Once again Woody Allen seems to be completely devoid of any inspiration other than recycling himself. Here we have a mock documentary (like Zelig), the structure of the film is a series of anecdotes (Radio Days, Broadway Danny Rose) set in the 30's (Zelig, Purple Rose, Bullets over Broadway) about a low-life (Deconstructing Harry) who believes being a genius absolves him from being a jerk (ditto). Given this film and Deconstructing Harry, one wonders if this is Allen's justification for his own actions with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter; yes, I was a jerk, but I'm a genius so you gotta love me.

 Allen has only produced two good movies in the past ten years; the fine but overpraised Bullets over Broadway, and the excellent but largely ignored Manhattan Murder Mystery. His other efforts range from trifles (New York Stories, Mighty Aphrodite), to edgy yet experimental (Husbands and Wives), to pure drek (Alice, Scenes from a Mall, Shadows and Fog, Celebrity, Deconstructing Harry). His films no longer even try to have a narrative arc, and his humor seems to aim at wryly amusing, not funny. After Deconstructing Harry I stopped seeing his films in theaters; after Sweet and Lowdown I may stop renting them as well.


CAMP BLOOD

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1 (Nu-View 3-D)

Sound format: Mono

Whilst hiking in woodland near the deserted Camp Blackwood - site of an unsolved murder ten years earlier - four young city-dwellers are targeted by a masked psychopath who kills their guide (Courtney Harris) and stalks them through the woods with murderous intent...

Low-rent time-waster, filmed on camcorder utilizing the Nu-View field sequential 3-D format. There's a plot, at least, but the script adheres closely to an established blueprint (with obvious nods to the likes of "Friday the 13th", "The Burning" and "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre") without adding anything even remotely new or interesting to the formula. Director Brad Sykes - also responsible for similar 3-D efforts like THE ZOMBIE CHRONICLES (2001) and BLOODY TEASE (2002) - cites the early works of George A. Romero and Sam Raimi as key influences on his career, but while those filmmakers challenged the mainstream with their no-budget efforts, Sykes uses video technology merely to imitate his cinematic heroes, resulting in a home movie with delusions of grandeur. Aside from the 3-D format, there is NOTHING here to warrant anyone's attention. Followed by CAMP BLOOD 2 (2000).


Apparently the writer and director of this direct-to-DVD slasher movie is a fan of Friday 13th and other summer camp slashers. This movie has everything - a group of teenagers who want to spend the weekend with fun, alcohol and sex in an abandoned summer camp called "Camp Blood", the old man who warns them not to go there; and of course the crazy killer with the machete who keeps on slashing and hacking at the teenagers without any reason at all... The whole thing could have worked if it had been shot on 35 mm film with acceptable Special Effects. But instead the Special Effects are poorly done. The killer walks around as if he's out on a Sunday afternoon stroll, and the only good things about this movie are the acting of the talented main actress and the sex scene at the beginning. Other than that - dull and forgettable. Jasper P. Morgan


The cover case and the premise that write there is so promising. As slasher maniac I expect much from this. But, what the heck is going on. The movie is awful. The direction, the plot, the suspense and the act of the casts is so amateurish. I even thought that they are using a home video camera to shot it. Lucky that it still manage to deliver some good moments to me that make me have to like it. Thanks for the bad package of so-called "Camp Blood".

1/10


WARNING!!! SOME POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS, AS IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE!!!

Okay, if you haven't figured out the plot yet, I am going to give it to you. Two couples head out to a camping site, but a clown masked killer shows up and causes all sorts of mayhem.

Now it is time for me to give these couples some advice.

1. Never, ever go to camp dubbed Camp Blood by the locals. 2. Don't have sex or make out in front of the killer. 3. Don't go chasing after the killer if he or she runs away. 4. Don't yell profanity at the killer. 5. Make sure your cellular phone works before you go camping. 6. Everybody needs to bring a sharp or dangerous weapon and carry it on themselves at all times. 7. Wear loose and comfortable clothing and bring a good pair of running shoes. No tight and binding clothing and no high heels or sandals. 8. Wear glasses or contact lenses if you need them so you don't stab the wrong person. 9. Always carry your car keys on you. 10. Put out a camp fire when you go to bed. 11. Watch your step. If you trip on something, your going to break a bone. 12. Check the backseat for uninvited guess. 13. If the killer has you cornered, at least put up a struggle.

And guess what? At least one, but usually all four of the main characters breaks all of these common sense rules. They are the dumbest characters ever to grace a film.

Now for some brief comments. This slasher film was on a very tight budget. So low four of the 7 or 8 actors play more than one role. The acting, writing, direction, sound, lighting, camera work, plotting, editing, etc. are all bottom of the line. But like the classic film JACK O this works on a sooooooooo bad, it is very entertaining and campy fun level. So rent this and have a good time and laugh. My rating: 5 out of 10.


Its difficult to be too tough on Brad Sykes, a hard-working guy doing what he loves, there is an honesty about him that seems often lacking with other microbudget directors. Check out the minuscule crew credits on Camp Blood, there is none of the usual thanking everyone down to the pizza joint they ate in, its Brad and his buddies and thats it, no pretentious rubbish. Jennifer Ritchkoff isn't your average horror flick heroine, but does well enough for you to hardly notice, Bethany Zolt looks like a star and Joseph Haggerty is so funny it hurts. The Clown is hardly an original horror film bad guy, but the design is good, Shemp Moseley does a decent job of bringing him to life and the image clashes nicely with the rural backdrop. Camp Blood is horror as blue collar and basic as it gets, not a good thing, not a bad thing, just a thing.


I am a fan of slasher movies, especially of Scream 1-3, but this one is just one killing after another. To my astonishment: Part II is far better and you get the whole story of part one summarized! So don't waste time on this one and move right on to part II, you won't regret it cause Part 2 actually has a PLOT and is quite self-ironical. First Part: 1 out of 10 Second Part: 4 out of 10


Camp Blood looked great when I was buying it, but when I watched it boy was I wrong. Its tacky, the acting is outrageous and the quality of the film is shocking. Being a movie fan, I usually find humour from tragic horror, but at times I couldn't even laugh. Maybe Camp Blood 2 will be an improvement.


Idiots go camping and act like idiots before they finally die like idiots, yes Camp Blood (or if you're wanting an awful, badder than bad pun that suits a badder than bad film, "Camp Bloody awful"), is so bad it's actually quite depressing to watch. And it has all the ingredients to be a perfectly bad film...

Awful acting-check. Bad script-check. Tacky effects-check no originality whatsoever-double check.

It doesn't even attempt to be different, and is riddled with every predicted cliché imaginable. For example, the film opens to a couple having sex in the woods, so of course they end up dead.

One of the most disturbing things is that this film actually spawned two sequels, how and why only baffles the mind.

Just stay away from this one.


I must first mention that as a group of mates, we often find entertainment in wacthing films which are known to be terrible for comedy value, hence our rental of Camp Blood.

Camp Blood was the first film which we'd rented that had been shot on what looks to be a camcorder, and was so rubbish it wans't even funny.

The DVD was returned and a refund was demanded, with the added suggestion some sort of quality control is implemented to prevent such utter rubbish being stocked.

Don't do what I did, and let the curiosity get the better of you, it's so bad it's not even funny.


1st watched 7/19/2003 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Ridiculously lame 3D movie which pretty much follows the plots of many 80's teen slasher flicks. Stupid kids go to a known murderous camp site, become hunted by an unknown masked man, and then we try to figure out who, if anyone, is going to live. We really don't care who's behind the mask but even that's not hard to figure out if you've seen any of these kinds of movies. What a waste of a 3D viewer despite somewhat decent 3D effects.


Camp Blood is an absolutely atrocious slasher film. We're mixing Friday The 13th with the Blair Witch Project and adding....a killer in a clown mask.

The budget for this film must have been very low, some of the actors played multiple parts and the camera used produced a picture equal to the colourised version of the original Night Of The Living Dead, which if anybody has watched that version will back me up that it is poor.

This film was just so bad. There is nothing in the film even worth watching. The very fact I watched this all the way through stunned me. Just take my advice and don't buy or rent this film. It is appalling.


It's a puzzle to me how this turd of a film ever got distribution.

Sure, it's horror and there's a fair share of nudity, but by god, the production value is the lowest I've ever seen, the equipment used is worse than standard home equipment, everything is overlit, giving everything an amateurish look, bringing your thought to America's worst home video's or whatever that show was called..

Please people, is it too much to ask that you actually do an effort when you expect to waste 90 minutes of peoples lives watching this? You really should have done some short projects first cause it's obvious you're a bunch of amateurs! 1/10


How to round up every possible cliché and stereotype existing in the genre of horror and then subsequently stuff them into one massively lousy movie? The answer: "Camp Blood". This is amateurish slasher nonsense made on a micro-budget and a little bit too obvious inspired by "Friday the 13th". Four of the most intolerable teenage characters you'll ever see  they're like a combination of ugly, stupid and annoying  go camping and quickly find themselves pursued by a homicidal maniac in a clown suit. Don't even ask me what the killer's motivations were or even who he/she was, because if it did feature in the film, I totally missed it. This is one of the worst movies ever made, with no inspiration or craftsmanship whatsoever. The production values were so pitiable that there are actors playing multiple roles without even bothering to make them unrecognizable. The only half-decent and worthwhile sequence throughout the whole of "Camp Blood" is the opening in which the impressively voluptuous Meredith O'Brien has sex in the woods with her geeky boy scout. Yes, I'm fully aware that this is a totally shallow remark to make, but then again this is a juvenile and retarded film, so who cares?


Yes sure, this is a Friday the 13th rip off but I have no problem with it. It's a good effort, the killings aren't that gory but the acting of one girl carries the movie, what a scream queen, Jennifer Ritchkoff. For a low budget movie the effects are nicely done, okay, sometimes you can guess how it is done. Some people have problems with the use of the camera, I can't see what's wrong with that. It's so strange that so many people dislike this movie, I really enjoyed it. Of course the script isn't original but give me one that is, I mean, so many slashers are made in the woods. maybe it is all predictable but it's a worth see, I have seen a lot worser, I can tell you that


But I can't say how I really feel about this pile of steaming dung. Where to begin. The film quality, there isn't any. I've seen clearer pictures on America's FUNNIEST HOME VIDEOS! The acting is substandard, the gore effects is okay. The clown mask is the best part of this movie, the story is repetitive. The same thing over and over again. At least in a Friday THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN we stick with one main character for the most part. There is no main characters, just victims. Man, now we come to the worst part of all. The final survivor kills the clown and finds out it was one of her friends. Then when the police finally arrive, they don't believe her and she is locked up in a rubber room. What kind of ending do you call that, crap, that's what. In my opinion, there is no excuse for a bad ending in a horror movie, that was just sloppy writing. The excuse, "It has to ending badly, it's a horror movie." or "We need to end it badly to leave it open to a sequel" are just lame excuses and that is all. I must give the CAMP BLOOD the THANKSGIVING TURKEY.


well, what can i say. WHAT THE F**K? There really isn't much to say about this, really. The only way you would like this is if u, like me, like bad bad horror to laugh at.

ACTING- VERY UNCONVINCING! Just watch the last scene with the main actresses running! Rip-off of Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE! but in a bad way! Just awful!

Gore- Really not believable. In one scene they use one of those knives which have a chunk cut out of them which fit over a body part etc. By using this,with the addition of red ketchup, its supposed 2 look real, although it really doesn't.

Plot- predictable 'kids get lost in woods on camping weekend' movie ripped off from Friday the 13th.

Killer Quality- scary mask if you're scared of clowns, kinda unbelievable that someone would chose this as their costume however. The director obviously realised all the good costumes had been used in all the other horror-camp movies out there.

TOTAL- 3/10 */***** p.s- stay away from CAMP BLOOD II, that one made this look like LORD OF THE RINGS.


Yeah i bought camp blood and it wasted about 86 minutes of my life and 5 pounds of my money on this crap, I mean i didn't expect an amazing movie, judging by the front cover i wasn't really expecting anything great but at least not boobies in the first 3 seconds (I'm not complaining about the boobies..) I'm complaining about what the hell that has to do with anything? this film should have been kept on there hand cam at home as a joke....they suck..why was the blood more brown and turd like that real blood?...cheap i tells ya i mean everyone wasn't in colour they were just tinted yellow, And another thing that made me die laughing at this sad excuse for a film was the fact that they tried to pretend the clown was a woman all the time, although its clearly a flat chested black short haired man...did anyone else notice that the only special effect in this film was a slowed down jump..that was also poor oh and the dissolve effect that you can find on many basic p.c programs such as...powerpoint....this film blows


83 minutes? Nope, this thing is 72 minutes, tops.

If you cannot guess the killer in this movie, you had better throw your TV out the window, because you ain't learned nothing in 20+ years of cinematic slasher history.

And how come the plain star who never gets naked is always the one you want to get naked?


I only gave this film a 4 because I saw it in 3-d. If you don't see it in 3-d, I give it a 2. This movie is so bad it's not funny. Anyone can make a film like this for a weeks pay. Bad acting,effects and story!!! But it was cool to watch in 3d. Why can't they make good movies in the 3-d format???


I was thrilled by the fresh (pun intended) synopsis of this film and looking forward to watch it. The first few shots introduce some of the characters as well as the main location where the stories take place; the gardening allotments. The movie looks fantastic. Colorful yet simple. Magical yet genuine. Unfortunately, it only takes a few minutes to figure out where the movie will go. We quickly figure out this will be a manipulative, sappy tale illustrating a bunch of jaded people set in their ways confronted by "nice victimized" refugees and that it will have a happy ending where the jaded people realize the error of their ways and accept these people.

The characters, particularly the prejudiced ones, are very "comic-booky" in nature. The story focuses mainly on two refugee families. One of them is headed by a single mom played atrociously by Diveen Henry. I am saddened to say that any emotion that might have been felt toward her struggles were defused by what was memorably bad acting.

The other story is much more interesting and focuses on a father and his two children. All are scarred by their journey to this country by way of containers, where the wife and mother died but it is the husband who suffers the most. Benedict Wong gives a mind-blowing performance here. At first, his emotions are very subdued but as the story develops, he subtly makes us aware of the inner-struggles of his character.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is just extremely boring. There were so many possibilities with this movie. There are several characters to keep track of, many of which might have potential but none of it is realized. Even worse, despite this movie being very much not Hollywoodian, some of the main plot threads are solved cheaply in a Hollywood b-grade way. Example:

Character A likes character B Character B rejects his advances No problem! Let's have character C declare her love for character A so we can all have a happy ending. Yawn.

I liked very much the plot thread of the Asian family. That was well done. Unfortunately, the whole allotment business, the communal aspect of it, the dynamic involving a large cast are all under exploited.

What you're left with is a movie that has very little worth.


Empty shortening of John Irving's novel strives for profundity courageously but ends up being absurd. It's a quirky, goofy and bittersweet string of sketches, attempting to explain a man's growth from birth to adulthood and how he deals with the vices of lust and fanaticism that surround him. Garp is born to a formidable unmarried mother, Jenny Fields, played by Glenn Close.(The various stages of Garp's childhood are played by three young actors before Robin Williams takes over as Garp reaches adulthood.) The story follows him through childhood at a boys' prep school, where Jenny is the school nurse, through his high school passions-wrestling,writing,and sex-to marriage with his high school sweetheart, children, marital problems and a writing career. Jenny meanwhile has become a famous feminist , espousing an unorthodox cause. The plot details an abundance of comic and tragicomic episodes and outlandish adventures. Williams gives a cherub-faced performance. This script was not fitting for his wildness and anarchy and thus his talent was wasted. He's like an injured bird sputtering out of control. John Lithgow's role as a father like transsexual, imparting wisdom, also doesn't make sense. This movie was able to attract some reasonable attention in 1982, due to the popularity of Robin Williams and his new entry into movies. Williams had recently shed his Mork and Mindy pursuits and focused more on stand-up comedy and movies. Audiences were confused by this film, especially by its arbitrary and inexplicable ending.


Who the heck is responsible for this terrible mangling of one of my favorite books? This is just terrible. terrible acting, terrible script. The story isn't even close to its old self - and what were they thinking? Robin Williams, for Gosh's sake! This really defies description. Don't see this. Seriously, don't. Not even for laughs. Especially not if you're a fan of the book. This might just be the worst movie adaptation ever - everything is disjointed and scrambled - the characters which are important in order to understand the sequence of events are seriously marginalized, and every potentially interesting location from the book has been changed (example: Vienna - New York) into something profoundly uninteresting.

For those who haven't read the book - it's basically a fictional biography about a writer growing up, exploring his writing and so on. His mother writes an autobiography which is hailed (despite her protests) as a sort of feminist manifesto. The book is well-written, engaging, and long. Its prose is simply beautiful.

This movie, on the other hand, is about Robin Williams once again telling us to seize the day.


Tediously long dreary cinematic waffle. I couldn't believe how bad this film was. I watched it merely because of the numerous people who gushed about it on this site. Was I watching the same film? The entire episode is one-dimensional. Nothing that happened in Garps' past affected his (or anyone else's) future and no-one was affected by their past. I think it was Socrates who said about plays that if a scene can be removed from a play without having any effect, then it shouldn't be there. Obviously, the director didn't know this rule and, so, stuffed his 'work' with one dire scene after another. Even the plane crashing into the house was unexpected, it wasn't a surprise, but it was unexpected!

It is worth mentioning that at the time of writing this (1st Dec 2002), even though many people say it is one of their favourite films, no one has bothered to add a memorable quote. The reason being that there simply aren't any.

Don't waste your time watching this, watch a plank warp instead.


I went to see this movie at the theater and paid money thinking it would be at least mildly entertaining. The only thing I enjoyed about it was when Robin Williams crashes into the car at the bottom of the hill, and the end, when he seems to get killed. Glenn Close was obnoxious, and she obviously did not seem old enough to be Garp's mother. A mother like Garp's would have had her kids taken away by the Department of Children and Families.

Robin Williams and his glazed donut look of benign goodness is just too sweet and smarmy for me. He has two roles he can play: Funny person or sad, tragic, good-hearted victim. See the Fisher King, Good Morning Vietnam, and all of his so-called "dramatic" roles. It is always the same performance. Put them all together into one long mini-series. Glenn Close is always a cold fish. Remember Fatal Attraction? Would you have an affair with her even on your worst day and if you were single? Did you feel any sparks between her and Michael Douglas?? Have you ever seen Glenn Close warm up any screen?? John Lithgow had the only interesting role. This was back in the day when he used to play serial killers and bad guys, so seeing him as a transsexual was at least funny. Garp is made for all those people who love to see movies about sick, abnormal, dysfunctional people and then claim it is beautiful and profound.


I saw this film when it first came out and hated it. I just saw it again 27 years later. I actually liked some of it... although Robin Williams was totally wrong for the role... What I remember most about hating the film is that it was almost the complete opposite of what I had understood when I read the book. Since I haven't re-read it, I can only give you my impressions from the past - but I am sure of one thing - the film is a paean to family life, whereas in the book, almost ALL traditional institutions - including, and perhaps especially, marriage - are shown to be strait-jackets that we would be well rid of. The only positive in the book is the wondrous nature of children...something that only the very beginning and ending of the film really captures (with that incredibly gorgeous baby floating in the air. Too bad Williams doesn't have a tenth of his charm!) My low mark is therefore from the fact that the film misrepresents the book. As a film on its own it fares better - but only for a few key performances. Mary Beth Hurt is wonderful - I think anyone watching it would fall in love with her. And John Lithgow as an ex football player who has had a sex-change operation is fantastic... he never once camped it up or made the character anything but commendable - and as such his performance had an incredibly integrity. I watched him closely during all of his scenes, and never once was he anything except womanly. Nothing in his performance ever came near the performance of a drag queen... and that made all the difference. In fact, of all the people in the film, his is the only one which is irreproachable. It is worth seeing this film only for his performance.


It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.

The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.

HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.

The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.

Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.

It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring "workers" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.


This movie really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and "cleaverly" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.

Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.

It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it.


I thought that this movie might be a good spoof, or at least a good independent comedy like Friday. Instead it was more like something someone in high school would make with their parents' camcorder. It wasn't just the low budget that makes this film bad (many great films have been made on a low budget), it is simply a bad movie and it wasn't even bad enough to be good camp. Case in point: for the first ten minutes of the movie nothing happens except the 3 main characters sit in their room smoking dope, put on their makeup, and then answer a phone call. You keep waiting for something to get story moving, but it never comes. The sound was so bad I had to turn the TV up all the way just to almost make out what they were saying (which wasn't interesting anyways). If I pay to rent a movie I will usually suffer through it even when it's bad, but it was all I could do to sit through 20 minutes. It looks like the person before me felt the same way because they didn't rewind the tape and left off about the same place I did. The only reason I gave this a score of 1 is because the rating system doesn't have negative numbers.


"Carlito's Angels" is a spoof of "Charlie's Angels" that is not afraid to spoof even itself at times, however that does not mean that the film is above criticism by the viewers as well - it is amateurish and juvenile (I think "fast-motion" stopped being funny around 1914). The assaulting rap music often drowns out the dialogue, and the film feels longer than it is, even though it runs barely over an hour! The girls themselves are hot & adorable, with wonderful lean bodies, and even though they never get naked, their outfits leave little to the imagination. By checking out their IMDb pages, I found out that one of them (Alessandra Ramos) is actually going through with a film career; I wish her luck, because although this film is bad, she (as well as the other girls) gave it whatever energy it has and I wouldn't mind at all seeing her again on the screen. (*)


The opening scene really got me into watching the movie. However, not more than 5 minutes later, I was already gouging my eyes out. Not only could I not understand a word that was said, the acting could have been better by a group of mentally handicapped. The one highlight of this movie was that there was a punk white midget. However, I didn't quite get the connection on how a white midget was the child of two African Americans. But I guess anything is possible. Also, why the hell was Robin in the movie? I'm not sure that it added anything artistically. Overall, I would strongly recommend you jump off a cliff before you rent this movie.


They prove that the cops, when they can't find the REAL perpetrators, always blame the parents and accuse them of sexual abuse of their kids. These movies always depict the press as a bunch of animals and have the parents coming out of court to feed the press' hunger to humiliate the grief-stricken. Hasn't anybody ever heard of a courthouse back door in these movies? Here, you have a psychic who tells them exactly what happened and WHERE the body can be found, but the police are not told and nobody heeds his findings.

The police are portrayed as blockheads who don't know what they are doing and there's always an outside detective, like Ed Asner, who comes in late on the case, believes in the parents and solves the mystery.

Also, after the parents are cleared, they don't spit in the faces of the dumb cops who put them in jail, took their kid away and accused them of killing their own child.

It looked as if I've see this film MANY times before.


A Chicago couple, Dillon and Dougherty, are falsely accused of killing their daughter. People begin to wonder if they did it. The police investigate and find suspicious evidence. The couple are maligned by the public and accused in the press. The cops speculate that they are Satanists and have ritually murdered their own daughter. They are charged and brought to trial. They are represented by publicity-seeking lawyers who give them bad advice and bill them for $100,000. The evidence presented against them is twisted or hidden by the police. Fabricated intimations of sexual abuse are presented. Their other child is taken away from them and put in a foster home. Dougherty is pregnant and gives birth to find her baby removed. Verdict, she didn't do it but he did. He goes to the slams with a sentence of 45 years.

In the last third of the movie, with Dillon in jail and Dougherty wondering what to do next, we see people who have been antagonistic now slowly coming to the couple's defense. Witnesses admit to having lied. Other facts are brought to light that, finally, result in Dillon's release. The killer is never found, though the movie gives us a thorough whacko as a plausible perp.

This is a weeper from beginning to end. Nothing seems to go right for the couple. Oh, there are a few happy moment, maybe a party where everyone is glad to be together and tearing up with joy, or some point of evidence in their favor is discovered and people hug one another. But it's never long before someone rushes through the door with more bad news and all the faces are frozen in tragic disbelief. (Usually a fade to block follows.) There isn't necessarily anything wrong with moving tragedies, although I can't imagine what pleasure we get out of seeing people suffer. There's plenty of tragedy in Shakespeare too. I suppose whatever we find interesting about tragic stories lies in the way they're told. "Oh, but I am Fortune's fool!" Romeo cries after killing Juliet's brother. Here we have Dougherty running in her robe through a hospital corridor, screaming, "Where's my baby???" There isn't any ambiguity or irony in the story -- as I'm sure there must have been in the real life events on which it's based. People are either good or bad here. Or else they're bad, then they turn good.

The film isn't aimed at exploring human quirkiness, or the way things work out. It's aimed at wrenching tears from the audience. The actors provide first-rate role models. I can't remember the last movie in which I saw so many tears. There are rivulets of tears. Showers of them. Cascades of them. A veritable Niagara of them. A Lake Lacrymose of them.

Well, I'll give one example of the efficiency with which the movie is crafted. Dillon and Dougherty hire a Chicago cop who works on the side as a private investigator (Ed Asner). Asner is sympathetic to them but he doesn't really accomplish much. He seems to be in the movie not because of his importance to the case but because he can provide the victimized couple with a kind of philosophy -- "Learn to live with it," which is okay -- and because he suffers from colorectal cancer, so we can watch him take his medicine, double over with pain, and finally pass away.

What's frustrating about the movie is that in focusing so intensely on the suffering of the couple, it sidesteps one of the more important issues that it raises -- the function of gossip in regulating private lives.

Gossip is a strange thing really. If we call it "gossip" it's bad, but if we call it "public opinion" it sounds acceptable, at the very least. Of course we all have convictions about issues that may or may not be justified. (As I write, Michael Jackson is once again being brought to court accused of molesting a young boy, and I wonder how many of us thrilled at the news and immediately assumed he was a pedophile.) But gossip isn't all bad either. It's like water. When it's properly controlled it's a community asset. We need gossip to keep each other in line. It helps us to maintain public order. But, like water in a flood or a tsunami, it is ruinous to a village when it rages out of control.

This is a movie that's okay if you're not looking for too much in the way of insight into human nature. It's done so cleverly that, given its goal, it's hard to argue with it.


Some movies you watch and you say, "Well, that made no sense." And you don't really mean it. You're just saying things were overly complicated or slightly nonsensical.

"Bread And Circus" makes no sense at all. And I mean it. And that's not because it's surreal. From the start, it's pretty clear it's a feeble excuse to do splatter special effects. There's no script. There's no plot. There's no story of any kind. One event does not lead to the next -- that's how fundamental the bad writing is here.

So what? I mean, there are TONS of movies out there that fall into that category. They want to show you gore, they give you gore. Why even talk about it?

Because, in this case, "Bread and Circus" gave me hope. Okay, there are some surreal elements. Vaginas, in the ground -- people crawling out of them. The earth, in space, two legs on either side. These sorts of images are wonderful, fun, odd, crazy. But the movie doesn't do anything with them.

Stuff happens, the movie ends, and it's all very unsatisfying. I suspect the script was made up on the fly. Too bad. If there had been a story of ANY kind at all, it would have made for a much more entertaining film.

The film is very much like the beautiful car you would love to own. Then you lift up the hood and there's no engine. Just a small man peddling a bicycle.

GRR!


MARY, MARY, BLOODY MARY is an OK time killer. It has a uniformly attractive cast, the action is rarely dull. There are a lot of killings. And the production values are not bad. But in the end, it plays like a standard TV episode from the 1970s with some nudity thrown in. The film is the end product of an "author" trying to make a purely commercial film. There's very little depth here and the film spends too much time with chases and action scenes. Except for the scene on the beach with the old man, MMBM is almost devoid of any scares or suspense or dread. The director has very little understanding of the horror genre.

It's watchable even though it doesn't leave a lasting impression.


This movie made me so angry!! Here I am thinking that here's a new horror movie, one w/a sense of intelligence & then the movie starts. The scenery, the delivery of lines, the costumes, the fake gore, must I go on? There are porno movies out with better dialog than this. I understand the concept behind indie movies, but my goodness, this wasn't just indie this was a high school book report shot w/a camcorder & the cast are all friends & relatives. This is 1 movie that was doomed from its beginning. Maybe if it was 1982 instead of the new millennium this movie could fly. But it seems to me that someone hung a rock around this albatross's neck & it was sinking at a constant rate of speed.


I'm so glad he wasn't alive to see this. This movie is a debauchery of his work. I agree with the other commenter-- this movie was a terrible disappointment. I'd give it a zero, but am forced to give it a 1.

The story was weak, and it reminded me of the days when I was a young teenager trying to write a movie, then looking back on it and realizing how horrible it was. Bad actors, family and friends, and someone stupid enough to fund it was how it was made. It's really amazing how strings can be pulled to get anything done. If this movie was able to make it out to the general public it puts high hopes on other indie film makers who have talent worth a damn who're struggling! This movie made me laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. By all accounts this was seriously not meant to be a comedy. Scary movie is a better play on a horror genre-- this movie just sucks.


First, let me start off by saying this film SOUNDED very interesting: A serial killer copycatting the works of Edgar Allan Poe (who is one of my writers of all time). Sounds cool, right? Yeah, definitely not. Probably the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. And that's not an exaggeration. I've seen a lot of very, very bad movies. This one takes the cake. And I was even prepared for a bad movie before going into it.

Perhaps the writer should've studied some law enforcement procedure: If you have the name of the killer, his entire life's history, a criminal record, and HIS ADDRESS, where is the first place you should look? Hmm. . . possibly. . . his house? What?! NO! That's a preposterous idea, Anthony! How could you suggest something so obvious and level-headed rather than going to a bowling alley? *spoilers end* Honestly, sometimes I can forgive a movie if the writing is good but the acting is bad, or vice versa. . . but this just had everything wrong with it you could possibly find.

I think my biggest pet peeve was how the police/FBI acted.

For example: Black FBI Agent: "Okay, endangered female, just sit here in this car in an empty parking lot while I go inside and look around the potential crime scene where a serial killer is supposed to be. Sound good to you?" Moronic Female FBI Agent: "Yeah, sounds a-okay to me. Go right ahead. I'll be sure to not focus on my surroundings or at least check the perimeter." Black FBI Agent: "Excellent, that's what I would do!" Honestly, if you want to be in law enforcement, rent this movie so you can learn how not to act. . . or if you're a human and want to learn the same.

0.5/10: A half-point just for getting a film produced and in stores. Congrats.

-AP3-


A low budget may be an excuse for poor acting talent and pathetic looking fake gore. However, it is not an excuse for poor writing. It is a talent to be able to write dialog without making it sound forced and mechanical. The dialog in this movie was on par with most instructional videos shown to fast food staff in training.

I also understand that one must make a few exceptions when it comes to acting talent when you only have 20 bucks to spend on it. With that being said, no serious director would have looked at these scenes and said to himself, "that was perfect". I see better character acting on Canadian television.

This movie had a paper thin plot, bad acting, poor dialog and holds no intelligent ideas at all. This simply proves to me that some independent films are that way for a reason. If your looking for a quick scare, rent anything else. Even the "Cable Guy" was a scarier film. After watching this film, I think i would have been better off watching a re-run on the X-files.


This may be all you need to know in order to decide whether you want to see this.

The movie is bad. Really, really bad. And sometimes it seems to be aware of that and make fun of how bad it is. It aligns cliche after cliche and even manages to grow worse as it goes along with some moments that are bad enough to be hilariously funny.

If you can laugh about really poor quality in script writing and production values, you might enjoy it. Otherwise prepare for some serious brain damage.

3/10


Adventures in Dinosaur City, though a creative idea, was a nauseatingly atrocious attempt at filmmaking. Being sucked into a TV and into a new world is interesting. Three teens obsessively enthralled with half-animated dinosaurs is not. Don't waste the time or the brain power to see this sure loser. I wouldn't even let my kids watch it.


1st watched 8/7/2004 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Brett Thompson): Silly, juvenile-focused movie about three kids being zapped into their favorite cartoon with their parents experiment. The script left much to be desired in this Hanna-Barbara like rip-off of some Saturday morning 'live-action with people in dinosaur costumes kids show' with some goofy cavemen hanging around. Nothing really to admire about this and nothing much to be said either. I'm just amazed I found this at a Blockbuster video store as bad as it was and the way the stores are ridding themselves of old VHS movies. I guess they couldn't even sell it, so back on the rental rack it went.


This movie was in one word. Terrible. First of all the people who invented that thingie that puts you in the TV, are slightly insane! Secondly, the three teens are so obsessed with the show, it's scary! The movie was stupid, and no effort or thought was put into it!


One of the worst movies I've seen this year. Everything about the film screams "AMATEUR". For a movie set in the 1800's, everybody speaks like it's the 1990's. The acting, particularly the people playing the white slave masters, is horrible. After about an hour into this movie, I walked out. What a waste of time and effort. For a much better film on this subject, see Steven Spielberg's far superior "Amistad."


One of the worst movies I've ever seen!!! Absolutely awful. Poor acting, poor story, there isn't one redeeming quality about this movie to recommend. Amistad is much better. Avoid this movie like the plague!


I had to write a review for this movie based on the ones that are saying gory, non stop action, great movie..

These people were obviously watching a different movie. Killpoint honestly sucked from the word go!! I kept waiting and waiting for this film to get better and it was to no avail. Some said this movie was brutal and others said gory but I can't find either of those adjectives actually showing up in this, I mean hell there are so many scenes with people getting shot and there being no blood at all it's not even funny!! I guess the best way to sum this up is it probably should've been rated PG by 1984 standards and now in the year 2010 there is no doubt this would be PG!! Bad, BAD not in the fun cheesy "B" variety movie!!


Essentially plotless action film has two good guys (Fong and Roundtree) pitted against two bad guys (Mitchell and Pierce). Fong is perhaps the most uncharismatic action lead of the 80s, Roundtree's small part is a far cry from his "Shaft" days, and Cameron Mitchell adds another shameful role to his career, one to sit right next to his laughable turn in "The Toolbox Murders" (this man was a respected actor once, now he has come down to wearing flowers in his hair and complaining about people bleeding on his carpet). Only Stack Pierce acts with some dignity. As for the violence, don't worry: most of it is too badly done to offend anyone. (*1/2)


This movie is very violent, yet exciting with original dialog and cool characters. It has one of the most moving stories and is very true to life. The movie start off with action star Leo Fong as a down and out cop who is approaching the end of his career, when he stumbles on to a big case that involves corruption, black mail and murder. This is where the killings start. From start finish Fong delivers in this must see action caper. This movie also co-stars Richard Roundtree.

I really enjoyed this film as a child but as I got older I realized that this film is pretty cheesy and not very good. I would not recommend this film and the action is very, very bad.


Tony Curtis and Skip Homier both are wearing black with white trim canvas shoes in the scenes just before and after the swimming pond and the tank being blown up. Must have been too hard on the young stars feet.If the real Marines had been on the mission they would have been wearing boots. IN the first scenes they took off their leggin's just before starting out on their little trip to find the Farmer. When they went to the area where they dug the fox holes Tony and Skip are wearing combat boots, then later when Lovejoy and Curtis run into the Framer and his daughter Tony is wearing the "Tennis Shoes " but hey have been blacken. The movie in about a true story but did they really need the love interest??


A CBS radio program entitled "We the People" assists in finding an American home for Vienna refugee Charles Coburn (as Karl Braun), a skilled surgeon and pool hustler. He arrives with beautiful daughter Sigrid Gurie (as Leni), who is "studying" to become a nurse. Relocated to a small, dusty Midwestern village, they are welcomed at the station by burly John Wayne (as John Phillips) and his uncle Spencer Charters (as 'Nunk' Atterbury), a veterinarian. Ms. Gurie is unhappy in the dustbowl, and wants to leave. Immediately. But, the prospect of romance with Mr. Wayne might change her mind...

God answers the citizens' many prayers for rain, but it may not be enough to save the farming town. The entire town is advised to relocate to Oregon. Wayne wants to stay and tough it out. Coburn receives an invitation to work at a top clinic. And, Gurie learns her fiancé, presumed dead, will be arriving to claim her as his wife. She feels duty-bound to accept; but, he has a dark secret... This film does not flatter Wayne, who seems way out of his element. Being paired with Gurie, promoted as another Garbo, doesn't help. They do have a cute scene in Wayne's car ("Jalopy, an Italian car").

**** Three Faces West (7/3/40) Bernard Vorhaus ~ John Wayne, Sigrid Gurie, Charles Coburn, Spencer Charters


Mild spoilers below.

The prospect of war was clearly on the horizon when TFW was filmed. From the opening scene of European refugees to the final prediction that Naziism will be the death of millions of Germans, this movie is as much a propaganda film as the films made after Pearl Harbor. There isn't a lot of entertainment value here though the footage of the dust bowl is interesting to those of us who aren't old enough to remember it. The rest of the plot is pretty forgettable with the Herr Docktor Coburn - with a pretty bad accent - and daughter assimilating into America with Wayne's help. Other than the dust bowl scenes, the only memorable aspect of the movie is one best viewed with hindsight. Coburn's speech comparing Naziism to a malignancy worse than cancer and describing the (then current) successes as a momentary outburst of energy from a patient right before death were eerily accurate and Varno's Dr. Scherer played accurately to post war newsreel footage of unrepentant Nazis justifying their actions.

When viewed from a historical perspective, some aspects of TFW are interesting. If you look at it for entertainment outside of the WWII perspective, you'd have to say this is one of Wayne's less successful efforts.


Shame to see an interesting story diluted into standard "Vietnam made for TV" fare. Usually HBO movies are a substantial cut above TV. Bill Paxton was a pretty good choice for the lead role, but wasn't given much to work with.


I was expecting a lot more of this film than what I actually got. The acting was just awful from everyone and the story was far from impressive. It took a lot of something I don't to even follow what was going because it was so jumpy. An example of the acting is when Paxton's character, Vann, is upset the South Vietnamese colonel for so he throws some of the sand from the "sand map". It was impossible to get any idea of what he was feeling and his actions were robotic. To make things worse, I have no idea how I'm supposed to feel about Vann. He's obviously presented as the protagonist but as soon as he gets to Vietnam he starts an affair with an Vietnamese English teacher. The only thing the movie had going for it was that it wasn't particularly boring. I give it 4 stars out of 10.


It looked cool from the movie sleeve, but after five minutes we weren't sure if it was a homosexual documentary of west side story without any female interest. The film quality was poor, and there was hardly enough gang fighting action to sustain even the drunkest person's interest for long enough to watch the entire film. May god have mercy on the souls of both the actors and the filmmakers responsible for what I can only describe as my new one and only reason why I never will want to see (or trust) an Australian made film again. I have to write more so I will again say that the actors were so bad that I'm positive I could make a better movie with fifteen dollars and a box of Trojans. Please don't see this movie for your own sake.


Let's face it, a truly awful movie, no...I mean a "truly" awful movie, is a rare, strange, and beautiful thing to behold. I admite that there is a special place in my heart for films like Plan 9 From Outer Space, Half Caste, Species, etc. And although I'm giving this film a 1, I highly urge anyone who enjoys a bad film for what it truly is (a bad film) to find a friend, snacks, something to drink, and make the special occasion it deserves out of: Aussie Park Boyz.

From the very first moments of the lead actor's side to side eye-rolling performance as he attempts to inject intensity directly into the film without ever looking at a camera (a slice of ham straight out of silent pictures--eat your heart out Rudolph Valentino) to the sudden hey-we're-out-of-film conclusion, you...will...not...stop...laughing.

To sum the film up, its a poor man's Warriors down under, complete--and that description alone should be enough, but then comes the wonders of "the spaghetti eating scene", "the 'We've got their tickets; they won't be leaving town now' scene", "It's the Asians! Run!!" and more. The only truly objectionable part is a gratuitously filmed rape. Outside of this, I dare you to watch this film. And I dare you to find evidence of acting, or lines, or direction, or any of those other boring and superfluous elements that so-called critics say a film needs to be judged as good.

If this movie doesn't cause fits of uncontrollable laughter before it ends, all I can do is roll my eyes menacingly from side to side at you and shout, "You dog! You dog! You dog!"


For those of you who don't remember movies -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080120/ -- this came out in '79 ( I guess enough time has gone by so naturally Nunzio figured he could just redo this and say he wrote it - yea, right! ).

The acting in this is way overboard - the "tough guys" walk around with their shoulders hunched forward to give the impression they are bigger than they really are, also the "hero' seems to have a passion for snorting, and rolling his eyes in a bug-eyed kind of way to express angst/anger to the celluloid eye.

There is a sort of racial message here, from the Sicilian perspective (mind you this is about 3rd generation down the line... the original "wogs" arrived in OZ after the war and during my childhood - yep I'm an Aussie. So the "wogg-iness" has been diluted a lot - they even sound like true-blue Aussies - not a flicker of the "dago accent" anywhere ( there, there's another slang for ya, Nun! )

Maori's with sunnies (sunglasses) at 4am - must be cool to be sun-blinded in the middle of the night and it looks like Redfern... this is at this movie's tedious end. Nunzio tried to copy the flavor of the Warriors but, left too many holes in the story. How about coincidences ?

The warriors had a gang of baseball guys wielding bats, with white face makeup chase the heroes to a train station and fight them - Nunzios gang get chased on a railway station by a gang of stick wielding guys wearing whitish face masks. The warriors were mistakenly accused of shooting/murdering another gang-member -- Nunzios gang are mistakenly accused of raping the sister of the big Maori gang boss. The warriors are lured into a room by a gang of girls who attack them - Nunzios crowd want to crash at a friends house, which is populated by, yep, a gang of girls -- there are almost too many copies from the Warriors to keep on about here.

I am saddened that people don't want to see other moves from OZ because of this tripe - how about Mad Max - Commander and Master of the World? Not all movies are made by actors who are so bad, they have to fund their own movies.

As far as the other actors in this show are concerned, they seem to have taken their cue from "the Nun" as they all are as bad as each other - don't bother with this movie! I can't get my money back - so save yours!


Although i watched this film by myself(thankfully), i still felt embarrassed while watching it. I was tricked into renting it by the reviews on the front cover, and the bloody/gritty camera stills on the back-which led me to believe it was some sort of documentary. These actors are laughable throughout the entire film, not convincing at all. The story involves an Italian Australian(?) gang, just fighting other gangs, and then running,fighting,repeat. Supposedly they train extremely hard, which makes them way better than other gangs. For some reason I don't believe that they could actually beat up some of these other guys that are twice their size. I could be wrong... no I'm not wrong, this movie is not enjoyable on any level.The jail montage looked like it was a summer camp, just instead of kids, it was a sausage fest of horrible actors, just hanging out and laughing and trying to look hard. This movie is not worth your time, save your money, or throw it in the garbage, just don't waste it on this movie.


I love watching Australian movies but this steaming pile of crap was just plain embarrassing. The DVD cover looked promising but you know what they say, don't judge a DVD by it's cover.

I also noticed that it won Best Actor for an award but the competition must have been really bad because the acting in this film is pathetic. It just seemed that the director thought he had enough talent to direct and act when he should really focus on one part of film-making and get it right before spreading himself too thin. The music was pretty ordinary. The story really didn't go anywhere. It was just a sequence of fights strung together with poor script and cheesy dialogue.

I will say this to all aspiring filmmakers though. Watch this film. It will give you hope that your film will win something at some festival.

However, good on them for getting in there and having a go. Hope they learned some lessons and their next venture is a little better.


this movie is one that belongs on the cutting room floor. For one, the opening sequence does not put forth the element of 'gang' related subject. If it wasn't supposed to then at least they got that part right. Secondly...whats with all the glancing to the left and then to the right??? they even do it in synchronous style. Nowhere have i witnessed a member from a rival crew walk up to a bar, look for someone, from the outside lookin like he is all that and a bag o chips at a barbie and walk away without even being confronted let alone get 'what for'. I wasted money on the rental price and am glad i did not purchase the DVD itself.

If this was made by college( T.A.F.E ) students then at least they gave it the old Aussie try. Better luck next time.


Everything about this movie is awful.

You can tell in the first five minutes that this movie is going to be terrible. You can't however, gauge how bad it's going to be.

We start the movie with a seemingly endless intro scene aided with gay music and no dialogue. Having the camera move up and down big guys who are trying too hard to look like mentals doesn't provoke the slightest emotion.

What then starts seems to be one of two separate stories. The first half of the movie consists of the wogs going around competing in paid, midnight fights with other ethnic groups. The wogs always win of course, because they apparently lift weights and have "respect". It is in these scenes that we first get to see the degree of bad acting, editing, scripting and hatred for the people who funded this film.

Eventually the main character and his mate get sent to prison. The entire prison part of the movie is unrelated to what I assume is the plot, and consists of a bunch of fights.

Once out of prison(3 years for murder?) The main character and his mate reunite with the wogs. They then go to the "other side of town" and try to lay low, because apparently everyone wants to kill them.

soon the wogs get set up for the rape of another gang members girl , and run around town fighting off hordes of different gangs. This point of the movie can be compared to an arcade game, as the wogs simply run around and fight off enemies who seemingly get worse and worse as the movie goes on.

Anyway the movie ends with some massive climatic fight scene in which the remaining wogs (the two main characters) take on every gang they've fought so far. Apparently the other gangs don't have a problem uniting to take on the remaining wogs(the skinheads don't mind Asians). After about a million more people get beaten up by the invincible wog brothers the movie ends with the main characters heading home. They don't make it home however, because they are burned to death by the the thousands of angry film critics who storm the set and leave angry letters everywhere.

This movie may be more like a computer game then a movie, because that would explain how two guys can take about a million punches to the face from a million different people who the majority of the time are twice their size.

There are also tonnes more stupid unexplainable events in this movie, such as an Asian fighting off his own gang and taking a katana to the head just to let the wogs get away.

Like someone else mentioned, this movie isn't so bad its funny, it's just so bad.


within about 5 minutes in to the film the first fight scene i was watching i just could help but pointout the lack of tension in the scene the cameras crossing back and forth really shows he had no idea what he was doing, well actually the soundtrack shows that the best. i no its a low budget film and your not going to get top 40 songs but at least get music that goes with the scene that isn't actually that hard acting, well if i saw any i would gladly let you know. the script was so badly written would now surprise me one bit of the guy directing wrote this piece of beep, i will give the person one 10/10 and that was for the DVD cover because if i actually saw "before watching this" in a shop and it was like 10 15 bucks i would have bought it, why well if you look at the front cover this actually well done you flip over to the back and you see that it has actually won awards. now that is a very misleading thing because even in a small film festival i wouldn't ever believe in my life that this would win anything all i can say is "wow if this was the best i wouldn't want to know what the crap in the film festival was like"

films that are this bad only have one good use and that is for a aspiring film maker to use as inspiration films like this are better tools then good films, because with good film you almost know off the bat there is a good chance you wont make a film that good, but if you use a film like this you can look at all the things they director or writer did wrong so you wont make the same mistakes, and you have the added plus of looking at this film and saying if a piece of beep like this can get made then there is hope of anyone out there


This film proves a theory I have had for quite some time - in Australia, as long as a film deals with the right topic, it will be a success regardless of how terrible it is. Aussie Park Boyz could not possibly be any worse - the acting is beyond terrible, the plot is basically a poor Warriors knock-off, and the filmmakers clearly have no idea about ethnic gangs in Australia (an Irish gang in twenty-first century Sydney! The last time any Irish gangs were in Australia was about a hundred years ago in the time of the tinkers!) But because it's about ethnic rivalry, one of four topics guaranteed to be a success in Australian cinema (along with struggling families, minority groups, and the biography of a famous Australian) it won multiple academy awards. I've always suspected that Australian critics will lap up any rubbish that deals with these issues, but part of me thought, or at least hoped, that they had their limits. This film proves otherwise. So to all you Australian aspiring film-makers out there, don't bother putting thought into your film or choosing people who can actually act, or even getting your facts right - just write a script about some poor family trying to make ends meet, or someone of a foreign race coming to Australia and having to deal with racial prejudice and stereotypes, or, if you want to take a leaf out of these people's book, some ethnic gang fighting some other ethnic gang that isn't actually plausible in the period the film is set, and your film will win five academy awards regardless of how pathetic it is!


This film follows a very similar storyboard to The Warriors, only with less intensity and rather poor acting which is nothing to write home about.

The story in general is not that bad, based around a small Aussie gang who are trying to get out of the city when one of their members is framed for the rape of another gang's girl. They then have to fight their way through the streets whilst they are been hunted down by a number of rival gangs. On could assume that the writers have taken a page out of The Warriors book and re-written it, but as mentioned above - with not nearly as much intensity.

The acting as a whole is not very good in my opinion, and it's clearly obvious on many occasions that they are indeed acting... the fight scenes make up for this however but then the poor sound effects that go with them bring it back down.

This film has nothing on Once Were Warriors.

Low budget, alright story, poor acting, nothing to write home about.


I'm not prone to ranting and my expectations were low to start with, but how did this seem like a good idea? Just because you have a camera, some big ugly friends for actors, and delusions of talent, does not mean that you should go out and make a film. This should have been the cinematic equivalent of singing in the shower, i.e. it should never have seen the light of day. However, somehow this rubbish found a distributor to help it escape the confines of a 3 by 4 foot cubicle. It goes from bad to worse. Talk about low budget, one torture scene consists of a guy getting a mug of coffee thrown over him while he's tied to a chair. Evidently this is very painful because the big baby proceeds to scream in agony....maybe he ordered decaf!! The acting is worse than wooden (I could possibly watch a tree for 30 seconds before becoming completely bored, if you can look at this rubbish for that long you're a better man than I!) and the fight scenes would be at home on a kindergarten play yard. Do not touch this movie, unless you enjoy pain (in which case you should try spilling lukewarm coffee over yourself). I'd like to say it's so bad it's good, but really this is just awful.


This film could have been great- but wasn't. Amongst the cesspool of talentless no-hopers and friends of the film makers who wanted to help out there are some mild inklings of talent. The main star of the film plays a good lead role. He is convincing and has those scary Italian eyes. However, he is teamed up with the worst rejects of actors anyone has ever come across. The opening scenes of the film are among the worst and most embarrassing. It looks like Gay Porno. Fortunately no one stripped off. The rape scene that keeps being mentioned is rubbish. The prison sequence was the best part of the film- although irrelevant. The movies soundtrack (if you can call it that) sounds like a teenage boys first attempt at using cooledit and some sample cds. It is boring, repetitive and extremely lame. In fact the whole film is lame. Get out while you still can!


the reason why i gave this movie a 4 was for a couple reasons, but this movie was not that bad. first off, the editing i found too be pretty poor at times, the script(or what they had of one) was not very good, and if not for Nunzio La Bianca, the acting would have been crap. but all that aside(ha ha i know its like the whole movie) its not that bad for an extremely low ind. , low budget film. If they would have gotten more money, a little better actors(but these ones were intimidating so it was good) and a little more detailed script this movie would be terrific. Somebody has to tell me this guy was influenced A lot by the warriors by Walter hill. i mean this movie is exactly like it. anyone who has seen both those films will agree with me.


I don't understand why this movie was released, it looked like something that you show your mates after you borrowed your mums handycam she bought in 1987. I am Australian and work for a video store in the UK and thought that if an Aussie film made it into our store it can't be all bad... boy was I wrong!

If anyone writes a good comment about this movie they are either lying or the makers of the film.

The picture was BAD, the sound was HORRIBLE and the acting, oh the acting, it was the WORST acting in the HISTORY OF FILM.

It makes me embarrassed and offended that they used the word 'Aussie' in the title because I am proud to be Australian and this movie is seen in other countries and may give people the wrong idea.

Please anyone who reads this and has seen this movie, take the time to find other Aussie movies to watch because you could choose any one of them and it would be better than that one.

I could have made a better film if I took a camera, filmed my but for an hour, ate the film waited for it to pass through my body then threw what came out at the television... no offence.

DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!!!!!!


Being a fan of ZaSu Pitts comedies, I thought this one looked like it was worth a try. I was quite disappointed.

(The version I saw was on TCM, but consisted only of the Niagara Falls movie; the Miss Polly movie was absent.) The talents of the actors, who give fine performances, is wasted on one of the stupidest stories I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through.

Tom Brown (Tom Wilson) surprised me by being the strongest actor in the show, but the spotlight is hogged by Slim Summerville (Sam Sawyer), who, if he has any talent, didn't demonstrate it here.

ZaSu Pitts (Elly Sawyer) is great, but doesn't have near big enough a part. The biggest laugh in the movie is when she ends up under Sam under a table.

The only one in the movie who has any sense at all is Tom Wilson. Margie (Marjorie Woodworth) is unreasonable in general. While she is physically quite attractive, her personality and attitudes make her completely undesirable. Elly, Sam, and the hotel desk clerk are just complete fools.

Sam and Elly give up their honeymoon suite in the crowded hotel for Tom and Margie. But then they take it back. Sam ends up imprisoning Tom and Margie in their room. Most of the movie is them trying to break out, but Sam, using a rifle, always puts them back again.

Towards the end comes the worst part. Tom, who is finally about to make good his escape, runs into a minister on a lower floor of the hotel. Now the guy, who, as I said, is the only one in the whole movie who has a head on his shoulders, suddenly, for absolutely no reason at all, decides he has to marry Margie!

He drags the minister up to the room he has just escaped from, but Margie doesn't want to marry him. He gives her a kiss, and now, after one kiss, she feels compelled to marry him.

Finally, Sam has the nerve to say to Tom, "You deceived me," when practically the only line Tom had to Sam earlier was, "We're not married," to which Sam replied, "You think I'd believe that?"

Idiotic.


This appears to be two movies spliced into one. In the first, ZaSu Pitts is a renegade in a small town. She wants to help the romantic life of Marjorie Woodworth. OK: I'd never heard of her before either. But she and Pitts are in both parts of this concoction.

Before we know it, Pitts is no longer Miss {Polly. She is Emmie. I had to rewind to see if I'd fallen asleep somewhere. I hadn't. She no longer in a small town but on her way to the title Honeymoon destination.

The movie has some cute moments. The first part is better, with roles for what seems to be every third-rate character actress working in Hollywood at the time.

And what of Ms. Woolworth? She sounds a little like Betty Hutton. She sounds a little like Marie Wilson. She's pretty, certainly. But she's no comedienne.

Pitts often was used in very small roles. Here she has the largest role. She's always fun, though this movie made me wonder if a little of her doesn't go quite a long way. (As a comic. When she was a tragic actress in Von Stroheim silents -- "The Wedding March" and Greed" are the two I have seen -- she was brilliant.)


A genuinely odd, surreal jumble of visual ideas which probably looked extremely puzzling on the printed page; just what drew Robert Redford to the project, one may never know. Sidney J. Furie directs this knockabout journey of an egotistical motorcycle racer taking a milquetoast juvenile under his wing; the kid looks up to this anti-hero, and eventually begins to ape his amorality. Disjointed and off-putting--though for some, the sight of Redford disrobing, about to disrobe, or having been disrobed might be enough to warrant attention. Lauren Hutton gets naked too, however all the sexy flashes are just teasers for the prurient-minded; there simply is no story. Perhaps Furie was making an esoteric comment about feckless wheelers and their flock circa 1970. If true, then this pre-Blank Generation approach backfired, as the film was not a success. *1/2 from ****


PREY

Aspect ratio: 1.37:1

Sound format: Mono

A lesbian couple (Sally Faulkner and Glory Annan) living in a remote country house are driven apart by the arrival of a young man (Barry Stokes) who turns out to be a flesh-eating alien, the vanguard of a massive invasion...

Despite its shoestring budget and leaden pacing, Norman J. Warren's follow-up to SATAN'S SLAVE (1976) amounts to a great deal more than the sum of its meager parts, thanks to a surprisingly complex script by Max Cuff (apparently, his only writing credit): Faulkner and Annan indulge an obsessive relationship whilst living in isolated splendor within the English countryside (rendered alternately beautiful and ominous by Derek V. Browne's eye-catching cinematography), though Annan's discovery of bloodstained clothing in an upstairs room marks one (or both) of these doe-eyed lovelies as psychologically disturbed, which may explain the absence of their respective families, some of whom appear to have lived in the house at one time or another and 'left' under mysterious circumstances. Stokes' unexpected arrival throws the relationship into disarray, partly because Faulkner has a pathological hatred of men and partly because Annan is attracted to him, creating tensions which result in a climactic whirlwind of violence. There's an extraordinary, multi-layered sequence in which Faulkner attempts to 'emasculate' their clueless visitor by dressing him in women's clothing, though Stokes' alien mentality allows him to rise above the intended mockery.

In the early scenes, at least, the relationship between Faulkner and Annan is depicted with uncommon grace and dignity, but this heartfelt sapphic liaison quickly devolves into crowd-pleasing episodes of sex and pulchritude, culminating in an explosion of horror when Annan allows herself to be ravished by Stokes following a violent argument with Faulkner. The closing sequences are (quite literally) gut-wrenching, especially Annan's final scene, which appears to have been clipped for censorship reasons in 1977 and never fully restored (what remains is still pretty vivid, so brace yourselves!). Excellent performances by the three leads, bolstered by Warren's unobtrusive direction, which takes full advantage of the stunning woodland locations, thereby compensating for the film's budgetary shortcomings. Originally released in the US as ALIEN PREY.


OK, this simply is the worst movie ever made. Period. Horrible acting, sets and music. Ok, everything sucks in this movie. I almost forgot! The special effects are "great" also. So if you like bad movies, watch this, it can surely make you laugh!!


Although this has to be the nadir of season six, this schmaltzy episode isn't badly written or acted. It's just that most of us looked to the X-Files for taut, gripping horror/thrillers ending without easy answers and moving toward dark but fathomable conspiracies. Season 6 gave us a stream of tongue-in-cheek comedies that undermined the show's continuity and, frankly, made Simpsons' Halloween Specials look like great thriller TV.

In this episode Victoria Jackson of SNL fame plays the long-suffering girlfriend of a man who sets himself up as a rainmaker. However her weatherman boss is the one who truly loves her and Mulder winds up having to provide him dating advice in order to get out of town.

There's some playful fun with the chemistry between the agents and some amusing but none-too-sophisticated characterization of Midwestern hicks. It's nothing you'd want to see more than once!

It's hard to figure out Season 6. X-Files creator Chris Carter seems bored by the whole 'Syndicate conspiracy' story arc and abandons responsibility to the black comedy writers.


Well, I must say, I initially found this short to be quite average, but having watched it nearly 5 times since (its constantly shown on IFC), I've developed an enjoyment of the simple plot elements and reality of the situations presented. Sofia Coppola contributes a solid addition to the category.


Dictated by thin experience (of both life and industry) and no cash Sofia Coppola's early short is almost by necessity an observational piece set on a high school campus. The cast are rather weak and do not benefit from being shot in b&w (it's difficult to tell the characters apart). The sound editing does little to help a simple story of fickle teenage allegiance.

Yet there are one or two things to note. Inamongst the inconsistent editing the high school campus is filmed with a balance of aspirant wide and intimate close-up shots. The editing-to-music also creates an interest and momentum (without descent into the netherworld of the Music Video). Coppola clearly made an attempt to vary the pace of the film. The dramatic turn is cut fast and to-the-point and the second act is almost non-existent; we recognise it's actually been played out in tandem with the first, which is the point of the narrator-on-crutches trope (who is an otherwise curiously appended character in that first act).

Despite these notes it's an awkward short. 2/10


Your idol will deceive you in this movie. Stephen Nichols is mis-cast as a young german student still bending under his father's orders although the actor obviously looks near 40 years-old. This makes his relationship (a collection of copulation scenes, basically) to a very young looking girl all the more disturbing. The character's have no dimension and the war depiction serves only as a backdrop for this soft porn wannabe. Nichols, who is one of daytime TV's best performers shows no passion in what is to be the main interest of this movie: watching him have sex over and over with this girl. It's like watching two animals going at it. If you're a fan of this actor's talent in other projects, don't rent this for you will never view him in the same way. If, on the other hand, you want to see Stephen Nichols have an orgasm in front of the camera, you might like it: Stephen will show you his naked butt, lots of tongue work, his groaning range, but not his talent as this character who's obviously just as sex-driven and misjudging as he was for wanting to do such personal things in front of the camera. He may have found it kinky but I didn't - a BIG deception!


I chose to watch this film because I am a Stephen Nichols fan. Unfortunately, I am unhappy with Mr. Nichols' choice to do this movie. The film was slow, badly acted, and included some very graphic sex scenes of Mr. Nichols' character with a very young woman. Watch at your own peril!


There are times when, less than halfway through a movie, I start to wonder what the creators were thinking that made them decide not to burn every reel of footage and instead release a movie that has no real merit of any kind. And I mean any kind. This movie doesn't even hold up as made-for-cable porn. In fact, Heaven's Tears is completely and utterly boring, and at times a bit disturbing in its naivete. The girl, who is, as I recall, eighteen, masturbates while thinking of an older Nazi who hit her with a car--the "bumping into her in the hall as a way of introducing ourselves" syndrome from sitcoms and Robert Zemekis films. Then, on their second or third meeting--get this--he is the shy one, the one who is resistant to the girl's sexual advances, and yet, all she has to say is, "I'm old enough. I'm want to," and he takes her to bed. Then, after sleeping with this girl he hardly knows, he feels completed, as if he could die right there in the bed with her and he'd have lived a full life. It's like "Lolita" without a shred of social and personal commentary.

The cinematography is the most boring part of the movie. No interesting angles or originality at all, not even for the sex scenes, which are supposed to be the main draw for these kinds of movies. The masturbation scene is just a camera circling the girl's bed (very fake looking, as if it's on a stage), and it's interspliced with her fantasy of the man taking a shower in a waterfall. The "I am completed" scene is just a close-up of the girl's right side (head down to her breasts) with the guy on top of her, and it's the same shot for the whole time, even though there are repetitious cuts to a fairly unrelated scene of the Nazi's older sister, who has some kind of incestuous crush on him (she's ridiculous and silly, so it doesn't matter). I think the whole thing lasts five to ten minutes, and it's neither enlightening nor arousing.


This is the worst hindi film I have ever seen. It conforms to all the stereotypes of bad Hindi films. The plot is ridiculous, the acting over the top, and Shah Rukh manages to fit in a couple of song sequences even though he is playing the character of a dumb man.


This film would be a great piece of history if in fact it was a real film of the Kennedy assassination. The are far too many mistakes in this film for me to point out. It is a film of the Kennedy assassination, but many of the important facts have been altered. There are missing scenes, and many of the scenes, after the president's limo passes the sign, don't fit in. Both Kennedys move noticeably slower then the other four people in front of them. Next time you watch this film look for things that don't add up, such as the Texas Gov. and his, along with the SS men in the front, lunge forward but you can see that the limo is not stopping or slowing down, in fact is is accelerating. This film is clearly an attempt at a cover up.


I lay the blame for The Comebacks on anyone who enjoyed Date Movie and Epic Movie. You people encouraged the Fox studio to keep on churning out desperate parody films, and now we're faced with what just may be the laziest and most desperate one of them all. The Comebacks barely qualifies as a parody. Heck, it barely qualifies as a movie. This is a comedy in theory, but not in execution. No one, not even the people involved with this mess, could have possibly fooled themselves into thinking they were making a funny movie. Director Tom Brady (The Hot Chick) has made something truly wretched here.

The plot, if you can even call it that, centers on a man named Lambeau Fields (David Koechner). Right when I heard his name within the first couple seconds of the film, I knew I was in for a long movie. Funny names are seldom funny, and become even less funny the more you hear them. Lambeau is one of the worst coaches in the world, but he's been given another chance by his best friend, Freddie Wiseman (Carl Weathers), to coach a ragtag high school football team called The Comebacks. Lambeau must not only lead the team to victory, but also teach them the ways of inspirational sports movie clichés. He expects his kids to have poor grades and problems with alcohol, and ridicules them when they don't. When it looks like the team has a chance to play at the big championship Toilet Bowl game (Did 10-year-olds write this script?), Lambeau is shocked to discover that Freddie is the coach of the big rival team that his team will be playing against. Turns out Freddie only encouraged Lambeau to take the coaching job, because he wanted The Comebacks to lose.

The Comebacks is a movie so forced and pathetic, I almost had a hard time believing what I was watching. Spoof movies have recently turned into a game of "spot the movie reference", and this continues the tradition. It tries to squeeze in as many references to other sports movies as it can, but it either does absolutely nothing with them, expecting us to just point at the screen and laugh out of familiarity, or it attempts to be funny and falls flat on its face. Some of the films referenced include Field of Dreams, Bend it Like Beckham, Rocky Balboa, Friday Night Lights, Stick It, Radio, Miracle, Remember the Titans, Gridiron Gang, Invincible, and Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. But wait, wasn't Dodgeball already a parody of inspirational sports movies? So, in other words, we're watching a parody of a parody of inspirational sports movies. If that makes any sense to you, you're just the audience this movie is looking for. Some of these films are referenced in the plot, and some (like the Rocky one) are just thrown in for no reason, because the filmmakers wanted to try to reference as many films as possible. There are some that the movie even feels the need to explain to us in its dialogue, just in case we've missed the obvious reference. You know a movie is in trouble when it has to spell out its own jokes to us.

The worst thing is that the screenplay by TV veterans and first time screen writers, Ed Yeager and Joey Gutierrez, doesn't even know the first and most important rule of parody - You have to play it straight. The actors have to pretend they're not in on the joke. The reason why the classic Zucker Brothers movies like Airplane, Top Secret, and The Naked Gun are remembered so fondly is because they cast serious actors like Leslie Nielsen (yes, he was a serious actor before he turned to comedy) and Robert Stack, and then threw them into ridiculous situations. What made it funny is that they acted like they weren't in a comedy, and kept a stone face to the weirdness around them. Those films wouldn't have worked if they played their roles broadly. The Comebacks proves this, as all the actors are forced to play their roles so goofy, it's like they're screaming at us to laugh. David Koechner keeps on flailing his arms, bulging his eyes, and screaming at the top of his lungs to the point he looks like someone who knows he's trapped in a dead-end comedy, and just tries too hard to pretend he's having a good time. The movie also doesn't understand the art of celebrity cameos (also an important factor when it comes to parody films). What kind of cameos do we get in The Comebacks? Andy Dick and Dennis Rodman.

By the time the movie throws in an out of nowhere and extremely pointless cast musical number to Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" for absolutely no reason whatsoever, I was just about ready to walk out the theater door. I was the only person at my screening, and the thought of this movie going on its pathetic way to a completely empty house kind of appealed to me. I did sit through the rest of The Comebacks, and I was not rewarded for my efforts. The sad thing is, Fox is not yet done killing the spoof genre. They have a parody of 300 coming out next year called Meet the Spartans. I'd say it can't be much worse than this, but I've seen the trailer, and I wouldn't want to get your hopes up.


Spoof films have come so far since Mel Brooks in 'The Producers' (1968) said "Don't be stupid, be a smartie. Come and join the nazi party". It brought us delightful films, such as 'Young Frankenstein', 'Airplane!', and even 'Naked Gun'. But the good die young. Luckily, the genre managed to make it all the way up to the end of the 90's. And then... the Wayan's Brothers unleashed the apocalypse: 'Scary Movie'. Suddenly the word spoof was an innuendo for crude sex jokes. Most movies claiming to be spoofs since then have followed suit, including 'Scary Movie 2', 'Date Movie' and the film to kill the genre 'Epic Movie'. Sure, there have been some reliefs. There was 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz'. Will Ferell has become a vehicle spoofing close to every sport imaginable. Also, the Wayans Brothers quit the 'Scary Movies' and they have been made by the dependable Zucker Brothers. While these films have held some value in the rescue, the genre is tragically doomed to be films only loved by prepubescent males who just discovered what an erection is. People who haven't explored the term 'spoof' and cut and paste movies together for a quick laugh. No heart, no brain, just cheap glue. Sadly, 'The Comebacks' has been added to the list. Dave Koechner (Who starred in 'Anchorman' alongside Ferrell) leads a teams of underdogs to win against a coach (Carl Weathers of 'Happy Gilmore' fame) who got him back into coaching. Koechner has shown promise as a supporting actor, but as a lead in this film, he just sounds scripted. He sounds too much like he's doing a cold read passionately. Also, the jokes about being a washed up coach, who through the course of the movie encourages the team to fail in school and later runs from the police in his underwear, have been done before. Yes, this is a spoof film. But let us remember that even spoofs can have quality. Give the characters dignity and a sort of sophisticated view on modern society. Also, the reliance on stereotypes is not going to get us any more laughs (who knew one movie with jive-talking people could lead to gangster stereotypes (not really, but you see)). While I will admit to laugh at least a few times... it wasn't on par. The football team within itself had a lot of stereotypes, including a Mexican, a cocky jock, a fat guy, the scrawny nerd, and the mentally handicapped aid. Even the only female on the team got reduced to stereotypical female humor, being mostly scantily clad and giving off innuendos. In fact, her character, as well as most of the others, never developed. It's a sad state of affairs for this movie. If only it wasn't so reliant on stupid sex jokes, it could've made something for itself. In fact, this movie will probably be the butt of jokes alongside 'Epic Movie' for time to come. Koechner really deserved better. The script in general was poorly conceived, even naming the championship 'The Toilet Bowl'. So yes. spoof movies are dying. There is a movie called 'Meet the Spartans' (be ahead of the trend, boycott now!) coming out that includes a spoof on Britney Spears' breakdown. So let those kids keep getting erections... but people grow up and lose them. We need sustenance. One day, they will learn to stop spoofing spoofs and restore them. Hopefully, one of the heroes will be 'Get Smart', made by the master Mel Brooks, coming out next year.

Rating: 2 out of 5 (Stars)


With so many horrible spoof movies, this is sadly a breath of fresh air to the genre. Compared to classics like Airplane or the Naked Gun, this is awful, but compared to recent spoof movies like Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie, this is very clever and original. Don't get me wrong, though, this was not a good movie in any way. I laughed a few times, and there are a few inspired gags, but any pop culture reference falls flat on it's face, as does most jokes in the movie.

Lambeau Fields (David Koechner) was a bad coach in the past, but now he's brought back to teach college football, and this time he'll do a good job. His wife (Melora Hardin) is feeling distant from him and his daughter is dating a football big shot to spite her father. Spoofs of various recent movies come into play, as do a lot of sight gags and nonstop stupidity.

The best parts of the movie are the gags not relying on reference to recent movies. Spoofs of Radio, Rocky, Dodgeball, Friday Night Lights, Invincible and many other sports movies are not funny in the least. It's mainly the smaller gags that get a few laughs, like a bizarre crotch scratching scene, or a chewing tobacco spitting joke. These little throwaway giggles cannot carry the movie, and by the end, it's hard to watch. The last 20 minutes are grueling to sit through.

The characters are surprisingly developed for a sports spoof movie, however, I'm sure the characters were built on clichés from the genre. Nonetheless, they're not too bad. David Koechner can pull lead actor in a movie off. Too bad they gave him so much crummy material to work with. Matthew Lawerence has fine comedic timing in a not always so comedic role as a ballet dancing football player with a cross dressing father. Carl Weathers rounds off the cast, once again playing in a sub-par sports movie (Not the Rocky movies...Happy Gilmore!) Overall, this is a goofy comedy. At times, it's funny, but more often than not, it's just very annoying and predictable.

My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG-13 for language, sexual humor and drug humor.


This movie is a nonsense/spoof comedy, in the lines of The Airplane or Naked Gun, but it doesn't even come close to this two, because it lacks originality and a little more intelligent jokes, rather then just throwing you with the same old easy jokes.

You can figure out some references to other movies, from the top of my head I identified Dodgeball and Rocky, so you can have some fun with that, trying to find out what movies are spoofed.

The movie also offers you an occasional laugh, but nothing that can cause you injuries, thus nothing really funny.

I liked the character IPod in some ways (even though some of the jokes with him are standard comedy 101).

I think this movie (and like most of nonsense/spoof comedy) depends on the mood you are in, so if you think you will laugh to any joke watch this movie. If you are in a serious mood forget about this (re)watch The Airplane instead, it will definitely make you laugh


The spoof genre, which has lacked creativity and humor for some time already, gets spat upon yet again by hacks with no talent. No point, no fun, no originality; just a few cheap bucks for the film makers.

It takes more than just referencing some recent movies and giving characters double-meaning names to be satire; to make people laugh. Any clod can pick up a cam-corder, and have some bad-acting buddies in cheap costumes imitate somebody. Since the genre being targeted this time is inspirational sports movies, there are a few lame references thrown out to movies of that type: the jokes are so weak the characters actually have to emphasize the references in various ways, to get you to laugh hysterically. It doesn't work.

That's not comedy. However, the same old worn out sophomoric "jokes" ripped off from a middle school washroom (done even more blandly than usual) are all here. If that's not enough, there's a running "gag" of a bus running somebody over. So funny, right? Also, one pathetically poor scene does more product placement than Michael Bay; again with the same unfunny results. A musical bit flops miserably. Pity Carl Weathers, once Apollo Creed in the Rocky series, now stuck with roles in swill like this.

Lousy beyond words. Watching a snail run the marathon would be less tedious than watching this film is. Probably a lot funnier, too.


When I first saw the previews for this movie on TV I thought that this could be a funny movie. I was wrong. All though I am not totally against movies that make fun of others. Some are actually funny such as the first scary movie. This was one of many that have been made as of late that are not. The humor in this film was anything but funny and was rather dull.

I feel the one of the biggest problems is that they poked fun at to many movies such as Varsity Blues, Friday Night Lights, Stick it, etc. And if you are anything like me you try to pick out each movie instead of paying attention to whats going on in this one. Even the adult humor in this movie was dry. Do yourself a favor and save you money and time and rent don't rent this movie


The Comebacks is a spoof on inspirational sports movies, and let me just tell you-it is not a good one. Tom Brady (the director) probably found it hilarious that referencing sports films (from Gridiron Gang, Invincible and even Miracle! to The Longest Yard and Dodgeball-yes Dodgeball!) and tossing in a couple of sex jokes, would be the funniest thing since Airplane! Well, he was wrong. They did such a slipshod job, you'd thought it was written in a week. I have found it that if a director loves the genre, the movie will be good. Obviously, Brady does not love the genre he is spoofing. This movie is a rancid piece of garbage not worth viewing, so don't see it!


Im sorry to myself, you know why. I feel pained from the viewing of this movie. I went to the theater with some friends to see this movie, and still did not give it the satisfaction of watching it in entirety ( i left with about 20 minutes left... hoping to god it might make me at least comfortable for a moment. ) most movies now, even this bad ones... when i watch them, there may be a small part in the movie where I feel some joy at times because of maybe a quirky joke or a good line... this movie on the other hand made me feel uncomfortable and mad at myself the whole time, especially since i wasted money on it. It was poorly written, poorly directed, poorly shot, and definitely poorly acted...

please, for the good of humanity, do not see this movie, even if your some guy who wants to say he has seen like every movie ever... just don't...


If it would of had Jack Black listed as the leading actor I would of stayed away from this movie right away. It actually makes some of his movies look good compared to this movie.This movie should of been filmed as a cartoon for ages 3-8 and it would of been a lot better. It is nothing but a bunch of the stupidest skits from other movies put together to make one big mess.The movie looks like it was shot in about one day with no thought at all behind it. There's a few times where it looks like maybe there's gonna be a turning point and the movie well actually have plot to the movie or at least a storyline would develop but the stupid skits inserted just ruin the whole movie.


Sometimes, things should just not be made. And while the set-up seemed good enough, it proceeds to only make the audience gasp in horror. But the problem is, its not another Saw film. Its just so bad you wish you were receiving punishment from Jason Voorhees.

I lost track of how many sports movies and spoofs it incorporated into the film. And generally, it flopped in its attempts. True, telling his team they should fail every subject to be true players was somewhat funny at first, but that grew tiring to watch. That and the joke about "Radio" and "IPod".

Overall, I can't stand to watch this film again. Even Trantasia is worth more than this. "D-"