Last time I checked, the Nazis didn't win the second world war - not that you'd sodding notice. After all, the Third Reich was pretty big on issuing orders and demanding cold, robotic obedience from the populace, and that's pretty much what we're saddled with today. But the way the orders are delivered has changed. Instead of being barked at in a German accent through a loudhailer, they're disguised as concerned expert advice and floated under your nose every time you switch on the TV or flip open a newspaper There's a continual background hum, a middle-class message of self-improvement, whispered on the wind.

"You eat too much. You eat the wrong things. You drink. You smoke. You don't get enough exercise. You probably can't even *beep* properly. You'll die if you don't change your ways. Your health will suffer. Have you got no self-respect? Look at you. You sicken me. I pity you. I hate you. We all hate you. God hates you. Don't you get it? It's so sad, what you're doing to yourself. It's just so bloody sad." That's the mantra. And it goes without saying that the people reciting it are routinely depicted as saints. Last year, the media dropped to its knees to give Jamie Oliver a collective blow job over his School Dinners series, in which he campaigned to get healthier food put on school menus. Given the back-slapping reaction, you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd personally rescued 5,000 children from the jaws of a slavering paedophile.

Anyway, the series was a huge success. In fact in telly terms there was only one real drawback: it wasn't returnable. After all, when you've saved every child in the nation from certain death once, you can't really do it a second time. The only solution is to find a new threat, which brings us to Ian Wright's Unfit Kids (Wed, 9pm, C4), a weekly "issuetainment" programme in which the former footballer and renowned enemy of grammar forces a bunch of overweight youngsters to take part in some extra-curricular PE.

It's essentially a carbon copy of the Jamie Oliver show, with more sweating and fewer shots of pupils mashing fresh basil with a pestle: an uplifting fable in which Wrighty shapes his gang of misfits into a lean, mean, exercising' machine - combating apathy and lethargy, confronting lazy parents, and attempting to turn the whole thing into a nationwide issue that'll have Range Rover mums everywhere dampening their knickers with sheer sanctimony in between trips to the Conran shop. Oh isn't it simply terrible, what these blob-some plebes do to themselves? Not our Josh you understand: he eats nothing but organic spinach and attends lacrosse practise six hundred times a week.

Bet he does, the little sh1t yes, it is heartwarming to watch flabby, inconvenient kids transforming themselves with a bit of simple activity... but there's something about the underlying eat-your-greens message that really sticks in my craw, in case you hadn't guessed.

What happened to the concept of CHOICE, you *beep* So a bit of jogging might increase your life expectancy - so what? That just equates to a few more years in the nursing home - whoopee do. And besides, I'd rather drop dead tomorrow than spend the rest of my life sharing a planet with a bunch of smug toss ends trying to out-health one another.

In episode two, video games and the internet are singled out as villains in the war on flab: they make kids too sedentary, you see. Oddly enough, TV, which is equally sedentary, and unlike those two activities, actively encourages you to let your mind atrophy along with your physique, escapes without a rollicking. Funny that.

Well listen here, Channel 4 - instead of forcing kids to eat bracken or do squat-thrusts, how about teaching them to think more expansively, so they reject the sly, cajoling nature of programmes like this? Or would that be a campaign too far?


In trying to keep up with the hipness of youthful audiences as the 70s approached, OaCD,YCSF was the product of odder and odder material selected for musicalization. Here it's past life regression, ESP and hypno-therapy... pretty loopy! The real problem with the concept (music or not) are the extraordinarily low dramatic stakes; just where can a movie go, and what can happen, when a man falls in love with a previous incarnation of a girl he can't stand? It can't go any place new, but strangely, it can't even go any place old! Indeed, if it could, audiences would still have no interest in the union of Yves Montand (playing a much older, arrogant, French ass) and Streisand. (a much younger girl). We never become invested in them, their situations or outcomes. Montand is miscast and his strong accent makes many of his lyrics unintelligible.

It's all been given a shallow 60s veneer that makes it eminently disposable; despite efforts here and there from Minelli that are respectable. It's not even adapted from a non-musical story that met with any previous success... that's just too passe! Streisand occasionally has some funny business to offer, as when she's trying not to fall asleep on her roof and improvises an energetic dance. But she over-relies on her ingratiating (translation: irritating) kooky, Jewish girl shtick. She can however sing very well, at both the "gentle" and "powerhouse" ends of the range. Amidst a score of musical dross, she gets 3 or 4 amazing songs* of much higher caliber than anything Fanny or Dolly had to offer. 'He isn't you' is a sweet trifle as sublime as Lorenz Hart's 'My Funny Valentine,' but the movie isn't able to realize any impact from it; because the lyrics don't seem to be referring to anything in the movie, and nothing remotely suggests a great love is blossoming between Chabot and Melinda.

The only cut we can view is a poor hatchet job of a much bigger film. Strong research shows a longer, better-explained and more decorative, but not necessarily a better film at: http://barbra-archives.com/films/clear_day_streisand_2.html. You can be sure there's be more Babs in that version but more importantly, there'd be more thoughtful work from Minelli.

In the end Montand sends Babs off to sing the title song, after she discovers he's a total dick who feeds her a self-esteem homily to allow himself off the hook. And she takes the bait. So, uh... hooray for that.

(*Hurry it's lovely up here, Love with all the trimmings, He isn't you, & the title song)


"On a Clear Day You Can See Forever" is nothing more than a New Age update of the "Pygmalion" / "My Fair Lady" story: A professor attempts to turn a common girl into an upper society woman. This time, however, instead of using language skills, the professor tries to do so by hypnotism and past life regression.

You know a musical has problems when reviewers constantly mention the sets and the costumes before they mention the plot and the music. The songs are instantly forgettable. (No "Get Me to the Church on Time" here, I'm afraid.) And the plot goes nowhere. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there is no "there" here. The characters wander through the story without ever getting from point A to point B. Professor Chabot claims several times that he will get to the root of Daisy's troubles, but he never seems to do so.

All meaningful conflict is avoided. For instance, there comes a time when Chabot's university demands he either stop his research into reincarnation or resign his position. Now there is conflict! Will he give up his career for Daisy? Alas! Nothing comes of this development. A scene or two later the university changes its mind and tells Chabot to continue on with his work. So much for conflict.

The talent was certainly assembled for this movie: Directed by Vincente Minnelli. Written, in part, by Alan Jay Lerner. A cast of Yves Montand, Bob Newhart and Jack Nicholson. And, oh yes, starring Barabara Striesand who was nearly at the top of her game at this point in her career.

But it all falls flat. Lerner's attempt to reincarnate his greatest success, the previously mentioned "My Fair Lady," is as doomed to failure as Daisy's attempt to revive the greatness of her own past.

If you enjoy movie musicals, there are far better choices than this.


Just listen to the Broadway cast album and to the voices of Barbara Harris and John Cullum, who do wonders for the wonderful Lerner and Lane score. Then, with that beautiful cast recording fresh in mind, watch the movie, with Streisand as Streisand, and Yves Montand reading his lines with such a heavy French accent that a chain saw couldn't cut through it. The best part (for those who need something to look forward to) is what Montand does to the introductory part of the title song. Listen as he sings/says: Could anyone among us have an inkling or a clue, what magic feats of wizardry and voodoo you can do? (That one part sums up the problem that results from casting "name stars" in movie musicals instead of the appropriate talent for the various roles.) I can just see Rex Harrison entering that scene and suggesting Montand, too, could learn to do justice to the beauty of the English language.


This is another of Hollywood's anti-communist polemics of the golden 1950s. Stalwart American Gene Barry, lovely Englishwoman Valerie French, and three others are kidnapped by an alien and given clamshells containing fantastic--and fantastically vague--power. What will the Earthlings do with such power? Toss it in the sea or use it to wipe out all of mankind? Anybody who knows American cinema circa 1957 knows the answer to what the commies will do, but the story gets ripe when the Americans actually test the things in the middle of the Pacific. Then one scientist, alone with the ultimate power in the universe, comes up with his own theory and uses it! His smarmy attitude afterward is nauseating, and the cheery disposition of everyone else is appalling.

Here's the spoiler for this dog: the capsules inside the clamshells have a mathematical code that tells the prof that they kill only "confirmed enemies of freedom"! That's right--don't worry about the ethical conundrum of killing everyone that an alien pill decides is an enemy of freedom; just do it! Hurray! No commies! Silly female--and you threw yours into the sea! Ha ha! Kiss me, baby!


I made sure to see this film because it is a 1950s sci-fi film--one of my favorite genres. Unfortunately, while I was looking forward to either bug-eyed aliens or power-mad conquerers, the aliens in this film were a MAJOR disappointment! First, you only see one very briefly at the beginning (and he looked pretty ordinary) and you also only got a tiny glimpse of a spaceship! Second, the alien was neither the evil conquerer or the benevolent friend of mankind--but a real odd-ball. And finally, the plot itself seemed so dumb, preachy and heavy-handed that it elicited more yawns than thrills.

As the film begins, five people from five different parts of the world (Germany, Britain, Russia, China and the USA) are kidnapped by an alien. The alien gives each of them devices by which they CAN destroy all life on the planet if they so choose--because, the alien admits that HIS race of people would love to inhabit the Earth but they themselves won't kill to get it. Then, he returns them all. While it's 100% obvious that no one would WANT to use these devices, the alien then announces on TV the identities of the five without telling that the weapons are THAT powerful! So, all the militarists in the world want to find the five and force them to reveal how the weapons work. Much of the rest of the film consists of some of the five going into hiding and one being tortured to get him to reveal how the device works--as the Soviets want to use it!!! This part of the film just seemed pretty silly. Sure the USSR was an evil and corrupt nation (sorry, but it's fact--especially under Stalin), they never would have thought of using it like they did in the movie! Later, one of the five (the German scientist), somehow figures out that the devices can also be used to kill only all the EVIL people who hate freedom. So, he uses it to wipe out all the evil Commies and presumably others who were anti-freedom and the world then becomes a paradise!! Preachy, silly and full of plot holes--this movie just isn't worth your time, though it is an interesting relic simply for the way it addresses Communism--in particular, the tensions between Nato and the Soviets.


An intelligent summation of Cold War era mutually assured destruction policy, up until the conclusion: it's a gasser! All Russians and Chinese are obliterated from the face of the Earth! Saw this one at the 27th Annual CWRU Science Fiction Marathon, January 2002.


This is quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made. Everything about it--acting, directing, script, cinematography--is dreadful. The alien (a human in sparkly suit) claims to be from a nearby universe; one assumes the scriptwriter meant "galaxy" but didn't bother to get a dictionary to check his terms. A better title for the film would be "It Came From the Planet of Plot Contrivances." The plot is excessively silly and nearly nonexistent. The humans are all given magical MacGuffins that conform to a tortuous series of unlikely restrictions just to move the bare plot. Any thought to the passage of time is ignored. Now it's a couple days after meeting the alien, then BAM! all of a sudden there's only a couple hours left until zero hour. Do yourself a favor and miss this movie. You will make yourself stupider for having watched it. The ending is particularly silly, and should have been accompanied by someone going "Ta-Da!!!!" as the scriptwriter just pulls something random out of his butt. I think the real alien plot is that this movie sucks so bad you'll get cancer watching it. If you can watch the last 10 minutes without crapping yourself ("enemies of freedom"--honestly) laughing, you're retarded.


This movie has lots of action and little heart. Let's forget for a minute that it gets just about every aspect of the Russian Revolution wrong - after all we only have only under an hour here to tell our story. In fact, the czar abdicated after World War I proved a disaster for the country, and a provisional government tried to rule as a pseudo-democracy until the Leninists took power nine months later, mainly because they promised to immediately withdraw Russia from the war. Now, back to our story.

Here we have the revolution being "rumored" in Russian newspapers in what appears to still be a functioning country until violence erupts suddenly and upends the life of nobleman Baron Nikita 'Nikki' Krasnoff (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.). He flees his home with his former servant girl Tanyusha (Nancy Carroll) in tow, and they start to make a new life in Constantinople. Before the revolution the Baron made a regular habit out of making a play for the girl, not out of any real passion, but out of boredom as a diversion of sorts. The revolution doesn't change this, and he continues to try to take advantage of what is obviously a very simple girl. It certainly doesn't make the audience like this guy to see him toying with her so. Tanyusha follows the Baron because she literally has no place to go after the revolutionaries take over the Baron's home, and she has known no other life other than waiting on Nikki hand and foot. Once in Constantinople, Nikki quickly wearies of life as a penniless laborer, and that is when he meets up with his former lover, Russian aristocrat Vera Zimina, who has a plan for getting them to Paris where the Tsarists have congregated after the revolution. Unfortunately for Tanyusha, Vera's plan does not include her.

This film manages to completely waste the considerable acting talents of early talkie actress Nancy Carroll. She does a good job with what little she is given to do, but that is not much. Lilyan Tashman is the standout here, even though she has only a small role as Russian vamp Vera. Lilyan was so often given supporting roles just as she is here, but her earthy voice and glamorous looks make her the center of attention in every scene in which she appears. Guy Kibbee even shows up in a humorous bit as an American tourist who is curious about the Russian royalty that has been forcefully ejected from their homeland.


Scarlet Dawn casts Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as a Russian baron rudely displaced by the forces of the Russian Revolution and now has to fend for himself in a world not terribly hospitable to former aristocrats. He's also not terribly suited for any kind of real work.

Doug might have been caught by the Reds but for the fact that his former servant Nancy Carroll didn't give him away. Nancy's got a big old crush on Doug and they do marry once arriving in exile in Istanbul which throughout the film is referred to by its former Christian name of Constantinople. They marry and settle down with Doug now reduced to washing dishes.

But Fairbanks's former mistress Lilyan Tashman who's always playing bad girls of a sort on film spots him and offers to have him get back into somewhat the style he was once accustomed to as part of a swindle against father and daughter American tourists Guy Kibbee and Sheila Terry.

Good thing this film has the incredibly short running time of only 57 minutes, usually those were given to B westerns because it's both tedious and melodramatic. The ending is rather unbelievable. Doug knew he was in a Thanksgiving special and really overacts to cover up the defects of a unbelievable story.

What I didn't understand was that Fairbanks was trained in the military profession, why didn't he just become a mercenary soldier after leaving the new Soviet Union? That didn't make sense to me at all.

I'd only see this if I was a dedicated fan of any the main players.


Am not from America, I usually watch this show on AXN channel, I don't know why this respected channel air such sucking program in prime time slot. Creation of Hollywood's Money Bank Jerry Bruckheimer, this time he is spending a big load of cash in the small screen. In each episode a bunch of peoples having two team members travels from on country to another for a great sum of money; where the camera crews shoot their travels. I don't know who the hell gave this stupid idea for the show. It has nothing to watch for, in all episodes we see people ran like beggars, some times shouting, crying, beeping, jerky camera works..huh it's harmful to both eyes and ears. The most disgusting part in the race is the viewers finally knows each of the team members can't enjoy their race/traveling experience. Even though, to add up the ratings the producers came up with the ideas of including Gays in one shows, sucking American reality show.

It's nothing to watch for, better switch to another channels.

The Amazing Race = The Disgusting Show.


As a documentary, this is laughable in a campy sort of way -- a schlocky collection of re-created Biblical tableaux mixed in with solemn interviews of so-called "experts." Think of it as an infommercial which pushes Jesus instead of thigh-masters.

However, the detailed crucifixion scene is, in terms of historical accuracy, superior to similar scenes in such widescreen Hollywood extravaganzas as "Ben-Hur," "King of Kings," and "The Greatest Story Ever Told." Rather than dragging his entire cross to Golgotha, for example, John Rubinstein simply carries his crossbeam strapped across his shoulders to his outstretched arms. Nails aren't driven through his palms but instead through his wrists. His feet aren't nailed separately but one is placed over the other so that just one nail need be used. Incidentally, Rubinstein's flogging prior to his crucifixion ranks 35th in the book, "Lash! The Hundred Great Scenes of Men Being Whipped in the Movies."

Of course, Rubinstein and the two thieves wear modest loincloths, which probably isn't true to the shameful reality of Roman crucifixions, but allowances must be made. Curiously, the "good" thief is positioned on the left hand of Jesus, which goes against a long-standing tradition. Just why this thief is played by a pudgy, overweight man is, however, a mystery, especially in view of the fact that the "bad" thief is something of a "hunk."


The biggest problem with "In Search of Historic Jesus" is that there is very little search to it at all. Shick-Sunn produced these "documentary" films in the 1970s and just into the '80s, which featured interviews with "experts" and discussion of "science" and "facts" to make a case for whatever the title of the film was looking to cash in on.

Sadly, "Historic Jesus" is really little more than a third-rate dramatization of the life of Christ. Unlike Shick-Sunn's more superior "In Search of Noah's Ark" which spends the majority of its running time discussing the possibility that the ark is resting on the earth today and where that might be, this film is basically the story of Jesus with no effort made to prove or disprove his existence. The famed Shroud of Turrin is mentioned, but little other detective work is given much screen time.

For fans of these quasi-documentary films like "Jupiter Menace" and "In Search of Bigfoot", etc., this movie doesn't offer much.


This had the promise of being an interesting film. The subject matter was certainly a promising one - the excesses of the Catholic Church during the counter-reformation. However, not only was this not developed (other than a two paragraph introduction), many things were not explained - i.e. the gypsies, the Anabaptists, the inquisitors and their relationship to the one true church. Nor were the politics of the time explained, i.e. the relationship between the Catholic church and its supporters like the Holy Roman Emperor. Though these may have been apparent to an Austrian audience, the lack of explanation makes it confusing for Americans.

But perhaps it's a good thing that they didn't emphasize the history since what they showed was pretty inaccurate anyway. Instruments of torture, bloody executions, witch and heretic burnings, big shiny swords and pretty golden reliquaries are the stars of the film. It could have just as easily been one of those Conan-type sword and sorcery movies, only with period costumes...


I saw the film yesterday and stopped it at half time because I felt it was a waste of time. The idea to make a film through the eyes of a headsman - one of the "evil guys" throughout most fantasy and medieval films - is great and offers plenty of possibilities but... the film couldn't catch one of them. I was not feeling for any of the characters, the plot was all too predictable (to the point that I followed it)and the second leap of time in the storyline made me quit. Those who expect a deep insight into the emotional situation of a headsman in the middle Ages, a social outcast to that time, might be disappointed.


STAR RATING: ***** Unmissable **** Very Good *** Okay ** You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead * Avoid At All Costs

The tale of the titular Adam (Mark O' Halloran) and Paul (Tom Murphy), two heroin addicts in the slums of Dublin and their daily amblings about in their meaningless lives searching for the next fix that will make their day. Along the way they try and reconcile with close family and friends who they've managed to let down and destroy over the years.

I know a lot of Irish people like to drink, but it seems some of them have problems with heroin, too by the looks of this movie. I know there is a bit of a drug problem over there, like there is in many parts of the world, so another humorous take on the subject matter is not an entirely unexpected thing.

I don't recall the last Irish movie I saw (the film is shot in a style that makes it stand out from any film I've seen lately!) And, judging from that, obviously I'm not as enlightened on their humour as I could be. The film is rather funny in certain parts, but it's obviously another comedy that isn't afraid to raise near-the-knuckle laughs. The scene in which the mentally disabled boy is robbed down the back of an alley is certainly true of what a pair of junkies might do to feed their habit but is nonetheless utterly despicable and I'm not sure if it was meant as dark humour in any way but it certainly didn't put a smile on my face! It's also in stark contrast to their previous actions where they're seen showing their soft side rocking a baby to-and-fro. In light of this, some may find the ending sad, others may see it as just desserts.

Overall, I just failed to see the point to the film. I didn't see any motivation in the 'story' it was telling. It just seems to amble along without really involving the audience in any way. Unlike Trainspotting (which dealt with similar themes!) it's an unsuccessful effort for the most part that had me on the verge of nodding off despite it's very short 83 minute running time. Really no more enjoyable than following two real life junkies around for a day. **


i am working at a video store so i got to see this one for free- thank god, had i paid for it my review would be less forgiving.

well, the major idea of the film (geeky girl takes bloody revenge) isn't all that original, there are several parallels to "carrie" (playing a mean practical joke on a loser, except for one nice girl that is actually sorry for her, tamaras and carries bad family background). i still think it's a fun idea for trashy teen horror flick unfortunately they didn't take much advantage of the potentials that are here and rather put an emphasis on all the wrong things.

what worked: i liked the actress that played tamara. she looked great (when she was hot) and her catty lines were fun ("Sean can't come to the phone. he's f**king patrick!").

what didn't work: the whole wicca thing was silly. i generally prefer rational explanations (she could have ploted the whole thing with her teacher or one of the boys to get her revenge). there were a lot of logical wholes and the gore looked really bad (when the boy is cutting of his ear and his tongue- please!!!)

the whole idea wasn't bound for Oscar buzz, but i just think they wasted the comedic and the suspenseful potential they had. it was bearable but far from good!


I saw this movie, and I do like horror movies.

I did not know what to expect, but as soon the movie was on his way it was nice to watch it. The idea was pretty original and the acting was nice. Especially Jenna Dewan as the exciting/evil Tamara.

The hardest thing about horror movies, is to make a good ending. But there the movie failed. For a change, a end-scene in a hospital, where suddenly all employees are gone. First you see doctors and nurses running around, but then they all went home?

No cries for help while being chased by Tamara, Escaping to the roof (also a smart move...not) and off course a kind of open ending.

No....the movie started great, the main part was nice to watch, but they really messed up the ending using all clichés from bad horror movies. Jeffrey Reddick failed in my eyes with this movie, after making some really quality movies like Final Destination 1 and 2.

If you like a good horror full of cliché endings, Tamara is a good movie to watch. For me, I like movies which surprise me.


"Tamara" just felt like another teen oriented knock-off of the "I Know What You Did Last Summer" trend and is painfully dull. A high school outcast, who is heavily into witchcraft and black magic, is accidentally killed during a cruel prank carried out by a group of bullies who secretly bury her in the woods, vowing to tell no one. The next day, the supposedly "dead" Tamara, arrives at school with a completely new image and seduces her would-be killers and has a little revenge... This is basically a combination of "Carrie", "The Craft", and every other straight-to-video, teeny bopper turkey that hits the shelves these days. The actors are absolutely atrocious and look about ten years too old to pass off as high schoolers. There IS some gore, which is actually nothing all that interesting since the movie is so boring and I couldn't wait for it to end. If you like modern garbage than I insist you seek this one out, otherwise don't bother...


Teenager Tamara (Jenna Dewan) has it rough. She's ridiculed by all the popular "kids" for being shy, bookish, frumpy and because of her interest in witchcraft. All of the football players and cheerleaders are especially angry at her for writing an article on steroid abuse for the school paper. On top of this, her dad's a drunk, her mom's not around and she's secretly in love with her supportive English teacher (Matthew Marsden). The popular kids set up a cruel prank to humiliate her, accidentally kill her during a struggle, bury the body in the woods and make a pact to keep silent. To their shock, the very next day Tamara walks back into the classroom looking seductive and, uh, dressed to kill. Yep, back from the dead and ready for supernatural revenge against everyone involved. She also takes time out to make her sexually abusive pop eat a beer bottle and tries to seduce her English teacher away from his wife (Claudette Mink), a guidance counselor at the school.

Acting and writing are strictly mediocre. You can also tell the people responsible for this have seen such movies as CARRIE (1976), HELLO MARY LOU: PROM NIGHT II (1987) and THE CRAFT (1996) because it borrows wholesale from all three of those superior films. There's some gore (a guy cutting off his ear and tongue and then stabbing his eyeball probably being the best bit), a nasty vomiting scene and a few campy/witty one-liners. Not an awful film by any means, but not much originality went into it either.


OK, fans, it's out on DVD. But the only reason to watch this is 1) to say you did (due to its notoriety), or 2) if you're a hardcore Bill Paxton fan. I am not a hardcore BP fan but he was fun to watch and it was the only thing that kept me from turning this off from sheer boredom. It's a shame, because this could have been a good movie with some script work and if made by someone with some intelligence (and with a cast led by someone besides the totally miscast and talentless Judd Nelson). Sure it's gross, but it's BAD, and not in a good way. If after reading all the comments on how bizarrely revolting and dystopianly filthy this movie is you are still interested, do yourself a favor and see some GOOD bizarre revolting dystopian filth instead. Films by John Waters, David Lynch, Peter Jackson's "Braindead", Henenlotter's "Basket Case", etc., all come to mind. There's lots better out there.


This film was such a mess I actually reimbursed my friends who I dragged to see it. The only reason I went to see it was that my friend was an apprentice editor on the shoot.

I'm sure that this film was meant to be campy, but the approach was so heavy-handed and self-reflexive it turned out really flat. Judd Nelson stars as an obsequious garbage man who is a hack comedian on the side. His life is hell and made worse by his obnoxious and overbearing companion Bill Paxton (who I feel embarrassed for - this was a really tasteless role for a talented actor). A freak accident alters Nelson's career course and mayhem ensues.

The attempts at humor were corny, predictable and often base and tasteless. Wayne Newton in the cast as a talent agent is a novelty but he adds nothing - comedically or otherwise.

Overall, it's a very weak and uncreative attempt at camp humor that goes over like a lead balloon. At least you could laugh AT Plan 9 From Outer Space. This one just makes you wonder who thought this was a good enough idea to finance and film. One of the all time worst bombs you'll ever witness.


I was invited to view this film at a small art museum screening. I had no clue what to expect. I was initially optimistic in the opening credits to see Judd Nelson, Bill Paxton, Wayne Newton, James Cann, Rob Lowe, and Lara-Flynn-Boyle listed. However after some very disturbing grossed-out scenes (that did not add much to the story advancement), this film quickly became a weapon of torture. The gimmick of the vestigial growing arm storyline is never really developed. I patiently kept waiting for this film to cash-in. There was a small payoff in the end, but having to invest and sit through the the endless gross, crude, sexually-perverted, in-your-face screaming, unfunny gore cost too much for me (even for a free viewing). What were these established actors doing in this awful film? The art direction was very convincing and creepy. At the very minimum, it should only be a 75-minute film. This is a film that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would embrace.


A friend warned me that this was the worst movie he had ever seen. I was curious, because it had developed a bit of a cult status. I like a lot of odd indie cult movies so I gave it a shot. I have to agree with my friend. It is a steaming pile of dung. I am sorry to the people who love this movie, but I can recommend much better stuff if you want to watch a twisted indie cult film. Try Peter Jackson's Dead Alive (aka Braindead), Cemetery Man (aka Dellamorte Dellamore) , or Modern vampires.


This movie has no heart and no soul; it's an attempt to whomp up a cult film out of the leavings of other, better, directors, principally David Lynch and Tim Burton. Rifkin seems to think that if he overloads on a kind of rotted visual style and fills the street with crud and garbage, he's making a statement. But it's not a statement ABOUT anything -- except the director's shrill shriek of "HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M AN ARTIST, TOO." But he doesn't have the imagination of an artist, just a good memory for things that worked -- such as some of the actors trapped in this -- for other directors. All of this would be almost acceptable if this movie was not a turgid, boring chore to sit through.


. . . and never, ever see it. Now, I've been watching bad scifi movies for years. I love watching bad scifi movies. I think that was the only reason I could watch this movie the whole way through. I was toughened up by "Nukie," "Indian Superman," and that awful "Fantastic Four" movie, just to name some examples. Usually, I have to beat my head against the wall after I've seen a bad movie to make some of the pain go away. No, not with this one. With "TDB," I had to hit myself in the head with a shoe in the middle of the movie. Temporary fix. I can't believe I wanted to see that. I cried. When it finished, I cried. It was horrible. It was worse than when I saw *shudders* Wil Wheaton in his underwear in "The Curse," which, by the way, never watch either. Aside from the fact that Wesley Crusher's in his tighty whiteys, it's just sooo bad. But this review is about "TDB." The worst part about it is that someone wrote this movie and said, "This deserves to go on film! It's great!" and Wayne Newton, Rob Lowe, and everyone else in the cast said, "Oh, this is what I want on my film history!" I'll watch "Indian Superman" until the cows come home, but I am never going to see this steaming pile of dren again.


i have had this movie, in the back of my head sense i saw it. i have wanted to tell people about it time and again, but never remembered. now i found it. now finally, i can tell people precisely what the absolute worst, most crappy movie i have ever seen in my entire life, bar none is.

this movie is complete trash, and is unfit for a garbage dump. all prints and other copy's of this movie should be rounded up loaded into a large rocket, and launched into the sun. only the purifying heat and pressure of the sun might be able to purify the materials this movie is stored on, so that they can be useful to the universe again.

i like movies. i like bad movies. and yes this is an opinion. but this movie was pure trash, filth, and excrement of some beast that should never be seen let alone named by man.

i would rather watch a Uwe Boll Movie marathon than watch this movie. and i hate Uwe Boll's films.


This movie starts with interesting set design and a promising premise, but fails to provide the cult-movie goods. Set in a gritty parallel universe where everything is owned by the "Blump" Corporation, it concerns a horrible stand-up comic who finds success when he grows a third arm out of his back.

All the potential for great cheese is here -- washed-up 80's star Judd Nelson, Wayne Newton, offbeat visuals and strange plot digressions, obese women in skimpy lingerie, necrophilia -- but it never pays off.

The pacing is the main problem. Each scene is excrutiatingly slow. Nelson's stand-up routines are supposed to be funny because they're pathetically not funny. But each performance drags on until it's not even tangentially funny, just boring.

Imagine someone telling you the longest, weirdest joke imaginable, full of smirky self-congratulation for how funny and weird he thinks it is. Imagine after a stultifying two hours of this, you never got a punch line. You've just saved yourself the trouble of watching The Dark Backward.


This is a cheapy biography of a star of the black and white minstrel shows, a certain Dixie Boy Johnson. Whether this person ever really existed I don't know, but considering the cast lists a certain "Lee Lasses White" and Roscoe Karns playing said character as well, I assume the man did exist and that this is a white-washed (pardon the pun) version of his career. The plot, such as it is, follows Dixie Boy from career heights to depression at the death of his wife in childbirth, his abandonment of the child to friends, and his return at his daughter's sixteenth birthday and stage debut for reconciliation. Another forgotten man, Benny Fields, plays Dixie Boy. The man has a lovely baritone voice but no acting talent whatsoever and is a boring lump on screen. Gladys George valiantly tries her best to enliven the works to no avail. Judy Clark does the best impersonation of Betty Hutton I've ever seen although I believe she thought she was being herself. The scoring replete with many musical numbers for its short running time of 70 minutes earned a deserved Oscar nom. Worth a look.


No one is going to mistake THE SQUALL for a good movie, but it sure is a memorable one. Once you've taken in Myrna Loy's performance as Nubi the hot-blooded gypsy girl you're not likely to forget the experience. When this film was made the exotically beautiful Miss Loy was still being cast as foreign vixens, often Asian and usually sinister. She's certainly an eyeful here. It appears that her skin was darkened and her hair was curled. In most scenes she's barefoot and wearing little more than a skirt and a loose-fitting peasant blouse, while in one scene she wears nothing but a patterned towel. I suppose I'm focusing on Miss Loy's appearance because she is by far the best if not the only reason to tune in to this creaky antique and to keep watching. You sure won't be attracted by the dialogue, which is hopeless. In one typical passage, Nubi gazes out the window at the departing caravan and waxes poetic: "Always the gypsies, they sing. Weird and sad. When the big sun have breath of fire that burn, and when the pale moon look from behind cloud and breathe air cold as death, they sing." Poetic, or what? Lovers of purple prose will have a field day. I can't help but wonder, though, if in her later years Miss Loy preferred not to recall her involvement with this project.

Like so many early talkies this one was an adaptation of a recent Broadway success. The stage version opened at the 48th Street Theatre in November of 1926 and ran for over a year. The play provoked a famous episode involving the humorist and theater critic Robert Benchley, who was known to have an aversion to characters who spoke in thick dialect or pidgin English. According to a much-repeated anecdote Mr. Benchley squirmed uncomfortably through the opening portion of this show. The Spanish village setting (moved to a village in Hungary for the movie, for some reason) gave the actors leeway to practice their accents with varying degrees of success, but Benchley's patience reached its limit when, during a family dinner sequence, a door burst open and an actress dressed as a gypsy girl dashed into the room shouting "Help! Help! He keel me!" She then threw herself at the feet of the mistress of the household and exclaimed "Me Nubi! Me good girl! Me stay here!" At that point Mr. Benchley rose and announced to his companion: "Me Bobby. Me bad boy. Me go now," and left the theater.

The film version offers numerous examples of unintended humor but never comes close to Benchley's level of wit. The melodramatic plot concerns the Lajos family: father Josef, mother Maria, and son Paul, a student at the nearby college. We would consider this prosperous family "upper-middle class" as they are landowners with servants and all the comforts of life, but their comfortable existence is abruptly thrown into turmoil when a gypsy caravan arrives in the village and their home is invaded by, yes, Nubi the nubile gypsy girl. She arrives at their door during the storm of the title-- symbolizing stormy emotions, I daresay. The girl is fleeing an abusive relationship and begs for sanctuary. After considering the matter the Lajos family agrees to hide her from her angry lover, who shows up shortly afterward but is turned away. Nubi becomes a servant in the household. Kindness motivates the family's decision to take her in, but soon enough that conniving little good-for-nothing Nubi has paid them back by seducing every able-bodied male in the vicinity, starting with the Lajos' servant Peter, then working her way up to son Paul. Nubi breaks up Paul's relationship with his fiancé Irma (played by Loretta Young, still a teenager), causes him to flunk out of school, and then prompts him to buy her jewelry by stealing the savings of the family's maid Lena (ZaSu Pitts). Lena, for her part, is still mourning the loss of her own fiancé Peter, seduced and tossed aside by Nubi when she turned her attentions to Paul. Ultimately Nubi sets her sights on the pater familias Josef, and I suppose if the running time had been longer she also would've gone after Uncle Dani, Maria, the village priest and God knows who else.

I guess it goes without saying that a scenario like this one easily lends itself to parody, but during its first half THE SQUALL nonetheless exerts the undeniable fascination of a daytime soap: we watch, hypnotized, as the Bad Girl works her spell on the men-folk and wreaks havoc like an irresistible force of nature (almost like-- a storm! Ah-haa, another metaphor!). But as the plot machinations grind on the campy fun fades. During the later scenes Nubi is de-emphasized and the focus switches to the dysfunctional dynamics of the Lajos family, and after awhile these people get to be a real drag. The son in particular behaves like an absolute heel, yet the parents never acknowledge this or face up to their own shortcomings; everything, we're told, is the fault of Nubi, that no-good tramp.

The men of the cast are dull. Aside from Miss Loy the only actress who can handle performing in talkies is ZaSu Pitts, terrific as usual. The mother of the Lajos household is played by Alice Joyce, a longtime silent star who was out of her element with speaking roles, and who retired soon after this. Loretta Young's fresh prettiness provides a nice contrast to Nubi's dusky allure, but her line readings are so awkward it's kind of endearing. No, there's only one reason to watch this flick, and that's Nubi herself. I can't think of another actress who could've played this silly role and managed to come off half as well. I'm not an objective observer, however. I have a desperate crush on Myrna Loy and will watch her in anything, even THE SQUALL.


Some of the early talkies survived to become classics. 1929's "The Squall" is a classic all right, but not in the way it was intended. Melodramatic in story and acting, today it seems ludicrous, particularly the casting of Myrna Loy as Nubi, a seductive gypsy. Imagine Nora Charles breaking up a young couple and driving a young man to steal. Outrageous! However, as many people know, when Loy first came to Hollywood, she did quite a few of these exotic seductress roles.

Based on a play, "The Squall" concerns the aforementioned Gypsy who in the film is now in Hungary (Spain in the play) running away from her cruel master and inviting herself into the home of the Lajos family (Richard Tucker and Alice Joyce), basically by appearing at the door. One by one, Nubi seduces the men of the family and the farm talking her pidgin English ("Nubi not bad! Nubi do nothing wrong!") and dropping hints about nice presents. The son in the family, Paul (Carroll Nye) is engaged to the beautiful Irma (Loretta Young) and can't wait to marry her. He loses interest when he meets Nubi.

With the exception of the lovely Alice Joyce, Zasu Pitts as a woman who lives in the household and the stunningly beautiful Loretta Young, the acting is uniformly awful. Loy is stuck with the hallmarks of her character - bad English, whining and hysteria. With her darkened makeup, peasant getup and curly hair, she is not only beautiful but right out of the 1980s - quite modern, though Richard Tucker's putting the back of his hand on his forehead reminds us we're just emerging from the silents.

Robert Osborne on TCM commented that this film is one of his secret pleasures. While it is deliciously bad, it's not deliciously bad enough to sit through again. It's just bad - but a great example of how far we've come and, had someone not picked up on Myrna Loy's sense of humor, how limited her wonderful career might have been.


Into a happy household comes the gypsy girl, played by Myrna Loy. With her amazingly wild hair and voice that sounds very high-pitched and weird, it's hard to believe this is Loy!! She bears no similarity whatsoever to the refined and funny character Nora Charles who she played in the Thin Man movies. Instead, she overacts so badly that you'd almost expect her to be in an Ed Wood movie. What a huge difference a few years made in the quality films she got as well as her acting ability!! On top of the horrendously silly character, the film also fails because it just isn't interesting or exciting--just very, very stagy and stupid. The only thing good about it is the Vitaphone sound system--making the sound quality of this turkey about the best I have heard from 1929. Heck, it was even better than most 1930 films, so the sound technician at least has something to be proud of--all others, forget it.

This is a movie that even the host of Turner Classic Movies referred to as a "guilty pleasure" because the movie is so bad! And, after having seen it I disagree...slightly. The movie is simply bad.


I like a lot of Myrna Loy movies. This film was produced before her character actor personality was developed. It would be an okay short film but seems to go on forever in it's complete form.

Myrna Loy it seems is told what to do with her acting and does the job. That is about all you can say about her.

Her gypsy character is shoddy and the film has many flaws, such as the jewelry shop scene.

This film will probably be interesting to Myrna Loy fans but even as such is something of a disappointment.


It didn't take too long after Halloween had kicked off the slasher boom for the category to be cursed by continuous mediocrity. As early as 1983 the genre was already struggling to release more than three decent offerings per year and by '88 the stalk and slash flick had become pretty much the whipping boy of horror cinema. By that time major studios were all aware that repeating the tired formula was no longer a lucrative direction, which left it up to independent and mostly inexperienced filmmakers to continue the legacy that John Carpenter had created. Although there was still an impressive number of features hitting shelves in 88, most of them were weakly produced and taken as a whole they were eminently unappealing. With that said there were a couple of gems amongst the rubble. Scott Spiegel's Intruder in its uncut form was a superb gross out classic, whilst Evil Dead Trap proved that the cycle had not yet completely run out of style and panache. William Lustig's Maniac Cop was successful enough to launch a franchise and two years later Dead Girls and Mirage proved to be the last beguiling breaths of life in the ailing category.

It was the continual release of schlock like Berserker, Blood Lake and Rush Week that cursed the slasher movie to eight years of obscurity. It finally took the big budgeted flamboyance of Wes Craven's Scream to provide the necessary resuscitation. Having not heard anything about Demon Warrior before I came across it unexpectedly, I instantly assumed that it was part of the low brow trash that led to the downfall of the slasher phase. But with that said the movie boasts an intriguing premise that sits comfortably beside Scalps and Camping Del Terrore as another welcome addition to the Native-American influenced catalogue.

A truck pulls up on a woodland road and out step two laughably dramatised rednecks. The hillbilly lumberjacks are only on screen for around for ten seconds and then they are murdered by an unseen menace. Next we meet a troupe of five young adults that are heading to the same location for a spot of shotgun-target-practice on some of the local wildlife. The area is owned by Neil Willard and has been passed down through three generations of his family. His Grandfather stole the land from an Indian medicine man that was rumoured to have left a curse on the property. According to legend, every ten years a Demon Warrior with an extreme hatred for mankind stalks the forest reaping revenge on those he deems responsible for the pilfering of the tribe's home. It wouldn't be much fun if those myths were a falsehood, so regular as clockwork a maniacal assassin turns up with a taste for blood. Will the kids be able to stop this phantom killer?

Demon Warrior is best described as a bigger budgeted (but still woefully cheap) re-imaging of Fred Olen Ray's Scalps. The bogeymen from both films are virtually identical and the director even throws in a scalping sequence to confirm my suspicions. Things start promisingly with some crisp Friday the 13th-style first-person cinematography and a couple of shock-jolts that were composed with finesse by director Frank Patterson. Thomas Callaway did a good job with the photography and the tribal-drum score makes a refreshing change from the more traditional late-eighties synthesizer rubbish. Flourishes of suspense are juxtaposed with a couple of credible directorial embellishments and there are even a few attempts at humour. The killer looked successfully creepy in demon attire and the inclusion of a bow and arrow as the main murder weapon was a deft touch from the director.

Fred Olen Ray's notorious slasher was notable for its stark and credibly unsettling atmosphere. Unfortunately despite being produced on twice the budget, Demon Warrior never comes close to the film that it so desperately emulates. Rumor has it that the majority of the actors were drafted from the Texas Baylor University and were not even paid for their inclusion in the feature, so of course it goes without saying that the dramatics are appropriately abysmal. I especially enjoyed the hilarious John Langione  an 'Italian' Native American (don't ask) that portrays about as much emotion as the trees in the forest that surrounded him. Warrior started with some credible glimpses of panache from the director that actually led me to believe that this could be a welcome inclusion to the slasher index. Unfortunately, the poisonous cocktail of heinous acting and an ending plucked directly from stupidsville seriously changed the initial plan I had in mind for a rating. It's a shame that the dramatics were so scraped from the bottom of the thespian barrel, because at times Demon Warrior showed flashes of potential.

All in all, Patterson's movie is a mixed bag of ideas  some of them were good, but mostly they were staggeringly mediocre. Because this was released at a time when the slasher genre had been watered down to avoid the scissor happy censors, there's really no gore worth mentioning. Even the scalping sequence is relatively tame compared to Olen Ray's graphic depiction. Demon Warrior has the odd moment of credibility, but not often enough to warrant a purchase. Not as bad as the aforementioned Berserker, Blood Lake et al, but not really THAT good either..


When I was 13 or so I was lucky enough to find this film. It was part of an endless Danish series of really cheesy stuff. This however was the cheesiest I ever owned - but I guess I sold it, too bad. Well what to write... Better than "Manos: the hands of fate" and worse than "Critters 4". But it's definitely worth an hour and a half since this was made by people who wanted to make it. The acting isn't that terrible compared to several other eighties trash - in fact I kind of like the old man even though he did'NWT look that Indian to me. But I guess you can't have everything... Do yourselves a favour and look this up...


One of the most pleasant surprises of this early 3-strip Technicolor short was that a ballet dancer that appears here was named Maria Gambarelli! I half wondered if Blake Edwards was naming the character played by Elke Sommer in A Shot in the Dark after this now-forgotten performer (though the spelling of the Sommer character's surname was actually Gambrelli). I watched this on YouTube mainly to see an early Judy Garland appearance as we watch her in profile with her two older sisters singing "La Cucaracha". That was the highlight for me which otherwise showed some dances (like that of Ms. Gambarelli) that were enjoyable and some lame comedy between Andy Devine as a great bull-fighter (yeah, right!) and Buster Keaton as a bull owner who provides one that is obviously a man in animal costume. Only funny part of those two is when they cry-with Buster providing handkerchief to "bull"-during the sad part of "La Cucaracha". Also lame was seeing Ted Healy without his stooges dealing with a crasher who keeps mistaking Healy for other movie stars. (Healy himself didn't know Zeppo had left The Marx Brothers since he puts "Four" between "The" and "Marx"!) Speaking of a Marx, it was interesting seeing Harpo without his wig though he is wearing a hat to hide his bald head. Also interesting was seeing Ida Lupino among the cowgirls in the beginning though I also recognized Toby Wing from her part in Murder at the Vanities last year (at least when announcer Pete Smith identified her). Oh, and Smith himself wasn't funny with his wise-guy narration. Other famous stars you may or may not recognize are also in cameos and not all are M-G-M contract players either! So with all that said, La fiesta de Santa Barbara is worth a look for anyone curious about Judy Garland's early film appearances or the early use of 3-strip Technicolor.


'Nuff said. An undercover cop from the state capital is sent to a small county where moonshine running is rampant. He ends up getting run off the road by some local hicks who have no idea he's an undercover cop (so they just drive away as blissfully dopey as ever). He is soon being taken care of by a woman and her three daughters who all wear low-cut tops and short shorts (gotta luv the '70s). He falls in love with one of the girls but in the meantime he still has to find out who's making all the moonshine and driving it to all the local bars and restaurants. He also has to contend with a fat sheriff and his incompetent deputy who think he's the moonshiner 'cause he's new in town.

Life in small town America, 70s style. YEE HAAAAAAAAAAA.


The film's title makes it sound like a porno but it's not even a sex comedy. Instead, Hot Summer in Barefoot County is about an official sent from a southern state to a small town to locate and arrest moonshiners. The moonshine though is coming from the farm of an old woman with three beautiful daughters. Almost anyone can guess what happens next but oddly, the film is very tame. It hardly even qualifies for a PG rating. What's more, the low budget is obvious in pretty much every shot and the acting is sooooo amateurish. This film was probably intended for the drive-in crowd but it's unlikely that it satisfied them, even in 1974.


My brother was working at a movie theater when I saw this movie; I saw it for free and still walked out. I have seen a lot of movies in my time but this was the worst. When people ask me what the worst movie I have ever seen was I mention this movie in less than one second. This movie is bad because it goes from one lame plot set-up to the next, it encourages stereotypes about blacks that are sickening and the flow is awful. If you want to see how to make children cry and vomit at the same time then study this movie. Okay, this movie is not good "bad" but terrible bad. If you are like one of those people that watch horrible movies for fun, like me, you will not even be able to make it through this very short film. Please for the love of God destroy all copies of this movie.


This movie should have ended as soon as the joke about Bebe's Kids is told in the opening. I liked Robin Harris and most of his comedy but the really funny routines were not meant to be something the whole family could go see. Liken it to taking the point of one of Jerry Seinfeld's jokes and attempting to squeeze the joke for as long as you can in order to turn it into a movie. This movie had to be self-serving because I can not find anyone who found the settings or antics familiar. Whats most funny about this movie is the gumption of the writers and producers to pass it off as something of value. 1/10 stars because there is no half star.


USA's AZN TV purchased the rights to this film and the network is showing it using the English title THE PICKPOCKET.

1997's THE PICKPOCKET takes amateur home-movie style movie making to amazing levels of unpleasantness. The movie depicts a long-winded series of boring wanderings of an uninteresting, confused guy. This lead character, Xiao Wu, does not simply walk about aimlessly. Viewers will unfortunately soon realize that Xiao Wu has an unsurpassed talent to seek out, and remain dormant near the most obnoxious noises to be found in China. Clanging empty tin buckets being beaten with a stick -- he is there. Every old motor in China clunking in agony -- he is there. A crying baby? Yes, you guessed it, he is there! According to THE PICKPOCKET, China is the most irritating unpleasant sounding place on planet Earth.

The only element worse than the sound of THE PICKPOCKET is the photography. The camera shakes, shakes and shakes some more. Finally, the camera stills, but then it falls to the actor's knees and just stays there until someone in the crew realizes the mistake and begins to shake the camera again. Most of the shaky film is framed in distant, long, long, long shots. The few times when the camera gets somewhat close, nothing compelling ever takes place to connect the viewer with what is happening.

The photography is murky, faded and often blurry. The use of color is -- well, there is no sign of intelligence controlling the use of color. Most every shot is held 20 times too long. Few movies are so painful to sit through. This film is painful to watch, and painful to hear. And then it simply ends.

John Woo fans might enjoy being able to hear part of the soundtrack to DIE XUE SHUANG XIONG (THE KILLER) as the lead character is hanging outside of a video store for many minutes. Anyway, be warned -- THE PICKPOCKET will steal away your good time.


This is a case of taking a fairy tale too far. The Enchanted Cottage delivers Dorothy McGuire as a "terrible ugly" spinster and Robert Young as a disfigured pilot. Long story short: Scarface marries Spinster, after which their love transforms them, miraculously (lighting, cosmetics and the removal of fake scars), into beautiful peoplea magical change that they attribute to the enchantment of living in a seaside cottage that has been the abode of generations of honeymooners.

If the story stopped there, fine; it would be a fable with a proverbial message: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it lurches ahead, reaching for reality. When Mr. and Mrs. Scarface greet their public, it comes as a painful shock to them that they're still homely. You see, they only appear beautiful to each other a situation which the audience is well prepared for because all the secondary characters have been sermonizing that ill-favored people really need to lower their expectations, and find other ways to be happy. You know. Take up hobbies. Spinster does woodcuts, for instance. Scarface considers collecting driftwood.

The original playwright (Arthur Wing Pinero) and the filmmakers have zero faith in human nature. Their message is: You're either ugly or pretty, and no pretty person would ever love an ugly one. What's even worse, ugly people evidently need to imagine their lover as pretty. Reality just won't do.

One wonders what Elaine Mason saw every day when she looked at her husband, Stephen Hawking.


I hadn't seen this in many years. The acting was so good as I began this time, I thought, "Great! Another movie I misjudged as a foolish young man." But then the theme started to be clear and I felt the same way.

This was Hollywood, the seat of glamor; so the concept shouldn't be a surprise. But it is so condescending a concept I feel as if I need to take a shower after watching it. In brief, it tells us that even physically ugly people can seem beautiful to each other and even feel attractive.

Dorothy McGuire is likable as the homely heroine. She seems to have been filmed wearing minimal make-up. Robert Young is injured in the war and feels scarred. His parents can't bear to look at him either. He seems to have all his faculties and in part, the notions of disability are outmoded.

Herbert Marshall is on hand as a blind pianist. His character speaks is hushed tones and is omniscient.

The best performance is given by Mildred Natwick as the owner of the title residence. She is bitter and dour but not made of ice. Her story is much more interesting, and believable, than that of McGuire and Young.


Before the days of home video, Stan Laurel's pre-Hardy comedy 'Kill or Cure' was known -- to the extent that it was known at all -- only because a few sequences were included in Robert Youngson's compilation film 'Laurel and Hardy's Laughing 20's'. Youngson knew what he was doing: the best gags in 'Kill or Cure' were brought intact into his compilation, while the rest of this only mildly funny comedy remained on Youngson's cutting-room floor.

Laurel portrays a commercial traveller, hawking a patent medicine cried Professor I.O. Dine's Knox-All: that name is the funniest joke in this movie, which ain't sayin' much. I should point out that this movie dates from 1923, the shank of Prohibition. During Prohibition, quite a lot of Americans purchased patent medicine if it had (ahem!) 'medicinal' properties, so -- if Knox-All contains alcohol -- Stan's job in this movie is less desperate than the one which he and Ollie famously had in 'Big Business', selling Christmas trees in the summer. Too bad for this movie that it's not nearly so funny as 'Big Business'.

We see Stan (but don't hear him, in this silent film) delivering a spirited sales talk to a man who seems to be paying attention ... until we learn that they're standing outside a deaf-mute institution, and this man is deaf. A haughty woman emerges from the gates: Stan quickly tries to engage her attention by wiggling his fingers at her. Of course she's not deaf, and she promptly whacks him with her umbrella. I found this sequence offensive, NOT because it involves deaf people (the deaf aren't the butt of the joke) but because it abets the very widely-held misconception among hearing people that they can communicate with the deaf by merely waggling their fingers randomly and performing Charades without actually learning the highly complex grammar of sign language.

More amusingly, a spinster in this movie has a pet canary named Rudolph (as in Valentino), and there's a gag involving trick photography to enable a man to hide behind an object that's narrower than his body. I've seen this device in several cartoons and live-action movies but 'Kill or Cure' is, I think, the earliest movie to use it that I've seen so far.

Stan Laurel, an under-rated actor, does one bit of physical business here that's worthy of Chaplin or Keaton, in which he conveys his emotions -- and a change in his demeanour -- while walking away from the camera with his back to us. Still, Laurel never really became a first-rate comedian until he united with Oliver Hardy to form the greatest comedy team ever. 'Kill or Cure' barely rates 3 out of 10.


My wife and I watched this movie because we plan to visit Sicily and Stromboli soon. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the landscape and seascape (complete with tuna) are the only believable members of this cast. We expected reasonable well-written and well-acted movie, but were disappointed. Its only redeeming grace is an extended and remarkable fishing sequence full of authenticity: thrashing tuna, nets, wooden boats with long oars, and passionate, if superstitious, fishermen.

The movie's sequencing is stagy, its dialogue stilted, and the acting ranges from stiff to completely "over-the-top." One scene, in which Bergman stresses out as her macho, native and naïve husband sics his ferret on an "innocent" (but apparently already deceased) rabbit would be perfect grist for a Monty Python skit.

When the volcano blew we hoped for a merciful end to the suffering (ours and the casts'). Unfortunately, the movie continues to flail on, staggering finally to a melodramatic and absurd ending. Unless you're really into old-time tuna fishing, pass this hokey effort by.


Why bother to see this movie? It probably rates an award for being the worst career move of a major movie star since Clark Gable's laughable playing of an Irish patriot in Parnell.

It's inconceivable that Bergman would choose both this movie and its director over a lucrative Hollywood career where she could choose among the finest scripts and directors being offered at that time. To begin with, there was no script to work with except a few notes. Then we are supposed to believe the polished Bergman as a poor refugee willing to do anything to be released from a refugee camp, including marriage to a poor Italian fisherman she doesn't even love. I read where Anna Magnani was the original choice for this part. If so, that made a lot more sense than to cast the luminous Bergman in such a proletarian part. But since she was in love with her director, common sense flew out the window.

So she goes to live in this poor village where the men must toil to extract a meager living from the sea. A place she obviously hates to be and where she doesn't fit in.

Her only friend is the village priest who knows she's not suited to the life of a poor fisherman's bride, but tells her that for the sake of love she must repress her true feelings of revulsion, and accept the poverty and despair she encounters each day. On top of all of this, there's this volcano always on the brink of erupting and drowning them all in hot lava. But like a true heroine, Bergman revolts against her misery by declaring war on just about everyone else in this dreary film. She even goes as far as trying to seduce the village priest, in a scene that would generate laughter if it were not so pathetic. Since her poor slob of a husband must lock her in a room to keep her from running away, she's forced to use her body to bribe a married man to take her off the island. To her, no sacrifice is too great; no man unapproachable if he is willing to help her to escape the island and her misery. I won't bother to tell you how this all ends. The no-script movie ending is as plausible as the rest of STROMBOLI. I even remember (from seeing it on late night TV) that it had two different endings! So be warned if you should feel brave enough to sit through this king-size turkey and catch the miscast Bergman. It led to her downfall in Hollywood for the next seven years and she was condemned for sleeping with her director while still married to Peter Lindstrom. None of the movies she made with this director(whom she later married) are noteworthy except as proof of a career gone berserk. I kid you not. It's pretty embarrassing.

- - SoundTrack


It's really a shame there was so much controversy surrounding this picture (in other words, the infamous affair between Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rossellini), as this drew a lot of attention to a very forgettable film. The story is incredibly slow, cheap looking and uninteresting. And, to top this off, the film is stuffed to the brim with amateurish actors who can barely speak any English. I really would have preferred subtitles--it would have made the experience less exhausting. Back to the rotten acting. The Neo-realist movement was big in Italy at the time this film was made. Many of these films are absolute masterpieces (such as De Sica's Umberto D., The Children Are Watching Us and Miracle in Milan) because they got so much out of the non-professional actors. They behaved like normal people, but in Stromboli they act like normal people TRYING to be actors and come off very badly--like kids in a school play.

By the way,...if you are hoping the movie has a good ending (thereby making your time commitment to the film worth while), DON'T bother. The plot was just totally uninvolving and silly--so much so, that I really found that I could have cared less about the characters. Like the island they all inhabit, the film is desolate and without color or life.


Can u believe a college professor made this film?????

The same man who made DHOOP

The film is horrible and has some of the weird scenes ever

The main message is nice but presented badly

The film looks like a collage of amateurish scenes, miscasts.etc and bad performances

Direction and everything is poor

Music is okay

Emraan's naughty streak works and he does well Tusshar is bad Tanushree and Isha are bad Paresh annoys when he looks at the mirror


Wow. As soon as I saw this movie's cover, I immediately wanted to watch it because it looked so bad. Sometimes I watch Bollywood movies just because they're so bad that it will be entertaining (eg. Koi Mil Gaya). This movie had all the elements of an atrocious film: a "gang of local thugs" that is completely harmless, a poorly done motorcycle scene, horrible dialouge ("Congrats son, I am very proud that you are a Bad Boy"), actors playing basketball as if they are good, atrocious songs ("Me bad, me bad, me bad bad boy"), unexplained plot lines like why are the Good Boy and Bad Boy friends??? And why is the hot girl in love with the nerd?? I've never seen such a poorly constructed story with such horrible directly. Some of the scenes actually took 30 seconds long like the one where the Good and Bad Boys inexplicably ran over the "gang member's" poker game. Congrats Ashwini Chaudry, you are a Bad Director. If you want to watch a good movie, watch Guru, if you want to watch a movie so bad that it's actually entertaining, then watch Good Boy, Boy.


If you have plenty of time to kill and the DVD was given to you by your friend for free but still it may require lot of courage to watch this film which does not have good script or humor for that matter.

On the acting front imran is frozen in time/acting, Tushar Kapoor was slightly better than Imran in this movie Paresh Rawal was good at comedy was usual.

The story revolves around a college campus where Imran is a bad boy n Tushar is the good one, they pretend to be the opposite of respective nature and so the story goes on.....

Watch it only if you don't have any thing to do and the film is running on your local cable TV.


Oh mY God That has got to be one of the Most USELESS BRAINLESS STUPIDEST Comedy Ever Made!! What has Happened to Subhash Ghai, Even Apna Sapna Money Money Was Worth Watching

Eww! GOD This Movie Stinks

Do Not Watch it Save your Money Bad Movie Bad Cast Bad Jokes Bad Acting, even this movie is an Example of Shoe Polish being Rubbed on a Face

Trust me This movie does even make you smile, Vulgar Jokes, Cheap jokes,A Really Stupid Movie with No concepts

Rating 0 on 10

AWFUL Movie those are the two hours im never getting back....

Syed Shabbir Aly Naqvi of Pakistan


I am an Indian residing in the United States. Why India continues, like a dumb animal, to emulate everything American is beyond me!! The main problems with the movie aren't so much the inane plot and dumb comedy. It is that this movie has a lot of sex, touching, women dressing like strumpets in the streets, and a lot of cursing that doesn't belong anywhere on T.V.

To the producers and directors of this movie, I have this message: You continue to weaken our nation's strong family values by making this sort of junk. You continue to let young women think it's okay to have a feminist attitude and have no morals. You continue to make dance songs that belong in the lowest of adult clubs and bars. I am ashamed to be an Indian after seeing movies like this.

In 2003, the United States government suggested that the best way to destroy Iran is to 'send miniskirts' there. There is no need to do that for India. We will destroy ourselves with rubbish like this.


Two escaped convicts step out of the woods and shoot two campers in the head. That's the first scene, and it made me wince, fearing what was in store. But by the end of the first half hour I was all swept up in the flood of images. Not because I cared in the least about any of the characters but because I was aghast at how execrable the film was and was curious to see how truly low it could sink.

Frank (Remar) and Red (Woolvett) are the ex-inmates. After murdering the two innocent campers they plow through the woods and wangle their way into the isolated cabin of Dean Stockwell and his two sons, the attorney Keith and the estranged homosexual Behr. The escapees at first pretend their car has broken down and they need to use the phone, but they gradually reveal their identities.

Well, it looks like familiar territory so far. "Desperate Hours," or "Funny Games" maybe. But -- hang on -- the gay son is in cahoots with the two. It seems that Stockwell, upon discovering his son in flagrante delicto with another man named Billy, kicked Billy around and threw him out. Billy went on to die and Behr now blames his Dad for the death. And, indeed, Dad is something of a Neanderthal when it comes to paraphilias, the fact that he was just found cohabiting with a secretary notwithstanding.

The grief-stricken Behr just searched and searched, looking for someone else who had known Billy, someone with whom he could share his despair. It turned out to be one of the escapees, and now Behr is determined to see them to their freedom.

It gets all twisted after that. People talk. They talk and talk. They talk continually. And NOT about the two mad killers who just can't wait to put one between their eyes. No -- the dialog goes something like, "You were just so scared of something inside yourself that you even drove away your own SON." That's Behr, the young gay guy, talking to Stockwell. It's as if an afternoon domestic drama had had its genes mixed with a killer thriller in some kind of transformational device or cocktail shaker.

The only real performance is given by James Remar as the more talkative and ominous of the two escapees. And that's mainly because of his gruff but fluid baritone, which sounds like Lance Henrickson's, and his wide guppy-like lips. He's easy on the eyes and ears.

Dean Stockwell has given decent performances, including his inestimable bizarro turn in "Blue Velvet," in which he was my supporting player, but here laziness, advancing years, or slack direction has shaped his every move and every utterance into a stereotype. It's as if he were reading stage directions -- "Look surprised" and "shout angrily" -- and following them literally. There's not a surprise in a cartload.

If the gay son, Jason Behr, ever blinked, it must have been while I was blinking at the same time because I missed it. He has a long neck and just one expression in his instrument. Woolvett as the secondary villain fades into the pine-knot paneled woodwork. The attorney son is Robert Glen Keith. I hope he didn't quit his day job.

The direction is pedestrian, the staging functional without being in the least innovative. Sometimes it's confusing. I lost track of where everyone was supposed to be as the killers are circling around on the cabin's porch and the family has locked itself inside with a shotgun. I also couldn't understand how Stockwell could put a blast through the cabin's door, hit Remar, and knock him in a back flip off the porch, and then Remar could simply stand up, dust himself off, and come up with a cranky riposte like, "Okay. Two can play that game." But why go on? See it if you must.


If you've seen Atlantis 1, then you'd know that what made that film truly great was brilliant animation and a good script. This movie was SO sloppily drawn and animated. The story is also dopey. I was so disappointed in this half-baked drivel that I couldn't make it past the first hour, and MAN did I try! The one thing this film had was that it expanded the "mole" character, making him both more sympathetic and three dimensional. Take it from me, judge this junk from the cover on the video box. The cover is poorly drawn Disney schlock, clearly grabbing for an easy buck from an unsuspecting parent. If this was a stand alone flick, it wouldn't be so bad, but riding on the coattails of a brilliant piece like Atlantis makes it utterly inexcuseable.


I will not say much about this film, because there is not much to say, because there is not much there to talk about. The only good thing about this movie is that our favorite characters from "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" are back. Several of the bad things about this movie are that it has horrible characters, it has horrible comedy, horrible animation, and James Arnold Taylor trying to copy the wonderful, one and only Michael J. Fox as Milo James Thatch. The reasons for my criticisms are that all the characters are changed into something that they never were, and never should be, animation that has been downgraded to the lowest extent possible, and finally, why would somebody who did wonderful voice-over work for Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Clone Wars" want to copy Michael J. Fox? I happen to have an answer to this. Because they are the same person who thought he had to copy Eddie Murphy from Mulan in Mulan II. Yes, sadly, it is true.

.


Because Disney more often than not, ignores the animation quality and a need for a good plot in their sequels, this was actually a nice surprise. I don't know why Disney does not pay more attention to their sequels. The graphics quality is always inferior; no backgrounds worthy of the name Disney, inane plots, and worse dialog, with little or no attention given to the actual story, and the caricature drawings are almost always worse than Saturday morning cartoons in detail and quality.

The animation quality is still poor when compared to Disney originals, and the dialog is quite trite, the story line and overall execution was really quite enjoyable.

While it is not as captivating, it does not completely fail to capture the charm and/or mystery from the first. There is some hint of it, tucked away here and there.

The children will like it, at any rate.

It rates a 4.5/10 from...

the Fiend :.


When I put this movie in my DVD player, and sat down with a coke and some chips, I had some expectations. I was hoping that this movie would contain some of the strong-points of the first movie: Awsome animation, good flowing story, excellent voice cast, funny comedy and a kick-ass soundtrack. But, to my disappointment, not any of this is to be found in Atlantis: Milo's Return. Had I read some reviews first, I might not have been so let down. The following paragraph will be directed to those who have seen the first movie, and who enjoyed it primarily for the points mentioned.

When the first scene appears, your in for a shock if you just picked Atlantis: Milo's Return from the display-case at your local videoshop (or whatever), and had the expectations I had. The music feels as a bad imitation of the first movie, and the voice cast has been replaced by a not so fitting one. (With the exception of a few characters, like the voice of Sweet). The actual drawings isnt that bad, but the animation in particular is a sad sight. The storyline is also pretty weak, as its more like three episodes of Schooby-Doo than the single adventurous story we got the last time. But dont misunderstand, it's not very good Schooby-Doo episodes. I didnt laugh a single time, although I might have sniggered once or twice.

To the audience who haven't seen the first movie, or don't especially care for a similar sequel, here is a fast review of this movie as a stand-alone product: If you liked schooby-doo, you might like this movie. If you didn't, you could still enjoy this movie if you have nothing else to do. And I suspect it might be a good kids movie, but I wouldn't know. It might have been better if Milo's Return had been a three-episode series on a cartoon channel, or on breakfast TV.


What the (beep) is going wrong with Disney the last years? Are there totally run out of good ideas? Where is the magic? Where are the good animators, the good songwriters, the good directors, the good... Okay, i know, Walt himself and the famous "nine old man" can't come back. But is this a reason to crank out countless of those cheap sequels and slowly but surely destroying the ideals of Walt Disney? I never rent or bought a Disney-sequel of what movie however. Because i had read much enough about its (absence of) quality. But "Atlantis: Milo's Return" was aired today on TV in Germany and so i watch it. It confirmed my doubts about sequels. It was absolutely boring. Flaw animation, primitive color-rotation, simple characters, some unsuccessful tries to simulate the famous Multiplane-Camera with CGI, mediocre music and a patchwork of different, simple stories. It looks absolutely not like Disney! Not like Disney i know! It looks like one of the countless, cheap and simple animation-series like "DragonballZ", "Beyblade" etc. that aired every day on TV for children.

My first reaction after showing this crap, was to load "Bambi" in my DVD-Player, to see Disney's immortal magic, depth, spirit and charm again, to see Disney on its climax again, to see the awesome art of handmade animation again. "Bambi" was the first (and until today the only) movie that i give 10 out of 10 stars. But "Atlantis: Milo's Return"? No magic, no depth, no charm, no spirit... It deserved only 3 out of 10!


i wish i could find some good things to say about this animated sequel(but not really a sequel)to "Atlantis:The Lost Empire"but this would be a very short comment.the magic that the first one had is nowhere to be found here.the animation is pretty poor all over,the characters themselves are not very well drawn.the backgrounds and the foregrounds are also not good.there's very little attention to detail here.and instead of a compelling and engaging story,we have 3 short stories which are boring and don't make a lot of sense.i swear,even the characters sounded like they were bored,and would rather be somewhere else.which says that the voice actors were bored and wanted to be someplace else,at least that's the impression.some of the same actors return for this dismal effort,but an integral par of the success of the first one was Michael J.Fox as the main hero, Milo Thatch.i get the distinct impression this movie was just thrown together to capitalize on the success of the first one,without much thought or care.but at least Cree Summer returns as the voice of "Kida".that's probably the only good thing about this movie,and even she doesn't seem to have her heart completely in it.mind you,i guess you couldn't blame any of the cast for not giving their all,considering what they had to work with.or rather not work with.this is a straight to video movie(and i use the term loosely)which should have went straight to the nearest landfill.anyway,shame on Disney.consumers deserve much better than this.this one gets a 0/10 and a well deserved one at that.p.u


This movie was horrible, and it doesn't even deserve to be called a movie. The way I look at it, it's more like three mediocre day-time Disney cartoon episodes strung loosely together to make a single video that pretends to be the sequel to the first Atlantis movie, which was way more well-made and enjoyable. And where do i even begin with the problems of this DVD? The story? The characters? The pictures/animation? To me they're all bad and unwatchable. Firstly, the story in this direct-to-video DVD is ridiculous and pointless. The only good thing about it is that it is consistent--that is, consistently bad, from the beginning to the end. After the film's over i still don't know why Milo has returned and how the incidents occur in the three small stories are related to each other or to Atlantis itself. And all I could remember about this movie was how bad it makes me feel after seeing it. The characters feel wooden and lack personality, and the drawings look a lot different than that in the first. You can tell they're obviously not from the hands of the same animators from the first one. As the DVD played on, i found myself caring less and less about what might happen to the characters and just hoping the film would end soon. Besides the story and the characters mentioned above, the picture quality is poor in this one too, probably one of the worst in those direct-to-video products that Disney has ever released. As a fan of the the original Atlantis: the lost empire, I couldn't be more disappointed in Milo's return, which is a total waste of time and money. Thank goodness I rented it first instead of buying it. Even so, I still wish I'd never seen this crap or even known its existence.


My main criticism with the movie is the animation. I totally agree with everyone else it was very poor. Some of the characters seemed to have darker skin tones than they did in the first film, which is much better. Also the background colours looked rushed and somewhat static. It is also a shame that Michael J.Fox didn't voice Milo, he did such a good job, and James Arnold Taylor wasn't sure whether he was supposed to sound like Milo or Aladdin. I have also taken into consideration the lack of a good storyline. the third story was confusing and clumsily told, and the second story suffered from poor scripting. To make things worse, the first one I can't even remember, other than a fishing village being haunted or something like that. However, there was some nice music, and good voice talents from John Mahoney, Cree Summer, Clancy Brown and Tom Wilson, that saved the film from total disaster. All in all, a disappointing sequel to a surprisingly good film. 4/10 Bethany Cox.


I am finding that I get less and less excited about Disney's sequels to movies. Yes, I do understand that the budget for the direct to video movies are not the same, but these movies don't even try. Some examples are Hunchback II and Tarzan and Jane. If anyone has seen the previews for Stitch-The Movie, you will see my point. But I digress, this movie reaffirms my point. The animation is sloppy, the story lines resemble Saturday morning cartoons, and not all of the original voices are there. I was very disappointed not to hear Michael J. Fox's voice. It was so glaringly obvious that the person doing Milo's voice was trying to sound like Fox, but didn't come close to succeeding.

If it says anything, my children ages 10 and 6 didn't even sit through the whole movie.


Hi there. I watched the first part when it came out, and I don't remember having left such a bad impression on me as this one.

First, the animation is choppy, wooden, not worked on, lacks naturality - I understand the drawing style was to be of some 'atlantean' kind, but, it could be done with the usual Disney finesse... see "Tarzan" to see what I mean. If I didn't see the DISNEY logo in the beginning, I would never say it was a Disney movie.

Second, the plot was more like a PC game style, like a good old quest. Not that it was bad, but it lacked a story that binds the viewer to the characters and their goals. It was inconvincing, at least. The film was meant for children, but this was waaay to childish at times.

Third, the music... I would say it was improper, but it just fits the whole scene with the plot and animation...

Overall, I think this was some kind of an amusement, just by-the-way kind of project by several apprentice animators, just to fill in the count for Disney movies. Sorry to hear that from myself, a big Disney lover...


I'm sorry to say this but I didn't enjoy this movie at all. It was just too boring. So boring that I couldn't watch the rest of it. It's not as interesting as the Lion King or Aladdin. That's why I hate this stupid days because these days are just not what they used to be. The movies that Disney have released lately really sucks! I miss the old days when they used to produce good movies like the Lion King, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Cinderella, The Aristocats, and Robin Hood. This movie is really awful. I really tried my best to be interested in this movie but I just couldn't. I don't think I could recommend this film to anyone. I would recommend the ones that I just mention above.


The only reason this show did not get a 0 is because one is not available. This show has gone from informative news to sensationalized claptrap. I tried to support this show in its decline, because I like human interest stories and Primetime used to have some very good ones. Unfortunately, April 21st has forever changed my mind about this show and the unethical newscasters that participate in it. ABC actually recorded a brutal case of child abuse and then refused to show it until the statute of limitations had run out and the parents could not be arrested on the charges they should have faced. What made it worse was how ABC swept the whole incident under the rug; instead of taking charge and seeking true professional help for these disturbed individuals, they had some pop psychologists send stern warnings TO THE AUDIENCE about how they shouldn't judge these poor angels too harshly. I was truly sickened. I hope this review stops one person from watching this investigative trash in the future. If it does, I will be happy. These days, all you can expect from Diane Sawyer and the good folks from Primetime Live are butt-kissing sessions with A-list celebrities and criminal acts covered up and praised to the stars. Don't waste the hour of your life; you'd be better off watching an old sitcom on Nick at Nite.


HANA-BI has many quiet moments and fairly slow pacing. Unfortunately, during the many thoughtful interludes the viewer is left to ponder about the recent scenes just watched and many questions surface and annoy.

For example, why didn't the wheelchair guy drown in the ocean when he was stuck in the sand and the tide came up around him? There was no rescue seen or hinted at.

Can it be true that Japanese police are so inept and unskilled at arrest procedures as to not first remove the suspect's ability to reach for a weapon? These detective-level Japanese police seemed to have no experience dealing with a suspect.

Why doesn't the right eye of the lead character blink? Having one eye blinking was distracting and it went unexplained.

What exactly was the lead character spending all his money on to have to borrow so much from loan sharks? He was not seen gambling. Being a non entry-level government employee his wife must have had full health insurance.

What was the single man doing all by himself in the middle of nowhere in the nature park? What was his reason for being there?

How in the world could the gangsters find the lead character and his wife up in the far off nature reserve? It made no sense.

And again, how could the gangsters later find the lead character and his wife up in the remote Mt. Fuji resort? There were absolutely no clues available for these gangsters to even know which country the lead character and his wife were in, let alone the correct specific location at the correct specific time!

And a third same question, how could the junior detectives know which few feet of the Japanese coast line to find the lead character and his wife? The Japanese coast line must be vast. Were all of these characters supposed to have psychic powers?

Two final questions: The cute girl trying to fly a kite on the beach -- WHERE did she come from? She seemed to have no transportation or companions with her. And why in the world did she still keep attempting to fly what was left of her kite after it was ripped in pieces?! This was weird. Unintentionally Python-esque.

On the positive side, I loved the background music. It was dramatic and flowing and added much to this movie. The photography, imagery and art were pleasing to the eye.

One final point, the wife was overly pleasing to the eye. Not once did she ever come close to looking like a dying sick person. She looked very healthy. If anything, these people seemed depressed and mentally ill and not physically sick. The husband treated his wife as perhaps a newly outed gay man would treat a respected wife... a love of friendship, but not close tenderness.

A mixed movie for sure.


So, it has come to this. In the top-rated comment on this flick, somebody says "Nishi is an honorable man". Really? This is a guy who mainly kills and maims people in the movie. He takes a short break to rob a bank. Honorable? How would you like your kids to go to school with the kids of someone who calls that honorable? Wait, there's more! The person also says "we can tell he's constantly thinking." How can we do that? Well, do you know that joke "How can you tell when a CEO/politician/lawyer is lying?" ... "His/her lips move." Well, Nishi's lips never move, so I guess that means he is thinking.

Of course, this is existentialism to warm the hearts of the cult of victimization. Existentalism supposedly stresses that an individual take responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. Not Nishi. Borrow money from the yakuza. What, they want it back? Kill them. The cops find out. Kill yourself and your wife.

Really honorable.


I really don't see how anyone could enjoy this movie. I don't think I've ever seen a movie half as boring as this self-indulgent piece of junk. It probably would have been better if the director hadn't spent most of the movie showcasing his own art work, which really isn't that noteworthy. Another thing I didn't really like is when a character got punched in the face, a gallon of blood would spew forth soon after. I don't know how folks bleed over there in Japan, but I hope they have plenty of blood donors.


Infamous horror films seldom measure up the hype that surrounds them and I have yet to come across a worse offender than Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes. Having held back from watching this for years, I was really pleased when I got it for Christmas and waited for an evening when my girlfriend was out to settle down and watch it - knowing her extreme dislike for anything genuinely horrifying. I needn't have bothered.

After a promising - if familiar - start, that firmly sets the film in the 'Desolution USA' world of survival horror, things rapidly go to pieces when the protagonists and antagonists meet in the deserted wasteland.

Looking like it was shot on a budget of $5, with the cannibal clan's costumes hired from a dodgy fancy dress shop that specialises in faux caveman and Red Indian attire, the story follows an annoying bunch of unsympathetic WASPs who take a detour on a road trip to California, to look for a silver mine in a nuclear testing zone (!). When they break down they are set upon by the local family of flesh-eaters and have to fight to survive.

While hoping for another Deliverance, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Wrong Turn or Devil's Rejects, I actually realised I'd stumbled across something that should have remained dusty and unwatched in a backstreet video store's bargain bin.

With gallons of tomato ketchup for blood and a couple of gruesome wound close-ups, I can kind of see how an 18 Certificate (in the UK) is justified, but with those close-ups trimmed this wouldn't have looked out of place as a Saturday afternoon thriller on ITV.

The whole silver mine/nuclear test site subplot is just a McGuffin to justify pitching the 'civilised' family against the primitives, but given how easily the savages get their asses whupped it stretches credibility to think that they had survived for a generation preying on passers-by.

And then there's the ending ... or lack thereof. The Hills Have Eyes seems to be missing either a third act or, at the very least, a satisfying denouement. Instead, I was just left wondering: "Yeah, and ... ?"


This movie was recommended to me by several people, and after reading all the positive comments from this site I went ahead and bought a copy of the film off ebay. The acting in the film is average and a bit hammy, especially by the family of cannibals, one sequence comes to mind when Jupiter is ranting and raving to the burnt corpse, speaking right into the camera. Its one of those performances where you just cringe and feel bad for that poor actor. Its also evidence of some of the worst editing I've seen, theres a terrible jump cut right in the middle of his "speech". There are a few creepy moments though, and at times the music works well...but overall the film isnt that great and I dont know why people think Wes Craven is that great of a director. Thus far he hasn't showed me anything that I believe to be brilliant, the only thing that improved with Cravens films, production to prodution was his budget.