Mexican Werewolf in Texas is set in the small border town of Furlough where Anna (Erika Fay) lives, her best friend is Rosie (Martine Hughes) & she has a Mexican boyfriend named Miguel (Gabriel Gutierrez) who are determined to track a beast down that has been terrorising the town, killing livestock & several residents including some of their friends. Local Mexican legends speak of the Chupacabra, an evil creature from myth & legend. Erm, I'm struggling now because not that much else actually happens...

Written & directed by Scott Maginnis I won't beat about the bush here & simply say that Mexican Werewolf in Texas is awful, period. The script only ever mentions the word Werewolf once & the rest of the time it's referred to a Chupacabra, in fact I suspect this wasn't really conceived as a Werewolf flick at all. The 'Werewolf' creature looks mostly hairless & more like some vicious dog, there is no reference to anybody changing during the full moon & it actually attacks during the day on a couple of occasions, there is no transformation scene & at the end when it is killed it doesn't change back into anyone either. To be honest apart from the title there's nothing here to indicate a Werewolf film at all & even then the title is just a rip-off of the highly popular An American Werewolf in London (1981). This is the type of home made crap that I personally think is killing the horror genre, how long has it been since there was a true low budget horror classic like Dawn of the Dead (1978), The Evil Dead (1981), Halloween (1978) or Friday the 13th (1980) which were all made on shoe string budgets, maybe The Blair Witch Project (1999) but that's it in recent years & crap like Mexican Werewolf in Texas has absolutely no chance of ever being considered a classic. The character's are awful & things just happen around them, the dialogue is rubbish, the pacing is terrible, the story sucks & virtually sent me to sleep & as a whole this film is just crap, I'm sorry but I don't know how else to describe it.

Director Maginnis does nothing to make this watchable, there's the annoying hand held camera type cinematography which could easily give someone a headache & quick 'blink & you'll miss something' editing which just annoys & irritates in equal measure. It's not scary, there's no nudity, there's no tension or atmosphere & the special effects are awful. The monster really does look poor & it's no wonder Maginnis keeps it in the shadows or cuts his scenes so quickly you never get a good look at it. There's virtually no colour to the picture either, it's either almost pitch black or over saturated desert sand oranges which makes the thing an eye sore as well. The gore consists of some fake guts (blink & you'll miss them!), a few bloody wounds & a severed arm, big deal.

With a supposed budget of about $300,000 I admit the budget was low but I simply refuse to accept that for making such a rubbish film, there are plenty of low budget horror flicks that make their meagre budgets go far. The whole thing has the look of a home movie, it has no style & is throughly bland & dull to look at. The acting sucks too although you probably already knew that.

Mexican Werewolf in Texas will probably con a few people into renting/buying/watching it because they might mistakenly think it's a sequel to John Landis' classic which it most certainly isn't & it isn't even a proper Werewolf flick either. Don't be fooled this is awful & I'm fed up of having to waste time/money on home made amateur crap like this.


I rented The Matrix Revisited with a friend of mine. We both loved The Matrix and we both love filmmaking so we wanted to see what was going on behind the scenes of The Matrix. It turns out that The Matrix Revisited tells you hardly anything about the art of filmmaking or even how The Matrix was made. It is basically a huge commercial for The Matrix, a movie that the target audience of The Matrix Revisited has already seen!

If you really want to know about the process and the troubles and the stress and the detail that went into making of The Matrix, look no further than the bonus features on the original DVD of The Matrix. There are things they show in those documentaries that I had not even realized had to be done or was done. The Matrix was such a difficult and challenging film to make that it deserves more credit than a "documentary" that's about as informative and interesting as an MTV special.


What a terrible movie! It represents perfectly the state of degenerateness of French society, where the most elementary respect for wholesome values and traditions has completely disappeared. The plot is nonsensical, the movie is not funny at all and the characters are completely shallow and uninteresting. To say the least, the direction and the cinematography are very poor and uninspired. Catherine Deneuve is as bad an actress as she always was, even when she was directed by Bunuel in Belle De Jour. The rest of the usually good cast (Vincent Lindon, Line Renaud, Jean Yanne) seem completely lost in an ocean of vulgarity, platitudes and restlessness. I cannot help to draw a parallel with the wonderful James Ivory's "Le Divorce", with its thoughtful depiction of French and American mores, its superlative cinematography and stellar cast put to good use. Having watched "Le Divorce" you can feel a kind of empathy with the French, regardless of their foibles. "Belle-Maman" leaves you with only a nauseated contempt for its morally bankrupt and clueless protagonists.


May be spoilers so do not read if you do not want to Just like watching the TV news , everything is already happened, a great tsunami looms over a city bay and CUT , no more to see, Tokay suffers a large earthquake , did anyone see more than the 5 seconds I saw? If you want to make a love story , make a love story but if you want to use a disaster movie title , do please be kind enough to show me THE DISASTER , pd after watching this movie watch JISHIN RETTO or any GODZILLA film to satisfy the part that was willing to see people screaming and buildings collapsing that did not get a chance to do in this movie. Don t take me wrong I love disaster movies and I love the original Nihon chimbotsu and Jishin retto, I even like the latest Poseidon , not to much of a story there but a very good and graphic disaster sequence , New Nihon chimbotsu looses the point as many times as pearl harbour or the day after tomorrow but at least this two movies do show good disaster sequences, and also enough with the expensive FX that did not show anything , give me fake buildings if you like as long as you do destroy them properly , I know I must sound like a sadistic freak, however I did go to see Love actually when I felt like going to see a romantic film , grrrrrrr even kimpachi sensei makes me cry and this movie didn:t . there is also a TV series called napping chimbotsu made in 1975, I have on DVD and it is much better


This film has some nice special effects, tearing apart the Japanese archipelago to a degree that would humble Godzilla. The two leads also put in above-par performances. Apart from that, it is all a bit ropey in this understated disaster flick. The incongruities in the pacing are bizarre. At one point we have Hokkaido sinking into the sea and pyroclastic snow falling on the rest of Japan, while Osaka is buried under an immense tsunami. Yet elsewhere in the country, people are still strolling around sightseeing and licking ice-cream when another tsunami rolls in... Kusanagi also manages to travel great distances without any hindrance, or even a crease in his cream shirt. Other people turn up with burns, ripped clothes and mud-streaks on their faces.

The Japaneseness of the film is both touching and repugnant. Kusanagi's sacrifice in his final evening with Shibasaki is a touch of chivalry seldom seen in this genre these days. However, the ill-fated PMs musings on the Japanese psyche and the seduction of death, and the fact that Japan is abandoned by everyone and has no friends in the last instance, hint at a darker paranoia that infects Japanese concerns regarding their status in the world.

Sadly, the final sequence is a rip-off of Armaggedon, edited with a cookie-cutter.

Finally, my own particular bug-bear - the heavy handed product placement for cigarettes. This time around, it is mad(-or-is-he?) scientist Toyokawa who gets to be the poster boy for Japan Tobacco. At one point, he manages to light up 5000 meters below the ocean surface, in a miniature sub the size of a phone box. Gimme a break.


This disaster flick is a remake of a 1973 movie of the same title, based on a novel by Sakyo Komatsu. Japan is located right alongside the Pacific Ring of Fire (active volcanoes) and also along the edges of plate tectonics, whose shifting will cause earthquakes and tsunamis (a Japanese term in itself for tidal wave). Naturally, this makes a natural premise for a disaster picture, what with Hollywood having a field day with films like Armageddon, Deep Impact, and more recently, The Day After Tomorrow, which tackles how global warming becomes the catalyst for natural disasters gone bonkers around the world.

But I'll have to say this: The Sinking of Japan makes all the films mentioned earlier, look like classics. This disaster movie IS a disaster, and a massive one at that. Having to look at my watch every 10-15 minutes is a signal that the movie doesn't engage, and feels than it had over-clocked its runtime.

The special effects are gorgeous to look at. From satellite styled outer space pictures, to the vivid recreation of every conceivable natural disaster that can strike the land of the rising sun, the effects are the star of the show. However, having spectacular computer generated graphics does not in itself make a movie palatable, as too much of a good thing just plain bores.

If you had seen the trailer where you're enticed by the effects and specific scenes of chaos and mayhem, then yes, in fact those scenes are just that. There are no details, and everything is seen from afar, in a God-like mode. Things happen just like that on screen, with nary an attempt to try and delve deeper to look at issues up close. It's akin to Godzilla knocking over buildings, and it's as if there are no humans or loss of lives through that single act. Morbid as it might sound, show us the victims! A populous nation like Japan doesn't just suffer disaster after disaster with an extremely low fatality count, not when the filmmakers unleash mayhem in such an epic scale.

Trying to weave a romance into the movie, it stood out like a sore thumb. There are many characters in the movie, but each one of them lacking real characteristics, or humanity, and look like wandering zombies, without expression, without emotion, and definitely very stiff and unconvincing. Heroes become stuck in generic control rooms issuing statements, instructions and form policies, and react to incidents like it was a computer game, all settled with a push of a button. These are characters that you don't give a hoot about.

If I may just use The Day After Tomorrow as a comparison, while there are terrific effects, there is at least an attempt to provide a microscopic view of the entire disaster from different individual's point of views. And infused within are plenty of action sequences, big ones like the disasters themselves, and small ones with the focus on the triumph of the human spirit, that makes it relatively compelling.

Unfortunately for The Sinking of Japan, this movie should preferably be one to sink and tank, and hopefully undergo a short and quick death at the local box office to make way for better stuff.


Due to rather dubious plate tectonics, Japan starts to slip under the sea. Initial predictions say it'll take about 40 years before the country is submerged, but a rogue scientist adds in some even more dubious science and determines it will actually take less than 1 year! The government think he's a crackpot, but evidence soon starts bearing his theory out.

This big budget disaster movie follows the formula set by any number of Hollywood films of the late 90's (I assume, having seen none of them), with the scale of disaster and tragedy bringing out the nobility of the human (well, Japanese) spirit in acts of heroism and sacrifice, and proving the power of love or something like that. i.e. it's as naive in its psychology as it's geology... we all know that half the populace would be out raping and looting the minute they thought the police had their back turned, and the other half would just panic and be useless.

The film does have some very nice special effects, but is not as slick or expensive looking as an equivalent Hollywood production would be. It is at least as nationalistic, humourless and lacking in self-awareness as that Hollywood film would be though, and probably has even worse acting. It does have the hot evil chick from Battle Royale as one of the leads... but she's not even slightly evil, and is therefore much less hot.

The film is much too long at 132 minutes, and gets worse and worse as it progresses towards a conclusion that had me in danger of puking. I certainly didn't care in the slightest whether Japan sank or not by the half way point, and well before the end I was trying to think of ways to expedite the process should I ever find myself in that situation for real.

But, it does have nice special effects, and Kou Shibasaki is still pretty hot, so I magnanimously give it... 3/10.


I have just finished watching this movie, and for me.... it takes ages to finish because it is so boring.....and the storyline is extremely bad.

now... where should i start....O.... the movie is called "sinking of japan" ....yeah yeah... it does show that japan is actually sinking but the action part is very bad. Compare to the movie "the day after tomorrow" i would have rate it at least 8/10.

The "sinking of Japan" does not show much about the disaster that actually happening right in front of our eyes. there isn't much excitement at all...boring... all i can say...

one more point... i would recommend this movie to have a better title... maybe something like "the romance of sinking of japan" because this movie does have lots of talkings (waste of time... talk nonsense) & the love story is extremely boring & have been dragging too long...honestly.. i almost get frustrated.

Overall... this movie does not show enough details of the disasters e.g. many people running like hell to avoid death..love story part was extremely not touching enough for me.

but hey... there is one thing we should appreciate about this movie though.... & its has got good songs!


First off, this is the worst movie I've ever seen. That may make you want to see it, but it is not bad in a good way. It's boring, implausible, poorly shot, ridiculously scripted, and lacking in cool disaster effects.

Worse, it is intensely patriotic without a trace of irony or fun, wallowing in a sense of Japanese uniqueness and victimhood. Everyone abandons the Japanese in their hour of need. Particularly the Koreans. The most noble characters choose seppaku -- going down with their ship as their beloved island sinks. "Only Japanese would think this way," says the prime minister.

If this movie in any way reflects the Japanese opinion of their place in world opinion, the first thing they should do to rectify the problem is stop making movies like this.


This movie was different from most of Jimmy Cangey's films of the 1930s in that it was NOT done by Warner Brothers/First National, but was a loan-out to a smaller studio. Because it was a "poverty row" studio, the production values are lower than you might be used to seeing with Cagney films. Plus, the plot is certainly one of the strangest I have seen. Instead of him being a gangster, he was a good guy in this one--fighting for the law. This isn't all that unusual because Cagney frequently played lawmen--such as an OSS leader (the forefather of the CIA) of FBI agent. BUT, to make him an investigator for the Bureau of Weights and Measures was indeed odd--especially since, at times, he acted pretty much the same way he did in the movie G-MEN!

All in all, a time passer and that's about it.

Finally, the videotape I saw this on from Memory Lane Video was perhaps one of the poorest I have ever encountered. The sound was terrible and scratchy and the print looked very white and had lots of torn film and gaps.


On a flight back from London, I watched She's the Man; apparently Air Canada has a crap movie policy. Perhaps that's not the best way to start a review of this movie. Amanda Bynes plays a girl who loves soccer so much that she pretends to be her twin brother to get on a team at a boarding school across town. Even if you check your mind at the door (on a 6 hour flight you have to), the story is implausible and ridiculous. There are some moments of humor, mostly from comedian David Cross as the principle, but the intricate love polygon doesn't really inspire emotion, although is is cleverly mixed (with the caveat of mindless plausibility). The ending is just as ridiculously mindless as the rest. I guess if I was a 12-year-old girl, I might have really enjoyed this one.


Anyone who will pay to see Troma movies knows, and appreciates, what they are going to get. Having said that, I didn't think it was possible to make a movie this bad, and still be compelling. I found myself watching just to see how much worse it could get before the end. First off, it's an Indonesian action movie with an American main character who looks and acts like the bastard son of "Taxi"'s Christopher Lloyd and Rambo. He puts posters of himself dressed up like Sly's "Cobra" all over the place and even has a custom built firing range (with action-posed cutouts of his greatest enemies)in Jakarta although he's in the CIA and has just arrived days earlier. There is a lot of action involving gun-play(no muzzle-flashes on those M-16s, only sound effects), motorcycles(that bust through walls), karate(where no one makes physical contact) and even some sex(where all the actors are ugly). The main plot of an epic like this should at least be reasonably plausible, but not here. It involves the world's most dangerous drug cartel going all out to find a "drug detector device". Why would they need it? That is never revealed, why not kill drug-sniffing dogs? Makes no sense, but, it is taken seriously. The actors are to be commended because they really seemed to think this movie would make them all famous and tried hard to "act". Best line? "Now dance to your grave you dirty whore!" Best scene? Rambo jumps onto flying helicopter, pulls machine gun out of baddie's hand, let's go, falls, shoots helicopter as he's falling, helicopter blows up, cut to mannequin thrown in water. F**king genius! If you can't appreciate trash, don't watch it. If you can, it's awesome. One last thing, did I mention it was directed by the three Punjabi brothers?


Abysmal Indonesian action film from legendary Arizal triumphantly sculpts a template for future Cinemax pap like 'China O'Brien' and 'Do or Die' with Erik Estrada while simultaneously burying poor rising action star Pat O'Brien with a hackneyed backyard script and three cans of hair-styling gel to perm his impressive 1984 mullet. This guy's physical prowess resembles a more femme Mark Gregory and his next credit would be second fiddle to Chris Mitchum as "Tom Selick." Powerful. At least the action is mindless and non-stop with some daring Asian stuntmen risking their lives for what is essentially a poorly constructed movie by teens and/or meth addicts with no concept of reality. One poor extra gets gorno-ly shredded by an electric hedge clipper and many more are killed by getting hit in the head by odd objects such as a motorcycle wheel or cardboard box. Classic rape scenes are tasteless and priceless and quotable dialog such as, "I would rather trust a rattlesnake!" are delivered with such exuberance and fervor from the third-rate polizioteschi voice actors. Random highlight: some crazy dude eating live lizards. Movie also holds the record for most cars driven through walls. 2/10


Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon starts in Switzerland as the world's foremost detective Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) outwits the Nazi's & manages to smuggle a brilliant scientist named Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.) out of the country & to the relative safety of London. But is London as safe as Holmes thinks? Dr. Tobel has engineered a revolutionary new bomb sight that will change aerial bombardment forever & he has agreed to give it to the British government, but those Nazi's want it just as badly & Holmes arch enemy Professor Moriarty (Lionel Atwill) plans on stealing the secret of the bomb sight & selling it to the Nazi's. Add the bumbling Inspector Lestrade (Denis Hoey) of Scotland Yard, Dr. Tobel's love interest Charlotte Eberli (Kaaren Verne), assassins, mysterious scientists & a puzzling coded message & Holmes has his work cut out to keep Dr. Tobel alive so he can deliver his bomb sight...

Directed by Roy William Neill Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon was the fourth in a series of fourteen Holmes films made between 1939 & 1946 to feature Rathbone & Bruce as Holmes & Watson. The script by Edward T. Lowe Jr., Scott Darling & Edmund L. Hartmann is based on the short 'The Dancing Men' by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle & isn't the tradition Holmes murder mystery as it's more of a wartime adventure story. To neglect what Holmes is all about, the solving of complex crimes & mysteries is a big mistake as far as I'm concerned & the involvement of the Nazi's & the war as a backdrop to the story feels out of place, awkward & just didn't sit too well with me. The dialogue isn't great, Professor Moriarty feels almost like an afterthought as if they couldn't come up with a villain for it & as a whole it's far less engaging than other's in the series. However, at least it's short.

Director Neill does his usual efficient job but you have to cut it a little slack & bear in mind that it was made over 60 years ago. It has no real style or imagination & lacks both atmosphere & intrigue as well.

Technically the film is OK if unspectacular, the black and white cinematography is fine although I understand that a computer colourised version is also available. The acting is alright, Bruce & Hoey do their usual comic relief turns & Rathbone's hairstyle in this looks ridiculous & I'm glad he changed it for later instalments.

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon was a disappointment when compared to some of the other excellent entries in the series, there is very little by which I can recommend it & everything that made the other's so good seems to be missing here. Leave this one till last & watch some of the better ones first, for die hard fans only.


I think the problem with some reactions to this film is that - with few exceptions - they don't focus on the main disconnect, hence the main split in the audience.

On the one side, there are those who are taken by the visual design, pretty costumes, and variety of elements going into the film. Some children's movie fans love the colour and animation, and all the un-scary 'magical' effects, shapeshifting animals, and so on. Some culture vultures like the complicated references, the layerings of different folklore elements, and the fact that they can watch Zhang Ziyi singing and quasi-miming, in two different languages, in what really was intended to be a children's comedy.

On the other side, there are those who say that a children's movie should still have a point, that a blend of folktales is not a tale at all, and that it's easier to believe in magic when enough thought and care has gone into the technical aspects to make it seem real.

In other words, the ideas could be lovely; but when you put them onstage they have to deliver. Here, they don't.

A good folktale - from any country - has a clear story, a point, and characters who interact strongly with each other. This lacks them all. A few over-sophisticated gestures to opera, Western and Japanese, are no replacement for a solid theme.

As a fantasy fan, I must say that I've sat through some turkeys and loved a few, but this one really tries to do too many things - cheaply. Putting in Zhang Ziyi to try to add a little glitter smacks of exotic flower syndrome. The other problem isn't that there's no plot; there's half a plot, which means that you keep getting pulled in, then dropped again as another none-too-sharply-executed dance number kicks off.

The characters all seem to know that they're starring in a movie. Unless you really like watching other peoples' amateur video, this ain't good. I'd like to test this on real children; I think they'd drop it for Uproar in Heaven after about 20 minutes.


This movie starts off promisingly enough, but it gets a little to convoluted and caught up in its stylistic charm. The set designs, costumes, and music were wonderful- as close to perfect as one can get. But the more I got into the movie, the more I felt like all this effort was for the director's entertainment, not the audience. Although, I loved looking at it, except for a few brief musical scenes, I can't say I enjoyed it. The director shows enormous imagination, but if he had fun with this film, he failed to share that with the audience, or at least with me. I didn't get a sense of whimsy and I didn't get sucked into this universe.

A big cause of this was (surprisingly) Zhang Ziyi. You can tell she's trying very hard, but she seems to have been so miscast that she comes off almost amateurish. She's a capable actress but she has her limitations. I've noticed in her acting, that she has yet to truly react to her fellow co-stars, a flaw that creates a void of chemistry. The language barrier in this film seems to have only exacerbate matters. She and Odagiri act as if they're on separate planets. She's also not a very good singer which made me cringe every time she sang, but thankfully there weren't too many scenes of that. Odagiri was OK but doesn't make much of an impression.

I didn't even care for the characters separately. There really is a sore lack of characterization. The only reason to care about them seems to be that they're good-looking royalty. Without the compelling love story at the center of the film though, it's hard to care what happens. The film also takes detours into minor scenes that added nothing to the story and was actually distracting. I had to rewind because after going into a subplot I couldn't remember what the heck they we're doing in the main storyline. There were also scenes where it was hard to tell what the action occurring was because it was so stylized.

Mostly I'm just disappointed because I really like the concept behind this and there are a lot of things I do like. The music and dance choreography are really great.The supporting performances are uniformly excellent, fantastic in both the acting aspect and the singing. It's just too bad the lead actors were so bland.


Weird with unnecessary singing and backdrops. Randomly much of the action will occur on stage giving the feeling of an opera performance. None of that explains why this is such a bad film.

It's the impression that either not enough rehearsal took place or that no experienced choreographer was available. The acting is flat. Even the sparkling Ziyi Zhang looks like she's just waiting for her next movement or line. You may notice the trivia on this site stating that she spent half a month in Japan learning to sign and dance. Read that again as 2 weeks and things begin to make sense. Even worse are the little kids who seem to be looking at their parents at the back of the studio rather than at the camera.

The cheap and cheerful sfx are just cheap and cheap. The editing is staccato chops peppered with slices of just nothing that adds to anything except annoyance. Just imagine all the silly dance scenes from the recent Zatoichi - particularly the closing routine - performed by your local high school drama club with one famous actress who speaks in another language (but you get her in simply because she's so good normally despite being unsuitable), recorded on a cheap camera and then edited into three times its length in no artful order.


I just saw Princess Raccoon at the Asian Film Festival in New York. The gentleman who introduced the film congratulated the audience on their fine taste. "You could be at Herbie: Fully Loaded," he said with a smug smile, "but instead you're here to watch Seijun Suzuki's Princess Raccoon." The audience applauded and cheered. Well let me tell you, I would have rather watched Herbie: Fully Loaded twice in a row. Princess Raccoon, an allegedly whimsical musical based on Japanese folklore, easily qualifies for one of the ten worst films that I have ever seen. It is so wretched that its wretchedness actually makes me dislike other Seijun Suzuki films, which is quite a feat.

There is such a vast expanse of things wrong with Princess Raccoon that I hardly know where to start. Perhaps its worst faults are being both aggressively unintelligible and mind bogglingly monotonous. If the reels got mixed up or if half of them got lost in shipping the audience would not know the difference. If you don't believe me I dare you to steal a print and have someone run the reels in random order. If you can tell me which one goes where I will give you every penny I have.

The first third of the film features a mishmash of scenes, songs (including a cringe inducing rap number), and images that don't seem to be related in any way at all. Horribly integrated computer animation is thrown into the bargain, adding yet another brick to the immense, and rapidly growing, wall of incomprehensibility. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the writer wrote down any Japanese folklore that came to mind of on a bunch of note cards, stacked them up, shuffled them, dealt the cards out on a table, and then wrote the script according to their order.

About thirty-five minutes into the film some semblance of a plot arrives on the scene. Something about a shape-shifting raccoon princess (in human form) and a regular human falling in love. I hoped that this was be a portent of the film being something other than a series of perplexing scenes, but no such luck. The film continues in the same absolutely baffling manner. I wish I had gotten out then, but I was trapped in the middle of a narrow row. In retrospect it would have been worth the awkward scene.

I'm exhausted just thinking about the last couple of reels. I spent every moment hoping and praying that it would be over. Every big dolly move, swell in music, or scene that looked remotely like it was concluding things renewed my hopes that the credits were about to roll. For agonizing minute after agonizing minute it went on. And on and on and on. Finally, after dozens of false alarms, it cut to what I was sure must be an abstract pattern over which credits were about to appear. Then, in defiance of all reason, it cut to another scene. How could I forget? The completely unrelated subplot concerning a ninja being captured, urinated on, and boiled in a soup hadn't been wrapped up yet.

I'm never going to get those 111 minutes back, but you can spare yourself the pain. Unless you want to taint your memory or future enjoyment of great Seijun Suzuki films like Youth of the Beast and Tokyo Drifter do not see Princess Raccoon. I would have rather spent my time vomiting.


I was so disappointed in this movie. I am very familiar with the case, having read not only Mark Fuhrman's book but also the far superior "A Wealth of Evil: The True Story of the Murder of Martha Moxley in America's Richest Community" by Timothy Dumas. Anyone who watches MURDER IN GREENWICH should be aware they're watching The Mark Fuhrman story, not the Martha Moxley story. This film is nothing more than an ego-trip for Fuhrman. Just watch his character strut around as if he is the second coming (yes, even being ogled by women). The actors playing the kids look way too old for their roles and the flashbacks to the 1970s are totally unconvincing. If there is any hero to this story, it's Martha's family, her mother Dorothy and brother John. They kept this case alive for two decades before Fuhrman walked into it in order to make a name for himself. They, and Martha, deserve to have the true story told.


this movie is trash because, out of many reasons, it is based on Mark Furman's book, which is also trash. let me must say that Mark Furhman is a racist pig that is just looking for another way to get himself into the spotlight - and others that right this type of trash belong in jail. for the movie itself, being based on the book, was horrible as well. the only reason that this murder case became such a big book and movie was because the guy is related, thru his aunts marriage, to the Kennedy family and it is ridiculous that people still believe that this family somehow has the ability to make and cover up murders - they are just a family and middle America needs to get over the obsession. this poor guy, and his family, have been hounded by the police for years, they couldn't get tommy so they went after Micheal. its amazing that he went to jail with all the evidence that supports that he Didn't do it, besides the facts that the statute of limitations, among other things, should have kept this trial from being brought back after TWENTY years for the love of god, don't watch this garbage


I can't believe it! Were they crazy in filming a movie about Connecticut in southern California? For god's sake, there's Palm Tree's everywhere. In one of the opening scenes a guy says "Welcome to Connecticut" and throws down a newspaper, the newspaper says something like "Greenwich Herald". Greenwich Connecticut doesn't have a "Herald" it has a "Times" as in "Stamford Advocate AND THE GREENWICH TIMES." (Refering to the Stamford, Connecticut Newspaper). Maybe the film makers should have done a little research, I mean my god, at least get the name of the newspaper right, or film in locations that look at least remotely like Connecticut.


Man, are you serious? Did you read the book or watch this movie? Well, if you did, let me warn you, it is bogus. Mark Furhman has been seeking a job since losing his job with the LAPD. You remember him, don't you? He was the guy that lied on the stand and gave the OJ Simpson defense a foothold they were looking for. Well, he has written three books since then. I have read all three of them. No, I am not a fan, they were given to me. HOWEVER, I will tell you one similarity in all three, they grossly distort the importance of Mark Furhman. He shamelessly exaggerates his stature in all three. In "Murder in Spokane", he pretends that he had something to do with catching the killer, when he had nothing to do with it. In all books he takes great delight in running down local law enforcement efforts. Kind of like his efforts were run down in the OJ trial. In this movie, there are plenty of slow motion shots of ladies looking at Furhman and lusting after him. Many other shots have him at the center of attention, when in reality, I am sure the only thing people were thinking at the time was "hey, isn't that the racist that caused OJ to get off?" This was an interesting real life story, but not a good movie over it.


While everyone does a decent job in this film, I agree with the other comment: it's too loose and scattered, too much like a script-less experiment with really talented actors. As such, it isn't enough to hold your attention. Having said that, there are a few really funny moments, one involving Dylan McDermott and a flaming shot glass that I think anyone who's been that drunk would find as funny as I did; the other is a split-second with an inflatable dinosaur. Crispin Glover does his usual nutty twitch-fest guy and does it fine, Harry Dean Stanton does his usual nutty patriarch (Repo Man, anyone?) etc. Good cast, not enough to keep it going. Just a few gems, seconds long.


A root canal without anesthesia is more amusing. This movie is disturbing and pointless. There is absolutely nothing believable about any of these characters or the plot line. What in God's name were these people thinking when they agreed to star in this movie? The acting in this movie is so incredibly bad - even from actors who are usually pretty damn good. "The In-Laws" is a funny movie. "The Birdcage" is a hilarious movie. "The Big Lebowski" is a humorous movie. This movie is just dumb. I cannot even begin to fathom the kind of sick mind it takes to write the "novel" that this movie is based on. I honestly cannot think of even one nice thing to say about this movie. It just doesn't make any sense. People please - I beg of you - do not see this movie. You will regret it for the rest of your life. This movie is not the worst ever made, but it is definitely right up there on the top of the list.


I used to work at the company that originally put out this film, Vestron Pictures. Vestron had the same problem that a lot of small independent film companies had, they didn't have a lot of money to put into the production values of their films. Not that money alone will buy you a good film. Look at Kevin Costner's Waterworld, for instance.

Sometimes, if you have a talented person in-house doing the acquisitions or development, you can create your own new talent. But at Vestron, there wasn't such a person and they always skimped in some crucial area. In this case, it was on the director and the writer. Which makes it pretty hard to have a decent movie, even with the great ensemble cast this film has.

I think the basic premise of this movie was "Let's put a bunch of quirky characters in a room and see if anything interesting happens." It's an intriguing idea, but not worth your time watching.

Most Vestron films ended up having a very distinctive look and feel to them. My wife and I developed the ability to spot this quality even in non-Vestron films. Many times, we were even able to spot that quality from watching only the trailer or TV ad. We'd sit there, watching the trailer or ad, and afterwards, we'd turn to each, and almost in sync, we'd say, "Now that's a Vestron movie!" This is a Vestron movie.


I had read online reviews praising this obscure outing as a combination of gory horror, quirky black comedy and borderline art-house; the film has elements of all three, to be sure, but they are at the service of such a supremely silly premise (the title immediately gives the game away)  and amateurish production to boot  that its long-term neglect due to a lack of proper distribution  basically until Cult Epics picked it up for DVD release a full 30 years after its inception!  was no great loss to cinema or even the genre(s). The bed was apparently created for the purpose of accommodating a demon's dalliance with a woman; anyway, a dying man who had made use of the four-poster and even painted it ends up trapped in the wall behind the canvas(!) and provides intermittent commentary to the 'action'. Several people (from teenagers-on-a-fling to gangsters-in-hiding) supply fodder to the perennially-hungry bed; latest on the menu are a trio of girls  one of whom, however, recalls its mistress of long ago and, consequently, the bed seemingly fears her! Seeing various objects  from cigars to pieces of fried chicken  and people getting swallowed up (the belly of the bed is depicted as a vat of honey-colored liquid) makes the film mildly amusing at times (especially when a young man's hands are reduced to their skeletal formation, which he seems to take rather too easily in his stride!), but also awfully repetitiousso that, at even a brief 77 minutes, the whole pointless exercise feels strained and downright desperate.


When I attended college in the early 70s, it was a simpler time. Except for a brief occurrence in 1994, I've been totally free of the influence of illegal substances ever since and I've never regretted it...until now. DB:TBTE has got to be, hands-down, the best movie to watch when stoned. The odd, dreamlike state it creates is very strange when you're not smoking anything, but I'm sure that it would seem completely normal after a big doobie. (Not that I'm recommending this, you understand.) The soothing narration, provided, as it usually is in quality cinema, by a TB victim trapped in a painting, would be ideal to help the stoned viewer to follow along as things get complicated. Plus, everything in the film is pretty organic...from old-fashioned natural breasts to the bucket of fried chicken.

Now, there's also no question that the young man with the (ahem) "hand problem" is absolutely sailing away in the film. At one point, you just KNOW that he's going to say, "Hey! When I move my hand, it leaves trails!!" Trust me...you'll know when you get to that point.

The only other thing we have to address is this: How good can a film be when at least half the budget was spent on moving a huge bed frame around for interior and exterior shots?

Definitely a must-see for horror aficionados, but suitable for the general audiences under the right conditions (if you know what I mean, and I think that you do). It only earns four stars because I can't actually say that it took any talent to make.


This movie was really stupid and I thought that it wasn't so bad and I could tolerate a movie about a bed eating people. Then the part near the end where the guy has skeleton hands ended up being the cherry on top of a bad movie. I could see the screws in the plastic skeleton hands for goodness sakes. The brother was still alive and moving when his hands were bare bones. The funny thing was that he could still move his hands that was just not right. Without muscles, you really can't move your hands but he did. The brother should have bled to death even before he was moving his hands. The movie wasn't great but it was okay until the hand scene. I was laughing so hard that I don't really remember how it ended. It had something to do with foam or something.


It's difficult to criticize a movie with the title like 'Deathbed: The Bed that Eats' and involves a ghost narrator who's trapped behind a 2-way painting he drew and a bed that snores and  if I'm not mistaken, masturbates. (Now, that's getting back at its human companions!) Furthermore, it foams up (in orange, for whatever reason) to absorb edibles lying on its surface, including apples, wine, fried chicken and, of course, people. Again it's suffice to say, that don't expect too much when you see what I guess is stomach acid  the final remains of anything that orange suds takes  dissolving only certain things. It'll drink the wine, but the bottle's okay and it'll eat away at the chicken bone, but the bucket's just fine. Heck, the bed even replaces the unused containers. Hilariously, at one point it downs Pepto-Bismol. I had to laugh at that one. I don't think they really wanted you to take any of this seriously. It's low budget, and it's extremely easy to see where they cut costs and saved oodles amounts of money. I thought, in a world where there can be a killer 'Lift' and a 'Blood Beach,' this 'Deathbed' might be amusing to watch. For reasons that might involve cost, 90% of the film is voice-over, no one screams or shows extremely low signs of fright/confusion on why a bed would attack (I can think of one  and I never was one of those kids that jumped on the bed) and you'll have to suspend your disbelief beyond belief. (A victim loses all flesh on his hands, barely saying "ow.") Only one scene, that went on too long, was minutely tense  a woman attempts to crawl away only to be dragged back, using a sheet. Where are the MST3k guys?


I first heard of this film when Patton Oswalt talked about it on his "Werewolves and Lollipops" CD. He said it was a lost classic that is completely ridiculous. Being a lover of terrible cinema, I knew I was in for a treat.

This film is, hands down, one of the weirdest I've ever seen. Certainly one of the weirdest shlock films. Basically, a demon took human form years ago for a woman, the woman died or something, the demon cried blood, the blood fell on the bed, the bed is now possessed and it now eats. Along with fruit, flowers and chicken, it also has a taste for people. The people can range between horny teens, mayors, gangsters, servants or professional orgy throwers. There's also a sick guy who the bed ate but put his soul behind a picture in the room.

Most movies let you figure out the plot through exciting action. Death Bed takes another path: it basically tells you through narration exactly what's happening while slow, dull murder scenes take place. Also, I must say everyone who's eaten by the bed are surprisingly quiet. I would think if a bed is eating you through the ways of a 5th grade science fair experiment, it would sting a little. I guess nerve endings weren't invented until 1981 or so.

The story is wacky, the direction is slow and pretty awful, the sets are sparse, the acting it fairly painful and the brother is one of the unintentionally ugliest actors I've ever seen. Probably would make a great party film if alcohol and smart-asses are involved. Certainly one you shouldn't miss.


OK, this is one strange film! Fans of Ed Wood Jr. will appreciate the "inventive" techniques director George Barry utilizes, like stock footage and cheesy voice overs. He can make a crack in the wall into a plot device! There is more humor than horror here, but I found it an uneven blend. You will be laughing and crying, and probably wondering why you got your hands on this. Barry explains in the introduction that filming began on this movie in 1972, and was completed in 1977, at a cost of $10,000. That's 59 months and $9,900 too much! If you like your cheese on the campy side, with vintage '70s "gore", you might find this an irresistible and freaky snack.


I, like most other people, saw this movie after hearing of it from Patton Oswalt. Oddly enough, it was easier to find than I thought it would be. Though, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I found it used.

The plot is summed upped masterfully within the title. It's a bed that eats. Nothing more, nothing less. There is an effort to throw in a story line but not a very good one.

A demon's blood ended up on a bed and, as a result, it becomes possessed. It devours anything that happens upon it by absorbing and then dissolving it in what appears to be orange Fanta. There is an artist who fell victim to the bed, but was sick and ends up behind a painting in the room it inhabits. The narrative is told entirely through him.

This movie fails horribly at everything, even at being bad. Still, it's not without its own brand of charm.


Luchino Visconti, the artist with the sword. Courage should be the first word associated with his entire opus. Film. Theater. Music. Revolutions, artistic, cultural, personal. A legacy with powerful consequences and endless ramifications. He introduced the neorealism through the work of an American novelist James Cain in "Ossesione" He gave Anna Magnani the most extraordinarily beautiful close ups of her career. He gave us Alain Delon and Maria Callas. But the last word about his life and work rests on the talents of a certain Adam Low and the voice of Helmut Berger. What a terrible fate.

For those interested, there is a 61 minute documentary by director Carlo Lizzani (a man who really knew Visconti) titled LUCHINO VISCONTI A PORTRAIT. It is out on DVD distributed by Image Entertainment


Luchino Visconti was and is one of the most influential cultural figures of his generation, but Adam Low (the director of this thing) allows the stronger voice to be Helmut Berger's! How can it be? What a missed opportunity! We come out of this ordeal knowing less of what made the Master great and more about the things one shouldn't care at all. The beautiful images belong to Visconti's world, the embarrassing interviews to the likes of Berger and Zeffirelli to Adam Low's tiny little world. A must to avoid!


How dare you? Adam Low, without apparent shame, puts his name to this fake tribute. It's not even a serious study or analysis or commentary of the great Visconti's work. Yes it's long and portentous, yes we do have some wonderful clips from the films that, most people interested on the subject, have already seen. But what resounds the longest leaving the most lasting impression is the gossip. The last and loudest voice comes from a third rate German actor, ranting and raving. The appropriately named Mr.Low directed this, hoping, I imagine, to get better ratings than his previous, more to the point, but deadly boring documentary on Kurosawa. Well I have news for you Mr Low and your cohorts. You missed a great opportunity and I for one, won't give you another.


Having seen Carlo Lizzani's documentary on Luchino Visconti, I was bound to higher expectations before watching this film made three years later by Adam Low. But the viewer like me did get dissatisfied... I faced a need for critical opinion, which I generally don't like giving due to the fact there are no documentaries that will satisfy every viewer. There are also no documentaries that will examine a theme totally. But when I read the reviews already written on this title, I also felt a bit confused. People sometimes don't know what to criticize. Therefore, to be clear, I'll divide this film into two major parts that differ considerably: the former one about Visconti before his director's career and latter one about Visconti the director.

The aristocratic background, all the hobbies, the wealth that young Luchino experienced and enjoyed are clearly presented. His effort in horse racing is mentioned as well as his relation with his mother so much disturbed after his parents' divorce. We also get a very accurate idea of where Luchino was brought up as a real count of Milano: in riches galore, with nannies, cooks with access to everything, in TRUE ARISTOCRACY. For instance, his father's splendid villa at Grazzano and other marvelous villas prove that. There is also an emphasis on Visconti's crucial visit in Paris in the 1930s where he met eminent people ("left wingers") who later had impact on his style and message in art. That clearly explains the idea of a communist with the aristocratic upbringing (a contrast at first sight).

However, the part about his director's career, which started with OSSESSIONE during WWII and ended with INNOCENTE just before the director's death in 1976, is poorly executed. His movies are not discussed well. Why? Because there are very few people who really have something to say. Franco Zeffirelli, the director, remembers the works on LA TERRA TREMA and that is all right. There are also some interviews with Franco Rosi. But later, such movies like IL GATTOPARDO, LA CADUTA DEI REI, LA MORTE A VENEZIA or LUDWIG are mostly discussed by Helmut Berger. Although I liked the actor in the role of Ludwig, I did not like the interviews of his. Moreover, some thoughts he reveals are not accurate to entail in such a documentary... There is no mention of significant works of Visconti like CONVERSATION PIECE, there are no interviews with eminent cast Burt Lancaster. A mention about Silvana Mangano and Romy Schneider should also be made. There is one footage interview with Maria Callas that appears to be interesting but that is only a short bit. Franco Zeffirelli, though I appreciate him as a director, makes fun of it all rather than says something really precious. For instance, he mentions the event how Visconti separated from him after years of service. Therefore, I say: simplified and unsatisfactory.

What I find a strong point here are footage interviews with Visconti himself. As a result, we may get his own opinion about his works. For instance, I very much appreciate the words he says about death regarding it as a normal chapter of life and as natural as birth itself. He also discusses his health problems after the stroke while filming LUDWIG.

I believe it is better to see LUCHINO VISCONTI (1999) by Carlo Lizzani than this doc. Although it is shorter and condensed as a whole, you will get a better idea of the director. Visconti would be furious about that and the fury of his usually turned people's emotions and viewpoints into stone... 4/10


Based on a Ray Bradbury story; a professional photographer(Brian Kerwin)returns to his modest home near a tiny desert town, where most of the citizens wishes he stayed away. A lonely boy(Jonathan Carrasco) latches onto him for the attention; and the two witness the landing of an alien craft in the rocky region of the desert. The aliens turn themselves into the images of townspeople. Kerwin must convince evacuation of the town and falls in love with the young boy's mother(Elizabeth Pena). Acting is pretty shallow; the story line is no worse than some others; this movie leaves you feeling that you got shorted on a decent ending. Supporting cast includes: Howard Morris, Dean Norris and Mickey Jones.


This is a pretty pointless remake. Starting with the opening title shots of the original was a real mistake as it reminds the viewer of what a great little period piece chiller that was. The new version that follows is an exercise in redundancy.

Brian Kerwin plays a 'city boy' photographer who returns to a semi-abandoned desert town populated by a scattering of underdeveloped clichéd stock characters: the lollipop sucking Daby-Doll Lolita, the 'ornery old coot prospector, the crippled vet and his Asian wife, etc...

Kerwin's character witnesses the crashing of 'something' into a hillside and shortly after strange things start to happen as pieces of weird blue rock are scattered around. The temperature starts to rise, all the water in the area vanishes, people start to act weirdly, things explode. Kerwin's character gets in and out of his car more often than is humanly possible in one movie. The film develops no sense of place, no character development, no humour, no tension. Everything that made the Jack Arnold's original a creepy little Cold-war paranoia classic has been abandoned. It just runs through its minimal hoops and then just ends.

The special effects aren't very special - the interior of the ship looks like bits of cling film wrapped round some ropes which were then dangled in front of the camera to frame some of the most uninspired and clumsy wire-work ever put onto the screen. The script is repetitive - everyone says everything at least twice, Kerwin gets to say "let's get out of here" at least three times during the movie, twice in one scene. Loads of things are left unexplained at the end - why do the aliens need all the heat and water for example? - not that anyone watching would care; if the film makers didn't care why should we?

The acting is adequate - better than the script, which at times, has an under-rehearsed improvisational quality, deserves. Though often the actors look like they just want to get the thing over with as quickly as possible - a notable example of this is when Elizabeth Peña registers the briefest, token moment of "frustrated despair hands to face gesture" before following sulking son Stevie outside to watch him do "angry sulky teenager smashing something off a table" gesture.

Continuity errors include the (GB) sticker on the back of Kerwin's jeep appearing and disappearing, a double action of the gas in the exploding car, a towns-person being in two places simultaneously - once in the Alien Stevie's POV shot then immediately afterwards in a reaction shot, Elizabeth Peña appearing to shut a car door twice... you can tell I was gripped can't you? The movie commits that greatest of errors. It's boring.


Alien body-snatchers in the desert. Little blue rocks that look like they are made from cheap plastic. The overall storyline isn't bad if you like that kind of thing but the acting is so far beyond poor that it amazes me that some of them actually entertained my in The X Files! And the special effects? Hello?! Where did they get their FX crew from, Secondary School? I mean, come on; there was so much more they could have done! It was amateur and extremely basic. I didn't particularly enjoy it (and my Dad fell asleep during it!) And of course our hero falls in love with the leading lady! Its so typical and highly predictable. Bleugh!!!!!


They've shown i twice in a very short time now here in Sweden and I am so very tired of it. The bad acting isn't enough... The story itself is so boring and the effects hardly exists. I love the original from 1953 so I recommend you to go and rent that one instead. Because this one is such a bore.


I cannot believe I sat through this utter waste of time. I was just too fascinated by how unspeakably bad it was that I couldn't move. It reminded me of the feeling when you can't take your eyes away from a horrible car crash or the rotting carcass of a cow. You can't help but look, but you feel sick and nauseated afterward.

Let me elaborate: "Plan 9 from outer space", for instance, is not a bad movie. Not even "Star Wars: Holiday Special" is a bad movie. They both are awful to watch, for sure, but they both have SOME qualities and at least they leave you the strength to reach for the "off"-button.

This "remake" (in name only) of the sci-fi classic left me weeping on my couch, desperately trying to come to terms with why such scripts get filmed, why anyone would soil the memory of the original classic, and whether or not I could resume my normal life without my suddenly acquired longing for the quiet and peace of death.

Although death, I realized, would offer no rest from the horrid memories of this pile of crap, as the poor souls in hell are probably forced to watch it over and over again for eternity...


this film is so unbelievably awful! everything about it was rubbish. you cant say anything good about this film, the acting, script, directing, effects are all just as bad as each other. even ed wood could have done a better job than this. i seriously recommended staying away from this movie unless you want to waste about 100mins of your life or however long the film was. i forget. this is the first time i wrote a comment about a film on IMDb, but this film was just on TV and i had to let the world of movie lovers know that this film sucked balls!!!!!!!!!!!! so if you have any decency left in you. go and rent a much better bad movie like critters 3


The opening was a steal from "Eight-legged Freaks", a film that is everything this one isn't. Stilted and pedestrian are the words that apply - along with others that can't be repeated..! Drifter type returns to his home(?)town, meets up with old friends etc.... the usual annoying kid, single mother,local loudmouth and so on..Bad special effects, alien ship, atmospheric disturbances, (hey, didn't the Director see "Close Encounters"?). Good acting? Good story? Good camera angles? Good cutting? Not here! Do not rent, unless you are sharing the cost and have a lot of beer handy. Do not watch on TV, go and drink a lot of beer instead - you'll enjoy it more!


I've seen several of these body snatcher type movies, but none was nearly as bad as this one.

No thrill, no FX, bad acting, bad photography, bad sound, bad everything.

Blue Jello eats'em all!


First off, I refuse to even consider this piece of work a Music video... I consider it a short film that uses excerpts of the song "Thriller" in its soundtrack. To me a music video must be no longer than the song itself, and the song must play the entire length of the video. Calling this a music video is like calling The Great Gatsby a poem. On top of this... let's face it... "thriller" is a boring 14 minutes, including the extremely dated werewolf transformation, the mindless Vincent Price poem (just because VP recites it doesn't mean it's not lame), and the least threatening zombies I have ever seen. Sure, this was certainly a cultural phenomenon, but don't forget, this also happened at the same time the A-Team was the #1 show on TV, so lets not give the culture too much credit on that one... One last point on this film's impact on the media on music videos... what exactly did this add to the equation that "Billie Jean" and "Beat It" didn't already add? From what I can tell, it only added the practice of stopping the song for some dialog, or a superfluous dance scene... so you could say that all this video really did was give Puffy the inspiration to make more annoying music videos... Not quite my definition of great


One of a few movies filmed at Coronado High School in Scottsdale, AZ in the late 80's as well as Just One of the Guys, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and Just Perfect (which was a segmented movie played during the Mickey Mouse Club.) Movie is definitely for kids as the previous comments have it pretty right on.

Coronado has gone through an overhaul in the past couple of years and many of the buildings seen in this film are now gone. The field where they are playing catch is adjacent to the football field, one of the few areas still there. The internal scenes near the lockers I believe were in the old 200 building.

Unless it is playing late at night on the Disney channel it may be a very hard to find flick. How they ever made sequels to this is beyond me.


Wow. I felt like I needed to shower off after watching this one, but maybe there were other reasons that I will leave to your imagination. I felt used and abused after wacking, I mean watching this film. Hairy chests, thick mustaches, and well, hairy everything describes this porn/horror movie, but hey, it was 1981, you can't call it "porn" in the 70s and 80s without the hair.

As a horror flick, this bites. But as a piece of exploitation/porn from Italy's rich cinematic history- it definitely has a place in my library. The copy I have is in Italian with English subtitles. I wish it had the really poorly dubbed English, I think it would have added to the sleaziness factor that already existed. The only white guy who gets laid in the movie is "Mark Shannon"- he is the moustache wearing, hairy chested piece of machismo who really does try and give a performance every time he "steps up to bat". This was at the end of an era where porn producers were actually trying to make something artistic. Nothing like panning the camera from a tropical backdrop to a hairy man having "doggie-style" sex with a woman. I can't help but laugh.

This is one of those movies that I pray my future wife and kids never find.


Joe D'Amato might have made some other notable movies in his very long and very prolific career- prolific, of course, by turns of making VERY cheap Z-grade movies in Italy's big exploitation boom of the late 70s early 70s- but Porno Holocaust isn't one of them, or at least shouldn't be. Granted, I should not expect much from a movie with such a title, but I thought considering the back of the box's description that it might have some fun horror scenes with the "horny, mutant, cannibal zombie". Turns out the zombie doesn't appear until more than halfway into the movie, and at every turn we get instead a tawdry sex scene as hardcore as one can imagine. Which is fine. But it's not very enjoyable, except in the most "what the f*** is this BS" kind of way. There's laughable dialog involving lobsters costing more from mail-order Japan than in Paris, hot, slim women play biologists and zoologists who have particular sexual hang-ups (letting the door be unlocked to be raped, and a bi-polar kind of enjoyment out of getting gang-banged).

It all leads up to the island, where the "main attraction" is a guy who early on just spends an absolutely pathetic (forget ludicrous) amount of time just staring at the newcomers to the radioactive wasteland of the shot-on-Caribbean island, and once revealed has a face like one of the guards in Jabba's palace and has a sweet potato for a main genital. But much dumber than anything before it is the "relationship" that develops between the monster and a dark-skinned lady who has an inordinate amount of time to escape, but just sits there, blank-faced, as the monster brings gifts and for what must be a racially-motivated exploitation move on the part of the filmmakers the monster ONLY rapes and kills the white women, and not her. And it ends, of course, with a "happy" ending. I use quotes, of course, out of a kind of shock that this could have any kind of legitimate ending at all.

Bottom line, this is NOT what you might expect, as possibly being a bloody horror movie with plenty of tacky but cool looking Italian monster-zombies devouring human flesh. If anything what violence is in the film is done on a shoe-string; a log hit to the face is immediately cut to the bloody aftermath, which is like the aftermath of a tomato hitting someone. So really, the last part of the title is meant more for market sake. Yet even as a porno movie it has little to go on except as a reason for the cast and crew to get a paid vacation to the Caribbean (as an interview with George Eastman suggests, this was just one of a few quickies made while on the island). Its got penny-bought schlocky camera-work and similar actors, filled with genitalia about 3/4 of the whole time and with wretched lip-syncing and music like Nino Rota forced at gun-point to make something snappy in a bordello, and it's STILL a piece of celluloid dung all the same; all of this could be an immense guilty pleasure, but it isn't.


As a serious horror fan, I get that certain marketing ploys are used to sell movies, especially the really bad ones. So I wouldn't call it naiveté that I assumed this was softcore horror ripping off Cannibal / Zombi / Jungle Holocaust. Unfortunately, I was completely wrong as this is very hardcore. I should have realized that when I saw the odd "No actual or identifiable minor was used" warning. Notice the identifiable part as though he is daring us to catch him? A group of scientists, half of whom are pretty women in bikinis, are led by a sea captain with a penchant for 69ing on the beach, in search for a mutated native killing villagers. Due to a nuclear bomb detonated on a supposedly evacuated island, the radiation turned this last man into a rapist/ killer.

Writer/ actor George Eastman is the only one trying here and succeeds in keeping his clothes on. The sex scenes are whacked out. Women walk around nude exuding a strange overconfidence and one even asks for rape when her husband turns her down. Well, two chicks slapping each other naturally turns into a lesbo scene because women are horndogs. I saw the chick toss another chicks salad and finger herself.

If there is anything you should know about this film, it is that. Because the rest of this insane movie is just the same. Oh, who am I kidding? There is a ton more to tell here. Like the white "Duchess" that pays for 2 black guys to tag team her in a parlor. Or the "Duchess" taking off her top to use as a bandage when the captain cuts himself. When he refuses her advances, she starts crying. So being the good gentleman he is, he reluctantly lets her pleasure him in front of the other crew members. I was honestly waiting for the pizza guy to show up and the "Duchess" to ask if there is any other way to pay him.

And all of this happens before they depart for the island to conduct their research. Wait, I thought this was a zombie flick? But the zombie doesn't enter until the 73min mark, but by that time everyone else has been "entered" plenty. I found myself hitting fast forward a few scenesor several. This is my first splatter porn flick and I don't think it does that subgenre any justice. I guess it is the woman in me talking when I say that I would like more plot and less sweaty, slobbering, hairy sex. Funny thing is this could have worked as a decent horror film as the idea of atomic bombing mutating a bitter man and killing his family, was a good one. Even Eastman's character shakes his head and walks away from a couple copulating. It makes me wonder if it was the character or the writer himself that was disgusted.

I don't feel like going into the sound or film quality because you should have already guessed it was bad. This production was shot back to back with 3 other movies including Erotic Nights of the Living Dead, which sports most of the same cast. Eastman has said this was done because everyone wanted a vacation and a paycheck. Nevermind, I feel like talking about the sound suddenly. The sound was weird during the sex scenes because while the cast is speaking Italian, it seems as though they recorded English voiceovers and played that over their dialogue. So while 2 people are boning, I can clearly hear someone in the background say, "No! Yes! Wonderful! Wait!" There was a slightly amusing Italian score that couldn't save this movie. The SFX were minimal at best and consisted of some blood in only a few scenes. And I would like to point out that there were no violent rape scenes as the bright warning label said on the DVD cover (ahem, another marketing ploy), so no fear there. Only fear the bad movie.

Presented in Widescreen 1.85:1 aspect ratio. I watched the Region 1 Not Rated version running at 113min released in 2005 by Exploitation Digital. There is apparently a XXX version by Alfa Digital, which is the same running time, so I doubt anything is different. Prices vary, but you shouldn't pay more than $25.00 for a copy. Or as I would recommend, pay nothing and pretend it doesn't exist.

Favorite Quote: Shipmate, "Civilians are bad luck. Women are bad luck. They're scientists too? They must really be monsters." DVD Extras: Original trailer with hardcore shots & kills to make it look more interesting than it is, Trailers for SS Hell Camp, Emmanuelle, & ENOTLD, and a very informative interview with Eastman.

Bottom Line: Lame porno, but even weaker as a horror film. Either get real porn or watch real horror.

Rating: 3/10 by Molly Celaschi www.HorrorYearbook.com


It's strange, while the film features full X-rated sex scenes and violent murders, it never feels as shocking as it ought to.

A group of scientists go to an island in the Caribbean to investigate a radioactive incident. Upon their arrival, a mutated islander goes about the happy business of murdering the men and having his way with the women. Doesn't it always seem to work out that way.

Among the sored acts we find a some lesbian encounters, a three-way with male prostitutes, assorted heterosexual couplings and the rape of an already dead body. Even though it's all fully explicit, it fails to ever shock or stir as it is meant to. As soon as the sex goes fully pornographic it just loses it's edge; the suspension of disbelief is broken and we realize we are just watching people having sex.

There is some blood and gore with the murders, but given that this is a D'amato flick it's really tame. For a much more rounded experience watch the similar 'Erotic Nights of the Living Dead'.

2/10


D'Amato's hardcore/horror hybrid doesn't really live up to its extraordinary title and intriguing premise, wherein various vapid contemporary types are attacked by a monster on an Atoll previously used for nuclear experiments, but for the most part the film is so slow, the action so dreary and the cast so clearly repulsed to be having to have sex with each other that the film becomes a chore to watch.

This is a pity, because the film sets up a promising idea. A group of scientists are taken to the Atoll by a naval officer in a small vessel. The scientists  three women and two men  are an intriguing cross section of sexual types, suffering to various degrees from nymphomania, co-dependency and frigidity; there's even an intriguing foray into the world of female sex tourism, where one of the women stops off at a brothel to get serviced by two hunky Caribbean studs for hire. The creature himself  a mangled native Islander with a horribly scarred face and an unfeasibly long pizzle  bears some affinities with the old Creature from the Black Lagoon and is the kind of nuclear nightmare that has hovered over postmodern man since the cold war commenced, despite those of us in the West having retreated into hedonism and relativistic science.

Porno Holocaust certainly is a film which shows the post-sexual revolution Westerners coming across their mirror image in a nuclear monster, yet the torpidity with which it unfolds really lets down the fierceness of the idea. There is a promising interplay of action shots with POV shots, which suggest that the monster (who looks/stalks on as horror monsters from their POV position tend to do) is akin to the voyeur in the audience getting off on the sex between the "beautiful people." The sight of the monster forcing a gorgeous young woman to suck his over-sized member certainly throws the target audience's ugly fantasies in their face. But D'Amato has developed similar ideas better in other films, and Porno Holocaust is a potentially fierce idea let down by the execution (even D'Amato's usual cinematographic skills let him down with much dreary camera-work).


Well, since it's called Porno Holocaust and directed by Joe D'Amato, I went into this film expecting sleaze...and while I somewhat got it, Porno Holocaust was a massive disappointment as it's just so damned BORING. The title suggests that the film will feature porn, and that's not wrong - Porno Holocaust is pretty much just porn, and most of it is just the same stuff over and over again, I was fast forwarding before the end. The first sex scene is between two women and it got my hopes up, but after that it just degenerates into normal porn, and the rest of the film (for the first hour!) is made up of talking, and you can imagine how much fun that is to sit through! The plot focuses on a deserted island where, believe it or not, something strange is going on. Naturally, it's not long before a group of people - made up of a few men and some scientists, who all happen to be sexy women, land on the island. They have sex a few times and some strange things happen, then over an hour later they're attacked by a mutant zombie creature with an eye for the ladies...

This must have seemed like a good idea for an original porno - a zombie who likes to get it on, but unsurprisingly it doesn't work well at all. The film clocks in at just ten minutes short of the two hour mark, and that is far too long for a film like this. I have no idea why Porno Holocaust is as long as it is; if they'd just snipped one minute out of every sex scene, the film would have been under ninety minutes, and that would have made it much more tolerable! The zombie takes what seems like an eternity to appear (it's quite a long time before there's a sex break long enough for them to actually travel to the island in the first place), and when it does finally appear, it's a huge disappointment! I realise that this is low budget B-movie trash, but D'Amato surely could have tried a bit harder and come up with something better than this! I'm not even going to bother mentioning the acting, atmosphere etc, there's no point. Porno Holocaust is basically just your average dull porn flick with a slight sprinkling of horror, and I can't recommend it!


Six stars for Paul Newman's portrayal of General Groves, negative four for the inclusion of a highly fictionalized event where the truth is well documented. Michael Merriman did not really exist. His character--or at least his fate--is based loosely on that of Louis Slotin, a Canadian physicist who did not come to Los Alamos until after the war. He conducted his lethal "tail of the dragon" experiment in May 1946. This is a critical point. The effects of hard radiation on the human body were not known until they were observed in the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. Had anyone died of radiation poisoning at Los Alamos before the Trinity test, it's very possible that the scientists would have abruptly stopped their work, and history would have been changed. Whether for the better or the worse we can only speculate. Someone should ask the producers and the director whether they added Merriman's character for dramatic effect or to deliver an anti-nuclear message. For a more even-handed and accurate treatment of events at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project, see the TV movie, "Day One," or better yet, read the Peter Wyden book on which it is based.


The United States built the atomic bomb in order to show their superior military power and to end the Second World War. The movie Fat Man and Little Boy is a portrayal of the efforts of American physicists to invent the technology necessary to create the bomb, and the tension that existed between the scientists and the military over the potential uses of the bomb, and even the acceptability of its creation. The scientists thought that the bomb should be created as a deterrent, a mechanism that would halt the war by wasting as little life as possible. Fist, they saw themselves as in a race with German scientists, who were attempting to build nuclear weapons themselves. When the Germans were defeated, many scientists hoped to stop work on the bomb project, as they knew that the Japanese did not have the technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon, and therefore did not pose a threat of massive loss of life. Those who favored the continuation of the Manhattan Project hoped that the bomb would be used as a demonstration, inviting the Japanese head of state to view its deployment upon some tiny deserted island. This massive display of force, they felt, would be enough to win the war-no killing would be needed. The US military, under the direction of General Leslie Groves, hoped all along to used the bomb as a actual weapon to be deployed against the enemy, first against the Germans and then against the Japanese. Because of the persistence of Japanese soldiers on the small Japanese islands, the US decided to drop the bomb on populous cities in order to end the war, first Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. The display of that vast amount of force also served notice to the rest of the world that the US was the dominant military power, a message aimed especially at Russia, whose growing military power and economic weight in Eurasia threatened our preeminent world position. Fat Man and Little Boy was a movie that had good intentions in mind, but muddled them rather badly by the choice of actors, script, and cinematography. One of the main points of the movie was the struggle between the military view of science for killing, and the scientific view of science for knowledge. The keystone of this conflict is the continued disagreements between General Groves and Dr. Oppenheimer. Mr. Newman does his job in the part of the General, craggy, massively angry, and radiating his dependence upon the success of the project. Dwight Schultz, on the other hand, never puts up much resistance at all to the General's demands, always looking rather weak, deflated, and phlegmatic in his audiences. John Cusack presents a stunningly unsympathetic character in as flat a role as I have ever seen-it looks like he is just reading his lines. Laura Dern seems to be suffering from the same malady. None of the characters are helped by the script, which is almost childishly ridiculous in the way it attempts to explain scientific concepts unscientifically, offers the most unrealistic stock relationship between Mr. Cusack and Ms. Dern imaginable, doesn't even give us the cheap thrill of watching the army drop nuclear bombs on Japan, and relies heavily on voice-over-a technique that is evil anytime, even when explaining a characters true innermost thoughts, or for the narration of something that cannot be possibly show on the film medium, but is used here to read some absolutely trite selections out of Cusack's diary. The cinematographer offers us several shots of the ominous shadow of the two bombs, which might be striking if it didn't look like they were cardboard cutouts instead of bombs, the fake atomic fire really does look fake-and why use it when the stock footage on hand is so genuinely stunning and realistic--, and the pervasive brown tone doesn't seem to be thematically appropriate. Besides that, it's not a bad movie.


I've read just about every major book about the Manhattan Project. Most people know what it was, but few people understand the depth and breadth of the project. Its scope was immeasurably massive -- rivaled in US history perhaps only by the space program of the 1960's.

There were -- literally -- MILLIONS of people involved from all walks of life at numerous sites (most clandestine) around the country, each involved in a specific and different aspect of the project that they couldn't talk about to the person sitting in the cubicle next to them, much less their family. The logistics are overwhelming, particularly given the considerations of wartime communication, security and transportation in the 1940's.

As an example -- my colleague's father was a carpenter who worked for one of the companies that had a contract with the federal government for the Manhattan Project. His job was to supervise a crew of about 30 other carpenters, who were responsible for manufacturing forms for the pouring of concrete for the massive research installations at Hanford, Washington. That's "all" he did, six days a week for nearly two years. These carpenters needed food, housing, sanitary facilities, hospitals and materials just as much as did Oppenheimer and his crowd at the top of the pyramid. Just think about it! That being said, it's simply impossible to do the subject justice in a 2-hour movie. In defense of Joffe, however, I would say that they had an impossible task, particularly since he chose to have a diverse screenplay with multiple plots, multiple angles, and multiple characters. What, exactly, was he thinking, and how could he be so arrogant to think that this would work? That's Hollywood, I guess.

FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY has so many flaws that it would take a book to list them all. Horrible casting. Dreadful (and politically-motivated) writing. Bad science. The portrayals of Groves and Oppie are particularly inaccurate and downright galling. Notwithstanding the screenplay's all-too-obvious agenda, it is STILL incredibly bland and sloppy.

These flaws have been listed elsewhere on IMDb, but I was particularly struck by the fact that the scientists had so much time on their hands -- softball, horseback riding, parties, semi-formal dinners, ballet, etc., not to mention romance, and of course circulating political petitions. According to FM&LB, if these great brains had gotten off their duffs and actually spent some time in the lab instead of seducing Laura Dern, we might have won the war before D-Day.

One final gripe -- FM&LB mentions that "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" were the code names of the two atomic bombs, but it doesn't mention that these names were a semi-good-natured jab at Groves ("Fat Man", for heavy stature) and Oppenheimer ("Little Boy," for his slight stature). Another reason Paul Newman should not have been in this movie...


It' s easier to watch this film if one views it as a scenario created by Star Fleet Lieutenant Reginald Barclay during his holodeck addiction. (Barclay is a recurring Star Trek character played by Dwight Schultz.)

Dwight Schultz is miscast as Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's character is poorly written, so we never see the depth and breadth of his knowledge. Instead, we see a shallow, two dimensional figure from a soap opera. Paul Newman is also miscast as General Leslie Groves, but this movie's problems go beyond having the wrong actors in the wrong roles.

The factual errors and great liberties taken (with the chronology of events) in order to advance screenwriter Bruce Robinson's political agenda make this movie embarrassing to watch. That's probably why this movie has found a home on the so-called History Channel.

"Fat Man and Little Boy" combine bad science, bad history, bad screenwriting and mediocre acting to produce a movie that should not be viewed by impressionable high school or college students who know nothing about the Manhattan Project.


I watched this years ago on television when I was sick (I don't know, I tend to be more complacent with my TV viewing when I'm sick; too much effort to use the remote control, I guess).

From what I can recall, every aspect of the movie--casting, acting, writing, directing, etc.--was ill-advised at best. I could have forgiven the historical inaccuracies if this film had created a sense of what it was like to work on Trinity; but it didn't. There were attempts to humanize the scientists, but they were insufficient and never transcended caricature.

I didn't know very much about the people involved in the Manhattan Project at the time, but the portrayals in the movie were so cartoonish that I became interested in learning about the real personalities. And I did. So I guess this horrible film has done a very small amount of good, after all.

This is not an in-depth review, but FMLB neither deserves nor requires one. You might enjoy it if you're a fan of bad movies.


There are lots of other comments here about how poor this film is. What I wanted to point out is how this film took the largest science project in history and made it look small. The Manhattan project was an incredible achievement and it was huge. Virtually all silver in the country went into making wire for electromagnetic separators. If there was every a choice between two alternative ways of doing things they just did both. The first sustained nuclear reactor was fired up under the stands of the University of Chicago football stadium with graduate students wielding axes as a scram mechanism. It's a fascinating story involving hundreds of locations and thousands of people that this film seems to reduce to a small group of eccentrics in New Mexico.

The other thing I really disliked was the huge moral debate over if we should continue the project after Germany surrenders. Okay, we have thousands of (mostly) men who worked for years to make a really big boom. Does anyone think they didn't want to see it work? There was some controversy at the time about if we should use the device, but it was not that serious, clearly not the huge debate this film makes it out to be.


This movie is a definitive 5. I finally caught it on HBO the other night. I remember when it came out in theatres telling a friend that it would never be a hit because Americans didn't want movies about history, especially movies that were more about ideas than action. I don't know if that was the reason FMLB didn't do well, but now, having finally seen it, I can add a few observations of my own.

First, while Dwight Schultz has been fine in Star Trek and The A-Team, as the lead in this movie he is off-putting. I kept expecting him to shout out Jon Lovitz-like, "I am ACT-ING!" He phrasing and tone of voice sounded like he was trying very had to be an ACT-OR, on a stage where he had to emphasize strangely various words and phrases.

Second, I enjoyed the sly positioning of Paul Newman's character as a manipulator who, at every turn, strives to herd these cats (the scientists) along to get to his goal.

Third, there was some discussion of the moral implications of creating the A bomb, and whether the US should use it. Probably not enough of this, or as in depth as warranted.

Finally, there seemed to be an awful lot of twists thrown in for dramatic effect. I don't know how much of the events in this movie are true to life, but things like having the test bomb slip in its chains or having a lab accident caused by a spilled coffee cup (and a scientist killed as a result) were stretching the bounds of believability. Maybe that stuff, or events that were similar, really happened, but it sure felt like various scenes were added solely for dramatic effect, which undermined the whole tone and purpose of the movie.

FMLB was OK. I need to read more about the actual events to know if it was over the top or just mostly accurate.


I did a screen test and read the script for this turkey in 1988. It was awful then and even worse now - I spotted it on VHS at the local HollowWood Video and said, "oh, what the hey, for auld ang sine". Yech.

They had to shoot most of it in Mexico after they ran out of money, a couple of the "stars" pitched bitches because they ran out of some kind of exotic fruit drink crap. The movie's plot is OK, I suppose, but I happen to know that the writer intended for it to have a spy catcher thread running throughout.

Dr O ended up being a cartoon character. He must still be whirling in his grave over in the Kremlin Wall.

Technical errors were all over the movie, not only with the infant atomic technology but with the uniforms, insignia, and military jargon. They were too cheap to hire a professional military adviser, of course. Even Mr. Newman's august and expert presence couldn't have saved this bird from being stuffed for Thanksgiving.


There is no real story the film seems more like a fly on the wall drama-documentary than a proper film so this piece may in itself be a spoiler. Teen drama about 3 young Singaporean kids (very similar to UK chavs) who play truant from school, run with gangs, get into fights, insult people on the street, get tattoos, hang about doing nothing, etc. etc, They generally imagine themselves to be hard and every so often shout challenging rap chants into the camera. Filmed in MTV style, fast cuts, crazy camera angles, tight close ups and animation interludes. The dialogue might have been crisper in the original languages of Mandarin and Hokkien than in the subtitles and I have no doubt that some of the contemporary Singapore references will slip over Western heads as well as the cultural and political context unless of course you are familiar with Singapore. This kind of teen film may be a first for Singapore but it has been done before and done better in other Western countries, La Haine (1995) for example.


I was expecting a documentary covering the 1950 to 1965 era of Sci-Fi and received a big ol' commercial laced with leftist political innuendo by James Cameron and movie mogul baby boomer's pushing the own works. 'Watch the Skies' has in the past referred to the 'Giant Bug' and 'Space Exploration' movies from the 1950's including such favorites as "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, "Thing from Another World" and "Forbidden Planet" as well as "Them", "Deadly Mantis" and "Tarantula". There are lower budget examples that rarely get mentioned like "Space Monster", "12 to the Moon" and "Cosmic Man".

This would have been a much better documentary had the few remaining actors, directors, stunt men and collectors plus the non-Hollywood 'boomer's from the era been interviewed. I only wish there was a "0" rating available since a "1" is much to generous.


Purported documentary that tries to examine sci-fi films of the 1950s and how they affected (and REflected) America. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Ridley Scott and James Cameron are interviewed and Mark Hamill narrates.

Pretty terrible. The "insights" that are given are nothing new--for instance--the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war affected a whole generation of children. Well-duh! They try to cover all of the different sub genres of sci-fi films of the 1950s--the big bug movies, invaders from space movies etc etc. That's good but they choose the most obvious films and they've been over analyzed to death already. It was cool seeing clips from "Rocketship X-M", "Destination Moon", "Forbidden Planet", "The Thing" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" but everything the directors said was so incredibly obvious to any viewer that it's insulting. Even though it's under an hour I was thoroughly bored 30 minutes in. This gets a 2 for some of the clips but nothing else.


* Some spoilers *

This movie is sometimes subtitled "Life Everlasting." That's often taken as reference to the final scene, but more accurately describes how dead and buried this once-estimable series is after this sloppy and illogical send-off.

There's a "hey kids, let's put on a show air" about this telemovie, which can be endearing in spots. Some fans will feel like insiders as they enjoy picking out all the various cameo appearances. Co-writer, co-producer Tom Fontana and his pals pack the goings-on with friends and favorites from other shows, as well as real Baltimore personages.

That's on top of the returns of virtually all the members of the television's show varied casts, your old favorites as well as later non-favorites.

There was always a tug-of-war pitting quality-conscious executive producer Barry Levinson, Fontana, James Yoshimura and the rest of the creative team against budget-conscious NBC execs, who simply wanted a another moronic police procedural like "Nash Bridges," which regularly beat "Homicide" in the ratings. The pressure told as the show bounced between riveting realism that transcended its form, and sleazy sensationalism that demeaned it.

Unfortunately for this movie, Fontana, co-writers Yoshimura and Eric Overmeyer and director Jean de Segonzac simply threw in the towel. They took the most ludicrous story are from the series, topped it with an unlikely and artistically unfruitful new plot line, and laid the burden of carrying the whole mess on one of the weaker cast members.

Briefly, some time has passed since the last episode of the show. The former heart of Baltimore's homicide unit, Yaphet Kotto as Lt. Al Giardello, is now a Kurt Schmoke-like candidate for mayor, and Schmoke himself makes a cameo appearance. But this promising start immediately and improbably takes a tragic turn.

The spotlight shifts to Giancarlo Esposito as Giardello's son Mike. A handsome man who has done good work elsewhere, Esposito was one of the pretty faces brought in late to supposedly enliven the TV series. But the question for viewers always was: is Mike that uncomfortable as Gee's son, or is Esposito that uncomfortable in the role?

To be fair, Esposito doesn't get a chance to play out the main story without interruption. That's because the writers choose this moment to revive another storyline that spat on the intelligence of the show's loyal voters.

An apparent snuff streaming video was promoted, and then seemed to actually take place, on the Internet. After some red herrings, the detectives arrested a repellent suspect. But Zaljko Ivanek's harassed and overworked Deputy States Attorney forgot to file motions in time, and the suspect was released, only to be murdered later.

Let's summarize: he forgot to file the paperwork because it wasn't the most sensational case of his career, because the mayor, the attorney general, the governor, the entire Maryland Legislature, the U.S. Attorney General, NBC, Court TV, the BBC, AP, Reuters, People, The Sun, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA Times, Time Magazine, The Times of London, The Economist, The Johannesburg Mail and Guardian, L'Osservatore Romano, Le Figaro, Paris Match, L'Equipe and Computer World weren't calling every 10 minutes to ask about the status of the case.

Nevertheless, the old gang of detectives and associates flocks back to Baltimore to help out. There's quite an array of talent on display. Unfortunately, with the limited amount of dialogue to hand out, some of them are merely on display.

Two of the strongest actors, Clark Johnson and Melissa Leo, are criminally underused, while time wasted on Jon Seda and Michael Michelle could be better spent on commercials. The writers do seem to satirize this, presenting Jason Priestley as the latest big-deal detective. On the other hand, they give easy-come, easy-go Michelle Forbes a very affecting scene.

There's some other sly casting, with actual Lt. Gary D'Addario, the center of the book that gave rise to the show, playing another detective. Guests drop in from other shows, like Whitney Allen doing her deadpan and clueless "Miss Sally" from the children's show beloved by the inmates on Fontana's "Oz." Dina Napoli of WBAL TV turns up as herself.

Even when entertaining, though, these guests can be distracting. Ed Begley Jr. actually advances the story in his brief appearance, playing Dr. Victor Ehrlich from Fontana's "St. Elsewhere." He's still a vivid character, and fits in a hospital setting. Then you remember, didn't St. Elegius turn out to be an autistic boy's fantasy?

The most useful cameo reflects corporate synergy. This movie was made when Court TV bought re-run rights to the series. That network contributed legal waif Helen Lucaitis, who had interviewed the Homicide team and later appeared on "Oz." The TV correspondent does an efficient job summarizing the news, that is, plot points for latecomers.

Although she's so thin that she disappears when she turns sideways, Lucaitis also adeptly handles a bit of physical comedy with Esposito. He shows more juice in his scenes with Lucaitis than with any of his usual colleagues. Perhaps those two should have done a spin-off.

As the movie winds down, the cream of the cast rises to the top. Although they are saddled with a loser script, Andre Braugher and Kyle Secor overcome it. Their performances remind viewers what made Homicide, for considerable stretches, the best show on the air and one of the best television productions ever.

It's fun to watch top pros do their stuff; it's just a shame this movie doesn't give them more of a chance. Die-hard fans may want to see this movie anyway, but you can live without it.


I saw this movie on videotape with my younger brother a long time ago, despite the fact I was a young boy who's hearing impaired. I didn't have the closed captioning decoder at the time (it was 1986, the year of The Transformers: The Movie), but I could follow the plot and understand what's going on. It wasn't my fault I saw the animated movie intended for girls. My father rented the video to show to my other younger sister.

A decade later and I rented the video (for 50 cents) to watch again with the closed captioning turned on. My memories of this movie was utterly destroyed by none other than a WRETCHED SCRIPT. I have seen plenty of poorly written movies (like COOL AS ICE and JASON GOES TO HELL: THE FINAL FRIDAY), but I have never seen (or heard) the dialogues this bad, only inundating with enough inanity to make your head spin from laughing in hysterics and screaming from the pain of enduring the torture of sitting through this movie. Despite good plot and intriguing story concepts, the script has to be ONE OF THE WORST EVER WRITTEN FOR THE SCREEN, BAR NONE! The incompetent Howard R. Cohen should never be working as a screenwriter, professional or otherwise. I can not believe they would even allow the terrible script to produce a movie like this in the first place. Did the Japanese producers read the script, in broken English or translated before they know what they were into? Even crap like G.I. Joe The Movie and My Little Pony The Movie have redeeming values compared to this abomination.

If you're a big fan of 80s animation, or just taking a nostalgia trip, BEWARE OF RAINBOW BRITE AND THE STAR STEALER! It does not matter whether you were elated or traumatized by the sloppily animated movie with an atrociously written script, or you have not seen the movie, STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE. The movie should be viewed with the precaution to learn how NOT to write a bad script!