of Pacific Blue was an episode in which a couple of thugged out gangsters are coming to whack someone with submachine guns ... on bikes!!! As a thirteen year old I never laughed so hard at something that was supposed to be taken seriously. Even I knew that the task of going out and acquiring Uzis (for murder) is a task that should never come before borrowing someones car for the day. That had been the defining moment of this show. Simple Crimes and situations tailor made by hack writing so they could be taken care of by the unsung hero of the crime fighting world The Bike Cop. Does not get much Dumber.


Any chance to see Katharine Hepburn in something I haven't seen or from her early movie career is a treat, and on that level the film is amusing, but she's horrible miscast as a Hill Billy. Her famous New England enunciation slips through, making lines like, "I'd better rustle up some Vittles" pretty ludicrous. She's so pretty and so young it almost overcomes this major flaw. The story is an old fashioned melodrama, and there fore, a younger generation may think this pretty corny stuff, but this was the staple of American Entertainment well into the 1940's. It has its moments, but you might need to be a die-hard movie buff to appreciate it.


Katharine Hepburn as a mountain woman who mixes prayer with positive thinking--and is thought by the local folk to be a witch. Kate works overly-hard trying to convince us she's a backwoods hick (named Trigger Hicks!), but you can see she doesn't even believe in this unintentionally comical scenario. Constantly-smiling Robert Young plays a foreman working on the construction of a mountain dam who becomes Trigger's first crush...but alas, he's married! No amount of white magic can resuscitate this formula, based on a play and brought to the screen by R.K.O. with too broad a hillbilly flourish. It is ungodly, and just about unwatchable. *1/2 from ****


This is a really silly job of miscasting--about as bad as Hepburn playing a Chinese woman in DRAGON SEED. The lead part Hepburn plays is a combination of Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies and a faith healer! This film is even worse than Bogart's Swing Your Lady, because at least Bogart didn't play a hillbilly--he was just surrounded by them. And the dialog sounds as if it comes right from a Li'l Abner strip! The problems don't really end with the outrageous casting, though, as the plot is completely muddled and the "love story" might make your head hurt. For no reason WHATSOEVER, married Robert Young falls for this Ozark bobcat. Was it her lovely personality that won his heart? I doubt it, as she as the fiery "spitfire" the movie was named after and she really seemed to like fightin' and scrappin' and hollerin'! Was it her feminine charms? With no makeup and fashions that looked like they were designed by Ma Kettle, I doubt if this was the case as well. To top this off, in the end, somehow Ralph Bellamy also fell for her, though once again, it really doesn't seem to make ANY sense.

So, here we have two city fellers fallin' for a scrappy unfeminine she-beast played by Ms. Hepburn--now THAT'S a recipe for a good film!


**** Spitfire (1934) John Cromwell ~ Katharine Hepburn, Ralph Bellamy, Robert Young

Mountain hillbilly Katharine Hepburn (as Trigger Hicks) is a religious back-woods laundry woman. "Going on 18", she begins to attract male attention, and responds by throwing rocks. The arrival of a dam-building construction crew triggers dreams of romance in Ms. Hepburn. She quickly attracts the attention of suave engineer Robert Young (as John Stafford), who flirtingly hides his marital status. Supervising engineer Ralph Bellamy (as George Fleetwood) is also interested in Hepburn, but for different reasons; Mr. Bellamy wants to know more about Jesus Christ, whom Hepburn worships.

After Hepburn employs the power of prayer to heal a child, neighborhood folks suspect she is a witch.

If it weren't so serious, "Spitfire" might be more amusing; it is an atypical and wildly inappropriate vehicle for its star, who is thoroughly unconvincing. Of the leads, Mr. Bellamy performs best. However, the best characterization is essayed by Sarah Haden (as Etta Dawson), who appeared in George Cukor's stage version, along with Louis Mason (as Bill Grayson). Will Geer (as West Fry), "Grandpa Walton" in the 1970s, has a small role. An unexpected ending helps.


This movie is truly unbelievable, in every sense of the word. I couldn't believe what I was seeing, and hearing, and I didn't believe it anyhow. Hepburn is probably my favorite actress, but this was ridiculous. Being a hillbilly myself, I know what it should sound like, and it's not Kate's Back Bay accent. The only thing I found funnier was the fact that the guy who played Charlie Chan so many times, Sydney Toler, was cast as another one of the hillbillies, with accent to match. Maybe this was a practical joke, come to think of it. I can think of no other reason for such peculiar casting. Well, maybe this. I noticed that Natalie Schaefer, Lovey Howell on Gilligan's Island, appeared in this play on Broadway. Can you imagine what part she might have played?


As someone has already mentioned on this board, it's very difficult to make a fake documentary. It requires tremendous skill, pacing, patience, directorial 'distance,' a plausible premise, a narrative 'flow,' and REALLY believable acting (aka GREAT acting).

Such is not the case with 'Love Machine'. It starts to show its faux hand about the 20-minute mark (with 60 minutes left to watch), and the viewer starts to realize that he or she is being taken in. It's downhill from there.

Director Gordon Eriksen simply peaked too soon. But to be fair to Eriksen, his problems started early: as he explains in the extras, he began wanting to do a REAL doc, couldn't get funding, and settled for a cheaper way of making his film.

The premise -- people who have secret lives by posting themselves on a porn website -- was perhaps more interesting in 1997-98, when the film was made. Eriksen does a lot of tricky stuff -- a pushy 'host,' hand-held cameras, zooms, grainy blacks and whites -- all, I guess, to elicit a sense of authenticity, but it just doesn't work. The film is confusing and forced, but what ultimately brings it down is the believability of the actors and the pretty awful dialogue.


**** MILD SPOILERS _ BUT YOU PROBABLY KNOW THE PLOT ****

Woman gets raped and decides to take out her rage on all of mankind . Oh did I mention the rape victim was mute ? That`s the problem with MS 45 , Thana the rape victim decides she`s going to kill men but is there any logical explanation to any of this ? Surely the whole film would have better if we had Thana give a voice over as to why she`s bumping off any man she comes across ? There`s just not enough development to this plot

As you`d expect from a film by Ferrara it`s not a complete waste of time . it`s far better than I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and pseudo intellectuals will have a field day pointing out the irony of the woman holding a knife like a penis as Thana goes on a killing spree at the end . But the script is somewhat silly and underdeveloped and hinders any serious comment the film could have made


Sickening exploitation trash plays like a bad (and reverse) "Death Wish" ripoff - but the ugly and untalented Tamerlis makes Charles Bronson look like Al Pacino with her performance. As for Ferrara's "stylish" direction, when a film is so vile, dumb and deeply offensive, it's hard for the viewer to pay attention to such details.


A gaggle of unpleasant city dwellers descend on Le Touquet for a week's holiday. Stories intertwine, characters fight, make friends, deceive each other, have sex...

Blanc has gathered together a stellar cast for his adaptation of Connolly's book, but to little avail. What should be hilarious is instead at turns tedious and irritating. All the characters are either pathetic or unpleasant or both, and in the end, despite the farcical nature of things, this viewer was left caring little about what happens to any of them.

Credit to the always wonderful Rampling, plus Bouquet and Viard but that's it. And Dutronc looks like he's rather overdone the nips and tucks, if you ask me...


This movie is awful, I'm SORRY. I bought this to get Star Worms, and actually expected this to be better after how disappointed I was in Star Worms. Oh just kidding, turns out this is the worst movie I've ever seen. The acting is garbage, not that there really is any, and the main character is a big stupid box who gets attacked by like, stuff or something. I can't really tell. The special effects are so bad that you can't even see the warring dinosaurs, which by the way do not war, but just stand and kind of move their mouths, or whatever those things are. The movie is a headache. It's very obvious the director is trying to establish a universe. Hahahahahahahaha... Really, this movie is just abominable, even by Troma's standards. The only good thing I can say about it is that it's got a Lloyd Kaufman intro, as he tricks us yet again into watching something that isn't fit for consumption.


In my opinion, the ending is what completely ruined the whole thing. The initial idea of having someone suddenly realize they were the son of god and the second coming was somewhat clever. People started to believe him and his friends became the new disciples. People went nutty, demons were possessing people, all kinds of fun. Of course then it all went wrong. It was bad enough that they had to take on the impossible task of looking through a vast amount of writings to find the "third testament" in five days, but then at the end it became this ridiculous humanist fantasy. I won't spoil it, but I'll just say it comes off as if it were written by a teenager with a very limited knowledge of theology. I hear they are making an American feature version of this story, I just hope they change the eye rolling ending.


The film tells you to be aware and conscientious. It also destroys any and all things, the Bible claims to be true. To people like me the first episode was interesting and the second was disastrous. It has been called "blasphemy", and it is, if you are a believer. It is sad to hear, that many people think of it as a good sequel to the Bible. However, the film shows you a lot of things and subjects, that can be interpreted as a filmic version of the "Revelation". Some of us think, that such things are not to be abused. One good thing about the film is, that it strongly encourages ethical awareness and makes you consider your actions twice. The director just seems to forget, that some people act that way already solely based on the fact, that they believe and love as prescribed in the Bible... Why attempt to change that, unless you be the Devil yourself?


Why I disliked the movie, apart from the sheer ugliness of the actors themselves, is that someone might actually believe such crap.

First of all, The Second Coming of Christ will be at the end of words, and when Jesus Christ will come on Judgement day he will not come as He did before, in human form. He will come in His full Glory as God and we shall be judged not only for our sins, but also for the consequences of our actions. Everyone will! Secondly, I have seen the eternal Gay pride illustrated in this movie with the all unquestionable "I read the Bible last night and it's not written anywhere". Well, it is. Moses cites on 3 different occasions that men who make love to other men, or women who make love to each other as if man and wife should be killed because these will never inherit the kingdom of God as they are foul! If it truly were for us to follow the Bible word for word there would be executions now, wouldn't there? But I think misinforming people does more harm than this would... That was the in the Old Testament.

There are lots of lunatics in psychiatric wards who think they are The Son of God, but to make a movie after it truly makes you think of how many idiots out there can make a movie.


Very poor quality and the acting is equally as bad. This movie is a prime example of present day england and the mindset. There is no mention of Jesus in this movie nor does the movie feature any type of scripture Christianity as most know it.

I am also very surprised because this film is a BBC program and the BBC is quit well known for their quality programing, but it looks like the BBC's attempt to rival the Hollywood psycho/drama films are failing completely.

Poor acting, poor plot, poor culture that seems to be without religion. I would not even bother buying this, instead better to try to rent this one or buy it when it goes to the 2 dollar bin.


Something not-so-great. "Silence of the Lambs" remains Demme's only good film, and I'm of course including all the overrated, left-wing exercises in big-screen indulgence some of which I haven't seen - and never will.

This is a light comedy that takes a thriller turn somewhere half-way. The first half is a little hard to sit through; it's neither funny nor particularly interesting. Daniels plays an over-the-top dumb-as-dirt naive moron who is so gullible and trusting that it defies belief. His animated acting is often annoying, and barely funny. He actually lies to Griffith at the outset and tells her that he is married, with children, when in fact he is divorced! In all the history of mankind and movies any man who is married and meets a woman he likes will lie - if he lies - and say that he ISN'T married. (Later on, the not-at-all credible or believable rationale behind this was revealed: he wanted to "protect (himself)". What a load of crap...) The fact that his character makes all the wrong decisions and does all the dumb things in the movie made me actually look forward to Liotta pounding on him when he caught up with him in the former's apartment.

What then happens in Daniels's apartment is the classic end-of-movie fight-to-the-death which the good guy - albeit the very dumb good guy - predictably wins. Still, at least the last half-hour has some action, something going on, and Daniels isn't given any more the opportunity to be animated. The film lacks credible characters (whether main or marginal), and the feel of it is too 80s which means the movie has a rather bland look; visually ugly. Sayles yet again makes a cameo as a policeman. The film is also perhaps a bit too heavy on the coincidences side. Griffith once again plays a soft-talking dumb-sounding bimbo, but, as usual, she is convincing because she IS a soft-talking dumb-sounding bimbo. This was an earlier film, before her lip-enlargement and breast-enlargement surgery; compare the natural breasts she exposes in this film to the ready-to-explode balloons she briefly flashes years later in "Nobody's Fool".

If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Griffith and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail.


There needs to be a 0/10 option for bilge like this.

It was painful to watch, but strangely compelling all the same. Compelling because it seemed unbelievable that a movie could actually suck this much. I kept thinking "it must get better." It got worse. And worse.

How on earth were people conned into producing such a categorical piece of junk I'll never know. The most surprising thing of all though, is all these reviews I see of people actually loving the movie. Yes, the acting was good, but the movie was very very very bad. Worst movie ever!


The movie opens with Charlie (Jeff Daniels), a business man just finishing his lunch in a neighborhood deli. It appears he doesn't have enough cash to cover the check. Instead of reaching for his plastic, he furtively glances around to see if the coast is clear and ducks out of the place without paying. Unbeknownst to Charlie, "Lulu" (Melanie Griffith) had been observing him from the other side of the deli.

"Lulu" is decked out in what passed for cool back in the 1980's with a brunette page-boy cut. She follows him out to let him know that she saw what he did. He tries to deny it but can't escape her accusation. Thinking he's in it, Charlie is surprised when "Lulu" says she doesn't work for the deli and then offers him a ride back to work.

When she heads in the opposite direction, thus begins their cavorting across the Middle Atlantic Seaboard.

We're supposed to get titillated as thoroughly modern "Lulu" puts straight-laced Charlie into humiliating situations. It's all right when the two consenting adults get a little kinky in a motel room but off-putting when they wriggle out of paying the check at a family-style restaurant. Stealing the labor from hard-working people is not my idea of "wild". Charlie is a jerk.

"Lulu" is a loony jerk. She starts to pass off Charlie as her husband. First to her mom (who blithely tolerates the charade) and then at her conveniently timed 10-year high school reunion (an event used later by another too-cool-for-its-own-good movie "Grosse Pointe Blank").

The "marriage" comes as a surprise to "Lulu"'s real husband (Ray Liotta)who's just been recently released from prison for armed robbery. Ray gives the two a welcome comeuppance and shows them how nasty crime really is.

I can't add any irony by writing that I first watched this by sneaking in the movie theater. No, I don't do that sort of thing. I taped it off of cable TV and assure you I view it strictly in the privacy of my own home.

So I got to thinking why I taped it when I don't like it very much and conclude that 20 years ago I was on a reggae kick and the soundtrack of "Something Wild" does prominently feature reggae. The closing credits start with the treat of Sister Carol performing her version of "Wild Thing".


This is the kind of movie that could have ruined several careers, if garbage could ruin motion picture careers these days.

Melanie Griffith took off her shirt, and in her pre-enhancement surgery days, she really should have stayed dressed.

Jeff Daniels was completely wasted, but fortunately for him and for us, he has gone on to much better things since this ... this ... this ... well, heck, piece of garbage.

Strangely, all of its major players have gone on to bigger and better things, including director Jonathan Demme. His work here was also wasted but deserving of a grudging admiration. I mean, anything not worth doing is not worth doing well. But he did it well, anyway.

Still, there was one bright, shining aspect: Ray Liotta, who is named way down the credit list, just absolutely stole everything. Liotta was magnificently mesmerizing! Hypnotic! Enthralling.

I saw this piece of garbage while it was still relatively new, in a friend's private theater. For some strange reason, my friend LOVED it. I sort of think it's because Melanie Griffith took off her shirt (and, really, honest, she shouldn't have), though he tried to claim it was other, more artistic, reasons.

Anyway, I thought even then, after his first scene, that Ray Liotta would become a major star, or at least a major, highly-respected actor.

Despite the garbagey aspects of the garbagey script, the sheer ugliness of the whole story, Liotta made it almost worth watching. In fact, it is worth seeing, once, just to see how far Ray Liotta has come. I mean, for one thing, his name is now usually listed at or near the top.

Even then, even in a pile of garbage, Ray Liotta shone like a diamond.

Just, if you do see this trash, be prepared to hold your nose. Every major character is either amoral or immoral. Terrible movie. Terrible movie idea.

Added comment: Too many people answer "Was this comment helpful?" with a "no" because they disagree with the expressed opinion. Maybe IMDb should ask that question instead: "Do you agree with these opinions?"


The first half of the movie is not that bad actually. Although there's not really too much depth in the characters, the story is somehow funny and generally OK with potential to get better, which it doesn't.

In the second half things start to turn for the worse, not only for the characters in the movie, but also for the viewer, who will be basically waiting for the story to come to its obvious end.

The previous user comment mentioned: "It's a love story, a road movie, a thriller, a comedy of errors, an 80's movie and most of all, it's a Jonathan Demme movie."

Well, please allow me to rephrase that: "It's a boy gets girl story, they happen to be driving around in cars, the thrill is gone as it is all too clear how things will evolve, there wasn't any scene in this film to which one might laugh out loud, it does have some slight 80's feeling and yes, Jonathan Demme really was the director."


After the success of Star Wars, there was a boost in interest in Sci-Fi movies. This was one of those cheap attempts to cash in quickly.

A group of survivors from a spaceship land on a planet inhabited by stop-motion dinosaurs, where half of them are systematically killed off (the people not the dinosaurs). Porn-movie level acting. Cheap special effects, even for the time, although it looks like a lot of effort was put into them.

Costumes were pure 1970's, as were the hairstyles. Ahh, the 70's. I expected a disco to break out at any minute.

Nothing to really recommend in this film.


Now, I love bad, old skifee movies as much as most people. And I understand that a budget is a budget. That said, Planet of the Dinosaurs is as bad as a bad movie can get. The thing has no actors, and only one attractive female whom they kill off two minutes after swimming ashore. There are literally no redeeming qualities to be found in this pile of wasted celluloid. The only thing not wasted was paper...the screenplay must have been no more than four pages long. Surely no one actually WROTE dialogue this pointless. I'm constantly amazed that such movies ever got made, much less released. I'm only glad I didn't pay to see this waste of time. It's 75 minutes of my life I'll never get back.


A spaceship in some unspecified future where human beings are equipped for space travel and have laser guns for weapons, crash lands on a strange young planet where dinosaurs are coincidentally also evolved and only on this world, have not gone extinct...yet. The survivors of the crash, roughly ten bland characters wearing blue, white, and yellow suits, fight for survival against the alien prehistoric monsters.

"Planet of the Dinosaurs" is a peculiar movie. Like I said in my summary above, the stop-motion animated dinosaurs in the film are the only colorful actors. The models are crude, but effectively animated. And they are much more fascinating and intriguing than these characters portrayed by inexperienced actors and speaking lines from a script that must have been written overnight without a single revision. Obviously, most of the budget was put into the dinosaurs, and although there is a fair share of them, there's not nearly enough to save us from our boredom. These human characters are only there to scream, run around, and mutter these poorly-written and verbose speeches about survival. And unfortunately, not nearly enough of them get eaten by the dinosaurs.

Overall, "Planet of the Dinosaurs" is not a film I plan on seeing again. Some people will simply love it for being so cheap and so poorly made. Sometimes, I enjoy movies like this. But this particular film is just too long, too boring, and very exhausting on the mind.


1) Bad acting.

2) For a bunch of castaways on an alien planet, it sure looked like home, especially with the houses and roads you can glimpse in the background.

3) Terrible plot with stupid caracters making idiotic decisions and blithely losing precious survival equipment and clothing left, right and center.

4) Cool 70's scifi jumpsuits (possibly the only good thing about this movie)

5) Interesting ship at the beginning (this crew must have been watching Space 1999 a lot). Too bad it blows up so early. The escape ship also got sunk too fast. *sigh*

6) Anthropologists might find some aspects of the movie interesting in terms of primate group behavior.


First, This movie was made in 1978. So that tells you that the movie is going to be bad anyway.But I am not saying that all old movies are bad . Second, The special effects we're terrible for even that time. Finally, The acting was so bad, Bozo The Clown could have done it better. It makes you wonder how people get the money to make movies this pathetic. This movie sucks!


I say Ben Johnson and my fellow Canadians say, "Ben Johnson?!" - he was a goddam MOVIE STAR guys, a COWBOY, and by 1976 he was scraping by playing a sheriff in stupid made for TV disaster movies such as this, cashing in on the DEADLY SWARMS OF KILLER BEES that everyone apparently thought were coming to get us at the time. So there's these bees, and they kill some people by flying in their mouth and going after them underwater. Eventually these idiots find the swarm and die and this woman is trapped in her car by the entire swarm. The cops are like, what do we do? Uh, bees die when it's cold. So where could we make it cold? I know - the stadium in New Orleans! So they drive this car and its attendant swarm of killer bees on and on through the streets of New Orleans, with a bullhorn saying "GET OFF THE STREETS OR YOU WILL BE STUNG TO DEATH." And the future home of tens of thousands of flood victims with its broken toilets so becomes the narcotic doom of this particular buncha bees. I don't know which is the greater indignity on this great city...well I do, but this one sucks too. Most appropriately viewed on an extremely faded-to-orange 16mm print, although Betamax is a good alternative!


I really enjoyed the film. It was really cheesy at times. (They destroy the villain with hair driers--but where are they plugged in?) It's a unique film though, and I enjoyed the acting of Courtney Draper and Tamara Hope. I also enjoyed Fanuel (however you write it...) liking Megan's charecter because she called him a dweeb. Besides the acting, the "rewinding" and showing what happened on Ariel's and then Megan's point of view was quite interesting. I saw it twice and I'd see it again


It's just a bad film.Not as bad as R.I.C.C.O. but bad.It got me hooked at the beginging then totally lost me after that.The acting was way off then on then going way way way off.Do not see this movie at all costs,TRUST ME WITH ALL MY HEART!!!!The directors who are brothers are not the next HUGHES BROTHERS,who made really great films like DEAD PRESIDENTS,FROM HELL,AMERICAN PIMP,and MENACE II SOCIETY.The only person who made me watch this was the acting of Paris Campbell,who will be a great actor one day if he makes better films than this.Christina Caparoula also did a nice job for what she got.I hope THE FITTEST is 10 times better than this piece of crap!


If you pack all the clichés about city firefighters into 105 minutes; you have Ladder 49.

It has a story but is highly clouded by all the clichés. It turns it into movie that with every event; becomes so predictable it's not worth watching. There is no depth to the story and even the acting seems superficial.

It looked like it wanted to be a tribute to firefighters but ended up being boring and pretentious. The parallel between Jack Morrison being fatally trapped beneath an inaccessible part of a building and firefighters being trapped beneath the rubble of the Twin Towers was all too obvious.

It doesn't compare to movies like Backdraft and certainly does not set an example for future movies about fire personnel.


I'm sorry, perhaps this is part of the wave of praise for fireman since 911, perhaps it's an old fashioned story, perhaps it's not meant to knock your socks off but I'm sorry, this film is awful. As in the title, cliché 49, I think it has at least that many clichés. It's a dreary story (impressive managing to be dreary when there's dangerous fires and lives being saved) about a fireman. And his dreary life, told in a pointless, 'scene from now' flashback to the past style. We begin the film with the hero in peril in a collapsing burning building. The entire film is about trying to get us to love this guy so we squeeze a few tears out when he meets his end in the finale of the scene from the start of the film. I found it hard to care and wished he'd gone up in smoke earlier. Clichés abound such as - death of best friend, love at first site, hazing in a new job, firstborn, a worried wife with a husband with a perilous job, a father figure boss/superior, 2.4 kids (well 2 but close enough), sacrificing your life to save others, awards for bravery....on and on. It's every fireman's life, every police officer, nurse, doctor in some way. It was lazy, if it was meant as a 'life flashing before his eyes' as he died, then God help the poor chap, I'm surprised he didn't suck in more smoke to go quicker. The flashbacks are mostly mundane and predictable, dully acted and with a soundtrack that could put The Laughing Cow out of business it was so cheesy, it actually sounded like muzak or copyright free elevator stuff!!! To be avoided at all costs unless you need something to watch with granny of a Sunday evening. Or maybe if your related to a firefighter - warning - your life will end horribly or you will be scarred for life if you are a brave fireman according to this movie. Unless your John Travolta (strange Velcro style hair in this one!!)


This is a poor, poor movie. Full of clichés, unrealistic moments: punching the air in celebration after putting a fire out, never mind that someone's lost their home and possessions!!, announcing a pregnancy in a bar along with all your mates before telling you in private first, walking on the roof of a burning building for no apparent reason, the stereotypical funerals and strained relationships, the very dodgy, cheesy music at the end, the unrealistic treatment of the girl who was rescued from her apartment, the very unrealistic explosion from that same apartment!! Did they have a couple of oxygen tanks in the attic or something!!? Anyone with an ounce of wit can see that this movie was a joke. It's a pity, because firefighters do an awesome job, and they deserve to have a good movie made about what they do, but not at the expense of common sense.


As much as I respect firefighters for what they do. I was unimpressed and bored with this film. The acting was OK but Joaquin Phoenix was a poor casting choice to say the least.

What bothered me the most about this film was the Celtic music whining on and on and on at the worst possible time in the film. The directing and continuity was pretty bad too!

**SPOILER** For example, after Phoenix's character falls several stories and is badly injured, he can barely move to speak to his captain on the radio. Then miraculously, he manages to crawl across a huge space covered in rubble and fire to punch a man-sized opening in a double thickness brick wall using only a foot-long piece of re-bar???? And to top it all off he then gets ultra weak and busted-up again.

Did anyone also notice that throughout the film, whenever you see shots of Joaquin fighting fires and rescuing people, there is little or no smoke in the buildings. I would think the smoke should be pretty thick in a flame engulfed building.

I also got tired of hearing the search and rescue team yelling "I need some equipment over here!!!".

I really thought I would enjoy this film but I found it to be a weak attempt at representing the true life of a fireman. The intention was there but I honestly think that this film could have been so much better. I couldn't help but think that the producer was trying to meet a deadline with this film and had to rush to put it in theaters. More time should have been spent on editing and ensuring there was good flow to the film.

The special effects were impressive in some scenes but disappointing and almost ridiculous in others. Kind of like a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.

Call me critical but I just can't see what's so great about this movie. At least it wasn't as bad as "The Whole Ten Yards" which is by far the worst film I've seen in recent months.

I really hope there isn't a Ladder 50 in the making!


Is there a fire fighter cliché that is NOT used in this film? From the opening line "I'm getting too old for this" through the "antics" of the firemen, to the "worrisome wife" the loss of his best friend in the firehouse, to the final funeral for the fallen brethren, this film looks and sounds like it was written by the marketing department at Disney ("Our studies show that audiences really like it when..." and then they stuck it in).

There is nothing original here. Any emotion we feel for these guys is brought in for our admiration and feelings for firemen.

Go watch Rescue Me if you want to see real heroes: Everyday guys with flaws that think nothing of running into a burning building to save strangers.


Wow - Thank god I was on an airplane and could look out the window. Bad Hollywood fire scenes, predictable, terribly acted (who the hell was that awful woman who played the wife?), badly casted, awfully written. This movie was apparently made to appeal to the type of person who's willing to kneel at the alter of either firemen specifically, "Heroes" or gods in general, I suppose. I just don't have enough bad things to say about this film. It couldn't have been cheap, either, with all the stars that were in it plus all those special effects and fire scenes. Had to have cost a fortune, yet it still sucked worse than any movie I can even remember seeing. Funeral scene? Astonishingly bad. Courtship between fireman and aforementioned awful woman? Corny, contrived, trite. Firehouse pranks? Don't we all wish we could be both so manly and churlish at the same time.


One of the worst movies ever made. Let's start with the superficial: Joaquin Phoenix is, first of all, too fat to be a rookie fireman. The NYFD does not recruit Pillsbury dough boys. John Travolta has a bad dye job, and the strange gleam in his eye throughout the movie made me think that he was on some sort of extended Scientology bender. The plot hits on all the tropes and clichés of what the average Joe believes life as a firefighter is really like: they all get drunk, get into fights, have a hard time expressing their emotions, their wives all stay at home crying, they all have father issues, everyone has a Boston accent, et cetera. An execrable piece of schwarmerei that plays on our lingering cultural hero worship of firefighters after 9-11 -- which was, by the way, valid cultural hero worship. This film unfortunately presents no believable heroes to worship.


This really is a cringe making exercise. Dressed up as a tribute to fire fighters it contain stupid scenes of "we're just a bunch of wacky guys" in the midst of the "my goodness this can be really dangerous" parts. Mostly it is just plain dumb. You couldn't believe for a single minute that real fire fighters act like this. It is so awful I couldn't bear to watch at times. If my daughter hadn't rented it and then insisted on seeing it through to the end I would have had no option but to turn it off.

Thing is I'm a John Travolta fan. Every interview of his I've seen just raises my opinion of him. I think this was one strictly for the money. I'm sure he'll be happy when this one gets forgotten.


This film basically try to portray the heroism of firefighters by making the whole movie revolve around a American dad with a good heart that puts others before himself. Now I know they try to show Jack Morrison(Joaquin Phoenix) as a typical American father that is a firefighter but like there is just nothing interesting in about him what so ever, thus when the movie gets to the climax there is just little to no emotion. This movie basically tries to make the life of a firefighter exciting but it just comes off as boring as any other jobs except you save lives or property by extinguishing the fire. John Travolta plays the captain of the fire station but anyone could have played his role and he is a dull character as the rest of the film. What could have been a good film is that the firefighter are put way up as heroes because they are firemen and turns the whole scenario into a uninteresting melodrama.

4.9/10


First off, I'm not a firefighter, but I'm in some kind of para-firefighting unit (the guys who get called if an earthquake hits and the real firefighters need more people for SAR), so I had some training and simulation but I have no real-life experience.

But still, there are some points one notices as totally unbelievable. I can understand that they removed the mouth/nose-pieces of the masks and that there is not enough smoke, because the public would otherwise see nothing. But some things defy logic:

- No second mask attached to the oxygen. How the hell do you want to rescue people trough the smoke without one?

- Rappelling people. No, it's not done like that. I'd be screaming too if somebody hitched a rope around me in that fashion and hung me from a building. If I could scream, that is, and not pass out from want of air because the rope squeezes my lungs. The second time when they're abseiling Jack it's better but still weird.

- "Aim high". No, you bloody don't. You always fight fire from as low as possible. You don't fight want to sprinkle flames, you'll want to extinguish the fire, and that's below the flames.

- No discipline. They're running around like chicken. And they shout all the time, instead of using radio, and keeping discipline.

- No tactics. Why don't they work in teams of at least two? You still can get separated, but it takes much more than if everyone just scurries around alone in search for victims.

- Do they really enter buildings without bringing water? I Europe, firefighters would never enter a burning building without.

- Firefighters on the roof. WTF do they think they're doing there without security lines or water? - Exploding rooms. Wood and brick does not "explode suddenly".

The better points are actually camaraderie and the other non-firefighting parts of the movie. It's a lot of kitsch, but that's alright. I'll give it a point for this.


In the aftermath of September 11th in New York, this drama about American firefighters was conceived as a salute and tribute to their professionalism. The story is told with a series of flashbacks, where after firefighter Jack Morrison (Joaquin Phoenix) has crashed through the floor of a burning building, and only communicating with Captain Mike Kennedy (John Travolta) via the radio. The flashbacks basically show how Jack grows from being a recruit, seeing Kennedy as a father figure, to being a firehouse legend. Of course, in the present day, Jack's fellow firefighters are trying to reach him, but they are too late, and in the end, he lets them leave him, and it forwards to his funeral, where he is praised as one of the best firefighters they have known. Also starring Jacinda Barrett as Linda Morrison, Terminator 2's Robert Patrick as Lenny Richter, Morris Chestnut as Tommy Drake, Billy Burke as Dennis Gauquin, Balthazar Getty as Ray Gauquin and Tim Guinee as Tony Corrigan. The blazes of the film are ultimately all I could pay attention to and enjoy seeing the characters tackle them, the rest is a bit too chatty for my liking. Adequate!


Jeff Fahey has such alert eyes and a smudgy, insidious smile that every character he plays seems villainous; therefore, it doesn't really work to cast him as the good guy of the piece, the audience is just waiting for his character to crack and start blowing people away. Drew Barrymore, fresh off her acclaimed role as "Poison Ivy", must have done this film simply as a favor to director Phedon Papamichael (he was the cinematographer on "Ivy"); playing a character named Daisy Drew (!), she's bumped off right away, which leaves us with no one to look at but Jeff Fahey and Sean Young (who hasn't had a single subtle moment on camera since "Blade Runner"). This witless script, by Michael Angeli, concerns a police sketch artist who draws his own wife's face from a murder witness's testimony, and while that's not a bad idea for a plot, it would be much better suited to an hour-long TV series. This cable-made movie is short on inspiration (beginning with the casting) and shorter on surprises. * from ****


"Wagons East" was a big disappointment for me. But the saddest thing about this movie is that it turned out to be John Candy's last film role (he died just before shooting was completed on this). There are only a few laughs throughout this western spoof, and for a comedy that doesn't cut it. If you want to see a uproarious spoof of western movies, the answer is obvious. See Mel Brooks' classic "Blazing Saddles". Or if you want to see Candy in much better material, see "Summer Rental", "Spaceballs", or "Uncle Buck" (just to name a few). These three movies (as well as others) shows us what a great comic actor he was. Unfortuneately, "Wagons East" does not. What a shame!

* (out of four)


John Candy was very much a hit-or-miss comic actor. His death was a tragedy and we all miss him a lot, but WAGONS EAST, in which he plays a bumbling wagonmaster who agrees to take a group of pioneers out of the wild west, is even sadder. I don't understand why it was even released. The story is pointless and weak, and the jokes aren't there. It saddens me even further that Candy's last film would be his all-time worst movie. So let's forget all about this one and remember him in his better films such as SUMMER RENTAL, PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES and UNCLE BUCK.

0 out of 5


"Wagons East" is widely known as John Candy's last movie, as he died on the set. That's just what makes it so sad: not simply that Candy suffered a fatal heart attack, but that it was on the set of such a crummy movie. Seriously, I don't know what they were thinking when they came up with this piece of crap, but the flick has NO redeeming qualities. It's as if they took every unused script for stupid westerns and just mixed them together and filmed it. No wonder John Candy didn't want to make the movie; maybe his contractual participation was what did him in.

Anyway, the point is that Candy did much better than this throughout his career. To be certain, he had already completed Michael Moore's "Canadian Bacon", in which the United States declares war on Canada. Just stick with that one and you can say that Candy ended his career honorably. As for Richard Lewis - who previous had co-starred with Candy in Eugene Levy's absurd but hilarious "Once Upon a Crime" - he made up for this piece of crap by frequently guest appearing on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" in later years.


This movie is silly and very short of being a funny movie. Unhappy 'easterners' are not pleased with being out west; so they hire a drunk wagon master(John Candy)to lead them back east. Sight gags were just not funny enough to carry this one. And Richard Lewis gets on your nerves very quickly; but then I honestly don't like him at anything he does. Ed Lauter is hilarious as the bumbling villain.

The movie was dedicated to Candy. He died from a massive heart attack ten days before the movie was completed. A stand in and digital enhancement enabled Candy's character to be seen in the final scenes. Candy was a very good comedian and gave us some real good knee slapping, belly laughs in his career. This movie was just not the caliber of his best.

Also in the film, you will recognize: William Sanderson, Gailard Sartain, Ethan Phillips, Ellen Greene and Rodney A. Grant.


this cartoon is not right,lol I totally disagree with a lot of things it portrayed however it ended on a positive note , but as for me and mine we will not be viewing this in our household mainly because we fight against stereotypes every day and this cartoon just confirms what most white people feel black people act like

the comment one of the little black girls made on the cartoon was that her boyfriend was so conscious (he was white ) that really offended me that's not something we as black people take lightly conscious is a state of being that black people achieve when they realize their true ability


By far the most racist and ghettoish cartoon for children 7+. Kids who watch this cartoon will most likely try to dress, talk, and act like the characters portrayed. I am disappointed in Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. for agreeing to air this terrible program. The Wayan's Brothers may be good in movies meant for the young adult viewers. They should stick to the movies and not make any more episodes for this cartoon. Usually The young celebs start off working in movies and doing voice-overs for cartoons and then as they grow older, they move up to programs for young adults. A good example is Nick Cannon. He first started out with appearing in All-That, Later on he starred in MIB II, then Drumline, and now his TV show, Nick Cannon Presents: Wild 'N Out, where comedians compete by telling inappropriate jokes. This comment was originally for Thugaboo, but I wanted to show examples of how celebs kids watched on TV not long ago can become those who get involved with non-kid-friendly programs. It is very sad that this happens, but all celebs change and grow up. It is just the opposite with the Wayan's Brothers new cartoon. It is bad enough we have to deal with all the bad people from the ghettos, with allowing the young generation watch this program, it will just convert the kids with possibilities to the ones who don't have a chance at a good life. Just my feelings on this cartoon and my beliefs on what will happen to our children if they were to watch it.


Unlike most of the reviewers of this particular movie, I'm really not the much of a Cynthia Rothrock fan, to say the least. However when I saw that the movie had Fred Williamson and Robert Forster (both great actors), I just had to watch the film. Williamson is a Dakota Smith, an alcoholic cop who is demoted to scrubbing toilets with a toothbrush and even worse having to team up with Cynthia at the behest of the captain (Robert Forster). Forster is always watchable, it's just a crying shame that the movie itself is so damn trite and clichéd. It also features one of the least terrifying villains ever to be committed to celluloid. Williamson would return to the Dakota character in a few more films, the next one being "Down N Dirty"

Eye Candy: Nina Richardson shows some T&A; Mary Kapper goes topless

My Grade: D

Where I saw it: Showtime Extreme


Fred Williamson, one of the two or three top blaxploitation stars. Cynthia Rothrock, one of the two or three top American female action stars. Imagine a film with these two together for the first time! Now imagine THE WORST film that could possibly be made with these two together for the first time. Welcome to "Night Vision". Of course, this movie was made in 1997 and they were both past their prime, but that doesn't mean they didn't have what it takes anymore - they just needed the help of good writing and direction. They got neither here. Rothrock does get to throw a couple of kicks near the end, but this film is so atrocious that you probably won't be awake to see them. (*)


Fred "The Hammer" Williamson delivers another cheaply made movie. He might have set a new standard for himself. Look for the painfully obvious special effects mortar cannon that is visible in the street during a chase scene. You don't see it just once, you see it several times. Look for the out of focus shot in one scene and the camera operator try to fix it as the scene rolls on. Watch this with a group of people and make your own Mystery Science Theater!


the only reason i bought this DVD is because cynthia rothrock is in it.now everybody knows she is the queen of martial arts b movies.the trouble is this is not a martial arts movie.cynthia rothrock has about a minute or so of fight scenes in this stupid movie.now if you were a film maker and you had cynthia rothrock in your movie would'nt you want to have a lot of martial arts action? all she does in this movie is walk around looking bored just like i was when i watched this pile of crap.i own a lot of her movies and they are all b movies but at least they had some cool fight scenes in them.if you are a martial arts fan avoid this no matter what.i'm still mad i wasted 4 dollars to buy this DVD


Trying to catch a serial killer, did they ever think of tracking the license plate number of the black van or fingerprint the video tapes he sent? Oh brother the plot of this movie was so full of holes it was pathetic. Now I know why there are bad movies in the world. This one however was one of the worst.


What is night vision? Well according to the star (Williamson) let's see...one package store owner says to him 'it's getting dark outside' to which he replies 'it makes for better.........'night vision.' What in the hell does that mean? In fact what in the hell is this movie trying to say? It has plot holes that you could drive the killer's van through. Not to mention a cop on duty drinking, Robert Forster sleepwalking through this bizarre attempt at cashing in on the serial killer craze, and a killer who videos his murders. That's actually all I remember.

The film took place in Texas, had a few car chases, and a clichéd ending. Perhaps if one watches this film with their eyes closed - it might be good? After all, without being able to see it....it would make for better.....night vision. Did that make sense? Nope. And neither does this film.


"First Snow" has an intriguing beginning. A traveling salesman has his fortune told by an old man, who's predictions turn out to be amazingly correct. From this point on the movie plays out like a bloated "Twilight Zone" episode. I mean nothing but car trips, phone calls and paranoia. William Fichtner gives his usual interesting performance, but Guy Pierce is anything but a sympathetic character, disregarding other people's well being for the sake of his own paranoia. The ending is especially weak, with absolutely no payoff for the long suffering audience. Do yourself a big favor and avoid this one. Not recommended. - MERK


What can I say...not much to this one at all. Pretty dull and uninteresting.

The actors performances are just OK. The only one that shines in any way is Simmons, but he only has, maybe 3 scenes. I understand that by keeping his screen time to a minimum he retains the mysterious psychic aura he has, but I can't help but feel his talent was wasted. No one else rose above mediocre.

The story itself seems like it may be intriguing at the beginning, but then just doesn't go anywhere. There wasn't a single scene in the movie that impressed me or made me feel like I had just seen something special. The cinematography was fairly bland...I mean desert in a washed out sort of sepia...not very inspiring.

The story of his childhood pal back outta prison seemed only partially thought out and didn't really add anything to the story, other than making an average 'Twilight Zone' script into a full length feature.

Drab.


This film without doubt is one of the worst I have seen. It was so boring that I simply could not wait for it to end. I talked my girlfriend into watching it after this site had good reviews and after even 30 mins in she looked at me as if to say "your nuts" The scenery was as boring as the film with nothing but driving around in the car looking at the wind blowing bits of bush around. The acting was un-inspiring and the film was simply a waste of what have been a good idea into a waste of a dvdr.

Guy Pierce should have stuck to neighbours as at least he washed his hair. All he done was talk on his phone but yet sold nothing as a salesman. He would have been sacked weeks before. His girlfriend (once in Coyote Ugly) should have remained dancing on the bar as at least she looked hot in that.

The guy who played Vincent (those who watched know) was so annoying with his phone calls that any normal person would have drove to his house and hit him with a bit of 4 by 2.

I do not on this earth know what anyone liked about it. I actually want people to watch this to suffer the torture I went through.


I waited a long time to finally see what I thought was going to be a fun caper flick and was shocked to discover shoddy direction, awkward dialogue, a lackluster pace, unmotivated slapstick gags and an overall coarseness that permeated the film throughout. Just not funny! The sets looked cheap, the costumes by the usually excellent Donfeld are garish and distracting. Even the title song is annoying. The whole children's book characters doesn't come close to representing the married couple whose life is turned upside down when he loses his job. For a film that seems to aim a dart at the unfairness of welfare and unemployment systems, the filmmakers have no problem in being unfair themselves, allowing Hispanic, black and gay stereotypes played at such a cruel level. The look of the film resembles any episode of Love American Style. This is not a compliment. Tacky seventies fashions abound in this world of white collar theft that only lends an air of implausibility to every situation. Outside of a clever initial idea, and two capable stars in Jane Fonda and George Segal, this dated exercise in social commentary comes off as forced and mean spirited to minorities, especially to gay people. If you want a better caper film, you're better off with The Hot Rock with George Segal and Robert Redford or What's Up Doc with Ryan O'Neal and Barbra Streisand. Now that's funny!


Essentially this is a dreadful film with a few features that may or may not redeem it for you, depending on how much you want them to. In "opening up" "The Red Green Show" for the big screen, the filmmakers jettisoned the rustic charm carefully honed over a decade's worth of episodes set in and around Possum Lodge in favor of a blandly-photographed "road movie" with a ghastly faux-Hollywood "big" musical score and profoundly boring storyline that's not embellished with enough good gags to make it as entertaining as even the most mediocre episode of the TV series.

Having devised a plotline that keeps most of the members of Possum Lodge offscreen for most of the film and requires virtually everyone concerned to be despicably mean to the loveable Harold (who's the hero of the film, the usually affably crusty Red being relegated in this incarnation to nothing more than the role of head Harold abuser), the only performers who really get to shine are Patrick McKenna and Peter Keleghan as Harold and Ranger Gord, who deliver satisfyingly large-screen versions of their small-screen characters.


Steve Smith has finally run a fairly weak series right into the ground with this movie. Poor actors thrashing a horrible script pretty much sums this one up. Two hours of your life you'll never get back! Go get a root canal instead - you'll enjoy it more.