Very interesting to find another reviewer who had the exact same reaction to this movie as I did: It was a heck of a lot better when I was 10 or 11 years old.

Seeing it more than 30 years later, it's still okay, but it only mildly held my interest. What seemed hugely funny back then was only mildly amusing.

Also, things that were astonishing to me as a 10-year-old came across as just silly. For example, in one scene Trinity is walking along and fires his revolver behind him and kills two men without even looking. In fact, he doesn't even bother to look and see if they're dead, because he knows he hit the mark. Um, yeah, right.

In addition, a lot of the dialogue sounds quite wooden. Sorry, but 35 years later, it hasn't really aged that well.

Although it's been a long time since I've seen that one as well, probably a better Terrence Hill film than this one would be My Name Is Nobody.


This movie is overrated, to say the least. It's not good as a comedy, and it's not good as a "serious" film either. The pacing is far too plodding for the former, and there is too much lame slapstick for the latter. The only laughs come from some of Bud Spencer's reaction shots when he becomes exasperated by his brother's behavior. The dubbing is excellent but the full-screen framing is appalling. (*1/2)


I think I win the "bargain" contest for this movie, since I got it as part of a "Martial Arts Movie Classics" DVD collection with 50 movies for 20 bucks, which means I paid something like 50 cents for the chance to watch the "Black Fist" version of a movie that was released as "Bogard."

For a basic "revenge" flick, "Black Fist" isn't too bad, even though it is obviously hampered by a low budget. One of my informal "rules of thumb" for watching a movie is that if the lead actor is better than his production and screenplay, the movie automatically gets at least three stars. That is certainly the case here; Lawson has some presence and some charisma, and probably deserved a better film career than he got.

The street fight choreography (the ostensible reason for the film) really won't to impress anyone who has ever sparred in a martial arts school or even just been punched in a schoolyard fight. I only spent about two years learning basic kung fu, but even I would never fall for the front "stamp" kicks, arm drags, and roundhouse punches on display here. But the atmosphere is good - dust and blood and shouting crowds, and the actors put some feeling into the fight scenes.

Less believable is the plot. Dawson's character "Leroy Fisk", is portrayed as a street-smart, sharp young man who goes looking for work as a pick-up fighter in illegal, unsanctioned street matches. Yet he is surprised and indignant when he has to pay off the cops? Excuse me, but I was raised in small town Iowa and even *I* knew (from watching "Hard Times" with Charles Bronson) that the cops have to be paid off for this sort of action, and that the guys who fight needed the fixers in order to get their matches, and that the fixers were worth the money. So you have to watch this movie with a sort of willful suspension of your critical faculties in order to accept it as a "black brother being repressed" movie. (Most of the other non-black fighters in the stable get punched in the face for the same deal too,yes?).

The movie suffers from a short attention span. The director obviously didn't have the budget to film some of the scenes he needed, so he had to fill in the gaps with some fairly ludicrous exposition scenes (The "I wined him, I dined him, and then I killed him" scene just doesn't work) along with voice-overs and montages that are clumsy and unconvincing. This is especially true with the whole romance angle which seems to have been filmed as if it were an afterthought. This is a little shoddy when you consider that the death of "Fisk's" wife's death is supposed to fuel his drive for revenge.

But, once the movie switches all the way from "young fighter rising through the ranks" to the revenge theme, it picks up a little steam and plays with a little more conviction. I'm not sure that the final payoff is worth the buildup - Roger Ebert calls this sort of thing "a long drive for a short day at the beach"..but it does tie things off in a reasonably satisfying way.

If Sylvester Stallone had made this film with a real budget and the same cast, slicker sets and costumes, and himself as the hero, people would have hailed it as the next "Rocky", which goes to show you how circumstance and chance can play havoc with would-be filmmakers' dreams.

Worth seeing once for various decent shots and lines and to watch Dabney Coleman embarrass himself in a role that is beneath him.


I saw Bogard when it was released in the 70s. It was one of those pictures that received an X rating for violence. We snuck into our local grindhouse, and saw it anyway. Pretty good picture. Lots of blood from the street fights, although the cheap sound effects for the punches took something away from it. And lots of sex. I remember one of the early scenes when Bogard meets this pretty brunette in an apartment she is showing him. Without saying a word, he picks her up, puts her in the windowsill and nails her. From what I remember the picture sailed from that point on. So, when I found out Bogart is also called Black Fist and was available on VHS, I ordered it online. I was very disappointed. Black Fist is Bogard edited for television. So many of the scenes I remember were missing, I wondered if indeed, this was the same picture.


I got this movie in a bargain bin, hoping for an amusingly bad flick. Boy was I disappointed. (except for avon.) You see, the movie is indeed horrible, but so horrible, it isn't even laughable. The plot, oh wait, there is no plot. I suppose you could say it's about the main character rising up in the ranks of street fighting. At the end of the movie, the directors decided to either not make any more sense, or, more likely, died and had a monkey finish directing the movie. DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT THE ENDING SPOILED! although the ending doesn't really spoil anything. The main character somehow ends up in a room filled with mirrors, a la Enter The Dragon, and then gets real angry, has stupid flashback, and hits a mirror. The end. Wheeee.

The only redeeming factor of this movie was Avon's scene. He's talking to the rival street fighting boss and says something along these lines, completely deadpan: "Do not worry about him anymore sir. I have killed him in a sophisticated manner. I wined him, I dined hm, we went to a disco. We was havin a lot of fun. And then I killed him." at which point the boss says "good work avon. You're number 1." And avon says "Number 1! Alllriiiiight! Alriiight!" The scene continues with avon continuing to say "alllrriiiight!" over and over. The next scene is of a dead Avon floating in a pool. Intelligent? I think not.

Lastly, I own the "Homeboy" version of this movie, meaning the title on the box I own is "Homeboy." It shows a huge guy holding a giant gun and screaming. This never happens in the movie. This man is never in the movie. High quality.

Note--I am new to this reviewing, but hell yes I am going to keep it up.


This is a really mediocre film in the vein of "Buckaroo Banzai." The cast runs around like "Mad Max" wannabes, and they seem to be sharing a joke that they do not want to share with the audience. Wheeler-Nicholson is one of the those guilty pleasure actresses you are delighted to stumble across in films, but she isn't worth the price of rental. Space Maggot starts an electrical fire, and burns a vote of 4.


After seeing this film, I did not want my money back. I wanted my TIME back. I wanted that hour and a half back in my life - it was the most amazing, hideous torture to know that I had squandered precious minutes of my life on this dreck. I am scarred for life, and ever since this "film" entered my life I have had trouble sleeping. I am trying to suppress the memories, really I am. . . but they make me want to burn things.


Where do I start. Lets list the good things about this movie first.

1. Mikael Persbrandt is great as the Gangster Thomas. This is the only character you will actually care about, and he's a bad guy! (allthogh never does anything bad, and is generally a pretty likable guy) 2. Kjell Bergkvist is always great. He's a bit toned down here, but he is quite funny still 3. The movie looked pretty good by Swedish standards, good use of depth of field and lights.

Now the bad. This is by far the worst script to make it into the big screen ever. The acting by everyone else was pretty bad and over the top. The direction was horrible. A totally meaningless story, totally unrealistic characters and events and 1.5 hours to long. During emotional scenes pretty much everyone in the theater laughed. People just started walking out during the course of the screening.

There's no way to actually summarize the story into something coherent, so I wont even try. Every cliché ever conceived is in there, and in all the wrong places. I'm sorry to say this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my entire life.

Watch it for a good laugh, but try not to pay any money for it ;)

.R


This movie features several well known actors which I usually like, so I had at least modest expectations when I rented this on DVD. I was highly disappointed. In fact I walked off for some snacks somewhere during the last half hour and somehow I ended up in the kitchen rather then going back to the TV. The actor performances where poor pretty much all across the board and none of the atmospheres in the movie felt very convincing. Virtually all scenes had that "just a movie" feeling to them, I just sat there waiting to hear the director calling "CUT!" followed by the crew having a little chat about the scene before moving on to the next.

Since the movie is about gangsters most characters are tough and mob-like, the problem here is just that this whole bad-boy attitude is played out so poorly that it just feels like a joke. The constant guitar-drilling soundtrack really tries to emphasize this atmosphere too, but when the same track is played the 18th time it just adds to the already strong feeling of the whole thing just being fake.

Maybe it was just a really really bad script, maybe it was just poorly executed. I'm no movie critic, in fact I consider it rare to see something that's REALLY good, but this was just plain bad no matter how objective and forgiving I'm trying to be. NOT recommended, not even as a rental!


This movie is not worth seeing, at least not at a cinema. The story is hard to follow and understand (it starts with 10 minutes of something happening 3 years earlier). It's hard to know if this movie is trying to be a comedy or just is so bad/weird that it sometimes seems like it. American sirens and lights on Swedish police cars is just one example. The acting of Persbrandt and Bergqvist is good as usual, but I think Jenny Lampa acting as Jasmin acts very poor. Zara Zetterqvist acts pretty well, she's not been seen as an actor in Swedish movies for a long time. If you still want to see it, wait until it's released on DVD or is shown on TV.


I just saw this on a local independent station in the New York City area. The cast showed promise but when I saw the director, George Cosmotos, I became suspicious. And sure enough, it was every bit as bad, every bit as pointless and stupid as every George Cosmotos movie I ever saw. He's like a stupid man's Michael Bey--with all the awfulness that accolade promises.

There's no point to the conspiracy, no burning issues that urge the conspirators on. We are left to ourselves to connect the dots from one bit of graffiti on various walls in the film to the next. Thus, the current budget crisis, the war in Iraq, Islamic extremism, the fate of social security, 47 million Americans without health care, stagnating wages, and the death of the middle class are all subsumed by the sheer terror of graffiti.

A truly, stunningly idiotic film.


MST3K fodder. It's so bad it's actually worth seeing just for that reason. There are some hilarious things in it, such as the mysterious device the bad guy is seen working on for the whole movie, that turns out to be this tiny helicopter that flutters around carrying and firing a machine gun without so much as a wobble, but is brought down by a bag of balloons (the kind they release at political conventions). Many other wonderful touches of that sort. Stars Charlie Sheen. There's one scene where he spends five minutes recording a conversation, only to drop the microcassette in the Potomac River by accident. If they'd cast Emilio Estevez in the part that never would've happened.


They make everything too easy in this film. It sort of reminded me of Indiana Jones where he hides on the outside of a submarine during an ocean crossing. Everybody knows everything that's going on, it's just real easy to get anyplace you want in the White House. I don't even know why I watched half of it. Because I like Charlie Sheen and Donald Sutherland. I expect the usual ability to dodge bullets from every angle, and be able to run faster than a motorcycle (usually it's faster than a car in a garage or a allyway). It was silly, mostly, and I didn't even know then had a ten-story elevator in the White House. Anyway, anything conspiratorial is always interesting.


1st watched 2/25/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-George P. Cosmatos): Predictable action thriller where any frequent movie goer could guess what was coming next. Charlie Sheen is the good old boy to the President who just happens to be not liked by the rest of the presidential staff. Of course, he gets involved in a situation where he's framed over and over again and he has one friend in the White House, played by Sutherland, who naturally doesn't stay that way for very long. His other friend is a reporter played by Linda Hamilton(who has very little to do or say in this meaningless role), and of course his biggest and bestest friend is the President himself(Sam Waterston) who stays his pal till the end despite everyone else being killed around him. Brainless yet action-packed meaningless trife despite loads and loads of acting talent(all pretty much wasted.)


This movie is filled with so many idiotic moments, that you wonder how it ever got made. For example, they get into the sewers from the Capitol and while they're in the sewers you can see signs pointing to various government buildings, and then they come up in the middle of the street! I highly doubt that government buildings would provide public access through the city sewer system. Anyways, I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 just because of its comic value. I laughed the whole way through at the idiocy of everyone involved in this movie.


This film is bad. It's filled with glaring plot holes, characters who are ruled by stupidity, bad acting and above all, a poor script which has been done before in many, many films, only better. I feel sorry for Donald Sutherland, I just hope he had to do this film rather than wanted to! Miss it.


My Take: Routine political thriller with mediocre action scenes and predictable twists.

A rarely seen political thriller, which made a very poor box-office response, I managed to catch THE SHADOW CONSPIRACY on TV just now, and while I was glad that I satisfied my curiosity to see this rare film, I didn't exactly feel this film was all special. Considering the box-office response to it, SHADOW CONSPIRACY is not all quite as bad as critics and the public reacted to it, but still ain't very good to begin with and everything, from script to direction, is pretty predictable. Charlie Sheen plays the presidential assistant who finds himself caught up with assassins and chases (a lot of them) when he discovers a deadly conspiracy which lurks amongst the White House staff. After a professor is murdered, Sheen aids the help of ex-flame reporter Amanda Givens (Linda Hamilton) to uncover the traitor and unlock the conspiracy of the title.

But this script, written by Adi Hasak & Ric Gibbs, are pedestrian as they come, not much differing from other White House conspiracy thrillers as in ABSOLUTE POWER and MURDER AT 1600. Some considerable talents (Donald Sutherland, Ben Gazzara and Stephen Lang) try their best on a routine script, but rarely saves it from predictability of the script. Not to mention a ludicrous scene which involves a toy helicopter, which seems far too silly and out-of-place in this "serious" political thriller. THE SHADOW CONSPIRACY has its moments I'm sure, some of which are much to under-appreciated (director George Pan Cosmatos serves up some decent chase scenes), but none of which lifts this routine thriller of which there's not much payoff or surprises.

Rating: ** out of 5.


This all looked quite promising. An up-and-coming Presidential adviser is framed for a series of murders, as he has been tipped off that a conspiracy is going on within the White House. It stars the excellent Donald Sutherland among several capable actors. Yet very few people have a good word to say about it.

The whole thing really needed some depth. You can pick up the idea that the President is being too left-wing with his ideas, and some within the Government want him dead to stop those ideas being carried out. Conrad appears to simply want the country to be Governed his way, rather than the way of the elected leader.

However, the action scenes had a few logic holes - the sewers and elevators already mentioned, and the rather haphazard assassination method - and Linda Hamilton's character is completely uninspired. Her 'the President's my Father' 'diversion' was ludicrous - that would make the President about 10 when that happened. Worse still was her predictable final scene with Bishop.

They could have made a challenging, inventive political thriller, but either bottled it or failed. They could've gone to town on special effects, but the good ones were wasted. They could have achieved so much more in general. This was barely worth the £1 it cost me.


This film starts with a pedestrian setup before blundering into the standard sort of suspense action where an office worker keeps beating up trained secret service men etc.

I couldn't say the acting was bad - there were some good "surprised" faces by Hamilton and Sheen - but then I really wouldn't have to.

Risible finale did at least give me a good laugh for my pains. Still, if my life was flashing before my eyes, I think I would fast forward this 90 minutes.

I have to write two more lines of text just to get this thing published. Yes, very resistant suit that sheen wears. I made a special promise to myself never to watch a film this bad again.


I still wonder why I sat through this entire thing. It only had about 3 minutes of actual entertainment, the rest of it was just a total bore. The acting isn't that great and the action scenes are soooo cheesy it's not even funny. I kinda wish I could say something good about this film but I can't think of anything right now. There probably was somethings in it some can enjoy but the ending of it is gotta be the dumbest idea ever. What type of person would get a little toy remote controlled helicopter with a burned in machine gun in it to assassinate the President? This idea could have never been done in the first place let alone have anyone dumb enough to try it, I guess the writer must have been to obsessed with the toy car scene in The Dead Pool but actually tried to make this look serious.


Rarely have I seen an action/suspense movie that was so boring. None of the action scenes are exciting the story line is nothing special and except for a couple of actors the acting is bad. Charlie Sheen (Platoon, Major League) stars as the White House Chief of Staff, who gets himself in the middle of a conspiracy that wants him and more people dead. Donald Sutherland (A Time to Kill, Fallen) plays a friend who he tells everything he can and Linda Hamilton (Linda Hamilton, Terminator, Dante's Peak) plays a reporter who gets involved in the situation. Charlie Sheen is OK as the star, Donald Sutherland is a good actor who gives a good performance. Linda Hamilton gives a poor performance. With a bad movie, I can actually like it if it has a good ending, but this movie has a very cheesy ending with some almost laughable stuff.


After watching this movie, I felt as if I had just eaten a box of stale, chewy cracker jack only to find no prize inside. This movie has real promise: porn stars in a skinemax feature! Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell the producers that WE LIKE SOME T&A IN OUR T & A FLICKS!!! Sure, we get a few quick flashes and a couple of "bathing in the creek" scenes. But where's the sex? How can you have four girls, "sorority girls" no less, in this type of movie with only one, pitiful 5 second lesbian scene? Good night, USA Up All Night provides more titillation! Look, we don't watch this type of movie for great cinematography, screenwriting or action. We want to see some kink! What a letdown.


Bare Wench is another softcore parody of the Blair Witch project (I think there's about two dozen of those things out there). It has 5 very attractive women (which includes Nikki Fritz, Julie Smith, and Julie Strain), and one dorky guy whose only purpose is to provide comic relief.

Okay, so I'm thinking "Cool. Great looking women, having softcore lesbian sex with each other very 10 minutes or so. This should be real good."

Unfortunately, the producers blew it. There is nothing in this video that actually qualifies as a sex scene. There's a couple of false starts, but the majority of the action is just the women posing for the camera. I guess once the producers had spent their money on the women, and spent more getting them to remove their clothes, they didn't have any money left to get them to actually do anything. And I guess they also used up all their alloted nudity time too early, because towards the end of the video, there is a huge amount of pointless dialogue that is obviously being used for no other reason than to pad out the run time. "You're a liar! No you are! You go into the cave! No you go! I think we should go home! Well, I don't!" This goes on and on and on forever.

There's way better stuff than this.


What can you say about a film that makes "The Erotic Witch Project" look like "The English Patient." Again, the plot and characters are secondary, but the plot is almost an exact copy of "TEWP."

Four buxom sorority sisters and a goofy male guide enter a forest to look for the bare wench, and the women become sexually charged. The bare wench leaves porno devices and a blow up doll, just like in "TEWP." They get lost, the doofus gets lost, and the girls find their way back to their hotel. There they reenact the end of "The Blair Witch Project," as cameras are dropped and the guide is seen playing hopscotch, a game integral to the thin plot.

At least three of the sorority sisters here have unnaturally large breasts full of dimples and stretch marks, along with the rather obvious surgery scars. The one "natural" gal here is humiliated by the director. In a very unfunny, and overlong, end credit segment, outtake scenes where she could not get a line right is played over and over again ad nauseum.

Julie Strain shows up in a fright wig to play the bare wench. This one scene seems to be added later, since no one could possibly be credited in the cast with shooting it. In the background, as the women cavort and stroke, you can see someone's picket fence. This may be director Jim Wynorski's backyard.

This is just bad stuff. The lesbian love scenes are kelvin degrees cooler than "The Erotic Witch Project''s. Most of the lovin' consists of the four women mashing their eight collective breasts together. I think they are trying to form a silicone based lifeform that would rescue them from this bad career decision. No such luck. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the makers of "The Blair Witch Project" should be really really mad.

This is unrated, and contains mild physical violence, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual content, and sexual references.


Looking all of 29 years old, Rob Lowe is a detective in charge of a murder investigation.

When the husband of a society woman (Leslie Hope) is found dead, police suspect the rich chick might have something to do with it. Enter Rob who immediately falls for the pretty widow even though he claims that he's just trying to be 'helpful'. Rob is such a good cop, he is able to sneak some of her incriminating love letters into his coat pocket before he accidentally throws them into the fireplace. Monotonous murky drama with an endless drone of background music.

This is a good substitute sleeping remedy if you've run out of Sominex.


This movie is exactly the same as Ridley Scott's, "Someone To Watch Over Me", which is a classic. It stars Tom Berenger and Mimi Rogers and the bad guy from the Fugitive. It's a quality movie, with good direction and great acting. This movie is the polar opposite. It's the same plot, just minus any good acting and adding TV movie direction. I do have to say I like the interaction between Lowe and the woman. She's hot and their romance is believable on many levels. Unfortunately, that alone cannot save this carbon copy of the classic Ridley Scott film.

Usually crappy TV movies have some redeeming quality that makes them watchable at the very least. I think for me, this film's redeeming value is that Rob Lowe and the lead female have chemistry. That and I was able to watch and compare the plot to another quality film.


There was absolutely nothing in this film that hadn't been done better in a hundred other films. It was barely worth the trouble of watching through to the end. Even the bad language sounded tired. Tom McCamus, a very fine actor, was particularly disappointing here.


Orson Welles' 1974 documentary "F for Fake" examines trickery and fraud, mainly focusing on two men who have been exposed as frauds themselves. Clifford Irving is a biographer who wrote the allegedly fraudulent Howard Hughes autobiography, yet, at least it seems, purports his innocence. The other main subject of the film is artist Elmyr de Hory, a man who has spent his life painting fakes of famous masterpieces, sometimes selling them to museums as real works by the original artists. Interspersed among these stories are bits where Welles does magic tricks to illustrate points, etc., and he also addresses the fact that his career began as a fraud when he first lied on his resume and then created a radio sensation with "War of the Worlds".

I really wanted to love this film and find it profound since I am such a Welles devotee, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Part of the problem lied with the fact that it was not just non-linear, it was completely scattered. While I appreciate stylish editing and quick jumps and zooms, particularly when used in an unusual format such as a documentary, there was simply too much of it going on in "F for Fake". They created a distraction as opposed to lending style. If the story had been more clear and comprehensive, I think that the editing probably would not have been as annoying. The scattered storytelling was made all the more obnoxious by the fact that these were truly interesting subjects, particularly Elmyr de Hory. His artistic fakery brings up the topic of fraud in the art world, and who is truly able to determine the authenticity of certain works; and if the works are not authentic, what does it say about those who admire the pieces in museums? This is one documentary that I would say to at least give a shot, but don't be afraid to turn it off if you're not enjoying it. It is certainly the most discombobulated documentary I have ever seen; it is a cross between a documentary, an art film and experimental film, none of which is properly represented or isolated. I don't have any lesser opinion of Welles after seeing it, but it certainly, in my opinion, doesn't stand out as a glowing specimen in his oeuvre. 4/10 --Shelly


that Welles said was that he's been in decline his whole career.

There was an interesting story here. Unfortunately, Welles seemed completely incapable of telling it. Instead, he was trying to tell a bunch of different stories, about Elmyr, about Clifford Irving, about his pompous view of critics and experts, oh, yeah, and trying to jump start his current girlfriend's career by giving her unneeded screen time. (Oja, honey, when they told you to sleep with the director, they didn't mean one washed up like a whale on a beach!)

Welles was probably trying to cash in with a bunch of footage of Clifford Irving as Irving was becoming a household name with his role in the faked auto-biography of Howard Hughes. Unfortunately, it means the subject of his film, Elmyr, didn't get the time he deserved and he was probably the more interesting story.

The great tragedy of Orson Welles was that he peaked early, and then spent the rest of his career sputtering, finally doing wine commercials and awful documentaries...


When I typed Savage Intruder into the IMDb's search engine one of the options it came up with was Savage Garden: International Video Collection: The Story so Far (1999), the only reason I mention this is because I'm a huge Savage Garden fan & you should do yourself a favour & check some of their music out like Affirmation or To the Moon and Back rather than bother with this average pot-boiler, sorry I just wanted to say that. Anyway, Savage Intruder starts with a bizarre montage of what looks like MGM musical & premiere footage & a few spinning portraits which have no meaning whatsoever in the long run. It's late 60's Hollywood & amid the glitz & glamour a serial killer is at work selecting ageing actresses, killing them & dismembering their bodies. A young man named Vic Valance (David Garfield as John David Garfield) hops off a tour bus looking for employment when it stops at the house of a now retired actress, Katharine Parker (Miriam Hopkins) who was 'one of the biggest stars of the motion picture' but now lives in a big house with an elderly housekeeper named Mildred (Florence Lake), a personal secretary Leslie Blair (Gale Sondergaard) & a young maid named Geta (Virginia Wing). Katharine has recently broken her foot & needs a personal assistant & gives Vic the job. Slowly Vic charms his way into Katharine's affections & more importantly her large wallet. Vic starts to turn Katharine against the other employees, but Vic isn't what he seems. Vic is a drug addicted loon who gets Greta pregnant while still having sex with Katharine. Greta threatens to tell Katharine & spoil Vic's devious plans but she has a close encounter with an axe, no one in the house is safe as Vic brings drugs, sex, rock 'n' roll party's & gardening to the Parker mansion while his sinister plan starts to become more & more apparent...

Written, produced & directed by Donald Wolfe I thought Savage Intruder was a bit of a mess but a mildly entertaining one at the same time. The script is all over the place & it can't really decide what it wants to be, Savage Intruder suffers from an identity crisis! The film starts with the discovery of a severed head & limbs, straight after another woman (Dorothy Kingston) is killed by a mysterious unidentified figure but then it completely ditches the slasher film elements that it has just built up never going back to them. Savage Intruder then becomes a sort of feel good film as Vic befriends Katharine & shows her how to enjoy life again & having an implied sexual relationship with her, it's actually disgusting to think about as she's old enough to be his Grandmother. Katharine stops living the life of a recluse & gives up the alcohol as Vic appears to make her happy as they go to party's together & hold banquets for Katharine's friend like she used too. This part of Savage Intruder wouldn't look out of place in a Disney film! Every so often the tedium of the feel good stuff is interrupted by Vic shooting up & having silly hallucinations about his Mother (Sybelle Guardino) & chopping her hand off with an axe, he has sex with Great at one point as well. Then, after Greta has been murdered, Savage Intruder becomes a bizarre horror film as Vic is revealed for the loony that he is. Savage Intruder just doesn't flow properly as a film in my opinion as it mixes various genres with little success. Similarly the murder mystery elements don't work & are frankly a bit of a puzzle, why go to great lengths to conceal the killers identity during the murder scenes but then make it perfectly clear who is committing them throughout the rest of the film anyway? Vic as a character didn't work for me either, one moment he's a cool, calm, clever & devious con man & then next he's a stark raving loony! Why kill all his other victims but with Katharine try to con her? What makes her so different? If it is because she has money why not go after her to start with? So many questions & so few answers... Some of the 60's dialogue is pretty funny to listen to these days like when Vic offers Greta a painkiller, in reality hard drugs, & Greta says "what do I need a painkiller for?", Vic helpfully replies "because your a pain" wow this guy knows how to charm the ladies! Or when Katharine suggests that Vic do some gardening & ask's "do you have green fingers?" he replies "no, but I'm good at grass!" There isn't much gore in Savage Intruder, some severed limbs & a couple of decapitated heads. There is also a fairly impressive shot when someone has their hand cut off with an axe which is probably why it's repeated three or four times. The silly looking drug hallucination scenes need to be seen to be believed. Technically Savage Intruder is OK, the location filming in the grandiose mansion & Hollywood hills probably give it a better look than it deserves, the acting is average as is the rest of the production. Overall I'd say Savage Intruder feels like it tries to be a murder mystery that unfortunately gives the killer away & as a result just doesn't work. It's a mildly entertaining one-time-watch at best & a complete mess of a film at worse, you decide which!


Every once in awhile I'll remember that I've actually seen this bizarre fiasco that's a cross between "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Sunset Boulevard," the Lana Turner LSD movie "The Big Cube" and the Manson murders, which also took place in 1969 but maybe before this so-called "movie" was made! There are some descriptions of the plot already here, so I won't go into it. But it's worth noting that Miriam Hopkins plays a parody of herself: a chattering, ego-maniacal, fading actress. Perhaps she thought she was making a movie that would be as successful as one of the Bette Davis horrors. The old gal Hopkins never stopped working, so you have to hand it to her. She shows a little too much flesh in this movie, something Davis and Crawford would never have done. And there's a scene with Miriam in the actual tacky Hollywood Boulevard Christmas parade, which must have been filmed Xmas, 1968.

Gale Sondergard is old, old, old. It's just shocking how wrinkled and awful she looks. John Garfield, Jr. looks a bit like his father, but not as interesting. I think one of the Three Stooges is the tour guide at the beginning. If it's not one of the Stooges, it's somebody.

I was astounded to come across this thing in the form of a commercial videotape given to me by a friend who knows all about junk like this. It's amazing!!!


From the brilliant mind that brought us "The Exorcist"...and "Cruising." "Rampage" is unfortunately more like the latter. It's an overall messy movie that has a major made-for-TV vibe going for it. The whole film pretends to hinge on the question, "What if the 'Boy Next Door' was a serial killer?" but instead it winds up being an uninspired courtroom drama and meditation on the the insanity plea and death penalty that makes little sense. The movie is very loosely based on the Richard Trenton Chase case, culling a few facts here and there to make a fake character and a different outcome. One of the main points of the film seems to be that ending the life of a terminally braindead child and ending the life of a murderer are somehow analagous. "Sometimes you just have to choose," says the lead character. Yeah, sometimes you have to choose to pull the plug...on your TV!


Man this thing bites! I am sorry I ever sat down and watched it! Friedkin was insane for making a film attempting to win over the viewers sympathy for this lunatic If it were up to me I'd have made the audience hate that low life instead of getting all misty eyed over him! He killed people! Quite grizzly I might add too! And Friedkin wants you to feel sorry for him because he's "not right"! I say Friedkin can forget it! I hate the guy this movie is partly based on and hope they did wise up and give his sorry butt the juice!!! In a nut shell, don't waste your time! It's sick and perverse!


When I first heared that there was going to be The World is not Enough video game for the Nintendo 64, I was so excited. When it finally came out, I was one of the first ones to rent it. I rented it for 7 days, and I got through the whole game!!! The game was to easy and gave out too much hints. A majour dissapointing sequel to GoldenEye. Take my advice and DO NOT RENT THIS GAME.

Sure the guns and gadgets are cool, but one gets tired of a watch lazer that looks like it was taken right from GoldenEye with the exception of being a red color instead of a blue color, a poor excuse for a dart gun, horrible stunner and a stupid grapple hook that can only attach itself to things that are yellow and black.

I think that RARE should of made this game instead of EA who should stick to games there good at making, like sport games and should stear clear of first person shooters and let the masters do the work.


when i first read about "berlin am meer" i didn't expect much. but i thought with the right people, the right locations, the right music and fashion you could at least make a trivial movie about the hip berlin everyone seems to be talking about. but eissler failed, it's so ridiculously unauthentic. it's a complete misrepresentation of what it is going on in berlin's so called scene. of course it's not all about hippness, but you should expect more from a movie that's being sold as "the definite berlin movie".

and apart from all the credibility stuff, it really is a bad movie. mediocre acting and a rather boring plot. interestingly some of the actors have proved in other movies that they are actually quite talented. so it really must be poor directing skills.

don't bother watching "berlin am meer" unless you are 17, come from some small town in western Germany and want to move to the big city after you finished school. then you might actually find it enjoyable and totally cool.


I was prepared for a bad movie, and a bad movie it is, so I guess I shouldn't complain. Twentysomething Tom (gay poster boy Robert Stadlober) has so many issues he doesn't know if he's coming or going. I wouldn't have stayed but for the pretty girls: Serious Mavie (Anna Brüggemann); no-nonsense Angie (Emma Daubas); Sarah Baumann as the star of the movie within the movie. And then there's Tom's soul mate, wild-eyed Margarete (Jana Pallaske). She reminds me of Béatrice Dalle and Gina Gershon. If you've got to remember, these are fine memories. She looks good even in the most ridiculous outfits, and I mean ridiculous, even by Berlin standards. I wonder whether I'd have liked this movie when I was the characters' age. My guess is I wouldn't. Watch out for indie idols Oli Schulz and Max Schröder of "Der Hund Marie" performing as street musicians, feeling no pain.


While I have seen and enjoyed similar movies to this one that were silent films about the Russian Revolution, such as POTEMKIN and TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD, I did not particularly enjoy this one. This was mostly due to the annoying and "artsy" way that the director chose to shoot the film. While POTEMKIN excelled in its editing style, this movie used similar techniques with a lot less finesse--in some places, the editing seemed very choppy and amateurish. Plus, and this was truly annoying, the use of zombies throughout the beginning of the film and late in the film really was over-the-top. What I mean by "zombies" is that to illustrate just how depressed and oppressed the Ukranian peasants were, the people stand like mannequins in many scenes. And, they stand like this, unmoving, for a VERY long period of time, while the "evil" Capitalists and exploiters of the masses walk by. Gimme a break! This movie is a wonderful example of style over substance--and it's only a movie for those who enjoy or can overlook the overindulgent direction.

By the way, the DVD for this film is improved, somewhat, if you leave the audio commentary on. This makes the movie easier to follow and gives a few interesting insights.


The film itself is only a compilation of scenes which have no inherent meaning to someone living outside of Russia. I won't deny that some of the images and techniques were quite revolutionary at the time (filmed 1928) but the problem with the film is that it has no interest to the intellectual or common man. We are merely watching an arranged form of pictures, ranging from a one arm man beating a horse, to a toothless soldier in the war. Everything in between is awkward, haphazard and quite unnecessary. It would have been possible to invent a forum which kept the viewer interested but this would not be it although the method of the director is quite brilliant.

In all, one should view this if they are an art student, on hallucinogenic drugs, or a student of pre-Tarkovskian cinema.


This was a very nice concert by the one and only MJ. The choreography was excellent and the costumes were decent. The vocals were okay. i have to admit that his vocals were crap on Human Nature and Billie Jean. You couldn't hear him half the time. The other songs make up for the singing. The Highlights of the show are: Jam Smooth Criminal I Just Can't Stop Loving You She's Out Of My Life Thriller Billie Jean (The Dancing Not The Singing) Black or White Man in the Mirror The concert was almost perfect. If it was anybody but Mj it would have been a 9. It is a must see. I wish I was born then so I could have gotten a ticket to the best concert of 1992.


this is the 1990's TV show,not the movie from 1979.it looks to be three episodes totaling just under 90 minutes.before watching,i thought it was one of the movie versions,and i noticed right away,it had a TV show Feel to it.i didn't care for it too much.i just felt the story wasn't there,and there wasn't much in the way of excitement or drama.i was looking at the time elapsed on my DVD player frequently,as i was really bored.i also thought some of the dialogue was,to put it politely,not good.plus, i thought the acting left a lot to be desired. but that's just me however,it is good clean,wholesome family entertainment.there's certainly nothing offensive here.kids will likely enjoy it.for me,The Black Stallion is 4/10


River Queen attempts to pack a complicated, sweeping, historical narrative into just under two hours. There are some breathtaking battle scenes and the Wanganui scenery is beautifully captured. However, the film did suffer from some poor leads - Samantha Morton (Sarah) especially came across as unconvincing. There seemed to be an indecisiveness about how the role should be played - as a helpless waif tossed by fate or as a strong, determined character with a clear view of her destiny. Kiefer Sutherland's character - Private Doyle - seemed to be pointless and for the most part - unintelligible. Keifer's Irish brogue needs a little polishing. On the other hand, Cliff Curtis, Temuera Morrison and Rawiri Pene (as Sarah's son "Boy") were well rounded and believable.

The last 20 minutes of River Queen came across as particularly compressed and rushed. It seemed as if they decided they had to tie up all the loose ends before 120 minutes were up. E.g. How on earth did Wiremu know how to find Sarah and Doyle? No explanation and very unsatisfying.

I did go to this movie with an open mind. I hadn't read or heard anything much apart from its troubled production. What I experienced was a mish mash of New Zealand history, beautifully photographed but ultimately disappointing.


As the above suggests, I was ultimately unimpressed with this movie. It is lovely to look at, the scenery is lush, but the detail of the story, in particular the characters, are totally unbelievable. Films don't have to be believable, but films like this, with a political edge and social commentary do.

Similarly, I have no problem with commercialism as such, but once again, films like this shouldn't be making casting decisions purely based on box office draw. This is absolutely the case with Sutherland, who is frankly rubbish as Doyle. His accent was far from authentic, but he fell into the biggest trap of all, his accent IS his performance, and we end up with a caricature of Irishness with no personality outside of his nationality. I find it totally implausible that anyone involved thought he was the best man for the job. All in all, this is a clear case of commercial interest over quality and when you're trying to be The Mission, this kind of thing wrecks your chances of success.

Speaking of accents, there were a couple more problems, one being the striking modernity of Boy's accent which acted to dispel the feeling of being transported to another time. More surprising was Samantha Morton's much lauded Irish accent, which was variable to say the least. Her voice meandered between strong north and soft south, even in the voice-overs, where I would've expected any such discrepancies to be picked up.

However, these are minor gripes compared to the motivation and actions of Sarah. She never seems at home with the English, and almost instantly at home with her son and his tribe, the dilemma between the life she knew and the life she if offered just seems like a no-brainer. Perhaps a lot has been lost in editing, perhaps this was meant to be a three hour film or a mini series where these things could've been fleshed out, but I can only judge what I've seen.

Now the biggest problem, Sarah's (Morton) relationship with Doyle (Sutherland) is incomprehensible. The fact is that her affection for him is not conveyed in any way until her having to choose between him and her son, the conflict she goes through at this point was frankly ridiculous and killed the movie for me.

As you may have guessed. this movie didn't work at all for me, but it is top notch to look at, you really won't see anything more stunning in terms of scenery, there are some good performances and my wife liked it.


Set in the mid 1800's when the British is clearing New Zealand outback wilderness to establish colonies. The daughter of a British army surgeon, Sarah(Samantha Morton), falls in love with the son of one of the Maori leaders. The Maori is an indigenous tribe and a dangerous people for the Europeans to deal with. By the time Sarah's child, which she calls "Boy", is born, his father is dead. By the age of six, "Boy" is kidnapped by his father's family and Sarah will begin her search for him with a man(Kiefer Sutherland),who is deeply in love with her.

Two-time Oscar nominee Morton is definitely the star of this movie. Sutherland is a total waste. Also starring are: Cliff Curtis, Stephen Rea, Temuera Morrison and David Rawiri Pene. This movie is rated R for some sexual content and violent battle scenes. I find the title RIVER QUEEN very misleading and the DVD cover with Sutherland only and making you believe he is the leading star should be a crime.


Reading through most of the other reviews, I tend to agree with most of the comments. The one thing that I would add is the disjointed way the movie has been Directed and Produced. I think that some of these new wave movie makers think that they are being clever using unusual (sometimes jerky) camera angles, and flitting from one scene to another. It goes down well with these movie festivals, and with some of these Indie type critics, but it spoils the movie for me. I noticed in the reviews, one comment saying that none of this movie makers films have become blockbusters. This would maybe prove my point, as the film has that 'rushed to finish' feeling that makes you wonder why such a beautiful film appears to be lacking a smooth flow. As for the comment about Kiefer Sutherland being a big name to put on the poster, I would bet he cringed when watching the final cut. This is a story with real potential, spoilt by trying to be different in it's production. Worth watching, but not many would come back for a second view.


With an interesting premise (in the conflicts between Europeans and indigenous peoples sometimes the battle lines were not so clear), this should have been a good film. But the story is sabotaged by the director's overriding infatuation with his own cleverness twinned with a very poor script.

Yes, the natural setting is beautiful and, yes, the movie is authentic to its 19th century historical setting. But the filmmaker keeps gilding the lily over and over again, adding layer upon layer of over-the-top musical accompaniment, not to mention a completely unnecessary voice-over, to the soundtrack, that ultimately overwhelm the viewer and, by calling attention to themselves, take away from the story.

To me, it was clear the director, with his microscopic closeups and the endless recurrence of the musical motif of "Danny Boy" (of all things!) was trying to make a New Zealand version of an epic Sergio Leone film, something on the order of Once Upon A Time In The West. But given the earnestness of the story (most of Leone's westerns were tongue-in-cheek), not to mention that it's no longer 1968, he succeeds in making a parody of one.

Too bad.


This was one of the dullest movies I have seen in some time. I'm in my late 40s, and watched it with my son-in-law (early 20s) and son (17). The scenery was beautiful, but the story was a bust. We watched about an hour of it and turned it off. I spent more time on my iphone during the hour that we watched it than I spent actually watching the movie. I gave it a 3 because I enjoyed the scenery and cinematography; otherwise I would have given it a 1. I'm sure there are people who are really into the "art" of it all who will find my review appalling but we're all entitled to our own opinions, right? I couldn't figure out if this was supposed to be a "chick flick" where the focus was on the mother, or if it was supposed to be a movie for guys, with the focus on battle and adventure. In my opinion, it didn't succeed in either.


A good example of reversed, politically correct racism where white men are presented as senseless brutes who're only there to be massacred and their aboriginal adversaries as noble heroes, superior both in their appearance and abilities. Apart from making the story overally dull, this also prevents the neutral viewer to identify himself with one or the other side - it's just too simplifying. The repetitive score is incredibly annoying (as is the voice-over), the characters lack any depth and the viewer is soon lost between questions like "who is this character" and "what the hell is that supposed to mean". Photography is wonderful, though, and on the whole there's a lot of atmosphere to it but nice shots of misty landscapes alone don't save this movie. The DVD box uses Kiefer Sutherland as an eye-catcher. In fact, his character could have been played by anyone else because it's basically just an empty shell (like most non-Maori characters), and disappears anyway around halfway the film. But if you are eager to see Jack Bauer in a kilt, that's your kind of movie...


I was really looking forward to this movie but sadly it didn't live up to expectation.

A good movie has the audience identifying/empathising/sympathising with the main actor. Unfortunately this was very hard to do with Samantha Morton.

The storyline seemed very disjointed and didn't flow as it should/could have done.

Keifer Sutherland appeared to be little more than window dressing and made me wonder why he agreed to play what appeared to be a bit part. Beautiful scenery and the acting of Tem Morrison and Cliff Curtis was about the only plus.

Maybe by being a kiwi I set the bar higher for locally made films. Maybe the change of director/ supposedly hard to work with main actor has biased my opinion.

Maybe I'm just trying to make excuses for a movie which could have been great.

A lot of maybes which still does not explain why this movie just lacked anything special.

It could have been great, it wasn't.


Wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait..... WHAT!? This movie is terrible, absolutely terrible. 1. The only reason Kiefer Sutherland is on the cover is to sell it to Kiefer fans, only to have their hearts broken. He kills one guy, gets shot, and dies before half the movie is over, not to mention he was only in the first 10 min and then disappeared until the point which he died...WHY put him on the cover if his character BLOWS. 2. Where are the EPIC battle scenes promised in the preview on the back cover? 3. It was way too confusing, i mean whats up with the girl? She had to narrate the movie to TRY to get our attention, she failed! 4. If Kiefer dies in a movie..... it fails. Now I am going to go watch 24..... THIS MOVIE FAILS!


For weeks I had been looking forward to seeing this movie only to find myself hugely disappointed after wards. In my opinion, the only good thing 'River Queen' had going for it was the amazing scenery used as backgrounds. The story line was all over the place, Samantha's character Sarah was very difficult to understand and what on earth were all the many close ups of her face for? It brought absolutely nothing to the story-if there was one at all!A better actor for the part of Boy could also have been selected, to me it sounded like he read his lines straight of the script while shooting his scenes.Overall, a real shame as it could have been such a good movie.


This is by far one the most boring movies I've ever seen! And if you don't believe me go ahead and watch it for yourself.

The movie starts of slow, the storyline makes no sense at all. People fighting doesn't make any sense. I could not make sense of what they were talking during the movie (in most cases I didn't even bother) It does nothing to keep you watching the movie, the only plus point would be the cinematography. New Zealand looks awesome. Everything else just plain sucks.

The actors try their best to keep us awake, but unfortunately you will go to sleep instead.

Do us all a favor, even if this gets on "On Demand", Don't WATCH IT!


wow, i just got one watching this.

How CRAPPY post production is on this movie.

I kid you not, I literally could've done a better job myself.

ALL of post production is flawed, all of it. Whoever cut this film should be banned from the film industry.

That aside, the script was a trainwreck. absolute rubish.

Not to mention Jack Bauer and his Patchy the Pirate in Spongebob accent. WTF is his character doing there? But to me, the biggest flaw of all was character development, intereaction, dynamics, dialogue. WOW. I cant believe how bad it was.

I give this movie a 2 out of 10. 1 for Samantha, who is a great actress, too bad the production made everyone look like amateurs out there.

the other 1 goes to cinematography, which was indeed good.

Other then that my friend, this is one bad movie.

I don't even feel like making an elaborate post on this, it was just horrible production. Poor actors, didn't know what they were getting into...


River Queen's sound recordist should have been fired, in this day and age there is no excuse for poor recording on the set. Mumbling voices was the end result, and the cinematography was average to fair at best. The story had potential and I feel sorry for the overseas actors who must have known they were on a turkey shoot while they were filming. Its obvious that the movie was suffering from el cheapo budget syndrome, and the scene where Temuera is procreating inside the house while a battle rages outside is just too stupid for words.

I noticed a few shortcuts taken on the Maori protocol side of things, but this was probably due to movie length time restraints etc. All in all I wasn't impressed with this movie, the Whanganui river has many beautiful spots but this movie gives us a cold, drab and claustrophobic image, with none of the beauty. The movie needed more sunshine and better camera angles, less on screen confusion, better sound recording, and more thought needed to be put into what the movie goers would be seeing on the big screen.

Hats off to all involved though for completing what must have been a very difficult shoo. I have the utmost appreciation for anyone who can make a feature film, sadly I did not enjoy this one.


Apart from the beautiful imagery thanks to New Zealand cinematographer Alun Bollinger, this film is not worth seeing.

The storyline is so fragmented and lost that it's hard to know what is going on at any given time, and just when you think you're following then the direction changes again, like a lost bi-polar puppy dog.

The musical score is awful, relying too heavily on extremely emotive pieces that try to force the audience into feeling a certain way, as if the instruments were acting as an emotions queue sheet  'feel sad here'; 'feel shocked here'; 'feel scared here'. On top of that, the repetitive samples used over and over again leave the audience on the verge of laughter.

Gone are the days of silent film, where musical instruments were the sole portrayal of voice  but you wouldn't think so while watching River Queen.

The voice-over was so over-utilised that one has to wonder if this film really even needed any accompanying imagery. It could have easily been a radio play although even then it would be hard to follow the story.

And the stolen ideas from Jane Campion's The Piano are too obvious to overlook. Not only are the beach and forest shots almost identical to those in The Piano  perhaps some of this comes down to Alun Bollinger's camera work on the latter  but the voice-over feeling and levels too are strikingly close. And who could forget when Holly Hunter's character has her wings clipped, in the form of her index finger being cut off by Sam Neill. Does it remind you of when Wiremu has his 'trigger finger' amputated, and surprisingly too with an axe? I thought so.

All in all I cannot recommend this film for viewing, unless you wear some ear-muffs and just go with the scenery in mind.


**Warning - this review may contain spoilers **

The idea behind the character of Danny (Jet Li) is a good one - young boy is taken by hoodlum and raised to behave like a vicious pitbull, controlled mainly by whether his collar is on or off his neck.

However, the writer did not know how to deliver this idea within the constraints of believability.

He has Danny meeting a blind pianist, Sam (Morgan Freeman), who has to be the most trusting fool a man ever was - along with his nit-wit, endlessly babbling, rather unattractive step-daughter, Victoria (Kerry Condon). I was stunned, by the way, when I learned Victoria was supposed to be 18 - she looked 25 or 30 to me.

Amazingly there is no romance between Danny and Victoria.

When Danny turns up again, wounded, what does Sam do but take him straight home. Danny is out for 2 days, but do these nit-wits take him to a hospital? Nooooo. I don't know if they even called in a doctor.

Now Danny is obviously not a mentally stable person, this is apparent from the get-go, yet Sam takes him into his home, where both he and his step-daughter could have been seriously harmed or even killed by this rather strange, young man.

Why Morgan Freeman took this insipid role in this asinine film I can't even begin to guess. Surely Mr. Freeman is not that desperate for a paycheck.

Then we have Bob Hoskins as Bart, the gangster who "owns" Danny - now you talk about a son of a gun that's hard to kill. The car Bart is in gets riddled with bullets that would have rivaled Bonnie and Clyde's demise. We think he's dead, but no.

Then we have another car accident - and yet again, ol' Bart escapes unscathed.

In addition to that, we also have Danny fighting half a dozen tough guys at a time, plus a scene where Danny has decided he doesn't want to fight any more. I don't care how much a person doesn't want to fight, when it is down to the wire of you fight or you die, I think anyone would fight.

As I said in the subject heading - this film is about 40 miles outside the boundary of reality as we have come to know it. It's not just a case of suspending belief - it's completely beyond that.

Furthermore I never did understand why Danny's mother who turns out to be a nice lady, rather than the prostitute Bart claimed she is, became mixed up with Bart and his gang and got shot. Maybe that was my fault, I got distracted right about the time that scene came on--but it seemed highly unlikely she and Bart would have ever crossed paths.

4 stars out of 10 - and that's being generous.


I though that it was hard, if not impossible, to watch, and not because of the horrors it depicts but by the way they were depicted. Imagine what Costa Gavras could have done with this true horror story. What I object to is the idea the need to denounce, which I subscribe to, is enough. What about showing it to us with the power of powerful cinema. I feel that the eagerness of the filmmaker, maybe even the justifiable anger, didn't allow him to see it clearly from a cinematic point of view. Or, if this was a cinematic point of view, I mean, a choice, then, I didn't like it at all. I was more disturbed by the way the movie was shot than by the movie itself. Well intentioned I'm sure, but, unfortunately, that's not nearly enough.


It may have been thrilling for an audience in 1946, but the movie is now a bit boring. I had a hard time sitting through the whole thing, and it was very predictable: I mean, we know from the beginning of the movie that Welles is the nazi war criminal, and I'll give you one guess as to whether he is caught and appropriately punished in the end.

Not worth watching. It's sad that Welles only made three movies worth seeing in his long career: Kane, Ambersons, and A Touch of Evil.


This is the award that made me lose all respects for the Hugos.

If such a "distinguished" panel can't see or care about the obvious story-telling problems of Battlestar Galactica, then what worth is their award? The answer: not much.

Award-winning shows should be examples of creativity and excellence, neither of which are in evidence in BG, in this episode or any other that I've seen.

Shooting in drab video is not "artistic", it's just cheap. Shaking the camera is not "creative" it's vomit-inducing and lazy as can be.

All BG has shown is how corrupt most award-giving "academies" really are and how easy it is to buy awards with a lot of PR money.


Frankly I'm amazed to see that this movie is getting relatively good reviews. I'll be completely honest and say that the only reason I even got through it is because of Ryan Phillippe, and not for reasons particularly connected with his abilities as an actor, though I think over the last years he has proved himself to be a better actor than his first major roles in the late 1990's indicated.

As far as action/suspense movies go, this movie fails in nearly every respect. The acting is OK, I guess, but the script is absolutely horrible and makes very little sense, a fact which the filmmakers try to cover up by adding absurd references to Chaos theory, as if it would convince anyone that the film is actually 'clever' - but then again, judging from other reviews, some were. Don't be fooled: the script is a boring, derivative mess and no other element of the movie makes up for it. Wesley Snipes has probably never had a less interesting role in a film, and Statham is a thoroughly dull actor.

Not recommended.


those people,who told me"this movie is good"-shame on them!this film is for an audience,who has no problem to watch everything{especially when it's all about tough guys,guns,chasing&heists}.i 'd compare this movie with"The Inside Man"{the same loss of time}. i'm tired of copy and paste movies.and i'm discontented,but what can i do?fans of that types of movies are much more.... if you want to watch good movie from that type ,i will recommend to you "Lucky Number Slevin". i'm not mean, i just dislike this movie{weak actors,weak script,weak action}.probably someone else will like it.many people-many tastes.HOWEVER FOR ME"CHAOS"IS TASTELESS!


Seeing the names of the starring actors (Statham, Snipes and Phillippe) I thought that the movie should at least be decently funny or interesting. Instead all I got from it was not just boring 92 minutes, but the frustration of knowing everything that was about to happen, and hearing tons of lame and shabby "bad cop" phrases.

The main problem is that the movie doesn't have a good story to begin with. And when you have that, than no one can help you, not Statham, not Wesley Snipes...not even John McClane could save this movie :-) It could be cool for the kids, if they aren't over 12 years of age, because they don't care so much about the story, and there are some big explosions in the movie.


I went to see this because of snipes / statham, but honestly, Chaos is terrible. This movie has absolutely nothing going for it - it should not have been made.

Don't read this review if you don't want to read spoilers, cause I'm going to address a lot of plot-holes here.

First of all - the opening scene. It's the great big event that made the two semi-lead characters (Statham and Snipes) turn crooked. But it's boring and mundane. Only at the very end we get to see what really happened and by the time you won't care anymore. Also - this whole event, where one bad guy and his hostage get killed is hardly big enough news to fill hundreds of newspaper articles, as referred to in the movie.

Then the bank job - it doesn't get off the ground for any second. The bank robber makes some un-needed references to chaos theory (which has NOTHING to do with the whole story, by the way). The way Statham gets summoned is very 'Die Hard With a Vengeance', but more boring. Then the things that happen in the bank are strange and pointless. -What's with the safety deposit box. There seems to be some plot unfolding there, but then, it doesn't. -Why go through the trouble of stringing up two people, when it leads to nothing? It involves a lot of preparation and it's used for nothing at all! -Why doesn't the SWAT leader listen to the officer in charge when he tells them to stand down?

And this is only the first 10 minutes. It keeps getting worse and worse.

-The whole romantic / love interest story (with the 'he wasn't just a better cop, he was a better man' remark to finish it of) is painful to watch. It's just pointless -Why would Statham's character point out the change in camera position in the footage reviewed from the bank. This essentially leads to finding the 'virus' that will get him all the money. -Why go through the trouble of forging some guys signature and killing him, but then NOT kill the guy that can identify you.

I could go on for ages (really), but it's like this movie is... pointless. The whole script is a mess. The 'smart' references to chaos theory are really laughable and quite pathetic. The plot 'twists' can be seen from miles away and the lead characters seem to be making mistakes all the time. It is really painful to watch a movie like this, where the audience is taken for granted as dumb popcorn crunching people, of which the director hopes they won't see all the plot holes and the over-all ridiculous script. The 'explanation scene' at the end only adds to insult. It is really, really not a good movie. In any way.

People who come to see an action film don't get what they come for. People who come to see a cop-buddy movie don't get it. People who come to see a smart thriller don't get that. In essence, everyone gets the same - a huge disappointment and a waste of time and money. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.


Obvious tailored vehicle for Ryan Philippe. It seem the studios were hoping he could play a lead tough cop and not look like he's eternally 16 (he can't).

Heavyweights Jason Statham and Welsey Snipes serve as bookends to Phillippe, but when they're not on the screen Phillippe flounders; his shallow acting style has nothing to bounce off of.

The script is a typical late 20th century potboiler good cop/bad cop with a ridiculously predictable plot and dialogue lifted out of 1970s TV cop shows, such as "The Streets of San Francisco." Snipes reprises his role as the eternal black-hat villain, playing a slightly less crazed madman than his Demolition Man role. However, there wasn't much for Snipes and Statham to chew on. Statham's character announces he'd given up nicotine and caffeine - something this movie badly needed injections of.

Truly forgettable moment: Ryan Phillippe expounding on Buddhist dogma: Galloway: Are you a Buddhist? Dekker: No. It's just something I picked up along the way.


I have just watched this movie on DVD late this morning and was so disappointed that even thought it was a good joke for the audience. In other words - the creators planed to make comedy not drama. Howsoever, at the end I realized that Mr. Tony Giglio was earnest about this movie. It's a pity because: the dialogue is ridiculous, the acting is poor and lifeless, the story is a fishy tale! Poor Ryan Phillippe - despite of his efforts his character in the movie remains probably his worst performance! What to say for Jason Statham - lack of all kinds of skills to develop the role which is an imaginary fiction... For this reasons I vote: 3/10


The film "Chaos" takes its name from Gleick's 1988 pop science explanation of chaos theory. What does the book or anything related to the content of the book have to do with the plot of the movie "Chaos"? Nothing. The film makers seem to have skimmed the book (obviously without understanding a thing about it) looking for a "theme" to united the series of mundane action sequences that overlie the flimsy string of events that acts in place of a plot in the film. In this respect, the movie "Choas" resembles the Canadian effort "Cube," in which prime numbers function as a device to mystify the audience so that the ridiculousness of the plot will not be noticed: in "Cube" a bunch of prime numbers are tossed in so that viewers will attribute their lack of understanding to lack of knowledge about primes: the same approach is taken in "Chaos": disconnected extracts from Gleick's books are thrown in make the doings of the bad guy in the film seem fiendishly clever. This, of course, is an insultingly condescending treatment of the audience, and any literate viewer of "Chaos" who can stand to sit through the entire film will end up bewildered. How could a film so bad be made? Rewritten as a novel, the story in "Chaos" would probably not even make it past a literary agent's secretary's desk. How could (at least) hundreds of thousands (and probably millions) of dollars have been thrown away on what can only be considered a waste of time for everyone except those who took home money from the film? Regarding what's in the movie, every performance is phoned in. Save for technical glitches, it would be astonishing if more than one take was used for any one scene. The story is uniformly senseless: the last time I saw a story to disconnected it was the production of a literal eight-year-old. Among other massive shortcomings are the following: The bad guy leaves hints for the police to follow. He has no reason whatsoever for leaving such hints. Police officers do not carry or use radios. Dupes of the bad guy have no reason to act in concert with the bad guy. Let me strongly recommend that no one watch this film. If there is any other movie you like (or even simply do not hate) watch that instead.


Bank heist / Cop thriller sounds OK right?

Chaos looks good: nicely framed, good production values, high concept action heist...

But...

The plot has the unique achievement of being both smart and incredidly, blatantly implausible in the "how we actually got the money" mode and overcomplicated in the "who done it and why" section at the same time...

In addtion, Ryan Philippe shouting is NOT, seriously NOT either tough or scary...and he is especially not tough or scary when throwing a tizzy fit. Honestly, his great outburst is the only really funny scene in the whole film. Must make him thrilled that he turned down the role of Anakin Skywalker and is now doing this....

Stratham is normally good as the tough but silent hard nut with the self-deprecating humor, but here, the extra relationship lines are so laughably bad that even he looks uncomfortable saying some of the clichéd mush required. More silent seems best?

Snipes is actually OK in a typecast way, but another nail in a talented actor's coffin: he needs an actor's role not an action hero rehash. Perhaps that business with his taxes will allow him to break that mold and the public and critics will let him on the sympathy vote. It would be good if he wasn't so typecast all the time.

The lines these guys speak when they're not doing the plot development and detective work can be summed up in one word.... pheeeuuuh.

The film feels all out of whack and it never gels: I found it irritating for the first 45 minutes, and the tighter last part was passable. It should /could have been good but it just can't redeem the awful lines, the overwhelming score, and the general level of irritation with the levels of plausibility.

Overall I nearly didn't make it through: incredibly irritating, and Ryan.... please, please, please get rid of the goldilocks....


How? I wondered why I hadn't seen this in theaters, or even a single commercial for it, and then after I saw the movie, I realized I was duped HARDCORE. I am a big Transporter fan, and a big Blade fan, so when I saw this I imagined some killer fight scene between two badasses, lots of gunplay, a whole bunch of stuff. Instead, I got the Ryan Phillippe movie with a brief cameo by Statham and Snipes. The guy that does the audio and video in the crime lab got more screen time than Wesley. It was like renting a Jackie Chan movie expecting a bunch of kung fu and getting Erin Brockavich. I expect bad movies from Hollywood, but actors like Snipes and Statham should treat the fan base better.


How much can you really say about a condom with teeth? The plot was really out there, but it was something campy to see on a Friday night. The story has a lot of unexpected twists, and it's a great way to offend all you're conservative friends!


Yet another "gay" film ruined by asinine politics. Luigi's final speech just about sent me running out of the theatre with its bumper-sticker epigrams. Read the comic book it was based on for a much more entertaining experience.


I'd love to write a little summary of this movie's plot, but...there simply isn't one! If you just take a look at the plot keywords for this title, you pretty much know the entire content of the film: sex, breasts, exploitation, female frontal nudity and women's prison! 80 minutes of pure sleaze and nothing more. "Escape of the Island Women" (an alternate title that isn't even listed here) clearly wanted to become another notorious and controversial woman-in-prison classic, but it totally lacks the brutality of one. WIP-flicks are meant to blend graphic sexual images with shocking violence, but the violence here has just been replaced with more sex. Director Erwin Dietrich surely can't compete with specialists in the field, like Jess Franco or Joe D'Amato, and he should have sticked to making ordinary soft-core flicks. The only aspects that slightly look like cult-cinema are the resemblance of the tyrant-president with Fidel Castro and the group-rape of a (minor?) girl by soldiers. The girls are ravishing, though, and the Ibiza filming location looks very enchanting.


Another example of the women-in-prison genre. This is not exactly a genre known for quality films, but this is a notch below most. A bunch of women are taken from the bordellos where they work to a prison on a rocky island. Once there, they are subjected to lots of poorly directed sex and atrocious "dialog." For a film with an astounding amount of sex and nudity there is really nothing erotic about any of it. The sex scenes are awkwardly acted, and some scenes, like the shower scene, seem to drag on and on. That said, there are at least some minimal production values. On the W-i-P scale I would put it above Frauen fur Zellenblock Neun, but below Chained Heat.


I've come to realise through watching this sort of film that I don't like them very much. Caged Women is yet another 'women in prison' film, and like the most of the rest of the genre; the plot is completely forsaken in favour of simply showing nude women. Now don't get me wrong; I love nude women, but I also like there to be some sort of plot thread to go with the nudity, and since this film has only the basic 'women are in prison' theme running through it (aswell as the essential escape, of course), I got a bit bored before the end. The film is good because there's barely a moment in it where the women are wearing clothes, but that's about the only positive element. Director (and writer, ha ha) Erwin C. Dietrich delights in showing close-ups of the naked female body, but it's never very erotic. The director was the producer on a number of trash flicks, including some directed by Jess Franco. In my opinion, he should stick to producing as his writing talents are non-existent, and he doesn't seem to know how to film a sex scene. This sort of material is rather dry a lot of the time, but I reckon Franco could have made more out of it. Overall, this might suffice for people that are really into this sort of stuff; but I can't say I enjoyed it.


Much like Tinto Brass ("Caligula"), the people who made this movie can't tell the difference between explicitness and eroticism. No build-up at all, just throw naked women on the screen; no, it doesn't work that way. If close-ups of female genitalia aren't your thing, prepare to be looking away from the screen at many points (I often did). The "all women are whores at heart" mentality of the movie is offensive, and the "story" is by turns absurd and boring (the escape is the most boring part!). But halfway through there is a random scene that pops out of nowhere and involves one of the (female) prisoners and one of the (male) guards in a nude wrestling match, which she wins with a couple of judo moves. Although the choreography of the fight is bad, the whole scene is undeniably memorable. In fact, that scene and the nice cinematography are the only two reasons I give this film * out of 4, instead of 0.


This music is totally out of touch with the film, showing up now and then as wagnerian bombast and Lone Ranger hurry-up, otherwise nonexistent. The acting, outside of the two principals, is nonexistent. It would have been an excellent student film. The Russian soldiers are just models trying to act. The constant interruptions with wow-explosive-camera angles and monocolor clips of pieces of people were quite irritating, but that's just a personal feeling. The story line isn't worse than others, actually not worse than most, completely ignoring logic and reason and reality. At least nobody walked in front of a machine gun for three minutes without being hit. The three top-level bad guys were campy.


I admire the effort of trying to reach out to the rest of the world with this tragic story. However, the movie is done SO BADLY that most people I know couldn't sit through it. The movie was relevant to me since I lived in Estonia when these events took place, but it is written horribly and fails to capture the attention of someone who knows nothing on the matter. The music choices do not flow well with the movie, it seems as if someone just turned a CD player on in the background to put the actors "in the mood". The acting... well, what acting? The only people acting are Jürgen Prochnow and Donald Sutherland, even though Prochnow seems uncomfortable in this role. As far as the relationship development goes between Erik Westermark (Jürgen Prochnow) and Julia Reuter (Greta Scacchi), it is like watching a train wreck. There is absolutely no chemistry and it is painful to witness their "sincere moments." This is not a good movie. There is a difference between trying to get a message out (could've been a documentary!) and trying to make a good movie. This is a failure and anyone here who says otherwise makes me wonder if they are trying to promote it. As a matter of fact, as a native of Estonia I am offended by this miserable effort. This tragedy deserves more than just a homemade low-budget ghost chase excuse of a movie. This could have been much more!


Controversial German journalist Jutta Rabe who herself got divers to the Estonia wreck, put this silly "thriller" together to save her investment.

Donald Sutherland is of course always watchable - but he's only in three scenes. He delivers his material perfectly - as you can ask from a professional. Also, the main lead, Jürgen Prochnov, is at times very good.

The rest of the cast is, however, bad. The actress that plays the Swedish minister secretary (or whatever she was - she seems not listed in the cast) is EXTREMELY bad.

The script has some nice ideas, and the story is actually kind of interesting. The final screenplay should have been re-written a couple of more times though. Some scenes are plain ridiculous - especially the end scenes.

The film is almost 2 hours, which is about 45 minutes too long. Presented as a 60 minutes TV-film, this could have been really interesting. As a two hour feature, it's pretentious, boring, stupid and plain out silly.

Jutta Rabe might be a good journalist (her ideas about governments using Estonia to transport military items from Estonia to Sweden have been concluded as true recently, when the Swedish military officially said that they actually used the ship Estonia for this), but as a film producer she sucks.

The director, the writer and the actors suck more.

I give this film 3/10. I would've given it a 1, if it wasn't for the fact that the story is quite interesting at times, Donald Sutherland is in it and it has real stock footage.

But we don't even see the boat sink! What kind of movie about a ship that sinks is that? Like a werewolf movie without werewolves...


I have to admit, I picked this movie just for the cast, and while Sutherland, Scacchi, and Prochnow were - as usual - great performers, the rest of the movie was such a let down. It feels like it was put together by a team of adolescents with low level scripts, that is, scripts lacking any depth, awful photography and editing, and hilariously lousy score! I can't believe I was able to watch this seemingly long movie until the end... the sad thing is, this could have actually been a great political thriller given the interesting plot. All the potential was there to make it a hit; that is, two main ingredients are there: a great story of national conspiracies, and a great core cast (even though many other actors are pretty much soap opera quality). But maybe I'm missing something; until then it's still not worth more than a 3 in my opinion.


Clossius says that "Baltic Storm" is banned in Sweden. That is not correct! Instead you can buy the film almost everywhere, like in gas stations, shopping malls, internet (of course) and so on. Often to a very low price because this movie is so BAD and nobody wants to see it, despite all the tricks to keep up the interest. The movie only appeals to conspiracy theorists, psychos and other persons living in la-la-land and those who "knows the truth".

Working on a museum with the Estonia disaster as a theme I have meet them all! I have heard about every theory that exists like cocaine-smuggling, weapon-smuggling, biological warfare, nuclear smuggling, red mercury, aliens, the Russian- the American- the Estonian- the Swedish- and the Finnish intelligence, often in different combinations.

Some normal persons have asked why we don't show the film? A question only asked by them who haven't seen this terrible nonsense movie.

Once again, "Baltic Storm" is not banned in Sweden. It has some entertaining qualities but what a hell is Donald Sutherland doing in this movie?


This is a really obnoxious show. It is in fact an example of how low television has fallen since 'reality' got in style. Tanya is pretty but she is also extremely rude and has awful taste. Is a house show the place for sex appeal? Apparently some males like the show because they find Tanya attractive. The other boss is not pretty but he's fully as rude and also has awful taste. It is unfortunate that so many houses have to be shown while someone is still living in them. Most of the people who are allegedly viewing these houses before changes are made should be moving into brand new houses or completely empty ones so they will not be insulting anyone. Most of them ..like the 'crew'..need to be taught manners. I can imagine how awful the British show is since the British reality shows tend to be even worse when it comes to manners and taste.

What happened to the Arts and Entertainment channel? When it started out (and for some years afterward) it was filled with treats. Now it's one big trash machine.


Angel-A is a change of pace for Besson; monochrome, mawkish and rather mediocre. It is well photographed on location in Paris, although subtitle-readers should note: quick-fire dialogue AND good cinematography may make for frustrating viewing.

This film is no "Wings of Desire" or "Wonderful Life". Despite its shared themes (heavenly intervention averts suicide, angel/mortal relationships ensue), Besson does nothing to enlighten or inspire us. Even the well acted, teary moments, rapidly descend into toe-curling sentimentality.

The film's flawed ideology irritates; an Angel whose message of love and respect for self is constantly undermined by her own violent and promiscuous behaviour; a "happy ending" which negates the hero's supposed journey from helplessness to self-esteem and independence.

Verdict: Quite nice to look at but confused moral and philosophical messages tarnish the film precisely where it should shine. 4/10


Having spent the six years previous writing and producing, Luc Besson returns to the directors chair with Angel-A. I'm a huge fan of Léon, and quite liked the prospect of a black and white French film from the same chap.

André is a liar and gambling addict, owing money to almost every loan shark in Paris. Unable to repay his debts, and fed up with being held over the edge of the Eiffel Tower, he decides to kill himself. He happens to do so at the same time as a mysterious woman, who he decides to save. Determined to thank him, she begins to help him fix his own life.

The film starts with some laughs, which run well throughout. The visuals are quite nice and work well with the sights of Paris. But that is it. That's all the film has got going for it. And these mere two facets can do nothing to hold back the torrent of terrible film-making the movie unleashes. Though I can't hugely fault the main character (his inconsistencies are close though), the eponymous one is ghastly. A terrible screen presence and bitterly annoying. The plot is ridiculously inconsistent itself, and at times bizarrely silly, particularly the ending; an ending which completely bloodied the fledgling redemption engendered by the scenes immediately prior to it. Perhaps the most ridiculous scene I've had the ignominy of observing, it is stupid, indulgent, melodramatic, and considerably too awful to be "so bad it's funny". The overall premise of the film could conceivably have once held potential, but it is brutally massacred by the unendingly terrible implementation of its ideas. The film really was a task to watch, and one which had me screaming at the screen the whole way through.

Massively and immeasurably flawed, Angel-A is just plain bad. Though its occasionally fun dialogue manages to draw out chortles at rare intervals, by the end it is clear that this film is nothing more than repugnant.


Mr. Moto's Gamble has a fairly straight forward plot - when a boxer is murdered in the ring with a mysterious poison, it's up to the even more mysterious Mr. Moto to solve the case.

I'm shocked at the number of positive reviews for Mr. Moto's Gamble on IMDb. Because to me...well, I found it extremely disappointing. I enjoy Mr. Moto and I enjoy Charlie Chan, but I can't say I cared for this mish-mash of the two. For those unfamiliar with the story behind Mr. Moto's Gamble, it was originally intended to be a Charlie Chan film. But when Warner Oland backed-out, some of the scenes and action were rewritten for Peter Lorre and Mr. Moto. As I indicated, the end result left me underwhelmed. Mr. Moto is not Chan. He's more mysterious, he's more athletic, and he's more exotic. So trying to put Moto in a Chan film is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - it doesn't work. And listening to Lorre/Moto try to deliver one of Chan's trademark euphemisms just ends up sounding silly. Add to that the fact that almost 10 minutes of the already brief 72 minute runtime is made up of boxing scenes (something that I never seem to enjoy) and you end up with a movie that I couldn't help but dislike. If I have to say something positive I would point to the performance of Keye Luke. But even he's not near enough to save Mr. Moto's Gamble in my eyes.

Sorry, but a 4/10 is about the best I can give this one.


This isn't a dreadful film, merely insipid. The plot is deeply flawed and implausible. It tries to be a number of genres and fails at each. It fails as a comedy, as a suspense thriller and as a horror movie. It almost succeeds as science fiction. The direction is uninspired and Katie Holmes, cute cherub face that she is, should be modeling teen clothing, not acting. The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 1 out of 10 is Helen Mirren. Her performance is fabulously nefarious and is (almost) worth suffering through the rest of it. Her ability to transmute from imperious to faux sympathetic to deviously manipulate and control her prey shows masterful range. Other than Marissa Coughlin's delightful Exorcist rendition, Mirren is the only reason to see this movie. A solid 3.0.


Sorry for any spoilers that this contains. But if you want to read on anyway: I really wonder why so many people are so high on Kevin Williamson. Let's just take a quick look at his work as a screenwriter, shall we? There's Scream 1 and 2 (plus the story for the next one), which I think are pretty funny but very overrated. Besides, by making Scream into a franchise, it ceased to become a parody of horror movies and simply became another one. Then there's I Know What You Did Last Summer, which is essentially the same movie again. He co-wrote Halloween: H20, but even he had the sense not to take credit for what he did on that monstrosity. Then comes The Faculty, which I can only say was god-awful. (Lots of fun to make fun of, though). Don't even get me started on the ridiculous, soap-operatic Dawson's Creek, I could rail about how bad that is for hours. So then we get to Teaching Mrs. Tingle. First of all, there are tons of little implausibilities in this one. For example: in most high schools that I know of, the valedictorian is NOT the only one who gets to go to college! This idea that Katie Holmes's character would never go anywhere unless she was valedictorian was absurd. Haven't you ever heard of financial assistance, damn it!? Also, I don't think you get expelled from high school or don't get into college because of cheating on one test. There are a bunch of other ones, but I'll skip to the big one now. The ending really bothered me: they committed a crime, but it was ok because the teacher was a bitch. Great. Do you know how many of my teachers I could kidnap based on that logic? I'm sure the police never took any statements to find out the whole story, either. That sure wouldn't be necessary. Helen Mirren was good, she added some nice flair to a character who (as a previous commenter noted) had NO reason for anything she did. And has anyone else noticed that Katie Holmes absolutely can't act? Her self-righteousness became incredibly annoying. "You wanted me to fail. Blah blah blah." Her last two scenes with Mrs. Tingle were the worst. The only reason I don't regret losing $8.25 on this disaster is because she got beaten up a bit. No, wait, I do regret losing the money: it wasn't real, and she survived. Mr. Williamson, if you're reading this, you've made the same movie (some violence and/or scary stuff offset by wise-ass kids who make sarcastic jokes and references to other movies) just a FEW too many times now (I count 6 so for, not including Scream 3 and whatever follows it), and I would really appreciate it if you would stop. Otherwise, I might just have to kidnap you and threaten YOU with a crossbow. Ok? :-)


History teacher Mrs Tingle seems to have it in for student Leigh Ann Watson, who has her heart on achieving a writing school scholarship. She receives another low grade from Tingle, which doesn't help. When one of her classmates Luke steals the paper of the final history exams and pops it in her bag, Mrs. Tingle finds it sticking out. She threatens the three that she will go to the principal about it, but he's not available. So before she reports it the next morning. Leigh, her friend Jo Lynn and Scott head to her place that night and try to convince her not tell the principal. However due to Tingle's stubbornness, that find themselves reverting to drastic measures to stop this getting out.

Wasn't fan of it when I first saw it, and after another viewing, I'm still not one. Writer Kevin Williamson was on a roll after penning the successful contemporary teen horror films; 'Scream (1996)', 'I Know What You did Last Summer (1997)', 'Scream 2 (1997)' and 'The Faculty (1998)'. He was riding the success (also not to forget the TV show 'Dawson's Creek), but this project would be the final bump. The difference there, compared with this entry was other then writing the screenplay, he was also making his debut in directing. The strange thing though, was that I found his direction to be competently done, but material he stormed up to flavourless and tired. It seemed to get caught in playing both a black comedy and straight-out thriller, without making it gel. The script is cluttered with quick-wit, on-going gags, trivial stretches and gimmicky references towards other films, but the problem is that it's too watered-down with so many contrived developments and sappy moral currents disrupting the flow. The fractured script had to be more strong and potent, since it's a small-scale production that feels like you're watching a stage show because of its mostly confined sets. It tries to play mind games with the characters, but these moments are there to only serve the story's poor progression into a puddle of stupidity and senselessness. The film's ending takes the cake. Williamson's polished direction is sound, but more so in a pedestrian way and therefore it lacks suspense and the pacing even with its taut surroundings can really plod on. You eventually feel it after the halfway mark, and it shows up how minor the story is. The performances are tolerable enough, although if it weren't for Helen Mirren's classy, icy portrayal of manipulative prowess as Mrs. Tingle and a buoyant Marisa Coughlan, we would have been stuck watching a vapid goody-to-shoes Katie Holmes. Barry Watson is modest in his slacker part and Molly Ringwald has a lesser role. The soundtrack packs enough energy, but I found it terribly overwrought and shapeless in its choices.

Watchable, but mechanical all round.


I heard this movie was badThey even warned me it was terrible, but for some reason (probably Katie Holmes) I still watched it when it came on national TV. Watching Kevin Williamson films means torturing! His scenarios aren't funny, definitely not scary and not the least bit creative. Teaching Mrs. Tingle breathes the same irritating atmosphere as his brainless series `Dawson's Creek' and it's probably meant for the same target group as well. Before the credits even started, 5 people already wanted a hug and they stated that eerie `I love you'-sentence. It doesn't get any better as the soundtrack is filled with annoying pop/rock and the storyline is ultra-thin. Three students on the verge of graduation get caught cheating by the wickedest teacher in school. Every high-school has a teacher like that, you know To save their skin, they try to convince Mrs. Tingle that it wasn't their intention to cheat but this attempt goes horrible wrong. The typical high-school humor is completely lost on me, the overdose of sentiment is pathetic and the acting (with the exception of Helen Mirren) is abominable. I'm sure Katie Holmes can act  that's a fact proven by her role in `the Gift'  but she urgently needs to stop accepting frumpish girl roles. As said before, the only positive comments goes out to the brilliant casting of Helen Mirren as the shrew. It's like Kathleen Turner in `Serial Mom'! The role suits her perfectly and you can't imagine anyone else playing her. Other than that, this is avoidable teenage nonsense.