First thing I note is the music. It's nothing as amazing as Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust's haunting theme or the masterpiece waltz from A Tale of Two Sisters, but I don't let that stop me so early in the film.

One must assume that the woman researching her hypothesis for her PHd dissertation that cannibalism as a organized practice has never existed, one would think they must take into the consideration that they are wrong and prepare for the trip accordingly right? Or why go at all if you already believe the hypothesis to be true before even being tested? That's fairly unbelievably ignorant and makes the movie seem that much more unrealistic and badly scripted.

That actually is similar to the Ruggero Deodato's film, just totally ill-prepared. No guns, no decent hiking clothing, just nonsense through and through.

People don't go on trips like this for college without months of planning and preparation.

But I digress...

Things don't get off to a very good start for our brave yet stupid adventurers as they swerve to miss a jaywalking iguana, and their decoy pet ferret falls out of the truck nearly to it's demise, then to fall into a mud hole, well I guess it's time to walk.

Okay then they flip a coin to see whether they keep going or forget the whole thing. How does that scene even make any sense? All their conviction rests on the flip of a coin? After they must've spent time, and money, and preparation just getting out there. This just keeps getting worse. Defiinitely some of the worst acting and scripting and music ever concocted for the film industry.

Mike talks about how he and his friend's were captured by the cannibals and put into cages in mud pits with 3 inch long leeches sucking on their blood. I found that interesting because if you remember the first cannibal they run into in the jungle, a man they mistake as a simple native, is sitting on the ground eating such leeches... wonder if they are the same ones? Really though this movie is just terrible because the script is horrible and the acting is emotionless considering the content. They just agree to off themselves rather then get eaten by cannibals like it's no big decision.

Obviously Mike is insane, but just like in the first movie they treat the natives with such terrible behavior it's simply unrealistic.

Ruggero Deodato's movie easily feels the Americans got what they deserved, while in this movie one can hardly blame the natives for what befalls the Americans yet again.

And because of that the movie feels somewhat pointless. We already got the point from the first movie, so why was the sequel made? The lieutenant's name is Rizzo?! Could it get any worse? Oftentimes with movies such as these when you look up the cast you find they haven't really acted in much other films and their bios are all but non existent, so you can imagine I was surprised to find Giovanni Lombardo Radice in this movie who was in Scorsese's Gangs of New York. Now Lt. Rizzo looked familiar and I found he was in the 2002 movie Spiderman as a very tiny role as a tugboat captain. Reminds me of how William Shatner went from being the admiral on the USS Enterprise to a cop in a car. Irony, sometimes irony works out. Shatner never could get the music right until his recent album "Has Been" which is really good, just like Bono of U2 never could get a haircut right, and Dan Marino never could win no Superbowls.

Sometimes irony is just sad, like Christopher Reeve, Superman can't walk irony. The man will always be a legend though because he was such a great guy, I digress yet again though.

At this point you can tell I'm fairly bored of even discussing Cannibal Ferox.

Cannibal Holocaust's message was about who are the real savages and what is truly evil? What the savages do in natural living unknown to our moral records, or what we do to others with malicious intent? Cannibal Ferox's message seems to be 'Be careful what you go looking for, for you just might find it.' I will say this for Cannibal Ferox. When Gloria comes back and writes her dissertation, asserting that Cannibalism does NOT exist, she saves others who would be curious and go where angels fear tread, but overall this movie was really bad.

***/10


CANNIBAL FEROX (1+ outta 5 stars) Miserable excuse for a movie... which you might enjoy if you really like boring, nonsensical jungle movies spiced up with scenes of graphic violence. A pair of drug dealers on the run from the mob travel to the jungles of Paraguay to search for emeralds and cocaine. They meet up with another young traveler and his two hot babe sidekicks, one of whom is an anthropologist seeking to prove definitively that cannibalism does not and has not ever existed. One of the two dealers turns out to be a bit of a psychopath and he tortures and kills a couple of natives in order to get them to tell him where they hide their jewels. (And how they could even tell him when he doesn't seem to speak their language in the first place?) Well, the natives are suddenly not too thrilled with white folks in their jungle and capture them all for some retaliatory torture. Poor acting, poor plot and poor direction. Not a decent moment of suspense in the whole dreary 90 minutes. Even the special effects are not particularly convincing (though a couple of shots will still make most viewers cringe). The only good scene in the whole movie is when the two women are imprisoned in a mud hut and seem to touch the hearts of the natives with their rendition of "Red River Valley". The following is a quote from the movie but I wouldn't be surprised if many viewers weren't saying exactly the same thing by that point: "Oh God, please let her die soon. Oh, let her die soon. And let me die soon too, please."


This movie was unbelievably bad... It's gory but the violence is just too much to the point where it looks extremely fake and predictable. Since Everything is shown to you there is nothing left to the imagination. And the plot... what plot? There really isn't any! The pacing is unbelievably slow (despite the random acts of violence) and the screenplay must have been written by a deranged 12 year old kid who kills kittens for fun. So this movie was banned in 31 countries? I could see why... not because of the gore (boring and trite) but because it was a terrible movie. It should have been BANNED from existence. Avoid this one like the plague. 1 out of 10


This film is about a young man's painful journey to discovering his sexuality.

The film is raw and unpretentious. It does not rely on steamy sex scenes to attract the viewers. Though the plot may seem incoherent and disconnected at times, and some events are not properly explained. I can understand it though, because this film is a collection of memories that are highly personal to the director. The subplot of about his sister and mother probably does not need to exist in the film, but I can certainly imagine that these are very important events in his life.

The low budget of the film is clearly discernible. It is a pity that the sound effects are poorly done. The narration and some dialogs (particularly the scene in the classroom with the French teacher) have so much echo, which makes it hard to make out what is said. The ambient noise, notable traffic noise, is also captured throughout the film. When a scene cuts into another, the level of traffic noise changes.

This film is probably not entertaining, but it certainly serves as an insightful diary of a young man's journey to embracing his sexuality.


I'm probably one of the few people who defend and even enjoy "Frisk," the project that put Todd Verow on the map, if that is indeed where he is. I appreciated that someone had the guts to take on Dennis Cooper and not back away from the material; Verow fairly rolls around in it. Judging from what he's done since then he's well-suited for that type of material and should probably stick to it. "Vacationland," a would-be "teen coming out" film, is so misguided in so many ways it becomes unintentional comedy, and I'm disappointed I have to report that.

First off, our hero, the high school Senior "Joe" is far too old in appearance to be playing 18 . When we later meet a man who is supposed to be Joe's teacher it's confusing, as the sweaty-faced guy looks much younger than the student he's teaching. Joe's mother looks younger than he does and doesn't "act" any older either. Second, in Joe's opening scenes he looked like he was either playing, or actually experiencing, mental challenges. To his credit he got better as the film went on and I figured out he was "playing young," but it just wasn't working--it was weird.

It's 15 minutes in before anything is revealed about who, what and where these people are, and why we should care. The second scene in the film is an extended bit of business in a men's toilet room that, considering where the story goes later, is absolutely superfluous; the subplot with the teacher goes nowhere at all, even as a "rite of passage" for our "young" hero...one minute Joe is nervously trying his hand at bathroom stall sex (a scene so un-erotic it makes you truly wonder what anyone sees in the practice), the next minute he's an expert at sexual blackmail and violent double-crossing. This is followed by an extended scene with the character we'll later learn is "Andrew," and that's about all we learn about him, other than he's apparently gay but not out yet.

There's a lot crammed in to the 1:44 running time (which is about 20 minutes too long--I can't imagine how it played with the mind-numbingly long and pointless deleted scenes of Joe walking around); a sub-plot copped from "Gods And Monsters" with an aged patron who spouts rhetoric appros pos of nothing played by an actor who obviously can't remember his lines (he is conveniently dispatched with in a way Dickens might have come up with on a slow week); a mix-n-match almost-four-way between the boys and their girlfriends, a gay-bashing toilet tramp, a would-be wise sage in the form of a nellie queen (and hasn't the nellie queen suddenly taken over the role of the "hooker with the heart of gold" as most tired stereo-type?) who exists only to be degraded; blackmail, theft, murder, alcohol consumption and abuse of looping music software for soundtrack recording.

What you will NOT find in this movie are any interior establishing master shots; we're expected to imagine we're in an airport, grocery store office and classroom, as all the scenes in these locations consist of close-ups and poorly edited soundscapes to convey the idea of locales that the production must not have been able to afford. One thing they were able to get appears to have been an actual gay bar; either it's the worst bar in the world or there are only about 5 gay men in Bangor, Maine, as the bar never has any patrons in it. Another good chuckle came when the actors were supposed to be yelling over dance music that very obviously wasn't coming from the speakers, but was just more of the droning loop-music of the "score."

Plots and characters come and go, emotions are unreadable and the dialog, clearly inspired by Dennis Cooper, is "film-speak," meaning no humans actually talk this way. Since we aren't given any information about these characters it's impossible to care about what happens to them; it's as if Joe et al appear out of the ether one day and might simply cease to exist once the credits roll (certainly the character of Joe's sister, a wannabee Jennifer Grey who is Bohemia-crazy, seems to just simply "stop," we never know where she is in LA or what her problem is...but again...does it matter?). Visually the film looks very good at times, more a testament to new developments in hi-def video than anything, I suspect. The editing is pretty clunky though (there was one great edit; Joe is posing naked and says, "I wanted to play sports, but..." and we cut to a shot revealing his "butt..." ha ha). Composition is also odd at times (I thought I was watching SCTV's parody of "Persona" when the boys were talking together in bed and visually it looked as if their noses were stuck together for the whole scene!).

One senses Verow is really restraining himself from making a "naughtier" or somewhat rougher movie like he usually does, and maybe he shouldn't have held back (the frothy toothpaste/sex fantasy worked nicely, I thought, though the tone was out of touch with the rest of the movie)...he produces and directs this "sensitive coming of age" story much like Herschell Gordon Lewis directed films without gore...porn films without sex in them. I got some unintended laughs out of this and it wasn't boring, it just wasn't very good either.


This movie has too many things going on. Another reviewer comments on the disjointed, episodic nature of the film as reflecting the director's memories - that's fine, if that is how it was written and performed. Instead, what we get is straight-forward narrative - some of the time - that jumps around, under and over, leaves us dangling in some instances, interrupts the flow with unnecessary digressions in other instances, and otherwise simply doesn't work.

There are also some plot details that just don't work. For example, why drag a body onto a beach in an urban area in broad daylight, as opposed to night time? Why leave your flat sheet on the body? Why would an artist who knew the Joe character for a brief time decide to leave him "everything" (even if it wasn't much)? This sub-plot was poorly developed to make that point work. For that matter, why even have the man be an invalid or an artist other than to provide the money and the gratuitous nude posing scenes? He could just as easily have been a photographer, or a opera composer? For that matter, how does someone rate an apartment in an Opera House - particularly without some clear connection to the Opera? The coincidences are also both too obvious and to unclear and unexplained. Why would the guys take everything in the warehouse and "disappear." If Tim was a 10 year old school mate in a town as small as Bangor, how could Joe lose track of him for 8 years, especially if they knew each other well enough that one would recommend the other for a job.

Some of the other subplots (like the mother and her boyfriend(s) and the sister wanting to escape felt like padding. There's some good ideas that might have made a feature with full development or could have been interesting shorts. As completed, this movie made little sense and offers even less.


Awful is really all one needs to know. First think of all the things that could be bad about a movie. And then try to make a movie that is bad in all of these ways. You will have made "Vacationland." The state of Maine should feel insulted: it's much too nice a place to serve as the backdrop for such trite, mindless, boring schlock. I'm a romantic, and I always want movies about two people finding each other to succeed, and I tried hard to find the good in this one. It was tough; very tough. I couldn't find a glimmer of emotional connection among any of the characters in this exercise in humdrum dreariness. Except maybe in one or two of the bad guys.

Maine IS a good vacationland; this movie is not.


Director Todd Verow's unexpected turn into sentimental coming-out drama yields a predictable result: Nothing new to see here. Attractive but unconvincing leads - these 20-somethings are supposed to be in high school? - dribbling out banalities about confused, adolescent sexuality doesn't strike me as the best way to explore the promise of Anonymous, which was equally self-involved, but also honest, raw and, by comparison, not all that maudlin. I have no idea what to make of this drab and uninspiring movie other than to hope that Verow finds another career. Sure, it's unpretentious, but so's Mike Huckabee.

No single attribute, however, is as awful as Jim Dwyer's chintzy, electronic score, which grates non-stop, wall-to-wall for the full length of this movie. If I'd seen this, and heard this, in a theatre, I would have walked out. Thankfully, on my laptop, I could scrub and hit mute.


I first watched Kindred in 1987 along with another movie called devouring waves. I remember back then i hated them both and i have never really bothered to watch them again.

However i have recently started a crusade to collect as many 80's horror titles in their original boxed form, That have been deleted for some time. I have got myself quite a proud collection with many more titles on my list!

The Kindred although i have not as yet got a copy is high priority as all the old movies i didn't like back then, I now own and have now re-watched and think they are brilliant and the bits i do remember of the Kindred are now driving me to want to get hold of a copy A.S.A.P.

Hurray for the 80's and long live horror!


The Kindred opens to shots of a Porsche racing along a highway, it catches up with an old pick-up truck and gets held up. As it speeds past the pick-up the driver (Benjamin J.Perry as Ben Perry) shouts obscenities and honks his horn. Distracted he doesn't notice an obstruction ahead and crashes his Porsche. He is quickly freed from the wreckage and is taken to hospital. On the way the Paramedic (Randy Harrington) trying to save him suggests that he probably won't make it. Then the Ambulance is attacked and forced off the road by a van. The driver of the van, Jackson (Jim Boeke as James F.Boeke) beats the Paramedic up and steals the patient. The Ambulance driver, Harry (Charles Grueber) makes no attempt to stop him. Once the injured man has been placed into the van Jackson turns his attention to Harry whom seem to know each other. Harry asks Jackson not to hit him because he broke his jaw 'last time'. Jackson punches Harry to the floor and throws a bundle of money at him. The film then makes it perfectly clear we are in San Fransisco by showing a shot of the Golden Gate Bridge. Sharon Raymond is woken up by a phone call for her boyfriend Dr. John Hollins (David Allen Brooks) to inform him that his Mother, Amanda (Kim Hunter) who has recently had a heart attack has regained consciousness. Hollins works for a company called the 'Geneticell Corporation' and is delighted at the news and heads off to see her. Once there she asks him to go back to his old childhood house in a small town called Shelter Cove and destroy all of her notes and experiments, especially the 'Anthony journals' which Hollins has never heard of, she also claims that he has a brother named Anthony. Back at Geneticell, Hollins talks with a Dr. Phillip Lloyd (Rod Steiger) about his Mother as they had both worked together before they had a falling out with each other, and questions him about her research and if he knows of anyone called Anthony. He claims he knows nothing. When Amanda dies after a visit from the sinister Dr. Lloyd, Hollins decides to carry out his Mothers request and try to find out who Anthony is. While paying his final respects at the funeral a woman named Melissa Leftridge (Amanda Pays) introduces herself to Hollins and says she was a big admirer of his Mothers work and research after she helped her. Because Melissa seems to know so much about his Mothers work he invites her to the house as she may possibly be able to help find some answers to various questions he has. Hollins, Sharon, Melissa and three lab assistants, Brad Baxter (Peter Frechette), Hart Phillips (Timothy Gibbs) and Cindy Russell (Julia Montgomery) plus a girl with a watermelon(!) named Nell Valentine (Bunki Z, great name what were her parents thinking!?). They get down to business straight away but find little of any interest. For some reason no one at this point thinks to look in the basement, which is just as well as there's something down there, something large, slimy and has lots of tentacles. First it kills Duke, the dog. Then it moves on to larger prey. When Hart is attacked by something in a barn Hollins decides he must destroy all traces of his Mothers work and whatever Anthony is. Jointly co-written and directed by Stepehn Carpenter and Jeffery Obrow, Carpenter also acted as cinematographer and Obrow as producer. This is a pretty poor film in my opinion. The script is credited to five(!) writers, Carpenter, Obrow, Earl Ghaffari, John Penny and Joseph Stefano and with five people working on it I'd like to think they could come up with something a little bit better and more coherent than this. Nothing is explained that well, why did Amanda create these monstrous sea creature/human hybrids? What is Dr. Lloyd's interest and his motives? Why does he steal bodies from the back of Ambulance's? Why does he have a basement full of mutants? Why do none of these so-called genetic scientists think to check the basement out? Could Melissa act more suspiciously even if she tried? Why are none of the characters given any background? Why do people keep mentioning a substance found in sea creatures called Hemocynine when 99.9% of the audience isn't going to have clue what their on about? There is also a serious lack of blood and gore, only one person dies on screen, just one! And all the scientists survive in a vomit inducingly mushy 'happy ending'. This is a horror film guys, all we want to see is the slimy monsters kill and eat people in various gory ways. The one on screen death is actually quite cool, someone has slimy tentacles inserted under their skin, in their ear and up their nose in the films only decent horror sequence. To try and up the gore quotent there is a scene where Dr. Lloyd is experimenting on a skinned animal but it only lasts for a few seconds, and in the context of the rest of the film doesn't mean a thing. Melissa also turns into a fish, don't ask. There's no nudity either, which isn't a surprise. The film looks professional enough with decent production values but is just so dull and plods along at a snails pace, we don't even get to see the giant monster in the basement until 15 odd minutes before the end which is far too little far too late, when it does make an appearance the effects are OK and that makes it even more of a shame that it wasn't used more. Overall I was very disappointed and I was expecting a lot better. A horror film with only one on screen death and only three in total, what's the world coming too?


"Son you must stop the experiments I have started!!" Too bad nobody said this too whoever green lighted this project!! I was almost literally dragged to this movie by a friend of mine for a midnight showing when we were in high-school. Now, a midnight movie in high-school on a Friday night, you are not expecting much, but c'mon!! And upon seeing it again years later I sill stand by my original opinion of it. Great special effects but so what!! Quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made. Unless you enjoy blood and guts and seeing some Hollywood vets (Steiger & Hunter) make fools of themselves for a buck. YUCK!!!


The best way to have fun in this movie is to count how many clichés it is rehashing. Snarling Chinese gangsters. A female vice-president. A ventilator duct that happens to be big enough to fit a big Caucasian male. Shooting through the wall to kill the bad guy. A Situation where you need to snuff out some innocent people to prevent Armageddon. Independence Day scenes where you snuff out some memorable landmarks in a fireball. The vice president in a nice well lighted room surrounded by subordinates, while the Chinese premier virtually alone in a dark room with just bit of dim light shining, snarling as viciously as the slimy gangsters. A lone hero left alone in a ship (building, airplane, whatever) wreaking havoc on clueless bad guys with big automatic weapons. Etc., etc., etc.

The second best way is to count how many zeroes you need to put after the decimal to accurately gauge the probability of the film scenario. I counted up to 45. A president agreeing to a meeting on board a private vessel. The impossibly non-overridable command from the nuke box. The part where the Chinese decided to play shoot 'em up. Etc., etc. Man the earth is more likely fall into the sun than for this film to happen.

I admit the film was interesting until the point the evil Taiwanese gangsters kidnapped the President. Then the boredom kicked in. Suspension of disbelief ceased, and I started thinking the fun I'd have torturing this film...


I at first thought this little fantasy excursion would be a little entertaining. I was wrong.

A good cast (Roy Scheider as the president) didn't help it any. The story had every conceivable possible worst-case scenario that could take place in a terrorist nuclear disaster. And none of it could POSSIBLY happen!

True -- the kidnapping of the President could only be accomplished with the inside help of a traitor in the Secret Service (ala Air Force One), but everything they depicted regarding the FOOTBALL and the helplessness of our country if were to fall into enemy hands is ludicrous to the Nth degree. Seriously, not even the President can fully over-ride our missile control. The case is only used to relay orders. In this situation, our system would have completely deleted the codes and the whole thing would go nowhere. The destruction of Beijing couldn't happen -- there would not have been a missile launch because the silo-crews would have been instructed not to (communications include a hardwired system). There are just too many safe-guards to prevent such a thing from happening.

True, film's like FAIL-SAFE and STRANGELOVE gave some credibility to the concept of us losing control of THE SYSTEM. But this film goes too far and fails to suspend my concept of the unbelievable. And that makes the experience a waste of the viewer's time. This film is a failure.


...a film comes along that manages to be absolutely terrible from the opening titles on through to the studio logo tagged at the end of the closing credits. This was such a film - the very type you can not stop watching for fear of missing a moment of its ever-descending quality.

Forget the low budget that's indicated by a slow, monotonous opening sequence that shows secret service agents running alongside a presidential motorcade with no crowds, no traffic or location discernible. Forget the jumbled logic needed to even remotely make the actual plot seem plausible. Forget that Roy Scheider delivers some of the hammiest dialogue whilst completely failing to hide his shame.

This clunker is terribly paced, bombarded by a score that's simply laughable, and seems edited by a third grader. All the while twisting scenarios to cover up the hardest thing about filming a presidential storyline on the cheap: making him seem presidential.

I honestly feel asleep briefly in the last reel, and when I awoke, I ran it back so as not to miss a single excruciating frame. Try this drinking game: take a shot every time you see it blatantly aping another much better film. You'll doze off, too.

Not since 'The Man' w/ Samuel L. Jackson and Eugene Levy have I seen such a delightfully unredeemable project. I may give out copies as Christmas gifts. Zero stars. A thousand laughs.


This is no doubt one of the worst movies i have seen in a long time. I was expecting alot more from the actors. It started alright, then things go from idiotic to absolutely ridiculous. Definitely not worth renting except if its a free rental.


COC had its moments. I enjoyed the action sequences, but I despised the screenplay and plot. I hate this film so much, I'll just write about the dumbest part. First of all, the plot would never happen. Second, the bleakness of the Chinese President was uncalled for. That would never happen. Finally, the dialogue. Employing non-Chinese actors to play Chinese roles is understandable, but to write dialogue for them that's TOTALLY OFF is dumb! For those of you who understood the Chinese in the film, you know what I mean.


Poorly done political actioner. Badly photographed, acted, and directed. Every single scene is underlighted, including those very few that are shot during the daytime. It doesn't matter what the location is. At an important conference in the White House, no lights are on, and the only available lighting is a gloomy blue that is filtered through a few windows. The primier of China conducts an earth-shattering phone conversation under conditions of such intense chiaroscuro that he should be contemplating a bust of Homer in a Rembrandt painting. Honest. It's as if he had a tiny spotlight on his face and was otherwise in total darkness. The slow motion deaths are by now obligatory in any ill-thought-out movie.

Roy Scheider and Maria Conchita Alonzo do well by their roles, but Scheider is rarely on screen. The other performances are dismissable. There is a pretty Oriental woman in a short tight skirt who totes a gun and is right out of a Bond movie who's accent suggests a childhood spent in Basset, Nebraska, and who should have remained the model she probably started out as. Whoever plays the surviving Secret Service agent aboard the cruise ship was probably picked for the part because he looked most like Johnny Depp, not because of any display of talent. The Chinese villains, representing both Taiwan and mainland China, hiss and grin as they threaten the heroes.

The script is pretty awful, recycled from other, better films. There is a lot of shooting aboard the ship and practically everyone winds up mincemeat. Two thirds of the way through, the ship explodes into the expected series of fireballs. Then the movie splits into two related parts. Part one, another shootout, this time in a waterfront warehouse. Part two, an exchange between the Vice President, now acting president, and the oily Chinese premiere, lifted out of both "Dr. Strangelove" and "Fail Safe." We unwittingly launch our missiles. They launch theirs in retaliation. We cannot convince them that our launch was accidental, even though we offer to help them destroy our own missiles. There is even the George C. Scott/ Walter Matthau general who argues that their "nucular" armory can't match ours so we should hit them with everything we've got. More fireballs.

The end comes none too soon.


Ugh. This movie has so many unbelievable plot contrivances that they made what could have been a good movie into a hideous mess. The story is halfway decent, but the holes in the plot make the execution literally laughable. We're actually supposed to believe that the Secret Service would go against all common sense and allow the President of the United States to be put at unbelievable risk. If this is an indication of the kind of thinking that passes for good judgment among the President's protectors, then we're all in trouble. Roy Scheider turns in a good performance as the President, but it is unfortunately offset by the truly loathsome acting of Patrick Muldoon (who somehow continues to get jobs in Hollywood based solely upon his good looks and his uncanny knack of smirking at every opportunity, regardless of whether the script calls for a smirk). Perhaps someone will see this and be inspired to make a good movie from the premise--or, perhaps someone will see it and say, "Hey, if they can get a movie this bad made, maybe I can, too!"


Schieder delivers a semi-believable part as the President of the United States with politically correct Maria Conchita Alonzo as the female Vice President. The movie just stinks. with so many plot holes its a wonder they got it to stick to the film it was shot on. Relegated to late night HBO time schedules, this film is not worth seeing at all. 10 minutes into it, you are asking yourself why it was written. 40 minutes into it, you are wondering why you are watching it. Save the effort and watch a re-run of Hee Haw or something. Anything is better than this clunker.


I would think that this was one of those films whose director hadn't read the book it was based on, were it not for the fact that they are just slightly similar. It is certainly possible for a great film to be "based" very loosely on a book and this was certainly the latter but not the former.

There were a number of flaws. One was that it tried to be too much like the Railway Children, probably because adults would expect this, being from the same author. Another is that it also sought to be too like Harry Potter, down to the music and in overemphasizing the setting. I have nothing against J K Rowling or the films but the book is just nothing like the Harry Potter ones. I thought the Psammead, though very well voiced by Eddie Izzard and in character too, was almost gratuitously in a totally inappropriate environment. I may have missed something here, as the comments made about one of the characters' own books may have been a reference to the inaccuracy of the adaptation. There was also no need for the extra characters, and today's special effects could easily have been used to tell the story as it was written, but they weren't.

I saw this film with my two children, one of whom knows the book and the other of whom doesn't. The one who does know it thought it was all right but wasn't as enthusiastic as the one who doesn't. I'm not sure what this means.


1st watched 10/29/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-John Stephenson): Mildly entertaining story of a group of five kids who are forced to live with their eccentric uncle while their father and mother fight & work in World War I as England entered the war. They are told not to go in the greenhouse of the uncle's mansion, which of course they do over and over, and they discover a sand fairy who them daily wishes that only last until the sun goes down. This is the "IT" referred to in the title, created by the Jim Henson group and voiced by Eddie Izzard. The problem is their wishes usually bring about other problems that they are supposed to learn from. This part of the movie is not done very well because it's obvious the children, primarily the Freddie Highmore character, do not learn from them but instead keep going back to "it" to solve their next big problem. "IT" is not nearly as funny as it could have been with the comedian Eddie Izzard really not given much opportunity to improvise and Kenneth Branagh is wasted as the eccentric uncle, although he is the best character. The children are fine as far as their acting abilities but the story probably would have been much better going into the fantasy realm but they did have a human story to tell as well, which probably caused the confusion with the filmmakers. So, all in all, this was an OK film but could have been much better.


The Great War breaks out and Daddy is a brave pilot who goes off to carry out some unsightly business to put Jerry in his place. Mummy is doing her bit as a nurse, so the five children are evacuated to their barmy uncle in the country, where a secret passageway takes them to a mischievous sand fairy and the beginning of a magical adventure.

Based on a book written the best part of a century ago, they don't make stories like this anymore. And there's a reason. The men fly planes and author books; the women change bandages and clean house. The boys lead the way with their compasses and nighttime furloughs; the girls do what they are told and play violin - badly. Fat kids who wear specs are nasty. All the kids speak in those clipped, vowel-flattening accents that are soppy and prim but which a certain economic class of English people cultivate. On top of the snobbery and yearning for Imperial Albion, there are plot holes a five-year-old would not tolerate. I mean that literally - my son was asking why the father disappeared before sunset, why the compass didn't just drop from his hand as he disappeared. The film at least tries to aim strictly for the kids, until a completely inappropriate and unfunny monologue by Eddie Izzard (what a waste of genuine comic talent) plays over the final credits.

No doubt the five percent of British schoolkids who go to expensive public schools in the UK will find it all such a jolly wheeze. For the other 95 percent of British families who no longer live in the 19th century, the good news is Wall-E, Ratatouille and Wallace and Gromit are all out on DVD.


This is one of those "family" movies that I can't imagine having much appeal to anyone over about 9. A group of siblings discovers a "sand fairy" (yes, really) conveniently located at the end of a not-so-secret passage at the country home of their eccentric uncle, to which they've been evacuated from the London blitz. ...And there you have it, all in one sentence. The story is about the role of magic in childhood and the danger of getting wishes fulfilled, but neither of these issues is examined in a way that would be interesting to adults or instructive to children (or vice versa!). The only reason I can think of for watching this is to see how starkly Freddie Highmore's outstanding talent stands out from the rest of the mediocre performances.


I will repeat - what a stupid scenario.

Is there anything new inside? I don't know who have wrote this. But i believe this guy have watch all Hollywood -children -family -teens movies ever made... all scenes and dilouges u can see in everywhere. Why do u people making this movies? children's like an adults? they like money gold cars... and they are positives? they have lucky... and emotions of course... without it can be done. o the young Actors - wow :-). I do like when is camera concentrated on their nice faces? what a crap... there is 90% better children movies that this one! This is not creative or funny movie. This is simply nothing.

D.


This late-ish effort from Freda plays as a modern day (70's that is) Gothic thriller, but comes out short of thrills. Certainly it's not a dreadfully bad film, it's jut got that feeling which many of Freda's later films have of someone who has given up when he's seen the first daily's. It starts out good enough, almost giallo like in tone, then takes a turn into Gothic territories with a decent (albeit terribly cliché) set up. Then suddenly Freda seems to have lost interest in the film and all we get is prolonged shots of Camille Keaton and burning candles. Then circa an hour into the film we get some sort of violent climax with decent-to-poor special effects. This is followed by a slow paced outro with a very obvious twist ending (If it's even intended to be a twist?). And throw a few very halfhearted explanatory scenes along the way and you got Tragic Ceremony. Thus in parts it's got its qualities. But then suddenly stumbles and collapses in front of you. A pity.

btw stay away from the SHAROMA DVD, a useless murky pan& scan edition which kills of what could be a good visual experience.


On the way home from a day at the beach, four young people seek shelter from a torrential downpour at the home of Lord and Lady Alexander after their car runs out of gas. They don't know it, but the house they're staying in is to be the site of a Satanic ritual. Jane (Camille Keaton), the only female of the group, is to be sacrificed. As her male companions rush to her aid, one of them accidentally kills Lady Alexander. Things really get out of hand and everyone else attending the black mass is also killed. The four try to make an escape, but soon discover there's no escape from what they've witnessed. One by one, they meet their fates.

Gong into Tragic Ceremony, I was positive I would enjoy it. Slow-burn Gothic horror is right up my alley. I'm also quite fond of some of Riccardo Freda's other movies like The Horrible Dr. Hichcock, The Ghost, and I Vampiri. Tragic Ceremony seemed to be a sure thing. Unfortunately, things don't always work out the way they should. The biggest tragedy with respect to Tragic Ceremony is the time I spent watching this mess of a movie. With a few minor exceptions, nothing about the film appealed to me or worked for me. The characters are unlikeable, the plot is incoherent and schizophrenic, and the pacing is terrible. There's a subplot about some cursed pearls that goes nowhere and only serves to confuse things even further. In addition, nothing interesting happens for most of the movie. By the time the four leads realize they're in danger, I was well past the point of caring. And I don't understand the reviews I've read that praise the acting of Camille Keaton. I suppose it's a terrific performance if you consider an emotionless daze to be acting. The three male leads are the very definition of nondescript. They do nothing to stand out. The supporting cast includes some genre favorites like Luigi Pistilli, Luciana Paluzzi, and Paul Muller, but none is given anything to do. In fact Muller's main contribution is a two minute long monologue at the end of the movie that attempts to explain what happened in the previous 80 or so minutes. It's a weak attempt to provide a wrap-up to a very weak movie.


Riccardo Freda may have a good reputation; but since we now that many of his best films were, in fact, directed by the late great Mario Bava; it's clear that he wasn't one of Italy's most gifted filmmakers back in the seventies. This film pretty much proves that as despite the simplistic plot; it's a sprawling mess and overall, I'd even have to go as far as to say that Tragic Ceremony is WORSE than Freda's insipid Giallo effort, The Iguana with the Tongue of Fire. Freda apparently disowned this movie, and I certainly don't blame him! The plot simply follows a bunch of kids that run out of petrol in the middle of nowhere. They happen upon a house while searching for fuel; but it turns out to be a bad choice, as the owner is just about to conduct a satanic ceremony...ho hum. The film features a lead role for Camille Keaton, who would go on to star in the exploitation classic I Spit on Your Grave some years later, but fails to make an impression here despite acting alongside a cast of talentless performers. The film features one decent gore scene towards the end, but this really isn't enough considering that it takes eighty minutes of tedium to get there. I have a high tolerance for rubbish Italian films that don't make sense - but even I couldn't stand this one. Miss it, miss nothing!


Even Mel Gibson couldnt save this slop of a movie. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Why would mel Gibson make a movie that Im sure he couldnt sit and watch? what was this? A total goofball on some heavy drugs stalking a schizophrinic lady, who was also on some heavy ilicit street drugs. For all the moviegoers out there on heavy drugs; you will love this movie.


This movie just stunk. I know that some people will say that anybody who thinks it is no good "just doesn't get it." I like Wenders in American Friend and Wings of Desire. But this is utter dreck. The main character is so annoying that I couldn't care less what he does. He is, as has been said in another review bouncing around like a little annoying monkey. I just couldn't stand him or force myself to care. This is the case with most of the characters who just seem to be trying to hard to be goofey or weird. I liked the Mel Gibson character and the Milla Jovovich characters and wish they would have focused more on them. Milla is of course beautiful, pitiful and you really feel for her and what she has been thru and why she is the way she is. I see Gibsons character as almost Frankenstien like. I just wish he would have save Milla and brunt the hotel down with all the worthless boring characters that lived in it. Milla Rating 10 Movie rating 0


Perhaps I'm just a simple person, but I prefer movies that somehow make me care about the people in them. I couldn't care less about anyone in this movie. This was supposed to be a comedy? Maybe the humor was too subtle for me (all the way down to the nano-level). The thing about it is, it missed on so many things. There were characters that could have been funny, but they weren't. There were characters that you could have liked, but you didn't. For instance, the guy who thought the Beatles ripped off his songs. There was so much potential there, but all he did was talk like a Beatle and complain about how they ripped him off. Haha. And the previous poster talked about the 'I am the Walrus' scene like it was special. What? He played 'I am the Walrus' on an old piano and sang out of tune. Is there an inside joke there? It sure stank at face value. This movie has the feel to me of a movie people say they like because it sounds 'intellectual' or 'hip' to say you like it, that you get the whole metaphysical art/garbage message the artist is expressing. If you want to be entertained, stay away.


It's the one film I almost walked out of, and would have if my friends hadn't been in the movie theatre with me. Normally, even if I don't like a film, I think it's still worth sitting through it to the end. That way, you can really claim to have given it every chance to redeem itself. But with The Million Dollar Hotel, it was so dreadful I just badly wanted the experience to end as quickly as possible. I think I probably would not have been so sourly disappointed if this film had been made by a lesser director, one I didn't normally like so much. But coming from Wenders, it was all the more shocking to behold. I know Bono from U2, a good friend of Wenders's, wrote the script to this abysmal film, and I wonder why Wenders let him, as buddy-buddy as the two may have been. "Stick to the day job, Bono", is a sentence that easily springs to mind whilst viewing this mess. Pretentious, disjointed, a mish-mash of every possible contemporary film stereotype, a naive and transparent attempt at coming across as kooky and daring, with the most irritating characters I have ever set eyes upon, especially the leads, Jeremy Davies, Milla Jovovich and Mel Gibson, none of whom I dislike normally. The happiest ending I could have wished for would have been for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on their collective heads so as to get it all over with as soon as possible. On a positive note, the first five minutes of the film are extremely good, with an extremely stirring soundtrack from U2. But the film's opening shots make the rest of the film (which takes a spectacular nose-dive from then on) all the more disappointing as they are a promise of cinematic quality that's just never delivered, not even close.


Pretty pictures with a cool sound track do not constitute a 'movie'. Like all pop promos, MDH's pretentions are are outdone only by its' unjustifiable budget. One dollar spent on this aimless, purposeless dross was one dollar too many. Stick to penning pop songs Bono.


I rented this movie on 20 June 2001, and watched it for about 45 minutes. I concluded that watching a blank screen would be delightful by comparison. There was not a single person in the cast for whom I would have shed a tear if hell itself had opened up and swallowed the whole bunch of them.

So, I e-mailed all of my friends and relatives warning them, and I am taking the time to urge everyone who may see this note to avoid this movie like the plague! I have seen some really bad movies in my time, but NEVER one as bad as this.


S l o w, l o n g, d u l l. . .

Oh my god, dull.

Characters so annoying - you'll cringe every time you see Jimy Smits, or the guy that played tomtom from now on. They must have never rehearsed or reviewed the film in progress. Mel Gibson was absolutely wooden.

This may not be the worst movie ever made, but that it went almost straight to video says it is darn close.


Being a completely broke film buff with a house to furnish, I'm a big fan of IKEA. My whole domicile, practically, is packed to the brim with the cheap particle-board stuff. And you know how all those stylish household items at IKEA have those funny names--a bookshelf called "Holika" and a bathroom mirror called a "Grundtal"--well, it just adds to the whole Euro-charm.

Like those interestingly-named (but horribly translated) items on the shelves at IKEA, I'd like to provide a bit of translation to some of the reviews I've read about the Swedish-made "Kraftverk 3714."

Original Comment: "For a low budget film, this is pretty cool stuff. It would be great to see what these guys could do on a Hollywood budget!"

Translation: The film stock is crappy, the lighting is pedestrian, the cinematography is uninteresting, the sound recording is hollow.

Original Comment: "David Lynchesque sci-fi drama set in a strange forest town with equally strange characters!"

Translation: These "actors" are acting for free, the storyline is circular and tiring, the ideas that undergird the flick desperately try to be existential but are simply mundane, and the settings (especially the interiors) are dull and filled with ugly wallpaper.

Original Comment: "The editing is well-done, and the conservative use of computer graphics shows that compelling CGI effects don't have to come out of a Hollywood studio!"

Translation: When you've got sketchy cinematography to begin with, hide the imperfections by digitizing all of it onto a Mac and blending vigorously for three minutes. Ingenious!

I took a chance on this DVD because I'm a sucker for independent films, especially those that attempt to tackle the often-expensive and awe-inspiring genre of science fiction. I mean, some of the best sci-fi flicks of all time have been realized with little or no budget, spfx, and specious actors. Take Peter Fonda's eco-warning-time-travel flick "Idaho Transfer" for example! A classic.

But "Kraftverk 3714" doesn't fit the category of "carefully-crafted, low-key, idea-dependent sci-fi." It relentlessly focuses on characters that don't do much and don't say interesting things. It goes round and round in circles. It is much too long (this coming from a major Tarkovsky fan). Worse, its concept of "reality shifting aliens" is Twilight Zone fodder from 40 years ago. It's just not a well-made film -and I really wanted it to be, dammit!

However, being the IKEA fan I am, I did make one ground-shattering observation. First, anyone who has shopped at IKEA knows how their tricky shopping carts work--all four wheels being multidirectional. The carts can spin a perfect 360 degrees, and it takes some familiarity to handle them like a pro, as any avid IKEA shopper knows. Well, I'll be damned, but one of the lead actresses in "Kraftverk 3714" goes to some inky-dinky grocery store in the middle of nowhere and what is she pushing around? A multidirectional shopping cart! So, that's not an IKEA invention after all, but is yet another wonderful invention (let's call it a "Tacklebee" for the hell of it) from the land of hei-doo!


After hearing that some of the people behind the low-budget flicks "Terror in Rock'n'Roll Önsjön" and "It came from outer space... and stuff" were involved in making this movie, I decided to buy it unseen on DVD. I wish I hadn't. The other movies were funny, tongue-in-cheek and kinda stupid. While Kraftverk 3714 is devoid of any humor at all. And it is so god-awful that I'm getting angry just thinking about it. The worst actors possible, the worst script possible, the worst special effects available. And the most unsexy sex scene ever. Uhhh. And the whole thing goes on for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Please, do not ever make another movie.


It's funny... one day before i have seen this movie i had been watching a documentary about Leni Riefenstahl, so comparison kind of came automatically... of course there isn't any :)

 This movie is weak in every aspect... acting is not convincing (especially the one who plays Simona...) and unnatural..., editing in confused and always leaves a taste of unfinished shot, music doesn't fit, the story doesn't flow, it gets boring and the movie comes out much longer as it is... oh, and the characters aren't very well shown, you actually can't tell much about the girls (except what you see)... The movie also tries to shock with explicit cursing (which is very laughable :)

So... 2/10


Half a mystical thriller and half the fractured fantasies of a fragile mind, "Guardian of the Frontier" is an engaging trip that soon derails. Strong imagery and a compelling premise is soon overwhelmed by incoherent plotting, hackneyed dialogue, amateurish acting, and the most outlandish and over-the-top phallic imagery in recent memory (here, a fish is most definitely not just a fish!). Evidently, this is the first Slovenian feature film to be directed by a woman -- Ms. Weiss must have been determined to prove that she could be as lurid and gratuitously explicit as any man.


Three young college women, Simona (Iva Krajnc), Alja (Tanja Potocnik), and Zana (Pia Zemljic), go on an adventure canoing down the River Kolpa, dividing their Slovenia from neighboring Croatia, in this 2002 Slovenian film by Maya Weiss. What could have been an Eastern European version of the well-known and exciting 1972 "Deliverance" turned out, for me, to be utterly uninspiring with flat character portrayals that denied sympathetic identification with the characters.

Alja and Zana are not convincing as students at all, though Alja expresses a desire to be a writer, and both use what seemed to me to be excessive bad language. Alja is bored with her boyfriend and seems to just be drifting along in life. Zana, even less scholarly, is a self-absorbed adventure seeker with an attraction to other women. I had some sympathy with relatively innocent Simona, conservative and starry eyed. The very idea of these three traveling together just doesn't work for me. The disdain that Zana and Alja show toward Simona makes no sense - why would they choose her as a travel companion to start with as surely they must know her demeanor and attitudes?

The three begin a carefree journey down the river on two canoes, undeterred by a news story of a woman's disappearance along the river. Things become more somber with the mysterious appearance, sometimes real and sometimes possibly hallucinatory, of a rabidly conservative fisherman politician (Jonas Znidarsic).

I did enjoy the scenes along the river and of small villages the trio visit. It may be because of a lack of cultural understanding, but the film didn't move me otherwise. I was surprised to see that the film has won some awards.


I can confidently say that this is the worst film I have ever seen, and I usually love foreign films. The movie is nothing more than poorly-made violent pornography. If you choose to see it, prepare yourself for endless sexism, gratuitous nudity shots, and a stupid sensationalized rape scene, which I'm sure is the main appeal for the people who like the movie.

Additionally, the plot meanders aimlessly, and none of the characters is likable. Many scenes are filmed from the woods surrounding the river the girls are on to give a constant feeling that someone is stalking them, which was a pathetic attempt to make up for the lack of story to tell.

Perhaps I wouldn't have wasted my time to see the movie, if it had been accurately described in reviews.


This is a weak throw-together of just about everything: refugees, Croatia-Slovenia relations, globalization, sexual orientation.. A very big clumsy metaphor about Slovenia being at the cross roads between its past, which is symbolized by everything "virgin" becoming queen of the household, and its future, which is symbolized by listening to music in clubs and being a lesbian and never having kids.

It plays on a rather recent Slovenian legend involving a virgin and a "forest king" assuming the shape of a goat (Zlatorog Beer's imagery is also based on that legend), but unfortunately, the treatment is very incoherent. Weiss seems to think the end justifies the means: she can use all kinds of "dream-like" sequences, and then pick and choose which ones true, and which ones are imaginary. How can the ride in the jeep with the "forest king" be real for all three girls, but the scene outside the tent be real only in Simona's imaginary ? The ending just drags on and on (I can't believe the movie's runtime is only 98 minutes, have I been watching a director's cut without knowing it?), with the three girls having to look at the camera for about 10 seconds while looking afraid and happy at the same time (so obvious).

I never thought I could spot bad acting in a movie whose language I don't understand, but it didn't take long to see that "Simona" is over-acting most of the time, as if she was playing in a silent movie.

It wasn't so bad as I kept thinking the director was just starting and wanted to capture what she thought her generation was all about on film by doing a half-experimental movie, until I realized that the director was actually 37 years old when making the movie and that her work is probably "serious".


A couple of teenagers have a little sex on the beach in the 1960s. That's all. They say they are fifteen while one of the actors is really twenty-five. Maybe this movie was somewhat revolutionary in 1978 in its way of touching `taboo' topics but I can't imagine that at that time anything shown in Esmiko Limon was regarded as tabooish.

Shallow dialogues are mixed with disco music that is even shallower. The selection of songs doesn't involve anything but the very very well-known `classics' that are still heard on every second radio station today. The plot of American Pie is not much different but it is at least a little bit funny. Eskimo Limon is dull, flat and not aesthetic. Almost unbelievable that it had six sequels!


Thomas Hardy is one of my favorite authors. Some truly wonderful movies have been made from his novels ("Far From the Madding Crowd," "Tess of the D'Urbervilles," "The Mayor of Casterbridge"), and I had high hopes for this one. The Hallmark-Hall-of-Fame-ification of "Return of the Native" totally wrecked it. The cast was terrific, the photography excellent, but the script was dismal and the direction positively ruinous. People walked up to people, said lines, walked away. A meager excitement developed when Clive Owen and Catherine Zeta Jones (very young, very beautiful) exchanged a bit of flesh-pressing, but even Clive, who is a superb actor, couldn't save it. It was awash with the usual Hallmark "romantic" strings background music and pretend bumpkins offering plot exposition, and what could have been dynamite turned out to be awful. The richness of the above three movies was commpletely absent.


Remember the wooden, undramatic literary adaptations of the 1970s at their worst? You will when you see this broadly acted, unintentionally hilarious piece of chocolate-box adaptation. Most culpable of all is Catherine Z-J who, while undeniably easy on the eye, substitutes swishing a big dress and looking sultry for actually turning in a performance. Played po-faced like a melodrama, or Cold Comfort Farm without the jokes, this effort is not helped by a scriptwriter with a tin ear for dialogue who misses entirely the novel's sense of irony or tragedy. A shame, given the quality of the acting talent on offer - Joan Plowright, Claire Skinner, Steven Macintosh all deserve better than this.


This film is an almost complete waste of time. I am studying the book for my English A level, and the film only contributes in one way, and that's getting across that the whole scenario is set in a rural idyll. The acting is wooden, the filmography is laughable, and the so called dramatic scenes in the film had the majority of my class (including me) snickering into their texts. The book, although not my favourite literary choice, is miles better than the film is, and the sound track is just plain irritating. Don't watch this film unless you are looking for a timeless, quality storyline transformed into mindless, media waste.


I rented this because I couldn't pass up the chance to see pre-Hollywood-fame Clive Owen and Catherine Zeta Jones together, but it definitely wasn't worth it. The only reason I give it two stars instead of one is for the novelty of seeing them before they made it big across the pond.

Zeta Jones, who is usually fun to watch even if she isn't the greatest thesp in the world, is awful. Owen seems really uncomfortable to be in such a turkey, plus he wears a ridiculous, egregiously ill-fitting chin-length wig (at least I hope that's a wig and not his real hair). And the scene where he dances a country jig with Zeta Jones just makes you embarrassed for him. Joan Plowright walks around in a daze the whole movie -- she's probably wondering how she got herself into such a mess.

The actress who plays Clive Owen's wife isn't terrible, but just about everyone else is. Oh, and the writing stinks too.


I saw this Hallmark television movie when it originally aired. I lost interest in the story because a character was said to be a witch. I just was not in the right frame of mind to watch this film. But Hallmark stands for the best, quality films. Now, there is a reason to give this film a second look. Clive Owen who plays "Damon Wildeve" just might have a chance to be selected as the next James Bond 007 when Pierce Brosnan passes it on. Clive Owen might have to wait until the year 2008. The other reason is the female lead is Catherine Zeta-Jones is now a celebrity (she was an unknown at the time) and became an Academy Award winner for Outstanding Supporting Actress in 2003. Joan Plowright as "Mrs. Yeobright" is also in this film. I like the opening line in this film: "Deliver my heart from this fearful, lonely place. Send me a great love from somewhere or else I shall die, truly I shall die."


Well!! the movie has Catherine Zeta Jones in it. It's a Hallmark television movie. It's from a Thomas Hardy novel. It has Catherine Zeta Jones in it. She is by far the only one in the movie who acts better than in my high school theater class. Oh yes it has Clive Owen in it. I'm not British so that means almost as much as being a Thomas Hardy novel. Except he was in "The Bourne Identity", and I liked that. That just about wraps it all up folks. That really all there was. I'm becoming repetitive, but I do like CZJ, so I stuck it out to the end. The computer is telling me that I don't have 10 lines and I keep counting them. I always count 11, but maybe it just doesn't like my style, but that is my opinion of the movie, too.


I'm a fan of Judy Garland, Vincente Minnelli, and Gene Kelly, but this movie just left me cold. I was expecting another American In Paris from Minnelli, so perhaps I was expecting too much.

The movie was short on songs and short of impressive dance numbers. I was impressed by the very expressionistic Kelly dance as Mococo on the ship. I was also impressed by the Nicholas Brothers in Be a Clown, too bad the song was so annoying. I also enjoyed Judy attacking Kelly with bric-a-brac. Check Lorna Luft's autobiography for some interesting information on that scene.

Actually, the movie has what must be some of Cole Porter's most annoying songs, especially "Nina". Also, Judy and Gene yell constantly like screechy children.

The plot is thin--which is par for the course for musicals--but it is not saved by impressive dance numbers or by memorable songs. I suspect the best parts of this movie were left on the cutting room floor. Please, some movie restorer, find those bits of film and show us what the movie could have been!


To anyone who likes the TV series: forget the movie. The jokes are bad and some topics are much too sensitive to laugh about it.

We have seen much better acting by R. Dueringer in "Hinterholz 8".


Years ago "MA2412" the feature film tried to be some kind of "regional Blockbuster" in Austria. One thing's for sure: I hope no one outside will ever have to see this one. Perhaps if you are familiar with the original sitcom it could be interesting to watch what director Sicheritz made of his series. I think he missed his chance and wasted time and money.

So far many director's and writers have failed to make a series concept compatible to a 90min movie (consider Alf, Inspector Gadget...). You can see how hard this is by watching "MA 2412". The result of this attempt in my opinion tastes like a never-ending TV-Episode (and not a good one). It fails to deliver a plot, the humor tries too hard and the directing seems very unfocused - as holds true for the visual style.

So summing up I'd clearly not recommend this one...


they (dueringer, dorfer) are good stand-up comedians, young, not ugly, have money, the girls love them, the audience is appreciating everything there doing

and then they made this film ...

no story at all, some jokes were old in the fifties, the acting is awful. save your money for something useful, like a gift for your girlfriend.


I think that saying this film has too many is not what makes this film bad. The twists are not the problem of the film. The story is quite clever and could have been very cool if filmed right. The major problems why everyone is complaining about the twists in the film is that the film is just not fascinating enough to make people follow them. The film is badly shot (at least in comparison to its genre brother Lock, Stock). Worse: the characters are (although often well acted) just plain flat. The characters don't have enough time to be introduced well enough to let the viewer get involved with a single one of them, let alone understand them. Oh, and the locations are just terrible: locations-person (I didn't bother to watch the credits for your name) - get another job (maybe still photography or interior design)


Would somebody please explain why anybody would want to make a "British neo-noir" crime film with a cast almost entirely American? The accents spoken in this film are bloody awful! But entirely in keeping with the performances, which are so wooden, one fears to strike a match for setting the cast on fire.

Really, what kind of disgusting, moronic, cynical crud is this? Even neo-noir films have some character you either feel for or want to feel for, even if they're wretched and doomed; they at least have some decency to them, some sense that what they've done is wrong, or that a seemingly good plan has gone wrong, and that somehow they're stuck with the responsibility for it.

Not in this stanky stew. These characters are putrid, betraying each other, themselves, and the audience.

Also, note that they are low-lives - all right, nothing wrong with that - except that they seem to be living a life of luxury. For a film supposedly about desperate petty thieves, the keynote here is - ennui. It's all so terribly dull and dross, doncha know. So let's just rip some people off or maybe murder them, and go get laid in a luxury hotel. What ambition!

Gooping this whole mess to some bottom of swampy muck are: boringly uneven pacing; predictable 'action' sequences that aren't; banal and incoherent set-design; made-for-bad-TV camera-work and editing; forgettable score; and an entire lack of any imagination or innovation in production and direction.

Wholly unbelievable, unlikeable, and for less dedicated movie watchers(or masochists) like myself, utterly unwatchable.

There are other nasty things I would like to say about this nasty film, but they wouldn't print them here. Suffice it to say, you can probably find something more useful to do with your time than watch this film - just about anything, in fact.


I was fascinated to read the range of opinions on `Circus' from `awesome, breathtaking, brilliant' and most things between right down to `Golden Turkey candidate'. I find myself in the latter camp.

The producers obviously thought that if they mixed plenty of over-the-top violence with barrages of four-letter expletives they'd have another `Lock, Stock and two Smoking Barrels' on their hands. A pity that they forgot to include wit, style, charm and flair. And it was certainly a mistake to feature a visit to Welles' classic `The Lady from Shanghai' thus serving to remind us how much better cinema can be.

John Hannah gets his shirt off at every opportunity, a huge American drives around in a Mini Minor as `Circus' pathetically strains for cult status and even the beautiful Amanda Donohoe can't add any class to these proceedings.<br /><br />If you want to see a good Brit film try the sublime `Wonderland'


Circus could have been so much better if they had reduced the number of twists and developed each better the film features a very gifted cast that mostly perform well , however it totally loses the audience basically everyone is back stabbing everyone else and not back stabbing them at the same time because they are backstabbing someone else and working with .... did i lose you? well the film is even more confusing clearly written by a first timer writer , it has some redeeming qualities though in the acting especially Famke Janssen shines as Lily but sadly gets a lot of USELESS screen time just standing there doing nothing.....the dialogue is a bit cheesy and the accents sometimes irritating but its still worth watching if you're a fan of any of the actors especially John and Famke who get the most screen time just remember to watch it with a notebook so you can write down who is double crossing who every second....


This film could of been a hell of a lot better if they didn't use Brian Conley as a gangster and if they didn't start the film with Christopher Biggins.

When I watched this film I had absolutely no idea what was going on. There were too many double crosses and plot twists to make the film believable. The film deserves a 0, but seeing as I there isn't a 0 I gave it a 1.

I wouldn't recommend this film to my worst enemy, I would rather poke out my eyeballs with some rusty scissors than watch this film again. I'm telling you, that was an hour and a half of my life I won't get back.

If you want to watch a gangster film, don't get this. Watch "Going Off Big Time" or "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" instead.


Boring, cliched and predictable. The only original bit was the Brighton location for gangsters. It is certainly no "Lock Stock etc......." Hannah was likeable in "Sliding Doors". In "Circus" I developed no empathy with his character and couldn't give a toss what happened to either him or his girlfriend. Although this movie was so cliched and predictable the ending was no surprise I was so uninterested I didn't even care why the movie was given the name "Circus"....... Booooring.......Don't visit this big top.


Mockney comes to Brighton; despite a poor reception in the British press and state-funded-British-cinema written all over it I rather hoped that we'd get a bit of the grimy, hard-nosed London-by-the-sea of Graham Greene.

It doesn't even aspire to this. Characters straight out of their clone 'n crimp trailers reproduce Guy Ritchie's types. The format looks more like a British TV series than a film (Brighton is a backdrop goldmine, wasted with plastic studio work).

I watched this film in pursuit of a good performance from Famke Janssen... she's a bit slick for this company, her brand of big screen impertability belonging more to blockbusters such as Deep Rising. As for acting (a role even!) the search continues. Circus is boring. 3/10


This film simply has no redeeming features. The story is incomprehensible, and the script is gross, sadistic, and stupid. The sex scenes are a joke, as is the inevitable car chase. The music is awful. The acting is limited largely to growling and smirking. A half star dud. Shame on DirecTV for putting it on pay-per-view. In a theater, people might well have thrown soda at the screen.


Enter the Ninja (1981) was the first of several "Ninja" films produced by Cannon starring or co-starring Japanese sensation Sho Kosugi. But the star of the first "Ninja" film was legendary tough guy Franco Nero. Sadly not even Mr. Nero or Sho Kosugi couldn't make this film watchable. When you have two bad dudes in an action film and it's neither watchable or fun, somethings amiss. But I digress. Skip this chapter and watch the next films in the series. They're more interesting and a whole lot of fun.

Next is Revenge of the Ninja. Instead of playing the "evil oriental" (I use that term tongue in cheek mind you). He's the star! Strange for a western film. Watch that one instead.

Not recommended except for die hard Sho Kosugi fans or Cannon film buffs.


Any person, claiming this movie to be a ninja classic film, must have seen this movie before the middle of the nineties or he was less then 10 years before he's seen it. Otherwise I can't explain this 'classic ninja movie' title.

The fight scenes in this movie are just intolerable. Instead of casting Franco Nero as the ninja, they could hire some experienced martial artist instead. In any way the acting skill is not important in that kind of a movie. Nero's fighting ability is barely of some street fighter in a bar. His kicks and punches are lame.

There's enough of old action movies with good action. This is just a waste of time.


This is a very famous Ninja movie but it isn't a nice movie. If you want to see some ninjas and some figures, want to know some things about Ninjas see this movie. This movie only for ninja fans and who wants to make nostalgia.

First 20 minutes and last 20 minutes of the movie are best. You can just see Ninja figures and fight in this scenes. Between these are below the average, nearly bad as a movie. Acting is bad. Sho (black ninja) is the best actor in this movie. Frank Nero is a good actor and charismatic but he cannot fight good. Scenario is also not good. Its so simple. Franko Nero comes near to his best , old friend from army and war. He also protects him from mafia but he is having sex ( go to bed ) with his wife and his friend knows this but don't say anything to Nero negative. Is this possible in life ? What a friendship !

Finally this movie started a genre ; Ninja movies. Also there is the ninja master Sho Kasugi but some fighting scenes are not realistic and not fast even with shoo. This film is below the average even it is a classic.


This is one of those movies that is so bad it is awesome!!! It has everything an early eighties movie needs: Flared pants, Big Moustaches, Chicks with Farrah Hair, and most importantly, NINJAS!!!! I have a few choice moments to recant for you. Cole's army buddy has a strange monkey-like face and always seems to speak without moving his jaw. He gets his ass handed to him about every other scene by the thugs wanting his land so he gets drunk through the entire film. At one point his farm workers finally return after being run off by the gangster guy's hired goons and Frank, I think his name is Frank, is so moved he shouts to the whole group "Lets Have A Cock Fight!!" and they all gleefully move to the cock fighting area of the farm to begin the festivities. This is funny on every level possible. Whether you take it dirty or literally it still warms my heart. Another funny thing is Sho Kosugi's little grunts and over animated ninja style movements. I remember this dude from when I was a kid and he used to say he was the world's only real ninja (he had ads in martial arts magazines) if I remember correctly. My friends and I were a little ninja crazy during the time this movie came out and I can recall seeing it in the local theater many times. I was wondering as I watched this on Starz last night why every sleazy American gangster type always has a stronghold in the Phillipines and wears a white Steve Martin suit. As a matter of fact this guy goes way beyond that in requiring all of his thugs to wear white Steve Martin suits. There is a scene where it looks like 20 Steve Martin impersonators are attacking a 1970's Sears underwear model (Cole). As we wind up for the final battle Cole very clumsily breaks into the bad guy's headquarters and is immediately spotted by a secretary who in turn alerts a guard who fires off a round from his pump action shotgun not 30 feet from the bad guys and no one seems to notice or care. Cole, Wearing a completely white ninja outfit, proceeds to sneakily ascend a staircase then does a flip right into the area where all the bad guys are. The second in charge tells him he didn't need to kill everybody as they were expecting him, then gives him a ride to the bad guys huge Cock Fighting arena. Don't ask me why Cock Fighting is a huge part of this movie but it is. When they arrive Cole is still wearing his ninja mask even though everyone involved knows what he looks like without it. The final battle is approaching as Cole has killed everybody and now Sho, as I like to call him, reveals himself to have kidnapped Cole's lady aka Frank's wife, and they meet in the snazziest cockfighting arena you ever saw. Sho then, very politely I might add, releases said lady and the battle is about to start. They do their bowing and start circling each other, both masked by the way. When they join in battle it appears Cole becomes someone else intermittently ala "Finishing The Game" a funny spoof on completing Bruce Lee's "Game of Death". Cole eventually comes out on top, Kills Sho, who dies with honor by being decapitated and all is well. Next we see Cole, after ruining everyone's life is about to split town again but not before foreshadowing the brutal death of a fat guy with a hook hand and then he inexplicably winks at the camera, freeze frame, credits, done.


A combat veteran, fresh from completion of ninjutsu training, reunites with an old friend in Manila and gets caught up in a power struggle with a ruthless land baron.

But, do you really care about that? If you're even reading this page, you must know something of what to expect. It's your typical chop-socky, complete with ridiculous dialouge, mega-corny villains, apocalyptic sound editing, and a camera that begs for your attention. The only reason for being seen in public with this film is the fight sequences, wonderfully choreographed by Mike Stone and true master Sho Kosugi. Franco Nero ain't no slouch either, assuming you can see around the mustache.

Well, I'm being too harsh. There are some good laughs--enjoy Christopher George repeatedly screaming "Ninja!" and delivering arguably the goofiest death scene ever captured on film.


Terrible action movie in which lead Franco Nero exchanges his cowboy hat, gun belt and the coffin he dragged around in DJANGO (1966) for an all-white Ninja outfit with all the snazzy paraphernalia that goes with it! Despite virtually non-stop action, the film is utterly clichéd and unintentionally funny - with a campy villain, to boot, in Christopher George. Susan George (no relation) is the attractive woman with a washed-up husband, Nero's wartime companion, whom the villains are trying to push off her oil-rich land - but the latter haven't counted upon Nero's martial-arts (and stunt-heavy) gymnastics. The solution to their problems is to hire a similarly-skilled Ninja for themselves who, as it happens, turns out to be Nero's deadly enemy (played by Sho Kosugi, who appeared in two more sequels and is currently engaged in another!). The climax takes place inside an arena where one-man army Nero 'eliminates' George and what has remained of his gang from previous confrontations; the subtle way in which he despatches his nemesis, however, is effectively done.


Franco Nero stars as Cole a ninja who comes to the rescue of his war buddy Frank Landers (Alex Courtney) and his fetching wife (Susan George) to protect them from a mobster (Christopher George) who wants the land. Things get even more complicated when the mobster hires Cole's old nemesis (Sho Kosugi) who is also a ninja. Inept martial arts actioner, while having better production values then most ninja movies, fails to inject any life into the surroundings, or for that matter actionscenes. A poor effort all around.


I stumbled across this movie late at night on TV. My brother and I could not stop laughing at how God awful this movie is. The crappy sound effects whenever White Ninja or Black Ninja punch, kick, or use a weapon is hilarious. This movie is almost on the same level as the Evil Dead series, but you can only watch this movie once because of shear crappiness. I'm not sure if the director meant for it to be so crappy on purpose because he knew idiots like me would buy it.


This movie is recommended only for insomniacs: it will relieve them by putting them to sleep. Five-year-olds might also enjoy it. But for anyone else (including fans of the genre), what a bore! The "ancient" plot is reminiscent of "Return Of The Dragon", and this film is just as inept, but Nero is no Bruce Lee, so "Enter the Ninja" is an even worse film. Until now, this is the second (the offensive "comedy" "Bachelor Party" was the first) film I gave 1/10 to.


This movie is such a total waste of time. I can't understand anyone sitting through this piece of trash. Oh, I would have loved it when I was seven years old. I think a seven year old child may have written and directed it.

There's no script, no acting, just rubbish. The best acting is that by the fighting roosters. I think I could whip these ninjas and I am not someone you'd consider tough. Totally unconvincing and did not spark the least bit of interest. I was yawning, and laughing, by the end of the first ten minutes of the film. This is one that would turn people away from martial art movies. Great comedy, bad action flick.


Surely this deserves to be in the bottom 10 films of all time, pity it's just a TV movie. Rubbish that only we British can produce! It perhaps has some merit in the so awful it's good scale. Watch out for scene where they start dancing !


"The Wizard of Menlo Park" was deeply responsible for many things we take for granted in 2007: even if he did not invent them without rivals or assistants, he gave birth to the electric light, the phonograph, the motion picture camera, the electric car battery, the electric power grid (possibly his most important but least recalled invention), the pre-fabricated house, and innovations to the telephone and telegraph, as well as the ticker-tape machine and an early voting machine. The total number of patents is over 1,000 - far more than any other American Inventor.

But Edison was a ruthless business competitor. He frequently had vast legal fights over the precedence of his inventions over rivals. The best example is the telephone, where he was one of seven or eight rivals with claims against Alexander Graham Bell. Actually Edison's invention here was not the central idea that Bell and Gray had come up with independently of each other in 1876, but an improvement on the sound quality of the phone receiver and transmitter that Bell did not develop. Still it was part of the huge 1888 Supreme Court decision that was the longest U.S. Supreme Court decision (a single volume of their reports!) written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite - which, by the way, killed the poor Chief Justice from overwork within weeks of completing it.

In 1886 Edison found an equally ruthless competitor in the area of electric power grids for large cities. This was George Westinghouse, inventor of the railroad air break. Westinghouse's firm had gotten the assistance of a new inventor, and former Edison assistant, Nicola Tesla. Tesla developed "alternating current", which was a rival system to Edison's "direct current". Edison's system was basically a straight circuit system of electricity. Tesla's system allowed the current to be switched from one circuit to another - actually it was a better, and more efficient system. But Edison was determined to break this rival by a publicity campaign.

It started with electric power lines. Edison early on had his lines put underground, so that they would not be endangered by weather conditions. But Westinghouse was forced to have his lines out in the open - like telephone lines. When there were several accidental deaths by repair linemen on Westinghouse's lines (in particular one incident where the repairman was burned alive in front of hundreds of horrified onlookers in Manhattan's business district), Edison started insisting that A.C. current was far more dangerous that D.C.

One result of all this was Edison helping some subsidiary inventors with getting Westinghouse A.C. generators and dynamos for an electric chair. Edison himself always denied that he invented the electric chair, but he helped several lesser figures along the way - for the complete story read Mark Essig's EDISON & THE ELECTRIC CHAIR (New York: WALKER & COMPANY, 2003).

Edison experiment himself with cats and dogs (experiments he was glad to show the public). In the long run, despite assisting in the invention of a new method of execution, Edison failed to dislodge the public support of Alternating Current. But he never stopped trying.

In 1903 he had an opportunity to combine his campaign against Westinghouse and A.C. with his invention of the motion picture camera. He assisted in "putting down" a well known public elephant ("Topsy") who had killed several men. He did so by electrocuting the poor beast with A.C. But the entire killing is on film - and one can view it to this day. It is a pitiful looking film - whatever poor "Topsy" had done it was a poor beast - not a Machiavellian murderer. The moment we see the explosions of electricity sparks that show the death of the elephant, we are aware it will soon be over, but the sudden collapse of "Topsy" is still an unpleasant sight to view. The film leaves a bad flavor in the mouths of modern movie audiences. Yet, sad to say, it probably made a profit for Edison - his description of the film in his catalog of films shows real pride in his accomplishment here. In 1903 it may have been exciting entertainment for many Americans watching it. One is glad that more people are appalled by it today - sometimes one can sense the human race has improved a little bit.


This vicious little film is horrendous. My low rating for it comes for two main reasons. The first is that it is an animal snuff film and I find that whole concept so vile it turns my stomach. Filmed over a hundred years ago, I can only hope that we've evolved into something a little more humane and compassionate. This film is complete and utter exploitation, made to cash in on the sensational aspects of the film and the subject. Historical interest aside, this is something to watch only if one finds themselves in the grip of morbid fascination.

Reason number two? Look at the way that the camera is set up. It is placed in the best possible location to fully capture the full effect: long march forward of the elephant, perfect view of the electrocution platform and a cold and clinically dispassionate viewpoint of the elephant with smoke coming out of it before it finally collapses. Sickening.

Thomas Edison did many great things for civilization and his talents and intelligence aren't in doubt. Nobody is perfect, but when you realize that this film provided A) an opportunity for him to trump early cinematic competitors with a sensationalist film of an elephant being electrocuted and B) he filmed the execution to demonstrate the greater effectiveness of DC as opposed to AC, you can't help but wonder if the scientist in him was a little TOO dispassionate and cold. Any number of Peter Cushing's mad scientists would be proud. The rest of us should be ashamed and revolted.


We see Thomas Edison, with a glowing smile on his face, trying to electrocute a 5 ton living being. Eventually he was successful, and so the first animal snuff film is born, cleverly disguised as an amazing achievement in technology. This is scientific arrogance at it's worst, folks. It ranks up there with the doctor who decapitated a monkey just to prove that he could keep its severed head alive for 22 minutes.

Oh yes, there's the absurd excuse that the elephant had been convicted of "murder" and sentenced to death, and that this was a fair and humane "execution". To all the people who are satisfied with this sophistry, please form a line on my right. I'm going to give you all a big collective Three Stooges slap across the head.

Go watch "The Advocate" (1993), a movie based on the true story murder trial of a pig in Mideval France. 500 years later, humans are still a bunch of morons I see.

What's next? We arrest birds for stealing our blueberries? Arrest pricker bushes for assault and battery? Thomas Edison, I hope you have a big fat worm crawling through your eye socket right now. Oh wait, that would be trespassing, wouldn't it? lol


Thomas Edison May Have Done Lots Of Great Inventions But WTF Is This!!!! I Am Sorry But This Movie Is Simply Awful. The Plot Is That This Elephant Walks To A Certain Point & Gets Electrocuted. Okay The Picture Quality Looked Like Someone Used It For Toilet Paper. I Thought That The Early Charlie Chaplin Films Were Awful. Okay Thomas Edison May Have Been An Inventor But Why Did He Make This Film He Could Have Filmed A Baby Being Fed & It Would Have Been Better. People Might Say I'm Being Harsh On The Times But Would You Enjoy Something Like This From What I Have Said Edison May Have Made The Lightbulb But Why Did He Make This Particular Movie. Well I Might Sound Like A Complete A##hole But Watch This On Youtube Then You Will See This Abomination. I Still Can't Believe This Film Is Completely Awful. All In All The Worst Short Film I Have Ever Seen.

Rating: 1/10


Thomas Edison had no other reason to make this film except to show that film can capture the electrocution of an innocent elephant. Edison was not a genius but a man out for money and profit; his love for life was measured by dollars, not experiences, as this film shows.


Oh my God, I was so expecting something more entertaining than this when I downloaded this movie, seeing as 1903 was one of my fave years for movies ever, but it sucked! The "plot", although I'd hesitate to call it that, is about some dumb elephant. It slowly makes its way onto some platform and gets electrocuted to death. Lame. Even for a short film, the plot was too thin to keep my attention. Edison is, like, the worst director ever. Plus, the elephant has no screen presence whatsoever. And the ending? Wow, that wasn't predictable at all. *sarcasm*

The picture quality is horrible too. You can barely tell what's going on most of the time. The only positive thing about this movie is that unlike most other un-scary horror flicks this didn't spawn eleven sequels. Other than that this is a complete waste of money and 1 minute of your life you'll never get back.


There isn't much about "Reckless" that feels right, beginning with the off-putting title (thanks to screenwriter Craig Lucas, who adapted his own play, bringing the title along with him) and continuing with the casting (Mia Farrow playing wife to Tony Goldwyn, who's young enough to be her son). The couple live in an idyllic winter world that appears to be the inside of a snow-globe, but Farrow gets a startling dose of reality after he admits he's hired a man to kill her. She flees into the night, taking refuge with a very strange couple who want to help her rebuild her life. The production design and art direction of "Reckless" are fine, but they are services rendered for a completely inane, often alienating screenplay. It's supposed to be a dark holiday comedy, though the cast is at a loss with this unfunny, occasionally offensive material. *1/2 from ****


Depressing black BLACK comedy about a woman (Mia Farrow) who flees her house on Christmas Eve when she discovers her husband (Tony Goldwyn) has hired a hit man to kill her. She ends up with a husband and wife (Scott Glenn and Mary-Louise Parker) and then things go wrong. Basically Farrow keeps running and is continuously meeting VERY strange people and getting into morbidly unfunny situations.

This was advertised as a feel good movie when I saw it around Christmas time at its VERY short run in an art cinema. I found it sick, unfunny and just depressing. I like black humor but this was WAY too dark for me. What happens to Parker's character especially was horrifying. To make matters worse Eileen Brennan is thrown in as a nun (!!!) later on and proceeds to chew the scenery with gusto.

The only saving grace was Farrow's acting--it's much better than this picture deserves. Also it was a relief to see the very talented Stephen Dorff pop up at the end. The ending itself was kind of nice but it couldn't erase what had gone on before.

Sick, morbid, pitch black "comedy". A 1


I recently was in a stage version of this play. And, on the last day of the run, I was excited to see that it was going to be playing on TV. I stuck a tape in as it was on late at night, and I watched it the next day. I have to say I was very disappointed. The actors in the film made few of the discovers that are in the script. That is understandable as the resersal process is probably different, but it was upsetting to see. A lot of the original script was changed for the movie as well to make it better for the screen, but I am not sure if it helped the movie out at all. I gave this 4 stars only because I know the script and the writing is a lot better than what this movie portrays.


Produced by International Playhouse Pictures, it looks as if filmed in a doll house. Everybody's a liar, everything is dream-like, toy-like for no good reason. I'm not saying everything in all movies should be totally realistic, but such unbelievable fantasy things and situations in one movie are way too much. How did they get these fine actors -actresses particularly- to this movie? It's nice to see Mia again; if we were meant to understand why her husband wants to kill her, Mia does do it well. Not funny, not moving, just fake. Stephen Dorff briefly appears at the end, fitting for a play maybe, less for a movie, but this isn't one to measure things at. Terrible.


This was my very first "Bollywood" movie and I found it in the same way many other recent viewers did -- through "Ghost World". Having done a little bit of reading up on the film industry of Bollywood this week, I understand somewhat why there are seemingly unrelated musical numbers and romance and comedy in a horror film. But "Something for everyone" doesn't always add up to a cohesive product.

The ultra-groovy musical dance number "Jaan Pehechaan Ho" has captivated the world in a way it probably could not have done in 1965. It's all over the internet now, with many folks scrambling for a good English translation. Laxmi Chhaya does an amazing job dancing take after take, making it all look fresh, new and fun even when any normal person would be exhausted! She rules!

On the beach with Miss Kitty is a light-weight fun and pretty tune in total contrast to the horror plot. Still, I find myself singing it in Hindi a week later. I found a rough translation:

if you want to live in this life then listen to what I say leave your sorrows behind and join the party take my advice

those who want to live live with laughter and singing let your hair down and relax people of this world what do you know? come to me and I'll explain

whoever there is who will see me will stop worrying in this world fish swim freely here and there

My second favorite number in the film is The Butler's Dream where Mehmood is entranced by Miss Kitty's dancing. The electric tiki-like idols are just wonderfully tacky as is the entire set of this number. Online, I'd seen it described as what would happen if "Liberace threw up"!! Way fun.

Gumnaam is not a good movie as a whole. That's why I gave it a rating of 3. It's actually a real stinker of a film with some fun, kitschy musical numbers that have nothing really to do with the murder plot.


Geesh, I never, ever, ever thought I'd write the above four words. But, actually, she's the highpoint of this little flick.

As the movie was packaged when I rented it, it supposedly is a comedy about a girl who is kidnapped but doesn't have her medication, which keeps her stable. It sounded like a cute concept. For years, all we ever saw of Spelling was as Donna Martin in 90210 and an endless parade of dull, lifeless TV movies. It sounded like a chance for her to stretch a little, and considering that with her TV success and her rich daddy, she couldn't have any financial reason to do this movie, I figured she took the part because this must be a low-budget jewel.

Wrong.

Instead, Spelling's part is small, and the bit about the mentally unbalanced kidnap victim is just one of several storylines. When she's not on the screen, the movie crawls so badly, I could've sworn it was longer than the 85 minutes that were listed on the tape. This would've worked so much better if Spelling's storyline had dominated, and it had been changed into a romantic comedy with her and Phil, the least irritating kidnapper.


i bought this rental return for $1.99 at hollywood and overpaid. i didn't expect much, but thought it would be something to fall asleep by at least. i quickly noted the very weak storyline, the gross overacting by everyone (no one talks like that except in cartoons), and the seemingly let's-make-it-up-as-we-go-along direction. i know that the participants in this mess must be very embarrassed by it, and i feel certain that it did not help any careers. as for this movie buff of 35 years, it has now provided a ready answer for the worst-film-you've-ever-seen question.


Supreme Sanction is a movie about a female assassin who works for the U.S. government. She has to kill a known TV reporter, but spares his life when she sees that he has a little daughter. Because she hasn't killed him, she becomes the next target of her employers.

The script isn't good although I've seen worse B-movies. A hit-man with remorse, the government killing innocent people in the name of fighting terror,... What's next? Aliens rescuing the victim??? No, Supreme Sanction will never win any award because of the script. And the acting isn't any better I'm afraid. A few better known actors (Michael Madsen and Kristy Swanson), who clearly had a lot of bills to pay and therefor accepted to play in this movie, together with some other actors who probably don't even know what a camera really looks like don't do any good to the movie either.

So why should you watch this movie? Well, if you haven't got anything better to do but to watch some action flick and you are tired of the 10,531st rerun of Mc Gyver or the A-team, than this might be the movie you want to see. Otherwise you better leave it alone. I give it a 3/10.


Please give this one a miss.

Kristy Swanson and the rest of the cast rendered terrible performances. The show is flat, flat, flat.

I don't know how Michael Madison could have allowed this one on his plate. He almost seemed to know this wasn't going to work out and his performance was quite lacklustre, so all you Madison fans give this a miss.