OK.. at the time of writing, 65 people voted for this movie, bringing it to a 5 out of 10 rating. My guess is that only the film crew voted. So I'm here to bring some justice to it all.

Never has a movie provoked the audience's intelligence more than this one. Given, I laughed out loud quite a bit - but the movie/story absolutely didn't want me to.

I've seen a LOT of bad movies. A LOT. But man, this one blows them all away.

Speaking '96 computers, ridiculous acting, and wheelchair chases - and we have young Tarantinos who can't get their ideas financed. Yup, life's a cruel joke.


I couldn't help but laugh when I saw what the public could be made to think was email back in 1996. Apparently email is an interactive discussion (similar to a chat) with lame voice synthesis reading every comment out loud. And some of the other "tech" aspects are also laugh-out-loud funny. I'd swear the "high tech" communications centre she has actually has a few Commodore 64 monitors in it. Almost like watching the movie Hackers nowadays, I guess.

Despite the fact that for most of the movie the lead actress carries off the illusion of being disabled, the final part of the movie has an unexplained use of her legs which somehow I can't ignore. I mean, why include something so stupid?

Anyway, to sum up: the plot is pretty predictable, the acting bad, the killer quite guessable. But it can be amusing in a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 kind of way I guess.


This movie tries its darndest to capture that classic bad canadian movie feel:

"quirky" and obnoxious characters (a few); "quirky" town with "quirky" folk; a "quirky" coffee shop or restaurant (coffee shop here); lots of shots of canadian stuff for postcards (ocean stuff here); lots of mention of "gotta get out of this town"; downright booooring.

And it succeeds on all counts.

Something to note, though. I couldn't figure out whether this movie was just trying to be post-Northern Exposure "quirky" comedy or something surreal like a drug-induced or psychotic hallucination. The editing of this movie jumped around nonsensically from one unrelated thing to another with zero pacing or motivation. Not to mention the fact that half the time we didn't even know where we were jumping. Take for instance, the very opening shots, of yelling teens in a car. Who are they and what the h--- did they have to do with anything? And this sub - uh - plot (use that word plot loosely) concering kids that seem to span generations. I don't think they actually do, but the editing makes it look like they materialize from flashback, all of a sudden, to current time. Huh? What did I miss?

Avoid. Unless for laughs. Or you want to try and trip out on the inept editing.


Ohhhh MAN this movie is awful!!

This kind of tripe is what gives Canadian Cinema a bad name, or no name. Well, to be fair, I guess most Canadian movies give Canadian Cinema a bad name.

Next to the characters (there's a couple that are the most grating in movie history), the most annoying thing is the editing and pace of the movie. It's like a drunken snail making its way to die.

Thank goodness Melanie Doane is nice to look at. She's the only thing that kept me watching. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie kept interrupting.

Good for a laugh, though, if you're having a bad Canadian Movie night, though.

Did I mention Melanie Doane? The only good point (too bad they didn't have the sense to keep the camera on her for more than a blink at a time).

Another addition in the Canadian Hall of Stinking Movies.


The TV announcer who introduced this late one Saturday night said it should have won Oscars. Quite a statement for a film I'd never heard of...though why I should have taken any notice of a TV announcer, I don't know. In the event, said announcer was talking tripe.

It's a dreary, miserable movie that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I couldn't get on with Hoskins' awful Burr-ming-gum accent. Can't see any advantage in it being set in the Midland's anyway.

Unresolved threads abound...and I wouldn't normally mind this but half of them make no sense. And what about when Hoskins' says he'll pick Felicia up from outside her B&B although she never told him where exactly she was staying??? Or her buying into the funeral that clearly never took place (and where was she during those days???) Clumbsy and ill-thought through bits of business if you ask me.

It's a thriller without thrills. It's full of pretentious bits of business. It's depressing...

Didn't like it. Thought it was rubbish. Wouldn't recommend it. 'Nuff said.


You just need to see this as a poorly executed anti abortion propaganda and you will realize just how bad it really is. The main message of this movie is that even the sickest of persons can't commit an abortion. If you ask that's not a long way away from blowing up abortion clinics. So this guy wants to kill some poor girl but he has to convince her to do an abortion first. What a load of crap. And the worst part is that he has an convincing argument (bringing a child into a loveless environment), but that is supposed to be dismissed because he's a freak anyway. And the part with the bible pushers...first they throw this girl out just because she explains someone stole her money (that rule must be in the bible somewhere) and then on the end they are some sort of angel like deus ex machina delivering the killer from evil by harassing him on his front yard. Come on. Other downpoints include a very confusing scenario (and I don't mean in a good way)...so this guy is just some psycho why? Because his mother fed his some liver once? And I don't know about the rest of you but he seemed like the nicest person in the world throughout the whole move! even though he was a wearing girlie clothes, stealing money and taping girls in his car. If you forget the idiot story, this movie has a really great cinematography and Bob Hoskins was really great, and it has one of those funny little English cars in it. If it was actually about some psycho killer I'd give it a 7 at least.


I found this an awfully disappointing experience! But I have appended a better option of similar style at the foot of this entry.

This "Felicia's Journey" is intriguing. It has drama. But it is full of stereo-types!

So it ONLY serves judgemental temperaments without concern for truer justice & fairness & truth, beyond black 'n' white judgements that fit 30-second ads of "NEWS" that dot our multimedia experiences everyday, especially news bulletins, true or misleading in such depictions!

It is SO EXAGGERATED, it reminds me of the fairytale of "Little Red Ridinghood"! Consider the innocent young girl with no identification crossing borders questioned by a guard but freed without any evidence to venture on in search of her 'Romeo' who didn't give her an address VERSUS the pathetically inept lack of substance in the raspy voice of the 'helping hand' befriending her with his unlikely story fabricated by the layer!

It seems to suit the directors & management team that no-one has faith or prays to God, even in their times of desperation!

So in these early settings, it orchestrates & tells much of what is to come! A nightmare journey that betrays the essence of substance without fairytale resolution, without truth or integrity or credibility! ...Then one twist & it's all over. What a disappointment! If you want to see a MUCH superior movie that investigates similar themes with MUCH more credibility, with much more powerful insight, watch the 1983 Paul Cox/Norman Kaye "Man of Flowers" movie!!!

Unlike here, you will NOT be disappointed!


Definition of documentary: A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. The key word here is informative. I love They Might Be Giants, and barely learned a thing about them.

The interviews with all the celebrities were pretty much worthless. I don't care what Sarah Vowel thinks of anybody and Syd Straw was downright irritating. And is listening to people recite TMBG lyrics like they were supposed to be funny/interesting? It was neither. I think that was the problem: the movie spends time discussing TMBG's love for coffee. So what?? Millions of people love coffee. Was the presentation of the material funny? No! There were hints that both men are married, yet it was never discussed. And what about the solo material they did? What motivated them to do it? These type of questions are not addressed nor answered.

I could go on and on with the negatives. I did find the segment on Dial-a-Song very interesting. If you want to learn about They Might Be Giants, just buy a few CD's and listen. Seriously. This movie is a gigantic disappointment. I can't believe so many folks gave it a 10. Incredible.


This episode was boring and was not even in the realm of horror, so far this season Masters of Horror has produced one really good episode...The Damned Thing...it is still early, I have faith that the episodes will get better. I admit that the vampire episode was okay but lacked a solid storyline. The episode about the couple catching the serial killer started out boring, but the last fifteen minutes was really good. Though, I am just plain out disappointed with the lack of originality and horror that the first season's episodes possessed. Please, save this season John Carpenter! I have faith that Pro-Life will redeem the entire lackluster season so far.

"You're an angry little elf!"


Masters Horror: Sounds Like is set in Seattle where Larry Pearce works as the manager of a computer software call center, having lost his 6 year old son Michael (Nicholas Elia) to a rare heart condition he finds that he has ultra sensitive hearing. Larry hears everything in ten fold, from people typing on computer keyboards, people whispering across the room, people tapping their foot on the floor, dripping taps & eventually even people breathing become unbearable for Larry as he is constantly bombarded with mind piercing noise. Eventually Larry decides he's had enough & if he can't stop the noises themselves then maybe he can stop himself hearing them with the help of a large meat clever...

This Canadian American co-production was episode 4 from season 2 of the generally hit-and-miss Masters of Horror TV series, written & directed by Brad Anderson I thought Sounds Like was a definite miss. The script was based on a short story by Mike O'Driscoll & I am genuinely surprised by the amount of very positive comments it has here on the IMDb at the present time, for a start I would be very hard pressed to even describe this as a horror film & it feels more like some bizarre sentimental drama until the last 5 minutes when Howard Berger, Gregory Nicotero & the boys at KNB effects actually get to do some work. Larry has this strange unexplained ability to amplify sound & noises from the start so this episode ends up like 55 minutes of exactly the same sort of repetitive build up which leads up to a gory ending although it comes to late to save the episode. This is pretty slow going & while it's well written isn't this meant to be horror themed & I'm slightly confused as to who this is meant to appeal to?

Director Anderson does OK but he just keeps repeating the same things over & over again, until the last 5 minutes there isn't a single drop of blood in the entire thing. There's no horror, there's no scares or tension & absolutely no atmosphere.

Technically this is very well made, has good production values & doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV program. The acting is very good actually & it's shame the story is somewhat limited.

Sounds Like is one of the very worst Masters of Horror episodes, a lot of people seem to like it & that's fine but it's definitely not for me. Another Masters of Horror, another disappointment.


I agree with most of the critics above. More yet, I was shocked by the presentation of the love scenes with the homosexual couple. Why? because while they --the director, the producers?-- didn't have any compulsion whatsoever in presenting the different heterosexual couples in the most passionate embraces including nudity and super close-ups of French kissing and all sorts of nude contortions in bed, completely unnecessary in their length and in the story, when the moment came to show the same experiences with the homosexual couple, they only dare to go as far as an excruciatingly painful hug, almost among scholarly giggles, with two very nervous actors. So, in reality, the makers of this film found homosexuality to be UNNATURAL, as one of the characters says in some scene. What a difference with the Spanish cinema!! I remember being at the projection of an Almodovar film in an Italian cinema in Rome, and being completely amazed at the total lack of reaction from the Italian audience, they were afraid to have a reaction!! when in Spain people would fall down from their seats laughing at all the risquè situations and fabulous Almodovar wit and flair. Obviously in Italy there are dark forces in its history that impedes the free manifestation of some very normal and natural emotions. Pity. I must add that I was quite surprised to find that this same comment was censured by another correspondent. It's very bad and dangerous when we cannot be allowed by the narrowness of others to express our opinions about certain matters. Where is freedom of speech? I don't know if that censor will approve of the changes I was forced to make in this comment, and I hope he won't receive the same treatment from some other narrow minded judge. Pity again.


Not only the title, the film itself is a long one too, or so it seems. That's because of the outdated style of acting and the pathetic way its hackneyed themes are visualised. Bad marriages of the sisters and a homo-brother who dares not speak the name of his sexual preference - Italy 2003, you don't believe it (and you don't have to).


Ru Paul plays a secret agent called Starrbooty. She teams up with another drag queen agent to fight the evil Annaka Manners (Candis Cayne)and get her kidnapped niece back...or something like that. Seriously-- I had trouble concentrating on the plot! The movie is seemingly directed by somebody with severe ADD--quick camera cuts nonstop that make it impossible to focus on anything. The dialogue is incomprehensible at times and when you can hear it you wish it remained incomprehensible! The acting is actually pretty OK except for Ru Paul who overacts to an embarrassing degree. Also the film is full of disgusting bathroom humor that is just revolting and not even remotely funny. After 30 minutes I had to leave because I was bored, sick and just couldn't stand it anymore. I pride myself on sitting through anything but this went WAY beyond my limits! People are comparing this to the early work of John Waters. I disagree. Waters' work is sick but good--this is just sick. Avoid.


Okay,. so I went into this loving RuPaul. I still love him/her but think a little less. This is one gross movie that shows a lot of male genitalia. THis is a spoof of the 1970s black exploitation films and is purposefully done badly. The only fun part about it for me is that all of the voices have been looped with those of drag queens, even the voices of real women. This is over an the top, nonstop, laugh your rear end off it is so stupid, badly made movie. I would never watch this again but I do appreciate what the film makers were trying to do. There is no rating on this but it would be R or even NC-17. RuPaul has done much better work.


What a great cast and what a pathetic attempt at a film. The script is full of holes from beginning to end. Incoherent, not cohesive...utterly ridiculous. One of the most talented/beautiful actresses in the world (and I'm talking about Nastassja Kinski) is without a single memorable line here. Worse, she supposedly dyes her hair halfway thru the movie, but it's obvious she's just wearing a cheap black wig bought from a drag queen costume shop. The best moments are given to a character actor and his dog in the apartment building that lead actor Peter Coyote lives in. Fairuza Balk is photographed poorly, to boot. She looks like an overweight freshman who's pigged out at too many all-you-can-eat-student-cafeteria-buffets. I was so looking forward to this film. I WANTED to like it, but I think I'd rather watch Nastassja read the phone book, with her OWN hair.


In "Red Letters", Coyote is at the vortex of as a college professor who writes to a female prison inmate and gets more than he bargained for. There are two reasons to watch this flick...Kinski is one and Piven the other although it's difficult for their sparks to shine in such a complete directorial disaster. Everything is wrong with "Red Letters"...convoluted, lousy screenplay, camera, editing, and most of all acting which is subpar for Coyote, etc. Battersby has taken a story with potential and turned it into a seriously flawed and amateurish flick not worth the time.


It's a shame, really, that the script of this film had more holes than you could shake a stick at (mixed metaphor intentional), because Kinski and Coyote - both supremely talented performers who are capable of great subtlety and nuance - have wonderful chemistry together, and the always-provocative Fairuza Balk didn't hurt the mix either. Jeremy Piven would have been great here too, if his character (and all the other supporting characters) hadn't been written as a plot device. As for the main proceedings, the writers just didn't know how to create the suitable guilty-or-innocent tension for Kinski's character -- instead they gave us confusion, contradiction and, by the finale, downright let's-hope-the-viewers-don't-notice claptrap.


I bought this film as I thought the cast was decent and I like Jennifer Rubin & Patsy Kensit.

First off let me say the acting is not of a high standard. Stephen Baldwin makes his character look almost retarded at times and at other times morose. Patsy Kensit is so-so but not too convincing in some scenes, and the supposed poetry she spouts in a particular scene in her Hotel Room is utterly meaningless rubbish. Ms Kensit is certainly very suggestive and sexy here but ultimately I think Jennifer Rubin is by far the best in this film. Ms Rubins Character is at first innocent, then sexy, as she plays Stephen Baldwin's Character (Travis)for a fool. The supporting cast includes Adam Baldwin(no relation to his more famous namesakes) & M.Emmet Walsh who has appeared in many films, also I noticed Art Evans who was one of John Mclane's allies in Die Hard 2. The Movie is decent and there are a few nude scenes with Rubin & Kensit, a bit of action but this is certainly not a fast moving or intelligent thriller. There is a particular scene when they are in the car about to commit a crime and Stephen Balwin's character is wearing sunglasses and when you see him again, the area around his eyes etc is painted black instead, then the sunglasses reappear later when they are leaving the crime scene and police are in pursuit, a very obvious error in editing.

If you are fans of either of the ladies or either Baldwin then you may find something to like here, but others should steer clear. This is a reasonable but unremarkable thriller and not really worth more than a couple of dollars if you want it.


A truly masterful piece of filmmaking. It managed to put me to sleep and to boggle my mind. So boring that it induces sleep and yet so ludicrous that it made me wonder how stuff like this gets made. Avoid at all costs. That is, unless you like taking invisible cranial punishment, in which case I highly recommend it.


Oops. I hired this because I thought it was Bitter harvest (1981), which was recommended. After the appearance of the appalling Patsy Kensit, I checked the recommendation and discovered my mistake. OK, It's watchable, because the main characters are very sexy, but the acting is awful. Stephen Baldwin looks morose the whole time, which is understandable, considering his co-star. Is Patsy competing with Liz Hurley for the title of the most obviously useless actor on the screen?


Enormous suspension of disbelief is required where Will's "genius" is concerned. Not just in math--he is also very well read in economic history, able to out-shrink several shrinks, etc etc. No, no, no. I don't buy it. While they're at it, they might as well have him wearing a big "S" on his chest, flying faster than a jet plane and stopping bullets.

Among other problems...real genius (shelving for the moment the problem of what it really is, and whether it deserves such mindless homage) doesn't simply appear /ex nihilo/. It isn't ever so multi-faceted. And it is very rarely appreciated by contemporaries.

Better to have made Will a basketball prodigy. Except that Damon's too short.


What is about mathematical geniuses that get the critics juices flowing ? A BEAUTIFUL MIND wasn`t up to much in my opinion ( FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING deserved the Oscar that year ) while GOOD WILL HUNTING had several awards lavished on it undeservedly

First off is the script . When I attended film school I was told GOOD WILL HUNTING is a very good example on how not to start a script and the tutor was right . This movie lacks any type of opening hook and for the most part it`s very very slow . If you wrote an unsolicited script like this the script reader would have given up on it by page 15

Structure aside the idea of a member of the American underclass being some sort of intellectual god doesn`t really ring true . Ask yourself this : If he`s the cleverst character in the movie how come he`s gone through his short life without anyone noticing his abilities ? Not one single teacher from his childhood noticed his gift ? Highly unlikely as is the fact he`s read so much mind expanding litrature . And if Will`s so clever how come he`s so oblivous of what happens to young good looking boys in American prisons ?

But it`s the casting that let much of the film down . You want to get a couple of actors to play rough tough Irish gang members ? Let`s get Matt Damon and Ben Affleck which is like getting Russell Crowe to play a pacifist or Charles Bronson to play a liberal do gooder . I failed to be convinced by the foul mouthed Damon and Affleck as they strutted about smacking people in the chops and couldn`t help thinking that even though they wrote the script the parts should have been awarded to different actors , after all Billy Bob Thornton has written screenplays for films he hasn`t been cast in and the same criteria should have been applied here

There are some good points to the movie . Robin Williams is excellent as the man who tries to show Will his potential and also very good is Stellan Skarsgard who is quite simply one of the greatest character actors to stepped foot outside of Europe and despite my previous criticism of the script there is quite a moving piece of dialogue at the park as Williams character explains to Will what he has seen in life

But I`ve got to repeat that there`s less plus points than negatives to this movie and I`ve got to agree with the people who`ve said GOOD WILL HUNTING is boring and unconvincing


I'm not surprised that so many people fell for this one. When I was watching this movie, a couple viewers next to me sobbed whenever you're "supposed" to sob -- or at least feel "touched". Like when Hunting said he didn't love the girl. Like when Robin Williams' character (sorry I forgot his role's name) was telling Hunting repeatedly "It's not your fault" (oh Lord, just thinking of that scene gives me the goosebumps). I couldn't have cared less for what would happen to the characters. Many people sob for Hollywood manufactured characters they can't even relate to (think Titanic; Yuck!)... but it really only made me cringe and want to get out of the theatre. I guess I simply refuse to be psychically and emotionally manipulated by all this.

Folks it's not me who's being condescending ... those characters are, and for no good reason because they're unreal. Worse yet, nothing is new or surprising. Even Robin Williams' character is all cliched.

I gave it 1 out of 10. It's probably not that bad; it's just quite mediocre... but so many people went to the other extreme and gave it a 10 so I figured a single balancing vote won't hurt.


So many fans, so little to show for it. I know, I know, these words are gonna find me in a great minority. A lot of people really liked Good Will Hunting. But seriously please, great film making, not even close, and let's put the blame where it belongs... in the writing.

Now, I know they won an oscar for it, and boy did they look good emoting on the screen. But Good Will Hunting is an ABC after school special with lots of cursing in it, and a slightly bigger budget.

What this movie does show, is the brilliance of Harvey Weinstein and Miramax Pictures. Mr. Weinstein could take manure, feed it to you, and make you believe your eating bon bons. And that's exactly what the studio did with the film. They created such high faluttin buzz around it, that people believed, and wanted to believe it so much --- that they saw brilliance where there was none.

Now, I know some people think it's a great movie, I don't think it's a horribly bad movie, I like to compare it to more in the middle of the road movies, and also to some great Made for TV movies (although, not HBO films, HBO films are unusually better than Good Will Hunting would ever be.) It's just a nice, little film, with some good performances, Robin Williams was not good in it, they just gave him the oscar cause the'd been itching to do it for a while. And of course, the Miramax public relations machine secured Ben and Matt their screenwriting oscar... but come one people... there's better movies out there thatn GWH.


Sappy.

I liked how they went to the "Haaavaad baaa" to quote books at each other to impress the ugliest girl there.

Probably the janitor at my school is a genius too but is waiting to land that big construction job.

Just because you keep your nose to the grindstone is no reason to try to cut a steak with it. "Do you like apples?"

the guy nods or something.

"Well, how'd ya like DEM APPLES!" Wow, that IS genius.

Duh, Minnie Driver would give her number to anybody. Robin Williams can't paint and keeps the good books on the top shelf. And there's a professor who always wears a priest scarf for no reason.


When Hollywood is trying to grasp what an "intelligent person" is like, they fail so miserably, finding it hard putting words in the mouth of the purported "genius".

Right, any genius walks around trying to rub in his superiority at every instance. Sure, they hang out in bars and pick fights  it's not like they are (generalizing wildly) autistic nerds who never have a tan.

Plus, if you are a genius you know all about Math and History and Politics and of course you're constantly up to date with current events and a thorough analysis of them. Coz these things, like, all go together n stuff, y'know?

Plus, you walk around with a smirk all the time. You are just a smug son of a you-know-what, that's how it is, y'all.

And of course you smoke, like someone who never smoked before, but you smoke coz it's like cool n stuff, y'know. And you're different. That is understood.

And of course you can fight  you're a bully. A bully who finds time to study 10.000 books whenever he doesn't lift weights. And whenever he doesn't smoke or drink beer because he follows a strict health regimen.

And you date a 30-something college student  Minnie Driver. Well, I won't even comment Matt Damon. Team America has hit the nail on the head already.

This movie is a daydream of a Beavis & Butthead type student (in other words 95% of them): "Yeah, that's what I would be like if I was a genius." But stupid people and stupid authors in this case cannot imagine the lives of geniuses.


I sat down through 2 hours of pure boredom. I look here on IMDB, even though it is not high on the list, it is in the top 250. I was a little surpised. Even though, yes. I am very impressed with Robin and Matt's acting abilities, they still didn't save the movie. I'm not sure what I really didn't like about the movie. Maybe it's because I dispise math. Maybe I'm not too much for dreary talking for 2 hours. Even though I loved "American Beauty", but that was it. I just want my 2 hours back. It was a big waste of my time. If I'm missing something in this movie, please E-mail me. I am curious why this is on the top 250. And don't say "Because it was a good movie".

2/10


This movie is so predictable when you know the modern American dream: Do nothing, be a loser and then suddenly... whoah! You're a genius and an obnoxious one and the world is kissing the ground you are walking on.

And surprisingly all the other smart people are losers. They don't know anything and are bitter when our wonderkid solves problems so easily. And what kind of problems? They are so difficult but still these professors can analyse the results in less than 10 seconds.

Every movie has something good in it anyway and Robin Williams is it in this one.


I'm racking my brain, but I can't seem to think of another movie quite like The Valley of the Gwangi. A Western with dinosaurs? What could be more natural? You gotta wonder why John Ford and/or John Wayne never tried it!

The plot  While searching for a mythical miniature horse for her circus, TJ Breckenridge (Gila Golan), Tuck Kirby (James Franciscus), and the rest of the cast/characters enter a strange, lost valley. There they find not only the miniature horse, but some other, more fearsome creatures as well. Dinosaurs rule this place. Now wouldn't that be an attraction at TJ's circus  a caged T-Rex?

It's not that I find The Valley of the Gwangi a bad movie, I just don't seem to have enjoyed it as much as many others who have posted comments on the movie. There are some parts that I actually find almost unwatchable. For the first half of the movie, there just doesn't seem to be much going on. I wasn't necessarily bored, but I did want something to happen. Plodding would be an adjective I would use. To top it off, the movie features a very contrived love story. It feels forced as if the writers decided that the male and female leads just had to get together. But The Valley of the Gwangi isn't a total waste. There are moments I really enjoyed. Who doesn't get a kick out of the scenes of the cowboys on horseback trying to lasso a T-Rex. You just don't see stuff like that every day. Ray Harryhausen's creatures are impressive. There are some really cool shots of Harryhausen's miniatures interacting with people and horses. It might not represent the best of his work, but the effects are very nice. Still, at least in my mind these good moments aren't enough to overcome the negatives. As much as I hate to do it, I've got to rate The Valley of the Gwangi a 4/10.


Oh what the heck, I'll reveal the secret: this movie stinks!

Yeah there are some nifty dinosaur effects that, for their time, were probably really exciting to watch. Now they don't cut it, but they're not terrible. They're just good enough to tolerate without being able to laugh at it. So they just sit there, and i sit watching this, not laughing, not excited, just, well, bored. It stinks!

If I can exercise my Jay Sherman for a moment, the film really does. The box promises cowboys versus dinosaurs, and in very generic sense it delivers. Guys dressed like cowboys fight a couple of big dinosaurs. But really these guys are a bunch of sissies, and the hero is a loser (more on this later) and the dinosaurs are hardly intimidating. The plot is a yawner, and there isn't much technically wrong with it that's there to laugh at. It's all just gray and bland.

After some dreadful night cinematography (Filmed in one and a half colors I called it), we get the plot which involves some people, doing stuff. That was what I caught. Oh and they are at the turn of the century in Mexico, so they at least dress like cowboys even if they don't act like it.

So a bunch of these people, who I think were human, they go in the desert, and they stumble on these dinosaurs (after they find a miniature horse...I don't know, let's just move on). Then the movie degrades into a really pathetic King Kong ripoff in the final act. At that point I had lost the will to even keep my eyes at television level, and I drifted in and out of consciousness.

The "hero" is played by the guy from Beneath the Planet of the Apes who essentially played Charlton Heston's part when Heston decided he didn't want to be in the sequel. He was picked cause, shock o' shocks, he looks exactly like Heston. That's about all he has going for him. I was really upset when he was the hero of the film cause all he does is glower, snear, bag the chick in the film (Who's named T.J...unfortunately she's not a prostitute or finally the origin of the name would have been revealed). Meanwhile his friend kills all the dinosaurs, saves the day numerous times, and what does he get for it? Not recognition, no nothing! And he dies, sacrificing himself for his friends! They don't even wait up for him while they escape!

Boring, long, slowly paced, with little to enjoy until the film decides to carbon copy King Kong's script onto it's own, it's best to avoid this film unless you enjoy pain on the scale of dropping an anvil on your eyeball.


I generally loved the Carry on movies but this one is actually pretty awful. There are very few laughs because the whole thing is so forced.There is plenty of talent on the screen and some come off better than others. June Whitfield, Kenneth Williams, Hatti Jaques and Peter Butterworth are fine but Barbara Windsor looks tired and Sid James is just tacky. Joan Sims comes off well but in the case of the usually wonderful Charles Hawtrey its just plain sad. When you think of the sad end to his career the movie is almost too depressing to watch. The homophobia of the movie is nasty and its a very unpleasant experience. The set looks cheap and unlike other movies in the series the movie is very clearly set in England. The sea side looks cold and there is little attempt to create any illusions here. It looks like a cheap production. You will be surprised at how miserable you become watching this especially if you loved the series.


I have always liked the Carry On films, with their double-meaning sexual innuendo dialogue and moments of slapstick comedy, but I can see why the critics give this one two stars. Basically, many British people are gathering on a coach to go on a Spanish holiday to an island called Elsbels to the Palace Hotel. What they didn't know is that it is not completely built, plus they have to share bathrooms with their neighbours, they have crap draws, and many other complications and complaints that the owner Pepe (Peter Butterworth, putting on quite an amusing accent, e.g. peace sounding like the bad P word). Starring Sid James as Vic Flange, Kenneth Williams as Stuart Farquhar, Charles Hawtrey as Eustace Tuttle, Joan Sims as Cora Flange, Barbara Windsor as Sadie Tomkins, Kenneth Connor as Stanley Blunt, an apparently crap (I personally can't remember who he is) Jimmy Logan as Bert Conway, June Whitfield as Evelyn Blunt, Hattie Jacques as Floella (a ridiculous hag character, not as memorable as her usual Matron), Bernard Bresslaw as Brother Bernard, Sally Geeson as Lily, Carol Hawkins as Marge, Jack Douglas as Harry and Patsy Rowlands as Miss Dobbs. I admit it is not great, but there are just enough dialogue gags, and of course Babs in the shower, and going to to her bum with that iconic whistle, and later a rapid rip off of her bra. Okay!


Sorry I couldn't disagree more ,with the last comments . frankly I thought this was worse than Carry on Columbus , enough said . Last film for THE usually brilliant Charles Hartrey who looked out of place as the humour had move on to the Highly witty level of on the buses, films of which were being made at the same time ,were frankly funnier .Barbara Windsor was embarrassing,a character like one of your mums flirty friends who still thinks she's eighteen , on holiday with some non entity of a Scotsman , Rab c Nesbit he ain't. The series miraculously trundled on with duffers like Carry on Behind ,and Carry on England . Carry on Dick wasn't bad , but really with this film the end of the series was nigh , a pity because up to this film I cant think of bad film before this?


This season lacked real oomf, but, as far as setting up stories to get us in the mood again, season 6 is without highlights and spontaneity.

This season lacked its usual Sopranos style, and if you cut out all the garbage that was filled in each and every episode this season, you probably would have had 6 episodes worth of real stories.

Side stories like Pauly's mom, is she or isn't she? was boring and had no purpose other than further exploration of his character. I would have like to have seen Bobby express his anger more at Pauly in that carnival episode, but to no avail.

And that's just it! These side stories had no real purpose, and lack finishing. If they are going to finish off these stories in the next 6 episodes, I'd rather not watch it, because, its not really worth seeing.

Disappointing is to nice a word to say about this season and its finale.


As I sat watching this episode I kept glancing at the clock waiting for something to happen. As the hour wound down I thought they were really going to give us a big pop at the end, and then - nothing. The whole family is huddled around the Christmas tree like something from the Hallmark Channel then, fade to black.

Perhaps one of the poorest season finales I've ever seen. Nothing at all to drum up any excitement for next season. The only thing thrown out as any sort of incentive to watch the next season was the ambiguous nugget offered up by Agent Harris while pawing a sub sandwich that the guys in New York were looking to get one of the guys in New Jersey. Wow, really? I would never expect something like that from mobsters, I'm on the edge of my seat.

It almost seems like they're trying to get everyone to lose interest. They start more plot lines that end up just disappearing than any show I've ever seen. They tease and hint but rarely deliver any more.

What's with the Arabs that hang out at the Bing? They keep throwing them in front of us and magically, nothing happens.

Paulie knee caps some kid after Tony promised his mother that nothing would happen to her son and, poof, gone in the wind.

And how many more meandering drug montages with Christopher are we going to have to endure? Please, have him get arrested or overdose or something interesting.

This was one of the few shows that I used to looked forward to watching but now, forgetta-bout it.


I picked up this movie and was horrified to find out that the movie is based on a rape of a little girl that the parents knowingly take their daughter to. My first thoughts were that I have never been more ashamed to be an Indian as well as a Hindu. I found this movie to be down right appalling. Please don't waste your time. As for the music, there are at most 2 horrible songs and the film used is cheap. The beautiful scenes are not what India is known for. I just hope that I have shed some light on how disgusting this movie really is. Yes it may highlight how evil people in power especially when it comes to religion may be, but to sit down and watch almost 2 hours of this movie can make almost anyone gag. If your up for a good Indian movie watch something by director Mira Nair.


This movie reeks. No money, no acting, no nothing. I caught this on on the 3am late show movie tonight and felt compelled to comment on it. This movie has nothing to recommend it. I can't believe it ever got released to US television! Nobody in this movie can act their way out of a paperbag. The lame attempts at comedy fall flat on their face, the special effects consist of a worm-like handpuppet "monster"... I can't even begin to tell you how rock-bottom this production is. It looks like it cost maybe $50,000 to shoot, but only because it is on 16mm, and that is probably a generous estimate! Anyway, I lost interest rapidly and had to settle for watching "Matlock" reruns instead of finishing it. That's how BAD this movie is!!!


Revisiting old films that you thought were average isn't necessarily a good thing. They sometimes get worse. Championed by the Fangoria camp (in Gorezone they labeled it "the scariest film since Texas CHAINSAW"um, no), LUTHER THE GEEK inexplicably developed a cult following as an "intense" horror picture. Actually, it is just an average stalk and slashuh, bite film that briefly sets itself aside from the pack by featuring a killer who clucks like a chicken. Yes, clucks like a chicken. To the filmmaker's credit, at least they didn't make the killer sound like a duck a la THE NEW YORK RIPPER. That would just be silly.

Narrative logic is completely abandoned in LUTHER THE GEEK. I'm not saying that slasher films are abound with reason, but at least in HALLOWEEN Michael Myers escaped. Luther is actually paroled after a lengthy scene where people argue he is reformed, even though he clucks like a chicken and has razor dentures (which he apparently fashioned in prison). It is the kind of film where a couple sees a bashed in door and the girl dismisses it by saying, "Oh, my mom must have forgotten her keys. She forgets a lot of things since my dad died." The kind of film where the hysterical mother runs into a cop looking for Luther and tells him, "The killer is in my house!" So what does he do? He grabs her and literally drags her back to the house and says, "Just show me where he is and I'll do the rest." Why not call back up?

It is too bad the film is filled with such horrible action and dialogue because the Luther character is actually pretty interesting. Most of the credit goes to Ed Terry, a dead ringer for Tom Noonan in MANHUNTER, who gives the clucking Luther a genuine air of menace. In the hands of a right director, LUTHER THE GEEK could be on the same level as SONNY BOY or SANTA SANGRE and be a true cinematic oddity. But Albright is not that director and merely places the fascinating character of Luther in tedious slasher trappings.


Luther the Geek (1990) is a dull horror movie and is really bad even by Troma's standards!! It's about a freak who bites the heads off chickens, and kills people by biting their necks out, and he actually thinks he's a chicken himself!!!!! Luther gets released from prison after 25 yrs because apparentely he's been a "model" prisoner and deserves another chance in life (which is VERY hard to believe after you see how he acts and treats people throughout the movie).

After killing an elderly lady in a supermarket car park, he manages to sneak into a womans car, and proceeds to torture her, her daughter and the daughters boyfriend at their family home in the country.

Then we get treated to a long winded and boring movie, with awful acting all the way through, before a useless cop turns up to try and kill Luther once and for all!! Oh and the film has a ridiculous and laughable ending too!!! I love low budget horror movies and i think "The Toxic Avenger" is an all time classic, but i'm afraid Luther the Geek is just boring, illogical and dull, not much in the way of gore too, just afew bloody neck bitings and thats about it! 3/10


I consider myself a big fan of low budget horror movies. The more bizarre and imaginative the film, the more blood and guts, the better, and i really fall in love with cheaply done flicks if they are done right. Luther starts out well enough... his origin at the circus, a creepy run at a supermarket, an attack of an old lady, and his disturbing occupation of a woman's farmhouse all set the mood nicely. A hot sex/ shower scene ensues when the woman's daughter and daughter's boyfriend arrives at the house. When Luther steals the boyfriends motorbike the movie takes a turn for the worse.

The characters are presented with numerous opportunities to: A) save their loved ones, B) get the police to help, C) escape, or (most importantly) D) KILL LUTHER!!! I can't feel empathy or fear for characters that are too stupid to help themselves. Chareters snub chances to arm themselves with guns and knives while Luther is away. A policeman eventually arrives and is equally ineffective in stopping Luther, even though at one point he has a rifle squarely aimed at Luther while Luther clucks and does his rendition of the polish chicken dance. I found myself futilely coaching my television: "Make sure he's dead!", "Hes gone, get out of there!", or "Just kill him already!"

Luther is a bloodthirsty savage, but he is hardly Hannibal Lecter. If you can't outsmart this egghead, you deserve what's coming to you. By halfway through the movie you'll be so lethargic to the fates of the half-wits that only morbid curiosity will sustain you to last to the mildly amusing ending. This movie was noted as one of Fangoria's 101 greatest movies you've never seen... well Fangoria is half-right in the case of Luther the Geek.


This movie has been a classic in my part of the country because it was filmed in my own small town. I now have many friends who are guards at Dixon Correctional, and I myself worked for 3 yrs at the SuperAmerica store next to the Krogers store the old lady was at. However, this is still the dumbest movie ever made, destined to be introduced by Gilbert Godfreid or Rhonda Shearer, if it hasn't been already. A bit of trivia, Illinois doesn't even have parole hearings, and Dixon Prison is a medium security facility housing burglars and vending machine vandals. The classic clucking/seduction scene is perhaps the most amusing piece of writing I've ever seen, especially with the suspenseful build-up


This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The plot revolves around a man named Luther who wears metal dentures, bites people on the neck, and walks around clucking like a chicken without the flapping of the arms. He also thinks he's a chicken.

Sounds bizarre right? Well, to me, the more bizarre and weird the person is, the better. The more gore, the better and so on.

The movie starts out with the board deciding if they want to release this maniac from their institution. They mention that he has created some dentures in prison that he used to bite people on the neck. He also clucks like a chicken and THINKS he's a chicken.

If I had a patient like this, there is no way I would release him.

First, Luther heads to the supermarket and attacks an old woman on a bench and walks away. Then, he sneaks in the back seat of a woman's car and she drives all the way to her home.

While at the house, Luther ties up the woman to the bed. When the woman's daughter and her daughter's boyfriend come home, Luther hides.

Later through the film, a cop comes to the front door and asks about the mother. You can clearly see the daughter is scared out of her mind and crying but the officer keeps asking if everything is okay. She replies that everything is fine. The officer finally gets in his car and leaves. If I saw a woman constantly crying and looking scared, I would want to at least get inside the house to investigate a little.

The ending is stupid as well. While the woman in in the barn, she starts clucking and gets Luther excited so he starts walking around flapping his arms and clucking like a maniac. She finally shoots him and just sits there for a minute before finally clucking some more.

Then the credits roll.

This is one of the STUPIDEST movies I have ever seen! NOTHING happens at the woman's house! NOTHING!

I sometimes like campy films but this one really bored me.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Good idea, bad direction!


This movie was so awful that I can't even describe it. I was amazed that I even sat through this pile of trash. I couldn't believe that a movie like this was even thought of. It was a about a serial killer that clucks like a chicken. He doesn't just cluck a couple of times, he clucks non-stop through out the whole movie. He even flaps his arms like a chicken which is even stupider than anything I have ever seen. I couldn't believe this came out in 1990. I thought it came out in the early '80's or something. Then the daughter isn't very smart either because she was protecting the geek or man chicken. The end just gets worse and is the worse ending I have ever seen. This movie is just chicken s**t. I was laughing more than I was scared and I strongly suggest going out and getting a bucket of fried chicken instead of seeing this movie.


This is an odd movie. On the surface it's no different to many other d-grade gore movies but in at least a few ways it stands out. Firstly, the main killer character is really weird. How the heck a guy who only ever clucks like a chicken got paroled is totally beyond me. What was that female parole board member thinking: "he's totally reformed and rehabilitated". He clucks! Another problem with Luther the Geek is the script/direction for the women. The daughter is so pathetic and seemingly stupid that if she was mine I'ld slap her. In attempting to untie her mother off the bed she struggles with knots and just doesn't seem to think, "I'll get scissors, or a knife". Later on, in a similar attempt to untie her mother she wanders down stairs and starts searching in a box of scrap-booking stuff for some scissors, eventually she gets a knife. By the way, this is after the killer has obviously left in the car and just returned. Bizarre. On the plus side the daughter did get her kit off for the shower scene, so that was nice, although again unusual. It seems that in many of these d-grade gore movies they happily show throats being bitten open with gushing blood but the sight of a female breast is somehow too strong for the audience. In general, it worked but it was annoying and nasty, although the bare breasts made up for some of that.


This isn't a very good movie, but it is easily the best Troma Studios film I have ever viewed. Lloyd Kaufman - the "brains" behind Troma - isn't concerned with a good plot or even making a moderately entertaining film. His chief concern is making something bizarre. And his definition of bizarre oftentimes mirrors my definition of terrible cinema.

In this film we have the titled character Luther - whose favorite pastime isn't Baseball, but biting the heads off of chickens - receiving his release from lockup. The board has deemed him rehabilitated despite the fact that he doesn't speak - he merely clucks like a chicken - and has a set of razorblade dentures at his disposal. Of course, once Luther is set free, he goes about causing mayhem, first at a grocery store and later at a farm house.

VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Lots of violence in this oftentimes tasteless flick. Luther sinks his razorblade chompers into a poor elderly lady waiting at a bus stop and then spends the rest of the film terrorizing the mother and daughter at the farmhouse).

NUDITY: $$$$$ (Stacy Haiduk delivers some noteworthy skin in his picture, as the former Lois Lane (I can't recall which Superman edition she was from) gives us a shower scene followed by a romp in bed with her boyfriend - a guy who just doesn't have any chemistry with Ms. Haiduk. The extended shower scene footage in the DVD extras gives the viewer quite a bit more of Stacy. She is quite something).

STORY: $ (Forgettaboutit!!!! Whitey Styles' screenplay may just be the worst ever written. The way in which Luther is released from the asylum completely throws all credibility out the window. His dialogue is something that a pre-schooler might write and the actions he writes for his characters border on the absurd. It's as if Styles spent ten years without human contact and completely forgot how people react in certain situations).

ACTING: $$ (The film belongs to Edward Terry who actually does a decent job as the Geek. He is quite menacing in a stupid barnyard fashion. Joan Roth as the mother does a super job in support but Haiduk and her boyfriend's lack of chemistry made their roles awkward at best).


I'd chose either over this film. This film has been in my "must see" list for a while because people talked about it being "disturbing" and also the VHS box contains lots and lots of quotes from people saying how "amazing" it is, or how "as close as you can get to texas chainsaw massacre" and lines like that. But, sorry folks, I was disappointed big time. The idea is interesting, but the script is SO underdeveloped that each character becomes a mistaken creation of evolution and people do indeed to the dumbest films in the film.

That, in turn, takes away any credibility that the plot may have otherwise had. I couldn't believe how unnecessarily loooooong some "where is he, let's find him" sequences were. A few gory moments to please the gore fan, but they are so few that by the time we get to them there's no point. If Luther's a geek, then the filmmakers must really be down on the food chain.


Shot in my former home town by a couple of college kids, this movie centers around some freak named "luther". Luther, recently paroled (revealed to us by an arguing parole board in one of the most laughably scenes of all time), runs amuck at the local Kroger grocery by eating an old woman's neck with his metal teeth.

Luther runs to farm where he eats a guy, steals a car, ties up an old woman, and gets chased, and gets killed. Oh, and the chick from the SUPERBOY tv show gets naked.


I have no qualms with how the movie does NOT capture New Jersey (like Zach, I'm from there). Fine. Whatever. I lived there WAY long enough. I don't need to see a movie that captures the Garden State.

What I do have qualms with is how bad this movie is. Let's make it easy on you. We'll use some bullet-points. There are probably some spoilers that follow. (Not that you wouldn't be able to predict the movie ANYWAY):

-The music placement was maddeningly forced and patronizing. Example: Large: "What are you listening to?" Sam: "The Shins. Ever heard of 'em?" "No." "Listen to this song - it will change your life!" And then they proceed to play that Shins song that was in a McDonalds commercial. (Don't you love when the characters in a movie blatantly tell you - the viewer - how to react to something? I love that! Hey, they should have put subtitles during various scenes instructing us to "chuckle," "Say 'aaaaaw'" "cry" "feel inspired" etc.)

-The scenes were SO BAD. SO Cliché. SO MELODRAMATIC. Example: The entire movie. But no, really, example: They're in the rainy quarry by the ark. Large runs up - in the pouring rain (oh he's SO TORMENTED!) - on top of a piece of heavy machinery and SCREAMS! Oh how moving! But wait! Here comes Sam and his buddy (the annoying drug addict), and they ALL SCREAM!!!! BUT WAIT!!!! OH MY GOD!!!! Here it comes! THEY KISS!!! LONG, DEEP!!!! IN THE RAIN!!!!!!!!

-The dialogue was SO BAD. SO Cliché. SO MELODRAMATIC. Example. They're leaving the ark and Sam says something like, "Hey. Good luck exploring the infinite abyss." And the guy says back, "You, too." Oh...Oh my! I never realized...could it be? Oh my God it is! Large's life is like...ohmigod...AN INFINITE ABYSS!!!! Another example: Large and Sam in the airport. Sam says something like, "Is this goodbye?" Not enough for ya? OK, Largeman says something like, "This isn't a period at the end of the sentence... it's an ellipses." And guess what happens when he tries to walk down the jetway and go back to his life in LA. You know, what? Don't guess. It's a waste of your time.

-It's a Grade Z Wes Anderson rip-off movie. When not busy being melodramatic and cliché, the movie spends lots of times with crazy-kooky-off-kilter characters. Hey, Sam's brother... thank you Zach Braff for including him, because it really made the movie so much more textured. Also ripping off Anderson: the dialogue. Scene: Sam and Largeman are in a bar. In walks friends, "Vagina!" says one of them. Then they see him sitting with Sam, so one of the friends says, "Sorry I said vagina." And Sam says, "It's OK."

-Inventive cinematography that's not inventive but pointless and annoying. Give me a break with the speed-up/slow down of film. Again, Wes Anderson does it effectively in his movies. And it was done well in "Donnie Darko." But, really, it was pointless. Wow. A crazy party where people are taking X and snorting coke. Better roll out all the tricks!

-You can count the good moments on one hand (even if you're missing fingers). That's what makes it even WORSE. The retarded quarterback thing...well, that was good! The little thing he (largeman) says as they're about to enter the quarry (something about huffing turpentine)...that was good! Oh, wait, that's about it.

You know, Zach Braff is, I think, always a little too cute. But, he's likable. But, man, this is forced, pretentious, melodramatic (have you gotten that yet?), overly cute, overly everything. This movie is terrible. Apparently, I'm outnumbered, as this waste of time is currently rated an 8.0.

Please, though, if you're looking for something truly poignant and subtle and unique DO. NOT. RENT. THIS. MOVIE.


Garden State must rate amongst the most contrived and pretentious films of all time. The plot is a simple one, involving a young man returning home after his mother's death and discovering love. But really, the plot isn't important. What is important to Zach Braff - writer, director, and star  is that he is able to hang from the plot all the necessary accoutrements of an 'indie' or 'arty' film. We therefore are presented with endless cute and quirky characters and scenes that don't exist for reasons of plot or character development, but simply to give some artistic credibility to the film (à la Wes Anderson - or so Braff hopes). Unfortunately and somewhat astonishingly, Braff has not only fooled many on IMDb, but also some critics who really ought to have known better.

Of course, Braff's gratuitous use of the quirky alone does not make Garden State a bad film. What really makes Garden State a stinker is Braff's script. He simply does not have the writing skills to carry this film off, and the dialogue and characterisation are abysmal. Braff often has to resort to blunt devises and symbolism to achieve what he can't achieve through the writing. For example, the numbness of the Braff character is shown to us by his indifference to an impending plane crash (this can't be worked into the plot, and so has to take place in a dream!), later he is shown fighting back against his circumstances by screaming into a bottomless abyss (life = a bottomless abyss, very clever Mr Braff). Those two scenes must rank amongst the most ludicrous and contrived ever seen on a cinema screen.

On the plus side, the acting is passable despite the lack of material for the cast to work with (by which I mean a script), and I do admire Natalie Portman for her efforts as the love interest - a character so badly written and implausible that she is little more than a mindless doll that Braff moulds into his fantasy woman.

It apparently took Braff 3 years to write the script for Garden State (3 years to write a script this bad - he really is inept!). Hopefully therefore it will be some time before he makes another film.


OK, so I gotta start this review by saying i was really expecting to see this flick for months, i use to watch its trailer and think it looked really cool....little did i know that the only cool thing about this cliché-driven turd was precisely its trailer.

At the cinema, i watched the first 3 frames of this movie and though to myself "no way this movie is so bad, don't be an idiot, give it a chance! you've only seen 3 minutes" while i rolled my eyes in shame. All those frames showed....get this....a guy with a poker face (because he feels nothing....that's deep) looking straight at the camera in the middle of the frame. In the second or third one, he stays awake in his perfectly made bed (because he sleeps like a dead guy...cause he feels nothing), and his father calls, and says "John Garden State, is me, your father"....oh come on! I've seen a little more than a couple flicks to hate clichés such as the "is me, your (insert parent)", how the hell am I supposed to react??: "Oh, he has a tough relationship with him"....uh....yeah, thats exactly how I'm supposed to react....

Man, this is a crappy movie...

Anywho, as the flick goes on, we learn things about his friends, of which everyone is a ALTERNATIVE EMO WALKING INDIE MOVIE CLICHÉ. For example, one of his acquaintances is a guy who works in a medieval themed restaurant who speaks Klingon (Bizarre characters + Pop culture = Your standard American indie flick). Then we know Natalie Portman's character, who is a copy of Alissa Jones (from a movie that kicks GS's butt, Chasing Amy), Amelie and that chick from Eternal Sunshine... you know, smart, original (not really), cultured, beautiful and...in touch with her sexuality (!). She listens some '70s band named The Shins and gives...what? they're from this damn decade?? Then why do they sound like that?? Oh, they have no personality, OK.....so she hands her CD player to John Garden State and he looks at her with a dumb face(you know, love). As the song played on, i heard its lyrics saying "you will love this soundtrack, it is so alternative and cool, you will love this movie, it will define you and your generation even if it is a ideological photocopy of The Breakfast Club, Ghost World and every other smart teen movie from the last 20 years, you will drink coffee and read books you don't understand"...

By now, really unoriginal sh!t starts to happen....he doesn't care if he dies in a airplane crash (because he is already dead....and he feels nothing) and he lets us know in a scene idea taken straight out of an unknown movie called FIGHT CLUB!!!, it is a cool scene but, oh, did I mentioned it appeared in the trailer?.......then in some party, and just when you think this guy is really deep and asexual he makes out with a bimbo....so oh, he's not such a emotional zombie after all....clever character development or just a sh!tty movie?......well, lets analyze that scene, it features him sitting motionless in a couch with everyone else moving in really fast speed......scene idea taken straight out of an unknown movie called REQUIEM FROM A DREAM!......so just a sh!tty, sh!tty movie...

Then they meet more eccentric (cliché, actually) characters, and finally, one that lives next to a big hole in the ground. John Garden State says some crap like "good luck exploring your infinite abyss" and the guy says....and by now i wanted to really choke myself, "You too"..............and then we are gently told that Neo is Jesus....oh no, wait, thats from another dumb, obvious, repetitive, overestimated and cliché piece of crap.

Finally (Finally!!!!), some more crap happens and he enters the big warehouse showdown to defuse the bombs: he has to talk to his dad who he hasn't seen in the last zillion years cause he (FINALLY COOL SPOILERS) killed his own mom....(you see, he killed his mom, so he's also dead.......and feels nothing.....that's deep). Now I really expected just clever and moving Magnolia-like dialogue between a father and a son......but this is Garden State, so this is pretty much it: -John Garden State: Father, I forgive you, you didn't know what you were doing when you drugged me for a zillion years, but I know you love me -Crappy director's dad: No!!! No!!!! I'm gonna say some simple stuff cause I'm not really so deep of a character anyway, like this whole movie actually, so no!!!! -John Garden State: No dad, we must get along cause we are equal individuals.....i mean different individuals -Crappy director's dad: No!!!!! No!!!!............OK, you convinced me.

And he gets the girl (cause he's no longer dead, you know) and the movie ends and i go and eat a piece of chicken that makes my day....

This made-for-trailer movie sucks


Garden State was a mediocre film at best. The film seems more like a compilation of thoughts that the writer (Zach Braff) had, rather than a cohesive story. The disjointed plot may have been more engaging if it weren't interspersed with pointless scenes that were nothing more than "quirky." Coincidentally these scenes are often the ones that are relayed in conversation (Zack walking past faucets that turn on as he passes, crazy under-cranked party scene, shouting over a gorge, the list goes on).

The main character is flat, disengaging, and ultimately unlikable, which is exhibited most in the scene where he talks to his father, selfishly ignoring his fathers problems, including a recently deceased wife, and droning on about his own "What am I to do with my life?" problem.

The film ends when Andrew (Zach Braff) decides not to go back to LA because he cannot tear himself from the love of his life, Sam (Natalie Portman) whom he has known for 2 days. Which can only lead me to the conclusion that the message of the film is that love at first sight cures occupational dilemmas... Sure you could interpret it as a misappropriation of priorities, but if that is the case it could have been done better. Much better.

This film does not know what it wants to be. A drama, a comedy, a teenage-wasteland film, or a gamut of other things. I say this not as a single-genre oriented person, but as a person who loves multi-genre pieces such as those mastered by Stanley Kubrick. The reason I feel it does not work for Garden State is because rather than blending the genres together, it jumps around; one scene is one genre, the next another, and back again, so on.

I have heard many people tell me to cut Zach Braff some slack, after all it was his first feature film and he debuted as Director, Writer, and lead actor. Impressive as it was a first film, I should think that with as much money as he has, he could do better. There have been much better first-time feature film directors (Michel Gondry "Human Nature", David Gordon Green "George Washington"). Maybe if he stuck to writing OR directing OR acting it would have been better. Zach Braff is a talented performer, maybe his second attempt won't be so tedious and disjointed.


Wave after wave of directionless nausea - this film wants and at first promises to be quirky and original but is in fact obvious, solipsistic and mired in cliché-driven dialogue which builds to a crecendo of awfulness and cheese by the end. Throughout the film we meet supposedly off the wall characters, who are actually very dull, and just don't quite work and who clunk through the horrific screenplay like men in armour suits, driving jeeps through mansion houses and spouting preppy existential obviousness accompanied by the whinings of Coldplay. The film has occasional funny episodes, often no funnier than a dog playing with its genitals, which happened twice (an index of the slapstick, rudimentary humour of the film in general) but by the end, the film falls into an 'infinite abyss' of complete detritus and the director's egocentric ramblings which made me want to gouge my eyes out. Watch this film at your peril.


"Garden State" is another of these "indie"-type pictures that supposedly skimp on production values for the sake of giving the audience some real true-to-life human drama. Oddly enough, the production is very good, so are the performances (by some fairly big-name actors as well). Where the picture is lacking is in Zach Braff's script, which seems mostly culled from situations taken from other movies.

When you're as young as Braff is, you haven't really lived enough to use the experience as film fodder. Braff's experience looks to be from watching movies, then repeating the same trite clichés in his own movie. In Garden State, he plays Andrew Largeman, a semi-successful Hollywood actor who returns to his hometown in New Jersey to bury his mother, who took her own life after suffering in a wheelchair for many years. He appears to have no feeling about any of this; he has no relationship with his father, who blames him for causing his mother's paralysis in a freak accident as a six-year-old, and has no particular despondency over losing his mother (in fact, he attends a party right after the burial to which he was invited by a friend of his, who works as a cemetery grave-digger). It all smacks heavily of "Beautiful Girls", also about a guy who returns to his hometown to "find himself" and hang with his old friends, with a little "Ordinary People" thrown in on the side.

It's really a miracle Braff could accomplish anything at all in his life, given his father and his useless friends (I'm surprised he didn't kill himself), who are still living their "lives" as though they're still in high school, partying with dumb bimbos, drinking and drugging, etc. None of them even recognize him from his TV role as the "retarded quarterback" (Natalie Portman's character, the most aware person in the movie, does), and say things, like "Hey, I remember you from Junior year". These guys are such losers, for them, watching television would be a cultural leap forward. Even one friend, who made millions inventing a silent Velcro, has no real reason to live, because his whole frame of reference is high school and partying. And you don't need big money to party like a high school sophomore.

Braff, it is revealed, is heavily medicated, which keeps from "feeling" and dealing with anything, really, like an adult would. Then he meets Sam (Natalie Portman) a sort-of lost girl, who gives pet funerals and lives with her mother like a 10-year-old in a bedroom that looks like a pink doll house blown up to life size. Anyway, they fall in love, and Braff learns to "feel" again. The clichés come fast and furious. Braff has a long delayed heart-to-heart talk with his cold, distancing father and tells him What It Is and The Name Of The Game. In one scene, Braff and Portman are in the millionaire kid's house, playing touchy-feely is front of a giant fireplace, and the bit is so routine, so standard movie-schtick, I swear, I half-expected somebody to walk up and throw a sled into the fire. In another, Braff visits a doctor (Ron Liebman) to get his junk refilled, and Liebman tells him (in easily the worst line in the movie) "The body can play tricks on you. I once found my ex-best-friend's cufflinks in my wife's purse, and I didn't have an erection for a year and a half." Obviously, no licensed physician would ever say that, but it's dirtbag poetry, a nod from Braff to, I guess, his loser friends to let them know he's still thinking of them, just as the "37" joke in "Clerks", was Kevin Smith's nod to his dirtbag buddies.

Anyway, Braff finds true happiness and gets off the dope; the story plays itself out predictably. But if you're going to have a movie that's wall-to-wall clichés, at least give it some charming performances to breathe some life into it. And Braff does. He has the right sort of vacancy, of casual acceptance to make his role as the zonked-out Andrew both real and poignant, and Natalie Portman (also of Beautiful Girls) gives the movie a big lift. With her tiny features and flickering expressions of mood, she just about steals the picture as his traveling companion. Jean Smart is surprisingly good as Portman's mother, and Peter Saarsgard (though much better in "Shattered Glass") is notable as the gravedigger friend. I would recommend "Garden State" if you can't get enough storybook romance out of movies, but when people start hailing it as a masterpiece, they're just clueless. Braff thinks you can take the same old tired plot, write in a few "f**ks" and "awesomes" and slap on an acoustic rock soundtrack and that contemporizes the material. It doesn't.


For those that might send me nasty e-mails, shove it. There is a trend in Hollywood where those that create overly-quirky movies are instantly impervious to criticism. Garden State tends to be one of those movies.

Sure, Zach Braff, star of a rather overrated sitcom, surprises people with some talent behind the camera, but that doesn't warrant the kind of praise that a film like this has been receiving. The story is often times too thin and shallow to provide any real insight. People have compared this film to The Graduate, but those type of people are the types that try to oversell independent cinema. Indie films are subject to the same hit and miss mentality that typically hits the studio films, but people seemed to have forgotten that there are far more bad indie films than good ones. Garden State isn't atrocious, but its isn't great.

First off, the film is too quick, resulting in a rather fast reemergence of Large into his former life. After ten years, people tend to act like he never left. Where's the awkwardness? Of course, the situation is always solved by a quick drug tasting scene (which I will say was portrayed rather accurately). The film seem to present a lot of emotional inequities, giving us the idea that the emotion will come up later in a more deeper and more well thought out way. However, it fails to deliver on those fronts, leaving us wondering why the journey to some of his decisions and moments were quickly resolved (like Peter Saarsgard's grave robbing tendencies). It wasn't completely abysmal, but maybe we should stop praising the film as something it isn't.


Of all the directors ever to sit behind a camera Wellman could break your heart quicker than anyone. Even Ford. But this is one of his worst. Even he seemed to know it, probably from its jejune treatment, not much above a Bonanza or Big Valley.

Yet there is one moment, typical Wellman that comes out of nowhere to shatter you, the death of the Indian wife of Gable. She has gone to give her baby some water and WHAM is killed by an arrow instantly. No warning. Nada.

One of the most shocking, unprepared for deaths in all cinema. Particularly after investing a whole hour of love for the lady in what looked to be a sappy western. Of course the treatment of her afterwards is laden with Wellman's total indifference, apparently, to the film. Even so it is a reminder of the power he has always had at his best.


The movie begins with much voice-over, a bad sign. Then it just slides downhill with silly and intelligence-insulting scenes involving trappers and Indians. But, it reaches new and impressive lows when all the merry mountain men square dance with each other in a high alpine meadow. Meanwhile, the happy-go-lucky Indians sit around watching them. It's a better scene than the dancing cowboys in "Blazing Saddles". There is a minor flaw in this comparison; "Across the Wide Missouri" is not a comedy.


The film successfully gives a graphic portrayal of the suffering of forced sex labour, but nothing more. The leftest agenda behind this movie could be seen a mile away and leaves viewer so embarrassed while watching if you know that feeling. So, the women are kidnapped and sent to ex Yugoslavian territory to work as sex slaves because (take a deep breath) the American military institution is corrupt and looks away while their private security contractors are selling people abroad. You don't need half a brain to see the relevance to Iraq war and Black Water Company.

What a load of leftest excrement! Looks like I have been fooled all my life into thinking that this problem and many others were a direct result of Communism's grip on this region for 45 years. But no, it was the American war on Iraq, which is also responsible for earthquakes, tropical storms, and the constipation I had last week.

The film ignores the fact that 95% of the sex trade is women willing to sell their bodies for money and entry to the western block. You also see scenes that are so stupid you want to pull your hair. We have someone chasing down a woman in the streets of London in broad daylight, beat her up, then somehow drags her unconscious body half a mile back to the apartment where he rapes her. No one sees this or calls the police, and the running woman does not care to scream during the chase. Even better, we later see 4-5 women lined up in the centre of London in -again- broad daylight to be sold, one of them has a smashed face, and people are shopping in the background as if nothing was happening. You can't make this stupidity up.

I used to think that such trash was exclusive to Hollywood, but apparently I was mistaken.


Okay, make no mistake - this is a pretty awful film, but I actually thought it had a couple of creepy scenes and overcame its pathetic budget every now and then. At the very least it's unintentionally funny in spots and has a definite air of creepiness and discomfort (a face burning scene, the part with the disfigured bride).

This baby falls into the "so bad it's entertaining" category to me, and for that alone I would give it a star. The effects are terrible, the acting is abysmal, and the whole thing looks like it was shot in a day. You gotta love that toy ship at the beginning, too! It brought back childhood memories of seeing this on late night TV many years ago. While the Alpha DVD print looks weak and as though it was recorded directly off an old television broadcast or something, I actually liked that in this case!


**May Contain Spoilers**

The main character, a nobleman named Fallon, is stranded on an island with characters so looney and lethal he might have been better off drowning. Count Lorente de Sade (pronounced "dee-SAYd") talks to his own hallucinations and sees all intruders on the island as invading pirates. He routinely beats mute servant Anne and tortures his unwilling guests in the dungeon. Inadvertant laughs are provided by giant "Nubian" slave Mantis who talks with a Deep South accent and helps de Sade hunt down trespassers in the style of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. De Sade's crazed wife, ravaged by leprosy, provides some truly scary moments as she prowls the dungeon and embraces a helplessly chained prisoner. (This scene was viewed on late-night TV by many kids who carried the memory into adulthood.) The one nearly-normal person in sight is Cassandra, who has self-deprecation down to a science. ("I used to be a nurse, now I'm not much of anything.") She and Fallon plan their escape and ultimately encounter an enemy more fearsome than de Sade and Mantis combined.

	This movie was shot in San Antonio and directed by a man more competent at drawing horror comics than making horror movies. (I'll say this much for Mr. Boyette--he does showcase his fixatation with contagion here, as he did in his comics.) It's rather like an Andy Milligan melodrama minus the meat cleavers. The period wardrobe, library music, abuse of the handicapped and all-around misanthropy makes one wonder if Andy wasn't called in as a consultant. However, Milligan made better costumes and wrote better dialogue. Technical gaffes are too numerous to list here but you know this flick is in trouble when you see the opening shipwreck, which looks like it was shot in a fish tank. Also, a film made in Texas should have had real spiders and snakes rather than rubber ones. Glorious Eastmancolor gives this melodrama the garish look it so richly deserves. Fallon's initial encounter with the leprous Countess is truly horrifying, as is the movie's parting shot. If the rest had been half as harrowing, THE DUNGEON OF HARROW would have been a terror classic. Instead it's a funny piece of schlock that trash-fiends will love, for all the wrong reasons.


My bad film guru (and the president of the Exposed Film Society) sprang this one on us last week. There was no denying the demented gleam in his eye as he pulled it out of its brown paper bag and announced what he had in store for us: "The Most Dangerous Game", filmed on a budget of about $2.95.

Of course, $2.95 went a lot further back in 1962, but still...

Anyway, there is certainly a lot to dislike about this film. It abounds with serious technical gaffes (my favorite was the 'repeating musket' that fired twice in two minutes without benefit of a reload). The hero is a wuss who stands by while his wounded friend fights the henchman and gets killed.

More? OK -The plot is a shambles with no continuity to speak of. The movie wastes five minutes with a 'special guest star' who serves as the physical embodiment of the villain's madness and paranoia, but never shows him again. The hero is choked unconscious by the henchman but makes no mention of it when he wakes up and first meets his host. The mute servant girl is captured, put on the rack...and then the movie (and the hero, who put her in this predicament) just sort of "forgets" about her.

More? Well, the sets are cheap, and the special effects are cheaper (the makeup is an exception to this). Much of the plot is carried by the narrator's droning, monotonic voice-over, which carries less dramatic impact than the menu recital at Denny's. Most of the dialog is simply ridiculous and stilted , as if it was translated from Japanese. ("I demand that our conversation be pleasant!!!") And the color values tended to shift violently from shot to shot, as if cheap film stock and problematic lighting equipment were the order of the day. (Note - this last may have been the fault of a bad print, rather than the camera crew).

But there were a couple of nice moments here and there. The makeup effects were startlingly good in contrast to the rest of the film, the actors were LOOKED interesting, especially the mute servant girl and the Countess. And in spite of everything, there was a definite creepy atmosphere to be found, very nasty and disturbing.

So what was the deal with this movie? I thought about it a bit, and realized that director/writer Pat Boyette basically tried to put a story from of the old "EC" horror comics on film. That would account for the stilted dialog, the sketchy character development (in a comic, physiognomy = character even more than in film), the loopy interior logic of the story ("EC" horror stories went out of their way to include a nasty "shock" ending and weren't big on psychological realism), the over reliance on the narrative voice (which belongs in captions over the panels), and the interesting makeup effects that mimicked the grisly pictures that the old EC artists did so well.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that when Boyette saw his leading man during casting, he instantly saw that the fellow was as close to being the equivalent of the lanky, shambling figures and caved in faces that artists like Johnny Craig and Jack Davis drew as an actual human could be and still exist in the real world.. He used costumes and lighting to emphasize the cartoony aspect of the visuals and turned everyone into living EC comics characters. (See: the leading lady's blank beauty, the Count's strong bony features, oddly bronze skin and sharp chin, the platinum 'do on the tall, bony black henchman, etc.)

This would explain the movie's failings. Boyette knew how to 'frame' things, but he didn't know how to deal with three dimensions and moving bodies. Boyette knew how to tell a creepy story within the confines of a comics page, but the nuances of film and live actors escaped him. He wouldn't be the first person with this problem of course - look at what Joel Schumacher did to "Batman". But he didn't have a big budget to hide behind.

In any case, I'm imagine that Boyette walked away from this train wreck and probably spent less time thinking about "Dungeon of Harrow"than the folks who post on this film's message boards. He did, within certainly vague boundaries, what he set out to do, and you have to respect him for it...even if you don't care for "Harrow".


Buyer beware. The Alpha Video release uses a print that defies description. The movie was shot in color but you wouldn't know it for the first 25 minutes or so. The print that is used is so faded and decrepit that it appears almost sepia toned. After 30 minutes some color seeps back into the print but from there to the conclusion the color comes and goes. Keep in mind, even at it's best the color is pale and washed out. It looks like the print was recorded off a television that wasn't getting the best reception. Adding to this travesty is the most plodding delivery of lines that I can recollect. Even the voice over narration is stupor inducing. Every line is delivered in this irritating plodding demeanor. I found myself wishing that they would hurry and get the words out. For this reason I couldn't wait for this movie to end. It's one of those so-bad -it's- good movies but I wish that someone would find a half decent print.


The basic idea behind "Dungeon of Harrow" isn't all bad. The acting, however, is bad. The lighting is bad. The music is bad. The scenes of torture are without emotion. There really isn't much there to recommend this film. You know what kind of a movie you're in for when the credits say "Special Guest Star" and list someone you've never heard of. Might as well say "Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln." because there's really no one in this movie you can identify. There are one or two decent moments, mostly toward the end and I think the basic plot outline may have contained an original idea, but that alone is not enough to keep you awake through this otherwise inept yawner.


This weird movie from Texas is about Fallon, a dilettante rich boy in the late 1800s (although he looks like a 60s C&W singer with greasy hair and sideburns) whose ship wrecks on an island owned by Count DeSade (pronounced de-sayd) with his captain. The count is afraid of pirates and tortures a young girl who was once a pirate hostage and also tortures the captain. Meanwhile, creepy former nurse Cassandra tells Fallon the secrets of the castle. The Countess has leprosy and went mad! Fallon is trapped but brings supplies. The captain is killed by a racist-caricature slave. Fallon is thrown in the dungeon with the leper, who always thinks it's her wedding day. The leper bride is horny, bu Cassandra kills her. Fallon and Cassandra escape the castle, but the Count and his slave chase them with dogs. DeSade kills the slave and Fallon kills DeSade. Fallon and Cassandra fall in love over the course of the next year, but when the supply ship comes, the crew refuses to take our lovers because they're both lepers now. They live for years in the castle...Fallon's hair turns gray and Cassandra goes bonkers. Fallon puts her in the dungeon. Our tale of love and leprosy ends.

So bizarre it's watchable, and you can smell the drive-in popcorn.


"Dungeon of Harrow" had a lot of things that could've made this quite a good horror film. Creepy mansion, a torture chamber, a paranoid host, a henchman, a ghoul in the dungeon, etc. But sadly to say this wasn't made very well.

A writer and a skipper get shipwrecked on an island owned by a count in a castle, his slave, and a mute maid. The count becomes more and more suspicious that the two shipwrecked men are pirates (of all things) and gets more inclined to turn on them and subject them, and the mute maid who befriends them, to torture and imprisonment. Sound not-bad right?

Well, not quite. I used to call this one of the worst movies I have ever seen, but now I hesitate. Because it had so much potential it can't really be called "one of the worst." However, seeing all this potential go to waste is a really big hit against this film. All in all, it's not a very good movie.

There is a very Gothic-suspense scene when our hero is chained in the dungeon and is confronted by the insane and leprous rotting bride, adorned in a tattered wedding dress. This was both creepy and disturbing the first time I saw the horror unfold in this scene. Man I wish this was a better movie!

This movie had all the right stuff to make this a moody late-night chiller, but ultimately took all the wrong turns. I suggest someone remake this one.


A couple of men are ship-wrecked on a remote island. They are then captured by an insane count who lives there with a small group of servants; while in the castle dungeon lives the count's unfortunate leper wife.

The Dungeon of Harrow is pretty much a hack job of a movie. The amateur actors all sleepwalk through the film while an annoyingly insistent score continually plays in the background. The various bits of action are all filmed in an incredibly unenergetic way; in fact the film in general is completely lethargic. It just seems to drag on and on. And even though the ending isn't too bad you will be hard-pressed to care by that point. As an example of 60's Gothic horror, this is strictly a bargain basement example. I sadly can't recommend this one really.


This movie tries to be more than it is. First of all, the acting is horrible. You have to get past the incredibly bad delivering of lines and terrible emoting. The plot is quite interesting. A shipwreck occurs (apparently because it was made out of strings and balsa wood), and a couple of guys find themselves on shore. If this weren't bad enough, some guy named Count de Sade is living there as well. He lives in fear of pirates and has gone utterly insane. Anyway, he has a large slave, a young woman, and some dogs. There's another woman who doesn't speak and his wife, who is a leper. Anyway, things get bad as these men have to deal with this nut case. He is arrogant and likes to pose and deliver lines. The rest of the movie involves an attempt to escape. It has an ironic ending which I won't reveal and it kind of rescues the film. I wouldn't bother if I were you.


Why can't a movie be rated a zero? Or even a negative number? Some movies such as "Plan Nine From Outer Space" are so bad they're fun to watch. THIS IS NOT ONE. "The Dungeon of Horror" might be the worst movie I've ever seen (some of anyway. I HAD to fast forward through a lot of it!). Fortunately for the indiscretions of my youth and senility of my advancing age, there may be worse movies I've seen, but thankfully, I can't remember them. The sets appeared to be made with cardboard and finished with cans of spray paint. The special effects looked like a fifth grader's C+ diorama set in a shoebox. The movie contained unforgivable gaffs such as when the Marquis shoots and kills his servant. He then immediately gets into a scuffle with his escaping victim, who takes his flintlock and shoots him with it, without the gun having been reloaded! This movie was so bad my DVD copy only had name credits. I guess no company or studio wanted to be incriminated. Though I guess when you film in your garage and make sets out of cardboard boxes a studio isn't needed. This movie definitely ranks in my cellar of all time worst movies with such horrible sacrileges as "The Manipulator", the worst movie I have ever seen with an actual (one time) Hollywood leading man-Mickey Rooney. The only time I would recommend watching "The Dungeon of Harrow" (or "The Manipulator" for that matter) would be if someone were to pay you. (I'm kind of cheap) I'd have to have $7 or $8 bucks for "Dungeon" and at least ten for "Manipulator". phil-the never out of the can cinematographer


If it was possible to give negative stars I would for this stinkburger.

Don't get me wrong I LOOOOOOVVVEEEE a good crappy movie. I am a big fan of films like Octoman, Wizard Of Mars, Queen King and others. Real classics of B-Cinema.

But this film actually makes Jack Nicolson and Boris Karloff in The Terror look like an academy award winner!! The Dialouge is so needlessly long-winded, and mostly inappropriately used. (ie. "I will now Condensened (yes, condensend!!) to your wishes. The acting might have been a lot better if they had some more logical lines.

The story? What story, A count is exiled because his wife had leprosy? I'm still not sure on that count. A (Rich?) Fleet one and the Captian of one of his ships crash on the island? People acting unnaturally? OK, I like camp in b-films a lot, there lies a lot of it's charm, but this was just dumb..plain dumb. A salty sea Captian who sounds as well versed as a college professor? A fleet owner who is as clueless as they come (I felt this guy had no idea of how to play it, one scene he's Spanish acting, the next English/European)? The count, who's not sure if he's a reincarnation or really DeSade (Don't ask me how DeSade figures into this, after 4 beers my wife, friend and I still couldn't figure it out.

The scare factor? I could show this turkey to my small grandkids and only worry about them sleeping through it. I like a lot of early 60's horror movies, and some still have good shocks, but this thing...never had a shock, or even a hint of of a scare.

On the info on the back it says, "This Movie contains scenes that are so vivid and degrading that they will surpass your worst nightmare." The ONLY degradation is WATCHING THIS MOVIE. It's 90 mins.(The case says it's 74 mins.) of your life you do not get back.

I paid only a buck, yes one buck, for this and another film. I still feel like I am owed .50 cents for even sitting though this.

To sum up Dungeon Of Harrow had NO ONE Named Harrow in it, but, it did have a lovely cardboard dungeon.


This movie shows what you can create if you have a camera, some spare paint and cardboard,a toy ship, a few friends who acted in community theater, and the incorrect notion you can make a film. The end result is an unwatchable time-waster that you'll skip through, unless you take it out of the DVD player and toss it through the window first.

The acting in the opening scene (especially by the rotund Lee Morgan as 'Captain') and the toy ship "crashing" into the rocks before the credits is a good indicator of what you're in for (with all the foam, it looks like this "special effect" was shot in a kitchen sink. I guess Boyette figured he save some cash by washing the dishes at the same time). In terms of bad cinema, the funny thing is "Dungeon of Harrow" seems to have inspired (maybe by coincidence) the twist ending of "Manos: The Hands of Fate". Yep, it's the same lame "I was the victim, and now I take the mad villain's place" ironic ending. The bigger irony is that two inept, talentless filmmakers could make two equally-wretched, Texas-filmed horror movies and get away with it.

Monotone nerd Russ Harvey is a noble in a great family line (why they were great is never broached), boring us while lamenting the death of his family line and crest before his ship even crashes (we're also treating to a droning narration throughout the film). Sadly, we aren't so lucky. His family's toy ship crashes into some styrofoam in a sink, and he's washed ashore with his bloated captain and some woman, conveniently deposited on a mad Count's island.

Meanwhile, the Count is visited by an evil spirit who, dressed in a Blackstone's Magic Kit outfit, assaults him with various puppets (spiders, snakes, bats. . . all the icky stuff). The Count (William McNulty) overacts worse than Shatner and has a visibly difficult time keeping a straight face through the typical madman ranting.

I'd be mad too if I had to be in this disaster. The woman is promptly killed by the Count's ferocious dogs, and the two jerks are captured by his manservant. The Count accuses them of being pirates (apparently his worst fear), he slaps his manservant around a lot (apparently his greatest joy), Fatboy gets tortured, there's a woman who's a servant and one who's a nurse, the rotting leper hag-in-a-wedding-dress Countess in the dungeon (she digs the Nerdy Noble and is the only effective & creepy thing in the movie), a lot of inane dialogue at a dining room table, the blubbery Captain gets killed while making a pathetic getaway (aking to watching a sloth battle a pack of lions). . . it's all an ugly haze to me. I spent most of my time on the fast-forward button.

Anyway, the jerk noble and nurse make a getaway and think they're going to be rescued by three guys in a rowboat on the lake (yeah, we're supposed to believe a lake is the ocean). They don't, since the nerd's hair turned gray and he scares the would-be rescuers away. Honestly, I think they simply took the opportunity to row away from this hideous film while the had the chance. They head back to the castle, the nurse starts rotting like the Countess (and your stomach, by this time), and we end with these two getting ready to descend into the . . . DUNGEON OF HARROW!!!! Blech!

I love old, lousy horror films, but they must have some sort of entertainment value. I feel ripped off, even at the low low price of $5.99 for this biscuit. Mystery Science Theater would have a tough time making this one fun. I was taken in by a few nutty reviewers who claimed this film had atmosphere and some creepy moments. Wrong! Avoid this tripe at all costs, and don't even waste a buck if you find it in a dollar bin somewhere. This movie makes Corman's "The Terror" like like a masterpiece of horror and atmosphere.


That distinction has to go to THE DUNGEON OF HARROW. At least Ed Wood's misguided attempt at making a quality science fiction film had the dubious "star" power of Bela Lugusi, Vampira, Tor Johnson, Criswell and Lyle Talbot. THE DUNGEON OF HARROW has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. What could have been an interesting and suspenseful plot about a marooned aristocrat on a leper colony, perhaps in the style of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU or MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, is trashed by the heavy dialog and mono tonal acting of amateurs whose lines sink like lead weights into a sea of stupidity. The "special effects", which took place in someone's bathtub, further doom this film to the dung heap. Even the treatment of leprosy is something out of a Victorian interpretation of the Bible. The fact that leprosy can not be contracted from an individual in its last stages belies the plot line that the aristocrat Fallon and his lady, Cassandra contract the disease and end up as the original occupants of the Castle De Sade, doomed to insanity and inhuman cruelty. It is interesting to note that not one member of the cast made another film. No wonder, talent begets talent; lack of talent begets oblivion, which is where this film should find its deplorable end.


A group of seven people fear they are the only survivors of a near world ending H-bomb blast. Not only do they fear the radiation, but also mutants in the surrounding hillside. One of the group is already contaminated, but strangely poses no real threat to the others. Just surviving the friction of assorted personalities at close range is the sub-plot. Richard Denning plays the hero. Mike Connors is close to the edge playing a tough guy. Lori Nelson is the girl destined to start populating a brave new world. Not one of director Roger Corman's best. This is predictable black and white sci-fi.