Disclaimer: During my ventures into foreign cinema, I have taken a liking to a wide variety of movies that span different genres that include horror, action, drama, comedy, and romance, to name a few. Thus, I have enjoyed the thoughtful, serious tone of dramas as well as the mindless, popcorn fun of action films. With a wide array of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean movies under my belt, I am confident in my ability to recognize bright spots in movies to appreciate and complement. Unfortunately, Ashes of Time has nothing to recognize. It is one of the worst Chinese movies I have ever seen.

To start off, this overrated swordplay epic showcases the infamous "slideshow" action sequence throughout, which is nothing more than an ultra-cheap and pathetic form of action choreography. One simply needs to show a series of close-up pictures of grimising faces, swords, legs and/or arms, and then a dead body. Bravissimo! You now have an action sequence for Ashes of Time. The problem lies not only in its poor quality but also in the fact that the scenes are so chaotic and disjointed that the viewer has no idea what the hell is going on.

The dramatic element of this film is nonexistent, as it relies on the characters telling the viewer that they love someone or hate someone instead of actually developing and showing such elements on screen, which renders all characters generic and colorless, leaving the viewer completely indifferent to their actions. In fact, the storyline itself is an absolute disaster, introducing way too many characters way too quickly with way too many plot devices. Plot complexities in films can be used very advantageously (i.e., A Tale of Two Sisters), but Ashes of Time becomes exploitative trash when it does nothing more than convolute a very simple plot for no apparently good reason.

In fact, this entire movie acts like a series of smokescreens to cover up its deficiencies. Horrible action choreography is covered up by "slideshow" tricks and chaotic camera movements. Non-existent character development is covered up by the characters overtly saying how they feel. And a thoughtless storyline is covered up by confusing the viewer with convolution.

As if this weren't bad enough, this movie was extremely boring, seeming more like 150 minutes instead of the actual 95.

Rating = A rarely given 0/5 Stars.


The direction by Wong is perhaps the all time worst in film history I've ever seen. This film makes my all time worst film of 2000, Dungeons and Dragons by Courtney Soloman looked like an Oscar winner. The flaws in this movie is beyond explanation. The biggest one is the lack of depth. Every scene does not develop fully as if the editing room doesn't know how to do their job correctly. Its a shame that with such an all-star cast of talents and a famous popular traditional story can be destroyed by this lack of vision.

I am so disgusted and hope that some great director like John Woo or Ang Lee, decide to remake this film and do some justice. I'm not even sure if I can rate 0/10??


Your ability to enjoy The Ashes of Time may depend on our expectations before stepping into the theater. Even its most strident supporters seem to agree that audiences can be split right up the middle in their appreciation of this unique film.

Unlike most HK actioners, the battle scenes are curiously kept at a distance. When they do happen, they're rendered in a jerky style in which it's difficult to make out exactly what's occurring on screen. The dramatic scenes can be extravagantly beautiful, with the of Maggie Cheung, Brigitte Lin, and a roll-call of HK's top acting talent chewing up the scenery. As with some of Wong Kar-wai's early work, the dialog could be more precise.

In short, The Ashes of Time requires a forgiving attitude. Released around the same time as Wong Kar-wai's spectacularly successful Chungking Express, it's clear that the director isn't as confident working with the elements of the martial arts film. Anyone looking for tense action is likely to be disappointed. But those intrigued by the director's aesthetic will likely find this a unique experience at the very least.


The trailers for this movie promised and this movie delivered exactly what was promised: Good campy fun with lots of very good looking naked broads! If you were expecting a major Hollywood movie with major stars, stellar budgets, and MPAA tamed money shots, you will be *very* disappointed.

However, if you are a fan of the old "B" movies with unknown, but very good looking young stars that act amazingly well, given the material, some hokey, but surprisingly well done special effects, and very tight naked nubile bodies, this movie is almost heaven!


This is one of those movies where the acting, set location, direction, and effects were so bad you need to rent a copy get 5 or 6 buddies, a keg of beer, sit down and watch it. To borrow from the late Douglas Adams, "Watching this movie will be like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon... wrapped around a large gold brick.".

What is wrong? Everything. British actors posing as Americans, there have been many that can pull it off like Bob Hoskins but he isn't in this one. It wasn't even necessary to choose North America as a location why not say it took place in England or something? The director seemed to like taking shots of girls tits and asses more than actually coming up with some kind of character motivation. So at this point you drunken buddies will be saying, "ALL RIGHT! Another T&A shot!". There isn't much dialog so feel free to skip off to the kitchen and make those sandwiches. What did I like about this movie? After my friends passed out, I managed to collect $185 off of them and told them they spent it at the strip bar after we finished watching the awful movie.


I've read other hacks' reviews of this movie, and while it certainly isn't the best movie ever made in the sci-fi / horror genre, it isn't THAT bad if you accept it for what it is - low-budget, b-movie fare that (shall we say) "borrows heavily" from the likes of 'Alien' (nasty extraterrestrial monster that cocoons its victims) 'Species' (gorgeous and confused "space girl") and 'Incubus' (the beastie-breeding-with-captive-girls angle). This is one seriously cheesy movie, and the whole thing was obviously done on a shoestring budget, although the alien isn't too bad (I've seen far less convincing men-in-rubber-suits at any rate). None of the acting is Oscar material and the Isle Of Man doesn't really double for Boston Massachussetts very convincingly. The plot is fairly predictable too and the premise that an alien craft would travel squillions of miles and crash land smack bang in the middle of an all-girls college campus - thus conveniently providing a rich source of perfect breeding victims - is utterly laughable. However, the movie does have its suspenseful moments, there's a few helpings of nudity and semi-nudity and the film does feature one of the few movie appearances by the beautiful and tragic model / actress Kadamba Simmons (as the "Space Girl") who, at the age of only 24, was murdered in London by her jealous boyfriend shortly after making this film.


Of all the movies in the history of movies I can't imagine someone sitting down and saying, I want to spend X amount of dollars (or pounds sterling) to remake that flawed classic film called "Breeders." Lots of stories have been turned into films about meteors coming to Earth with something sinister lurking inside. Why not put your money into making a spectacular 3D remake of "It Came from Outer Space" instead? Why look for a dingy nudie flick that existed only for the purpose of showing off a rubbery set of monsters and some naked coeds? Was the script for the 1986 version of "Breeders" so inspiring that these producers felt it had to be done again and this time done correctly? When you come down to it, the only reason this film exists is to show off Britcom cutie pie Samantha Janus. But if you're gonna make a skin flick and exploit Sam Janus in it, you'd better have her more naked than this and naked more often than this if you want to succeed.

Meteor lands ... monster escapes ... coeds duff their clothes ... monster eats people ... and another "what if?" ending ensues.

Honestly, I never thought I would ever recommend the original "Breeders" over any other film but this would be the one to come in 2nd Place to it.


Dire beyond belief. Obviously set on the Isle of Man masquerading as the US - very badly - and full of cut-rate British actors who can't do American accents. A monster that looks like an unarticulated promotional cut-out for Alien from a movie store, with the most inflexible feet ever seen. Girls in the shower, undressing, catfighting, blah, blah, blah. You get the idea. Don't watch it, run away, hide, AVOID.


It's strange what fate does to some people. While looking in the discount bin at a DVD retailer, I came across a copy of Deadly Instincts. Being a collector of any film that is either sci-fi, horror or featuring alien monsters, I decided to buy it (not to mention the fact that it cost five dollars  a bargain, believe me). After viewing it, I came to the opinion that it was nothing special. But after doing some research on the Internet, I discovered that the film was actually called Breeders & was a remake of the Tim Kincaid horror flick that menaced video stores in the mid-1980s. Which I've already seen. My appreciation of "Deadly Instincts" grew following that discovery.

A meteorite crashes on the lawn next to a private girls' college. The sole teacher there, Ashley (played by Todd Jensen  that's right, the guy who gets turned into a cyborg in the cult flick CYBORG COP four years earlier), notices that some of the students are beginning to disappear, while encountering a black-haired woman with a scarred face & wearing a kinky leather outfit. His investigation reveals that an alien creature had hitched a ride on the meteorite & had come to Earth to breed using the local womenfolk. Along with a local detective who believes him to be responsible for the disappearances, Ashley tries to stop the monster.

The original BREEDERS, directed by Tim Kincaid (who would leave the genre to make gay porn), was a sci-fi / horror film which was actually a thinly-veiled soft-core porn film designed to take skin flicks to genre fans. It is, in my belief, one of the worst films made in the 1980s. Why anyone would want to remake it is quite a mystery.

This remake is actually a better effort than its low-budget source. The film, which takes the basic concept of an alien monster trying to interbreed with human women, eliminates any pornographic elements. In fact, the film is actually very tame. There are no sex scenes, no nudity (even during the shower scene), swearing & violence are kept to a minimal level & there is no gore (which may cheat gorehounds). This makes the remake a film safe for the whole family, that is if the kids aren't scared by alien monsters (which brings me to the film's M 15+ rating, which seems a bit much).

Tameness of subject matter aside, the film does have some faults. The script, while featuring some good characterizations, has a number of holes so big you can crash a meteor through.

What? You're mad at me for that? Come on, this review needed a bad pun so it will remain interesting.

Anyway, the film's setting is one problem the script failed to fix  the film is set in Boston but the buildings don't look like they belong in Boston. Something about the architecture ain't right. Another thing is the college itself, with a rather large building housing about twenty students (all female, of course) & only having one class  art. The only teacher there has a relationship with a student (& so does the janitor!), which somehow escapes the attention of the principal. Not to mention the cops, who are so one-dimensional (& stupid) that the real Boston PD would have a good case if they ever decided to sue. Oh, & the meteor well the chance that a meteor which is sent from Saturn (check the opening credits) reaches Earth with no onboard propulsion is astronomical. That doesn't include the chances that any passengers in the meteor will survive the landing.

As far as the acting goes, Todd Jensen gives a dependable performance as the heroic teacher while the late Kadamba Simmons (who was murdered by her boyfriend shortly before the film came out) cuts a striking figure in that leather outfit, as well as proving she can act. The visual effects are run-of-the-mill, with credits due to the filmmakers for bringing us a cool-looking monster.


Imagine the most cliche ridden b-movie horror plot you can. Add more plot holes than plot. Have it scripted by a 10 year old. Have the acting done by A-Level drama students faking really bad US accents (in the Isle of Man!) Add monster special effects that the lovers of B&W Dr Who shows will appreciate. Result: duff film. Throw in Samantha Janus taking her clothes off (make a point of this on the cover) and you'll probably sell enough copies to make a profit anyway!


After a meteorite lands in "Boston" (really somewhere in the Isle of Man), a hideous, fanged alien monster is released and is on the loose in a local girl's school, causing mayhem and turning the students into zombie-like creatures. This film is apparently a loose (and I stress loose) remake of the 1986 film with the same name, as it features the same monster but a different plot. Both films are terrible, but to the credit of the 1986 version, it was watchable. This isn't. Let's start with all the problemsthe acting, especially from the lead professor, was very, very bad. This film is supposed to take place in Boston (we know this because the film makers had the ingenious idea of putting "Boston police" or "Boston gas company" on everything), yet everyone seems to have rather muddled British accents (At least they didn't try using Boston accents, thank God). The script is a big flawed mess. The best example of how dumb the writing is when it's established that you can turn the zombie-students back into humans by removing a necklace containing a piece of the meteorite. Is that what our brave heroes do? No, they run around SHOOTING the zombie-students instead. Nice. Director Paul Matthews, who also wrote/directed the weak 1995 monster movie "Grim", clearly doesn't know how to pace his films. The movie is terribly boring in places. The lighting is awful. The film looks cheap and bland. One of the most disappointing aspects is the lack of notable gore. 99% of the death scenes involve the creature popping out of a dark corner and dragging someone away, while we hear they're "horrified" screams off in the distance. This convention never worked well in the past, and certainly doesn't work here. The visual effects were AWFUL. The CG opening sequence in space looked like it could have been created on Microsoft Slideshow for God's sake! The "explosion" of the Gas tanks at the end was just as awful. Okay, I like to consider myself a fair critic, so I'll give credit where credit's due--the creature effects were actually pretty cool. Gotta love those close-ups of slimy, drooling teeth!

To sum the film up, "Breeders" is a terrible, cheaply made horror movie that should be avoided like the Ebola virus. Not recommended.

1.5/10.


This was a pathetic movie. The Alien was decent, but the movie itself gave a new meaning to pitiful. The plot is something that's been done over and over again! However, this one does it the worst! The acting was c**p, the scenes were often too dark to get what was going on. No one developed any concern for the main character. The movie was far too slow paced, and the murder scenes that there were were foolishly crafted and ended up looking no more interesting than the rest of the movie. There are some movies which "suck" but can still be enjoyed because of there total outrageousness, but this doesn't even have that!! Whoever made this film thought that they could make something good and they failed miserably. There is nothing this movie has to offer except a headache. Avoid it!


College students (who are actually in their late 20's) on campus in Boston (which looks strangely like the Isle Of Man) are menaced by a fierce monster (assembled during a Blue Peter episode). The new teacher must save the day (Even though he is really... Oh, who cares?)

I'll start with the positives... there is a nice shot of Eastenders new gal Samantha Janus's can in the obligatory campus shower scene with her best mate Katy Lawrence. A bit of side trivia: Katy was hired when she arrived at auditions with her sister, just as moral support to her sibling but ended up landing a part. Oh, joy. Picked from obscurity to... flash her pert buttocks in a meaningless scene added for titillation, then getting killed 30 minutes in for her troubles. Her latest (and only other credited role) is as Probationary Nurse #5 in Atonement. I wonder if she snuck a look at Keira Knightly (if extras and stars are allowed to mix) and wondered: where did it all go wrong?!

I'll give a few hints Katy: If all the other British cast members are asked to speak with American accents in a doomed attempt at mass-marketing, and the only person who can manage it is the B-movie veteran USA native Todd Jensen, you know you're in trouble. If you look at your wage slip and it'll only just about cover your lunch and your bus ride home, you ain't starring in a movie with a trillion dollar budget. If the premiere is attended by loads of family members of the fourth assistant director and provokes gales of laughter when the Stickyback tape monster rampages through the sewers, it should dawn on you that this isn't exactly Alien. Or even a Critters IV, come to think of it. So Katy, in your next life (I'm a Buddhist, you see) perhaps you'll be a bit more selective in your choice of debut feature rather than impulsively jumping at the first pile of crap that heads your way. Flashing skin in your first movie does not guarantee long lasting success. Unless you're Sylvester Stallone. And he had the script to Rocky to back him up.

To all intents and purposes this is as 0/10 a movie as I've ever seen. However, for sheer unintentional laughs and pure camp value, it gets a 1. Well done ;)


Just to let everyone know, this is possibly the WORST movie I have ever seen, and I've seen pretty much everything. If you're thinking of renting it, DON'T!!! It's not worth the cardboard container that it came in....


I was shocked there were 18 pages of good reviews. This has to be one of the worst movies especially considering it was recommended. Must admit that comedies are not my favorite genre, but this movie made it worst in that it tried so hard to be clever that it made me squirm to watch it.

The concept of the movie is comparable to audition week on American Idol. You watch because people are so blind to their shortcomings. But we knew this movie didn't have bad actors. So how funny would it be to have good singers try to convince they shouldn't get anywhere near an American Idol tryout? It would be pointless as this movie was.

The use of improv is over-rated. We've all been in that setting where a group of friends get on a roll and everyone is cracking up with tears in the their eyes. I feel that is improv. Improv can't be turned on just because the camera is rolling as this film proves. If you like that Drew Carey hosted show of improv, you'll probably like this film.

Overall the jokes were poor, the improv was sophomoric, and the over-acting by Guest and company was campy...and those are my compliments of this drivel. If a guy playing a trumpet AND the kettle drum at the same time is funny to you, fine. For me, I prefer more heady stuff like "I Love Lucy" or "Hee-Haw".

But remember, I think SNL lost its humor in the 1980's, so maybe you'll like this G-rated humor. I kept waiting for a person to identify himself as the zoo keeper and then tell us there was no zoo in town. That's the humor you can expect.

My only wish was that I could give this a minus rating.


Grosse Pointe Blank was really quite a below average film. Its hit man theme is very dry and is more like a romantic comedy than a hit man thriller. The acting is very normal. The performances are extremely embarrassing at times with many characters seeming very 'eccentric' and that really annoyed me. The whole reunion and the 'Wow, I haven't seen you in 10 years!' element is extremely cheesy and many scenes just drag on, especially nearer the end when they are at the actual reunion party and the characters are going through each of their former classmates one by one greeting them. It just all seemed very tacky, pointless and was poorly executed.

Dan Akroyd's role as a 'rival' assassin is very sparse. He only seems to appear once at the very beginning and right at the very end in a 'final show down' which is hugely hyped up but doesn't deliver at all.

The soundtrack is also very mediocre. The bulk of the songs that are in this film are straight out of the 1980's and with the exception of two or three, are very bad. Hearing duff songs over quite a duff film just adds to the negativity that surrounds this film.

I could go on and on about how little things were annoying and were just very bad such as the very few action sequences that came and went very quickly, the lack of character development and how poorly the whole thing was constructed in that department, the way that half the time you forget that Cusak's character is even a hit man at all as the element is so non-existent.

Even the way the comedy thinks it's funny; but it isn't. I didn't laugh once during this movie. Sure, maybe I smirked now and again but my only REAL feel good point was when I realised the movie was nearly over!

Please, don't waste your time with 'Grosse Pointe Blank' despite the relatively high (but badly incorrect) IMDb rating. I've seen films that are better than this film that have lower rating on this site which tells you that there ARE better films out there. Just don't bother with this one.


It seems at least vaguely possible that this movie provided a bit of inspiration for "The Sopranos," as its main character, Martin Blank (John Cusack) is a hit man who has so many issues from his past and his profession that he's in therapy trying to deal with it all. Everything finally comes to a head at his 10-year high school reunion. The problem was that by the time Blank got to the reunion I had stopped caring. Frankly, I found this movie a drag from start to finish.

It had potential. There was a reasonably good cast, headed by Cusack and Dan Aykroyd, playing Grocer, his arch-rival in the hit-man business, along with Minnie Driver as Debi, Blank's high school sweetheart who he stood up on prom night, and a limited role for Alan Arkin as Dr. Oatman, Blank's psychologist. That fairly talented cast never really seemed to come together, though. The drama lacked intensity and the comedy lacked real humour. What I thought had the most potential to be a comedic storyline was Grocer's proposal for a hit man's union, but aside from becoming a bit of a running joke, the idea never really got developed. As for the romance, one wondered why Debi would even think of letting this guy back into her life.

There were a handful of chuckles, but nothing really caught me and held me and I spent most of the movie wondering whether this thing was ever going to start to click. It never did - not for me, at least. 2/10


The title doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not sure what door in the movie shouldn't have been opened.

The movie starts uneventfully, with a conversation between a man and a woman in a room that looks like a richly furnished train car, complete with the sound of the train traveling. In fact, the man's house is a train car, and he has a cassette of train sounds. The woman leaves, and calls a young woman. The young woman tells her boyfriend, a doctor, that she's been told her grandmother is ill, and she needs to return to her home town. She hasn't been there in thirteen years.

Flash back to thirteen years ago. A shadowy figure enters a house. He caresses a sleeping young girl, then goes into another room and stabs the girl's mother. The girl wakes up and enters her mother's room and finds her dead with a knife in her. She screams, and an arm comes out of nowhere and claps a hand over her mouth. She looks up in fear. That early scene in the movie of the killer muffling her scream, and the girl's look is one of the few effective shots in the movie.

It doesn't have much going for it in the visuals department. Occasionally there's some strange use of sound, and there's some weird lighting in an attic scene where many of the panes of glass are red and blue.

Back to the present day. The young woman arrives in her grandmother's house. An old doctor is there, who she doesn't trust, along with the man from the opening scene "Judge" and Kearn, the town's museum operator. She doesn't trust any of them, and it's true they don't inspire any trust. She's rather crabby throughout the whole movie. She wants to check her grandmother into a hospital. The men in the town want her house, and the museum operator wants the things in it (his museum is already filled with many of the grandmother's things). Inexplicably, the woman wants to keep the house.

The young woman starts getting phone calls from a man speaking in a sinister whisper. He makes various threats, and wants her to do things to arouse him. Such scenes recur often. Unfortunately, there are so few characters in the movie, that the possibilities of who it could be are limited. Worse still, we see right from the beginning who is making the phone calls. So, while the young woman doesn't know (even though the caller occasionally drops into his normal voice), the audience always knows: no suspense. Each call rattles her more and more.

The ending was unexpected for me, so maybe gets points for not going with the obvious, but I'm not sure I cared for it.


I find it disconcerting that in an era when satisfying and fulfilling spirituality is unknown and we are all scattered across the whole spectrum of possible beliefs, that a charlatan and fraud of Gurdjieff's caliber (as a charlatan, he is exceptional; there is no denying he had a special gift. It's a pity he misused it, though, for the aggrandizement of his wounded ego, feeding on the adulation of unwary sheep who were at his beck and call and in awe of him) can inspire such extreme adherence and credulity. This movie presents an idealized version of Gurdjieff's own largely fictional and fantastic account of his formation and "awakening" (which I would rather describe as his discovery of how much he could sway the minds and wills of certain types of sadly disoriented people). See it, if you dare to have a disagreeable eye-opening about how sadly deprived we are of true religious leaders, to the extent that a clown like Gurdjieff could inspire such devotion - and be careful to have your blood pressure medicine at hand if you are one of those who still hope for a healthy religion to emerge from the ruins of Christianity, as a supreme example of cinematography at the entire service of the premises and pretenses of a dysfunctional cult.


Oh, Yawn. Not another chick flick where the men are all pigs and the women will get even for the abuse they suffered. The only difference is that, in this film, everybody's a pig or has mush for brains. I hated this film for the moral issue of why it's right to send a man to prison for life for a murder he didn't commit. Is that a more immoral act than his abuse and deviousness. This movie shows all the situational ethics of bad writing. I saw it on the CBC's "Best of Britain" series. If this is Britain's best, no wonder the British film industry is in trouble.

The only bright spot in this film was David Tennant, He plays his character as so despicable that I'm likely to spit on the next person who speaks with a Scottish accent. Kate Ashfield tries to play the victim but comes off in the end as immorally devious as David Tennant's character. They deserve each other.

In the mush for brains category are the parents who see nothing wrong with the obviously psychotic Brendan. English policemen are made out to be so incompetent that they're unfit to give out traffic tickets. The British Policeman's Union should sue the makers of this film for defamation.

This film isn't worth the electricity it takes to run your DVD to watch it.


I haven't read the book of this and based on this adaptation, will not bother. I hated every character in this show - Miranda was slutty, selfish and mumbled miserably through the appalling dialogue, her sister was a total wimp, and this was the worst depiction of manic-depression I have ever seen. I have a degree in Psychology, and this was not accurate. In fact, until it was mentioned, I did not realise Troy was supposed to be bipolar - I thought he was a normal, slightly grumpy teenager.

The only saving grace in this stupid show was David Tennant, whose brilliantly psychotic performance was the only thing that got me to watch the second half.

Clearly the writers and producers of this show have not done any research - Troy's mental problems are not remotely accurate, nor are the forensics involved in the "twist" ending (and if you did not spot that a mile off, you are a big ole dummy!)

Utter garbage.


OK, this 'horror' film was meant to be a joke, right? Please tell me it was supposed to be a joke, then I'll understand.

A big cawing bird with giant claws - or one claw, anyway - swoops down on unsuspecting folks on the ground and gobbles them up. Mara Corday and Jeff Morrow sufficiently overact in order to keep things interesting, but at least you'll enjoy a hearty snicker when you see the 'monster'. It looks like a cross between a deranged chicken and Mortimer Snerd.

Either director Fred Sears just made this picture in a hurry and knew the bird looked utterly ridiculous, or he really thought his film and creature were genuinely frightening. I prefer to think - and hope - it was the former.

P.S. The bird needs a haircut.


I love old "monster movies" for the pure camp value. This one does not disappoint if you find that sort of thing amusing.

The acting is pure 1950s stilted crap. You do get used to it when you've seen enough of these... the dialogue is very silly and ultimately forgettable. You're just there for the giant bird.

The "science" in this movie is hilarious. A monstrous otherworldly avian that can manipulate anti-matter... intent on wreaking havoc and eating people... an alien who has come to Earth to nest. Some of the best scenes in the movie (that don't have the bird in them) include the "scientists" explaining what is going on.

A lot has been said about the ridiculous bird marionette. It looks like a new baby bird... bald and ugly with ruffled feathers. It even caws like a hungry, angry fledgling. However, the bird scared the crap out of my three year old, who had big scary bird nightmares for the evening. It's a bit creepy.

I was very sad about the scene where they shoot the egg. (Somehow the egg is not protected by an antimatter shield.) But I'm a bird lover, what can I say?


Pilot Mitch MacAfee (Jeff Morrow) sees a UFO while test flying a plane--but nothing shows up on radar. Then planes and ships start disappearing and reports of a UFO increase. It turns out it's a giant monster bird that is attacking and killing. But what is it and why is it here?

This has all the right elements for a classic. It has an actually pretty entertaining script--I was never really bored. The acting is good (for a 1950s monster movie). Morrow doesn't overdo the macho hero act and Mara Corday is quite good as the requisite female love interest. She's also strong and takes care of herself--even though she IS off getting food and coffee for everyone all during the movie. The problem here is the monster. Dear God--it's TERRIBLE! It looks like a deranged turkey! It has a long neck, a hilariously stupid BEAK, some teeth, a few strands of hair on its head and claws. And--oh yes--it squawks! Not roaring--squawking! The actors had no idea what it looked like--it was added after production. Actors Morrow and Corday were horrified when they finally saw it in a theatre. Morrow said his audience burst out laughing and he left the theatre quickly before the movie ended! Producer Sam Katzman was responsible for this. He wanted to save money and gave the world the stupidest monster ever. And you can SEE the wires moving it too! This gets 4 stars only because Morrow and Corday are so good and the script is well done. It gets no stars for the pathetic monster--wait till you see it attack what is obviously a toy train! Worth a look if you're a horror fan to see what has to be the stupidest monster ever.


This is almost Ed Wood territory. Yeah, that ridiculous wreck of a flying monster looks like a cross between a turkey buzzard and a bad day at the dentist's office. And that sound effect screech makes fingernails across a blackboard sound like Mozart. And why The Giant Claw when the goofy critter gobbles its victims with a mechanical jaw. We get big close-ups of the ugly chicken foot, but nothing more. I guess the producers thought a more appropriately titled Big Mouth might suggest a Jerry Lewis comedy. And speaking of comedies, all that "anti-matter" gobbledy-gook is funnier than anything in a Lewis movie. I guess the scripters were stuck for a reason why an ordinary duck hunter couldn't take care of a 1950's flying menace, so they concocted a real whopper-- anti-matter from another galaxy. Yup, this fugitive from KFC is supposed to have flown in from another galaxy behind a shield of anti- matter as explained in excruciating detail by one of the film's resident geniuses. In this case, it's Jeff Morrow a pilot who I gather in his off-hours advises Einstein on the secrets of the universe.

Unfortunately, it's also Morrow who keeps the ridiculous proceedings out of the bad-movie Hall of Shame since he actually delivers his lines with a straight face. What's more, he even sounds as if he believes them. This is a movie acting triumph of the first order. To heck with the Oscars, Morrow deserves a combat medal for performing above and beyond the call of duty under the most extreme bad movie circumstances. Watch leading lady Corday, then you can gauge his fortitude under fire. She looks like she just woke up inside a bad dream and maybe if she stands stock-still, no one will notice her. I barely did. Oh well, the first time I saw this drive-in disaster was through a beery haze in the back row of what's now a housing development. I should have learned my lesson and broken out another 12-pack this second time around.


Spreading panic from Broadway to Bombay, 1957's The Giant Claw boasts perhaps the ultimate flying monster in movie history. Described by one terrified Quebecois witness as "La Carcagne  she's de devil in de storm with de face of de wolf and de body of de woman with wings, bigger than I can tell," it doesn't say much for Canadian women since when we finally see it in focus it's a cross between an overgrown buzzard, a chickenhawk and Gonzo the Great. But this isn't just any old giant turkey  impervious to rockets, invisible to radar and with a taste for swallowing parachutists whole and pecking away at the United Nations Building, it's an extraterrestrial giant turkey from an anti-matter galaxy millions of miles from Earth that's come here to build a nest: "No other explanation is possible." Luckily for humanity Jeff Morrow, test pilot and "chief cook and bottle washer in a one-man birdwatching society," invents a weapon to disable its impenetrable shield so they can hit it with everything but the kitchen sink  but don't worry: Morris Ankrum's general assures him "We've got kitchen sinks to spare, son."  just in time for a last-minute clinch with co-star Mara Corday. Some of the dialogue has dated rather unfortunately  "I admire your spunk, and you keep climbing on our backs whenever we've messed up"  and strangely enough it's nowhere near as much fun as a film with a giant flying turkey should be, but the beast itself is such a truly memorable creation for all the wrong reasons that it's hard to dislike even if you are liking it for all the wrong reasons. And full marks to the cast for delivering gem after gem of direlogue with a straight face: "Honest to Pete, I'll never call my mother-in-law an old crow again!," "The only trouble is that the last time I talked to a chaplain there wasn't any telephone line to the one and only place where we can get the kind of help we need" and the immortal "There it is now, attacking the United Nations Building!"


This one's as cheesy as they come  the concept of a massive and indestructible extraterrestrial bird is already too loopy for words, but wait till you get a load of the goofy creature as it appears on screen! I tell you I laughed so hard through this thing that I missed out on some of the expository dialogue  then again, the latter is often so heavy on scientific jargon and laws of Physics and such (at which I've never been any good, in spite of my love of sci-fi movies) that it didn't really matter anyway! The bird  first depicted as a mere blurred form whizzing through the skies but subsequently shown in all its dopey glory  is so sublimely silly that it wouldn't be amiss in a Looney Tunes cartoon (witness the series of intermittently-taken photographs that start with the creature in the distance and end on a side-splitting extreme close-up of its face)!

Director Sears had fared much better with his other film about UFOs, the fine EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS (1956)  with special effects provided by a master, Ray Harryhausen (speaking of which, I've just given away my copy of the latter in anticipation of acquiring Columbia's recently-released SE DVD); also, it seems to me that some of the footage illustrating the bird's rampage in New York here were lifted from the destruction of Washington seen in that earlier sci-fi classic! Again, the leads are played by genre regulars  namely Jeff Morrow (from THIS ISLAND EARTH [1955]) and Mara Corday (from TARANTULA [1955]); as with the afore-mentioned FLYING SAUCERS, these titles are highly-regarded and beloved by fans  consequently, they are vastly superior to this lamentable addition to the alien/monster animal cycle prevalent during the sci-fi heyday and beyond (incidentally, other flying menaces were featured in THE FLYING SERPENT [1946], which I haven't watched, and Larry Cohen's tongue-in-cheek updating of same in Q: THE WINGED SERPENT [1982]).

Unfortunately, THE GIANT CLAW can't even rise to a decent climax  which is so rushed as to be "a wash-out", to quote a jet pilot from the film itself whose assault with rockets on the bird proves completely ineffective (that is, before Morrow realizes that it's shielded by an invisible barrier and then has to figure out a way how to be able to penetrate it). Ultimately, apart from the intractable (and frankly tedious) technical asides, one gets a feeling of "so bad, it's good" watching this: after all, it only lasts for 74 minutes  and, in any case, the bird is such an unforgettably daft creation as to put a huge smile on your face every time it turns up!


Personally, I have no problem with the acting, nor the script. I do have a problem with the giant bird. It was simply AWFUL. Plain and simple.

One's first impulse is the roll around laughing when one sees it. What were they thinking!? Budget be damned. The monster bird was a monstrous joke.

Of course, in my opinion if the producers could obtain actors such as Ankrum, Corday and Morrow, then they would have the special effect people come up with a much better beast. Oh well. What is done is done. This will be the case of the eternal joke on them that was unintended.


Largely forgettable monster film from the 50s features truly awful special effects -- the "claw" in question is a giant puppet that would make Jim Henson want to kill himself. I just saw the movie last Thursday and I can't even tell you who was in it. That's a bad sign. I'm told that when the movie premiered audiences laughed it off the screen.... and that was in the 50s when standards in special effects were much lower. Basically I should have walked out of the theater as soon as the words "produced by Sam Katzman" came on the screen if I knew what was good for me, but then I sat through "Harum Scarum" also so I guess I deserve it.


This is one awful movie!! Some people told me that it was not that bad actually but I sure disagree! The monster is amazingly cheap (and funny) looking but this is something we all knew I guess. In addition to that, the dialogs are awful and the writing is just plain terrible.

As bad as it is, this movie as the quality of being entertaining. Not always for the good reasons but it's a good "so bad that it's fun" flick.

By the way, there's no such thing as "La Castagne". According to a secondary character in the film named Pierre (described in the movie as a French Canadian), there's a legend among French Canadians about a giant bird know as "La Castagne". As a French Canadian myself, I can assure you that I never heard of such a legend. It sure made me laugh though... :))


I wish I could have voted this movie a ten, it's that funny. If they had intended for it to be that funny I would have given it a ten. I have to give it a 1, but it's the funniest darn 1 you'll ever want to watch. See the giant blur flash across the screen! Where did it come from? What is it? It flies, it terrifies, it's electrifying, it's on strings! This bird has real personality. I was about ten when I saw it for the first time, and when Big Bird appeared on Sesame Street, I was sure they were one and the same!


I saw this movie when I was about 12 when it came out. I recall the scariest scene was the big bird eating men dangling helplessly from parachutes right out of the air. The horror. The horror.

As a young kid going to these cheesy B films on Saturday afternoons, I still was tired of the formula for these monster type movies that usually included the hero, a beautiful woman who might be the daughter of a professor and a happy resolution when the monster died in the end. I didn't care much for the romantic angle as a 12 year old and the predictable plots. I love them now for the unintentional humor.

But, about a year or so later, I saw Psycho when it came out and I loved that the star, Janet Leigh, was bumped off early in the film. I sat up and took notice at that point. Since screenwriters are making up the story, make it up to be as scary as possible and not from a well-worn formula. There are no rules.


The Giant Claw is in fierce competition with films like, 'Robot Monster' and 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' for worst film of all time. A phony looking giant vulture attacks 'Lionel Trains' in this completely unconscious film. The script is so bad that everything the characters say to one another is ridiculous. It's no wonder that this film is a prime target in the movie, "It Came From Hollywood," where this gem is hammered for the line, 'A Bird As Big As A Battleship', with gleeful, endless needling. The line pops up relentlessly through the course of the film, so there's no escaping it. There are several shots from, 'The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms' and 'Earth vs. The Flying Saucers' among other sci-fi films from the 50's to beef up the scraggly vulture's attacks. At one point the big vulture is responsible for a few deaths, so the military puts the entire world under martial law and no one is allowed to go out of their homes. Of course, the huge buzzard is mainly concerned with pursuing the stars of this classic, Jeff Morrow & Mara Corday, wherever they might be. Yet the director is so lame that he doesn't even provide for a few honey shots of pretty Mara in a decent dress and black heels for a little relief from the tedium of this zero star thriller. That's the second time this blunder has been made. In 'Tarantula', Mara Corday struts around in hot dresses for the whole film, but is relegated to pants throughout, 'The Giant Scorpion'. The budget for this film must have been not more than thirty or forty thousand dollars and I doubt whether Morrow or Corday got more than three thousand to make it. It looks like the whole thing was shot right out of somebody's garage.


Before we start, may I say I hope you've already eaten when you're reading this. Why? Because, after I'd seen this film for the first time, the bird's look and sound made me want to eat chicken after the words 'The End' had appeared on the screen. So don't say you weren't warned.

Fred Sears might have directed "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers" (an okay film and one of the bigger examples for Tim Burton's "Mars Attacks"), but "The Giant Claw" is not that giant a film. Yes, it's a prehistoric monster that flies in the air, attacks planes and cities and occasionally treats itself to a man on a parachute. The beast is giant except in the scenes where it's considerably smaller, but who needs consistent proportions in a movie? Scary? It could have been, but not if the plot is hopelessly silly and the monster looks like like a puppet that ran away from Sesame Street.


This is a truly terrible sci-fi/horror film from 1957. In fact, despite Ed Wood, Jr.and his dreadful films getting a lot of publicity, this turkey is every bit as bad as the worst of Wood. Now the acting is a bit better than you'd find in the Wood epics (such as PLAN 9 and BRIDE OF THE MONSTER), but the special effects managed to be significantly worse than Wood's! However, bad movie aficionados will be happy to hear that it's so bad that it's still excellent viewing. Like a Wood film, it's great to watch this crap-fest and laugh along with your friends.

The film begins with a scientist flying about doing some testing in his jet. However, out of nowhere, a UFO streaks by and his report of this over the radio triggers a panic by the Air Force. However, later, they realized that the UFO didn't appear on the radio and they think the scientist is a nut! But, when soon after this planes start disappearing all over, they realize there must be something to his sighting.

So far, the film isn't great but it's watchable. However, by the time the horrible flying monster appears, you know you're watching a turkey. First, through horrid use of stock film and crappy models, airplanes keep changing mid-flight. Some may not be bothered by this, but with airplane lovers like me, seeing an F-80 turning into an F-86 to an F-102 fighter plane made me crazy--especially since the planes look nothing like each other. Second, through "clever" cinematography, all you really see of the monster is a ball of fuzz for half the film! This is frustrating and you hope that when you finally do see it clearly, it will be worth the wait. Well, no such luck!! The "monster" looks less realistic or scary than the duck from Groucho's "You Bet Your Life" TV show!! In fact, it's significantly less realistic than any of the Japanese giant monsters!! In fact, Big Bird from "Sesame Street" is even a bit scarier and realistic!!! It's just god-awful in every way and might just be the dumbest movie monster in history--about as bad (or worse) as the monsters in ROBOT MONSTER or TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE!!! The bottom line is that this is an absolutely dreadful film that sane people won't like. Bad film fans like me (who are a crazy bunch) will probably love it! All others...be afraid,....be VERY afraid!!

FYI--You might notice that some clips in this film are from other sci-fi movies!! I am positive the crashing Washington Monument scene was stolen from EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS but I also saw a couple other scenes that I swear are from other films. What a hack job!


This terrible moovie is fun on many levels - the moost obvious is the lame, fake-looking bird puppet which floats around the cheap sets, without ever flapping it wings (like it was on a string, perhaps?), attacking model trains and toy cars. The "science" is asinine - a masonic atom gun?? And what's up with the enormous amounts of Brylcream in everyone's hair? I guess the 50's were the Slimeball decade! Well, this bird puppet apparently comes from "some god-forsaken anti-matter universe", and it's here to build a nest & lay eggs in New York. Seriously. That they manage to kill the puppet is almost a shame. I give it 1 hoof out of 4 - it's silly and stupid, but moore fun than Armageddon. :=8)


This is one of the most laughably bad films I've ever seen. I cannot believe whoever wrote the review above was serious. Perhaps he was connected with making it. It doesn't have anything going for it. There is no suspense, the acting is dire, the direction hopeless. The music score (?) is three trite notes played ad nauseam. The plot (?) must have taken all of five minutes to write. The dialogue is what a 10-year-old would come up with if asked to do a homework project. The only (slightly) redeeming feature is the actor playing the psycho himself, who grimaces, trembles and gurns magnificently and thus is amusing at times. The only reason you would be on the edge of your seat would be if you were suffering from a weak bladder. Don't waste your time.


Without a shadow of a doubt this is and probably will always be the worst film i have ever had the missfortune to see my whole life. Take 5 wooden actors who got thrown out of acting school because they were so wooden someone sat on them thinking they were a bench.

Then add a cheap camcorder. You know the old VHS types that cost £20 on ebay. Add a terrible story line with no effects and yes you have this film. What a shocker it was. They couldn't even save it by having a fit girl in it. She was fat and ugly and was the worst of all. I actually watched it all as i could not believe this crap ever got funded.

MISS AT ALL COSTS


San Franpyscho: 1 out of 10: So you want to make a serial killer movie. But your budget is non-existent, your camera equipment is elderly and your stars are Joe Estevez (Martin Sheen's younger brother and a staple in really bad movies) and Todd Bridges from Different Strokes. There are probably ways to pull of at least a watchable film. The Quiroz brothers have no clue.

First of all much of the cast seems to have been chosen in a desperate attempt to make Bridges and Estevez look like Oscar caliber thespians. Really how hard is it to play a priest or an overbearing mother? Certainly a city the size of San Francisco has a few professional actors willing to work for a few bucks and a screen credit. Clearly Chris Angelo and Bonnie Steiger who play these roles have other talents such as landscaper or waitress they ought to be fine tuning.

Joe Rosete as the killer (yes the serial killer is simply known as "The Killer") is also pretty awful in a mentally ill method kind of way but I am almost willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as his character is written with zero style or personality. A boring almost laughable serial killer is a problem for a serial killer movie.

In addition the Quiroz brothers seem to have originally planned this as an ABC Family movie of the week. There is no nudity or violence to speak of and the R rating clearly is for the adult style pacing. This move meanders like an 85 year old woman driving with wraparound sunglasses and her turn signal on. The only occasional horror comes from lighting Estevez's face with a glare that makes it look like his lower jaw was removed.

I wasn't expecting a great film when I rented San Franpyscho but I wasn't expecting mind numbing boredom either.


The movie was pretty bad. It's not so much a script problem. It's just that the movie is really boring in terms of pacing. The movie just seems to plod along at a slow, agonizing rate. The story in San Franpsycho is that there's a serial killer on the loose who is killing morally corrupt individuals (maybe I read too much into it, but hey, it's my nature apparently) after The San Franpsycho kills a pair of people under the Golden Gate Bridge we're introduced to one of the main characters of the film: Joe Estevez (brother of Martin Sheen) as a curmudgeony cop named Bill Culp. Bill is currently trying to hunt down the killer (seriously he doesn't have a name, he's just The Killer), and he is trying to coerce a local news reporter named Rita to help him with his investigation, Bill is the stereotypical hard-edged cop and he threatens Rita to throw her in jail for obstruction of justice. Anyway a few scenes pass by and suddenly Rita finds a letter left by the psychopath (He's a cold blooded psychopath!) and she has a change of heart and tells Bill and his partner Joe about it and help them with the investigation.

The movie tries to be a taut murder-thriller, but sort of just fails at that. It's much like the movie The Black Dahlia it tries to be tense but it just is unbelievable in terms of that. The movie tries to be serious throughout, but it has scenes like where The Killer masturbates (obviously a fan of gore porn what with lines like: "ooh blood on her" or something to that effect) and Joe Estevez hitting the table going: "He's a cold blooded murderer!" I admit to chuckling more than once at the movie, even though I'm sure it was intended to be a deadly serious movie.

One of the only positive points the movie has going for it is the fact that I didn't pay money to see it (huzzah netflix). And it's sad because I could see some good in their movies after watching The Damned. Sure the movie had its fair share of flaws, but it was enjoyable. Sadly though San Franpsycho has nothing going for it. Granted it has an okay script it's nothing too grand, but it could've been interesting. Instead what you get is a murder thriller that fails to thrill or have even vaguely enjoyable deaths. Also the other reviews claim that the movie has "a great twist ending that's shocking" apparently I was watching a different movie because by about the one hour mark I sort of figured out what was going to happen. The ending didn't shock me in the least bit. I would go on insulting this wreck of a movie but I don't think I will. Long story short this movie is a boring uninspired thriller (I use that term loosely) that fails to have the "Hitchcockian thrills" that another reviewer claims to have a predictable ending, bland deaths, acting with all of the emotion of a plank of wood, and a decent soundtrack.

I'm sure others will try to defend this with the usual: It was a low budget movie, they did the best they could with such a low budget, and all that other nonsense. But when you get right down to it there was very little that they could've really spent that budget on, there was very little special effects work, the soundtrack sounds like it might've been recycled from Hood of the Living Dead or The Damned, and it's the same damn crew from those two films. This movie really reminds me a lot of another low budget flick that was no good, and it was called Mr. Jingles, the two are about the same quality, they fail to deliver anything close to enjoyment and should fade quickly into obscurity.


go get your camcorder, your little brother, and the disturbing neighbor next door who throws boiling water on raccoons; and you got yourself a film! well, that's what these guys thought anyway. it was so bad i can't even remember the majority of it except for flashbacks comparable to someone who toured in 'Nam. despite the really corny title, the horrible quality, the terrible actors, and the cliché writing, i think this movie isn't the worst i've ever seen. i'm saving that slot for everything with steven seagal, chuck norris and jean-claude van dam. anyhow, if you are out of options when it comes to finding new "horror" films that you haven't seen 1,000 times already, (as i was) and you are debating this one, i would still skip this. it had absolutely no redeeming qualities. this mock serial killer thriller was a weak, puny attempt at an even B film. if they're really lucky it might make the wal-mart $4.50 bin. but, i highly doubt it.


I hope this isn't a portent of things to come. High-definition camcorders are getting cheaper all the time (although I wouldn't swear that's what was used here), so it's open season for all the wannabe Scorseses and Tarantinos.

There is no hiding the cheapness of this stinker, and calling it a 'film' would be doing the industry a big disservice. The photography is of a standard you would expect on a family outing to the zoo. I could build me a new house with all the wooden acting. What's remarkable about that is that nobody stands out as the worst. They are all equally terrible. Like a whole bunch of Ben Afflecks. Or Steven Seagals.

What hooked me was the title. I'm a sucker for this sort of thing, like Frankenhooker, or Monsturd. Frankenhooker was pretty bad, too, but at least I got some laughs out of it, and the acting was merely bad, not awful. I can't comment on Monsturd as I've yet to get hold of a copy of it.

Anyway, I hope the people who made this didn't make any money from it. Else they might be encouraged to try it on again. Please, guys, pawn the camcorder and go back to your regular job.


With David Arquette starring you would immediately think this to be a stupid movie. Well, it is a stupid movie with a horrid script. But the F/X, namely the eight legged freaks, makes this flick a hoot to watch. A tribute, albeit on the silly side, to those great mutant creature features of the 50s. Arquette and Sheriff Sam(Kari Wuhrer)summon help in fighting off the toxic waste induced giant spiders wreaking havoc on their tiny town in Arizona. Also in the cast are Doug E. Doug, Rick Overton, Leon Rippy and the charming Scarlett Johansson.


My expectations were high after seeing the trailer. They were even higher when i saw the movie had the same director as independance day and godzilla. The special effects in independence day were much better then in this movie. The whole movie I was waiting for the spiders to show up. The rest of the storyline was really boring. And when the spiders came, they had a very amateuristic look, like the special effects were from a movie made in the 60's. I didn't watch the whole movie. When it was played for about one hour I switched off my DVD-player. I watch 3 movies almost every night, and I have never walked away from a movie, even if it was that boring. The only thing good in this movie was the pretty sheriff :) That's why I voted 2 instead of 1 :) So don't go see this one, instead you should go out and rent Starship Troopers, it's like the same only 10.000 times better.


I'm not going to say the story of the movie as some people do. I'm pretty sure people who read this will know what the storyline is. I'm also not going to go on and on about everything thats wrong with this movie, because I'll be here for ages if I do. The storyline is typical, and the special effects are below today's standards. This is not a movie you should watch if you are a serious movie buff (as most of us here are) little things will annoy you the whole movie and ruin the experience. If your a casual movie watcher, who likes to have a good time when they are watching a flick, then this movie is perfect for you, lots of fun. It would also be a good movie to take a partner to. Just not for us movie buff's.

 5 out of 10


Eight Legged Freaks is a modern monster movie, like a remake of any of the old 'Attack of the giant [INSERT ANIMAL HERE]'-movies of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Or rather, it should have been more like a remake of the, instead of what is was. So, how is a monster movie done in the year 2002? Well, from the typical opening with some chemical making the spiders grow to huge proportions, they mix movies like Gremlins, Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers and flavor it with some parody like Scary Movie. Gremlins is probably the best comparison, but Eight Legged Freaks was so full of parodies and stupid jokes that it was sometimes more like Scary Movie. It was way too much, at least if you're looking for a monster movie and not just another parody movie filled with jokes.

For a movie like this you don't expect much of the acting, and that is just the way it was. The story though was extremely thin, with just a bunch of loosely connected events to show off some action mixed with all of the jokes, leading up to an easily spotted and corny ending.

I rate Eight Legged Freaks a 4/10, and that includes the fact that the special effects where pretty good and that the noises the spiders made where hilarious.


Somehow, I really thought that I was going to enjoy this film because I love pictures with mountain climbing and a great mystery in the plot. I must say that the photography was fantastic and there was some scary scenes that captured my attention. I thought that Nicole Eggert,(Diana Pennington),"Thank You, Good Night",'01 played a very convincing role as a young girl who had a tragic loss in her life and meets up with some characters who want her to guide them up the mountain. Marc Singer, "Angel Blade",'02, played a very unconvincing weird guy and over acted in many scenes with a bad temper that looked comical. This film was a big disappointed and not worth watching, unless there is nothing on the TV to ENJOY!!


The limited scenery views were the only saving grace to an otherwise uneventful and boring movie. The acting was borderline absurd which I blame on the script and screenplay. Nicole Eggert didn't look the part, didn't act the part, and was totally unconvincing as a mountain guide. After watching this I was left with the feeling that some friends had some free time and decided to make a movie. It must have been produced on a budget of pocket change. The plot was thin at best and with the low caliber of acting at times it begged the question to be asked, "Why are we doing this?". I managed to sit through the entire movie but also asked myself, "Why?".


So I caught this one afternoon as "What Lies Above" and actually watched it because the beginning was somewhat promising. The heroine, Diana Pennington, is a mountain climbing expert...but that doesn't help her when her fiancé Brian gets hurt on a climb. When she goes off to get help and returns, he disappears from the mountain, never to be seen again.

Two years later, Diana is still a climber...but she won't go near Snowman's Pass. That is, until Curt Seaver appears and tells her that he can find the body of her lost fiancé with a new satellite program. She agrees and they take off up the mountain with Curt's two assistants: His "bodyguard" Hugo and the computer whiz Tyler. From the start, you know that there's some ulterior motive going on, but unfortunately the twists aren't good and lead to a laughably bad chase sequence that makes up the last 20 or 30 minutes of the movie.

The major disappointments are the red herrings, most of which have supernatural undertones that never come to fruition. The object from the sky that fell into the mountains (which turns out to be not so supernatural), the story of how Snowman's Pass came to be, and the most memorable one of them all: Diana's dream sequence halfway through the movie. But what disappointed me most is where they dropped the ball. The majority of the movie revolves around the search for Brian, that's why I can't for the life of me begin to understand why the mystery of what exactly happened to him and where he was is never solved through the course of the movie. This was the major plot. This was how the movie STARTED! How do you NOT wrap that up?

I wouldn't tell too many people to bother with this one...


I caught this film -- under the title of "What Lies Above" -- on Lifetime movie network last night, and just had to comment on it. Designed as a resourceful-woman-in-peril, action adventure yarn, it is so unintentionally funny (thanks in large part to Marc Singer's scenery-chewing hammy performance)that I thought I was watching a cross between "Cliffhanger" and "Home Alone 5." Heroine Nicole Eggert makes her devious but dumb as dirt male pursuers look like the Three Stooges succumbing to her ridiculous makeshift booby traps (somehow she manages to devise a swinging battering ram with rope and a log in a matter of minutes, which temporarily takes out one of the knuckleheads who want to kill her). Worth watching for a hearty laugh.


I saw this on a boring Sunday morning just this morning. Well I was drawn to the fact that it's an outdoor movie.. I was hoping to find some nice sceneries but it the views where just limited.. They just go back and forth in the same spot all over again.. I hate it when they're using this so called hi-tech stuffs like the this Motorola blue-tooth headset they're using to eliminate the use of a walkie talkie it was just so funny.. they look like amateurs. And they where like advertising those badly designed alien-ware Laptops that could link up to a satellite to find people.. I couldn't say more about this TV-movie.. The ending was bad that it looks like they cut it short eliminating the use of rescue helicopters and etc.. */**********


SPOILER ALERT.

This movie will spoil your afternoon or "wee small hours of the morning" viewing slot.

I like Marc Singer. He has portrayed good characters in the roles I have seen. Until this movie.

What starts as a promising movie soon disappears up itself with the disastrous cgi'd background and the extreme close up on the person about to die...

Then it gets worse.

A lot worse.

To describe it as hammy acting would insult pigs. This movie goes to the bottom of the ham barrel and scrapes the acting off there.

Apart from Marc Singer's overcooked hamming it up, Mike Dopud stomps and plods around the scenery looking as if he is afraid he might fall on the rocks and his wide-eyed 'manic' bad guy just makes him look like a moron. He isn't menacing at all.

George Stults looks like a deer caught in the headlights. He claims to have been threatened by the other two but his character would have been threatened by a cashier offering him "paper or plastic".

This is really a vehicle for Nicole Eggert as an independent woman getting her life back despite attracting the wrong sort of man... She was unremarkable.

This is not a remake but this is remarkably similar to "Cliffhanger" - seasoned guide, loses someone in a fall, conscience pricked to help out someone else, a missing treasure worth oodles of money and a gang of n'er-do-wells who exploit the guide. Except Cliffhanger was a great vehicle for Stallone and Lithgow. I must admit, Lithgow stole the show.

Even the unintentional comedy was poor. There were times when I wasn't sure if they were using a rubber-faced model as a stand-in for Singer as he tried in vain to storm the weather station (no pun intended). Pressing his face to the door post and his clumsy manner in general did nothing to help his character.

Avoid.

No, seriously, avoid it. Save 96 minutes of your life and do something else more constructive like watching paint dry or grass grow. Or just close your eyes and examine the backs of your eyelids for 90 minutes...


Gotta add a comment to this one!!!

First, ironically, one needs to add the "spolier alert" to conform to IMDb's parameters, but there is absolutely nothing here to be "spoiled."

There are six characters: the good-looking gal whose the A-list mountain guide in the area of the "climb," and apparently among all guides (including Mt. Everest Sherpas) on the planet; her lost love, who disappeared from the titled pass two years prior, whom the party is purportedly seeking, but never find; her store-owner friend, also a guide, who may be better than a Sherpa but no match for her; the weird lead actor who engages her services, and says they'll find her long-missing love in the bargain; his one associate, a computer hacker with purportedly limitless expertise, of a level sufficient that Gates might seek advice from him; and his other colleague, a bodyguard who apparently has an IQ not even near three digits.

There are, of course, nefarious goings-on, and the secret quest of the lead actor is to gain recovery of a satellite which has fallen in the "Pass," and has world-altering and unique data to bring them untold riches. Exactly what is never revealed.

Overacting abounds, the script looks like something which might get a C- in a freshman writing class (but an F if submitted at a higher level), and the thespians gnaw every piece of scenery like a horde of beavers.

The most interesting aspects of this movie for me was juxtaposing portions with three other flicks or roles I've seen.

First, the mysterious, undisclosed secret data makes one recall "The Spanish Prisoner," an A-list/Mamet film, surrounding a valuable corporate "process," never specifically clarified, but better for it. Definitely not so here.

Second, the lead biscuit proved perhaps even more resourceful then "Rambo" in dealing quickly when menaced later in the presentation.

Third, I remember a Steven Seagal flick (don't recall the title) where he was semi-conscious and abed for about 1/3 of the time, and fully-comatose for another 1/3. Although I've not sought viewing a lot of his work, I've seen enough to have noted that while comatose, he provided the best work he ever has, and most in-line with his laconic persona. In this opus, while awake, the young hacker may have been the most engaging personality on-screen, but while indisposed and incapacitated during the latter portion, and unable to emote, he provided the best acting during this seemingly unending two hours.

Take the thin, silly basis for a plot here. Imagine it being compressed into, say, a lbit on SNL, with Gilda Radner, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Martin Short in the four roles. They could get record laughs with few changes to the dialog here.

The most interesting aspect in the last analysis is contemplating what information could have been in the spy satellite to be worth "even billions" to any of many nations, and yet rendered worthless (according to the guru hacker) if simply placed upon the internet, with no apparent consequences thereafter? Even a turkey like this one should have at least a small trace of logic somewhere. This one is totally devoid.


Charlie Chaplin responds to open auditions at Lodestone Studios. Rival Ben Turpin arrives at the same studio, obviously another unemployed comedian! Turpin tries to horn in on Chaplin's action after the studio head hollers, "Next!" Chaplin manages to walk in over Turpin, however. Charlie amusingly manages to botch jobs as an actor and carpenter. In the end, he manages to get a big break, but will a star be born?

There are a lot of jokes involving the buttocks. The initial scene involving slapstick from Chaplin and Turpin is a relative highlight. Note that Gloria Swanson is the typist in the far background left on your screen, in the film's opening. Agnes Ayres also appears.

*** His New Job (2/1/15) Charles Chaplin ~ Charlie Chaplin, Ben Turpin, Charlotte Mineau


Rabbit Fever is a mockumentary collection of sketches, each one of them focussing on a female personal device that was made popular by a single 1998 episode of Sex and the City (the latter half of 1998, rather than the early episodes which were all directed by women). From opening statistics that make Rabbit Fever sound like a soft porn movie, we are treated to a sea of predictable sketches with real and imaginary characters in a world run amok with women's addiction to solitary pleasure.

Men, as Germaine Greer rather arrogantly explains, have invented a gadget for women that makes men superfluous in the bedroom. The Rabbit Vibrator (which some statistics suggest accounts for about a quarter of all vibrator sales) is so called because of little rabbit-like long ears which vibrate to stimulate the clitoris, while rotating pearls inside the shaft stimulate the inside of the vagina. The film interviews characters that attend Rabbits Anonymous to help overcome their 'addiction', as well as known people such as Tom Conti posing as a professor or Richard Branson (amid scenes of rabbits being banned on aircraft) saying he would like to provide free rabbits to his first class air travel passengers and ultimately to all of them.

The main weakness of the film is that the idea is not enough to sustain 85 minutes of cinema, the sketches don't have the writing skills of say a Charlotte Church or Ricky Gervais to make them funny enough and, while it might make desultory late night TV, doesn't have a hook to get people to queue up in public at multiplexes to watch masturbation jokes.

Lines like, "It's been nearly a week since you used your rabbit - how are you coping?" wear rather thin after five minutes. The film is based on the idea that the mere mention of the word 'rabbit' will get a laugh . . . and another one, and another one. Frantic midnight drives to buy batteries might be amusing in real life, but here they look rather laborious, and the special emergency delivery service outstays its welcome.

Strangely the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate in spite of zero violence, hardly any explicit sex, and sexual references that are less 'perverted' than any late night comedy show. The company protested the decision, but the BBFC didn't budge. At first sight this seems overkill on their part and their consumer advice now simply says, "Contains frequent strong sex references." One might think that youngsters would find masturbation jokes funnier than the most desperate of hen night parties, and the topic one worthy of debate; but Rabbit Fever does not even have the saving grace of a balanced approach to its subject matter.

The best part is probably The Rabbit Song by Ruocco (who play a band called Thumper in the film). For those who have dozed off and woken up at the end credits, there is a bonus scene at the end of them to reassure them that they haven't missed anything.


Rabbit Fever is one of those film oddities. It's an enjoyable 90 minutes, demands little of the viewer, and delivers as much, and on any terrestrial television channel even in a prime time slot I think that Rabbit Fever would be rather well received. Which makes me wonder why it has been pushed into cinemas.

The movie is filmed in the style of a television documentary, and introduces us to 6 women who have am addictive relationship with the Rabbit Vibrator. The film is primarily focused on investigating a supposed addictive quality to the famous sex aid product. The narrative is 100% tongue in cheek throughout.

The storyline is strong, an introduction to some well rounded and likable characters, some enjoyable back-story, peripheral characters and situations develops into an engaging story, and pleasing conclusions. Sadly there's nothing that feels clever or new.

Rabbit Fever has some sharp moments, a few switches that hint at what the writers are capable of, and all credit to them it's not just 90 minutes of knob gags and innuendo, I could probably watch it with my mother. But there's a laziness about some of the scenes that holds it back, those moments went you are up for it, when you want it to be outrageous, and all you get is a dollop of sit-com.

I chuckled, I left the theatre feeling empathy for the characters, but I also left with the bitter thought that someone had taken a 90 minute reel of made for TV, light entertainment and tried to put it into national cinema.

I think Rabbit Fever achieves some of what it set out to do, it's a quirky subject, a rounded storyline, a well presented cast and a good diversion for 90 minutes. But there's nothing in this that can justify the extravagance of a movie theatre environment. Quite the opposite - a few commercial breaks would have given the viewer chance to grab a breath of life that Rabbit Fever seems to lack.


I saw this in a preview screening and have to say that this documentary style movie is the biggest load of tripe I have ever seen.

Completely unfunny, low budget, boring, rubbish script, terrible acting - The entire audience (young and old) sat through the film comatose without laughing for most of it... there were literally only about 2 places you will laugh in the entire movie

Many people left halfway - Can't blame them... I stayed thinking that the film would pick up, however, it never did and I wish I'd left.

The humour was really lame and I am surprised that this ever made it on to the big screen. I am not someone who is offended by the adult content of this movie at all - It just wasn't funny. The people who made this movie really don't deserve your money, so please don't pay to see this film.

This isn't even funny enough to be shown on TV, let alone cinema...

I wanted to give it 0 out of 10, but the system won't allow it...


Not a balanced point of view. The director shouldn't express her opinion as truth. The movie has some criticism of Fujimori but it always gives him and his family the last words. So few critics of Fujimori were provided that it seems the only reason they were included was to be able to say the movie provides both views. But that is not the case.

The movie barely shows one of the massacres that Fujimori is accused of. And it gives him credit for the masterminding the murdering of the MRTA insurgents that took the Japanese embassy. It is well documented that the CIA did the planning. There is even pictures of a well known CIA strategist on the site published by Caretas magazine and other newspapers.

The fact that such well known information was not used by the director gives us a few possible conclusions: the director is pro-Fujimori and purposely and falsely chooses to give the credit to him; the director does not want viewers to note that the CIA and Fujimori worked together; or it was just out of ignorance since the director is not Peruvian and was not present in Peru at the time the events occurred.

The explanation provided by other commentators, that Fujimori is still fairly popular in Peru, does not excuse the lack of accuracy and balanced explanations.

Also, the statistics provided in the movie for the actual support of Fujimori were the highest I have ever heard of. Most statistics by major poll agencies are much lower.

Another point to mention is that the intelligence that was key in the capture of the leader of Sendero and discover the secret network was done by a police force led by Ketin Vidal and he had complete autonomy from Fujimori and Montesinos.

The first government of Fujimori did experience an improvement in overall economic trends (GDP) but this improvement was financed by the privatization of several national industries with contracts that were not beneficial for the country in the long term. Also, the gap between rich an poor continued to increase during Fujimori's regime. In his second term the economy was suffering and there was nothing else to privatize and by the end of Fujimori's second term the economy was about to collapse.

In terms of investments in infrastructure of Fujimori's regime, they fallow the paternalistic pattern. They were created to raise support for Fujimori but were not meant to last long. These structures needed continued maintenance but Fujimori did not provide political power for the civilians in order to demand further investment. In fact, Fujimori's regime was able to destroy most forms of political organizing such as unions and grass-roots groups and the increase in informal unorganized labor was immense.

Finally, the director chose to spend most of the movie talking to Fujimori instead of citing the cases of massive corruption in favour of Fujimori (the Media, Business Owners, the Military, etc) that were so wide spread it was impossible that Fujimori was not aware of it.


All the pro comments about this movie claim that the movie is balanced. That is their main justification to give a high rate to the movie. But a movie is not balanced when the main perpetrator analyzed is given the last world in every single subject. The director herself admitted to this at the first San Francisco film festival showing. She justified it by saying that she couldn't waste the chance of having access to Fujimori. That might be true but by showing so much of Fujimori's take on the issues makes the movie clearly pro-Fujimori and unbalanced. I dare any of the other commentators to prove this wrong Tips 1: claiming Harvard professors, intellectuals, and Latin American Diplomats agree with you does not help your argument (use logic). Tip 2: disagreeing with the director doesn't help your argument either (The director says she thinks Fujimori is charismatic and patriotic and therefore she portrayed him that way)


I was looking for a documentary of the same journalistic quality as Frontline or "Fog of War" (by Errol Morris). Instead I was appalled by this shallow and naive account of a very complex and disturbing man and his regime: Alberto Fujimori. This movie should be called "The return of Fujimori". The director presumes she made a "perfect" movie because alienates both pro and anti-Fujimori factions when in fact it is a very biased and unprofessional piece of work.

The movie has few crucial facts wrong:

1) She uses the so called "landslide" election of 1995 in which Fujimori was re-elected with 65% of the vote, as an example of the massive popular support of Fujimori. But we all now know to be the fruit of a very organized electoral fraud.

2) The movie states that Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) killed 60,000 people. In fact, the Truth Commission's final report states that there were 69,280 deaths due to political violence in Peru. 33% of those were caused by SL. That leaves the other 67% in the hands of the police, military and other groups. The fact that she uses the same misleading information that Fujimori has been using for 10 years it is another example of how terrible this movie is.

For any person with some education on Peruvian politics and history, Fujimori is clearly a consummated manipulator, a delusional character and remorseless egomaniac. His regime was very far from being democratic. He is still a menace to Peruvians. Despite these facts the director lets Fujimori tell the story. Not only on how he wants the camera to be positioned but the narrative and direction of the film seem to be part of his political agenda. He always seems to have the last word. There are no journalistic "cojones", just soft questions and unchallenged remarks. Where is Oriana Fallaci when we need her? The director, when questioned after the screening, didn't hide the fact that she was deeply impressed by Fujimori, his charm and intelligence. Yes, she has been definitely charmed by him, and you can tell by looking at this film. It's obvious she has a very hard time to digest the multitude of facts that point towards his responsibility on the corruption, murder and deception that took place. She assured the gasping audience that Fujimori was really a "patriot" when few moments earlier, one of the leading Peruvian journalists was very adamant in telling us that Fujimori was, above all, a "traitor". She went on to say that despite all the accusations not "a single dollar" was found on any bank account on his name, etc, etc. It was like hearing again the same gang of ruthless thugs that ruled the country for 10 years defending their master. It was a sad moment for journalism.

This film makes injustice to history. It is an insult to hundreds of dead people, disappeared or unjustly incarcerated by Fujimori's regime. No wonder she later confessed that all the Peruvian intellectuals she befriended while making the movie felt betrayed by it. Unbiased? The words "oportunistic", "naïve" and "denial" come to my mind instead.


A friend and I went to see this movie. We have opposite opinions about Fujimori but after watching this movie we agree on the following: the easiest way to have an inaccurate documentary is to make it about a foreign country in which you were not present when the events happened, no matter how talented or how much you invest in the film. If you are truly looking to learn about another countries history, watch something made by natives of that country otherwise you won't be able step away from your bubble. And those who try to force their views and opinions about something to which they don't belong are really abusing their power. To make it even worse, the director chose to not talk about the embarrassing involvement of the CIA with Fujimori's regime. She decides to evade dealing with the only subject for witch her country has much to explain to Peruvians. But this is not surprising because, both, the director and the CIA are violating the sovereignty of Peru by trying to affect the democratic processes at very different levels of course.

If the director was really interested in helping Peru she would have financed a native to make the documentary. In any case there are numerous Peruvian made documentaries, films and books about the subject. Such include "Ojos Que No Ven", "Dias de Santiago", "Montesinos-Fujimori: Las Dos Caras de la Misma Moneda", "Montesinos: Poderoso Caballero", etc. The director of the "Fall of Fujimori" should spend her time analyzing the numerous problems in her own country or at least the involvement of her country in the matters of other nations.


For the first forty minutes or so, Luna is a real pleasure to watch. The characters and their situation are interesting and the photography and locations are beautiful to look at. Then Jill Clayburgh discovers her son Matthew Barry is using heroin and the movie starts to unravel and then becomes outright laughable in its sickness.

Clayburgh asks him why and when he started using the drug and she nor the audience ever get a straight answer, which would be a bit helpful. He mentions not caring about anything but that's not right because we see clearly in the amazing early scenes that he has a good deal of interest in his mother's singing, baseball, sex, and apparently cared enough to turn down marijuana. This movie is for people who think junior gets into hard drugs because mom and dad were workaholics who missed his piano recital. I think such a dangerous and emotionally volatile drug like heroin was chosen as some sort of intellectual catalyst for the later scenes of incest. There's a lot of discussion about the mother's love for the son but it's really about Bernardo Bertolucci being pretentious. Luna would have been great as a quaint little family drama.

How old was Matthew Barry in this movie? I was more concerned over the bizarre things he had to do as an actor for this film than for anything his character was going through. ** out of ****


The movie starts out a bit interested with the son interested in a teenage girl his own age. Clayburgh's timid-appearing husband is killed in car crash as she is getting ready to go to Rome and sing as a diva. Matthew objects but comes along. He connects with the young girl again but this time, Matt is on cocaine. His superb voice, lovely, impetuous mother is in the limelight. She doesn't know how to handle Matt's addiction. The movie drags on in search of a plot. Clayburgh is in the wrong role and Bertolucci may have had his head in the moon while directing the picture. The Moon has great symbolism.

Save your time. I am perhaps overly generous with 4*.


11 years after this film was released only 5 people have reviewed it here on IMDb. There is a reason for this utter lack of interest in Across the Moon. It is coherent, but lacks all cinematic virtue. See this film for examples of terrible production in all respects. The opening credits for instance are white letters rising mechanically from a red background. The ending features Michael McKean staring out a prison window saying "There's lots of mysteries out there." followed by a clip montage/music video of all the uplifting moments in the tragically bad movie. Julinana Hatfield. Everything in between is awful. I struggled to find any value in this movie and have come up empty. Though it is hard to believe, even a cameo role from Burgess Meridith (always a crowd pleaser) only disappointed me further. This movie is like a mockery of what is special about movies. On paper the movie is below average. Women living together in a trailer. But what actually was produced was nearly unwatchable. The movie attempts to branch off in many directions but never follows through on any. The unappealing conflict of having their boyfriends in jail is never resolved. No conflict is ever resolved. There really is no conflict. The women attempt to become hookers, but that never happens. Instead they get jobs as a bartender and a shelf stocker. Sound exciting? IT wasn't. IT was stupid. And the bulk of the movie is the two women talking and generating contrived conflict. The women are capable actresses, but the script was beyond poor. Useless. This was a terrible movie, but it is even worst that they borough Burgess Meridith out of his retirement home to make it. Bad from start to finish. Like the lion without teeth, this film has no bite.


This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Unless you're into masochism, never see it. It was an insufferably long, pointless, eye-harming, depressing movie and will forever top my list of bad movies. Whoever wrote this movie is a sadist. I almost cried at the end, that's how bad it was. I'd like to give it zero stars, but since that's not an option, I give it one.


Director Michael Ritchie and actor Robert Redford's second documentary-style drama, 'The Candidate', is a political satire that still seems fresh and pertinent today. So it's a pity that 'Downhill Racer', made a short time before, seems so dated by contrast. The music is ugly, and the perhaps innovative ski-ing sequences are now standard in televisual coverage of the sport. The world of ski-ing seems strangely amateurish (probably accurately, given the time the movie was made, but it's hard to relate to today's professional world), and the theme of Americans in Europe likewise seems hundrum in an age of ever easier travel. Perhaps the biggest problem is the flat plot, centred on the arrogant but enigmatic hero; unfortunately, it's a dreary performance from Redford, offering us little insight into his cares or motivations. And a character-driven film without much of a character is never a good bet. I expected much, but sadly this is a boring movie.


Rather like Paul Newman and Steve McQueen with their racing car movies this has all the appearance of a "jollies" project for Robert Redford, as he gets to ski up hill and down dale in the Alpine sunshine.

The story is as light as powdered snow with Redford's small-town boy David Chappellet (what kind of lead name is that?) who with his eyes on the prize of Olympic glory, gets up the nose of, in no particular order, his coach, father and team-mates. Women are a mere side-show in his insular world as evidenced by a fairly distasteful pick-up scene with an old girlfriend in his hometown and then his selfishly petulant pursuit of, heavens above, a free-thinking, independent woman, played by Camilla Sparv. The ski-ing sequences are fine with some good stunt-work involving numerous bumps and scrapes on the piste but their effectiveness is dimmed by our subsequent familiarity with top TV coverage of skiing events down to the present day. Plus I'm not convinced that the Winter Olympics has the same mass identification with the general public as the summer games so that when Redford eventually wins his gold medal in the final reel, I couldn't really be that excited for him one way or another.

Of the actors, Redford, best profile forward, doesn't need to do much and indeed doesn't, while Gene Hackman does better with equally meagre material. Ms Sparv does well as the chief female interest well who treats Redford the way he's doubtless treated every other woman in his chauvinistic way.

In truth though, there's a lack of dramatic tension throughout for which the action sequences don't fully compensate and you don't care a fig for any of the leading characters. One of those films where the actors probably enjoyed making it more than the viewers did watching it.


What this film has is its realism , you really do get the feeling screenwriter James Slater has been doing his homework on the subject of downhill skiing while director Michael Ritchie shoots the movie in a fly on the wall documentary style . However the problem is unless you`re a big fan of the sport there`s not a lot in DOWNHILL RACER to grab your attention .

Before anyone asks why I watched it , I did so because it featured the great Gene Hackman in an early role but that`s not really a good enough reason for watching


Downhill Racer is essentially, a movie to see only for the terrific skiing sequences. Although there is a story here, Robert Redford's character, a skier trying to make the U.S. Olympic team, is so bland and unsympathetic that you wonder why to care about him at all. Gene Hackman, in an early performance, adds nicely, but this is a film that could be watched with the sound off, and it wouldn't make much of a difference.


A real let down, the novel is such a brilliant stomach churning journey into madness but this made for TV movie style nonsense is turgid and painfully slow. Stick to Mike Hammer. I find it hard to believe that no body has made a brilliant version of this book, Kubrick gushes over it on the cover, he should have taken over the reins on this one. Stacey Keach is too soppy as Lou Ford, and the whole thing has the same production values as that seventies TV spin off, of Planet Of The Apes. I thoroughly recommend that you go out and buy lots of Jim Thompson novels though, actually The Grifters isn't done too badly, thats one of his, starring Jon Cusak.


We get to see who the good guys are. The union. And who the bad guys are, a rich man who steals elections and his spoiled son. The filmmaker forces us to see good from evil. All the characters hate the bad guys so that when watching the film, this can help us along on hating the bad guys. This is the worst kind of film-making - manipulative and childish. The plot centers on a cop who is in-between the good and the bad, and he's stuck in this ugly film. It's boring and pointless. The narration by star Keach is really bad. And a good actor, Don Stroud, overacted to the hilt, playing the guy no one likes, and who we aren't supposed to like. It takes a long time for this bore to take off, and for the title to assert itself; then when it does take off, it crashes a minute later. Boring. One of the worst films ever made.


This movie had the potential to be a decent thriller, but it was hampered by only having about twenty minutes worth of good script, which was mostly used up in the beginning. After that holes started to appear in the story that one could drive a truck through. The movie followed a descending curve from good to ordinary to bad to ludicrous by the time it concluded. It's not recommended.


It might be that the film I saw was entirely different from the one that the others saw, however as the actors are the same I can only think that the cut I saw in Europe differed from the one circulating in the US.

Anyway, this was the worst movie that I saw the past five years. (Closely followed by The Waterboy...)

Why: Because in my opinion this director has taken elements from every thriller preceding this one, mixed them, put the in the wrong order with the wrong music and published it.

(Examples: nothing happends, the music gets scary, and still nothing happends. The "grumpy" officer us grumpy in a way that would let the actor flunk any acting class. There´s a buddy-moment which comes out of nowhere at the end. There´s an inescapable scene and in the next scene all the problems are gone.)

If you want to see a smart movie: see Memento. If you want to see a better thriller: see any thriller that comes to mind. If you want to see Patrick Swayze: see Dirty Dancing.


The worst movie I have ever seen. The sound quality was bad, the cutting of the scenes was even worse and above all it was not logic and it had no speed...

I first tought: "Oh No, I don't want the trail that proves that poor Patrick was an innocent killer". But this turned out to be even worse. Typically in this American film you get a super-hint or no hints at all. I want very tiny small hints that direct you to the killer. The audience isn't involved. And now, when I don't get any hints at all, you can expect a several 's/he-is-the-killer' sweeps in the end. And that is not all. ah... This is hopeless, lets make an end to it...

In one word: Disgusting..


"Love Life" explores a very culturally relevant scenario of a marriage of convenience between a lesbian and a gay man. I found the subject matter compelling, even if the conflict was a bit forced and too easily resolved. For example, Thomas falls for Joe a little too quickly and conveniently for the plot. There are many continuity errors: one other user commented on different cars in the garage, Joe's glasses...the one that got to me the most was the fact Joe's facial hair configuration seemed to change from scene to scene. In the end, I found myself more turned-on by this movie than moved. Stephan D. Gill has a pretty nice body and shows it all quite a few times with pornstar skill and exuberance, and all-too-often acting chops to match. Many times, the movie seems like it is going to go full-on porn. Stephanie Kirchen does a fine job, but her moment of enlightenment at the end was sullied a bit for me, since I was in the mood for a good romp in the shower by the end of this movie.


What to say about this movie? A married couple has more then just each other. After playing around for some time things gets more serious. A difficult choice has to be made: continue the old situation or start all over by following the heart. Guess what happens at the end.

This movie seems to be very low budget. But a good story don't have to be expensive. It looks like a play that has been converted to a movie only by using several cheap locations (at least very little other people visible) more than just the stage, in this one the house. From the first minute future developments are clear as water. Nothing unexpected happens. Sometimes you may think watching a soft porn movie, in which case you know in advance that there's no story.

I find this movie disappointing so that's explains the vote (4).