THE QUICKIE (1 outta 5 stars)

Pretty poor movie... an old-as-the-hills story about a high-ranking gangster who wants to quit, passing on his empire to his inept son. Of course, it's not going to be easy for someone in that line or work to just quit... so a contract is put out on his life. After throwing a big party an exterminator (Jennifer Jason Leigh, who I guess is *never* going to act in anything other than TV movies or low budget direct-to-video trash ever again) is called to the scene. Our "hero" makes a pass at her... offering her big money for a "quickie"... she turns down his offer, even though she needs the money... but winds up staying overnight anyway... even after being brutally harassed by the overzealous son who thinks she was sent to kill his father. Ugh. The story just goes on and on... you can see every "twist" and "turn" coming a mile away. Weird soundtrack by some group called "The Tiger Lillies" will drive most people nuts... but I thought there was one kind of cool track towards the end. Or maybe I was just excited because I could tell that the movie was almost over? Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer... what the hell happened to you?


"The Quickie" tells of a decadent Russian mob family who lives in Malibu and...well, frankly, this awful attempt at drama isn't worthy of commentary.

Jason Leigh introduces herself to Mr. Mob-guy as being from "Pacific Exterminators" with huge letters in plain sight on her back which say "West Coast Exterminators". Eventually the mob-guys get suspicious because she was exterminating in a bedroom. (duh).

In another scene Mr. Mobguy plays Russian roulette giving a hooker $4000 to bet whether he'll live or die. She has 5 chances out of 6 of keeping the money if she bets "live". Well, she bets "die". (double duh) Later she complains it wasn't fair and wants to play again. (Triple duh).

The list of flaws just goes on and on while this intelligence insulting film stinks and sinks in a quagmire of lousy music, mediocre camera work, poor direction, boring story, etc. Pass on this loser. (D)

Note - The barebones DVD which I rented had no English same language subtitles or closed captions.


This flick is so bad its beyond belief.Even for an independent low budget film...it just, well, sucks.I can't even believe even Troma would put out such crap.I have been a fan of some Troma flicks for years(Toxic Avenger,Squeeze Play,Rockabilly Vampire to name a few).But LLoyd, come on,this goes way beyond the boundaries of any taste.It features some of the worst acting imaginable.I think it would have been possible to find unemployed street people who could have been as good...oh,wait, that is what they did.I mean it,these characters have negative charisma.With any luck, the producer and director of this film will have a huge karmic debt because of this atrocity.As will the special effects people.But beyond the terrible acting and the horrid special effects,the dialogue is absolutely traumatic to the ears.The script is full of plot holes the size of Alaska, and there are severe continuity problems.The worst part however, is that it not entertaining in even the smallest way.And this is the most unforgivable sin in film making.But, don't take my word for it.Go out and waste four bucks renting it.Just don't say I didn't warn you.


I vowed some time ago to never get another Joe Castro film (perhaps after "Near Death") but I sort of ended up with this one by accident, since it was a Troma release & I didn't read the cover carefully. Oops. Well, I watched it, and it's by no means good, but it's, I guess, sort of "tongue in cheek"....if it's not, it sure seemed that way. Some intrepid folks from the University of the Rio Grande set out to find if the Chupacabra exists, because of surveillance camera footage from someone's GOAT BARN that shows this weird thing hopping across the field of vision. And also because the person that this thing supposedly killed was the uncle of the leader of the expedition. There's a couple of camera men, one of whom whines the whole time, and there some ex-Marine named "Army" (?!), who is some kind of munitions expert or something. At any rate, the do find the Chupacabra on some guy's ranch & set out to find it, getting involved with two supposed witches along the way. The creature itself is rather ridiculous-looking, with spines on its back & a great big long tongue that Gene Simmons would die for. Eventually, after a bunch of folks done get killed, so does the Chupacabra, and they take it back to the university for an autopsy. So, is it from another planet? Is it a genetic creation from some lab in Puerto Rico? Uh, they don't tell us, really. Not exactly intriguing but not quite terrible either. Definitely not a wide audience for this one. 4 out of 10.


The chupacabra, according to this mockumentary, is a mysterious

creature that has been killing and eating Hispanic goats in Latin

America and Mexico for years. One has crossed the border into

southern Texas, and a cute, intrepid cryptozoologist (no, I did not

make up that word) go to an isolated ranch to find one. Her uncle

was killed by the creature, and some grainy video footage of the

monster exists. She takes a badass black guy with a gun and two

cameramen (for easy-to-edit coverage), and they go ahuntin' for

chupacabras. Ten minutes into the film, they find it.

The rest of the film has the team of documentarians getting

attacked by the bloodthirsty monster, and stilted dialogue. At one

point, the team runs into a couple of hottie witches who lead them

to the chupacabra's nest...for $100. If only the FBI knew about how

cheaply Tex-Mex witches could be bought as informants. Whole

decades of mythical beast reports could be cleared up with a

blank check.

In the end, after the bloody deaths of characters you don't give a

goat's patoot about, a chupacabra is captured, killed, and

autopsied. The only point of the autopsy scene is to highlight the

makeup department's efforts in such a cheap film.

The film is shot on video, just like "BWP," yet the cameraman

characters never reload their tapes or recharge their camera

batteries. The lead actress here is awful. The beauty of the

average "BWP" was its use of improvisation during the production.

Here, all the lines are written, and are delivered like a poorly

rehearsed Christmas pageant.

The film is tinged with racism, as well. The only African-American

here is a loudmouthed gun nut. At one point, as the crew breaks

into an abandoned house, they find a trio of illegal immigrants who

comically ask them if they are from the INS. Chortle, chortle.

The monster itself is a guy in a rubber suit, and nothing more. For

such a lumbering and awkward beast, he is able to sneak up on

the cast pretty quietly, whether they have idiotically locked

themselves in a giant cage as bait, or cannot seem to get their

only vehicle started.

The gore is gruesome, but when surrounded by this kind of

stupidity, it loses all of its effectiveness. I do not know if this was

shot before or after "BWP," but I can honestly say this is the worst

film ever made in southern Texas about a mythical beast. Pray

there are not any sequels, I will start a letter writing campaign to

Troma.

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, strong

gore, and profanity.


We rented the movie and it maybe the worst movie ever. The box they had in the video store had a cool looking monster on the cover but in reality the monster was a creature from the black lagoon mask. Awful, awful, awful...you actually might have to rent it it's so bad. It feels like you are watching a bizzare-o home movie.


This movie had very little good points, the special effects and acting was horrible for sure. But it was a movie made on a low budget so you dont expect much from it, it does have some laughs (I doubt they are intended though :) ). The scene where the old woman bends down and touches dung that was on the floor, then puts it to her nose and goes CHUPACABRA! in a really stupid raspy voice was priceless. All in all if you have nothing else to watch and just want to laugh at a really crappy flick trying to cash in on the Blair Witch Project's success, then grab it other then that dont bother.


I did here this movie was good from various people. Plus I do like Natalie Portman and Javier Bardem as well as the director Milos Forman. Yet after watching this movie I really had nothing to admire about it.

First off the acting was very much below average. The performances were just not powerful enough to really feel shocked by what the inquisition did. Javier Bardem did give a solid performance and was probably the only one who actually had as Spanish accent. It is pretty obvious why this Bardem was the only one. Natalie Portman, who I think is a very good up and coming actress did not really make me feel sorry for her being tortured. Like the movie there was nothing to admire about her performance. Stellan Skarsgaard who I do like gave a very average performance, like the other actors giving a boring performance. This movie was essentially about him since he plays Goya. Yet he did not become what he needed to be to make this movie good. What about Randy Quaid? You have just got to be kidding me. Him playing King Carlos IV. Look he is great in comedies but him playing a King that just describes the whole movie for you.

The directing was just horrible in this movie. When a movie is a mess there are usually two people to blame for that: the director and the writer. I get the feeling that Milos Forman really didn't want his actors to put a Spanish accent on. From the very few battle scenes in here they were all displayed horribly. Also as a director he needs to give you the feeling of shock of what the inquisition did. After this movie I felt like I could careless about the event. To sum it all up he poorly shot the scenes and misguided the actors.

The writing which was also done by Milos Forman was just as bad or maybe even worse than the directing. There really was nothing memorable of the movie except for one seen where Bardem does get the same treatment that Portman's character has gotten. Other then that the movie did not give you the feeling of the time period and at least it could have made up for it with a quote or two.

After finishing this movie I was just looking at the T.V. thinking OK why should I care about any of this. I do care and are very much interested in history but when movies like this come up it feels like the producers robbed you of something good that could have been taken away from the movie. When movies are this bad we highlight a lot of the technical faults in a movie than if it was good. Like the accents. I'm not sure people would have emphasized the lack of Spanish accents if this movie was good.

Thw whole point of this review is to say just don't watch it.


Perhaps I missed something, but I found GOYA'S GHOSTS to be a tedious costume melodrama. As to the story it was trying to tell, I found that a confusing mish-mash that went off in all directions. And perhaps it should have been made by a Spanish director with the appropriate languages subtitled rather than in unconvincingly accented English. I can't judge the historical veracity of the story but it seemed to move along with a similar "artist's model's tragic fate" plot line as GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING. Was the movie a commentary on the religious injustices of the Inquisition, false piety, torture then and now, or what???? I never seemed to be able to figure that one out. Natalie Portman's various characters also seemed ridiculously stereotypical. And ultimately the movie was crowned with the concluding melodrama of a disheveled Bardem's head and body hanging on the edge of cart heading off into the sunsetwith Ines and Goya following along behindCan't Milos Forman do better than that?


With a title like that, you will be forgiven for thinking this film is about the great painter, Goya. Then after half an hour you decide it is more about the Roman Catholic Inquisition. With even more latitude, perhaps it is just a snapshot of the period. With lurid characterisation, too many axes to grind and a scant regard for fact, Milos Forman dishes up a colourful but shambolic, rambling mish-mash that fails on all three accounts.

Milos Forman (who lost his Jewish father to Nazi concentration camps), is the great director who painted the artist Mozart as a buffoon and got away with it. Won awards for it, in fact. His life in Czechoslovakia gave him a taste of diverse, repellent regimes, especially Communism. He also made the equally over-the-top but rather impressive, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. So, at the age of 74, how does he come to offer us this mess? In Goya's Ghosts, Goya is one step removed from buffoon. The main character is Brother Lorenzo, passionately acted by Javier Bardem. Natalie Portman is equally vibrant as Goya's model Ines (and later in the film, her own daughter). The tenuous connection with Goya is that he happens to paint both of them.

Lorenzo tortures (and then rapes) Ines who he suspects of being a Jew. Her father tortures Lorenzo. Napoleon dashes in to liberate Spain (briefly). Ines gets out of the dungeon the Church has left her in and searches for her child. Goya is still painting but has gone deaf. His main preoccupation seems to be helping Ines. And so on.

Historically, Goya was also a historian. As Forman had sadly relinquished the idea of a biopic of Goya the painter, this one fact could have been used to pull the whole film together  a large slice of history as seen by Goya. But the painter is too tangential to receive any weight. Similarly, a document of the terrors of the Inquisition should be done  compared to other despotic orders throughout time, the Holy See has been forgiven with barely a confession. Though one might ask if Forman is competent enough to be trusted with a factual account of anything.

"I thought this could be the heart of a wonderful story," he says in the production notes. "There were a great many parallels between the Communist society we lived under and the Spanish Inquisition." But the story is too tenuous to hold our attention. Against our expectations and with a background of something major (the life of a great painter, the horrors of the Inquisition, and even the French Revolution), we are instead asked to feel involved in a concocted (if kind) infatuation of Goya's. The result is that we feel cheated.

Background detail is appallingly handled. Goya went deaf in 1792 (when the film starts), not 15 years later. Napoleon is as believable as a cut-out from a cereal packet. We see the Church passing out a death sentence (when the normal procedure was for the Church to insist that the secular arm did that dirty work). Battles look overly-choreographed and stagey. A peppering of gratuitous naked bosoms hardly makes up for it.

On the positive side, the production values are mostly good. The colours are vivid, the pacing excellent (at least until we give up on finding any worthwhile storyline.) Bardem is excellent, and Portman is a joy until she goes into overdrive as a mad woman. While it doesn't say very much about Goya, what it does say is nice, even if superficial and pretty irrelevant.

I once had a late night drunken conversation where my friends and I asked each other, if you could choose a director to depict your life, who would it be? On his record, Forman would sadly have to be at the bottom of my list.


then the second half of this movie is hard to follow. I got the first part with the Spanish Inquistion, but the film skipped many years forward with the French ruling Spain. The movie does little to fill you in on what happened, and I don't remember much about it. So, the movie gets confusing then. The movie begins when Ines, daughter of a rich merchant, is accused of Judiasm by the church, specifically Father Lorenzo. She is put to the Question and forced to confess. Even her family's wealth can not buy her out of prison. Her father forces Lorenzo to sign a confession saying he is the offspring of a chimp, in hopes of getting Ines released. All it does is give a reason for the church to condemn Lorenzo, who runs off to France.

Then, the movie skips many years, and the French Revolution is in full force. Ines is released from prison. It was very good make up work to make Natalie Portman look that tore up. She finds her family dead and seeks Goya for her help. She tells him she had a child in prison. Goya sets up a meeting between her and Lorenzo, whom is now with the French and in power. He is the father. Goya sees the daughter and tells Lorenzo, whom decides it's best to send her off to America, so no one will find out. But before his plans get carried out, the British join the Spainish, and Spain reclaims power and he is now the persecuted. That part is not well told in the film. It's like the film shows this to happen in a day.

FINAL VERDICT: The movie is good until it skips many years in time after the Inquistion, then the movie expects you to understand what is going on. It just got too confusing to me then.


I had this DVD to watch, thinking that I would see a type of biography o painter Goya, but the movie was about everything but Goya. This movie is about a young woman taken away from her family by the Holy Inquisition, allegedly because she practiced Jewish rituals (only because the poor girl did not like eating pork!). The rest of the movie is about torture, humiliation, driven by a poor script (can't believe it is by JC Carrière as I could not believe this cr** is directed by Mr Milos Forman) centered on a religious man and that young woman and that is all.

Ah, and there is Goya, I forgot, playing a completely peripheral role - that could be the role of John, Paul, Peter, Manuel, Joaquim, Jose or anyone. Very disappointing - one one these movies that will be forgotten for ever (if it has not had happened yet). Rent "The Name of the Rose" if you want a movie about the Holy Inquisition. And I don't know what you should rent, if you want to watch a movie about Spanish painter Goya. Maybe a director of a good caliber, not Forman, still needs to make it. PS: the Spanish painter, Goya - the title role who is lost in the plot - is portrayed by a Scandinavian actor, something that makes this film even more difficult to be taken seriously. Maybe next time we should send Javier Barden to play the biopic of Norwegian painter, Edvard Munch!


Having watched this movie several times, I have come to the conclusion that Milos Forman made a very daring decision to manufacture a muse for Goya, when the artist led what most would consider a tempestuous,passionate life while the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era raged across Europe, surely one that would have sufficient drama upon which to draw. While I do understand that Mr. Forman was relating in the microcosm of the tragedy of Ines' life the devastation of the world at that time, I was left feeling that there was just so much of Goya left out, so much of his humanity. The strongest and most eloquent point this film made was that because of man's fallen nature each of us is a potential villain in the stream of life, each of us has evil within us that we must fight with the help of God. How eloquent when Goya says he should have helped Ines more, how true for all of us! We must defend and protect the innocent. The superbly ironic scene in which the once imprisoned priest sentenced to die pronounces the death sentence on Lorenzo who condemned him originally is the stuff of genius. I was left wanting something more when the credits rolled. Maybe less of the unreal coincidences, and more of the inner life of the characters.


This isn't exactly a complicated story. It's not a mystery, or a plot you have to spend time re watching because you missed an intrinsic part of the dialog. Claiming a movie has to be seen multiple times for you 'to get it' may apply to a very few films, however this isn't one of them. Those type of movies have substance and are so involving it's easy to miss an important portion of dialog, or a subtle nuance to plot details you may have overlooked. With Goya's Ghosts this doesn't apply. The main flaw in this movie is an absence of detail. It jumps from one character to the next, never giving enough substance to any one set of scenes to allow the involvement of those watching. Because of that you don't connect with any of the characters. You don't get to the point where you care. Either the main actor is gone just as the movie seems it's going to redeem itself, or their actions are despicable and you're not inclined to anyway. Goya's refusal to go very far to help Ines is a good example. His refusal to commit himself further mirrors the overall tone of his part. The only characters you may momentarily feel for are Ines, when she's being questioned and then tortured. After her rape by Lorenzo any focus on her character is pretty much gone. Following that the only other in depth involvement comes from the best scenes in the movie centered around Lorenzo's invitation to supper with Ines' family, and her fathers all out attempt to force Lorenzo into signing a bogus confession and getting his daughter back. Then just as things start to be developing again, they're gone from the movie. I've read a lot of the comments here about how the movie didn't know what it wanted to be, etc. I found that basically it succeeded in not being much of anything. From Lorenzo's return and the coincidental viewing of Ines' daughter by Goya, everything seemed nothing more than contrived. Without much of a storyline, no effort to really examine the turbulent times they lived in took place. The essence of who Goya was didn't materialize, other than his actions, or lack thereof, proving him to be more self-centered than anything else. As for his art, the movie seemed intent on examining a few of the paintings he did but again frittered away another opportunity in examining the reactions to this work rather than the work itself. To sum things up best, the movie had no cohesion, it grossly lacked the substance to delve into the historical environment it covered, and upon ending, left you feeling like what you'd just seen was a series of aborted attempts to engage the viewer by switching from one thing to the next without adequately engaging the viewer in any of them. You can't watch something like this several times expecting it to improve with added examination. There's just not enough to it to waste the time. It's not a case of your missing out on something, it would just be more proof that the ingredients needed to make this movie good, just aren't there. As for best film ever made? It's not even the best film I've watched today.


I'm going to recommend putting this one in the "skip it" pile as well. I was mildly excited by the concept when my fiancée rented it, and a bit more excited when I saw that Milos Forman directed it. Ah, well.....

The costumes were nice, sure, but they were typical. There was nothing about them that said they were from anywhere but the Period Costume department of any major Hollywood studio. There was no distinction between Spanish, British and French - everyone dressed like they were at court in Versailles. The sets somehow didn't evoke the qualities of the settings - the prison didn't feel like a prison, the mansions didn't feel like mansions, and the outside scenes looked like they were filmed on a back lot, for all that they were probably practical locations.

The score was dramatically less than it could have been. I have been a fan of film scores since my youth, noticing, appreciating and collecting them, by which I mean more than John Williams. My fiancée is a professional film composer, an award winner who has had her works performed at Lincoln Center, and a rising star in the industry. At the start of the film, we had high hopes for it, and it did indeed start off nicely. It rapidly deteriorated, and at several points - including the scene of the release of the prisoners - it actually reached a level of annoyance. I actually reached for the remote to turn down the volume. The score was never anything more than the most obvious choice for scoring a specific tone of scene, and didn't integrate itself into the "soul" of the film (think of the music in Babel and you'll have an idea of what I mean). It never attained the grandeur it wanted to, but then neither did the film.

Javier Bardem, as talented as he is, was awful. For the first part of the film, his mannerisms are so distracting that it takes over his performance. During the second half, everything that was his character in the first half is gone, replaced by an entirely different set of annoying mannerisms, and he looked like the love-child of Keith Richards and Stuart Townshend's Lestat. I never got the idea that he cared about the role (which is to say, that the character cared about his life and actions), or that the character was ever drawn by the writers as anything more than an opportunist who, for whatever reason, changes his mind and decides to stick by his principles at the end.

Natalie Portman was very good, although her performance lacked the shades of increasing insanity between her release from the prison and taking Lorenzo's hand at the end that I would have needed to call it truly an effective performance. The character of Alicia was never defined enough to truly discern, and if it weren't for the superb makeup on her eyes and cheeks, someone seeing the beginning of the film and the end wouldn't know they weren't the same character. The prosthetic teeth were horrible, artificial and distracting, but that's no knock on Ms. Portman.

Stellan Skarsgård was fine as Goya. Not Oscar-worthy, but serviceable and generally believable. I don't know much about the life of Goya, or his deafness, but it seemed to be tacked on to the movie as a requirement of biographical information, rather than anything that was utilized in the film. I am sure it affected Goya's life much more than just requiring the need of an interpreter, but you'd never know it from watching this. For the record, words and sounds can only be correctly interpreted roughly 30% of the time through lip-reading.

Don't get me started on Randy Quaid. At least he was a minor character.

The script reads like one of the "choose your own adventure" books I used to read as a kid: at several moments through the film, several outcomes are possible, and none of the actions preceding them lead with any certainty to the way the film actually plays out. Ironically, the film is also predictable, especially its meager attempts at leavening the mood through small bits of humor. The joke about the hands? Maybe it's because I paint (not well) as a hobby and know what a PITA hands are to draw/paint, but I saw the joke coming a mile away, as well as the reprise in the second half. Was the baby ever there for any other reason other than to be taken by Ines? There might as well have been a line of bread crumbs.

Disappointing.

(note: this review is a copy of a reply I made to a thread in the forum)


This film is just another waste of time. The plot is ridiculous, forced USA drama. The characters were all really weak, especially the uncharismatic Goya and the bad interpretation of Bardem, who only was alright in his classic interpretation, when acting as french ally.

Just another chance lost of have spent the money in a good film. I guess it was no a low budget film. Definitely not recommended. Maybe the director's should think a bit whether the film has sense or not before wasting so that money. Maybe they do not bother as they have profits before launching them in the cinema.

No more hope in cinema...


I didn't even watch this whole movie. Now, I like 50's sci-fi movies even when they are wildly inaccurate but this one just annoyed me. For one thing, one member of the crew on the spaceship talks and acts like he might have made it into the tenth grade. He sounds like he ought to be on a bowling league, not a space ship. Out the window of the spaceship the crew is marveling at Earth and this boob says 'Can you see Brooklyn?' and another guy says 'Sure'. And the boob says 'Gee, I wonder who's pitching?' Pardon me a moment, I think my sides are splitting.

When they first get up into orbit the boob says 'The moon is just for looking at! Take me back down!' Watching the crew making stretched mouths and screaming from the G-forces of acceleration during takeoff is also not one of the better moments of the film. (Perhaps the film's best moment can be identified by a big "THE END" on the screen.)

We also find out that they can't open the hatch because 'the boob' greased it before they took off. Sure, a space vehicle is going to be 'greased' by a member of the crew, who we later learn has never even had a space suit on before and doesn't know anything about zero gravity. As Baby Huey the overgrown fat cartoon duck once said, "That sounds logical!" The no-gravity-in-space effects are so bad it's painful to watch. (Everyone knows, in the absence of gravity, everything tends to go UP.)

How this movie gets 6.3 stars out of 10, when other vastly superior films don't rate any higher, is a mystery to me. I really do like old sci-fi movies but this one is not realistic, and the lame attempts at character humor by throwing in that boob from a gas station grease pit does not work at all - it just ruins the movie. I think in retrospect it's not the whole movie I hate so much as the fact that 'the boob' is so obviously not someone who would be on a space ship - not even to 'grease the hatch.' OMG. I wonder if he checked the fan belts too. Maybe if they'd left 'the boob' off the trip it might not have been QUITE so excruciating. Even so, it's only average. What everyone else is raving about, I don't know.

You want to watch a neat 1950's space movie? 'Rocketship X-M' beats it all to heck. Maybe not so much 'realism' but a more serious story and less goofy characters.


This movie may bear some historical importance, and it sure seems astonishing how well the facts are together, the setting, the rocket, the space suits, the surface of the moon, all scream "a classic" - but in the end, the result makes a pretty dull movie for todays eyes, and the 50ies tech scenes you might hope for in a movie like this are by far not enough to reward sitting through all the tacky dialog and predictable plot developments. The characters and plot may reward a scientific sociological analysis, but bear too little entertainment value many times.

Much of this movie seems like a good movie for nine-year-olds. The mature themes, the human drama and the violence are kept to a level suitale for children as well.

The images of the earth and the moon seen from space may actually be more accurate than the ones in "2001", but so what if their use is dramatically inefficient. Especially 2001 may seem like a stretched out meditation over themes of this movie, and, has Star Wars not somehow modelled it's space-scrolling opening titles on the opening titles of this Film? But then again - the inheritance is marginal.

If its a real groundbreaking and mega-influential mature 1950ies Sci-Fi classic you are looking for however, check out "Forbidden Planet".


The actors are so bland that it's almost impossible to tell them apart (Pauline Kael said of this movie: "The actors have names, but they're truly anonymous"), and the special effects are really bad. They simulate weightlessness with people hanging on cables and by recycling the trick that let Fred Astaire dance on the ceiling in "Royal Wedding" (but none of these guys move well enough to make it look convincing).

The low point of the movie is when one of the characters, an airplane tycoon, is trying to convince some other "giants of industry" to come in with him in a moon-rocket consortium, and he shows them a Woody Woodpecker cartoon that explains how a rocket works at a 2nd grade level! (And to think that Robert Heinlein worked on the screenplay...)

The only plus is that the production design manages to communicate a sort of "Amazing Stories" sensibility, and even that is done much better in the producer's (George Pal) subsequent movie "When Worlds Collide", which has similar bad acting, but is much more entertaining. However, Pal's best sci-fi movie has to be "The Time Machine".


Of the thousands of movies I've seen so far, this is the first one which made me think of the "wasted talents" expression. I had never EVER seen so many fine actors giving so dreadful performances (Frédéric Pierrot, Elsa Zylberstein,and so on). The "aging" make-up is quite awful and, to make it worse, lit broadly. The use of music (e.g. love at first sight for the young aide de camp) is at times so caricatural that I could feel most spectators around me smile awkwardly. So far, Antoine de Caunes has been quite a good actor, but seeing this one and "les morsures de l'aube" I think he should start considering quitting. Please Antoine, give up that "master of balantree" project ; I doubt you deserve it.


Tu pa tam is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. But on the other hand is better then most of the movies from Slovenia, who are filled with depressing characters and story without any bright ideas. Tu pa tam is bright, optimistic and without any artistic moments. In many interviews director Mitja Okorn tried to tell us that his movie is top quality just because it didn't cost a lot of money. But thinking that way is wrong. Tu pa tam is for me very bad movie. The dialogs are really bad written (90% of the script is consisted of cursing), the characters are stereotypical morons, the story and its twists are very predictable and the action sequences (this movie supposed to be an action comedy) are filmed very very bad and without any style. Okorn is just thinking he's even bigger than Quentin Tarantino, so he's copying his style over all 90 minutes. The humor in the movie is very cheap and primitive (Okorn probably thinks that constant cursing is funny). In my opinion is Tu pa tam very cheap (not only by budget)movie with stupid story and very very bad acting.


Police officer Michael (Tomas Arana, "The Church") has his hands full while investigating a serial killer who's been leaving parts of the bodies of the people that he's been murdering at the house of one recently widowed, Tracy (Joanna Pacula). Mike has to find a way to stop the bodies from piling up, while perhaps finding love in the process.

A feeling of the 'giallo' films of yore pervades this film, even though we know who the killer is from the get-go, and the film contains a few good set-pieces (a scene later in the film set in a school for the blind being particularly memorable), but it doesn't make all that much sense when all is said and done either. All in all, not nearly as good as Bava's earlier "Macabre" nor his first two "Demons" films, but enjoyable enough if you can forgive the rather outrageous plot twists towards the end of the film. A pity the Image Entertainment DVD lacked extras of any kind, as I would have been interested in some.

My Grade: C-


I consider myself to have a decent sense of humor, but this "movie" left me stunned in my chair.

It's so bad that it could just not have been any worse. Not once did I laugh at the sadly attempted jokes in this movie. I have watched and enjoyed several parodies of big movies, but unfortunately this one will allways be the one I remember best - in my nightmares.

The only reason anyone should want to watch this, is if they want to enter a coma for a brief period of time.

This is the worst movie ever.


Without a doubt, the WORST movie I have ever seen in my life. There was nothing entertaining about this film. I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but it actually made me cry at the thought of losing the $4.75 admission price.


It's painfully obvious that the people who made this "movie" have never seen such brilliant spoofs as "The Naked Gun" and "Hot Shots". This movie is terrible, and so are the actors. They wouldn't know acting even if it hit them in the face, as I felt like doing while watching this total pile of rubbish.

The movie is stupid and has no humor in it what so ever. I'm SURE that I could make a better movie with my friends. To me it's amazing that a movie can fail this much. Not a single clever or funny line. No trace of intelligence behind it. It's a pathetic movie and I'd like to meet the person who actually likes this movie. Yuck!


I've never understood this type of spoof movies. You get some serious/semi-serious movie that everyone knows about and takes the seriousness out of it through immature fart-jokes and such. We've seen it many, many times, and it's never really been funny. It's just an easy way to laugh at something you don't understand, in my opinion. This seems to be one of the more obscure and less liked of the genre, though I honestly don't see anything in this that is much worse than that of Spy Hard or Hot Shots. This movie, as is clearly understood simply from the title, concentrates on making childish fun of Pulp Fiction. That's the main reason I decided to watch it, as I found that film to be overly indulgent of Tarantino's sick mind and powerfully overrated. I had hoped for one or two good jokes, making fun of the overly violent and pointless type of movie that Pulp Fiction was in every aspect, in my (anything but) humble opinion. I was sorely disappointed. The plot is pretty much a rip-off of Tarantino's film, with a few scenes spoofing other, often better, films, in the same childish and humorless fashion. The pacing is poor, and often you'll sit there, being able to guess the outcome of every scene, predicting every joke, often thinking of a better one at the spot, bored out of your mind. The acting is bad. The characters are clichés and stereotypes, and are intentionally paper-thin in order to make fun of the characters they're based on... problem is, it doesn't work. It just makes the movie that much harder to sit through. The humor is juvenile and lame. The only positive thing I can say about this film is that they managed to find some actors that looked like the people they were supposed to look like. The film is an awful waste of the actual real actors involved. Possibly slightly entertaining to fans of the typical spoof movies of the same kind. I recommend this only to people who truly loathed Pulp Fiction, or fans of the Zucker parody films. Everyone else: avoid. 1/10


Now first let me say I love god awful movies. Especially horror films mainly. I watched hundreds of movies on Mystery Science Theater 3000 with no pain. But this is the absolute worst film on the planet!!! I had to turn it off it was so bad. It was unfunny and just plain unwatchable. Give me 3 back to back viewings of Manos The Hands of fate or Monster A-go-go over this any day. Avoid this film like the plauge!! Now excuse me while I go gouge out my eyes to cleanse them of the filth I had to watch to get a decent judgement for this film. Only one decent gag in the part I watched was the hitmen now are an extermination pair for Hitmen Exterminators. Even that wasn't to great of a gag.


This is a spin off of Pulp Fiction. I thought that it would be good for a few decent laughs. Well it turns out that this movie really was terrible. The whole plot doesn't follow on the Pulp Fiction plot. It turns to other movie like Forrest Gump and more. Some laughs came out of this movie, but all and all it totally took 90 minutes of my life away from me. If you are thinking of renting this movie, please don't it will waste 90 minutes of your life. Reconsider renting this and go on and find a movie that actually makes sense. Please if there is a Plump Fiction 2, I will definitely not go on and rent the sequel. Just giving a heads up for those out there.


This can hardly be called a good movie, actually it's not even close. But I have to say, that there was a few things that made me... not laugh, not giggle, but something like that. The Resovoir Dogs parody was one of them. The rest are not important enough to be remembered.

To be honest, I was a little disappointed by this movie. The plot sounded like an idea, but it quickly fell to the ground. The whole thing was just to messy and the actors where not good for the characters; most of them simply overacted. There was also a whole lot of unessecary sequences, that was a total waste of film. I do realize that it would make the movie about 20 min shorter, but it would only make it better.

Now, with the good and the bad things lined up, let's go to the conclusion: two out of six toilet seats up for this one.


..this movie being one of them.

I remember, in the middle of the movie, me and my friend just

looked at each other, shaked our heads and laughed.. in despair.

See it if you wish, if you feel that you have the time to waste

and don´t mind 1.5 hrs of catatonia.


...when this movie was on.

What a bore. An attempt at humor, but really not pulling it off too well. Some good ideas were cast, and the actors makeup and wardrobe were OK.

I expected a lot more, unfortunately I couldn't sit through any more of it, I switched off halfway through the video, and ejected the tape, went to the rental store to get my money back...


The worst movie ever made. If anyone asks you what is the worst movie you've ever seen - tell them Plump Fiction. Of all the movies I've ever seen this gotta be the most lame experience. Even the poorest sequels are pure masterpieces compared


This is by far the worst movie i have ever seen. Its been a few years since I saw it and nothing has come close since then and i doubt that there ever will be a movie produced that is as bad as this. It tries to make fun of a variety of different movies, for example 'Nell' (!) and instead of funny its just pathetic. Whatever you do, don't rent or by this garbage and if someone throws it at you....turn around and run the other way!!


If you watched Pulp Fiction don't see this movie. This movie is NOT funny. This is the worst parody movie ever. This is a poor attempt of parody films.

The cast is bad. The film is bad. This is one of the worst pictures ever made.

I do not recommend Plump Fiction. I prefer the original Pulp Fiction by the great Quentin Tarantino. This is one of the worst parody films ever made.

Plump Fiction is not a good movie. It is not funny. It is so dumb and vulgar.


...about this film was the title song. After 30 minutes, I discontinued watching because it was so lame. Bad story, bad actors, bad movie. If you want to watch a good movie, watch Pulp Fiction instead.


Well,this movie is really "PLUMPED" HAHA Get it? Thats kinda like the attitude of this movie. The plot is just a copy of Pulp Fiction,okay thats acceptable,but to make this piece if "PLUMP" (haha)! is really unbelievable.The storyline is so pathetic,and the whole thing only gathered a few laughs. It did try making a few jokes from various other movies,and it failed most of the times. I mean,i do have a sense of humor,but this isnt really the way to go to get a laugh. Most of the supposedly "Funny" moments are completely ironic. The film is quiet short running at around 75 minutes overall. They could have done a much funnier job,seeming they made fun of a blockbuster film,they were gambling,and hey! I think they lost!

In overall PLUMP Fiction,is "PLUMPABLE" but you wont gather much at all!

Worth watching over and over again?: No once is enough,actually its more than enough!

So is it worth the rent? Ummm..As I said,Its "PLUMPABLE",but you will only gather a few "PLUMPS" from it!

Overall out of 10: a 4 out of 10!


Gritty drama? Emotionally powerful? Blah! The BBC has lost out big time to masterful productions such as The Wire, Sopranos and Carnivale from HBO. Okay, so the budget may be a lot smaller but 'The Street' last night was badly acted, predictable, unrealistic, stereotypical, insensitive and a big fat waste of time. TV (British TV) is not as good as it used to be and is falling further and further behind the American productions.

There was no sense of brutal violence from the 'local gangster'. There was no indication that this man was 'insane' enough to beat up a man he has respected for such a long time. There was no remorse when he did it and this shouldn't be the sort of character that would back down when Bob Hoskins called his son a pansy, in a display of 'bravery'.

I wish I was more eloquent to express my disdain for this show, but I am not and although I can't prove my point well enough, believe me when I say that this was rubbish, shock TV, that provides no real inward looking perspective on life.

1/5 stars.


This film is about a gap that exists between the real world and the world of the dead. There's a lot of mumbo-jumbo about the internet (i.e., if you install a program on the computer, you see dead folks--much like if you play a videotape you'll die in RINGU). Frankly, most of this seemed rather silly and lost me. What I did find interesting is the idea that the dead live within their own separate existence--being totally alone for eternity. This was sobering and fascinating.

I love Japanese films and have seen a huge number compared to most Americans. However, one genre that has become popular in recent years that I just can't relate to very well are these horror films. I know they are super popular--especially since they seem to be remade so often in the States. I've seen both RINGU as well as THE RING, JU-ON and THE GRUDGE and was rather ambivalent despite their popularity. About the only recent horror film I really liked from Japan was SEANCE--a reworking of the great British film, SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON. And what, do I think, made SEANCE different? Well, unlike the other films as well as KAIRO, gobs and gobs of money weren't spent on special effects or trying to scare the audience--instead, the emphasis was on the story. The bottom line is that these other films are a lot like American films like HALLOWEEN or Friday 13th--with scary things jumping out just to scare the audience and plot is purely secondary (at best). For me, I want story--not cheap thrills or ghosts as the primary focus of the film.

With a relatively high rating, I know I am in the minority, but I just don't find this a very satisfying film. All too often, minor things occur that might startle someone slightly--but the characters begin screaming and crying and acting as if to say "this is the scariest film ever made so you'd better start shaking". Well, I think it just tries too hard and I wish it had focused more on the afterlife seen at the end of the film and plot progression--not scare tactics.


Kairo, or Pulse as it's known amongst English speaking audiences, is set in Tokyo & starts as Sunny Plant Sales employee Michi Kudo (Kumiko Aso) decides to visit her friend Taguchi (Kenji Mizuhashi) to enquire about a computer disk he's been working on, when she gets to his place he gives her the disk but then rather inconsiderately commits suicide in front of her. Meanwhile a student named Ryosuke Kawashima (Haruhiko Kato) has recently hooked up to the internet & keeps getting spooky messages & images on his monitor so he ask's computer whizz Harue Karasawa (Koyuki) whats happening, she doesn't really know but it seems that the place where people's spirits go when they die is full & they need somewhere else to go & Earth is as good a place as any, right? These spirits don't like sharing either so they sort of make people commit suicide or turn them into ashes or something like that, I don't really know because the films a bit of a mess...

This Japanese production was written & directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa & right off the bat I have to say I hated Kairo, I hated everything about it & it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Asian cinema can produce something as crap as any American filmmaker. The script is an overlong mess, the thing simply doesn't make any sense with scenes which seem like they are from a different film, sequences which make no logical sense or are not explained in any way & Kairo is also the most downright boring film I've sat through this year. At two hours long this is a real chore to sit through, I really wanted to fast-forward it but I'm fair if nothing else so I stuck it out to the bitter end & frankly wished I hadn't. There are so many things wrong with Kairo, I suppose the filmmakers were going for a surreal ambiguous & deliberately incoherent feel but those are traits which I despise in a film unless they are done properly. Then there's the whole internet thing which I just couldn't relate to at all, I use the internet all day & it's not in the least bit scary to me in any way. Then there's the fact that Kairo as a film provided zero entertainment value for me, maybe I'm a Neanderthal but I kind of like the films I watch to entertain me, make some sort of sense & not bore me to death.

Director Kurosawa has made the ultimate insomnia cure as far as I'm concerned, if you have trouble getting to sleep stick this in the DVD & you be fast asleep within 10 minutes I guarantee you. I didn't think Kairo was scary in the slightest, the whole internet thing was laughable & as for scary you should see some of the penis enlargement pop-up ads I get, now that's scary! I hate this film, I hate this film, I'm sorry I just need to make that basic point again, twice. Forget about any action, tension or gore as there isn't any. If you have a very nervous disposition then there are maybe a couple of scenes which might creep you out otherwise this is kiddie friendly PG rated stuff all the way. Urgh.

The film looks so dull & boring it's untrue, the camera just sits there for very long shots & when it does move it moves very slowly, this has all the style of a Mexican soap opera. Since Kairo is sub titled it's difficult to judge the original performances so I won't bother, it's hard to care for someone when they don't even speak the same language & you don't know what they are saying.

Kairo is crap, I hated it & it's as simple & straight forward as that. Just because it's an Asian flick doesn't automatically make it any good & the mess of a story, the plot holes, the fact it makes no sense & it's an absolute bore means Kairo would rightly be torn to shreds by people if it were an American production. The worst film I've seen this year by some distance. Kairo got a Hollywood remake as Pulse (2006).


I was so excited to finally watch "Pulse" after receiving it from Amazon, and I have to say I was utterly disappointed. I perhaps think I was too hyped up. I had expectations set by its fans that simply couldn't be met. After loving other Asian horrors, I thought I knew this would find a place in my heart.

The story was slow, painfully so. I am a diverse fan of horror. I love the brutal, bloody craziness of "The Devil's Rejects" and I love equally the steady, growing macabre of "A Tale of Two Sisters". "Pulse" offered little from either spectrum, sadly.

Along with the sluggishness of the plot, it was also very muddled. I hadn't a clue why characters were doing what they were doing and how what they were doing would help their problem. It seemed as if the director spouted off the plot in a sentence or two and the rest was improf from our actors. Unlike "A Tale of Two Sisters", which also has a rather hard-to-follow plot line, "Pulse" clears up very little at the end and left me feeling frustrated, confused and uninterested in the characters' endeavors. My closing statement about the plot was its inconsistency. At first it seemed as if the story was about the ghost world overflowing and their medium of escaping is the Internet. That's a damn original idea. I like that. But as the plot drones on, plot-holes and unexplained happenings rearing their heads in, it seems the director switched to some apocalyptic tale (as evident by the ending) that just hasn't been clear enough throughout to execute.

I realize the dreariness of the shots and the setting was intentional to make the viewer feel bleak and isolated, but the dullness of the movie was only intensified by the grainy, shadowy surroundings. I will admit there was a certain feel of surrealism with the movie, but that may have just been my attention waning in and out.

The actions of some of the characters are a little bit ridiculous as well, and perhaps if I was more enthralled by the story I would've been able to suspend more disbelief but as well myself being unmotivated so too were some of the characters. Like I mentioned previously, the logic behind what certain characters did were absent and contributed to the incoherence of the plot. Perhaps it was a result of the plot's incoherence that the characters do questionable things. To be honest I don't really care.

The acting was decent. Certainly nothing outstanding but nothing terrible either. No outliers to mention on either side of brilliant or plain awful.

Now I'll stop sounding so sour and mention that there were a handful of creepy moments. One towards the end especially that if there were more like it throughout, I would've enjoyed this movie (almost) wholly. I thought whenever the website was shown it was pretty unsettling, as well as some of the ghostly encounters our two main characters face. The things that went on between these ghastly run-ins were just too lackluster, baffling and "WTF" for me to truly appreciate.

Now for something pertaining to the DVD itself... Magnolia's release of "Pulse" comes with subtitles, yes, but the subtitles are off. They aren't said at the correct time of the character's speech. It may sound nit-picking but it bothered me a little and it may bother some others. I think this is the only North American release of the film though so you either have to deal or watch dubbing (NEVER WATCH DUBBING!!!) I tried to like the film, I really did. I WANTED this film to live up to the hype... but sadly, it fell flat for me. If you're looking for other creepy Asian cinema I can recommend you "Audition", "Shutter", "A Tale of Two Sisters", "Strange Circus" and "Marebito" -- all of which are more my palette.


I saw this movie because every review I read of it said that it was one of the scariest movies of the new millennium. I really don't understand what all of the hype was about. For one thing, the dialogue in this movie was laughably bad ("What if something strange is going on?"...what????). The acting didn't blow my socks off either. It could have been because the script barely gave the actors anything to work with....the characters are purely 2-dimensional to me and I didn't give a hoot about them at all. Another thing is that the movie extremely boring. Extremely. Sure, there are a couple of "jolts" here and there, but for the movie's 112 minute length, it sure didn't use it's time up wisely. Most of the movie contains characters talking about stuff that had barely anything to do with the plot. What was the point of that??

To top it off, the movie makes no sense. Yes, I believe I understood the intentions of the ghosts, but how that fits into the events that actually occur in the movie is beyond me. Also, much of the movie is played out in little vignettes, which makes the story hard to follow at times. And don't even get me started with the ending. What exactly happened there?

I can give Kurosawa credit for placing some truly frightening images throughout the film. There are very creepy shots of ghosts and other unsettling images. If they reflected more on those images and elaborated on them, it would have made the movie much stronger. But they didn't, and instead elaborated more on social commentary, which was interesting, but again, portrayed in an extremely dull way. Yes, it's a message movie. Okay, fun. I'll just get the message of my review right out here in the open: find a better way to spend your spare time than watching this.


Would be promising if it were a student film. Never seems to know where it's going next, as if they decided on each next scene as they were making the film. As a result, much repetition and a deadening pace. There's an absolutely confusing procedure by which the ghosts affect people in this world: it involves the internet, phone calls, a computer science experiment, a suspicious grad student, withdrawn behavior, red rooms, dark stains, and _then_ suicides. Good luck figuring out the connections, or when a character is a ghost yet or just acting strangely. Characters are barely sketched, which could be OK, but they're completely uninteresting. It's far too long and ends just when it reaches a promising scenario, although the conclusion is nonsensical. Weakest moment: when "the boss" sits down to give some incoherent advice.


I can appreciate movies with subtitles from foreign countries and specially the ones in which the subtitles are weak and don't really seems to follow the story or really make sense, but this movie had too many parts that didn't really make sense.

All in all, i can admit to a few scary and freaky parts, but they are repetitive, i felt like i was watching a loop trailer; seems like it was a short film shot with different actors.

In the veins of RINGU and GRUDGE but not even close the the hype...the excessive length killed the thrill.

Unless you are a die hard fan of these types of movies (wich i thought i was), don't waste your time on this one.


Do not see this film. In most cases, such as that of Ju-On and The Grudge, the Japanese film are infinitely better than the American remake. However, this movie was terrible. The ghosts, much like a trick or treater dressed as a sheet ghost moan and wheeze in an attempt to be scary in the absence of good makeup or special effects and the acting is just horrible. The story itself is inconsistent and confusing, not everything is explained leaving the film to go from bad to worse. Do not waste your time with this movie, it's not worth it and I am sure that there are more entertaining things to do - like watching paint dry.


I never fell asleep during a movie. Never. This movie did the impossible.

While many people claim the superiority of Japanese horror films over their American counterparts, this movie was a lesson in over abundance. As in, the movie was 30 minutes too long. It would have helped if the movie had a little more movement in the plot and the camera work, but instead, all we got were awkward silences and a lot of slow movement. The acting was absolutely terrible, bordering on bad student film levels while everyone struggled to ad-lib something called a script. Did these people even get any direction? Were they coaxed to be boring and dull? Either therory wouldn't surprise me.

What was even worse was the rather unscary make-up involved with the creatures from the other side. Either way, they all stunk. Don't watch this film. That's all I can say (unless you're an insomniac).


Forget the lousy acting, that can be forgiven in this sort of film. Or even the terrible, unnatural dialog and illogical events (if my subtitles actually reflected what was said). Far worse is the blatant absence of a skillful or experienced director who maybe took a holiday with the editor while the film was being made? Watching the film, it feels completely out of date even though it was 'only' made 7 years ago. A computer virus as a portal to the afterlife? lol? A dial up internetconnection? Clucky ghost images photoshopped on pictures ("He! Look over there...is that..is that a face?" -zoom in on face- -Oops, sound breaks off- 'chop' -next scene- ), scenes and sequences are poorly edited and as a result don't flow at all. You'll be watching a girl finding a corpse still hanging from the knot in one scene and then literally 10 seconds later seeing her again at some place apparently unaffected, smiling and going about.

Apart from the many problems I have with the movie in terms of production-value, it is also painfully long and repetitive and thus utterly boring.

I recommend 'Shutter' in stead, an oriental (Thai) horror movie done well.


While the design and locations and photography are strong assets in this film; it is a turgid and melodramatic affair which demonstrates the limits of cinema to convey truth.

The case is the use of the soundtrack music: a mix of Gustav Mahler and Andrew Lloyd-Webber that plays constantly and loudly, and would have made Max Steiner grimace at its over use as it instructs the audience how difficult; how ecstatic; how tortured it is to be an artist. And then it really counts the story elides the details at the end.

This heightened and kitsch exploitation of emotions was once well ridiculed by Peter Ackroyd about a Yukio Mishima book: This is not writing, this is Barbara Cartland. Precisely the same critique can be made of this film: a deceptive, mawkish vanity project.


I saw this movie and thought it was a sleeper. Sometimes I can get into intellectual Romantic movies. This movie just did not move me. I felt like it was about one hour too long. Camille is portrayed as a very sympathetic sculptor, who loses just about everything. I thought the whole movie was just sad, and downcast. If you like tragedies, you MIGHT like this. I just thought it was too long, which meant it has many unnecessary scenes, which ultimately lead to about one hour of boredom. I would not recommend this movie. If you want to see a good romantic tragedy go watch Titanic.


Although this starts out promisingly, a woman in a car is weaving around dark roads in the middle of the night in the middle of the forest until she almost hits a man holding a lizard! This gave me the impression that we were going to see something special, something almost David Lynchian (if there is such a term), but unfortunately, the film starts to go everyplace, not having a core center, just sort of meandering story about a woman trying to solve a mystery of a small town. The character study goes all over the place, and I couldn't really care for any of the characters it seems, especially when some of the story all of a sudden goes into flashback mode. I had some hopes for this movie, but all in all, it was a bit of a letdown.


I am looking at all the good reviews about this film and I start thinking to myself... Am I going crazy..? Can't I see the beauty from a film like this..? Am I just dumb enough to NOT understand the message this film is trying to point out? I don't know.. maybe one of those lizards entered in my head and ate all my brains as well. The film idea was going nowhere... I was sure it would have a foggy end, and of course... it did! Nothing exceptional... Not even the landscapes (I hopped that being placed in a mountain village at least the landscapes would be nice.. but no). Just a lame story about a crazy teacher, and of course her crazy students... now all grown up, each of them.. with his/her own fixed ideas. And boy some of those ideas were stupid.. like the lizard story for example. At a moment I thought I was watching x files.. with the lizard entering in the ear and all. No.. from my point of view this movie is a waste of time (not to say money if U pay for the ticket) The only part that I did like was the acting of the young blue eye "german" kid... He played very well and convincing for his age... The rest... nothing! I read the previous review and I think the script writer and the director were both on drugs when they came up with those ideas. Well considering that there are a lot of people that enjoyed this film... I think to myself again.. Maybe I am the crazy one. Advice.. Don't waste your time with this!


Obabakoak is a bunch of short stories with an only common point: the little Vasque town of Obaba. In this film, the director tries to explain some of these stories by using a young reporter as a continuum. The result is a strange film, as it has any main character (the movie spends about 20 min. to each tale) other than the town of Obaba. Any story is really well explained and the fact is that they result very boring. It was by far the best film of the year in Spain, but, well, that's not saying too much. The only good thing of the film is the precious scenarios. It is filmed in a very precious valley and it is more enjoyable to spend the time watching the scenario rather than being aware of the story.


With great expectations I went to see this film, Spain's contribution to the Oscar-race this year. Part from being completely pointless, banal, pathetic, badly written, edited, acted and directed, the movie is too long. It fails in delivering the "message" it tries to give, fails in its storytelling, clumsy historical settings and above all in its rhythm. There are some so extreme misfires I haven't seen in a movie in a long time (the story of Lucas whose dead sister lives in his head, the divine revelations, all that lizard nonsense). The Spanish-speaking audience around me was yawning and rapidly losing patience, and some of the commentaries I overheard was whether the members of the Spanish Academy had taken drugs before choosing the film for the Oscar contest.


Lone Star Productions sure churned them out in the 1930's, and "Star Packer" has the feel of one of the more rushed ones. John Wayne is U.S. Marshal John Travers, investigating a crooked hoodlum known only as "The Shadow", responsible for stealing cattle, stage holdups and the like, and giving orders from behind the door of a phony wall safe. Yakima Canutt is Travers' trusty Indian sidekick, appropriately named as... well, "Yak".

Early on, we find out that Cattlemens Union head Matt Matlock (George pre-Gabby Hayes) is really The Shadow; the dead giveaway is when he offers to buy out his (supposed) niece Anita's half of the Matlock Ranch, since "this is no place for a girl". As Anita, Verna Hillie doesn't have much to do in the film, although in a comic moment, she gets to use a six shooter to blast the butt of one of the villains in a night time scare raid.

There are a few curiosities in the film - for one, Wayne's character alternately rides a white horse and a dark horse in the first half of the film. In what could have been a neat device, a hollowed out tree stump used by a henchman is located right in the middle of the street. And finally, the movie doesn't truly live up to it's name, as Sheriff Travers never wears a badge throughout the film, that is, a star packer without a star.

The horse chases, the runaway stage scenes, the stagecoach off the cliff (another curiosity, the horses conveniently get loose from the stage) are all pretty standard stuff. But John Wayne fans will want to see this one for the charisma he displayed early on in his career. For those more critical, the white kerchiefs worn around the forehead by the good guy posse could only mean that they all had a headache.


I watched the beginning twice, could NOT make sense of it, and it bothered me for the whole movie.

So, work this out with me: Wayne (the GOOD guy) jumps on the stagecoach, disarms the drivers (!), steals the money (?!), and takes off.

Disarmed, one driver is then killed and the other wounded by the bad guys. Thanks to Wayne, who disarmed them, and then watched it happen.

Then Wayne drops the money in the dirt, rescues the girl, rides into town, chuckles it up with Yak (too bad about the dead guy, I guess)...and then later says he "found" the money back at the scene. And everyone's okay with that.

And he's the good guy? And I'm pretty sure there weren't small, hand-held flashlights at the time. And Bell did his first phone demo in 1876... were they in houses then? Am I thinking too hard about this one? Normally, I'm happy to suspend judgment to enjoy a movie, but this one bothered me. And that's a sign the move didn't really work for me.


Sad to say this is one of the sillier of John Wayne's series of poverty row westerns for Lone Star Productions. Here he is a United States Marshal on the trail of a bandit known only, I kid you not, as the Shadow.

No it's not Lamont Cranston, it's some dude who gives his orders through an open wall safe so his men don't see who he is. But the voice is unmistakable, you'll know within 10 minutes of the film.

And another reviewer here is quite wrong, no squeals or groans from the audience would have occurred because Gabby Hayes was still playing a variety of roles and he's clean shaven here. He had not yet found his niche as the lovable oldtimer sidekick of various movie cowboy heroes like the Duke.

Later on he does lead his men quite openly in the climax so I'm not sure what the point of the original gimmick with the wall safe was. I don't think those that wrote this one knew either.

Wayne gets Yakima Canutt as an Indian sidekick here and the relationship is just about the same as an unmasked Lone Ranger and Tonto.

It's all pretty silly if you ask me.


THE STAR PACKER is one of about 152,000,000 westerns that John Wayne acted in during the 1930s. Well, the number is a bit exaggerated, but it seemed almost like this many. This is because these B-movies were quickly made with very low budgets in order to be the second, or lesser, feature in a theater. Most Bs were pretty cheap and tended to cut corners to keep down costs and THE STAR PACKER is no exception. To save on costs, incidental music is not used, running times were kept to under an hour, the writing was often rather derivative and the actors are mostly lesser talents--and Wayne himself was definitely far from being a household name at this time. Some of these Wayne features are pretty good, while others, like this one, are watchable but also rather silly and inconsequential. I enjoyed this film and most of the others, but it's probably because I cut Bs a lot of slack.

Wayne stars as John Travers--a US Marshall investigating the actions of a local gang out to chase locals out and steal from the stage. This is odd, as the film was apparently set in the modern time or close to it, as they used telephones and modern machine guns--things you just wouldn't expect to find in the Old West. Such anachronisms are actually pretty common in B Westerns--as Gene Autry films (for example) abound with them. Wayne's sidekick is Yak--played by stuntman and real life friend of Wayne, Yakima Canutt.

The bad guy is an unknown figure referred to as "The Shadow" and he dispenses his instructions through a black screen that hides his face! This sounds exactly like a character from a movie serial--the sort of baddie that kids loved but grownups groaned at because they were so silly and at bit like Blofeld or Dr. Evil! The problem is, if you listen to his voice AND pay any attention at all, it becomes obvious early in the film that this "Shadow" is George Hayes. Now speaking of Hayes, this is the same guy who later in films was known as Gabby Hayes, but here and in several other of Wayne's early films, he looks and acts NOTHING like Gabby. In THE STAR PACKER, he was well dressed, articulate and clean-shaven--imagine that! In real life, apparently this was more the real George Hayes--though I doubt that he was evil! Now as you can tell from the last paragraph that there really is no mystery in this film. You are left with acting (passable and nothing more) and stunts--which were actually pretty amazing. Again and again, one amazing stunt after another occurred--such as men jumping from horse to horse and some great fight scenes--all done, by the way, by Canutt and his friends. Canutt was often John Wayne's double in films--and this went on for decades. The problem with some of the stunts, however, is that it appears that the film makers actually killed a few horses to get those great "stumbling horses" bits seen later in the film. Up until about 1940, film makers often strung thin metal wire and ran horses across it at full gallop! In the process, the horses' legs were usually broken and the horses were subsequently euthanized! One of the worst examples of this was the film JESSE JAMES--where several horses were brutally killed--leading to the American Humane Association insisting that a representative of the organization be on film shoots to certify that animals are NOT hurt in the production. So, since about 1940, films bear this little disclaimer. THE STAR PACKER was made well before the disclaimer and I can't see how the horses did these "tricks" without being killed.

Overall, this is at best a time-passer due to a poor plot, occasionally poor acting and an unbelievable cruel attitude towards the horses. I am no bleeding heart, but just can't understand this disregard for a poor old animal.


I haven't any idea how commentators could regard this as a decent B Western. Or how one commentator said the plot was more cohesive than most. Nothing could be farther from the truth! This movie is one HUGE non-sequitur! It is an affront to the noble B Western films of the '30's. I have seen many of Wayne's early Lone Star and Republic westerns, and this one is easily the worst.

The bad guy is known as The Shadow - for crying out loud! Initially, The Shadow's scheme is holding up open-sided stage coaches. Simultaneously, his gang rustles all of the cattle in the territory. Then they decide to move on to bank robbery. To do this, they need to shoot up the town with a machine gun - no explanation of why that's necessary or how he got that neato little toy!

No single scheme is revealed in enough detail to suggest a plot here. The Shadow is obviously just a generally bad guy with all kinds of generally evil schemes.

He imparts his instructions to his gang through a fake wall-safe. (Knock-knock, who's there?) He is apparently clairvoyant, because whenever his henchmen need to talk to him, they knock on the wall, the safe opens and - PRESTO - he's there. (I can just imagine that he has met them face-to-face and says,"I have some secret, nefarious instructions to give you about our next evil deed - meet me at the wall-safe and I'll give 'em to you.") Just why the Shadow requires the safe to communicate with his army of outlaws is, like most of the elements of this mess, never explained.

He has a nifty tunnel to the ol' hollow stump across the street from which vantage point, various of his baddies perform assassinations. He also has a hidden panel NOT in his secret lair behind the fake safe, but out in the main room.

When not behind the safe, he hangs out on his cow-less ranch, masquerading as rancher Matlock. We learn that he has murdered the true owners of the ranch - two brothers - and assumed the identity of one. The daughter of the dead brother has recently arrived from 1930's NYC (judging by her wardrobe), and she apparently never met her real uncle, because he dupes her, too!

If you thought that bad guys always wore black hats and good guys white hats, you need to see this movie. Here, the good guys all ditch their hats in favor of white head-bands that make them look like they have all suffered head wounds before any shots have been fired! It's like a game of pick-up basketball - only Wayne has them tying bandanas 'round their heads instead of just taking off their shirts.

Perhaps the weirdest of all is the ending. Immediately after subduing the Shadow and his gang, we jump far enough into the future to see Wayne and his wife (the erst-while niece) on the front porch of their home. (Never mind that there has been scant romance.) There, Yak is playing with Wayne's 3-4 year old son, dressed up in Injun garb! (Hiyoo, skookum fun!)

No thanks to this nonsense, Wayne went on to become a screen legend. Only a super-star (packer or not!) could surmount this entry in a film resume. Long live the Duke!


This proves just how awful the WB Network was in the last few years of its existence. As a homeschooler, I of course deplore this show for its ridiculous, fantasy land, obscure & unfunny stereotypes about the kids being "weird hippies who are so smart they're alienated from the super-cool high school students". Sorry TV writers, the world as viewed from inside your ass (containing your heads apparently when you wrote this show)is NOT the world we talented people see with our eyes as we live in a little thing called reality. As for those who actually liked this show...please, dear sweet Jesus PLEASE rethink the statement that you actually liked this crap over a very long walk. The acting is even more hollow, phony and wooden than the stereotypes the whole show was built around. Thank you WB for doing the right thing and putting this horse out of its beginning-to-end misery. This show never, ever should've even had the privilege of being made, no less having so much as eight awful episodes. I really hope that these actors eventually got a clue and stopped playing roles in garbage TV shows like this as soon as this show ended.


I'm sorry but I just honestly cannot see why anyone would actually like this. It's stereotypical and REAL homeschoolers are NOTHING like they were on this show!! Personally I'm glad it got canceled after the first few episodes. I mean, this kind of show would certainly be alright if everyone knew that homeschoolers weren't really like this, and the whole story was just for the show, but unfortunately not everyone is aware of this. If anyone out there that watched this actually believed this is what goes on in the life of a homeschooler, then I honestly feel sorry for them. This reminds me of the kind of portrayal they have of homeschooled kids in "Mean Girls". It's sad, really, that people think this way. This is complete garbage, IMHO.


I have watched THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL with the avowed object of refuting this so called scientific atheist . I don't know where to start as he is such a rich source of stupidity.

He is obviously not a statistician else the odds of 2/1 of him burning for all eternity would have pushed him towards belief in God

He regards science as religion and expects us to believe him as we do God. One has only to look at the language used in his postulations.

Regarding Faith. This commodity is used extensively in everyday behaviour. Just think about it. When he gets in an electrician be believes that it will be wired correctly and trustfully turns on the switch. When he gets in a plumber he pulls the chain in his bathroom and expects the water to flow in the right direction. Regarding faith in science When I was in chemistry class I believed and was taught that the atom was the smallest particle and the onion skin theory of electrons both of which have now been discounted. I was taught this as the atomic theory 'writ in stone' so to speak. So why should we believe any scientist especially when he goes beyond the parameters of his field? Dawkins states that religion will be the downfall of civilisation. Religion is civilisation. Can he, or any other atheist, please tell us what civilisation was founded and nurtured by atheism, barbarism or savagery please? He is now living in the last stages of a Christian based civilisation and taking all the benefits from it without any admission for its source. I found Dawkins to be arrogant, dictatorial, judgmental, an obvious believer in eugenics and a Nazi in his attitude towards the young. How dare he say what a parent can teach their child. The child is theirs, not the nation's and as the parents bequeath to it their genetics, so do they bequeath their beliefs. His dismissal of Adam as "he never existed" as he has no proof was an example of this same attitude. So I have no proof that Joe Blogs lives in New York but he well may do. I just haven't found the proof yet. That does not negate his existence I note his argument with the Bishop of Oxford that the prelate is selective with what he takes and believes in the Bible. Well, Dawkins also does this. Where does he draw the line between it as a historical document and a religious statement? He is also selective. I heard the lot when Dawkins came up with the ALTRUISTIC gene. What a hoot. He is desperately looking for proof for his wackiness and as the Piltdown Man was invented, so now we have this so called ALTRUISTIC gene which predisposes us to looking after our young and other members of our 'group' The trouble is that all animals do this - not just apes, and with evolution it is survival of the fittest. not the kindest and if he really thinks we are becoming kinder as a race he is not reading the same newspapers as I am I found his arrogance beyond belief in declaiming that as we only have this life, we should enjoy it to the full. So how does he equate this with his obvious position as a well off European to a destitute person in Africa who has had all her family wiped out and probably raped and is starving. Will he help her? I note that all his opposition to religion is a) that they go to war. Well G K Chesterton declared that the only war worth fighting was a war for religion b) we are against using contraception and abortion and homosexuality. All sins against the 6th commandment. Funny that.

As a Catholic I find his dismissal of Pius XII's pronouncement of the Dogma of the Assumption in 1958 to be erroneous. He , Pius, never said that it was revealed to him while he was sitting somewhere by himself. In case Dawkins does not know it, Revelation ended with the last Apostle. Pius would have taken years of advice and studied documents handed from down over the centuries to have come up with this pronouncement. Also as a Catholic I find his dismissal of all religious people as satisfied. what utter rubbish. We, everyday fight the world, the flesh and the devil. We are the Church Militant. We are also able to glory at a sunset and admire the beauties of nature even if we believe in God. The trouble with Dawkins was that he interviewed whacky zealots and extrapolated them to all of us.


Whoever likened this one to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK certainly knew whereof he spoke. He might, as well, have likened it to some of the adventures of the pulp heroes that followed. "Kay Hoog" reminds one more than a little of both Lamont Cranston (The Shadow) and Clark Savage (Doc Savage). (The Shadow, quintessential man of mystery- and the very first "Dark Knight"- was also thought to be one Kent Allard. If one were to take Savage's first name first and add to it the Kent, you end up with- voila- Clark Kent. Funny, innit?) Like Indiana Jones, Hoog isn't above pilfering the artifacts of an ancient civilization (though his thefts are often more blatant and less "charmingly roguish" than Jones's). Unfortunately, this two-parter is a far cry from subsequent serials (from any era) in terms of overall quality. One of the first indications that something is amiss vis a vis the cinematic storytelling is a scene where desperados on horseback, quite literally breathing down his neck, simply watch as Hoog escapes their clutches in a hot air balloon. Why they don't bother to shoot down the balloon is just one of the many movie-making mysteries that plague these two films.

The second half of this two-parter is even worse than the first. Granted, this was one of the first ever serials and, as such, should be cut a bit of slack- but there are limits, even, to tolerance. (At one point, the capture of the hero is effected not on screen, but in the narration itself! Talk about cutting corners...) Fritz Lang happens to be one of the greatest filmmakers to ever make films; unfortunately for those of us who admire most of what he did, THE SPIDERS is a bitter pill indeed to swallow...


Originally, the Spiders was planned as a four-part serial, and it shows. I dislike serials; they're typically ridiculous, convoluted and banal. This one is no exception. In the first part of the Spiders, 'The Golden Lake,' a rich adventurer thwarts the plans of a gang of criminals--the Spiders--to steal gold from Incas. A silly love triangle ensues, with some Cowboys and Indians action. The sensationalism and exotica of it didn't entertain me.

One can legitimately trace themes from this two-part series to Lang's later, far superior work. And, the film-making is better than in other serials I've seen from this time, including 'Les Vampires' (1915). In the Spiders, the camera isn't as static, and this film is fast paced, thankfully. The tinting and lighting are adequate, too. None of that's remarkable, though. It's nearly unseemly, however, in how closely this series resembles Louis Feuillade's serials; the criminal gang dresses and behaves like those in 'Les Vampires'--only the names, and to a lesser extent, the situations have changed.

For the further comments on The Spiders series, see the web pages for it.


During an eight-year stretch of the 1980s when Charles Bronson made nine films, only one was released by a company other than the Cannon Group: 'The Evil That Men Do,' a TriStar Films pickup from Sir Lew Grade's ITC Entertainment firm. Bronson was already in the thick of his collaborations with director J. Lee Thompson, which ran through numerous actioners until 'Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects' in 1989.

Expectations should run pretty high with Bronson and Thompson working for a better-funded outfit like ITC, but 'The Evil That Man Do' is a great disappointment on many levels. While still from the low budget, B-movie mold of the 1980s, 'Evil' has tantalizing potential for a great film. Everyone in the production department, however, took an easy way out and sold hack work undeserving of Bronson's imprint. 'The Evil That Men Do' had a concept and technical resources that could have been used to make one of Bronson and Thompson's best films, but instead will go down as one of their most average.

This 1984 political thriller/actioner opens in brutal fashion with Clement Molloch (Joseph Maher), a British doctor, holding his special training class for political leaders in Surinam. The gray-haired, passive Molloch is an expert on torture methods who is employed by numerous political regimes. In the opening seven minutes, we witness Molloch using electrical current to inflict unbearable pain on Jorge Hidalgo (Jorge Humberto Robles), a dissident journalist. As you may expect, the scene is awful to watch and was cut from the original VHS release.

Hidalgo was none other than a friend of Holland (Bronson), a retired assassin who is enjoying life in the Cayman Islands. Holland was approached by the journalist years before to rid humanity of Molloch, but turned the offer down. A Mexican professor named Hector Lomelin (José Ferrer) visits shortly after Hidalgo's death to talk Holland into finishing the job, bringing videotapes of testimony from The Doctor's victims. While in denial at first, Holland eventually agrees to the dirty work, targeting Molloch and his doting sister Claire (Antoinette Bower) in Guatemala.

Holland enters Guatemala City with help from an adviser, Max Ortiz (René Enríquez); he poses as a tourist with Hidalgo's widow Rhiana (Theresa Saldana) and young daughter Sarah (Amanda Nicole Thomas) in tow. As with most of Bronson's later output, his character knocks off Molloch's henchmen one by one, crossing paths with a sleazy American diplomat (John Glover) and his supporting hit-man (Roger Cudney) along the way. A brutal ending takes place in the crevices of an opal mine, where The Doctor gets just deserts from several of his victims.

'The Evil That Men Do' is based on a forgotten novel by R. Lance Hill and jumps at American political dealings in Latin America during the 1980s. Indeed, 'Evil' is hard-boiled in every sense of the term, as it uses sensationalism and doses of brutality to cover up huge weaknesses in plot and character development. For every plus this film has, there are three or four minuses, resulting from shod craftsmanship.

While 'The Evil That Men Do' has a great concept, the film is never truly more than an excuse for Bronson to wipe out foreign-based scum. In the style of bad pulp fiction, 'Evil' is filled with cardboard characters that we never get to know or understand. Holland, despite being played strongly by Bronson, never talks about his inner feelings or explains what motivated him into becoming a killer for hire. Rhiana, a terribly weak part for Theresa Saldana, is disgusted by Holland for much of the way but later feels an affection for him. Where does her love come from, especially after watching Holland kill several people and wanting to go home just a few scenes before?

The most interesting characters are actually Molloch and his sister Claire, because so many questions can be asked of them. Naturally, we never find out what has brought them so close together, how and where their torture dealings started, what Claire's exact role in their business isThese plot holes can go on forever, especially with the paint-by-numbers storyline that seems to make things up as it goes along. Why is Hidalgo's daughter brought into such a dangerous situation, other than for her to be conveniently taken hostage by Molloch? If Molloch's bodyguard Randolph (Raymond St. Jacques) clearly saw Holland and Rhiana in the cockfight arena, why is he so friendly with them in a bar afterwords? Is his memory that short? And what really was the purpose, other than cheap theatrics, of Holland throwing Molloch's chauffeur Cillero (Jorge Luke) off a window ledge when the murder could have been handled more discreetly in Claire's apartment?

The overall acting is decent and somehow Bronson gives one of his strongest performances. J. Lee Thompson's direction is lacking at points, but may have been compromised by limited time on site. Besides Evil's filming in Mexico, the presence of ITC is clear through better production values, cinematography, and music. Rural locations are well-used to convey the hot and dusty atmosphere of Latin America and cinematographer Xavier Cruz provides rich color and clarity. The orchestral score by Ken Thorne ('Murphy's War') is refreshing in an era of synthesized junk. Oddly enough, these positives only add to the frustration of a good movie that is screaming to come out. Peter Lee Thompson's editing is better than usual, although with more laughable continuity errors.

'The Evil Than Men Do' was perfect grindhouse material for the early 80s and I find it hard to recommend for 21st century action fans. The DVD from Columbia TriStar Entertainment is an okay presentation, offering widescreen and standard format with four-language subtitles. While the video quality is well above average, 'Evil' was originally recorded in plain mono audio. The theatrical trailer is offered and actually has a grindhouse feel, with eroded color and fuzzy sound quality.

** out of 4


Yet again, director J. Lee Thompson unites with actor Charles Bronson for a violent and uncompromising action flick. In fact, this is probably Bronson's most brutal film (quite a feat for a man who appeared in Death Wish, Ten To Midnight and Chato's Land). However, brutality doesn't on its own make for a good film, and The Evil That Men Do is ultimately a disappointment. If you were to take away its brutality the film would have precious little else of interest.

 The story is about a retired hitman (Bronson) who lives a cosy life on a Caribbean island. He is persuaded to come out of retirement to track down and eliminate a sadistic torture doctor who has been plying his vile trade around various South American hell-holes. Throughout the film, especially at the beginning, we are treated to some graphic torture scenes to show us just what a nasty piece of work he is.

 These themes are actually quite serious. Torture does go on in suppressive Latin American dictatorships, and everyday folk are made to suffer some despicably painful experiences simply for voicing an unpopular viewpoint. But The Evil That Men Do - for all its worthy posturing - isn't really bothered about the plight of these poor people. It is bothered purely with giving Charles Bronson an excuse to blow away some unpleasant scum-bags. It's just an exploitative actioner which hangs its coat on genuine issues. The torture sequences make you, the viewer, feel like a dirty, sick-in-the-head voyeur, rather like someone who gains pleasure from viewing "snuff" movies. The script is full of horrid dialogue, including some excessive descriptions of acts of torture. The Evil That Men Do fails to explore its disturbing ideas... its serves them up as entertainment and asks us to enjoy them. Sorry, but that's just wrong.


Once again Bronson's talent is mostly wasted on this shock value 1984 thriller which (uncut) is far more disturbing than most of what is out even today. The fact that "The Evil That Men Do" is very disturbing (in its verbal and visual depictions of torture) is not the problem. It is the shameless gratuity in which it is presented. Interestingly, this film seems to symbolize that latter part of Bronson's career in which he has tortured many of his fans with the same egregiously predictable and uncreative plots. One hopes this fine actor will rise again.


It's hard to believe that there are some people out there in the world that actually think this is a worthy Charles Bronson vehicle.

Bronson is a good actor that can do more than tote a gun and knock off bad guys. He was quietly moving in the TV movie "Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus" and showed a lot of class and style in the Sean Penn-directed "The Indian Runner".

In "The Evil That Men Do", however, Bronson again plays a character that sees injustice and sets it right with fists, knives and, of course, guns. There's nothing here you haven't seen in the last five "Death Wish" flicks.

Wait, I take that back. This has to be the most sadistic and repellently violent film Bronson has ever had the dis-service of being in. Not just repellent in the scenes of torture or the descriptions of torture, but in the fact that these scenes were put in a film just to sell tickets. And Jose Ferrer! What in blue blazes was he doing here?!! I mean, he won an Oscar, for crying out loud!!!

Okay, sorry about that outburst. Let me just say that "The Evil That Men Do" has to be one of the worst movies I had ever seen that was based on a book. Yeah, that's right. I wonder if it was written with Bronson in mind?

No stars. Watch "Death Wish" instead. At least IT was topical.


Does anyone remember the alternative comedy show THE COMIC STRIP PRESENTS . One edition featured Charles Bronson ( Robbie Coltrane ) being interviewed about his new movie GLC :

" It's about a man , an ordinary man whose wife and family gets wiped out by creeps and I have to hunt them down and kill them in a sadistic and graphic manner "

" And after GLC what next for Bronson ? "

" We're using a new angle . My family don't get wiped out but I go after creeps just the same "

This accurately describes THE EVIL THAT MEN DO . It's a Bronson vigilante thriller where his motivation isn't down to a blood feud but this leads to credibility becoming strained

Bronson is a retired hit-man who isn't giving up his retirement for anything until someone shows him a video tape featuring interviews with the victims of " The Doctor " , not the legendary time traveler but a infamous expert on torture . It's never really explained why The Doctor is so infamous since any police state has a myriad of these sadists nor is it explained why The Doctor and his sister have ridiculous English accents

As you may guess it's a lazily written movie and incidents happening because the screenwriter needs things to happen to further the plot no matter how unlikely they are like one of the bad guys getting invited to a threesome so he can be killed or things being revealed like The Doctor's sister being a lesbian so some T&A can be included

In many ways it's like one of those nasty Chuck Norris vehicles that were being released at the same time , but the most disappointing thing is that the director is also the same man who made ICE COLD IN ALEX and THE GUNS OF NAVERONE two very well regarded war dramas that are often shown on Sunday afternoons . Believe me this movie won't be shown until well after the watershed


This is one of the few movies - maybe the only - that truly haunted me for years. It was the first I had ever seen people tortured, so much that blood was flowing of their mouths from gritting their teeth and screaming, etc. It was brutal; the worst thing I had ever seen on film.

Dr. Clement Molloch, played by Joseph Mayer, is still one of the most evil characters I've ever seen on film, and I've viewed thousands. He was so sadistic that I would never watch this movie again, nor would I recommend it. He makes Hannibal Lecter look like Mr. Rogers. If seeing people tortured is not your idea of fun, then stay away from this film.

I know there are a lot of sick people out there, many of them professional film critics, who probably enjoyed this sordid, sick story. It's a "B" movie, anyway, with stupid dialog and some wooden acting by Charles Bronson. This is not one of his better efforts. Even if it was, there so many horrendous scenes in here you wouldn't want to watch. Trust me on this one.


"The Evil That Men Do" begins with a truly repellent torture scene, followed, a little later, by graphic verbal descriptions of equally repellent torture methods that the sadistic, heartless villain likes to use. But despite the use of such strictly-for-shock effects, the filmmakers can't really cover up the fact that this is just a dull, low-grade Bronson vehicle. Bronson himself is solid here, but he should have chosen a better script.


The Evil that Men Do (1984) was one of the few non-Cannon films Charlie Bronson made during the 80's. Unlike most of the Cannon films Charlie starred in, this one wasn't fun or entertaining. Charlie basically tortures and brutalizes people for over an hour and a half. If you thought he was Mr. Emotion before, wait until you see this!

In this one, Charlie goes to an unnamed Central American country and shows the populace that whoever messes with Chuck or his people have to pay the piper. This one is no fun. It's not cheesy or campy, just brutal, sadistic and not in a good way.

I didn't like this one. I have no love for this film. No recommendations because it's not worth watching. Maybe if they didn't cut the hell out of it. Watch with precaution.

Don't bother.


Bronson took the money and ran with this film; he must have house payments like me! This low budget film made in Mexico reminds me of a few of those Italians stinkers from over seas. I heard, I do not know if this is true, but companies make these films in foreign countries for tax purposes. I believe this because why else would they make this film, it sure wasn't to make money. We had a whole lot of these Canadian made stinkers, because the government gave tax breaks to create a movie industry. I wonder if it payed off in the other countries like in Canada. Anyway, back to topic this film is poorly made in every aspect, I believe they grabbed Charles Bronson in order to sell this stinker; that dead body at the end looks very phony. 3/10