The Hell's Angels did come out the losers in this movie. Sonny stated to the director that NOBODY does this to the Angles and gets away with it. His version was the two dudes were to be shotgunned to death, but his suggestion was ignored. They were stoops to even appear, much less be "technical advisers" in a stink-bomb of a movie like this. Hell's Angles on JAP bikes? C'mon! (although in Sonny's autobiography he says, "F$#K Harley Davidson!" and that if they was smart, they would be riding Hondas. (ST1100) Read his auto...he HATES Harleys. Can you imagine the Angels whispering into town on their sewing-machine sounding Jap bikes? Not too intimidating. They would get laughed out of town.


Tom Stern and Jeremy Slate are swing bachelor's planning to hijack a casino, ala "Ocean's 11", and pin it on the Hell's Angels. Bad move. For a film with the words Hell's Angels AND the number 69 AND featuring actual Hell's Angels, this movie is surprisingly tame. The Hell's Angels truly deserve a better film to be centered around them. Not this snoorefest. Luckily this is one of the DVDs that features commentary by Joe Bob Briggs so the pain of having to sit through it is greatly alleviated. If you watch it any other way, let me recommend something to you. DON'T!!

My Grade: D

DVD Extras: Joe Bob Brigg's commentary; Conny Van Dyke's message to her fans (she has more than one?); Photo gallery; Theatrical Trailer; and Trailers for "Blood Shack", "Hell High", "Samurai Cop", and "The Hollywood Strangler"


Something of a disappointment. Lee J. Cobb is the anti-union head of Roxton Garments in New York. His partner in the business is killed when an elevator is unleashed and plunges twenty-seven floors to the bottom of the shaft, in the scariest scene in the film.

Cobb doesn't know it, or doesn't let himself realize it, but the man behind the killing is Richard Boone, who protects the business from union organizers.

Then Cobb's son, Kerwin Mathews, returns from Europe determined to learn the business and join his father in running a clean shop. He's shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that Boone has been clobbering the union members and killing a few who have become irretrievably irritating.

Robert Loggia is one of the organizers who is killed by a couple of Boone's goons, led by Wesley Addy. Loggia leaves behind a widow, Gia Scala, with whom Mathews, understandably and decorously, takes up.

In the end, Cobb pays for his self deception, Addy and Boone get their just desserts, and Mathews winds up with the succulent Scala, after whom an opera house is named.

There isn't a sparkle in any line of dialog. A couple of lines are stolen verbatim from "On the Waterfront" -- "pistoleros", "you'll talk yourself right into the grave." The plot is schematic and holds absolutely no surprises. Vincent Sherman's direction is pedestrian. The photography is flat an uninspired, though there are a couple of nice shots of New York streets.

Lee J. Cobb can act. In this case, it must have been easy for him because he replays Johnny Friendly from "On the Waterfront," only this time with a soft heart. Richard Boone can act too. Joseph Wiseman, in a minor part, does a good job. Gia Scala hits her marks, says what the script demands, and does what the director tells her to. A stunning woman, her life soured early on. The director and photographer do a good job on Wesley Addy. He has white hair, a blanched face, eyes the color of a glacial lake, and he's sometimes shot through a wide-angle lens than turns his surprisingly fleshy lips into those of some kind of parasitic fish. I don't see him as a low-tier muscle man though. He and Boone should have switched roles. Harold J. Stone is his reliable self, although he's forced to be more "Italian", as Tony, than comes naturally to him. Nobody else in anything resembling a major part is more than mediocre, and some performers don't clear even that bar. Kerwin Mathews may be a nice guy in real life, but he's blandly sterile and belongs in domestic dramas on afternoon television.

Great title, suggestive of intrigue and shadows. Some good people in the cast. A potentially explosive expose of a business nobody knows much about but which deals in megabucks.

And it all comes out like this.


I went into this movie with semi-high expectations after loving the cartoon series in my childhood, and this nearly wrecked that love for me. Jason Lee, David Seville in the film, is horrifying. I understand it can't be easy to act with CGI characters who aren't actually there, but I really found his performance atrocious, along with all the other non-animated characters. The chipmunks were adorable, yet sometimes blatantly obvious at moving the plot of the story along, and therefore did not tempt me to stay in the theater for longer than half an hour into the film. If you feel you must see this film, rent it, at the most. It is NOT worth eight bucks to see it in theaters, unless you'd like a good laugh at the horrible acting.


As cute and adorable as they are, the story of three singing chipmunks just doesn't seem to have enough meat to it to sustain it for an hour and a half. I thought that the first half hour or so of this movie was well worth watching. It was fun, it had a few laughs in it, it was full of energy. Then it somehow just lost that. I wouldn't even say it faded away, because it seemed quite abrupt to me. The fun was gone; the laughter disappeared. My daughter noticed it, too. She's 4 - she laughed uproariously several times in that first part of the movie, then her laughter stopped. Perhaps it took on too serious a tone - the evil movie producer working the chipmunks to death. Something happened, anyway, and it wasn't for the better.

Of course, the movie is trying to tell the story of how the chipmunks (Alvin, Simon and Theodore) began. Everyone knows the Christmas song. Here we discover how they met Dave and got their start. The movie is updated to the present time, although their real origin is noted by Dave's street address of 1958, which was the year when the animated singing rodents were first created. Jason Lee did a pretty good job as Dave and the chipmunk voices were also pretty good. David Cross as the evil Ian irritated me to be blunt, and I couldn't figure out the point of the character of Claire, played by Cameron Richardson. She added little to the movie. It's a movie you can watch with the kids - it's probably a movie you'd only want to watch with the kids, in fact. It gets a 4/10 from me.


When I finally got around to seeing this film recently, it turned out to be exactly what it looked like to me at first glance... yet another Hollywood CG/live-action rehash of an established cartoon franchise. Nothing special or memorable whatsoever. Designed in every way possible to appeal to very young children and very immature adults, making heavy use of comedic devices such as farts, poo-eating, and the size of Theodore's butt.

This film would bother me a lot less if it weren't such an obvious step down for the Chipmunks. Even their characters I found were changed for the worse for this movie. While in the past each one of them had a very distinct personality, here they all behaved like immature, smart-alecky children with ADD, constantly bouncing erratically off the walls. It especially bothered me to see Simon portrayed in this way... He's supposed to be the smart, serious nerd who acts as the "straight man" to Alvin's crazy antics. But here he's pretty much a carbon copy of Alvin. One joke in the film even implies that Simon only *thinks* he's smart but really isn't... and honestly if I had never heard of the Chipmunks before seeing this film, I would have agreed.

In my opinion, this film is just another obvious cash-grab, and I'm more than a little sorry it was even made. The fact that it's a "kid's" movie doesn't excuse its flaws... To excuse a stupid movie that degrades a classic franchise just because it's for children is insulting to children, and any kid would deserve something more intelligent than this film.


You know the old saw about a train wreck? The one about how you can't look away? This movie isn't that good. The only reason you're still there is because you brought your kids and you can't leave them alone in the theater. You might catch a nap.

Tim Hill should never work in film again after delivering this awful piece of junk. He manages to take a decent comic actor in Jason Lee and turn him into a robotic, unsure actor in this production.

I didn't have much hope for this movie in the first place, I admit. If it weren't basically the only family film I could take my son to around Christmas, my wife and I wouldn't have gone. God, I wish we could go back in time and stop ourselves. I leaned over to my wife about 10 minutes in to tell her what a stinker I thought it was, but she beat me to the punch.

I'm not kidding. It's putrid. Only David Cross's terrific-as-usual work saves this review from being only 1 star.

The story is cloying, insulting and stupid, as might be expected for a movie in this genre (although the recent "Curious George" was blissfully intelligent and enjoyable). The acting is mostly poor. The decision to "update" the Chipmunks songs for today's audience was inadvisable at best and boneheaded at worst. It does not work.

The chipmunks of old were clever, mischievous and sly. These chipmunks are dumb, somewhat mean-spirited, obnoxious, and in a surprise, needy to the point of uselessness.

Either as a retrospect, a tribute, or as a completely new production, this film totally fails. The final straw? My son couldn't wait to leave. Spend your money renting Curious George instead.


I'm surprised to read all the positive comments on this movie. Even my 4 and 6 year old were bored. The chipmunks are cute...but the storyline is overly obvious. Not recommended for young ones with the least sophisticated tastes.

We did hear a few laughs from the audience while we were in attendance; but I wondered why.

I don't admit to ever being a 'chipmunks' fan, but I expected to be entertained. It's not even an 'escapist' movie as far as I can tell. Simply a heavy handed view of 'success too young spoils'. We've seen more than enough of that with Britney Spears, et al, haven't we?

Don't bother.


The writers missed so many opportunities and created so many plot holes.

Example: When Dave retrieved his keyboard from the rain, I was eagerly anticipating the funny sounds that were going to come out of it. Nothing! Are you kidding me? A truly witty writer would have not only had a field day with that, but it would have eliminated the major problem of the entire audience wondering how a digital keyboard can become completely soaked but then work perfectly.

There were at least 10 other similar situations. Overall, small children will enjoy this, parents will endure it without too much complaining.


I honestly thought this movie was going to be cheesy, even though I've liked Alvin and the Chipmunks for a LONG TIME! I was was very wrong. IT WAS GREAT!!! It has been the best movie I have seen since October! In my opinion, it's the movie everyone should see this holiday season! Enchanted (I thought anyway...)was awful, The Golden Compass was alright, but the ending was pretty crappy to His Dark Materials fans, and I Am Legend, well I haven't seen that yet (or National Treasures 2) but it looks alright.

I'm not about to give anything away, but this movie is great for anyone, especially kids!


This is a below average "whodunit" with the cliche everyone in the living room routine. Charlie Chan is a Secret Service Agent doing government work, and he must find who killed a scientist working on a bomb to defeat German U-boats in World War Two. There is little to recommend with this movie, since the neither the bomb nor the scientist nor the war have much to do with the plot. Charlie Chan fans will most likely find this movie disappointing. Who dunit? Who cares?


A true yawner and a bad film even for the Chan series. I like a good Charlie Chan film or even a reasonably good one, but this one falls way short of the mark. Charlie is enlisted to help figure out the murder of a scientist working for our government when someone in the house has stolen the plans for another power. The mystery is very pedestrian and the acting doesn't fare much better. The only saving grace for me in the film was the presence of Mantan Moreland as Birmingham Brown. He gives the film a little comedy and has some good scared faces, but after that the pickings are rather slim. Benson Fong is here as Tommy Chan and pairs up with Chan's daughter of all things. What about Sidney Toler? He is pretty decent but looks like he is straining to carry the film. What I noticed most was the way the film was shot. Chan director Phil Rosen, of whom I generally like most of his entries, uses lots of long shots with no action(like Charlie's initial walk into the house from outside). Why? The film is only 64 minutes long for crying out loud! Shots like that tell me the director had to fill time up because the script was even weaker than he was accustomed to. This probably isn't the worst Chan film ever made, but up to now it is the worst I have sat through unfortunately.


This was the first Chan film made by Monogram. What a come down from Fox values and standards! I was shocked when I saw my first Monogram after seeing the great Fox films. This is boring and uninspired with wild music playing as Chan calmly walks across the street. Chan is now working for the US Secret Service rather than the Honolulu Police Department. He is assisted by Benson Fong, who plays No. 3 Son Tommy for the first time. He also has a daughter along, Iris Chan, played by Marianne Quon. Mantan Moreland also makes his debut as Birmingham Brown. He is a cab driver in Washington, DC, here, rather than the later chauffeur to Chan in the later films.


Great book, poorly done movie. Cheesy performances and contrived situations make this movie a sentimental bore-fest. Flat and uninspired work from most of the actors leaves this film in the After School Special category. No doubt there is a lot of talent to be tapped in this cast and crew but something went horribly wrong The very talented Gretchen Mol attempts to pull this film out of the mire but even she can't seem to rise above the silly dialogue. Feels like everyone just phoned it in. Even the makeup (Mulrooney ages 20 years over the course of the film) looks amateurish and crude. Don't waste your time on this clunker.... go read the book.


THE MEMORY KEEPER'S DAUGHTER in the form of a novel by Kim Edwards was a highly successful bestseller and probably was featured in more reading groups than any other novel during its circulation. So what happened when the novel became a made-for-television movie? Perhaps it is the below mediocre screenplay (oops!, teleplay!) by John Pielmeier that consistently galumphs along in an awkward pedestrian fashion removing all sense of credibility to the story. Perhaps it is the cut and paste direction by Mick Jackson that misses the pacing and character delineation. Perhaps it suffers from the cinematography of an uncredited source or the 'liquid tears' musical score by Daniel Licht. For whatever of these (or all of these) reasons, this novel-to-film survives because it does make a good case for educating the public about the capabilities of those born with Down Syndrome. And for that it is worthy of attention.

Dr. David Henry (Dermot Mulroney), a successful orthopedic doctor, is married to the beautiful Norah (Gretchen Mol) and their lives are becoming changed by their pregnancy. On a stormy winter night in Kentucky Norah goes into labor and the Henry's rush to a nearby clinic where David delivers his wife (the doctor is caught in a snowstorm) with the assistance of his old friend, nurse Caroline Gill (Emily Watson). After the delivery of a perfect boy child (Paul) Norah continues to be in labor and (surprisingly...) delivers an unexpected (!) twin girl. David and Caroline immediately recognize that the little girl (Phoebe) is a 'mongoloid' (this is before the use of the term Down Syndrome) and David, having a history of losing a little sister because of a birth defect) decides to send Phoebe to an asylum for the mentally challenged: Caroline is to make the delivery and Norah is told the second twin died at birth.

Caroline follows instructions, sees the conditions of the 'home' where Phoebe is to be deposited, shrinks in horror, and decides to keep the child. Aided by a friendly trucker, Caroline changes her solitary existence and mothers Phoebe, finding a new life in her trucker's Pittsburgh. Norah insists on a formal funeral for Phoebe - a fact that deeply disturbs David's psyche, and the Henry's life goes on with only the one child Paul, leaving submerged pains about the lack of Phoebe's presence. Norah gifts David with a camera ('peoples lives are like a camera, that's where they live - in a room captured by a moment') and David becomes obsessed with photography. Norah grieves, drinks, and loses David's attention, while David traces Phoebe's existence with Caroline - sending money and letters to Pittsburgh. Paul (Tyler Stentiford to Jamie Spilchuk) grows up, discovers his mother's infidelities and is angered about his father's lack of communication and understanding, and decides to fulfill his goal of becoming a musician, and off to Juilliard he goes. Meanwhile Phoebe (Krystal Hope Nausbaum) has matured into a very highly adapted young girl, and the manner in which the broken marriage of the Henrys happens and the healing atmosphere of Phoebe's and Paul's lives coupled with the courage that has supported Caroline Gill's struggle to gain acceptance in the world for those born with Down Syndrome forms the conclusion of the film.

The cast of well-known actors tries hard, but only Emily Watson is able to resurrect a credible character from this squishy script. Jamie Spilchuk gives evidence of a young actor with much promise. Dermot Mulroney and Gretchen find it difficult to mold empathetic characters form the corny lines they are given to deliver. The film is a mess, but the message about acceptance of Down Syndrome children and adults is an important one. Grady Harp


Who is minding the store here? How could any producer/network executive/director let a crew stick the skeeziest fakest plastic palm trees in film history in the sands of a wintry Canadian beach and try to fob it off on us as the tropics? Those trees were to real palm trees what a pink tinsel K-Mart Christmas tree is to real fir. And who let Dermot Mulroney go in front of the camera with painted-on grey hair that wouldn't have passed muster in a high school play? And didn't any of the geniuses doing quality control on this thing think to correct the (excellent) Canadian actor when he said gaz instead of gas? Everybody involved with this plodding slug of a "movie"--writer, director, actors--has done not just good but brilliant work elsewhere. Paced way too fast between events and deadly slow within them, devoid of any emotion except the obvious, expository and contrived--maybe this only seems like one of Lifetime's worst movie because of all the Red Carpet hype with which it was presented. And I'm saying this as somebody who love Lifetime. What gives, folks?

All of that said, a certain actress's work at a certain critical turn in the movie (and if you've seen it you'll know exactly what I'm talking about) was so brilliant that the movie would have gotten a 10 from me if that was the whole movie. Unfortunately it was only about five seconds of it.


Based on a fairly bland "best seller," this film - like most other Lifetime movies - played out more like a reenactment than an actual movie. The only difference here was that Meredith Baxter wasn't in it. The women in this don't age even over a span of like 20 years and the acting in general is pretty bad.

The characters in this were all cliché and one-dimensional. The story was of the cheesy nature. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's the kind of thing that people who loved the book and people who watch that network all the time will think is great. I only watched it because my girlfriend wanted to see it so she wouldn't have to read the book her sister loaned to her. It wasn't made for someone like me - my girlfriend cried a little at the end though, so she didn't think it was as terrible as I did.


I just saw a terrible film called The Sleeping Dictionary. One reviewer on Four Word Film Review (www.fwfr.com) got it right right when he wrote, "From A to Zzzzzzzzz." The story is about an English colonialist jerk that comes to Malaysia to "civilize the savages" so to speak and ends up falling in love with his sleeping dictionary. A sleeping dictionary is a native Malaysian prostitute fluent in English that services Englishmen colonialists and teaches them her native language in return for ... well the movie never really makes that clear, but I can only assume he gives her money or something. Needless to say, the movie focuses a lot more on the "sleeping" part than on the "dictionary" part of the job description. Things get complicated for our young hero when the forbidden love affair gets compounded by her culture, his soap opera domestic situation, and his own boundless stupidity in every major decision he makes throughout the film.

So yes, the movie has some major flaws, but on the other hand, it delivered exactly the two things I rented it for in the first place: a beautifully photographed exotic location, and an even more beautifully photographed and exotic woman that plays the sleeping dictionary, Jessica Alba. My friend told me that this crappy movie was her at her most beautiful and damn was he right. She's not a great actress, and doesn't quite pass for Malaysian, and its pretty obvious that they use a body double for the nudity, but who cares? Jessica Alba has that rare face and figure that's more than just sexy, but also beautiful in the way that a Vivaldi violin concerto or a Rembrandt painting is.

(P.S. Sorry to all you feminists out there who discourage objectifying women, the "male gaze," etc. etc., but I hope you can understand that I mean no disrespect.)


Yes, it's true that it was Jessica Alba who leads me to this movie, because without her, I should have never pick it.

But, I find it long, dull and above all, unoriginal. All along, I thought that the story was full of clichés and the directing very boring. So it was a surprise to see that the director and writer are the one and same person. I take notice to remember to avoid all his next movies.

It's a pity because all good things were at hand: Malaysia is a beautiful jungle, it was the British Empire and the cast is wonderful: Jessica knows how to open her soul and for one time, she has found an appropriate movie for this. Bob Hoskins shows a great experience and he should have won an award for this role.

The only positive thing is that it makes me open a world-map to locate this island because if you guess it happens in south Asia, you don't know where exactly! Ah, the little plane flight with red lines in the Indiana Jones movie!!!


Like the beauty of the jungle, Jessica Alba's gorgeous smile and sultry looks loom over the film, but alas they are the only two things worth watching this film for. When in theory we should be watching for the narrative.

The plot is thin on the ground, and hard to believe. As beautiful as Jessica Alba is, she doesn't add any of the spark that she injected into the credible 'Dark Angel' series. Since Dark Angel it seems that Alba has been reduced to mere eye candy(but what eye candy!), and is the sole reason for putting her into films.

The concept of the sleeping dictionary is daft and implausible, with little character development (or character for that matter) to make us want to undertake the 109 minutes run time with this world. Despite the films short running time, it still manages to feel to long and too laboured.

It seems a shame that such talent such as Brenda Blethyn, Emily Mortimer, Bob Hoskins are wasted on a threadbare narrative which barely raises a pulse. This film seriously misses a trick, an exotic setting, a more than capable cast, with lovely cinematography, and a chance to utilise the themes and the dualistic concepts of 'civilisation'. But there is little narrative to speak of, no drama, no sense we are watching a story of love, more a story of lust and woman happy to please men without question. Lets be honest, if Jessica Alba was freely allowing you to sleep with her, do you seriously think you'd be able to concentrate on learning a tribal language? Therein lies the great problem, both in suspension of disbelief, and also what the female characters are limited and reduced to. Take for example the fact that Jessica alba's character undergoes the mental and physical tribulation of pregnancy and birth to her forbidden love, yet all we see is her looking lovely and curvy one minute, then lovely and curvy, with a baby, the next.

It's a sorry state of affairs to see a film with promise not live up to anything near it's potential. I could write endlessly of the films flaws, but it pains me to do so. The film looks good, the premise could have been made into a lovely film, but sadly it wasn't to be.


The positives: It's shot pretty well. Has some interesting peripheral characters. Likable main character (albeit weak).

The bad: Plot/story. Editing. Characters wasted. Jessica Alba.

I'm a fan of sappy movies, but this movie is cringe-inducingly bad. I don't understand how anyone can hand over $12M to this Guy Jenkin. And before I go any further, I just want to say that I don't dislike Jessica Alba--I really wanted to like her in this film. However, Jessica Alba in her fake accent and her model poses made me miserable. She has absolutely no screen presence in this movie, and she ruins every scene she's in. Needless to say, the romance does not come off as believable(not even a tiny bit).

All I saw throughout was the actors flapping their wings, trying to get this thing off the ground with what little they were given--but sadly, all this movie does is sink. There is no emotional connection, no emotional conflict, and nothing is gained. It's a pretty empty movie.


This version of "The Magic Flute" is not only the worst production of Mozart's great opera that I have ever seen, it is also the worst video production I have seen of any opera.

I'm a big opera fan and I have more opera on DVD than movies. The sets are cheap and cheesy. Papageno doesn't even have a bird costume. He is just dressed like some guy. The sound is in mono. The color is really bad. It is saturated in orange. Most DVD's from this period have the color digitally restored, but they did not bother with this one. Also, the language has been changed to Swedish instead of the original German.

This is not a movie version of "The Magic Flute." It is a filmed performance and it is not a good performance and it was not filmed very well. You can pick any other available DVD of this opera and I guarantee it will be better than this one. My preference is for the version conducted by James Levine with sets by David Hockney.


A tedious effort from not-yet great director Budd Boetticher and pretty but not-yet un-bland actress Nina Foch, this movie is, as one of the other reviewers notes, is the quintessence of a certain kind of B movie. It's just not the good kind. And a promising premise and an overactive fog machine is wasted.

Basic plot -- Nina, a nurse on leave from wartime duties on account of her nerves, has a nightmare. She meets a dashing fellow at the resort where she's giving her nerves a breather, and realizes he's in the dream, even though she's never met him before. Meanwhile, it turns out our dashing guy is working as a spy, and is about to go on an-extra secret, hush-hush mission that must not fail.

Of course, there are Nazis. And plot holes. And smart people acting in a fashion most likely to get them into entirely unnecessary scrapes, so that the running time can be spun out past an hour. At the end, the movie becomes a contest between which group of spies can act more foolishly. If the FBI and OSS had acted like this crew, we'd have lost the war in '42.

The movie itself is rather flatly shot (despite the best efforts of the fog machine) and the acting -- as it seems to be in many of the Columbia Bs TCM has been showing lately -- is curiously unengaged. It's less stylized than what one might find from a similarly budgeted Warner Bros movie, but also less fun to watch.

Boetticher's strength, of course, is a rather matter of fact style which allows the strong stories and acting in his Randolph Scott westerns to come to the fore. Maybe the problem here is that such a style is not going to work when the script is lousy and the actors tired from their five film a year schedule.


We've all got to start somewhere, it was in films like Escape In The Fog that somebody like Budd Boetticher could learn his trade before turning out good films. In fact the film was dated before it even hit the movie going public on June 25, 1945.

The war on Europe was over for almost two months, of course not even Harry Cohn could control the events of history. So I'm wondering why even back then the public didn't question why a Nazi spy ring was helping out the Japanese. Another very bad historical inaccuracy was that the FBI had nothing to do with the Pacific or Asian theater. The cloak and dagger stuff was the territory of the OSS in that part of the world.

When you're an FBI man like William Wright it sure good to have a psychic girl friend like Nina Foch. He's about to go on a mission to the Orient to deliver the names of key underground leaders to start a general uprising in China against the Japanese occupation. Germans who've been bugging Otto Kruger's house learn of this and the whole movie is spent with these guys who've already lost the war trying to help their allies. Who, by the way, they refer to as 'Japs'. When Foch is sideswiped by a speeding car and knocked unconscious she dreams about Wright's danger and sees what is about to happen to him on the Golden Gate Bridge. She goes there and foils the plot.

All the stuff you'd expect from a nice noir film is there, the foggy atmosphere of San Francisco, the dimly lit sets, Budd Boetticher tried his best as did the cast. But they just weren't convincing, probably because they didn't believe this claptrap themselves.

It's possible, but not likely that Nina Foch's dream and its psychic consequences might have been more developed and the developments were left on the cutting room floor. I think it was just a lousy screenplay.

And Budd and Harry Cohn at Columbia Pictures had the fast moving events of history going against them here.


That is the answer. The question is: What is the single reason to watch this movie? I loved her in "My Name Is Julia Ross." That is one of the best films noir of all time. Noir or whatever one may call it, it's a very unsettling movie.

She is fun in one of the worst major studio releases of all time, too. That would be "The Guilt Of Janet Ames." This one has a spooky, promising title. It has a good cast. It has a fine director. I was expecting something dark. Maybe something a little tawdry. Instead, it's an uninspired, routine espionage movie. It's pretty much is a total bore. At least it was to me. Ms. Foch is captivating. And that is about it.


If any movie ever made Italians look bad, this is it.

Duke Mitchell - what an A--HOLE. Duke Mitchell, I s--t on your grave. Seeing as practically every person gunned down in this film by the cowardly Mimi is either black or of some other racial or ethnic minority, it's hard not to become convinced that the guy ultimately owes his allegiance to the Ku Klux Klan or skinheads. Awww, but he doesn't shoot the little black kid in the elevator in the opening sequence, so that means he can't be all bad, right? WRONG. Typical softheaded sentimental tripe.

While I do understand why some people might be struck by and even, to a certain extent, admire the film's audacious, totally un-PC verve (it's certainly unashamed of its own hatefulness and sense of self-involvement), but this doesn't change the fact that the main character, Mimi (and, by extension, Duke Mitchell), is thoroughly loathsome human being who earns not one iota of empathy or interest, especially given that Duke Mitchell is such a COMPLETE BORE as a performer. But what do you expect from a guy whose main claim to fame (apart from this dog t--d of a movie) was being a second rate Dean Martin imitator?


What a disappointment! I've enjoyed the Jon Cleary books about Scobie Malone, but there's little resemblance between him and the cinematic Malone. In the books he's a city detective, who is devoted to his wife and doesn't get involved in fisticuffs. For the film the character has been spiced up, into an outback copper who uses his fists and isn't averse to jumping into bed with a gorgeous girl, though quite what she and the film's other sex interest see in him I don't know; Taylor was 39 at the time and his face was getting puffy.

But his character's stamina is remarkable; he flies in from Australia, apparently goes straight to the Commissioner's house (rather unwisely seeking to arrest him during a black-tie reception), saves him from assassination (getting into a fight in the process), goes to a casino with one girl, leaves with another and takes her to bed. So much for jet lag! On the way back to the Commissioner's house (showing a good knowledge of London back streets), he gets beaten up by the baddies, but is still first down to breakfast! It's also remarkable that the commissioner's limo has its windscreen and headlights miraculously repaired within minutes of the assassination attempt and that one character has a touching faith in the precise timekeeping of a clock-activated bomb.

The best thing is Joseph the Butler's disdain for the uncouth Malone. And at least the film avoids being a London travelogue, though some scenes take place during the Wimbledon tennis week.


This is a failure so complete as to make me angry.

All of the subtlety and structure of Reggio's early films is gone, leaving nothing but a hash of digitally smeared images whose sole purpose seems to be Whining About Bad Things Humans Do. Just how do Star Trek-like wormhole graphics, slo-mo colorized seascapes, mutiplicities of obviously fake computer icons, and shots of athletic competition that, incidentally, show that no one has ever been able to top (or even match) Leni Riefenstahl for filming bodies in motion, edited together with an overlay of video colorization that a 1980s "Dr. Who" producer would have rejected as "too cheesy," add up to a polemic against "civilized violence"? There is no intellectual, emotional, or visceral connection between these images as assembled and mutated by Reggio and way too many digital effects artistes, and the cautionary tale I assume he wanted to produce. With all of the "dramaturgical consultants" involved, no one seems to have pulled his head out the his own feeling of Saying Something Important and considered that they might all be failing to say something new.

Only people who watch too much television could make such a film and believe that it's meaningful; this is kindergarten Stan Brakhage, and ultimately gutless in its relentless obviousness. The only irony and tension evident here (unlike in "Koyaanisqatsi" where the relentless beauty and strangeness of time-altered ordinary images forced you to consider their meaning) was when the DVD I was watching jammed and skipped. This is MTV for the Noam Chomsky crowd, based on reflex rather than reflection and signifying nothing. Two stars for the music, which is in Glass's best pomo-Cesar Franck style and features some passionate cello from Yo-Yo Ma. (I hope for his sake that he didn't have to record his parts to a playback of the film; there are some things you shouldn't have to do even for a paycheck.)


I am a gigantic fan of both Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi, but this movie is just not good. The reviewer below is entirely correct that the stunning imagery of the Detroit station is the first and last memorable scene in the film. I really, really wish I had left after that, instead of continuing to hold out hope throughout the film. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I felt let down.

The score is almost completely a rehash of the previous two - not necessarily a bad thing if you're a fan, but there's only one piece that stood out to me as being fresh. It was good enough, though, that I'll still probably check out the soundtrack.

But just keep this in mind if you see this film: if you come to realize at any point that you're not enjoying it, go ahead and split - you won't miss a thing, because it won't get any better.

I'll even give the executive summary here (warning! spoilers!): lots of shots of athletes that look almost good enough for a Nike commercial, shots of smiling people, inexplicably dull frontal head shots of famous people's wax dummies (WTF were they thinking here?!?), some giggling babies (cuuuuute), some "bitchin'" Photoshop effects, some imagery that's meant to suggest a comparison between the flows of water, information, money and people (I think)... and then a bunch of quick unrelated scenes of mass violence... and then a bunch of stock space footage.

I could remake this movie in 10 seconds. Here's my pitch:

2 seconds of a happy daddy with a shaved head and lycra biking shorts playing with a toddler playing with a kitten playing with string; 5 seconds of that scene in "Network" where the guy talks about messing with the "elemental forces of nature" and how "money flows in, money flows out;" 1 second of Reginald Denny getting brained with a brick, and then 3 seconds of Alan Bean bouncing around on the moon.

There you go - that's 88 minutes and 50 seconds of your life I just saved. Of course, I'd get a copy of After Effects and apply a filter or two, so it wouldn't look as blatantly stock as it is. If Steven Soderbergh's reading this, hey, I won't even need much money for this project...

If you insist upon watching a movie about "Life as War," I suggest "Bowling for Columbine" instead. It may not have the pseudo-intellectual veneer so fashionable among the black turtleneck crowd, but at least it's funny.


Having enjoyed Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqatsi I was looking forward to this third part of the Qatsi trilogy and seeing what direction it had taken. Rarely has a film so spectacularly failed to live up to its predecessors and lost its way. Although it tries to represent "civilised warfare" in the form of sport, science, trade and other forms of competition, it lacks the global scope and even the coherently developed themes of its predecessors. War is chaos, but even wars have an aim in mind and this film had little structure and unclear goals.

Naqoyqatsi is flawed by being a chaotic melange of images that does little to develop its theme. On the plus side, it wisely avoided using some of the iconic images of last century's wars.

Naqoyqatsi is also so insular that several times I had to remind myself that I was not watching an advertisement promoting the American way of life. Perhaps this insularity reflects the ongoing "War on Terror". When representing "sport as war" the prominent team logos ensured that the USA was depicted as the winner. Hence it missed the opportunity to depict some of the many sports around the world and showing that humanity is united in its use of sport as a form of civilised warfare.

Apart from newsreel, the footage seemed to have been shot on a budget in the confines of New York and there was little recognition of "life as war" in the rest of the world. The gallery of faces (waxworks) gave only a nod to the existence of important personages outside of the USA. The makers missed the point that globalisation does not mean Americanisation.

The Philip Glass soundtrack sounded much like every other Philip Glass score I've heard (with the possible exception of Koyaanisqatsi) and at best can be described as "inoffensive" neither adding to, nor detracting from, the chaotic imagery.


I've seen all 3 now. I just can't believe how bad Naqoyqatsi is. Not in comparison to the others, but simply on it's own merit, or lack of.

I can't understand how the average rating for this movie is over 6 out of 10. I gave the first 2 movies 8 out of 10. They were thought provoking and beautifully done. I gave this movie a rating of 1. If a 0 or negative number was available, I would have given it that rating instead. What a total waste of time it was watching this movie. I thought after the first 30 minutes that I should turn it off, but then I figured that it was just a (very) slow starting movie. I thought the same thing after 45 minutes, then 1 hour, etc. Then I realized that it wasn't going to get any better.

It's very tedious to watch and without any redeeming qualities. Don't take my word for it, watch it yourself. Be sure to see the first two movies before this one. If you see this one first, I can just about guarantee that you'll never want to see the first two, but they are definitely much, much better than this "piece of work".

The best part of the movie is when the credits role at the end. That's when your penance on this earth is complete and you can foregoe 89 minutes in purgatory, for the suffering that you've endured watching this "film". If God is truely merciful, he'll be more generous.


The director Godfrey Reggio must be a very charming and persuasive man for this dreadfully botched project to have seen the light of day. Reggio's message, so powerful and resonant in his previous two Qatsi films, is hopelessly jumbled here. Athletes, equations, oceans, keypads, laughing heads, etc, mingle without purpose. The parade of banal imagery is mostly generic stock from Getty Images et al, and the heavy-handed digital manipulations are amateurish in the worst way imaginable. Surely someone involved (Steven Soderbergh, executive producer?) could have pointed out that applying a solarizing filter to nearly every frame was a VERY BAD idea? The crude looping, layering, and distorting of images recalls a freshman Photoshop class. And to make matters worse, the computer animation sequences are more artless than a 1980's Wall Street pie-chart. This is not to say that improved aesthetics alone would have salvaged this film, but some meager effort in this direction may have made it tolerable as visual fodder for the accompanying music. I feel compelled to point out that the score by Philip Glass will certainly satisfy his fans. Not a radical departure, but rather a refinement of what Glass does best with lovely violin contributions by Yo Yo Ma. If you decide to see this film be certain to focus your attention on the brief opening sequence. While you may already be familiar with Detroit's once majestic but long abandoned Michigan Central Railroad Station 89 minutes later you will find yourself remembering this image of 20th century decay as the critical point when you should have headed for the EXIT sign/hit the STOP button, etc. You've been warned.


PLEASE?! If this is about technology and what man does to kill others and ourselves, I think I missed his entire point. Because I walked out feeling like Reggio relied on cold-war-era footage of space exploration, and had NOTHING new to add to the dialogue about fears of technology. Trails of 1 and 0, denoting technology and math and science -- DONE that. Anyone out there see The Matrix? And motion studies of people in motion? Ever heard of Edward Muybridge? At least he uses exact clips of Muybridge's photographs of human motion studies.

This film was derivative, and the score is just enough Philip Glass to sound like EVERYTHING he's done in the past 10 years... Avoid this film at ALL costs!!


The first two movies of this series excelled for their footage of the natural world and ordinary people stuck in the midst of society. This movie doesn't have any of that natural footage, which I understand is part of the point, but it really makes the entire video component of the film seem like random images stuck together-- ones and zeroes flying around, computer models of human skeletons, and so forth. Occasionally the stock footage is put to good effect (the nationalism/finance segment around 35:00), but usually it makes the video appear to lack any meaningful content, and demands you accept the context of the stock photographers rather than the context of the director. It's no better than the video displayed on a karaoke machine. Three stars added for the Philip Glass soundtrack.


Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi are both Beautiful films, but this final installment of the trilogy is a major let down. They got too carried away with stock footage and photography, so little content. The executive producer puts his own image in the film... Its just pretentious. Maybe if they had more than $3 million to spend maybe it would have been something. I actually thought Steven Soderbergh directed it because it was so bad, but Godfrey Reggio the director of Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi directed this. I'll have to assume that they just didn't have the budget to make a decent film. You would think that Francis Ford Coppola would have wanted to be a part of this film and help get more money together.


The peace and beauty of Koyaanisqatsi was a powerful affirmation of the natural world. In Naqoyqatsi, we are assaulted by images of the synthetic, the competitive, the violent, and the digital -- the destructive constructs of our culture.

Some liberties are taken with the images, with posterization, distressing, and much slow motion. The connections between the sequences are inscrutable, if there are any. Naqoyqatsi is defined at the film's end, a missed opportunity to place the images in context.

The film is difficult to watch, the quality of the archival footage uneven, and it's most redeeming qualities are its theme and the hypnotic score of Philip Glass.


I was very disappointed in this film. The director has shown some talent in his other endeavors, but this just seemed to be filler. There may have been a deep meaning behind it, but it seems to me to be nothing but a director who has access to some toys.

I would highly recommend his other works to people, but certainly not this one. As I watched it, I kept on thinking it would pick up after an initial slow period, but it never did. At the end of the movie I was neither entertained nor moved nor thought of things in a new way. I could only say to myself, "What was that?"

There were a few really striking parts of the film, but not enough to warrant sitting through it again.


There seems to be a spectrum of cinema. On the left, there are movies made mostly for entertainment and/or commercial purposes. In the middle, there are movies that are both entertaining and artistic. On the right are movies that are not as commercial, but are focused more on cinema as art than cinema as product.

I'm not here to say any one part of the spectrum is better than any other, but that when a movie goes too far to either end, it's rarely good. Such is the case with Naqoyqatsi.

I had no idea what to expect when I saw it advertised. A few friends were going and asked if I wanted to come along. None of us knew what to expect, and by the end, none of us were pleased.

Yes, there are breathtaking images. Yes, I'm amazed at the lengths the filmmakers went to in searching through archival footage. Yes, the soundtrack is enjoyable to listen to, and probably the best part of the experience. The thing is, this goes so far to the right side of the spectrum I mentioned that I can't say anything nice about the movie as a whole.

It's preachy. It's a jumble of symbolism and obvious morality. It's not saying anything new or forcing the viewer to examine life in a new way. It's just telling us things we already know (that is, if we can even figure out what it's saying).

This movie is simply art for art's sake. An attempt to say "Look at how deep and thought-provoking we can be by using montage!" When a film becomes more about how clever or intelligent its creators are than about its subject, it ceases to be a film and simply becomes celluloid self-gratification.


What I hoped for (or even expected) was the well known "stop motion" imagery and extreme slow motions, extreme zooms and all embracing fish eye takes. In short: The art of a) finding interesting Visual Events and b) capturing them in a way the human eye is not capable of, to be replayed so that the human eye can see. The stuff that made the other Qatsi's hits.

I just wondered how the creation of the whole would fit the title.

Having watched the movie I got the feeling that the focus in this third part was on the message and not on the wrapping. That's fine, especially since the message is so valid. But I already knew the message, and it appeared there was nothing else left for me. More then half the film was solarized or colorized or posterized or transformed through some other filter. It looked a lot like the effects your video camera does but you never use. A lot of the images would have been prettier without the filters, like the giraffe and zebra chase. You could say that 'technology or whatever human based malicious source disfigured our beautiful nature' but why use these seventies effects to symbolize that? At the point that there had been more than 10 minutes in a row of this cheap looking effect I was ready to leave. The hope that the rest just couldn't BE that bad made me stay. But then there was the slow motion: slow motion is good because it gives you time to analyze the moving picture. But if there are no more than 24 or maybe 50 or 60 frames a second, then there's just not enough motion to slow down. Please, record the motion-to-be-slowed faster, like was done with the beautiful shots of the foaming and splashing water (some of) the laughing people and the drill song singing soldiers. I acknowledge that archive pictures can't be redone, but I had already seen a lot of that footage anyway, it could have done without it. It must have been a lot of work to search through the archive footage, and the effects can't have been that easy to apply and arrange as well. On top of that, a lot of the work was mixed with each other. It shows that the creator wasn't out to lengthen the movie or to spare himself. But I didn't like the mixed stuff one bit... The idea behind it was sometimes nice or even clever, but the implementation was insufficient. The computer generated images didn't bother me that much, however out of date. The 'bits' streaming along circuits (in the first part of the film) looked more recent and were nice. Mandelbrot is always fun, the fractal-mountain was less. I was pleased to hear a cello playing a major role in the music. A little less vibrato at certain moments would have been appropriate with Glass' music, but that's a matter of taste. As is all of the above, of course. I do hope that there will be another Qatsi story to tell soon, where computer imagery will have a less significant role and that will inspire somebody to get into the field again.


Dear reader, Watch out! This movie is not really a movie, though its creators have the impertinence to call it so. If you have not been warned about its content, here it goes: the film is simply a sequence of imagines which flow continually and are trying to transmit a certain feeling, concept. They could be called, therefore, symbols. The images are accompanied by a soundtrack, it's purpose being to create atmosphere as well. However, the images the director has chosen can only transmit feelings to an American audience, because they are, in an overwhelming number, American icons. Though the film is intended to express the idea of "civilized warfare", it fails to do so not only because of the general chaos, but also because it is far too long and tiresome, and I strongly felt that a lot of the scenes have not to do with "war", in whichever conception. To conclude, I was greatly disappointed by a documentary which is not a documentary, a movie which is not a movie, a "something" whose only strong point is the extraordinary use of technology in image processing.


Koyaanisquatsi is simply the best film I've ever seen. It's a masterpiece where everything is at the right place. Some scenes are not "nice" or "beautiful", but the camera never peeks or intrudes. This is exactly what's happening here. The camera is used to intrude, to disgrace and to ridicule. There is no magic flow here, no sense of greatness or respect. Instead some scenes are cobbled together without greater purpose or plan. The music is disturbing. Just as I rated Koyaanisquatsi the best film ever made, this one is the worst. It's a "pure" movie, too, but this is the negative form, exactly that which should *not* be done.


The trouble with this sort of lyrical film-making is that you either make a masterpiece, or a lemon: there's little middle ground. Putting it gently, this is not "Berlin - symphony of a city" or "Man with a Movie Camera". Unfortunately, it's not much to look at, either.

The problem with this one is that it's glib and half-baked, as if Michael Moore had come on board. It doesn't really have anything to say, or rather, to show us with pictures and sounds. Koyanisqatsi uses images cumulatively to propound a thesis. This is just a patchwork in search of a point. (Though, quite inadvertently, the movie tells us more about the mind of Uncle Sam than it intends. There is something profoundly paradoxical about an anti-technology, anti-civilisation, anti-media movie that is so profoundly souped up with technology. 'Do as I say, and not as I do'. You just gotta love the Yanks, eh.) Tonally, there's something sour and misanthropic about this episode. Both the prior episodes had moments of lyricism and exhilaration; this time the tone is consistently glum. It simply doesn't work over this duration, as Gustav Mahler will tell you.

Stylistically, Naqoyqatsi is a mess. The whizzy digital stuff is particularly misguided. It gives the whole thing a totally fussy, overprocessed look, and it also undermines the 'realist' nature of the analogue 'found footage'. (I mean, I pity the guys. Part of the joy of Koyanisqaatsi was that it was a homage to the use of optical film. But now optical film's an historical artifact, they have to 'take on board' the digital domain; but I don't think they bring it off. The digital stuff often looks like video links from CNN or BBC World.) And with the "found footage", well, the digital manipulation is often ugly, and usually just silly, and the false colour and solarisation kept me thinking of...

...ahem...

James Bond title sequences.

Ahem. Odd as it may seem, there is also the possibility that the movie has been simply stolen by Yo Yo Ma's performance; it's about as unobtrusive as a Lawrence Olivier voice-over. The images would have to be jolly compelling to stack up against all that charisma.

Philip Glass himself is on odd form; never expected him to knock off the Verdi requiem! (Made me laugh, which, of course, is not the desired response to any part of this movie). There's even one piece of music that sounds like Brahms. (?) Perhaps they've changed his pills.

From our 'idle questions' department: is Geoffrey Reggio actually a Hopi Indian at all? Or did he just do a sweatlodge in Hollywood Hills? Oh, and are the various snippets bits of footage from earlier 'episodes' in the trilogy a commentary on the way these movies, too, are part of the global media slushy?


The final frames of the original "American Graffiti" provide one-line summaries of the fates of the film's four central male characters. While somewhat sexist in omitting the female characters, the ending of the original film provided all the information about those people that even the most ardent fan of the movie would want. However, someone felt that mega-bucks could be made by detailing the dreary lives of these characters after the original film ended. Bad move. Making an insurance salesman and his wife, a nerdy private in Vietnam, a drag race driver, and a overgrown hippie into interesting characters in interesting situations was far beyond the talents of those who wrote this nearly unwatchable movie. While most of the original cast is back, with only Richard Dreyfuss having the good sense to stay away, "More American Graffiti" is a mess of silly situations that involve protests, car races, country singers, and the Vietnam war. The use of split screens, once thought innovative and daring, is overused here to the point of distraction and adds confusion to the already confused goings one. This is a sequel that demonstrates nearly everything that can go wrong with a sequel. Perhaps it should be screened in film schools as a lesson. Even the use of period music, which was a delight in the original, is poorly done here. If you want more "American Graffiti," see the original twice.


As with many sequels, this one just doesn't have the quality or the impact of the original. The first one belongs up there with the rest of the greats. This one just doesn't cut it. The first film had a magical "good time" feeling about it that is totally missing from this film. We became enamored of all these characters (minus Richard Dreyfuss) in an age of innocence. Now, a few years later, they have changed so much that they are largely different people. While this is what happens in real life, we don't expect this to happen to our favorite film characters! The film doesn't have the humor that the original had, and we were expecting to laugh. What little humor is there is dark. The first film also featured what is probably the greatest soundtrack ever, while this one is good but not even close to the original's. This film is so totally different from the original that it isn't even actually a sequel. I gave it a 4.


Like a lot of people, I loved the original; "American Graffiti" was one of the great movies of the 70s. The sequel, "More American Graffiti" is a horrible, depressing mess of a movie. It wasn't funny, the wide-eyed, likable characters had become cynical and jaded, and the stories were contrived (such as "Laurie's" character having another brother because Richard Dreyfuss didn't do the sequel and "Terry the Toad" and "Pharaoh Joe" somehow managing to serve together in Vietnam). They even have a police officer by the name of "Falfa" (Harrison Ford's character in the original) who makes a "cameo". He doesn't even look like Harrison Ford, who was way too big a star by 1979 to even bother with this garbage.

The operative word here is "funny". This movie isn't even amusing. Debbie (Candy Clark) is a stripper mixed in with a bunch of dope spoking hippies and trying to bail her dealer boyfriend out of jail; Steve and Laurie (Ron Howard and Cindy Williams), the lovebirds in the original, have two kids and have become an annoying, bickering couple; Adorable little tomboy Carol (MacKenzie Phillips) has become "Rainbow", yet another hippie child. John Milner (Paul LeMat) is a loser race car driver whose fortune was foretold at the end of the original. Even Wolfman Jack, whose voice was such an integral part of the original, and gave it such a great flow, only is heard sporadically.

Perhaps it was different writers, a different director and the complete lack of a cohesive story line that makes this movie such a dismal failure.

The episodic charm and authentic nostalgia of the original is nowhere to be found in the sequel. It was a movie that didn't need to be made and its best just to remember what a great movie "American Graffiti" was and avoid the movie with "More" in the title.


I really don't think producer George Lucas didn't really set out to make such a horrible sequel as "More American Graffiti" turned out to be. But in retrospect it was the first crack in his then-seemingly impenetrable armor. Coming straight off the huge success of "American Graffiti" and produced basically at the same time as "Star Wars", this film was the first that Lucas successfully took away from Coppola without having to bother directing it himself. The result is typical Lucas -- far more interesting in terms of its structure and the way it's edited than the actual material. The writer/director Bill Norton has been allowed to use a variety of different screen ratios and split screens to produce odd associations in the images. While it's interesting to see ironic juxtapositions of the 4 story lines, the style ultimately only epitomizes the fractured nature of the film itself.

Lucas' brilliant original film was all about a group of friends on the archetypical "last big night" before school ends and Kurt (Ron Dreyfuss) and Steve (Ron Howard) are supposed to go off to college. One thing that made that film work, despite the fact that it's very episodic, is that you had the core characters together at the beginning and they come back together at the end. There's a disposition of time, like in Nick Ray's "Rebel Without a Cause" where a certain period of time becomes very elastic and takes on more meaning than such a specific time really would in actual life, but everything takes place in a static space. "More American Graffiti" is basically the opposite -- the space is very dynamic, with Toad (Charles Martin Smith) off in Vietnam, his former girlfriend Debbie (Candy Clark) partying with hippies in San Francisco, Steve and Laurie (Cindy Williams) involved in student protests in Berkeley, and John Miler (Paul Le Mat) drag racing on the semi-pro circuit. In a contrived meeting early in the film all the principles are brought together to watch John race, but after that the threads don't come back together and weave apart the way they do in the original. Instead they split off and we follow the characters through about 3 years' of time, just seeing various events on New Years Eve in what seems to be 1967, 68 and 69. It's easy for the audience to become confused, and I think it's fair to say that we do. While the original film seemed to condense important events and rites of passages into unreal theatrical time that produced an experience of nostalgia even for those who never experienced those events, this sequel drags and stretches the few plot points from the epilogue of the original and attempts to make them into a coherent film.

The best parts of the movie to me are the ones with Candy Clark in SF and Charles Martin Smith in Nam. Some of the jokes do fall flat but the style of those sections is interesting and they form a neat contrast with each other. A good movie could maybe have been made if these parts were just a bit better, and if the other parts weren't such a drag. Speaking of drag racing, the whole plot with Milner talking to a foreign exchange student was really lame, unfunny, and throwing in Mackenzie Phillips for a cameo didn't help at all. It was just another contrived moment, like when they briefly explain why Curt isn't in the movie because he's already in Canada. Instead Laurie just has another brother who is basically identical to Curt but has a different name and is now played by a very boring actor. There's a black kind of satire to some of the Vietnam stuff, very similar to what I would imagine Lucas and John Milius' original idea for "Apocalypse Now" would have been like. And there's some of that manic fun in the San Francisco scenes that made the first movie fun. But still along with that fun stuff, you have the rest of the movie dragging it down, as if anyone wants to see Steve and Laurie argue in their horrible suburban abode as if they were auditioning for a Spielberg movie about divorce and child abandonment. I think even if those parts of the movie weren't so painful, it still wouldn't really be comparable to the first movie because there's no closure and no sense of coming back together or of anybody having learned anything. It just sort of ends at the point when they ran out of money or something, a cheap freeze frame imitation of "Two-Lane Blacktop" and so many better films.

Like the original however, this film has a great soundtrack of period hits that is probably worth owning for its own sake and almost makes the movie itself palatable. The performances by Country Joe and the Fish are great, and Scott Glenn all duded up as a hippie in love with Candy Clark is a sight to see -- I wonder if even back then he had to use a wig? I couldn't possibly recommend this movie, and yet it has some small affection in my heart because I love the original so much. Every couple of decades I guess I have to give this movie a try just to make sure that it's really as worthless as I remember it being. It's a party killer but it's something that every fan of "American Graffiti" or George Lucas in general will want to see at least once or twice. It shows how a lot of effort can go into something and it can still turn out pretty half baked. It makes you reflect on how much of a miracle it is that Lucas actually made such a good movie as "American Graffiti" in the first place, as if all the elements were in place and all the appropriate gods had been placated. Unfortunately such was not the case for this film or for Bill Norton.


The gang is back for more! Ron Howard and Cindy Williams are now married! Her brother is demonstrating against the draft and Charles Martin Smith is doing everything he can in Vietnam to get sent home.

The issues of the 60's are brought to light here, but it's all over the place, beginning with New Year's Eve 1963, then three minutes later, it's New Year's Eve 1964, then three minutes later, it's New Year's Eve 1965, then three minutes later, it's back to 1963 again. Martin Smith is talking about his friend dying in a drag race a year ago, and a couple of scenes later, this friend is winning his next heat in a drag race and to top it all off, the drug scene and the flower children enter the picture (or pictures, in some cases, as many as three different camera shots are shown on the screen at the same time).

If you want to watch this film, you have to WATCH this film, but I'd advise you to stick to the original and leave it there. Wolfman Jack is heard in the beginning of the film before almost every song played in the background, but where'd he go? Maybe HE couldn't keep up with this film, either, and quit! 2 out of 10 stars!


I loved the first "American Graffiti" with all my heart and soul that I considered it to be the best movie about rock n' roll along with being the best teenager flick I've ever seen. The first film spawned the careers of George Lucas who would later do the blockbuster epic "Star Wars" before doing the prequels two decades later while making Richard Dreyfuss a star in Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and other films as well.

Somehow without those two, the magic died off.

"More American Graffiti" shows audiences what happened to the rest of the characters later on in the sixties where Steve (Ron Howard) and Laurie (Cindy Williams) are protesting against the Vietnam War while their friend Terry "The Toad" Fields (Charles Martin Smith) is in the war himself and trying to get out. John Milner (Paul Le Mat) is still the hot drag racer in California where he never quite left home. The rest of the supporting actors in the film from Candy Clark's Debbie (Terry's Girlfriend), to the Pharaoh's gang members, along with Harrison Ford and others really don't do much. The original film showed teenagers cruising the streets without any bloodshed with the early music of rock n' roll from Buddy Holly, The Fleetwoods, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Bill Haley and the Comets, Buddy Knox and more that brought back the nostalgia bug in classic music. The soundtrack for "More American Graffiti" is a mixture of rock, soul, country, hippie music, and whatever fitted the mood during the late 60's of protesting, drugs, sacrifices and more.

After watching "More American Graffiti" it looked like it wanted to show audience members what happened after the title epilogue of the four main characters in the first film (with the exception of Dreyfuss's character) where it wasn't necessary. This film wasn't necessary either as I was glad to see that neither Lucas or Dreyfuss moved on to bigger and better projects.


I suggest if you have already seen the original American Graffiti, do not see this movie. If you haven't seen the original, I still don't recommend this, but it will be a lot less painful to watch. The characters from the first film are great, and by the end you fell a connection to them. This movie sets out to show how bad their lives have become. It's a chore to watch!

Set on New year's eve in 1964, '65, '66 and '67, we have four stories about the characters from the first film. In '64, we have John Milner (Paul Le Mat) who is now a professional drag racer. He meets a foreign girl Eva, and though his plot really goes nowhere, it's the best of the four. In 1965, we have Toad (Charles Martin Smith) who is stuck in Vietnam, and more than anything, he wants out. He tries to find ways to hurt himself or do stupid things to get out. In '66, we have Debbie (Candy Clark), the girl who Toad picked up in the first movie. Now she is a pot smoking hippie, and really I'm not sure what her plot was about. It was her going to a concert...not much of anything happened. Finally, in 1967, Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Bolander (Cindy Williams) are having marriage problems that end in a anti-war rally and police action.

None of these stories are very good. The script in some parts features very, very bad dialogue. These poor characters who I enjoyed so much in the first film, ended up where they are here...why? Why was this sequel made? I guess if a sequel was made, it had to feature the Vietnam war, and hippies and police action, but the real thing is that this movie shouldn't have been made.

The direction was stylish, but it just amounts in a huge headache. Each story has a different style. Milner's is just a regular (depending on how you watch it) wide screen, and is filmed how the rest of the movie should be. Toad's plot was shot in 16mm, and what it amounts to is a poor looking picture, which is the size of a small box in the middle of the screen. Debbie's plot is shot in multi-screen. At one point there might have been one screen, but for the good majority, it's anywhere from two to twenty screens up at once. Don't bother trying to follow the screens, since there's nothing going on anyways. Steve and Laurie's plot has the weirdest filming style. It's style really doesn't mean anything, and is dumb and pointless. Instead of just a full widescreen, it's a condensed widescreen that looks like a full screen version of widescreen. Though I don't like the others, at least I understand what they were going for, this one just doesn't make sense.

The music is this movie's saving grace, not that it could save this! Bob Dylan, Simon and Grafunkel, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye and dozens of others have nice songs featured here. They don't save the feature, they just make it a little better than it is. It's still bad!

Overall, this is a pointless sequel. Any fan of the original should avoid this lackluster sequel!

My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 110 mins. PG for language, drug use and violence


Were it not for the fact that this came as a 2-dvd set paired with the original American Graffiti; were it not for the fact that I've been here in Iraq for several months and, at this point, will watch pretty much anything, I would have tossed this movie in the garbage after the first ten minutes. This movie was appallingly bad on so many levels I just don't know where to start. Poorly acted, shot, directed, written, scored, edited. My 9-year old daughter's first forays into film-making are superior to this - and she was filming the dog sleeping. (Come to think of it, I give that piece of cinematography 9 stars. But I'm biased.) If you have even the slightest appreciation for quality film-making, then avoid this piece of garbage at all costs. No character in this movie has a single redeeming quality save for the Icelandic girl who doesn't even have a single line in English. I'll not waste more of my time describing what a bad movie this is.


American Graffiti is one of the best movies ever made. I've seen it at least 30 times and am emotionally affected by it each time I see it. (I graduated from high school in 1962.)

However, More American Graffiti is one of the worst movies ever made.

It is hard to believe than anyone associated with the great original movie was involved with this terrible sequel. The part of the movie set in Vietnam was extremely inaccurate. (I served 18 months in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division.)

The whole movie had nothing worthwhile in any part of it.

If anyone ever wants to make a case against making sequels to great movies, More American Graffiti would be the prime example of what can go wrong.


The critics were like "a movie that will break your heart" etc. So a friend of mine and I had great expectations when we decided to watch this movie.

I'll make it short and leave it up to others to write about its content. This movie tries to touch you, to reach your heart. But it fails. At least for me. And for my friend, too.

Everything that happened happened only on the screen. It was always THERE, not HERE, where I am. I thought most of the time "hmm, something's happening on the screen, but it's only on the screen. It's not real."

Movies which succeeded MUCH better in touching me: East of Eden (1955), Terms of Endearment (1983), Jerry Maguire (1996), Babe (1995), Mies vailla menneisyyttä (2002)


Personally I've watched it because of Lea Thompson's appearance and I didn't really expect to enjoy the movie as such, but surprisingly I kept watching it until the end.

Let's face it - it just one of the saga-like stories and isn't particularly original or entertaining, but strangely it just keeps you by the TV. My opinion about Will of Their Own would be much better if there wouldn't be one point that I just don't get.

There is lovely and really touchy scene in which Lea Thompson's character is running on the street holding baby in her arms, the snow is falling, she is cold, scared, and has no place to stay, she doesn't know what to do next. And then about 10-12 years later, when things are better for her, she just leaves the same kid without any warning to take up the career she was dreaming about.

I just don't get it - I don't see how is it possible that she would do such thing, it was the opposite action to all that she done so far in her life when all that she was doing was aimed on that child survival. After this character flip I just couldn't enjoy rest of the movie.


The setup for "Nature of the Beast" is ingeniously simple, and fraught with limitless potential for suspense: harried salesman Jack (a very domesticated Lance Henriksen) picks up trouble in the form of hitchhiker Adrian (Eric Roberts), who seems to be in possession of incriminating information against Jack. Oh, and over a million dollars has been stolen from a casino and someone dubbed 'Hatchet Man' is dismembering people in the desert. Sounds great, right? Sort of like "The Hitcher" meets "Psycho." One or both of these men has a secret, and nothing is as it seems! Well, unfortunately, writer-director Victor Salva (of "Jeepers Creepers" and "Powder" fame) doesn't have enough ideas to keep the movie going, the scenario arouses no tension or suspense (poison for what is supposedly a 'thriller'), and the inclusion of an underlying homo-erotic tone seems out-of-place. Henriksen evokes an unusual, not-quite-earthbound Everyman (even sporting an ample gut), but Roberts is about as threatening and scary as an extra in "Death Wish 3"; we're never sucked in to the point where we actually CARE about what's happening, and the conclusion slides into improbable territory (I kept thinking it was going to be "Fight Club" all over again, but I was mistaken). Too bad. "Nature of the Beast" could have been something else...instead of nothing else.


I had a bad feeling ten seconds into the film as a pair of overworked tumbleweeds (probably left over from a bad western) blew across the scene. The bad feeling grew ten seconds later when the obligatory opening stranger-turned-human-sacrifice for no apparent reason lowered his rear view mirror to see a shadow in the back seat. For the next five minutes over the opening credits we are treated to an overhead shot of the car rocking back and forth and only the dramatic made-for-TV-movie music informs us a killing is taking place, not a make-out session. For the next 27 or so hours we are treated to two idiotic psychotics who for some reason seem compelled to drive through the desert Southwest together, going after each other like a demented Abbot & Costello. Even with the "shocking" twists at the end, we are merely left to shake our heads and wonder if the producers and director/writer feel as ashamed and embarrassed as they should for creating this inconsistent, incoherent nonsense.


I love most movies and I'm a big fan of Sean Bean so I thought that I would at least LIKE this movie. Also, I'm Canadian and this is a mostly-Canadian movie so I was prepared to cut it some serious slack. Nothing could have prepared me for the garbage that is "Airborne". Steve Guttenberg as an action hero? Give me a break. The acting throughout the movie was so bad I am going to have trouble sleeping tonight. I now have only two wishes in my life.

1. I hope that you never have to sit through this movie. 2. I wish I could get those 6 hours back. Oh wait, the movie's under 2 hours - it only seemed like 6 hours...

Don't watch this. Seriously.


This film suffers horrendously from its direction "Julian Grant" , and its incompetent lead, Steve Guttenberg, who's putting a solid effort to win a Bruce Willis look-alike contest! The writing is reckless Hollywood action thriller; Sean Bean --whose one of my favorites-- David Fraser, and Kim Coates give a decent performance. The film is definitely below average. 3 out of 10! I wonder what Hollywood studios thought, actually giving the go ahead, to weak director such as Grant. And I'd say to Sean Bean "what were you thinking even considering participating in a film like this, after such great films like GoldenEye, Ronin, and Patriot Games!


*****I reveal two 'twists' at the end of the film. Do not read if you want to watch this movie for some reason*****

Oh my, this is bad. And for some reason, Sean Bean, one of the greatest present day actors, has sold his soul and appears in it. The only consolation is that the scriptwriters must have realised that someone as ultimately pathetic as Steve Guttenberg could never in his life aspire to kill someone as cool as Sean Bean. Instead, he is killed in what must have seemed like a marvellous twist at the end, by the good guy who was meant to be be killed by Bean, but was actually his boss and faked his own death. Don't worry. I haven't ruined anything for you. The acting itself is spectacularly apalling, with Guttenberg's patented "Hey-look-I-can-pull-a-Chuck-Norris-face" hard man stare dominating most of the two hours of hell on earth. Added to a plot that I could have written whilst being tortured and hung upside down with both hands cut off, there is also a completely nonsensical critical error in the fact that one moment the virus will escape if they so much as look at it wrong, while another moment, Steve Guttenberg is bravely running around with it, throwing, catching bashing and generally abusing this 'virus' which has the distinct look of a collection of those little balls of soap you put in your bath. My final word? If you are suicidally depressed and feel like you want to laugh manically at something that should be a bad comedy but even worse isn't, tape it next time it's on channel 5 at midnight, then burn it when you realise that I am indeed telling the truth.


A cut above from the usual straight to video actioneer, Airborne has enough in the tank to keep it going for the full 90 minutes, although you can't help but think of how low former '80's comedy golden boy Steve Guttenburg has stooped to be in such a cheap production (and playing a hard man too!). The plot is simple, the baddies have stolen a deadly virus and Guttenburg and the rest of his goodie pals are sent to retrieve it, Not bad of its kind but not in the same league (obviously) as the films it is compared too on the cover such as AIR FORCE ONE and CON AIR. The cast is good though, with Sean Bean reprising his Brit.-bad guy character which we have had a glimpse of in such box office smashes as GOLDENEYE and PATRIOT GAMES.


**Might contain spoilers**

Ok, lets conclude this movie in one word: bad. Two words? Really bad. Now why do I think that? Let me explain.

Guttenberg leads a special-ops team consisting of four persons that get assigned to retake an lethal virus after some arms-dealer stole it from a lab. They do this by attacking the arm-dealers in mid-flight and somehow gets back the virus after some fighting. However, suspicions arise about Guttenberg because one of the terrorist knew his name. After debriefing the team-members get attacked by unknown persons and everyone starts to suspect everyone else is involved. After deciding they cant trust their bosses, they decide to, once again, steal the virus and try to lure out the possible attackers.

In theory this is a plot that could have worked in a low-budget movie that just aims to be aired on TV. However, the plot is compromised and the movie ruined in several accounts. Firstly, the plot is totally predictable and it is not fun to know how the movie is going to end after three minutes. Second. The acting is really bad, or the actors are directed to act as dummys. There aren't many emotions, change of facial expressions at all etc. I was especially disappointed in Guttenberg that I believe can do so much more, but fails completely in an attempt to be a rough action-hero. In addition, though I am not by any means any expert on the subject, I totally believe I could assemble a better covert-ops team by picking up five strangers and train them for a week. This seems to be a theme in the movie to do things as stupid and unprofessionally as possible. This go for good guys, bad guys and bystanders as well. Then I sincerely doubt the scientific and technical consultants, if any, of the film. For example, I have poured liquid nitrogen over my hand and I didn't break instantly.

Don't know how to conclude this really, but lets say that this movie has a predictable plot, bad acting and they seem to be amateurs in whatever the do. Sorry, can't be any nicer than that. Do not watch this movie, it is not even so bad it is funny. 2/10


This is so bad it will be my contribution to the next bad movie party I go to. It is clear from the start that Steve Gutenburg was taking this role seriously.... the other principles were walking through their lines. I think they got a whiff of how much it stank early on and they were going through the motions for their paychecks. Sean Bean "acted" as usual but was spared sharing space on screen with any of the principles till the final scene where it was like an actor walking onto a high school stage that is how defined the contrast was. Some actors do not look good scruffy. Some actors should not bulk up for a part. Those two statements apply to "Police Academy" Steve. His scruffy look translates to bum and indigent and his bulking up makes him look potato lumpy not buff. Pair that with one of the worst scripted dialogues in Hollywood history and you have BAD movie. I can only guess that all of the principles really really needed the money for remodeling or something or their agents signed them before the script was written by the monkeys that must of typed it out. I would love to know the back story to this disaster.


Wow... this is the kind of movie that makes you wonder who's idea this was and what soup kitchen are they eating at now. To say this was bad is an insult to the bad movies we all know and love.

When I saw Guttenberg's name in the TV guide I figured it would be a spoof... maybe it should have been. Could have made for a better movie.

Look for the scene where they are in an airplane in mid flight with the door open and there is no wind what so ever. They could have sprung for a fan at least.

Look for several Canadian & c-list actors in the movie. This is the kind of movie that litters the b-rate cable stations you never watch except on a rainy Sunday.


Seriously, this film is not. Steve Guttenburg is constantly forcing his tough-guy dialogue and then giving everyone the evil-eye all the time. He just wasn't believable, he seems like he's trying to be a badass and he sucks at it. I just remember him as the millionaire dad with the Olsen twins in It Takes Two...so, this is a BIG change. I rented this film for Sean Bean, and he dies (as usual). Only this time he didn't get impaled on a boat anchor (Patriot Games), smashed by a giant satellite dish (Goldeneye), or get run over by cows(The Field). He just got shot, real quick-like and civil, and that was all I got from this film that they didn't kill him off in an extremely grotesque and morbid way. How sad is that? I was only watching it for the 3 seconds that Sean was in it, and then the rest was rubbish. I actually tried to watch and understand the plot, but there really wasn't one. Seemed a little like Mission Impossible with the hole,"Oooooo! There's a mole! It's the leader of the group, and NO ONE EXPECTED IT! Let's trap him! Let's frame the underdog good-guy so we can get away with it!" Cliched and tired, this movie was a waste of time.


It sounded so promising in the Rental Store, the premise sounded great and I couldnt wait to get home and watch it. It was Apalling the Diologue is Dreadful, The Action is Extremely badly Scripted and the Plot takes a nosedive from the beginning. Gutenberg puts in a pathetic performance, Sean Bean tries his best but with a script this bad there wasnt much he could do.

This isnt even worth watching, even if you can get it for free (borrow it off a friend for instance) Dont as you will regret it and waste 90 Minuites of your life.

0/10


This movie was bad on so many levels. The writing was horrible so even the best actors could not have made this movie watchable. It's a shame because they did have some good actors in this movie. I mean if anyone has seen any of the Police Academy movies, you would know that Steve Guttenberg was good. His Character in this movie was very serious, which was a big difference from Characters i have seen him play before, so that was a plus. And I did think that Steve Guttenberg was extremely hot in this movie. With or without the shirt you can not deny that he has a GREAT body! Sexy face too. Loved the 5 o'clock shadow look, it made him look dangerous. At one part in the movie he is lying in bed without his shirt and i have to say, I would have gladly jumped in there and tried to take his mind off of his problems! So honestly i would watch this movie again just to fantasize!


all i can say about this film is to read the back of the video case and then put it back on he shelf and pick anything else, i mean anything, a blank video, would be better than watching this.


My friends and I rented this movie mistaking it for another one about skateboarding. Watchin Steve Guttenberg as an action hero is hilarious. The movie is so incredibly predictable and over the top that it ended up being a laugh fest. Even though I gave it a 1/10 this movie should be seen especially if u manage to catch it on TV anywhere.


This film tries very hard to be an "action" film, but it fails miserably.

Steve Guttenberg plays the head of an elite counter-terrorist team that fails (?) in attempt to keep a mysterious group from stealing a deadly nerve agent.

The story...the acting...the special effects...ALL FALL FLAT!!!

Definitely A MUST AVOID!!!!


Alain Resnais directs three parallel stories that have to do with fantasy and imagination in the adult world. In one of them is a sort of Operatic bordello story where a rejected architect attempts to manipulate a group of people into throes of happiness--only his attempt misses it's only real target, the woman that he pines after. In the same unfinished château he built, a group of teachers search for love in a more modern story, as one woman believes ineffably in the role of romance and the cynical anthropoligist tries to teach her a lesson by setting her up with the biggest jerk in the group. Meanwhile, a bunch of kids fantasize a George Melies-like adventure of a prince that saves a girl in distress from swamp creatures and then kills the evil king, bringing upon the kingdom of love. The two primary themes? Life is a fairy tale, and Life isn't a fairy tale.

Which sounds better than the movie actually is. Resnais is the type of director where oftentimes the concept is good or bad, but the exposition is what matters; here, the concept is great but the movie is downright painful to watch. Horridly off-tune songs, bubbly characters without an ounce of dimension, backdrops of sickening pastel--instead of giving your inner child an ice cream cone, Resnais drowns it in a bucket of cake frosting. Add some French philosophy and you get a weird witches brew, one that doesn't bubble bubble toil and trouble, but just kinda sits wrong in your stomach until you want to regurgitate it.

Resnais is a risk-taking director, and even in his worst you can see he's trying something that might not work with full clarity of action. In I Want to Go Home, he manages to pull past annoying characters and ditzy set-pieces by showing some real change and having a moment few moments of quiet to catch his breath. Here he submerges directly into a fantasy that doesn't really reflect fantasy, only its baby's room wallpaper reference. The biggest problem is that he somehow managed to make a movie more flamboyant than an 80s pop video, and more kitsch than Golden Era Hollywood musicals. The fantasies are beyond childish and naive, but the movie (with nudity and profanity) is definitely aimed for adults, a target he decidedly missed.

However, he sticks closely to his theme and never backpedals. If anything, this movie is impressive simply because its unapologetic.

--PolarisDiB


Watching the first few moments, you realize it's going to be a parody - and certainly it *is* a parody, but I'm not sure of what (a fairy tale? an opera? a Hollywoodian C-movie? - if there was something like that), and I can assure you it's not worth watching. It's simply a pointless film (cf. a good parody is everything but pointless), with pretentious, shallow speeches of extremely sketchy characters. It's like a commedia dell'arte. Or better, it's like a botched commedia dell'arte. And the score... sung in an intentionally incompetent way (something Greenaway will use much more efficiently), it *is* painful to listen to (unless one wears some sate-of-the-art earplugs, haha). Go for quality movies (e.g. A. Mitta's How Czar Peter the Great Married Off His Moor, 1976) and steer clear of this mistake.


I remember seeing a clip of this movie on HBO when I was a kid and it scared the ever living crap out of me. When I found it, I watched it. I wish I hadn't. The movie wasn't scary.

The plot revolves around an old woman running the castle. She feeds this horribly disfigured person in the cellar of a 12 century castle. She continuously beats the poor guy every day and feeds him. Well, that day, she dies. Then, a few months later, a family moves in. A father, a mother, and their blind daughter. The father was involved in a horrific car accident that got their son killed and left their daughter blind.

Later through the film, the daughter hears sounds, things break, etc. and everybody is not concerned about anything at all. That is until a few people turn up dead. Apparently, the creature in the cellar has broken free and is killing people. How this thing survived for the past few months without food or water is impossible! Every time I saw the creature, it gave me the creeps. The creature goes on a gory killing spree and the police blame the father for the deaths.

It was a pretty bad film.

I give this film 3 stars out of 10. Creepy not scary!


This film has some pretty gorey parts like a boob getting bit off and a other big bites. Castle Freak himself is a good monster. I would be scared to pieces if he was coming after me. However, the movie had some dumb parts about it.

A husband goes drunk driving and kills his 3 year old son and blinds his teenage daughter. I suppose death is a greater damage than blindness, but you'd never know that the parents actually feel bad about their daughter being blind. All they care about is that "J.J.'s dead!" While their teenage daughter walks around running into things and talking about how she'll never be able to drive a car. The parents are like - "honey, stop walking around without a guide, you know better than that," and then they cry and don't ever stop being depressed because JJ's dead. Sounds like favortism to me.

 The lines of dialogue are not very realistic or well done. For example, when a giant crash is heard in the castle, everybody runs down into the basement to see what it was. It was a huge mirror that crashed to the ground and shattered. The husband runs to the broken mirror in horror and plainly says, "The mirror broke." I don't know, I would say a little more than that if a giant mirror mysteriously crashed to the ground in my castle.

 The husband and wife have some major relationship problems and it's funny to watch how dumb they are with each other. No one ever believes the blind girl. Advice: If a blind girl says she hears things, believe her and don't tell her to shut up. I think this is the moral of the story. Listen to people when they tell you things or else you might end up killing yourself to prove your point.

 Lastly, I thought the best character was the main police officer. He was the best actor and character. Everyone else (besides Castle Freak) was pretty run of the mill. 3/10


Gordon goes over the top in typical Full Moon fashion, but that's to be expected. Combs is surprisingly low-key, keeping his performance at a more realistic level than we are used to seeing. Also gone is the usual Stuart Gordon 'tongue-in-cheek' black humor.

The film is quite effective in showing Combs' break down and his final heroic act to save his wife & daughter. You actually feel sympathy for his character, despite his short-comings.

Personally, I was more surprised at the nudity and borderline porno sex scene, than I was shocked by the graphic violence & gore.

Not classic Gordon, but certainly something you might enjoy if you've seen his more famous films.


This is a candidate for worst films I've ever seen. It wanted to be as shocking as "Silence of the Lambs," but has neither the style nor the wit of the aforementioned. The make-up is excellent, the acting is pretty good, but the story seems to drag on for years and the murders are so gruesome that they're more disturbing than entertaining.


A chilling and gory tale of a couple inheriting a 150 room Italian castle while still grieving the loss of their young son. The couples marriage seems to be on the rocks due to the car accident that took the life of their son and left their daughter blind. Upon taking inventory of the castle for a future sale a hideous, tortured and misshapen creature breaks lose from the bowels of the 12th century castle. Pretty gory with great horror atmosphere and some sexual overtones. Starring Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Jessica Dollarhide and Elisabeth Kaza .


I really couldn't get into this movie. The plot is some old woman has been torturing someone so long that he is deformed. She dies and he is left in the basement to starve. Months must pass and a family moves in. The daughter is blind because of an accident caused by the father. Well anyway this guy in the basement, who for all rights should be long dead is still around. He eats a cat and now is superhuman. He now wants to eat people and have sex. And when a hooker dies father gets the blame. I always dislike movies where someone else is blamed for the killings because you always here the typical lines "I didn't do it", "I could never do such a thing", blah blah blah. And the family storyline could be a lifetime movie storyline.


This movie was a disappointment. The story is essentially The Shining with a castle (or a very cheap set masquerading as a castle, to be specific) substituting as the hotel and a monster instead of the ghosts. The budget is the same you'd see from a Cinemax softcore porn, as is the photography, sets, lighting, and video it was shot on. The story is a failed attempt at sincerity: there's no easier way to make your audience feel sympathetic for your characters than to show them experiencing emotional trauma. And the trauma in this movie is pretty trite. Want an example? A blind girl listening to a language tape teaching the Italian words for colors begins to cry at what she will never see.

This movie had a few things going for it, however: the monster is actually pretty cool, pretty scary-looking. And there is a pretty decent amount of nudity from Raffaella Offidani, herself a star of Italian "erotic" films. The gore, however, leaves much to be desired, as does the acting, even from the experienced Jeffrey Combs.

Other than this I've only seen two other Stuart Gordon films: Re-Animator and From Beyond, both of which were outstanding. But I won't let this little footnote in his career keep me from watching many more of his movies.


I was rather disappointed. The first Tetsuo made me an INSTANT Tsukamoto fan, from the first 5 mins of the film. It was fresh, innovative, and just.....different. I rather enjoy having a movie be in your face and push all those "make you squirm" buttons. Tetsuo did just that where for me, few movies can.

For those of us who enjoy getting a breath of fresh air, those that appreciate those offbeat styles used that make indie films so worthwhile, Testuo II will likely be a disspointment. If your looking for that visceral "HYPER-KINETIC" feel of the first movie, skip this one, as thats all been stripped away. Tetsuo II is for some odd reason, just a typical Hollywood style action flick. I was rather confused. However, it's still worthwhile in my opinion for any die-hard Tsukamoto fan.