Firetrap is yet again another bad action film about a guy who- yada yada yada- and happy endings and fire, and burning, and overacting, and bad suspense, and predictable, and ------------------- just don't see.

(Dean Cain got stuck playing Superman on Lois and Clark and can't get any good roles anymore. So i don't know if he is a good or bad actor.

This isn't good.

Why can't anybody stop that bad people who keep making these things? AI swear they just s*** them out on a conveyor belt and hope they are good. They need to make a guy whose job is to just burn the movies that look bad, just have a bucket of carosine next to him and dump the cases in. Then at the end of each day light it and go home.


This might very well be the worst movie I've seen in my life. Normally I don't watch movies like this, however I was forced to watch this at school. What a torment!

The story is as average and boring as it can be: Boy meets girl at the Spanish coast, boy and girl fall in love, but the love between the two seems impossible and everyone and everything is against their love. At the end of the movie the film becomes some kind of weird kung-fu movie were the guys in white fight the guys in black. Awful!

The action is so bad that it makes you laugh. The dances in the film that I think are supposed to be cool are so simple and laughable that even I can do them! And Georgina Verbaan is possibly the most irritating person i've ever seen on screen.

Johan Nijenhuis is on his way of becoming the Dutch Ed Wood. His movies are so bad that they make you laugh.

Victor Löw however gives a surprising good performance and Daan Schuurmans also acts OK.

So please for your own sake don't watch this movie. However if you like watching soaps this might be very well worth your time.

Yuk!

2/10


Ok let's start with saying that when a dutch movie is bad, it's REALLY BAD. Rarely something with a little bit of quality comes along(Lek, Karakter) here in holland but not often. Costa! is about 4 girls going to Spain to go on vacation, party, get drunk, get laid (u know the drill). It's also about the world of Clubbers or Proppers. Pro's who're trying to lure the crowd into their club.

I'm not sure how long it took to write the script, but i suspect somewhere between 15 minutes and 20 minutes because you're watching a bunch of random scenes for 90 minutes long. Nothing, and i mean nothing is believable in this movie. It's almost too riduculous for words what happens with the storyline. Suddenly the movie transforms into a sort of karate action thing. With a one-on-one fight with 'the bad guy in black' and cliche car chase scenes trough a watertank-car (can it be more cheesy). Also the words character-development and casting are unfamiliar to the makers.

After having seen "Traffic" 3 days before this, i fell from sheer brilliance, from a piece of art to this. This is film-making at it's saddest. And don't start about low budget. Because even with a low budget you could write a better script. It almost seems that the film-makers were too busy partying themselves to make a decent movie.

Anyway the chicks in the water at the end made it up a little bit, but for the rest of it, don't waste your money on such garbage.


Proud as i am of being a Dutchman, i'm truly shocked by flicks like these. Why? why this cheap acting? Why this storyline that just sucks? why a dozen sequels? why o why? they add a lot of hot Dutch chicks in an effort of saving this movie from redemption, and guess what? all the underaged breezergirlies in Holland go and see it. I was forced to watch it at a party. all the girls were going crazy when Daan Schuurmans entered the screen, all the guys took a another beer and grumbled... But the thing that really bothers me, is the fact that this kind of flicks are the only sort of movies Dutch filmmakers can produce... (apart from "Van God Los" and "Lek") This doesn't prove our superiority to other countries.. It doesn't add anything to our imagination... It just F**ks up the brains of little 13 year old girls... Johan Nijenhuis, I hope you will burn forever!


If you like soap-series, you might like this film. I recommend this film to fans of Dutch soap-series like GTST, Westenwind or even American stuff like The Bold & The Beautiful. If you don't like that stuff: stay away from this movie. It has the same kind of visual style, the same quality of acting, direction and writing.The film was a big hit at home territory, but wasn't sold anywhere else outside Holland and Belgium. Pretty strange for a commercial film like this.

Maybe it says something....


This has to be one of the WORST movies I have seen. I tried to like this movie but they managed to mess up practically every individual aspect that pertain to this film! Cheap dialogue, no character development, no tension, not enough story to pull you in, no action apart from some REALLY cheap scenes. It seems they tried some things on the set and said to each other "hey this looks rather cool, why not put this in there" after which the director probably said "Yeah....YEAH this is genius!" and got back to snorting coke or something. When it comes to acting I think the only person that TRIED to make the movie worked is Daan Schuurmans but in the end it is all for nothing. Cause this movie SUCKS!! 2/10


The combination of Dan Haggerty (Elves) and Linda Blair (Exorcist) is enough to make any horror fan excited about this movie. And once you see the cover art to this film of a frozen zombie coming out of their cryogenic chamber, you'll think you were in B-Movie Horror Heaven. At least that's the way I approached this film. But boy, was I in for a shock

I love horror movies. I love B-Movies as well. Nothing makes my day more than a cheesy little film about zombies, monsters, murderers, that sort of thing. But to say that this movie was lacking, is an understatement. This movie was pure trash. You'd think the zombies would look somewhat like what the cover-art of the box displays, but instead, you get actors with masks that are clearly sold at any Halloween display counter. Furthermore, the script is beyond pitiful. Our main character, Joseph, suffers the loss of his wife and son and seeks solace in the warm-hearted Mary, played by Blair. Not once do you see any sign of sadness or discomfort on the part of Joseph's character. Instead, we see the head of the cryogenic labs, a man named Dr. Miller, eager to get the dead bodies and experiment with their organs. There is no emotion or anything to make you believe you should give a damn about anyone in this film.

All and all, very disappointing. All the elements to make a great horror film were there. You had your zombies, your decent actors, and your story. But the lack of good writing and little if any sense of direction screwed this one up royally. Overall, 4 out of 10


When I decided to try watching a movie about cryogenic zombies ("cryonoids"), I wasn't expecting a whole lot. That's exactly what I got, and then even less. Aside from a shortage of special effects (squibs?) and a severe lack of any acting talent, "The Chilling" also sports the absolute worst script I've ever seen made into a movie. I had to stop the tape numerous times during the first 45 minutes in order to repair the damage done to my intellect for witnessing such atrocious dialogue as there is found here.

Furthermore, the collection of characters is so formulaic and one-dimensional it's ridiculous: the corrupt doctor; his assistant, played by Linda Blair (we know she's his "assistant" because he repeatedly refers to her by that title); the recently-widowed businessman with a heart of gold who develops a romantic interest with Blair's character; his criminal son; the Blair character's alcoholic, abusive, unemployed boyfriend, whom we are introduced to in the most contrived use of a flashback; and, of course, the rough, tough, bearded security guard who becomes the hero.

Apparently, the preserving fluid which some cryogenics lab uses on its bodies is highly conductive, naturally resulting in disaster when all of the lab's containers end up outdoors in a remarkable sequence of events during a lightning storm (on Halloween night, no less). As for the zombies themselves, if you enjoy watching people in green latex masks walking around in aluminum foil suits, then "The Chilling" is the movie for you. The zombie action is very weak at its best; the zombies' primary killing method seems to be grabbing people by the shoulders and shaking them to death. The businessman and the security guard do most of the zombie fighting, including a highly suspenseful scene of re-freezing the undead with liquid nitrogen. Let me tell you, the steel mill scene in "T2" has got nothing on "The Chilling" in portraying an enemy getting frozen in his tracks like that.

How Linda Blair ended up stuck in the middle of this piece of dreck is indeed a mystery. True, her career didn't exactly skyrocket during the 80s (sadly), but this movie is an embarrassment for her. The script doesn't even have the decency to put her to any good use. The most that her character is given to do is shriek out things like "Here they come", "Do something", "Hurry!". The only thing I can figure is that poor Linda was compensated for her work on this film in rations of food. The hero is played by Grizzly Adams himself, Dan Haggerty. In this picture, he faces stiff acting competition from his beard and the security dog, and he does his best to outperform them both.

The only frightening part of "The Chilling" is the introduction which brings up the factual elements of cryogenics and suggests that "the film you are about to see could happen in your own community". As I was counting the number of times a few of the names are repeated in the closing credits, I was floored to suddenly see Lucasfilm get credited. Fortunately, it was only for the movie's sound production. 1/10.


I'm all about the walking dead, but my mind is still unsure of the walking, frozen dead. Sadly, THE CHILLING didn't help me make up my mind. This is really slow with nothing happening for the first 45 minutes, making me hit the "film enhancement" button several times. By the time the well designed zombies show up, it is too late and the director (two are rumored to have filmed this) has no idea how to shoot them. Haggerty, Blair and Donahue all look tired/embarrassed/recovering in some fashion. I will give the film credit as it predates the T2 ending with villains being frozen by liquid nitrogen. The Shriek Show DVD offers an extended promo reel from back in the day that runs 8 minutes long and I would actually recommend that over watching the flick in its entirety.


As to be expected, there's a pretty good reason why this film is so obscure and unknown in spite of dealing with the always-popular premise of zombies and starring the 80's B-movie queen Linda Blair, namely: it sucks! "The Chilling" is trying enormously hard  way too hard  to be a story with depth and factual background, whereas it should have just been a light-headed and gore-packed horror flick about frozen zombies. It takes an incredibly long time before anything remotely interesting or significant happens. There's a lot of drivel about cryogenics, which I learned in my physics class is the study of products and their behavior at extremely low temperatures. So naturally, in this film a bunch of people are studying the behavior of human corpses when deep frozen. Needless to say this is extremely boring, until two dim-witted night watchmen decide, during an electric power failure, that it's a good idea to put the metal-constructed cool cells outside at the heights of a thunderstorm. The coolers are struck by lightening, obviously, and the bodies spontaneously defrost and come to live to go on a murderous zombie rampage. "The Chilling" is a boring and surprisingly (for a late 80's effort, at least) gore-free horror film that doesn't even use up a quarter of its potential. All the painful attempts to build up an atmosphere of suspense and eeriness fail tremendously and I can't think of any reason why the zombie-attacks had to be so bloodless. Even in spite of the low budget available, they could have done better. The set pieces, make-up effects and costumes are pitiable. The research lab, for example, looks like a proper apartment flat whilst the zombies couldn't look less menacing with their green faces and foil-wrapped outfits. How Linda Blair managed to get involved yet again in such an embarrassing low-budgeted horror flick is a complete mystery. She's attracted to lousy B-movies like bees are to honey.


Woof! Pretty boring, and they might as well have shot it in black and white, it was so colorless.

The movie starts with rolling text explaining cryogenics, and asking whether god or Satan is behind it. There are some protests outside a cryogenics lab. Some people rob a bank, and many of the robbers and guards get shot. The father of one of the robbers (I think) arranges to have his son frozen. There's a lot of jumping around in the beginning from scene to scene introducing characters without us knowing how they relate.

There's a power outage, and the cannisters containing the frozen people get struck by lightning, and they emerge as zombies. They're all wearing silver mylar-like suits, and their skin is dark green and wrinkled (no idea why they look so bad - being frozen evidently didn't preserve their looks), and they have silver eyes. They go around killing people, sometimes lurching like zombies, sometimes moving like normal people.

Linda Blair keeps showing up every once in a while, to what purpose I'm not really sure. I think her character works at the cryogenics lab, but she's not very important to the plot, and her role is very small.

The movie ends with some freeze frames with text captions that tell us what happened to the characters next, which are pretty silly.


"The Chilling" directed by Deland Nuse and Jack A.Sunseri is one of the worst zombie flicks I have ever seen.Why Linda Blair("The Exorcist","Witchery")appeared in this stinker is beyond me.The plot is really dumb:the frozen bodies at a cryogenic lab are revived after lightening strikes and turned into cannibalistic zombies.The characters are completely one-dimensional and stupid,the zombies look horrible and there is no gore.Avoid this cheap piece of trash like the plague.My rating:1 out of 10.


Well, I like to watch bad horror B-Movies, cause I think it's interesting to see stupidity and unability of creators to shoot seriously good movie. (I always compare this movies to - for example - some Spielberg's works and again-and-again don't understand the huge difference in what I see.) I like Ed Wood's movies cause it's so inept it's very funny. But people!!! "The Chilling" is not funny and is not even "interesting". It's EXTREMELY BORING horror movie without ANYTHING what makes even bad movies watchable. There's no acting, no screenplay, no direction, no thrills and not even blood. It's extremely inept amateurish film. It's definitely the WORST movie I had ever seen (and I had seen a lot of "worst movies" - believe me). I warned you !!! 1/10


Really for a short film that looks high budget this is just a candy coated piece of cr*p. It tries so hard to be hollywood. But even hollywood stories have an okay story (sometimes). Money wasted on an effort to be hollywood. Waste of almost a half hour of any viewers time. For the short film buff, look elsewhere...


This short film doesn't get there. Cliche' and not very funny attempt at dark humor. Humor isn't funny enough to get you interested and the protagonist isn't likeable so you really don't care about what happens anyway. Producer spent some money on this flop and it shows in the production value which is the only saving grace.


Anyone who sees this film will notice that the makers threw a lot of money at this film. It's interesting they titled it "The Hole"! The production values are good for a short film. The hole tries to look big budget and does in some ways but is hampered by the video format it was shot on. I speculate if this was shot on 35mm it would look incredible and would elevate the content somewhat. Many hollywood movies look good and that's enough for an audience regardless of story and content.

My honest opinion, 3 out of 10 for this effort. Maybe Ishimoto's next film will deliver.


This was an awful short film that tries to be funny in a dark way but wasn't funny at all. Say at a film festival in Chicago. It really is what the title says and I simply wasn't into it at all. The bad storytelling was what did it in. If you re-wrote it and re-shot it, it "might" work. This attempt fell in "the hole". Horrible filmmaking.


Comedy is a hard beast to conquer. Ishimoto fails on all accounts, as a writer and director. Some things, like making movies that are funny, just need to be left to the professionals. 1 out of 10. Awful. It wasn't funny. I tried to laugh but it just wasn't funny. I wasn't the only one, no-one else at the Chicago festival was laughing either, at least at the showing I saw. Simply very bad, sorry :(


Directed by the same Jin Ishimoto that put Neoedision and flixer.com (a once promising online film community) temporarily out of business and off the net because of his directorial style and method of filmmaking on his next film GIRL'S BEST FRIEND.

THE HOLE suffers from this "look at me, I am a filmmaker" style of filmmaking that is becoming the near standard in today's hollywood, to the detriment of content.

THE HOLE actually starts out with a unique concept but that concept and the promise of captivating content soon is destroyed by the "look at me" directorial style of filmmaking.

There are some funny moments that still shine through the pretense but it is a painful short to watch.

How sad it is when the new breed of "filmmakers" choose not to be a servant to the story but rather try and dominant on and off screen. Heck, they don't care, as long as they get their studio deal, house on the beach and a new car, content and presentation are secondary issues.

The real sad part of all this is Hollywood embraces the "look at me" attitude so much that the whole aesthetic of filmmaking is changing. Rather than present a story in a straightforward way that puts the story first, today's directors are getting "experimental" i.e. "look at me".

Is it me or am I the only one that was really put off by Sena's opening minutes of SWORDFISH. That movie went on to rise above Sena's directorial attempts at "look at me" filmmaking, Unfortunately this short film by Mr. Ishimoto does not.

3 out of 10 rating from Elec Tv.


It is sad what they are letting into film festivals these days. I had to sit through over twenty minutes of this dreary short that wasn't funny at all to get a good seat for a feature film that I wanted to see at a local film festival. The festival planners paired this horrible short with a great feature. I am just glad the feature was good, otherwise I would have not been a very happy camper!

For a comedy short film it got no laughs. The title says it all.


This film had some funny moments. Louie, the main character was well cast along with some other decent supporting characters. The opening shot of the movie set the tone but the direction and story went downhill from there. Aside from a twist at the end (interesting and funny also), I wish this film had better direction and a more developed story. Without giving any of the plot away, the whole idea is better good! I just wish it was executed better in this short film. The potential was there but it just didn't deliver the goods.


Poorly directed short "film" (shot on hi-def or betacam it appears). It screams student film/video all the way. The premise is limited in scope and the short actually feels a lot longer than it runs. Some interesting acting moments and some decent production value, but not enough to lift this film from "the hole" it has fallen into.


This is a poorly written and badly directed short film, pure and simple. What is interesting and keep me watching, to some extent, was the production values. Shot on video it appears, with a bad script and bad direction, one would think it would also have horrible production value. That is what the viewer expects when they watch a film that is terrible and shot on video. BUT Not in this case, they spent some money and it shows. It keep me very mildly interested to see what was coming next, just to see!

Probably the worst short film I have seen that looked big budget hollywood even though it was shot on some sort of video format.

Instead of spending the sum of money they must have spent for some rather impressive set design, it would have been nicer to see a better executed story with some good direction. But then again how can we expect new filmmakers to do this when even hollywood won't.


After the wit and liveliness of Highway 61 and Roadkill I expected this movie to shine, but it was as bloated and self-deluded as the hard-rock stars it parodied. The pace dragged, not helped by an over-long hallucination sequence, the characters were flat and unmemorable, and Art Bergmann is no Jello Biafra. I had to poke myself to stay awake.


The audience sat in silence through almost the entire film, with only a few, rare, occasional chuckles. The character of Maxwell Smart was so inconsistent, I felt whip-lashed. When it is convenient for the plot, Smart behaves like a master spy. At other times, he acts like an imbecile. They lift many classic lines from the television series, but they don't work in this version. The classic "missed it by this much" is funny if it is spoken with attempted braggadocio by someone who is an obvious failure - but it loses all humor when spoken by someone who is qualified. To a slightly lesser degree, many of the other characters move at a dizzying pace from skilled to cartoonish incompetent. Siegfried, the main villain, would seem to be intelligent, but he makes decisions that make no damned sense at all. Still, none of the characters in the film is as incompetent as the writers of this mess. I am utterly depressed that so many IMDb users think this was good.


This movie sucked. The problem was not with the cast. I think the cast was great, lots of good talent, lots of great acting. But the script was TERRIBLE! It seemed to be mostly just a frame work in which Steve Carrell could do his improv. And that is what he does best, but it just didn't work here. The script was hard to follow, the story was non-sensical, and scenes were random and lacked direction. Also, much of the action was extremely contrived and poorly thought out. It was a good effort, but as Max says, they missed it by THAT MUCH! I am shocked to see how many glowing reviews there are for this stinker here on the IMDb. Obviously, the movie producers are getting people to write lots of positive reviews on their movies and fill up the entries on the IMDb. If you read the positive reviews and compare them to the negative reviews, it is pretty clear which ones are genuine reviews from normal users.

This movie was full of problems and jokes that just didn't work. I loved Steve Carrell in Anchor Man, and I like his comedy and style. But I will tell you that I never once laughed while I was watching this movie. Yes, I had a couple of light moments, a couple of chuckles, but no real laughs. Nothing that struck me at all.

Spoiler Alert! One ridiculous scene was when Max had his hands binded on the airplane and he goes to the bathroom to try to escape. He uses his special Swiss Army knife...but instead of just using THE BLADE OF THE KNIFE, he tries to SHOOT the binding with his miniature crossbow. And as the crossbow miss-fires and shoots little arrows into him over and over again (almost putting out his EYE), Max doesn't give up or try the blade instead...no, he just keeps shooting himself with the crossbow. What was he really expecting to do with that crossbow? It seemed to be THE WORST option on the knife to try to remove the bindings. It just made absolutely no sense.

That is a good example of the typical circumstances in the scenes that made up this movie. They were ridiculous, poorly thought out, poorly motivated, and made of pure nonsense. And that was truly distracting.

As I said, this movie was a big let-down, and I recommend you avoid it. A note to the IMDb: You should do something about these phony reviews that people are leaving. It degrades the authenticity of the site.


In yet another miserable attempt to make a quick Hollywood cash-in of one of televisions greatest masterpieces, Peter Segal has created a monster. Taken out of context, if one did not know Brooks' work before viewing, the movie would be a lame big budget film that isn't sure if it wants to be fat joke and stupid comedy, or just an ordinary action film with nothing to move on. However, as a young generation Y'er who just recently spent two months obsessing over the five seasons of Get Smart, the 60's TV show, this movie pained me from the moment I entered and saw Steve Carell dumbing down the part. The backstories, agent 99 getting plastic surgery and 86 as an analyst who was formerly morbidly obese, shames the complexity of the original duo and paints a flat boring reevaluation of them. It seems the screenwriters, unable to be truthfully funny in both dialogue and situation, fell back on lame set-ups for Don Adams famous lines, flashbacks to fat camp, references to Carell's part in the office in the interview style camera angles they have, and a female chauvinism that falls flat on its face.

For those who have seen the original, the writers of this movie thought they'd include some memories. They mention Herbie, Fang (now a worthless tiny furry dog that Carell covets), the shoe phone, the cone of silence, and his classic red car and the doors and phone that intro'd the show. The classic music is back, but now everything is updated, generally for the worse. Cone of silence is now some weird blue telekinetic force field, control headquarters are right under a museum that preserves Control's past. The movie lacks any creative random tech, and replaces it with crossbows in swiss army knives. Lots of the "humor" in the movie is Carrel hurting himself, or another character being hurt, whether it be carrel spending two minutes shooting himself accidentally with the crossbow, or getting punched by security guards, or throwing up in airplanes. In the original, Smart would insult a big foe, attack him with no success, and try to buddy up with him before getting pulverized. In this one, he attacks without success and gets pummeled. It seems the screenwriters didn't understand the humor was established with the dialogue and not the pointless violence. It's like they took the names from the show, and cut out all that made it good in the first place.

The poster hides Carell's face beyond that of Hathaway's. The movie likewise, shies away from anything that could make it good. They intertwine the classic music with the over-dramatic action and romantic music in big-budget films. Whereas the original fed off a campy feel, this one replaces quality with massive doses of cgi explosions and pow sound effects. I was really looking forward to this, as I finished the original series just two months ago and it ranked in my top five shows of all time. However, this was a massive disappointment. The credits say they collaborated with Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, but in all the things I've read on the internet, they were largely left out of the writing process. In conclusion, if you want to waste your money on a cash-in with little value and no respect to its namesake, go for it. But be prepared that the ride is not how you remembered it.

PS: I almost forgot the George Bush humor. They mention "Nuculor", falling asleep at fine art, President's working for their vice pres, and appreciating tackles over solving real problems. If you're into hearing the same jokes you heard 3-4 years ago in big budget movie form, chuck your money here.


This movie is in the same league as Ishtar. Lots of wasted talent. Who let this bomb escape? When Sigfried says an example has to be made, in reference to a nuclear bomb, I said "Please let it be this theatre!" Don't waste your time. Not even worth a free rental! And where did they get these shills to fill the comments section on IMDb? I can't believe that anyone who has ever seen the original series enjoyed this stinker. Steve Carell is not a physical comedian. If they removed the "comedy" and made it a straight action movie, it could pass. What the heck was the purpose of the dance scene? Also, the fat jokes and references were tasteless. This movie never missed a chance to go for the lowest common denominator and scenes just ended, it seemed, as if no one thought them through. Just awful! Save your time, if not money and give this movie a pass!


Don't believe the hype. If you have high hopes or have anticipated this movie to any degree, you may be disappointed. Even the hilarious and talented Steve Carrell can't save this poorly written, over-long silly spy flick. For the purists (fans of the original TV series), this movie bears little resemblance to the original characters and influence. Agent 99 and Maxwell (except for their names) are simply not the same characters. There are several isolated references to the original, but not enough to convince this fan that it is anything more than a poor shadow of the TV version. For those not familiar with the original TV series, you may not be disappointed but chances are you will be bored. There are a few cheap Hollywood political shots as well (really pathetic and oh so typical for an election year). We left after the first hour and weren't alone. Some left after 20 minutes.


Yet another TV show becomes a movie. Steve {The Office} Carell plays dimwitted agent Maxwell Smart in a movie that's so bad, it makes the worst movie you ever saw become the second worst movie you ever saw. The seventh rate story- if you can call it that has a megalomaniac trying to take over the world. It is so unfunny, it is absolutely pathetic. About the only thing Anne Hathaway does as agent 99 is look good-she seems incapable of doing anything else. Bill Murray has the fine sense to limit his screen time to about 90 seconds, and a few faces from the TV series turn up in very small roles. Movie is supposed to be part thriller and part action film. It is neither. Even though I really was not a fan of the TV series, at least it was light years ahead of this piece of -hit. All this does is drag it through the dirt and cheapen whatever good memories we had of it. Thank God Don Adams is not here to see it. Keep it up Hollywood! Keep making crappy movies like this and keep sendin 'em to the multiplexes on a weekly basis. No wonder the film industry is going down the tubes. This movie is so rotten, it's NOT even good for laughs. If this movie were a newspaper, it could be used to line the bottom of a bird cage. There is absolutely no reason to see this movie. A root canal is more enjoyable than this.! Rating- zero minus five stars. Unless you are a Masochist, STAY AWAY. Better still, do what the title says- Get Smart and save your nine bucks. You will be able to buy about 2 gallons of gas with it. Put it in your car and be thankful you did not waste it going to a multiplex to see this bomb!


What a sad surprise.

Being a die-hard fan of the original series (starring Don Adams) I was really looking forward to this. Poor fool me. This is sillier and more brain dead than a monkey's bottom.

To say it was bad would be a severe understatement. It is/was the worst movie (well first 30 minutes of one) I have seen for a long time. I couldn't stand more than the first half hour, preferring to watch my hard drive de-fragment.

I can tolerate bad... bad is O.K., sometimes even cute. BUT up with contrived Hollywood crap (and this has to be the worst in many years) I will not put. This movie is a gross insult to the collective intelligence of humanity! My five year-old daughter could have written better - and she is not even dislexic!!! I'm really tempted to try watching the rest of it, but I'm afraid I have better things to do... like making pizza dough and watching it rise.

What a sad disappointment. No... I'm buggered off! What a swindle! As Mel Brookes once said; "Piece of shirt!"


I have never seen the TV Series or the previous movies. Probably that's the reason why I didn't enjoy it much. Boring and just not funny, sums it up nicely.

Considering the budget the movie seemed to have, it's embarrassing they couldn't do an even passable job.

We went to the cinema with no exceptions' at all and the hope to see a somewhat funny movie that wouldn't be too taxing on the mind. My friend fell asleep halfway through the movie and I spend the next 2 hours hoping that it would finally pick up. A hope, which died with the end credits.


Get Smart should be titled Get Stupid. There is not one funny line or gag in the entire film. This film is so bad it makes the Austin Powers films look Shakespearean. A few more films like this and Steve Carell can kiss his career goodbye. As for Anne Hathaway, what is she doing in this film? She's a good actress but is just plain terrible.

The writing is pathetically lame. There is not one funny, clever, or witty line. There is not one good sight gag.

The directing is terrible. Comedy relies on timing. Someone should tell the director that. Every line that is supposed to be funny (and isn't) is delivered with absolutely the worst sense of comic timing I've ever seen.

0 stars


There is the thrill of low-budget film noir. And there is the frustration of meandering, uninteresting movies made on the cheap. This one falls into the second category.

The Spot is the name of a nightclub. The film is about a policeman whose father has been killed by gangsters. He heads out to track them down.

Maybe it was the bad print. Maybe it's me. But I felt I'd seen this a hundred times, most of those times better than it is here.

It has promise, too: The cop is fascinated with a woman who plays records she introduces over juke boxes. They then meet. Now, though this was made well before I was born, I have seen that kind of juke box. And it is incredibly fascinating: When I was a teenager, I wandered into a bar that still had such a device. I always liked juke boxes, in bars or diners. But this one was different. You talked to it and a sultry sounding female voice talked back to you! That is addressed here but dropped into the general, uninteresting stew.

The movie has one thing going for it: In a small role, it features the very young Anne Jeffreys. What a beauty she was, and doubtless still is!


Wow, even American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance have more adult stuff now than WWE ( at least the auditions has a number of people abusing the judges) and here is WWE, plodding with one of the worst moves in TV history, by changing itself into PG. Now when I switch sometimes to see what's going on, this is what I get:

1) Hornswoggle, the ugly midget sharing his space with the main eventers for apparently no reason except for thrilling the young fans and of course beating Chavo Guerrero, a capable wrestler, in every match

2) A guest host (arghh....!) every week to spoil the teaspoon of fun which was otherwise present. All these host are cheap B-grade celebs trying to catapult to fame again, by cracking horrendous, 5 year old jokes and making silly references.

3) Cryme Time and a female wrestler (forgot her name, most probably Eve) giving lessons on various "street" words (sob) which are neither street nor cool. They were fun before, stealing stuff and being loud mouths.

4) The divas are clad in unwatchable outfits, tying their best to look "sexy, smart and powerful (by the way, I hate this catchphrase) Remember when Torrie, Trish and Sable were there? Those were the times. Plus these divas are bad wrestlers, which adds to the misery. I have seen some old matches of WWE in Vintage collection and the divas over there were "professional" not amateur.

5) PG move restricts so many things: almost no blood during matches, DX being terribly irritating, John Cena doing even more of his patriotism act, crowd containing many children (who are so annoying), almost no "heels" etc

6) And yeah, why keep PPVs so often. One in every month, have they lost it? No actual feud or rivalry is ever created and the ones that are done look fake and just-till-the-PPV-gets-over ones.

7)Vintage Michael Cole and a few of his quotes:

" Ladies and Gentlemen, you are watching the longest running television show in history" (every week"

" The BRUTAL and VICIOUS assault by (he doesn't use it for anyone else) Randy Orton/Legacy"

" A vicious attack on Stephanie McMohan, Triple-H's husband!!!???"

WWE is now almost towards its demise. Hope Vince gets up from his slumber and does something ( bring back the TV-14 or attitude era) 2 out of 10 for the current state of WWE.


This is absolutely nothing like the WWF and the 'Attitude Era' of the WWF. I have always been a dedicated WWF fan and I never took a glimpse of its competition. Now, I rue the day that I wanted the WWF to take charge. At the least the WCW would try something new and radical all the time instead of keeping up as a mask of the actual intentions of the show and this holds true to ECW as well. The WWF has always been about Hulk Hogan, Andre The Giant, and other old wrestlers like so and the 'Attitude Era' only happened to catch up with the radical ideas of the competition. The WWE is the same trash as it was before the Attitude Era only dumbed down and demoralized. The wrestlers are terrible, the brand split is mind scrambling, and the story lines and stipulations are non-existent. The WWE is so bad that it ceases to even be a former shell of itself by pushing characters and wrestlers into the main event suddenly and by retaining barriers of creativity. Sure, the show shakes the brains of sweet, innocent, and easily brain-washed children and meager, lousy, pariah, stupid people of the Internet Wrestling Community that actually consider the company anything good. Anybody that even shudders and rests on the thought that this show and product is good can go straight to hell.


Why does this piece of film have so many raving reviews?

This is amateurish, unfunny and annoying.

The only memorable thing here is the corny title song.

The production values are low and the "comedic" (if you want to call them that) ideas are weak, they seem like leftovers of leftovers from SNL that even they would not dare to have put on the screen.

I'm beginning to thoroughly mistrust IMDb ratings.

This is light years away from Kentucky Fried Movie - not even in the same Galaxy.

It's not even possible to write 10 lines about it.

OK, another good thing: ugly street scenes and ugly people - something one doesn't get to see a lot in todays TV and Movies.


I found my tape of this long forgotten 'show'. Besides the Theme song 'DISCO BEAVER FROM OUTER SPACE'. This show is barely watchable. You will be flipping through channels,just like the couple flipping through the TV channels. This is a parody of TV.

The beaver is cool. The homosexual Dracula, the chick discussing her Peria experiences and the lady with the overly big lips discussing homosexuality show us everything that is wrong with TV. It is all BAD. Just like the beaver from outer space who seems to be lost in this new world, you will be too. *** out of *****


This is truly abysmal. I just got a copy of "Disco Beaver From Outer Space" after hearing good things about it, and I have to say, this was just so incredibly unfunny and bad, it will leave you numb and mystified how this ever got made.

I mean, what was it? Is it that this is typical late 70's humor? I don't think so. This is just so bad, and believe me, I don't mean "so bad it's good" either. This is a collection of extremely unfunny skits as if you are watching cable TV. Sure enough, this was an HBO program, and to think this may have been considered groundbreaking is scary.

There is one somewhat pretty girl in it, and there is some old NHL footage of the NY Islanders hockey team, which is fun to see even though I am a lifelong NY Rangers fan. But they even mess that up, as they try to get some humor out of two hockey players scuffling on the ice as if they are "dancing" and, even worse, reverse the videotape of two hockey players fighting to make it look like they are having sex. Oh, how funny! In one slight bit of cleverness, there is an interview a hockey player named "Chico" who resembles NY Islander goalie Chico Resch, but they even blow this by having him wear a Rangers jersey! Well, maybe that was intentional, who knows.

The bottom line is, "Disco Beaver" is just so blatantly horrible, so unbelievably bad, you will definitely feel cheated after watching this and wasting almost an hour of your life. You'll wonder what possibly made the makers of this garbage think they had something funny here, and you'll also wonder why these skits can't even come close to the worst Saturday Night Night slop. Incredible. Just incredible.


The only good part of this movie was the ending. You know the part of the movie where the lights come on and you leave to go home. No no that may be a little harsh - the dancing in the film was sensational but unfortunately that is where the plot ended. As long as the cast was dancing and not talking the movie went along well. As for Chayanne's debut - not too bad but hopefully his next film will have a little more depth. As for going to see the movie wait for the rental or TV. Do not make the same mistake I did and pay 8.50


Chayanne is beautiful enough, Vanessa is beautiful enough, I liked the storyline. But I went in with the expectation to see lots of energetic hot salsa dancing, I was disappointed. There needed to be more dancing, especially salsa.


As a devotee of Ms. Frank, I remember being so excited that the play was being re-made for TV. That is, until I saw it... This film is a prime example of how IMPORTANT casting is, and how directing plays such an important part in creating the sense of purpose. The casting of any CENTRAL role is CRUCIAL to a production of this sort...shows like AUNTIE MAME and MAN OF LA MANCHA are totally dependent on the charisma of the lead actor. And in the cast of this movie, the whole thing is destroyed by the atrocious casting of Melissa Gilbert in the lead role. There is not ONE SINGLE MOMENT that Ms. Gilbert even comes close to inhabiting the sensitive, mature spirit of Anne- Ms. Gilbert is "white-bread" throughout the movie... the only time I was close to tears was during the reading of Anne's most haunting line: "I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart"- this is spoken by Ms. Gilbert so rushed, so lacking in conviction, that she might has well burped and achieved the same effect. Film and dance legend Marge Champion was the dialogue coach for this production- she should have refunded her salary! Despite Ms. Gilbert ruining DIARY, other performances are satisfactory for the most part- special kudos to Joan Plowright as Edith, Scott Jacoby as Peter and Clive Reville as Mr. Dussell. Maxmillian Schell does not have the deep-rooted soul and spirit as Otto as does the creator of the role on stage and film(Joseph Schildkraut), but he's okay. Doris Roberts and James Coco as The Van Danns are relatively superficial in their parts- they're shrill and bombastic, but again, only on the surface. This COULD be due to the fact that the pacing of the project is way too rushed(as noted in previous postings)- this film clocks in 45 minutes shorter than the film version- the difference owing to the pauses for dramatic effect, which apparently is necessary to propagate the appropriate MOOD for the story. This is NOT mandatory viewing, especially for youngsters learning about Anne Frank for the first time- stick to the original film version, and or even better, the TV production of ANNE FRANK: THE TRUE STORY starring Ben Kingsley, which is the CLOSEST thing to capturing the heartbreak and reality of Anne's situation ever filmed! Note: Especially appalling is the fact that Melora Marshall, who plays Anne's sister Margot, is NOT included in the opening credits along with all the other members of The Secret Annex... she's listed in the post-credits along with the actors playing Miep and Mr. Kraler. If I was Ms. Marshall, I would have SUED!


I saw and have the original 1959 black and white that stars Shelley Winters and Millie Perkins and no matter how many times I watch it, I can't help but not to cry.

This version was (obviously) a set, like the 1959 was, but there were so many mistakes in layout. Spiral staircase? Items that did not exist in that time period existed in the film. Doris Roberts, sad to say CANNOT play drama, she a comedic actress and that will not change. James Coco was a horrible Mr. Van Daan and Mr. Dussel resembled a college professor of mine rather then the dentist he was supposed to play. In the original film, Anne walked the "gauntlet" to go to Peter's room, that seemed to take her more then a minute. In this crappy remake, it took her under 10 seconds. The first reviewer was correct... This remake is just that, a remake. What was the director thinking casting comedic actors in a drama role like that. I'm sorry but James Coco cannot play drama. Max.. Schell was better in Deep Impact then this movie. The cranky Mrs. Frank was just that cranky, I couldn't stand her. Referencing and comparing to the 1959 version, I like her better, she did a better job of being the overwhelming mother. Out of 10 stars, I give this remake 3. Don't waste your time, get the 1959 version and a box of Kleenex.


This is truly a re-make that should never have gotten out of the stable. It has two casts that are acting in entirely different strata. At the top of their game are Joan Plowright and Maximillian Schell. Every nuance of the Franks is in plain sight. at the rock bottom are Melissa Gilbert and Doris Roberts. I cannot imagine how Schell and Plowright manage to play so well when Gilbert and Roberts are working their anti-magic. Gilbert ruins every scene she's in. It's like Father Knows Best in the Ghetto. She's Ann Frank light. Her run at Helen Keller was thin but not awful. This is sacrilege. Doris Roberts makes Mrs. Van Damm merely annoying. She is a completely inappropriate choice to play the sexually hungry woman whose flirtatious, dissatisfied presence caused so much trouble in het Acherhuis. This needed to be played by a woman who could convince us that she at least remembered what it was like to voluptuous. Her weight is not the problem. Joan Plowright could have played this part beautifully. Roberts was on a career high when this was made, getting lots of press and many opportunities. Her performance here displays her weaknesses as an actress shamefully.

James Coco and Clive Reville, have most of their scenes with Gilbert and Roberts , and , strong though they are, they are completely incapable of undoing the damage done by their partners. Reville is a wily actor capable of the kind of iconic performance given by Ed Wynne in the original film. He gets no support from Gilbert . She drain the color out of every scene.

I've read with dismay the comments by those of you who grew up watching this version, filled with attachment to these performances. It's a lesson in how the version you see first attachs to you. It makes me reconsider my attachment to some inferior products I loved in my childhood. I encourage you to watch the original. It has very few weak spots and it's head and shoulders above this mess.


Rarely have I seen a work of literature translated so badly to the screen. The hysterical cast of b-movie and sitcom extras simply make the characters seem like bad Jewish stereotypes. The worst of all is Melissa Gilbert, who you hate from scene one and never develop any sympathy for. Performances like this should be noted and used against actors who wish to work again. All in all, a seedy, low-budget made-for-TV film of the sort that gives made-for-TV films a bad name.


Ik know it is impossible to keep all details of a book in a movie. But this movie has changed nearly everything without any reason. Furthermore many changes have made the story illogical. A few examples: 1) in the movie "Paul Renauld" really meets Poriot before he dies (in the book Poirot only gets a letter), telling him he is afraid to be killed. This is completely stupid because if Renaulds plan would have succeeded, Poirot would have known that the dead man would not have been Renauld.(Poirot was in the morgue when Mrs Renauld identified the victim). 2) The movie has "combined" two persons into one! "Cinderella" has been removed by the movie. The girl Hastings falls in love with and the ex-girlfriend of Jack Renauld are one person in the movie! Why for god's sake? 3)Hastings finds the victims cause he is such a bad golf player. Totally unfunny and stupid. 4) The movie tells secrets much too early (for example at the very beginning). So you know things you shouldn't know. 5) The murderer gets shot at the end by a person who doesn't exists in the book. Perhaps because the person ("cinderella") who stops the murderer does not exists in the movie. 6)The book is very complex. The movie takes only about 90 minutes. Sure it is difficult to include all the necessary details but it is impossible if you include stupid things which were not in the book and have no meaning (e.g. bicycle race).


Victor Buono as the Devil? Surely somebody must have been drunk when that casting decision was made. That's not the worst part of this silly mish-mash of sundry haunted house devices but it gets my vote for being the funniest part of it. While the film is by no means terrible it doesn't even approach other 1970's "haunted house" flicks like Amityville Horror, The Changeling and The Legend of Hell House. The Evil can be entertaining in spots, but don't expect to be scared. It's better approached as what it is: a silly horror film made all the sillier by it's over-serious approach.


This is a by-the-numbers horror film starring Richard Crenna and Joanna Pettet as a psychologist duo who purchase and old mansion and invite a small crew of friends and patients to help clean the place up. Unbeknownst to them, the mansion harbors a cellar door - the gateway to hell. If you are in the mood for a clichéd horror film, then look no further, but if you want something inventive, then this little film won't appeal to you.

VIOLENCE: $$$ (Rather subdued, albeit the scene where a guy cuts his hand with a saw - rather gruesome mind you. Fans of inventive deaths scenes will not like this as every character seems to be electrocuted in some fashion).

NUDITY: $ (Nothing to speak of. Mary Louise Weller adds the good looks but her character was underdeveloped).

STORY: $$ (Cliched, but view-worthy nonetheless. This offers nothing new to the genre but the casting of Victor Buono - who is about as menacing as a department store Santa - seems to have attracted a few viewers).

ACTING: $$ (The best performances are by Crenna and Pettet with the other actors simply "phoning-in" their roles. The screenwriter fails to develop any characters outside Pettet's character and seemed to have forgotten about Mary Louise Weller (Animal House) who disappears for about twenty minutes and only resurfaces to be electrocuted like everyone else in boring fashion).


I actually saw THE EVIL on the big screen. I saw it as part of a double feature during the early 1980s (don't remember the other film) when I was in my mid-teens. The film is bad, cringe-worthy bad. Embarrassingly bad. The effects are atrocious (you can clearly see the cable pulling the black girl across the floor). There's absolutely nothing scary about it. In fact I laughed throughout the film.

The story tried to create this big built up for the climax, when we're suppose to finally see who's responsible for all the evil goings on and we see greasy Victor Buono, who's as scary as an overstuffed Twinkie. Seriously, what where they thinking? Buono, who was a villain on the Batman TV series, is one of the hammiest actors ever to grace the big screen and I just cannot imagine anyone being remotely terrified of him.

THE EVIL is all but forgotten now (for good reasons)but it's actually a very funny film and I wish I could see this turkey again, just to see that black girl being pulled across the room by an unseen force with that very visible cable.


The Evil is about a big house where a bad spirit is foolishly unleashed to torture all inside. What a washout of a movie! There's not a single scary scene. Not one! Richard Crenna overplays a nothing role. There's some animated ghosts, a disfigurement by power saw, and a ghost-rape. After nothing special happens for almost the whole movie The Evil gets personified into...Victor Buono. Great! Where did the filmmakers get the idea that Buono is scary. He looks like he was on the bum for a guest starring paycheck to pay his liquor bill. By then its too late to turn it off, because the damn thing is over. I felt like throwing the videocassette out the window. Please avoid this junk! Hopefully it will never see the light of DVD and will fade into obscurity.


Sorry, folks! This is without a doubt the worst film I have ever seen. Sometimes when a movie is really bad you can joke about it and have a good laugh (like Plan 9 from outer space), this movie is so bad you can´t even enjoy it on an ironic level.


yeesh,talk about craptastic.this thing is brutal.horrible voice dubbing,even more horrible acting and no discernible plot.apparently there are some great chase scenes,but the problem is,you have to get to that point first,and i just couldn't.the 20 or so minutes i endured felt more like a root canal than a movie.i suppose i could have fast forwarded it,and i recommend you do the same,unless you have very extreme pain tolerance or your a masochist.i don't fall into either category.i still have a migraine from this thing so i'm about to perform some dental surgery without anesthetic just relive the migraine.bottom line,horrendous. 0/10


Having been a Godzilla fan for many years, Gamera was to me a cheap knockoff to capitalize on the success of Toho's #1 kaiju star. ATTACK OF THE MONSTERS was for me at the time (1975) an almost painful viewing experience.

Last weekend, I attended the annual Godzilla fest, known as G-FEST, where Carl Craig, one of the stars of GAMERA vs. VIRAS, made an appearance. Of course, they featured this movie. It was one of the most hilarious bad movies ever made. Of course, you have to be in the right frame of mind to watch it. In one scene, for example, the boy scouts held prisoner on board the alien space craft manage to escape by distracting the not-too-bright aliens. When they realize they"ve been duped, one of them says, "That's funny...I think those kids lied to us." Not even PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE can boast that kind of dialog.

This may not be GODZILLA or even GAMERA 3, but this one is a decent enough time waster, if you watch it in the right frame of mind.

However, if you want top quality kaiju entertainment, check out the recently released GAMERA 3.

Rating: **1/2 out of *****


"Destroy All Planets" winds up settling for 'destroy all Tokyo' by film's end, as a space monster resembling a giant squid falls to the reptilian furnace known as Gamera. Actually, Gamera is saving Earth right from the get go, knocking out Varian Space Ship #1 even before the first set of film credits roll. The scene switches to a Japanese scout camp where we meet a pair of meddlesome young heroes, Jim and Masao, who take part in Gamera's exploits after being kidnapped by the aliens and beamed aboard their ship in an electrified bubble shield.

It's pretty startling to see the boys convince a scientist to let them operate a newly invented submarine that might be defective. Previously boy genius Masao had wired the unit to run in reverse direction of it's controls, but Dr. Dobie didn't think about checking that out as a possibility. At least that prepared the boys for interfering with the alien space ship's controls by playing switcheroo with a bunch of triangular blocks.

When boss alien Viras says 'Activate the Videotron', hang on to your seats for rehashed footage from earlier Gamera movies where he battles Barugon and Gyaos. These take up quite a bit of screen time, but are no match for the fast forward button if you want to get on with it. For the longest time Viras addressed an invisible crew, and when they finally appeared, they were Orientals who could fly - imagine that!

Seeing as how these movies were made for a juvenile audience, it's surprising to see how gruesome some of the scenes are. Gamera drawing blood comes to mind, and how about the pair of space crew members being decapitated. When squid tentacles started emerging from the headless bodies I made a connection to the 'Alien' films; having the individual units merge to form the giant Viras was a neat device.

I guess the appeal for young kids might reside in identifying with the two young heroes who make friends with a giant monster, move around pretty freely on an alien space ship, and get to have whatever they want with the help of alien telepathy technology. Seeing as how the movie was presumably made by adults, it could have been a simple case of wish fulfillment.


Gamera vs Viras was made lazily and much of it suffers as a result.

Space Aliens try to take over Earth and are stopped by Gamera. So they send another ship that manages to kidnap two young boys. The aliens then take control of Gamera and get him to attack mankind.

First of all I must say that I really enjoyed the monster fight at the end between Gamera and Viras. Viras looks like a big squid with a beak. He has no energy weopons and does not shoot any rays out but he can close the apendages on top of his head to make a sharp pointy weopon. SO overall this is not a bad monster for Gamera to fight and is decent. Viras really injures Gamera badly by stabbing his underside of his shell with his pointy head and I am surprised Gamera was able to survive this.

Unfortunately Gamera vs Viras decided to use footage from previous Gamera films to fill time for this film. They re show the battles between Gamera and Barugon and Gamera and Gaos when the aliens look at Gameras past battles. However when they show Gamera's battles with Gaos they show the battle between Gamera and Gaos in the city first, then they show the final battle between the two. After they show re used footage of the final battle between Gamera and Gaos they show the FIRST battle between Gamera and Gaos!!! Talk about showing the battles in non chronological order. THey did not even need to show the first battle they should have just stopped after they showed the final battle between the two.

Another issue is that they decide to re show footage of Gamera attacking cities when the aliens order him to attack Tokyo. So they show the scene from "Gamera vs Barugon" where he destroys the Dam. After the show scenes from "Gamera The Invincible" which is a huge issue for me. Mainly due to the fact that "Gamera The Invincible" was in BLACK AND WHITE!!!! Using stock footage from a black and white film in a COLOR film is really lazy and that is not a good thing.

Also the dubbing is bad once again. The two little kids are not that annoying but it would be nice to see a Gamera film that did not involve little kids.

So the over use of footage from other Gamera Films is a deterrant to this film. The final fight is awesome so basically I recommend skipping to the final ten minutes and watching this film. The rest is something that has already been seen before.


More of a Frisbee like turtle with fangs that go up like a wart hog. More battles with people in bird suits that look like people in bird suits. A ping pong ball space ship. Two naughty boys who know how to do everything, including getting on board the space ship. More tiresome music. More "Gamera is the friend of children" stuff. I remember when Godzill and Rodan came out. The movies were a lot of fun because the monsters were actually a threat to people. Now they are just a parade of silly costumes with very little behind them. The adults are all ridiculous and moronic. Like in American sitcoms, the kids are the bosses (when in reality they couldn't think their way out of a paper bag). These monster movies must be the Japanese means of partonizing these little snots. Above all, however, is that after seeing three of these movies (with the same plot over and over; check the stock footage), the ultimate conclusion is that they are boring. If you haven't see this one, don't bother.


It must be remembered that the Gammera movies, like many of the first-series Gozilla films, WERE in fact aimed squarely at kids. Little Kenny and his cohorts are living out the daydreams of the kids in the audience: they get to run around and play with top-secret stuff while the adults stand by and allow it; they get to cavort with monsters, and even when the bad guys enter, they are never in any real danger.

Perhaps the first Gammera film is an aberration because the child DOES get punished and IS put into danger, but the rest of the series is pure wish fulfillment.

As one critic said, these aren't failed adult movies but successful kid's movies.


The photography is accomplished, the acting is quite good, but in virtually every other department The Greek Tycoon is a dreary bore. Taking its inspiration from the real-life love affair of Jackie Kennedy and Aristotle Onassis, the film is a glossy but absolutely empty soap opera of the kind that can be found on TV all day long. Viewers who embrace the whole "celebrity magazine culture" (paparazzi photographs and gossipy stories about the rich and famous) will undoubtedly find much to whet their appetite here. But those who prefer films with a bit more substance and craft and quirkiness will find the 107 minute running time a butt-numbing slog.

American president James Cassidy (James Franciscus) and his beautiful wife Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) are in Greece on official business. A ridiculously wealthy Greek shipping tycoon, Theo Tomasis (Anthony Quinn), catches sight of Liz at a party at his elegant manor. Despite the fact that both of them are married to someone else, there is an immediate attraction between them. Later, at a private party aboard his yacht, Tomasis makes his desires known to Liz. Some while later, President Cassidy is assassinated whilst out strolling on a beach. Liz is shocked and saddened by his death, but it isn't long before she seeks comfort in the arms of her Greek lover Tomasis. Eventually the two of them are married and their love affair becomes a favourite talking point for the world's newspapers, magazines, photographers and wags.

It is somewhat amusing to note the vigour with which the producers of this film denied that it was a dramatisation of the Kennedy-Onassis story. They wanted the film to be seen as an original story, rooted in fiction. But anyone with a brain can see from where the movie is drawing its inspiration. Even Aristotle Onassis himself knew The Greek Tycoon amounted to his love-life getting the Hollywood treatment (if rumours are to be believed, he actually had a hand in approving Anthony Quinn for the Tomasis role!) J. Lee-Thompson isn't really the right sort of director for this type of movie  he's better suited to action fodder like The Guns Of Navarone and Ice Cold In Alex  but he marshals the proceedings with an uninspired, professional adequacy. Quinn is very watchable as Tomasis; Bisset looks lovely as the object of his desires; Franciscus uses his toothy smile and a façade of integrity to make for a believable politician. Their performances are good on the surface, but there's little for the actors to do on any deeper level. Similarly, Tony Richmond's photography gives the film an elegant surface sheen as it moves from one exotic locale to the next, but the merest of scratches proves that there's nothing behind the film's glossy exterior.


I saw The Greek Tycoon when it first came out in 1978. I found it extremely boring. I thought it was no better than a travelogue except for one thing: For the first time in my life I realized why it would be good to be rich. Seeing the scenery off Aristotle Onassis' yacht and getting my first real peek into the lifestyle of the rich and famous opened my eyes. To paraphrase Martha Stewart: It was a good thing. Funny, I don't remember the sex scene. I hadn't seen the movie since it was on the big screen and found the lovemaking session with the mistress memorable this time. Maybe because I was younger and single back then, it was no big deal.


I am ashamed of myself that I actually went to the theatre to watch this movie when it was first released. While I suppose its thinly veiled depiction of the Aristotle Onassis and Jackie Kennedy story is well enough done, it's a movie that should never have been made in the first place; hence, my low rating.

The film chronicles the tale of a wealthy Greek business shark called Theo Tomasis, who woos and wins the lovely young widow, Liz Cassidy, of a slain American President. Sound familiar? Yes, everything except the names.

The cast is not to be faulted. Anthony Quinn plays the Greek tycoon to perfection, and at least it's some consolation, having just read that Ari himself requested Quinn for the role. Jacqueline Bisset is of course beautiful and sophisticated in the part of (for all intents and purposes) Jackie, and James Franciscus has the all American good looks of the President.

I haven't seen this movie since it came out, nor do I wish to see it again. I seem to recall a fair bit of bad language and some general crudeness. Otherwise, I suppose it's a sensational and supposedly intimate glimpse into the jet setting lives of the rich and famous, frolicking aboard their yachts, beaches, pools etc. Yes, the scenery of the Greek islands is spectacular, the best part of the movie.

Of its type, it's okay, I suppose. There are no end of TV movies about the Kennedys, which I confess to occasionally tuning in to, and not to my credit. This is basically just another. Far better to allow Aristotle and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis to rest in peace.


This movie serves up every imaginable Greek stereotype. In one particularly galling scene the tycoon says "I'm just an ignorant peasant." As the grandson of Greek peasant immigrants who passed on a legacy of wisdom and love to their children and grandchildren, I found this movie contemptible and odious.


The action scenes was quite good. But the plot of the movie, I would have to give it a score of 1 out of 10. It seems that the producers and director of this movie didn't thought about it carefully?

It doesn't give much value and values to it's viewers except for it's violence. The entire story was about revenge. A boy witnessing a rape and murder. I would even recommend it to be banned. Those who watched it, you've just lose some money. If you're thinking of watching it, watch something else. I would ask for a refund if I was on a movie theater. So for you guys and girls out there reading this article. Please don't waste time.


May Contain Spoilers.

An innocent trailer park or maybe 'Compton' LA white kid witnesses a terrible childhood tragedy relating to drugs and violence. An unprofessional but dedicated police partners try to take down a 'sophisticated' high end club drug ring only to be fired and chewed out by the the drug lords high priced attorneys. The plot thickens as more people come back to seek vengeance and justice with a predictable ending. The only memorable part was a walk-on by Ron Jeremy.

If I was in a movie theater I would have asked for a refund. I feel sorry for the poor actors in this movie. It was just awful and painful to watch. The worst part was the cinematography were the director kept flashing back within the same scene so the sound would not quite match. And NO it was not a codec nor DVD problem but an intentional technique. Ughh. Two Stars.


I suspect this board will soon be full of comments from over-emotional people praising "Dear John" as a "pearl" and a "rollercoaster ride" and all the other vacuous words this film's target audience typically employs.

I am most definitely not this film's target audience, but I do not dislike romantic dramas either, as long as they are well made, so here is my objective take on the flick.

It is not good.

It's not a bad movie either. But the plot meanders, development stagnates where it should've been moving forward (right around the middle, to be precise), and as for the ending...it almost felt as if they had run out of ideas so they suddenly said, "Hey, let's just film a last scene real quick, put some sentimental string soundtrack over it, and end it that way." Even Amanda Seyfried's beauty could not save this. Channing Tatum too gave a good performance, but you can only do so much with a flawed script.

Speaking of the music, it is unbearably predictably and kitchy. From the smokey voiced, irritatingly high-pitched female folk singer schtick (surely chosen to appeal to the majority of college-age girls that will go see this movie) to the overused "shimmering strings and piano" combo, it only annoys anyone paying more attention to the film as a whole rather than to his own "feelings." The film has a good beginning and the major conflict that launches us into the second act were all promising. So was part of the second act itself, as the story unfolded. Then the film just dropped the ball. Beyond that, I'd have to give spoilers.

"Dear John" is not a bad movie, but it doesn't work as it should either. If you want to see a truly moving film about prolonged love waiting to be reunited, go watch "Notebook," which was truly superb.


The movie starts in spring 2001. A soldier named John Tyree (Channing Tatum) falls in love with college student Savannah Cutis (Amanda Seyfried) while on break. Within the space of two weeks they fall madly in love with each other (!). But he has to go off to war and she has to go to college. They do but keep in touch by writing to each other. Then 9/11 happens. He wants to reenlist--she wants him to stay home. What will they do?

Hysterically bad romantic drama. The leads ARE attractive--Tatum is certainly a handsome man with beautiful green eyes and a hot body (he's introduced walking shirtless out of the water after surfing)...but he can't act. Seyfried is a beautiful woman and she tries...but the dialogue here is horrible. When I saw it me and a friend of mine were fighting hard NOT to laugh out loud at some of the "romantic" dialogue at the beginning. It was just HORRIBLE. For the first hour or so I was either bored by the ridiculously predictable drama or amused by the horrendous "romance". Then, after that first hour, tragedy kicks in and, I must admit, had me in tears. However the filmmakers go out of their way to make sure that you're crying with death, funerals and meetings with people breaking down in tears. How can you NOT cry? This would have worked if the acting were better. Tatum's face never changes expression--not ONCE! He always had a blank look on his face. Seyfried was a LITTLE better but not much. To make it worse Tatum and Seyfried had no sexual chemistry on screen at all! They barely looked like they liked each other let alone love each other. There was some beautiful photography of the Carolinas but this is a boring and stupid romantic "drama". A 1 all the way...and I usually love silly romantic dramas like this!


Having read this story a while ago I was very excited to see the movie. I read the book again. It is one of my favorite Nicholas Sparks books. What I think what makes the story is the relationships. That was the down point for me in the movie because I think the relationships were poorly expressed in the movie. I have no idea what the point of changing main characters roles (Tim's and Alan's characters). The movie didn't at all capture John and Savannah's relationship. Maybe if you haven't read the book you might like this movie, but I thought it was so dull compared to the book. I thought Channing was a great pick for John,but I had a feeling he was going to bring all young adults out to watch it, so I think it was more geared towards them. The ending cuts the whole point of the book out so I was also unhappy with that. I was hoping the movie was more like the notebook or a walk to remember and the way they captured the books. I do feel like I wasted a Friday night out and 10 bucks on a sappy love story, not at all the story I was expecting to see.


This movie had the potential to be a very good movie in my eyes, Nicholas Sparks is a great romance author and this movie had every chance to be just as great as The Notebook but whats sets the two apart is the notebook had a dream team of leads in McAdams and Gosling but here the balance is thrown miserably off by the inept acting of Channing Tatum

I felt a lot of the scenes were uneven purely because of his performance, a lot of the emotion in various scenes is lost because he cant act, leaving an awkward and uneven situation, Amanda Seyfried given a great performance only to have Tatum drop the ball and the mood is lost and the scene cant recover.

This story deserved to be cast right, but what it got was a pretty boy who cant act. Tatum should stick to what hes good at, movies that are more about his physical ability, albeit horrible, like GI JOE, step up, and Fighting. The less he talks the better.

Try not to think of me as a jaded hater of Channing Tatum I went in to this movie with an open mind, because I've been surprised many a time by the likes of Adam Sandler in Reign over Me. I gave the same chance to Tatum I didn't view him here as the sum of his past roles, purely just by his performance in this movie, which sadly was a letdown


I was looking forward to seeing two bright young actors appearing in "Dear John," but it was very slow moving; and I felt that both the screenplay and the direction hampered the flexibility of the principle performers. I usually do enjoy film adaptations of these novels. Ironically, I did think the movie did an excellent job of depicting realistic military action.

The cinematography was very good at segueing through love letters, focusing just enough on a key word or phrase in each letter. I felt that Channing Tatum became bogged down in what became a very "hang-dog" series of expressions in response to loss.


The only reason I rated this film as 2 is because Channing Tatumis beautiful however the whole film lacks emotion and was boring to watch. Usually I adore a good romance but this was just a waste of time, I didn't shed a tear despite it containing sad content it just wasn't acted very well at all. I'm no film critic but I just advise girls to avoid this really unless the only reason you're watching it is to see Channing Tatum lol the rest of the film is rubbish and if he wasn't in it (not that his acting was any good) I would have stopped watching much quicker. It's a shame really because if the right actors were chosen for this film it could have had the potential to be a real tear jerker. .. If you're looking for a good cry or a film for a girly night in...give this one a miss!!


I was talked into seeing this by a girlfriend..John was a good guy, sweet, sensitive and looks great with no shirt on!! I thought it was a love story about both of them but it was mainly about his reactions to her letters. Savannah was a likable character at the start of the movie but once she dumped him I lost respect for her. She said it tore her apart being away from him and it was hard - he was the one a million miles away, he was killing people and the only contact he got was through her letters!!! She didn't have it hard, she had family & money and he had a tour of duty!! I was so frustrated at the ending when he forgave her - he was too much of a sweetheart. I would have waited the 3 years and welcomed him home with open arms.


After reading the reviews I am so relieved to know that I am not the only person who was very disappointed in this movie! I am a HUGE Nicholas Sparks fan, have read ALL of his books, most of them more than once. Of course I LOVED The Notebook and A Walk to Remember...I haven't yet seen Message in a Bottle or Nights in Rodanthe so I can't comment on those...

But I did go see Dear John this past weekend and I was terribly upset! The movie was not good at all! When looking at the movie alone, and not thinking about the book at all, it was still a terrible movie. I did not get the rush and range of emotions from this movie that I have got from other movies I enjoyed, especially The Notebook. I was not smiling and laughing and crying and worried and scared...ever! From the very beginning all I could notice was how they changed everything! The only thing about this movie that is similar to the book is that there is a guy named John who is in the military and a girl named Savannah who is not....the part about his Dad being obsessed with coins is about the only other part that went along with the book. Everything else was totally off!!!! First of all, in the book, Allen was Tim's little brother, NOT his son! WHY they had to change that, I don't understand. It made a lot more sense how it went in the book when Tim was just a little bit older than Savannah and they grew up together and Allen was Savannah's inspiration for wanting to work with horses and autistic children....that didn't happen in the movie....ugh...And in the book they spent a lot more time together than just those initial 2 weeks and then the 1 night...why did they leave those times out??? I could go on and on and on but then I would run out of space! So basically, if you are a great fan of Nicholas Sparks, don't waste your time or money on this movie...just read the book again...because it's terrible and nothing like the book!


OK, let's start with the good: nice scenery, Channing Tatum is easy to look at, Amanda Seyfried has nice hair, that's about it. How much of this movie went on the editing room floor? Probably the plot, action, good dialogue, and point. Terrible acting, horrible choppy dialogue. Let me tell you how bad it is: my friend who always cries at movies got to the part that was meant to evoke tears, and she laughed so hard we thought she was crying! The movie seems to want to take a stab at too many issues- war, loss, autism, cancer, but fails so miserably to cover any one topic satisfactorily. Make sure you have something to munch on and your cell phone to return text messages!


Today, being President's Day, my wife and I had "The Notebook" DVD, checked out at our local library. It's a movie released in 2004 that fell beneath our radar, as we are big movie goers. I'm a published author with hopes of screen playing my first book. I'd noticed references to "The Notebook" in reviews of other movies which is why I brought it up about us watching and this morning provided the perfect opportunity. We both really liked it. It made my wife cry; we could relate to many things in it with our own, continuing love affair and even I fought back choking up.

This afternoon, after lots of chores, yard work and eating, we decided to actually catch a matinée. When we got to the theater, having seen most of the current batch of films playing, we elected to see "Victoria Day" which for some reason was not at the theater, even though both IMDb and my phone movies showed it playing there. So, instead we looked at the poster for "Dear John" and that it was written by the same writer as "The Notebook", making it the obvious choice as we enjoyed 'TN' so much.

What a disappointment! First, the characters did not have the same believability or sense of empathy as 'TN'; and we kept commenting throughout all the similarities -- two dozen or so -- quickly causing us to realize this movie was nothing but, as another reviewer commented, "a poor man's Notebook!" It had a real 'cash cow' feeling, meaning the Sparks simply threw a story together, based on the exact template of 'TN' simply to make a quick buck. Not only that, after the 'bug-eyed' trollop improbably 'Dear John's-John' for the wimp cancer patient, we ridiculed the movie with each, passing soapy stupid line all the way through to the end. There were only about 6 of us in the theater during this 4:45pm Monday matinée and my wife even told me to keep it down so I wouldn't ruin it for the others...it was so bad.

Seeing this on the heels of 'TN' ensured that the rip off similarities were vividly recognizable and Sparks blatant, cheap attempt at template writing painfully obvious. We only wish we could've seen "Victoria Day" instead...no matter how bad it might've been after seeing this poor entry to cinema. And oh..., for the last 30-minutes, I kept saying "...don't give that cow the coins ...don't give that cow the coins?"


i was extremely excited for this movie! my expectations were under control because i read the book first sooo i expected differences. what i didn't expect were how great the differences were. Starting off by the characters physical appearances...like Channing Tantums lack of tattoos n Amanda Seyfried not being a brunette lol but i let that go...the character developments were not there at all...you didn't have time to love amanda seyfried character and you couldn't feel for her or for john when they first separated...i thought the two weeks were rushed and i hated that she left first then him...it took the emotional separation away...and why did they change Tim from the book...why did they make him a dad instead of a brother and why did they make him sooo old looking and the movie lacked that intense moment when they find out what happens at the end (didnt want to spoil it lol but for those who watched it u know what i mean) and whhhyyyy ooooo wwhyyyy did they change the ending...in the book it was heartbreaking and emotional and it emphasized on Channing Tatums character's decision whhyyy did they twist it...it just made it look like a rushed ending...it was terrible...thats what disappointed me the most...the ending of the book should have been exactly the same :(


OK, it's watchable if you are sick in bed or have nothing else to do. The suspension of disbelief required to get through this movie is significant though. First, in today's modern society do you believe college coeds get THAT committed to someone in that short of a period of time even if you are a "virtuous" Habitat volunteer who likes autistic kids? And the 2 week romance blossoms into a letter exchange that leads to John's "conflict" of whether to re-enlist right after 9/11/01...REALLY? He asks her what to do? Every guy we know was NOT gonna be sitting on the sidelines after those Towers came down(my husband was one of them and I love him and am proud of him for going) John's character is so flat. He's nearly expressionless the entire movie. He's good looking but not Spec Ops...he seems unsure not confident, quiet instead of a hell-raiser, no tattoos, gets into a "fight" with the preppy boys that is nothing more than a pushing match really...walks around without a cover on his head nearly the whole movie...and there are military technical flaws everywhere (epaulets upside down?). The war scenes are dumb...John and another guy heading off on their own...huh?, then other guy gets shot and John drags him 10 feet and starts giving buddy aid before securing the area or back-up arrival or even having their backs against cover...it's a gunfight for God's sakes, you don't stop fighting until its over...heck I wanted to shoot John in the back. Back home, when the truth is revealed and she spills the wine...we hated her for removing her shirt in his presence...WTH? break his heart and THEN tease him into adultery? She's a head case trollop. Best part of the movie is when he drives away from her...at least he had some self respect and honor there. Overall unbelievable story and we generally did not care about these characters or their love. Dismal!


If you are a fan of either of the two origin franchises (Aliens & Predator...duh...and even if you liked or disliked AVP flick in 06) you WILL hate this movie. The innumerable plot holes, flakey and unbelievable human characters, terrible special effects and even worse directing and fight scenes make this one of worse films I've EVER seen.

***SPOLIER*** One of the HUNDRED huge plot holes included the Pred/Alien hybrid going from chest burster, to full-grown bad-ass in seconds (it takes off on an onboard Predator-ship killing spree and wipes out a ship of Preds before the ship even breaks Earth orbit.) AS IF. In the first AvP we saw a ship of Sr. Pred hunters drop off three juveniles hunters going on an "earning their stripes" hunting party, and then in the end saw them picking up the "honored body" of the juvenile that was left over at the end of the flick. Are we expected to believe that the single chest burster hybrid killed all these Sr. Hunters before the ship even broke orbit? Also, (and this was EXTREMELY cheap production value on the director/producer's parts) jars and jars and jars of face-huggers somehow magically appeared aboard the Pred ship, even though the entire temple complex and queen Alien were destroyed in the AvP flick. These face-huggers end up playing an intregal part in movie...of course. And how about all these face huggers becoming full-grown Aliens in a days time? What a joke. Although there were many many more plot holes, I don't think IMDb would appreciate me filling up their servers by writing them here.

On the flakey and unbelievable characters, well, where should I go boys and girls? Where to start...almost all of these goof balls are cliché people from other films or TV shows. The town bad-boy who left to avoid jail time but shows up just on the day everything happens to save the day??? Where did I see that? Oh yeah, last season on JERICHO!!! Then there's the 20-something town sheriff (a former trouble maker himself) who was best-friends at one-time with the bad-boy. Where did we see that? Oh yeah, JERICHO and Walking Tall! Then there's the generic soldier (WITH NO RANK) coming home from some generic war-front that isn't met like a long-missed loved one and hero at the airport or bus station, but at her OWN front door by her daughter and husband. And who is this soldier? What did she do in the Army/Air Force/Marines/Navy/Coast Guard? We DON'T KNOW because the movie NEVER TELLS US. But ... dunh, dunh, dunh...she was some kind of soldier/airman/Marine/sailor/coasty that knows how to drive a Stryker Infantry vehicle and ...magically... A HELICOPTER!!! This character is just a generic copy of every "coming home" service person...except that she brings home a set of night vision goggles to her daughter that cost SEVERAL HUNDRED dollars. These are things soldiers have to sign for and don't just "bring home." UGH!

THe special effects and fight scenes are what pi-sed me off the worst though. These are the things I enjoyed the most in the first movie...watching Preds and Aliens go at it! The way this was filmed though, the action sequences were so dark and filmed so close up that you couldn't tell what was going on. You couldn't see who was doing what and what was going on as they were fighting it out. All in all, these hundreds of items are going to kill this franchise and the fanchise. No one is going to care anymore about seeing their favorite sci-fi movie monsters, and can only guess that the series will go down from here as producers won't like dump millions of dollars more on a sequel.


This is the worst movie I've ever seen, and it takes the price of the rotten movie of 2007 (which is made by me), anyway this movie misses every single ingredients of a good movie, I mean come on the actors had a bad performance, the story is just crap. I'm really, really disappointed they could have done better stuff, than this piece of junk. I've just wasted my time and my money on this movie. I wish that the production company could give back my money. Anyhow I'd high expectations on this movie, and I've got disappointed. I don't recommend anybody to watch this. so if u wanna waste ur money on something do it on some thing else than this piece of junk.


Where to start?? I think only three other films have led me to post a review on IMDb, and all of those were positive. As for this..?

Mind-blowingly, hideously, tragically, embarrassingly, catastrophically, stupidly, irritatingly, completely and utterly beyond awful.

I am STUNNED this got made, never mind given a theatrical release. I think I am literally in shock.

I'm no "snob". I didn't expect beautiful film-making or intense character-depth, but this is truly beyond a joke. We simply MUST demand more from the films we see.

Avoid. Like the Black Death.


Holy crap, the beginning picked up where the first one left off (good start). Then it goes downhill from there. You it looked like as if you were watching TV and you keep on switching between this teenage soap opera, a Predator movie, and some crappy detective show. The characters that are introduced in the first ten minutes don't have anything to do with each other until the final 45 minutes or so (the characters of the teenage soap opera and the actual Alien story).

Then for the end the producers were quickly running out of money and decided to end the movie so they decided to drop a nuke on the city.

P.S- What the crap is the deal with the cameras being so zoomed in you can't tell what's going on? Seriously, movie makers, do a good job with fight scenes and make it to where we can see the fight.


If you like me enjoy films with plots and convincing actors then Alien Vs Predator- Requiem is probably not the way to go. In summary, alien lands in typical American town, Predator lands in American town, both have a bit of a fight, US government blows up town, some people get away.....I'm sorry I think I might have spoilt the ending. Its easy to criticise someone who's being critical; people cry out, I bet you couldn't do any better! I bet I could ! Having made this film,watched it and then turned to congratulate each other with a pat on the back and a job well done; there must surely have been the spectre of lunacy in the room.


Mmmm, a previous summary says "if you like aliens and predator you will enjoy this film" i could not disagree more, this film pays no respect to its weighty lineage and has reduced two of the best loved sci fi strands to little more than a teen horror slasher movie, it has none of the tension or foreboding present in previous alien or predator movies and there is no discernible lead character, i really did not care about any of the characters and i positively yearned to see the stereotypical cast die as soon as possible in the vain hope something better would replace them, it really takes super human incompetence to have two of the most fearsome creatures ever invented positively fail to make a gripping thrilling movie, only watch this if you want to see how NOT to do it.


Against my own better judgment I went to see this film today, and God I wish I hadn't. Awful. The first AvP film looks like a classic compared to this, it's THAT bad. These guys actually make Paul WS Anderson look like a master storyteller. In fact, this is what I'd expect an Alien and/or Predator film to look like if it was made by Uwe Boll! This movie actually offended me, and Lord only knows what would transpire if Ridley Scott or HR Giger were ever forced to watch this piece of crap. I can't understand how any fan of either franchise could like this film.

Truly I don't know where to begin. I mean, the first AvP was poop, but it at least a semi-interesting story and setting, and occasionally some genuine tension. It didn't take itself overly seriously and it could at least be semi enjoyed on a purely "leave your brain at home" basis. But this one, it felt to me as though the people behind it thought they were making the next horror masterpiece. One after the other was a contrived 'suspenseful' scene in a dark room or corridor with creepy music playing, essentially bashing you over the head saying "be scared NOW". As James Cameron once said, you can't be told to be scared, you can only have your own senses heightened. The guys that made this film obviously weren't paying attention because they tried everything in the book to force you to be scared rather than letting you come to that level yourself. It's a cliché for internet nerds to say "God, I was so bored from this movie and felt like leaving", well this is exactly how I felt, even in the middle of the action scenes. They took this film totally seriously, which removed any possibility of enjoyment. Even the gag about how governments don't lie to their people was played without a hint of irony.

As for the characters, I knew going in that the human characters were going to be completely pointless to this film but seriously if they're going to be on-screen at least have them doing SOMETHING that is relevant to the story. I don't care about this guy being beaten up by his dreamgirl's boyfriend, I don't care about the mother who's "own daughter doesn't even know her, boo-hoo!" (a pair of night-vision goggles for a present? Give me a break!) or the released criminal just trying to make a decent living and set an example for his brother, what a guy. Hell, even the obligatory hot-chick-in-panties moment was more contrived than usual. I get the feeling they expected the audience to be so shocked at the ending, as well as seeing chestbursters come out of kids, expectant mothers being raped and the like, that that would make up for everything. I don't think so.

Then we move onto the stars of the film, and again very little to write home about. Were the aliens well-designed? I wouldn't have a clue because you can never see the damn things. All you see is one of a mouth, a head, a tail or a really dodgy cg outline climbing a wall, and barely enough to actually process that it is in fact an alien before Mr "I cut Marilyn Manson and NIN music videos, think I'll do the same thing here" Editor goes at it with the slice tool. Also, notice how hack action directors always set their films at night and in the rain? Hmmmm. The Predator could've been fighting giant sea monkeys for all we knew! Yes, the Predator was more impressive this time around, and I did think some of the new weaponry was cool, but that was about it. Also, since when does a Predator sound like a dinosaur from The Lost World? There were a couple of things that I kinda liked though. One was the use of sound effects and music from the original films (I also giggled a little bit at "Get to the chopper!"), although other references were stupid (The main character's name being Dallas, give me a break). I also liked the visual FX for the Predator's vision, as well as how the hybrid alien looked (certainly beat the one from Resurrection). But really, those are the only positive things.

Overall I found this movie inane, pointless, insulting and above all else offensive to the vision of the original creators of both creatures. That they've left the door open for another one leaves me almost depressed.

If they had any decency they'd remove Dan O'Bannon, Ron Schusett and HR Giger from the credits of this film. They've done nothing to deserve this.


This is not the true story. It is the darkest possible fiction derived from the events. It endorses suicide, morose obsession with death, a totally gratuitous sideswipe at organized religion in general (and the Anglican Church, in particular) and generally provides a nihilistic, pointless world view from which filmgoers, I suppose, are intended to walk away, richer in their poverty and more hopeful in their hopelessness.

Utter trash, though attractively performed by a capable cast. That anyone would suggest this is a true rendering, however, is very much false advertising. You want the real story? Rent 'Fairy Tale'. That's the real story. See if you can find any correspondence between the facts presented in either case. I only found one: the girls who made the original photographs were pre-pubescent.


Oh, how I laughed during those first couple of scenes. This silly little film about an 11 year-old who carries a gun, steals cars, robs stores, burglars houses, extorts money from other kids, burns houses, shoots rats, buys drugs, distributes drugs to his mother and his friends, and then kills a guy. What a great comedy! But it wasn't intended to be a comedy. It was intended as a social drama. How can this be? The events in this film are absurd and ridiculous. The characters are all stereotypes right out of a 4 year-old's comic-strip-induced immature imagination. The dialog is laughable; people talk like morons. It's a very dumb film.

The first scenes are indeed very funny, for all the wrong reasons. But the unintentional hilarity of the idiotic premise runs out after a short while, and after that the laughs come only rarely; by that time the viewer can't believe what he is seeing and is alternately amazed and bored by what follows (if he has at least half a brain cell).

A short film, but feels like an eternity. The film actually IS a seriously-intended attempt to show the world of a young degenerate, while imitating movies vastly superior to it, like "Fun". There is just such an air of phoniness about everything; the kids, the adults, everyone lacks credibility both in their actions and dialog. The kid in the lead mugs his way through the film as though he had seen all the Jimmy Cagney movies at least a hundred times. And, typically enough, the kid isn't portrayed as a reservoir of evil, but, instead, as a misunderstood little artistic talent. But of course. Every young hooligan is misunderstood - society made him bad. Poor child.

The film is embarrassing; a collection of stale, occasionally hilarious clichés put together to make a movie that lacks intelligence and meaning. The intellectual level of the film is zero.