Let's not kid ourselves, this atrocity is not Plan Nine or Cat Women. It is bad, period! The performances vary from drama school theatrics (Marla English) to a 'couldn't care less' walk through (Tom Conway). The photography (even in a good print) is so murky it is occasionally hard to see what is happening. The real problem, however, is the aimless, pointless, nearly plot less story and the leaden, paceless direction. At a brisk 77 minutes it still feels endless.

The screenplay is especially inept. There are two story lines that only intersect at the very end of the picture. Tom Conway is trying to create a super race, using voodoo and modern science (although there is little science in evidence) which he can control telepathically. He is keeping his wife prisoner (for no discernible reason). Meanwhile a couple of petty crooks and a white hunter type guide are trying to find the village in which he is working, in the expectation of gold and jewels. When they finally arrive, Tom Conway decides that one of them, the woman, is the perfect subject for his experiments. She is turned into a monster, kills Conway (natch!) and then reverts to normal. She sees a gold statue half drowned in a boiling pool, tries to retrieve it and falls in the water and apparently drowns. The white hunter rescues the wife. In the final shot we see the supposedly drowned woman emerge as the monster again; threatening a sequel (now that really is a scary thought!).

The AIP producer, Samuel Z Arkoff, in a lecture included on the DVD, prides himself on spotting the teenage niche market and satisfying it with ingenious low budget movies. However, it is difficult to see how anyone could think this rancid concoction would satisfy any sort of audience. What appeal do they think it could possibly have? The monster appears so rarely that it could hardly be called a horror film. The jungle action is tepid and tedious. There are no teenagers in it and no characters that teenagers could be expected to identify with.

The producers exposed 77 minutes of film, but they didn't make a movie. This is a con trick and Arkoff should be ashamed of his association with it.


Martha Plimpton has done some prestigious movies, working with River Phoenix and Harrison Ford, but she was never able to expand her limited, tomboyish appeal into the same class as, say, Molly Ringwald. This film, which was barely released, is just an extension of her late '80s/early '90s attempts to find a screen-persona which was identifiable to moviegoers, and it represents another failure. Plimpton plays a troubled young woman who finds out on her 21st birthday that she was adopted and--worse than that--was actually abandoned as an infant on her parents' doorstep! She sets out to find her biological mother and father, but the viewer has no clue why she'd even want to (would simple curiosity give her this much determination?). Unattractive material given sitcom handling; it starts off on the wrong foot and never recovers. Plimpton gives a sour, surly performance, but Hector Elizondo and Mary Kay Place are fine as her adoptive parents. *1/2 from ****


According to most people I know that saw this film and to the reviews I've read this was supposed to be a hugely entertaining thriller that oh so needs to be seen by more people. I didn't expect this film to blow me away but I certainly didn't expect to find this movie mediocre at best, which is what it is.

I'm no stranger to French films being both French and having studied them as a student so i'm aware of the clichés and corny plot twists that can go unnoticed by English/American audiences. There are some great French films that should have been given widespread international release but this isn't one of them.

To begin with the plot is both far fetched, over complicated and too smart assed to be entertaining so you really feel every minute of its 2hr and 5min run time and by the time everything is finally revealed you are beyond caring. The main character himself is lacking any real charisma or even acting talent to keep your attention fixed mainly on him and his journey anytime close to the crap ending so by the time you've even considered swallowing the main plot twists it's begun to dawn on you that you've wasted your time! I actually remember switching off before the credits actually began to roll after the film's climactic reunion - that was the point in which I was sure I had almost completely wasted my time by the way.

The film is not at all the worst thing i've seen but it seems completely overrated. For instance I read somewhere that it beats all the Bourne Identity films in terms of suspense or even that it has 'wall-to-wall tension'. I can safely say some people are hyping up this frankly dull movie.

4/10 is a generously considerate rating for this film I feel, and since I have seen some complete and utter stinkers, I'll therefore save the 1s, 2s and 3s for them.


First off, if you want to make a good film, don't cram all your exposition into the last 10 minutes. The viewer is expected to be bewildered for nearly two hours, only to have Margo's father explain everything to Alex very late in the film. To make matters worse, the scriptwriter decided it wasn't enough to have the basic mystery solved, but adds in a completely unnecessary murder that we knew nothing about (involving Alex's father!).

There's some serious motivation issues with characters also. Margo's father's choices don't seem to make sense once the film is over. Why didn't he just kill Philippe's father and be done with it? Instead, a complicated plot to obscure the truth is concocted, but one which ensures that everyone will be in physical jeopardy for years (including the completely innocent photographer, who gets murdered by Philippe's father's thugs). Although Alex is a doctor (whom one would think is relatively bright), he chooses to flee the police, during which he not only endangers his own life, but those whom he involves in a nasty pile-up on the freeway. Why was Margo's friend so keen on keeping her promise to Margo, once all the crap hits the fan for Alex? And are we to think that Margo's father would rather kill himself rather than go to prison? What about his wife? Did he consider her wishes? Those are some of the main problems.

Then there are some nasty details, like: why was her father there the night of her faked death? How did he get a hold of the junkie's body on such short notice and get it back quickly in order to bury it with the other two? Alex's friend Bruno seems over-eager to be part of the mayhem, in which he and his friends have to kill for Alex, notwithstanding the perceived debt he owes Alex for saving his son's life. What good would the photos of Margo do? They don't implicate Philippe at all. And why would Margo have the safety deposit box key handy that night for her would-be abductors to take? Did I miss some other things? Probably. Minor irritations of mine include the fact that although Alex is a doctor, he smokes like a fiend. Which makes his marathon run away from the police even that more impressive. Also, when he is riding in the convertible with his lawyer, neither of them is wearing a seat belt. How bright could they be?


Sorry, but I usually love French thrillers - e.g. Chabrol - but this was a glossy shambolic mess. The fact that it was based on a Harlan Cohen book is telling, because rather than being a French film (strong on psychology and character), it's more like a John Grisham-esquire roller-coaster ride by numbers with ludicrous plot twists, flashbacks that update previous flashbacks, a predictable villain (as soon as his name is mentioned you think 'hmm, he'll be the bad guy!') and sets of mysterious stereotyped characters who seem to inhabit different movies. By the end I was laughing hysterically at the unevenness of the film's tone (the scenes where the lead character is being helped by two streetwise shady characters are unintentionally hilarious), the utterly baffling plot, the absurd coincidences and strokes of good fortune (e.g. guessing the password for an email account) AND yawning uncontrollably (thought I must have misread the 1hr 50min running time as it seemed to drag on for 3 hours 50 minutes).


I walked out of the cinema having suffered this film after 30 mins. I left two friends pinned in by a great fat bloke to endure the remainder.

As soon as the opening sequence of the film unrolled, I sensed something was wrong and it wasn't long before I to stop myself from hiding under my seat cringing in embarrassment. I'm not one for walking out of films however bad as they usually have some redeeming feature, but this one suffered from a catalogue of bad directing, bad acting (bar 'Bruno' character & the impeccable Jean Rochefort -according to my friends),awful editing (in terms of theme and meaning), terrible soundtrack and image correlation that seemed to make an art out placing the wrong peace of music over the image and scene at the wrong time . The worst crime was its overall insipidness and unbelievability (a result of the aforementioned atrocities). Why was it so awful? I do not want to waste more of my time explaining. I'd say go and see it for yourself but I don't want to fill the coffers of this project any more than necessary. Oh, the screening did possess one redeeming feature: My friend cambering over the rows of seats in silhouette with his umbrella hooked over his arm as he tried to steady himself -more pathos, tension & entertainment in those few moments than in the 125 mins of this sadly dire effort.


it's unfortunate that many of the other detractors of this film seem influenced by prior biases. (i.e. anger at the gay characters, thinking french thrillers are bad, etc.) i will admit that i'm unfamiliar with the novel, but as a film, after about 45 minutes, i was rolling my eyes. hopefully i can explain in writing my complaints eloquently enough before i get sick of spending anymore time on this film over the 2 hours of its running length.(2 hours that felt like 3) don't get me wrong, i can sit through hour and a half silent films, 3 hour epics, i don't have a short attention span, nor am i so jaded by the mtv generation that i cant appreciate a subtle and slowly building film. here goes, my grocery list of complaints. first off, the ending. yes, it had a scooby-doo-esquire, character explains everything at the end. now i actually think for this movie, this was necessary.. the film had so many plot-twists, emotional revelations, new facts surfacing and being discovered.. one reviewer said it well: "..yes, it is a very logical story, but without the very essential back story (their childhood stories, the relationship amongst the 3 parents, the relationship amongst the two lovebirds and the son of the Big Man), it just doesn't feel right. I felt cheated " i won't throw in too many spoilers here, i could name specific revelations that i thought were unnecessary, but according to the reviews on here, there's a lot of people who seem to really love this, so i don't want to give anything away. i personally, can't stand soap operas. the complexity, and twists and turns, for me, snuffed out ANY impact the final revelations could possibly deliver. By the end, i seriously didn't care! there weren't any gaping plot holes necessarily; this seems like it could make a great book, in WRITING it is perfectly logical, but if i'm supposed to believe this is REALITY, something doesn't sit right with the pieces that have been haphazardly inserted. too often i felt crucial characters we were never able to get to know were thrown in to further complicate the plot, increase the emotion, and develop the mystery. the acting i had no complaints about, the directing, eh, not bad, but the plot, and especially its development, SEVERELY lacking. sorry to those that felt this was a perfect thriller, but i couldn't get into it. i gave this a 3 simply because i don't want to seem completely unfair, and it did have moments of slight intrigue and excitement.

*MAJOR SPOILER* and i have to mention it.. but when the father is making his revelation to alexandre and JUST when you think the plot couldn't fit in another twist.. "your father didn't die in a hunting accident".. I ALMOST DIED.. when was the father at all developed or even really mentioned much in the back story?!! are you serious!! like the already complex plot involving characters from all the families and their relationship to one another wasn't enough!!? does the protagonist NEED another emotional whallop more than he has already been fed?! sorry i had to throw in such a spoiler, but that just bothered me as much as i've ever been bothered in ANY film.


There's potential in there with "Tell No-one". A curious and intriguing plot, and a French take on a very American story. But for me, the opportunities were not exercised here.

Although I liked aspects of this film, there were three prominent failings which pulled it right down to four out of ten.

Firstly, it's a silly, clichéd murder mystery. A particularly contrived Murder She Wrote or Bergerac. Being French doesn't eliminate this problem - it's just silly and in French at the same time. It's full of implausible coincidences.

Secondly, the transition from the US to France seems to have failed chronically. This French doctor hanging out on "the streets" of a French city with his new "homies" and their blingin' SUVs... and then there's the car chases...

But thirdly and mostly, it's just too darn long. To me, a film needs a good reason to be significantly over 90 minutes, and over two hours takes some serious justification. This once didn't have it.


The fact that this movie is bargain basement quality is a real shame, but back in the 1940s, that was about the only type of film made for theaters catering to Black audiences due to segregation. So, while MGM, Warner and all the other big studios were making extremely polished films, tiny studios with shoestring budgets were left to muddle by with what they had. And from seeing this movie, it's obvious that a lot of energy went into making the film, even if it is a pretty lousy film aesthetically speaking. Some of the actors weren't particularly good (especially the French guy), the sets were minimal and the plot totally silly BUT the film also had some good music--of varying styles from Classical to Jazz to Rhythm and Blues. This is thanks to many talented but pretty much unrecognized Black performers.

Now as for the plot, it was totally stupid and silly but still watchable in a kitschy way. I loved seeing Tim Moore ("Kingfish" from the AMOS 'N ANDY TV show) in drag, as he made the absolute ugliest woman in cinema history (this includes the Bride of Frankenstein and many others)--this is probably due to the fact that when NOT in drag, he was a pretty ugly but funny guy. If the man pretending to be a woman actually looked remotely like a woman, I doubt this movie would have worked as well. Seeing this ugly and rubber-faced man with a cheesy wig STILL being ardently sought after by three suitors was pretty funny.

This isn't a great film but from a historical point of view, it's fascinating and excellent viewing for young adults to know what America was like for Blacks in this era. A very interesting and funny time capsule.


This film had a couple of funny parts,but for the most part, made me want to go ahead and change DVD'S and watch "Malibu's" instead,which I had in my own collection. At least I would know there was something funny coming up and give me something to look forward to.

I was disappointed in this very low budget film. And I do not judge a movie by it's budget.It just lacked originality and was too predictable. I would not rent or even watch this film again, and I am usually a repeat offender of film. The actors were forgettable. The story was half thought out, and it left me with an insatiable urge to get my laugh on.I ended up watching Jamie Kennedy's White Boy Gone Gangsta to have the comedy itch scratched.


Much praise has been lavished upon Farscape, but I don't think it's that good. It certainly has a distinctive look, but it lacks just about everything else: story, purpose, direction, excitement; you name it. I'm a big sci-fi fan, and I make it a point to watch all the sci-fi shows I can. I've almost finished the four seasons of Farscape, and at this point I'm not very satisfied. The show does have a few good things - most notably Claudia Black (who's sadly missing from the first few episodes of season four) -, but they are very few and very far between. As a whole the show is marred by a lot of very silly stuff (such as Fantasy elements rather than SF ditto), and many many episodes, esp. in season four, are unspeakably messy and very poorly structured. And one just feels that it isn't going anywhere. It's mostly just non-directional adventures with thin, long-running plot lines which develop painstakingly slowly. Well, sometimes it's a little bit tighter, but it only lasts for a very few episodes at a time.

Effects-wise, there are a few impressive things here and there (esp. out in space, occasionally), but the show seems stuck in the same style of effects, which frankly gets old fast. Outlandish and unconvincing puppet aliens mar the show a great deal, and I've come to prefer (by far) the episodes where regular human-looking characters are the focus.

I think the Peacekeepers are by far the most stylish and intriguing and interesting figures on the show; they succeed in being a convincingly alien culture, despite their all-human appearance. There are a few really cool episodes with them, esp. in the first season (IIRC), where Crichton masquerades as a Peacekeeper captain, and invades and eventually destroys one of their secret bases. Such episodes can reach a rating of 8 out of 10, but I cannot award the show as a whole more than a "4" rating.

Aside from the Peacekeepers (which themselves are somewhat too single-mindedly totalitarian and militaristic to be really nuanced), the show simply doesn't offer anything important or significant that you need to know or want to see. OTOH, it does contain a few good ideas and is not a total loss.

This is just my opinion, of course, but as a seasoned sci-fi fan, I think it counts for something, and may be of help to others. There aren't a lot of good sci-fi shows out there; but Star Trek (any series) and especially the new Battlestar Galactica are definitely better than Farscape. But if you're a huge fan of mediocre sci-fi shows, you may well like Farscape, too.

My rating: 4 out of 10.


I honestly fail to understand why people love this show so much. A friend of mine watches this and since I like sci-fi, I tried to watch along since the plot of the show sounded promising, but in truth it really is a very boring show. The only thing that will keep you awake during this show are the video game-like CGI-effects and the complete overuse of muppets. Note that I call it muppets because they actually really look like muppets, not like the aliens they should be.

Speaking of which; the muppets and make-up effects are horribly overused in this show. You have this guy who could be best described as a alien/dwarf-hybrid, you have a pale girl who looks like a cheesy vamp-girl, you've got a floating potty-mouth frog-alien... It just feels very unnecessary and furthermore even to the point that you feel distracted from the whole storyline about a lost astronaut.

Every episode is also too much of a stand-alone. The creators of this show directed this in such a way that every episode almost feels like a whole other show. At least up until the point that you see the main-characters/muppets again, that is. The whole plot about the main-character getting back to earth is way to much pushed to the background at points. The acting is also quite bad.

Conclusion: if you want good sci-fi, just look somewhere else. This isn't even real sci-fi to begin with in my opinion, since the show is more aimed at fantasy-elements with all the puppetry and weird dreams going on. And if you just want to see muppets then I suggest you watch the Muppet Show and feel glad that this abomination of a show has come to a end.

By the way; doesn't anyone have dejavu's with the concept of a living spaceship? Ohyeah thats right; Doctor Who started that concept almost about 30 years ago! This show is like a collection of 'sci-fi' leftovers. Scripts and events that were abandoned for a good reason, only to be picked up by this horrible show.


I love John's work as a singer, but the movie was dull and 'no worth the time' to view.

I thought he did an 'ok' job at acting his part. When he says, "your having an affair with the ol' man", to his co-star, I kinda chuckled at his facial movements... or lack thereof.

I would suggest the movie if you like John's music but not as a Saturday night video.

If you love his music, then the video has a little music from him in it, but not much.

So so.. at best


Celebrity singers have always had a tough time breaking into the movies (the cinema is littered with failed attempts), and one can go on and on speculating why John Mellencamp never made it big as an actor. Instead of taking small parts in heartfelt projects, Mellencamp dives right in playing the lead in "Falling From Grace", which he also directed, and the results are as awkward and unbecoming as that title. Story of a famous singer returning to his hometown in the sticks, opening up old family wounds, boasts a screenplay by Larry McMurtry, but the meandering film goes nowhere slowly. The supporting cast is decent, including Kay Lenz (whom it's always nice to see), Mariel Hemingway and Claude Akins (who share the one really strong scene in the picture). As for John's acting, he doesn't look particularly comfortable, despite apparent efforts to make him look at home; he seems to be ducking the camera most of the time, and he never connects with the audience in an immediate way. *1/2 from ****


First of all, I think the casting and acting were excellent. The problem is the story. There is basically no story here worth telling and thus basically no movie here. Larry McMurtry has done Lonesome Dove and I can't fault the original, though it probably didn't need sequels. He did Hud with Paul Newman, which is one of my favorite movies. Mellencamp is supposed to be a country singer, but the only song I hear him sing is an old Buck Owens song. The movie makes a big deal out of chicken farming. Mellencamp's character has a good wife, and it's utterly stupid of him to stray from her. The incident with riding in the sliding cage is utterly stupid. Maybe people do that for fun in some parts of the country, but I never heard of it.


Feeling Minnesota, directed by Steven Baigelmann, and starring Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio: The strained relationship between two brothers, Sam (D'Onofrio) and Jjaks (Reeves), is pushed to breaking point when Jjaks arrives at Sam's wedding and makes off with the bride, Freddie (Diaz), a former stripper, marrying Sam to repay a gambling debt owed to night-club owner Red (Lindo). Baigelman's writing and directing debut is a frustrating mess, full of hateful characters and lacking coherence. Putting Keanu and Diaz in the same movie should at least provide some eye candy, but Baigelman even cops out on that score, grudging his actors up with little positive effect. Very poor.


Feeling Minnesota is not really a road movie, but that's still the best categorization I can generate. A road movie does not primarily depend on a great story line, and since the plot of this movie is truly pathetic, it does fulfil that description. To be interesting, such a movie must rely entirely on moving and intriguing characters, and on the chemistry between them. Unfortunately the staff of Feeling Minnesota fails utterly in producing this excitement.

The initializing presentation of the characters is unsatisfying and confusing; I can, for example, not figure out whether Jjaks (Keanu Reeves) did grow up in the house of his mother and brother or not. It is said, by his mother (Tuesday Weld), that he must live with his father, but nothing in the film suggests that it ever happens. The same goes for the rest of the characters - I never get to know them. They appear irrational, and no real explanation is given to why they do so.

The bottom line is that I leave the movie without any feelings for the characters, except dullness and perhaps a tiny kick of attraction for the cute Cameron Diaz.


The first time I saw this film it was with this cute girl I was attracted to. we had a lot of fun laughing at it and generally making fun. So my impression was that it was terrible but watchable for cheeseyness value. Then, as part of our anniversary, we watched it together again on video. As it turns out, the movie is just terrible and unwatchable. It's amazing how cute girls can change the way the world looks.


It hasn't even been two years since I first saw this film, and yet, I can barely remember a thing about this movie. Needless to say, I found it to be VERY forgettable. Of what I do remember, nothing stands out as particularly good. A talented cast is wasted in what I suppose was meant to be a dark comedy, but if that is the case, it fails miserably. At best, this film is mildly interesting. At worst, the seemingly omnipresent overcast skies are more interesting than the storyline. If you like watching films where it always seems damp and cool, then I guess you may find something to like in this picture. Just try to ignore what else is going on, because it is barely watchable.


J.J. Jameson (from Spiderman 2) Quote ... Crap, Crap, ...

Mega-Crap It pretends to be an homage (un/intentional) to the Coen Brothers ... done poorly.

There is no real mystery to the plot.

Diaz's performance is totally uninspired.

The quirky characters don't really work.

There are a lot of "duh" moments.

I love black comedy, but this film isn't funny.

In my view, it wasn't worth the electricity.

There are many films in this genre which are much more entertaining.

I hope you find this review helpful.


Feeling Minnesota is one of the worst films I have ever seen, it is also one of the most disgusting films ever made. It has to do with a woman who is forced to marry a disgusting mob man. At the wedding she meets his brother Jjaks. They have sex in the house after they eat the cake than decide to run away together. The other brother of course comes after him guns blazing and he kills his wife. Jjaks wakes up to find her corpse in the bathtub and buries her. He than seems to become friends with Jjaks and they try to get money together because someone is blackmailing them because he saw them and the body. This loops about and several characters dies or come back to life, but it never comes together with anything that could be called a good plot. The performances are horrible by pretty much everybody. Cameron Diaz, Keanu Reeves, and Dan Akroyed. The direction, dialogue, and visual effects are just horrible. A disgusting and horrible movie.


During a lifetime of seeing and enjoying thousands of films, Feeling Minnesota is absolutely the worst (**major film with A-list stars) that I have ever seen. Bar none. This movie totally fails on every level. It's poorly photographed and edited. There's uninspired acting, the kind where the actors appear bored out of their minds. Just collecting paychecks, perhaps? And worst of all, the sludgy script appears to have been written under the influence of some unpleasant substance found only in sewers. I can't even begin to comprehend how the writer/director could ever have found anyone to finance this project, let alone attract any of the stars that it did. I truly wish I could get back the time that I wasted watching this piece of garbage. If possible, I would have given this film a grade of zero. Better yet, a negative number.


What a waste of talent. A very poor, semi-coherent, script cripples this film. Rather unimaginative direction, too. Some VERY faint echoes of _Fargo_ here, but it just doesn't come off.


This was without a doubt the worst movie I have ever sat through. And that's saying alot, because I've seen my share of horrible movies.

But I have never seen a movie in which every single character portrayed was an unintelligent loser. Seriously, there was not one respectable character in the entire script. How fitting that the plot was equally lame, lacking any intelligence whatsoever.

I can't believe that Keanu Reeves and Cameron Diaz would even consent to participating in such stupidity. And while I haven't seen all of their other movies, I've always enjoyed their performances until now. It's not that the acting was bad, just the entire story line was moronic.


OK, if I was in the rental store and someone asked me if the movie was worth the three bucks for the rental, I'd have to say no. The plot was implausible. I've come to the conclusion that Keanu Reeves can not act. He can, at times, be painful to watch (though my wife thinks he's cute). Dan Aykroyd (who is usually great) was even a little disappointing as the crooked cop. On the plus side, the plot (because it is far-fetched) is unpredictable. Cameron Diaz was good.


A waste of time, talent and shelf space, this is a truly abysmal film. What are big leaguers like Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Dan Aykroyd wasting their time being in such rubbish?. Petty criminal Reeves turns up to his brothers (Vincent D'Onofrio) wedding and ends up leaving with the bride. A comedy?, thriller?, romance? I honestly do not know! Reeves is wooden in the lead and casting Dan Aykroyd as a cop is so dreadful it has to be seen to be believed!. Only bright spot from a dark dark tunnel is Diaz and even she isn't that good. Rent out something else. everyone involved with this mess should hold there heads in utter shame and prey that it gets lost in oblivion in the years to come.


I want the 99 minutes of my life back that was wasted on this pathetic excuse for a movie. The acting was horrific! I used to be a fan of Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio. I will never look at them the same again. Keanu Reeves and Dan Aykroyd were not a surprise. Everyone knows they never could act. Thankfully, only Dan attempted an accent. His accent was a disaster as expected. I think he was either confused about the location of the film or had never actually spoken to anyone from Minnesota. I hope this review helps anyone who is undecided about what to do with their precious time. The only reason I was able to sit through the whole movie was because I was stuck somewhere without anything better to watch or read.


I don't remember too much about this movie except that there was a distinctly gratuitous destruction of luminaires (lamps). Almost every fight scene included the unnecessary and wanton destruction of useful light fixtures, even if outfitted with cheesy, '70's-style, cylindrical shades to keep with the time setting of the story. On one occasion, raucous lamp destruction takes place in a domestic fight scene between the brothers in both the living and dining rooms of their mother's house, with fixtures in both rooms being taken out. Yet, the most malicious destruction occurs moments later in a bookie's office and includes, but is not limited to, the toppling of a fixture with a ceramic horse-head base, which is consequently disintegrated, and the severe denting of a cylindrical shade as a guy falls back into it during another fisticuffs fight. Later, that lamp is toppled as well when the guy is shot, incurring further damage to the plastic-coated shade.

While this movie encourages a particularly wasteful attitude toward lamps, one should keep in mind that lamps, regardless of their cheap construction or gauche, top-heavy appearance, are still valuable for the illumination that they provide. However, if you ever feel the need to vicariously smash a lamp, I would highly recommend this movie.


WARNING! SPOILER! This movie is absolute crap. It is not entertainment. I haven't the words to describe the disgust that I felt at the end.

This is a badly made movie about the scum of society. During the whole movie I kept waiting for it to get better. It didn't. Instead, it just kept getting worse and worse.

When I see a movie that is as bad as this one I always try to find at least one good thing to say about it. In this case it proved impossible. I have not one good thing to say about it. How bad did it get? Well, here's an example: Towards the end Dan Akroyd smothers and kills Vincent D'Onofrio while Reeves and Diaz watch! This is not entertainment!


How to qualify this film, simply HORRIBLE. It is badly done with poor dialogues, Reeves played as bad as ever and Cameron Diaz competed with him. Do not waste your time watching such a film although a big waste of money has already occurred to make the film.


Although I do not recommend this film, neither do I recommend reading this review without first seeing the movie. Though I have not given away the ending, or most of the plot twists, this movie would be best viewed without any prior information. It's hard to pinpoint the chief problem with the film Donnie Darko, as there are many to deal with. Richard Kelly, in his first feature film, seems to have collected enough scenes of adolescent rage, late-night stoner diatribes, self-righteous justifications and inoffensive, banal philosophy to inspire twenty teen-angst dramas; then mashed them into a single two hour package with a sci-fi twist. The result is deeply distressing-- for all the wrong reasons. The film attempts to lead the audience down convoluted paths without any sense of symbolism or meaning, to make them sympathize with one-dimensional characters, and above all hopes that they will ignore the underdeveloped plot, full of unreconciled loose ends, by hiding it under a veneer of CGI effects and neo-surrealism. The main character, Donnie Darko, is a young man, committed to therapy, misunderstood by his friends, and rendered hostile and disaffected by his suburban life. We are meant to feel that he is more intelligent than his schoolmates, although sometimes that is a difficult assumption to make. For example, when one of his friends comes up with an absurd theory about the Smurfs, and Donnie counters with a theory of his own, his friend complains about Donnie acting "all smart." Donnie's speech, however, is no smarter than that of his friend-- just angrier. The only clear evidence of his intelligence is his principal's description of his standardized test scores as `intimidating;' but given the director's slant against simple categorization of human elements (as shown in the FEAR-LOVE sequence), this is a poor substitute for character development. Donnie takes prescribed drugs to combat mental problems, which are not addressed directly in this film. In fact, the entire issue of the drugs is understated, and one of the first chances the director has to redeem the film is lost. The ambiguity of Donnie's strange destiny, the possibility that all of this may be a product of his imagination, is pushed into the background, making the film 100 percent science fiction. This would not be a bad thing in itself, except that the "science" behind the "fiction" is very shaky. The explanations of time travel are weak, at best sounding like detached, uninformed rambling. We get the idea that the film's writer once read a book about time travel or a few chapters, and can't quite remember how it worked, but was sure that it was really interesting and wanted to work it into the film. The scientific portion, as a result, depends more heavily on expensive computer animations than actual development of the theories involved (at one point, a teacher discussing time travel states that if he continues to speak on the subject, he'd be fired. Apparently no further explanation is needed). Donnie's dealings with a visitor from the future lead him to commit several vicious actions. The justification for these actions is a tricky business. He damages his school, but it's okay, because his school doesn't treat him like a person. His punishment of a creepy self-esteem advocate (somewhat similar to Tom Cruise's character in Magnolia) results in the man's public humiliation. But should the audience believe that Donnie is some sort of avenging angel, striking out against ignorance and debauchery? He himself seems ignorant of the effects of these actions until after the fact. Aside from these flaws, the film is riddled with flat, uninteresting generalizations of humanity. The story is set in 1988, just before the Bush/Dukakis election, and the director touches on this point during the film. The focus, however, extends exactly this far: Donnie's gruff, blue collar father is voting for Bush, while his free-spirited, rebellious daughter plans to vote for Dukakis. There is nothing even remotely resembling a political statement here; simply a statement of the obvious. The former are not necessary to make a good film, but the latter should be left out. Likewise, Donnie's heartfelt speech about not being able to lump all human emotions into the bland categories of "fear and "love;" this doesn't ask the audience to make any great leaps of understanding. Everybody knows that there are more that two human emotions, and particular emphasis on this fact is worthless. Mr. Kelly gives homage to several symbols of 80's pop culture in his film: E.T., Stephen King, the Smurfs, Back to the Future. At it's heart, this film feels like the director's homage to himself, a collection of his own experiences, interests, personal heroes and adversaries, affirmations and disenchantments, roughly stitched together by untrained hands. Entire songs are played in music video format to the characters actions, seemingly because the director likes the songs. Characters who have little to no bearing on the plot (including the archetypal bully, fat girl, and right-wing idiot teacher) are given unnecessary focus, because the director really wanted to pack them in somehow. The awkward mess that is Donnie Darko leaves us wondering if Mr. Kelly has enough ideas left in his head to make another film, or if he has wasted all his creativity in one pointless, cluttered, meandering effort.

My rating: 1/10.


Meek and mild Edward G. Robinson (as Wilbert Winkle) decides to quit his bank job and do what he wants, open a "fix-it" repair shop behind his house. Mr. Robinson is married, but childless; he has befriended local orphanage resident Ted Donaldson (as Barry). Young Donaldson is an eager workshop assistant, and sees Robinson as a father figure. Robinson's nagging wife Ruth Warwick (as Amy) is unhappy with Robinson's job choice, and conspires to return matters to her idea of normalcy. Their lives are further disrupted when Robinson is drafted.

The war also disrupts what might have been an interesting story, as Robinson's character struggles against a domineering, unsympathetic wife. Possibly, filmmakers are showing how war can save marriages and positively redirect lives. Robinson and Donaldson are a likable team. Robert Mitchum has an inauspicious bit part. The ending "trick" played by Ms. Warwick and Donaldson is predictably staged.


If this film becomes a holiday tradition I am going to have to hide for Christmas for the rest of my life. How do you even think of comparing this with 'A Wonderful Life'! It was absolutely awful! The boy singing made my toes curl. And what on earth was the deal with his hair?? Emmy worthy performance?! Please. Granted, Lucci did OK but an Emmy????? I think this film is a waste of money. The fact that they stuck so close to the original story pretending to give it a modern and retro touch made it even worse. It lacked enthusiasm and persistence on all accounts. Lighting, wardrobe, make-up, it seemed everybody wanted to go home. Just a big NO from me.


This was truly horrible. Bad acting, bad writing, bad effects, bad scripting, bad camera shots, bad filming, bad characters, bad music, bad editing, bad casting, bad storyline, bad ... well, you get the idea. It was just, just ... what's the word? Oh yeah ... BAD!


The film has weird annoying characters, strange unexplainable slapstick, and an insurmountable amount of dialogue about smoking. The movie has a contrived plot of a bitchy, empty-headed woman's (Jeanne Tripplehorn) search for love. Although who would ever like Jeanne's character, personality, or reading of the dialogue, I really cannot say. Except that she likes to smoke.

Sarah Jessica Parker gives an interesting character performance (who likes to smoke). Dylan McDermott does his best to look pretty and soulful (as he smokes). And, hey, what is Jennifer Aniston doing there? Oh, she's not really in it enough for anyone to care about her. (But she likes to smoke).

This is a waste of anyone's time. I don't even know how I was able to sit through as much of the movie as I did. I can't even believe I spent the time to write this, except to warn others of its banality. Anyone need a cigarette?


From the beginning, 'Til There Was You was on the right track, setting up for the big finish where it would all come together. But the thing is, it didn 't. I found the ending extremely disappointing, but maybe in someway it was the right ending; a little more realistic you could say. Judge for yourself.


'Til There was You is one of the worst films we've ever seen. It fails in every respect. Jeanne Tripplehorn was better (as an actress...) in Waterworld. In comparison, this film is Dungworld. When a character stumbles once, or even twice, in the course of a film, one can understand it. But Jeanne's character falls, trips, stumbles so often that she might have a bit of Jerry Lewis in her. In her defence, each (prat?) fall was probably blocked, choreographed, and rehearsed. And rehearsed. Although this is bad enough for a film, the actors (Dylan McDermott and Jeanne Tripplehorn) seem to spend most of the plot going "out for a smoke" or trying to find a place to smoke. If the film was a diatribe on having no place to smoke- Ok - BUT, it isn't.

However long this film runs, it is too long by 10 minutes past the running time.

Oh, Jeanne Tripplehorn, ALMOST acts in a public forum meeting. You ALMOST see her break life into the character. Oh, it's ALMOST as convincing as her scene yelling at Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct--hmm, on second thought, not really.

This is a film to avoid at all costs unless you need a cigarette and are trapped in nicotine addicts anonymous or forced to watch outtakes of HOOPER (Burt Reynolds). And even then, toss a coin or go to sleep.


On this site I've often lambasted the Americans for not knowing how to write comedy, BUT, while they've never produced anything of the quality of 'Fawlty Towers', 'Blackadder' or 'The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin', they have also never (to my knowledge) made anything as bad as this: the nadir of British comedy.

On my Richter scale of comic awfulness, it rates only behind the truly execrable 'Are You Being Served' as the worst comedy show in the English language, with bad acting, annoying characters and humour that I'd grown out of before I left primary school. Unfortunately, it was part of a large crop of shows back then, along with 'Dad's Army', 'It ain't Half Hot Mum' and 'Allo, Allo' that relied on ridiculous situations and familiar catch-phrases to keep audiences "amused".

Michael Crawford proved later on that he's a talented performer, but personally, I'd rather be sentenced to a month of watching 'Rhoda' than endure a single episode of this drivel, which makes me ashamed to be British.


I love Juan Piquer-Simón! He's my absolute favorite bad-movie director and, throughout his whole career, he incompetently tried to cash in on simply every successful contemporary trend in the horror and fantasy genres. After the big hit that was "Superman", J.P made his own and hilarious "Supersonic Man", he picked in on the violent slasher-movie madness with the insane "Pieces" and he really over-trumped himself with "The Return of E.T.", the unofficial and downright laughable sequel to Spielberg's SF-blockbuster. "The Rift" is obviously inspired by the series of profitable underwater monster movies like "The Abyss" and "Deepstar Six". From start to finish, you can amuse yourself by spotting all the stolen ideas and shameless rip-offs of these (and other) classics. When a completely new and fancy type of submarine vanishes near the deep Dannekin rift, a second mission with U-boat designer Wick Hayes on board is sent out to investigate what really happened to Siren One. In the dark depths of the ocean, the rescue mission discovers an underwater cavern where the government secretly experiments with mutant sea-creatures. The monsters are quite aggressive but there's also the danger of a government enemy among the crew members... "The Rift" is a forgettable film, but it nevertheless has some ingenious  though very dodgy  monster models. Fans of blood and gore won't complain, neither, as the beastly attacks are quite gruesome and merciless. The acting is very wooden although many of the cast names can definitely do better. It's advisable that you simply enjoy the clichés and gory effects in the "The Rift" because, if you start contemplating about the screenplay, you'll find that it makes absolutely no sense.


If you like poor SE, (some) bad acting and a total lack of credibility, this is a movie for you. So a really cheap looking movie, but I liked it anyway. Why? Because I like those kind of movies. I can't help but smile when I see these kind of movies....... What were the producers, actors, director and SE people thinking when they made this film? Don't expect an "Abyss" or "Alien", just a (very) low-budget horror/adventure movie.

There is one nice "splatter"moment when a guy's head is shot off, but for the most, the horror is pretty tame. The final monster is pretty cool too.

It's only 73 minutes long, so you can t go wrong there. Maybe you can pick it up at your local videostore or watch it on TV. I'm sure you will have a good time watching it.

But don't say you weren't warned.............


How many English 101 student's versions of 1984 must America endure? "Gosh, this is a great book, but kind of a downer. I know, I'll write one just like it where everything works out okay. I'll also replace Orwell's old, used up political insights from the thirties with my own insightful, informed opinions form the 1970s. Think, think, political insight... Evil Politicians, I'm a genius! And there will be clones that they make of themselves for some diabolical reason... I'll work on that. It'll work." No it won't, Bob Sullivan, writer of this story. This really is all you're fault. You could have stopped them early and said, "Guys, with our budget and acting abilities, I was thinking more romantic comedy, or we could move away form taking ourselves so seriously and make a campy spoof this tired, familiar genre of movies." Did you do that though bob? No you didn't, and you've had 28 years to think about it.

I don't mean to be so spiteful. I'm sorry I yelled at you Bob. You've obviously had to live with this mistake a lot longer then I have. Some blame really should go to Ron Smith, who helped you adapt the screenplay. He could have stopped you at any time. You were young and naive, and he took advantage of you. Now he wrights the plots for video games and you, bob, well who knows what you do. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh Bob, but that's the way it is. You were sold upriver by the Hollywood hotshots. As if Ron wasn't enough, Michael bay also saw your movie, and without even asking for rights or anything, added some explosions to your concept and turned it into "The Island." That I think is the most disgusting part of all, that with a little eye candy, your script could of easily been good enough for a major Hollywood production, which I'd of hated just as much as this movie and not felt sorry for you at all.

I'm sorry things worked this way for you bob. Ron and Michael walked all over you, leaving you a withered shell of a man, who's height of movie writing greatness will be a joke on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Don't focus on that though Bob, because Karma works in mysterious ways, and one day, they'll pay for what they did to poor little Bob Sullivan.


For those of you who have a few kind words for this film, I suspect you didn't see it when it was released as "Parts: The Clonus Horror."

It was a dreadfully boring movie. It missed the mark in at least three ways. It wasn't good enough to be scary; it wasn't bad enough to be funny (although MST3K took care of that); and, even in 1979, the plot was unoriginal.

Earlier contenders are "The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler" (1971). It's the same idea (clones as spare parts). The movie is entertaining, and it had a fine cast. Another is "Sleeper" (1973). Yes, the Woody Allen movie. Remember the flattened nose? And "Clones" (1973). The last two plots aren't as similar to Clonus as the first one, but they predate Clonus.

They are also several fiction books from decades earlier that deal with the idea, although often, the word "clone" isn't used.


A man is pulled off a London Street and taken to some foreign country where he is tortured as a terror suspect. Dull, banal film bored the hell out of me. More an idea then a film. I was half way into this 77 minute film when I realized I had no idea who anyone on screen was. It was as if they took every other similar film and pulled out all of the ideas and put them in one place with out the real notion of character. Certainly its well acted with passion but there is no emotional center, there is just an everyman of sorts which the filmmakers feel is enough. Its not. And while the story presented id in theory important as a warning the film is too dull to convince anyone of it, especially if one has seen the other, better films of a similar ilk (rendition with Reese Witherspoon for example)


Beloved tale of hero "Benji" ("Higgins" the dog) who is many different things to many different people. In his busy day "Benji" grabs breakfast at the house of two young children, has a chat with an officer of the law, chases an old lady's cat and reminds an aging café owner to start on the day's special. Helper to some, amusement to others, he is companion to all.

Trouble arises when his young friends are kidnapped and taken to the abandoned mansion that he calls home. From here on we know only "Benji" can save the day.

Plot is routine from writer/producer/director Joe Camp, and he does tend to over do the slow motion effects. Audiences though will find it hard to resist the lovable little pooch, and kids of all ages are sure to adore him. Cast were never going to be anything but background to "Benji".

Not what you'd call inspired, but fun family fare. Academy Award nominee for "Benji's" theme, "I Feel Love".

Saturday, July 13, 1996 - Video


You know the movie could have been a lot better when the animal - in this case, a little dog - is the best actor on the screen! The acting in this film is so bad, so amateurish, by dog got embarrassed watching this. He ("Rusty," our Golden Retreiver) could have done a better job than the people in here.

By now this is almost a trite story: kid finds animal, pet is not liked nor wanted by one of the parents but the "pet" winds up saving one the kids and is now a hero and an official member of the family. Sound familiar?

I remember this movie being a big hit, but never got around to seeing it until the mid '90s on VHS. I was shocked how bad it was. Why so much fuss over a film? Was it because there was so much sleaze in the early '70s that a nice family film stood out in the crowd? Possibly. There wasn't a whole lot of wholesome entertainment in the decade of the '70s plus a lot of people are suckers for cute little animal stories. Who could resist this cute little dog? Not me. But the movie I can resist: it's a Grade B storyline with horrible acting.

Recommended only for small-dog animal lovers and I mean "lovers" because even the average pet owner will fall asleep trying to watch this film in this day-and-age.


If you are like me and observed the original "Benji" phenomenon from afar, finally seeing the movie for the first time 30+ years later, you may be shocked to discover how truly awful it is, and more mystified than ever about its popularity back in 1974.

My judgment is not entirely objective as I tend to have a favorable bias toward children's films and for that reason cut them considerable slack. On the other hand I have always hated this particular dog, a feature on the last couple seasons of "Petticoat Junction". Never a great show, the dog-less early episodes were at least a nice showcase of beautiful actresses and the introduction of the dog cut into their screen time.

Benji is an 86-minute mega-dose of the dog, following him on several daily circuits through the town of McKinney, Texas. If this sounds boring you would be advised to give "Benji" a wide birth and to never let your remote control fall into the hands of a "Benji" fan (if there are still any out there).

Unlike "My Dog Skip", "Monkey Business" or "Because of Winn-Dixie" the human actors in the cast are extremely weak. "Big Valley's" Peter Breck plays the standard stern father and just seems to embarrassed at the idea of appearing in something this lame.

If one of your children (of any age) appears to be finding "Benji" entertaining you should consider cutting back on their medication.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


The dog can act...unfortunately nobody else in the cast of this sordid faux children's film can. A stray yet very clever dog insinuates himself into the lives of two motherless children, much to the chagrin of their bitter and cold-hearted father. In what can only be described as Dickensian, the evil widower forbids his children --- who may or may not be mentally challenged --- from playing with Benji. Neither the children nor Benji obeys. Soon the children are kidnapped and Benji has to help the police find them. It's only then that the old man realizes that Benji is good, not bad.

Tom Lester, whose only previous acting experience appears to have been playing the dim-witted Eb on GREEN ACRES plays one of the kidnappers. So does the regrettably over-utilized Deborah Walley. Walley's previous screen triumphs include BEACH BLANKET BINGO and the woeful IT'S A BIKINI WORLD. She also played both Gidget and Tammy in the past and here attempts to obliterate her good-girl reputation by playing it bad!

STAY away from BENJI...he's a dog and this movie is a dog!


This adorable dog (called various names during the film) is seemingly loved by the whole town...but he's alone. He is friends with two children (Cindy and Paul played astonishingly bad) but their father won't let them have a dog. Then Benji meets Tiffany--ANOTHER adorable dog. They (instantly) fall in love and it leads to a hysterical montage of the two of them frolicking in the grass, drinking from a fountain...in slow motion no less! Also Benji lives in the cleanest abandoned house I've ever seen. Then the two kids are kidnapped by the most inept, unfunniest kidnappers I've ever seen and--wouldn't you know it--they hide the brats in the exact house Benji lives in!

WOW was this bad! A huge hit (for some reason) in 1974 which led to many sequels (which I will NOT see). The film is just terribly acted with "humor" so unfunny and badly done that you just stare at the TV in amazement. The film also has a song that is played NONSTOP during the movie--so much that you want to scream. It was inexplicably nominated for Best Song at the Oscars--it didn't win. Yeah--the dogs are adorable and much better than the human actors--but I need more than cute dogs to keep me interested.

You might think I'm being a little hard on a kids film but I saw it with my 5 year old nephew. Within 20 minutes he was bored silly and basically stopped watching. I kept watching in hope that it would get better--it didn't. Really lousy--but VERY patient kids or dog lovers might like it.

Note to parents: It's G rated but a dog is viciously kicked a few times. You don't see it--you just hear it and the dog survives but this might bother real young kids.


The word honor should be erased from the vocabularies of all nations. It aggravates male dumbness and is responsible for the death of millions of innocent people. Anybody who does not agree should not care to continue reading this comment.

As can be expected with these screenwriters, Yakuza is an engaging crime thriller with quite a lot of respect for the ethnical background against which it is acted out. Friends of gore and violence will not be disappointed either, but especially towards the end violence becomes somewhat pointless, redundant and downright silly. Contrary to other reviewers I found Robert Mitchum's performance not very good. This is an actor who definitely did not improve with age. He looks like a tired janitor (it does not go too well with the part), and his air of detachment which made him such an impressive screen presence in earlier years comes through as either confusion or lack of interest. Ken Takakura and Richard Jordan are very good as man of honor and young, intelligent, feeling thug respectively.

The best way to stand this movie is seeing it as a tragic comedy. Things are set in motion by the Mitchum character's asking the Takakura character a favor based on wrong assumptions. The error quickly becomes evident, but the sense of honor demands they must not back off. So they start sneaking around, shooting in all directions, wielding swords and wrecking their friend's arty apartment (although the guy pleads with them stop it, please" all through the corresponding fight). Bodies start piling up and the story ends with Mitchum's character making his point: If YOU give HIM YOUR little finger, I will give YOU MINE. Well, it's the least he can do, can't he? So he pulls out a knife, takes a resigned breath and starts sawing off said extremity (outside the frame, luckily). It was a moment which probably should have been solemn. It just made me laugh.

The use of locations is very good in this movie. I particularly liked the scenes filmed in and around the International Conference Hall on Lake Takaragaike, an interesting futuristic building by architect Sachio Otani (the Kyoto protocol was signed there). To me the presentation of architecture seems better here than in Sydney Pollack's more recent documentary Sketches of Frank O. Gehry which is about architecture and nothing else.


This was probably intended as an "arty" crime thriller, but it fails on both counts - there are few thrills and not enough substance. The plodding pacing makes it hard to sit through, and the occasional action scenes are too sloppily edited and confusingly staged to offer much compensation. At least the level of acting is high. (**)


A group of teenagers discover a bootleg video game, but once they start playing it, they each start dying just like they do in the video game. As they become addicted to the game, they need to find a way to beat the game's central villain, The Blood Countess, before she kills them all.

The premise does sound a little stupid and familiar but this film could have still been mildly entertaining. However, this "horror" movie is not scary at all. It's actually more of a comedy than anything else. The film takes itself way too seriously and the movie is not a lot of fun to watch. Sure, there is the occasional laugh but for the most part, the film is very dull. PG-13 horror films can still be good like The Ring or Cry Wolf. The Ring and Stay Alive aren't really the same type of horror film though. Stay Alive is more of a slasher movie and since its rated PG-13, the death scenes are very tame. It should have been the movie's main sell and since it had an interesting concept the deaths could have been really good. Unfortunately, the studio wanted a bigger audience and the film had to be altered.

The acting is a complete joke and most of the cast give awful performances. Jon Foster is not a very good leading man. He lacks charisma to really engage the audience or for the audience to care about him. His character isn't unlikable just very bland. Samaire Armstrong actually gives an okay performance though a little too bland to truly stick out. Frankie Muniz probably gives the best performance in Stay Alive. That's an honor on the level of being the best player on the Houston Texans. Sophia Bush is absolutely terrible as October. Her performance feels so rushed and so fake. The most annoying character in the movie is Phineas played by Jimmi Simpson. His character is so unlikable you will be rooting for him to die.

In fact, most of the characters are pretty unlikable so that makes it even harder to become interested in the film. It's just hard to feel sorry for some of these annoying kids and it's a lot more fun to watch if you want the characters to actually survive. The only real good thing about the movie is the atmosphere. It's a little old but it still kind of works. The film is also really short so it's not too much of a pain to sit through. I wouldn't really blame the cast though because they were working with an inexperience director and writer. The direction is not very good and the screenplay isn't much better. Stay Alive is actually not the worst horror film of 2006. That honor would go to When a Stranger Calls. Stay Alive is still a missed opportunity though. In the end, this cheesy and lame horror film is better left on the shelf. Rating 4/10.


I haven't laughed so much in a theater in years. The only problem is that it was not the intent of the movie to make my throat raw from laughter.

This movie is absolutely overflowing with bad CGI, absolutely terrible duologue, absolutely terrible *acting*, and enough geek references to make the whole thing come off as nothing but complete cheese.

As a gamer and a geek-type girl myself, I did recognize all of the obvious game references in this movie as well as the geek STUFF that was just thrown into the background as eye candy (the Steamboy poster, the t-shirts from thinkgeek.com and j-list.com), and that didn't redeem the movie at all.

The only thing that might have been good at ALL were the ghost children type characters that were purposefully badly done in CGI to make it look like they were from a game, and who were OBVIOUSLY stolen from Japanese horror movies.

To be honest, it was hilariously bad, and something I'd expect from a midnight showing of a made-for-TV b grade Sci-Fi channel movie. Don't expect more than that and you'll have a great time. Just don't get a soda or you'll spit it everywhere when you get great lines like: "Why did you bring that game into our lives?! WHY?!"


Aside from Frankie Muniz chattering too fast to understand (Malcolm in the Middle flashbacks?) this film still cannot conjure up a scare. The idea with the "Countess" and the history surrounding her placed into the story was fun but the plot, and many side plots, just don't tie together. Plot synopsis: murdering ghost lures victims through video game. Toss in some blood spatters and a special effects and you've got yourself another bombed out would be horror flick. The ghost cronies resemble the ghost in "The Ring Two" far too much. The acting and constant and dramatic change in everyone's emotions is unbelievable. Save your money.


Bad, bad movie. When I saw the synopsis I was expecting something like Ring only with video game instead of tape. Nothing of the sorts happened. I'll admit idea is interesting and could be turned into a good movie but this is not it.

First of all choosing real life person, countess Bathory, is stupid move that adds absolutely nothing to the story. Anybody even vaguely familiar with her story would begin to wonder why and how did this Hungarian noblewoman end up in this movie. Choosing a generic vengeful spirit would be much, much better.

Then there is whole you-die-in-real-life-as-you-die-in-the-game concept. As I said before interesting, Ring-like story. But instead of developing it into good story line it sort of just flows along with no explanation given why did this game became such as it is, why it was created and so on. Waste of good idea.

And finally this movie doesn't even have gory of funny parts that can if not save at least make crappy horror movies watchable. Death scenes are too quick and acting is too wooden to be funny.

Avoid if possible.


In The Ring, it was a videotape; a website was the problem in Feardotcom; the danger in Pulse came from computers; and Phone and One Missed Call featuredyou guessed itdeadly phones. In Stay Alive, the piece of technology that causes all manner of problems is an online game: those who play it wind up dead soon afterwards. How clever!

Directed by William Brent Bell (who?), and featuring an unimpressive cast of twenty-somethings that you might have seen before, but probably can't remember where or what the hell their names are, this is an extremely derivative piece of film-making aimed squarely at the PG-13 horror set; seasoned scary film watchers will no doubt find Stay Alive extremely tedious, highly predictable and not in the least bit frightening.

The poorly developed plot follows a group of gamers with extremely daft names (October, Loomis, Phineus, Hutch, and Swink!?!) who attempt to unravel the mystery behind the deadly game before they too become victims. Eventually, they discover that it is the evil spirit of the legendary Countess Elizabeth Bathory who is killing anyone who dares to play, and that their only hope of survival is to continue with the game to the end.

With a story as dumb as this, viewers should expect a film with loose ends aplenty, not one iota of logic (who made the game, how, and why is never explained), very little in the way of scares or gore, and a dumb closing scene to leave the door open forGod forbida sequel.


A group of young adults open a plain of escape for the spirit of Elizabeth Bathory when they recite her poem from a video game supposedly representing a séance. The only one who dies in the game is Miller(Adam Goldberg)who also is found dead the same way he perished in said video game. While the others' characters didn't die in the video game, their reciting her poem has instead unleashed the video game into reality with walking CGI characters stalking and killing each of them, one by one. They must follow certain methods using a mirror and nails to defeat Bathory and save their skin.

If this premise sound stupid, that's because it is. The characters are ho-hum rejects from bad WB television shows, this time allowed to spout profanity. This flick follows the slasher rules, but doesn't show much violence or gore. It stays PG-13 safe with most of the death taking place off-screen. There's a scene where the true hero and heroine are running from video game characters pursuing them. Yes, it's that bad. Nothing at all to recommend. Good-looking cast including Sophia Bush as the appropriately named October.


After the mysterious death of an old friend,a group of teenagers find themselves in the possession of Stay Alive,a horror survival video game based on the gruesome story of Erzebet Bathory known as The Blood Countess.The group begins to play the grisly game and soon they are murdered one by one in the same method as the character they played in the game.As the line between the game world and the reality disappears,our heroes must find a way to defeat vicious Blood Countess. "Stay Alive" is an incredibly poor teen slasher flick without any iota of suspense.Writer-director William Brent Bell doesn't have the damn clue how to make a watchable horror movie.The jump scares are irritating,the blood/gore level is almost non-existent and the story doesn't make sense.The dialogue is utterly bad and the acting of all involved is embarrassing."Stay Alive" is easily one of the worst mainstream horror flicks of 2006.Stay away from this stinking turd.


Talk about false advertising! I wasted an hour and twenty five minutes watching this piece of crap and there was not one leisure suit, not one platform shoe, no pointy-finger dancing, and not a single disco ball. I watched it on a Saturday night, and ended up with an awful fever, but it had nothing to do with the music.

Seriously, with or without John Travolta, this movie sucked.

From the opening scene, you will be asking yourself the question, "Where did that rope come from, and will it please hang me, too?" From its unabashed bias against the driving abilities of the Pennsylvania Dutch, to the shameless promotion of the apparently everlasting capacities of Alienware laptop batteries, to the cheap horror effects lifted directly from Japanese cinema, this is the worst film to hit theaters since The Grudge.


I was not very excited to see this movie in the first place but a group of us decided to go see it on opening night. I felt like getting up and walking out and attempting to get my money back 20 minutes into this film. I felt that the movie was very boring, uninteresting, and not true in many aspects including "gaming". I tried my best not to fall asleep during the movie as i watched one of the worst horror films i have ever seen. The scary movie series was scarier than this movie. The sad attempt to pull in a Gothic girl, an overworked business man, and 15 year old geek, and some random guy into a video game that kills you is a bad plot to begin with. Then they try to throw in a very horrible love scene where the main character kisses another girl after saving her 10 minutes after his girlfriend was murdered. The theater was packed when the movie started by then end a little over half of the people had left before it was over. If you feel the need to waste only 1 hour and 16 minutes of your time seeing this movie ... prepare to feel cheated.


The Plot: A group of young people with ridiculous names (Hutch, Swink, Phineaus, and October)are brought together by the death of their equally ridiculously named friend Loomis. After the funeral, they decide to divide up their late friend's belongings. Among them is a video game called Stay Alive. The group decides there's no better way to show their grief than to all partake in a little virtual bloodshed. But the more they play, the more they realize the connection between the game and the death of poor ol' Loomis.

The Production: This film is just another entry into the latest Hollywood craze of low-budget PG-13 horror aimed at cashing in on the junior high school crowd. The direction is sloppy to say the least with quick, music video style cuts that make the action difficult to follow. The dialog is so bad that it actually kills brain cells. The plot itself is so full of holes that we never even learn where the game came from or why those who play it die.

The idea behind this film, although not entirely original, had some promise. But the poor execution on both sides of the camera make this one big dud.

If you've ever got a craving for a "killing someone in a video game makes them dead in real life" horror film take my advice and skip Stay Alive for the superior Brainscan.


I tried. God knows I tried to like this Swiss Cheese of a movie, but the story was too full of holes, some big enough to drive a horse drawn carriage through. The acting overall was even and the characters endearing enough that you regretted they died off like recently sprayed roaches, scattering off to die their own gruesome deaths. Overall, however, it was not really very scary. Afterall we have seen spooky quickly moving figures in the background since "The Brood" why back when / and it was scary then just briefly. This film just never resolved the basic plot points and thats the writer's job. Naturally you would expect the director to pick up on the fact that the story did not make sense. Like who's was the secret room behind the wardrobe, why did the blood hungry ghost not die when she received the nails as prescribed by the book they read earlier? Why did the computer say "game over" for Frankie's character even though he lived? The list goes on and on. I don't really feel comfortable recommending this film as its makes you feel like you wasted your time and there was not enough payoff in truly scary moments.


This movie was not very good in my opinion. While not a complete waste of an hour and a half (luckily I didn't have to pay $ for it), it just wasn't very scary. There were parts where I jumped and a few minimally violent/gory scenes, but overall only someone easily frightened would consider this movie scary.

The overall writing and acting were very weak. The characters never evolved or grew as people. Even at the end, the lead guy, whatever his name was, didn't man up and had to be rescued from the fire at the last minute. The plot also had inconsistencies. The police officer who was killed was NOT murdered in the same way he died in the game. The girl October mentioned that in order to kill the evil demon lady you had to read something from the correct text. Funny how they never bothered to do that and still managed to escape. The Malcolm-in-the-Middle kid died in the game but didn't die "in real life." Also, making the game play by itself was very weak writing. It would have been okay for the brother's death, just to get them playing again. But you are supposed to play a video game and stay alive and 3 people die before you play again...why do you even need the game? If you like movies like the Ring and thing its scary and fun, watch this movie. If you know someone like that you can watch it with at laugh at, do it. If you like "horror" movies that make you laugh out loud and you have the opportunity to watch this movie for free, do it. Otherwise, stay far far away.


Stay Alive has a very similar story to some Asian horror films which include technology on the story.Some of this Asian horror films are One Missed Call,Ringu and Pulse.So,the idea of Stay Alive is very clichéd and obvious but the filmmakers behind it did not know how to put something new or interesting to the clichés in Stay Alive.This film is totally crap.But a very big crap.All the elements of Stay Alive belong to the worst class of ''horror'' films:shallow characters,nothing of suspense,stupid ''horror'' which makes laugh and light violence.It's easy to note that the ''director'' is incapable to create something original or disturbing.I do not wanna loose more time writing about this pathetic film.I just give you an advice:do not see this film.I really hated it.


I could tell this would be a bad one from the trailer, but the lure of the DVD box got me to rent it anyway. Boy was I right..

Also for some reason the DVD version is VERY fuzzy and unclear at times (in terms of video quality). It appears as if they shot the whole movie with a 20 year old camcorder, it looks so bad. I really did not like the plot, and after watching the movie I was very let down. I will NOT tell any spoilers, but let it be said that the end was so bad that I laughed, it has been done so many times before.

The whole story seems like something that came out of a middle schooler's English paper. If I had to peg one movie as the worst horror movie I've ever seen, this one may just be it. I can't believe they actually released this film. It really isn't worth the rent, or a penny of anyone's money unless you want a good laugh at the movie's expense.


A mediocre at best horror flick that deals with dumb, not so horny teens who discover an evil video game (GASP) is killing those who die in the game (DOUBLE GASP). This movie is the sustained mystery of the Mystery Gang in "Scooby Doo". I was waiting for them to pull off a mask of one of the villains. I could deal with this for 40 minutes even as a movie on sci-fi but going all the way to the theaters, come on people. The effects were very mediocre, this whole scenario is something of crummy two-but director Uwe Boll, since this would be his cast. As always the great thing about video game systems is the glorious power button. I'd suggest using that mid-viewing. *1/2


Stay Alive, Stay Alive, Stay Alive, I am called the attention it was the trailer and not the cartel.

The topic of the movie centred on a video I play that was created by a countess to kill the people and to live eternally is acceptable.

First that quite, bad movie of horror, the blood sees more or less sparked(spread gossip), these scenes is bled they are the more bad.

But actually(indeed) that bad is this movie, very, very, bad, but bad in all the aspects.

I do not recommend this movie to anybody, trailer well, movie bad.

I do not deal since(as,like) they spend(consume) money and time doing these senseless movies and too bad.


Honestly, I was a big fan on 'Stay Alive' trailer when it got released even some months before. I kept on telling my friend how this movie has a great story plot - and perhaps a good one. Anyway - this movie is somewhat below my expectations.

The plot has a great potential, but how the story unfolds, along with the acting , directing and bad CGI - this film is a disaster. The ghost doesn't make any sense, and including the killings - its all just too hurried, creating a sense of 'unrealistic' in the audience's mind.

This film could be scary for some audiences - but fear in a sense of shock (Due to the sound effect, etc) rather than enduring fear due to certain valid factors in the movie.

You should re-consider watching this movie.


Stay Alive is a bland horror movie about a video game that kills people the same way they die inside the game. The friends that play this game soon figure this out, and then realise they must defeat the Blood Countess from the video game or accept their fates. We've had video tapes in The Ring, a deadly website in FearDotCom. Now it's onto video games. Stay Alive does some things well; the character development is quite a bit deeper than it usually would be in a horror movie. We really see into some of the characters feelings and past and get to know them all quite well, so the audience may gain some emotions for them. The film is also very suspenseful. Tense, unnerving moments are frequently played through the film, accompanied by unsettling, creepy music. There are plenty of jumps and jolts for the viewer. This can be ideal once or twice, but these false scares that Hollywood seems to enjoy overplaying in horror films nowadays, wears thin in Stay Alive. The camera will tend to provide sharp angles or quick flashes in order to give viewers a very quick glimpse of a demon or witch, and try to scare them with this sudden burst on the screen. Why? The gore is obviously very weak because of the film's certificate. The script to Stay Alive is very cheesy and quite laughable, and the characters tend to play it too melodramatically and confusingly. Also, clichés come in from every direction, for instance people wandering around on their own in search of a strange noise or if they have spotted a figure in the dark, they will go and investigate it. However the computer graphics used for the video game segments are rather impressive and look colourful and sharp, working well with the other parts of the film. But overall, there is just not enough to hold out on with this film. Stretching at just over a hundred minutes, it won't be a battle to Stay Alive, but rather, Stay Awake.


Seriously, if you want to see a cliché horror movie you have to see this one I guess. It contains all the " scary parts where nothing happens ", " the nerd type who actually isn't killed", " boy and girl coming together and surviving", "facing an old child-fear" etc... I can go on. I wanted to see this movie cause i tought the mix of a video game and a movie would work out. Guess i was wrong. Which makes the movie more bearable? It is only 1hour17min so if you are bored it might be a good idea although i rather stay bored. Why absolutely not see it? Frankie Munitz aka Malcolm is just irritating as the nerd-type. I could smack the guy and it is so sad he didn't die earlier and in the end he even comes back. See something else!


Good idea....shame about the actual movie. Would of liked it to be a bit more scary, and explain more about the characters and who exactly the evil woman was? If she was torturing those kids why were they helping her kill and not helping others kill her?? Its a bit of a come down from Malcolm in the Middle!

I think it would of benefited from being slightly longer and going into more detail with the characters, although after about an hour I was wondering when it would end!!

Would of been better too if the actual characters that killed them were not computerise in reality, it sort of made them crap looking. And what happened to the Frankie Munitz character? He fell into a bed of wild roses so should of been safe, however the computer game showed him as game over, ie dead. Next thing he appears with that irritating blonde lass to rescue the guy afraid of fire who, I noticed, had no qualms about flipping the lighter when demon lady was after him!!

Too many inconsistencies in this movie to really enjoy it, however, might make you think twice about playing that new computer game!!


Daniel Auteuil's Bruno in Petites Couperes is a middle-aged model of his Pierre in Christian Vincent's La Separation of 10 years ago. In both films, youthful confidence in left-wing ideology and love (mutual metaphors) crumbles into paranoia - manifesting itself as trapped aggression in Pierre and desperately comic womanizing in the more recent Bruno.

Unfortunately for Auteuil fans, the actor has become reliant on a uniform world-weariness (not unlike compatriot Johnny Hallyday in Leconte's recent l'Homme du Train). Acting it ain't, and becomes rather frustrating as the film progresses. Pascal Bonitzer doesn't help as the writer/director of the project. His sequencing of episodes overlaid with connecting symbolism fail to mask the film's lack of rhythm. I was particularly furious that the imposingly dramatic/romantic backdrops of Grenoble were made virtually redundant by a cameraman who was obviously shivering in the cold.

Krisitn Scott Thomas almost rescues the show with her female counterpart to Bruno, Beatrice. She dramatizes the dizzying contradictions intended as Bruno in a character of increasing complexity to the point of becoming surreal. Bonitzer cannot sustain this though, and the flagging plot demands Beatrice to even out into another bourgeois mannequin. In doing so Bonitzer shows then denies Scott Thomas the Oscar cabinet.

All the characters' submersion into the bourgeoisie may be a viable and indeed tragic outcome, but in this case it's a cop-out of a cadence (unlike the brutal, painful denouement of La Separation). A serious disappointment, 4/10.


I happened to see this film on a flight from Paris to Boston and it reminded me of the food on the plane: generic, tasteless and obscure. The French cinema seems to have lost its footing these days and this is a good example of how a motley script can waste brilliant actors. While some may find the 'playfulness' of the script to be in line with the dictates of Euro post modernism, the whole project seems more like a post-mortem on the death of Euro-cinema's golden years and truly fabulous talents --- one is vaguely reminded here of Bunuel but without the charm or wit.


The obsession of 'signifie' and 'signifiant' is not enough to make a good film. Pascal Bonitzer should have remained in our memory as a brilliant film theorist back in the '60´s. It was not necessary to take the camera. The result is quite frustrating. It´s a pity for his excellent leading actors.


The distribution was good, the subject could have been interessant and comic. whereas, he described the wandering of an old non credible communist looking for loving sensations. Instead of this, the atmosphere is nor lively nor heavy.


The plot in Petites Coupures certainly left this viewer dumbfounded.

***spoiler***

In the space of 48hrs or so, Auteuil's character has an affair with a teenager, loses his wife's affections, attempts to seduce Scott Thomas, is rejected by her goes on to grope yet another female character in the back of a car and then is finally shot for his trouble.

***end of spoiler***

wha ???

The only saving grace in this flick is Kristin Scott Thomas. Similar to Charlotte Rampling, she seems a *natural* to star in French cinema. My hope is that one day François Ozon may cast her in a part where she can show her true talent.

There are some fine French films such as the remarkable Le Colonel Chabert begging for a DVD release, yet this is the tripe that gets chosen.

Avoid this one.

zzzz..


This movie was not that good at all. Here is the first clue and that it is not gonna be a strong movie, Harrison Ford's name not only appears first but it is also bigger than the title. The music was nominated for an Oscar, What the heck was that? That music was probably the most annoying thing in the movie. The acting was sub par at best, except the Amish boy he did a decent job for being so young. Then you have the story which was weak and a little over the place, and it won for adapted! The music was horrid, I know I already said something but it was really bad. The premises was real good and it should be remade. Well that's all I really have on that.

Your Average Movie Guy,

-Trever


Harrison Ford playing a playing a cop in a crime thriller. The perfect ingredients it SEEMS for top entertainment with Harrison back to his Indy and Han Solo best, protecting a witness from ruthless and merciless murderers. How easy it is to be fooled. If the film concentrated on the main, supposed, themes of crime and suspense instead of putting up barns and shoving ice creams in peoples faces it possibly could have been more worthwhile. Unbelieveably predictable with the best method of despatching of a foe is with corn.


A cheap and cheerless heist movie with poor characterisation, lots of underbite style stoic emoting (think Chow Yun Fat in A Better Tomorrow) and some cheesy clichés thrown into an abandoned factory ready for a few poorly executed flying judo rolls a la John Woo. Even the squibs look awful. At no point in the proceedings does it look remotely like America. Three wonky old cars do not a country make.The Mustang even has a wobbly right front wheel. The plot, such as it is, is so derivative and predictable that the ending is like a mercy killing. It couldn't come soon enough. Even the jewellery from the robbery looks like the cheapest junk costume jewellery available. The awful dialogue and hopeless overacting by everyone who gets shot top off a real waste of space and time. Worth watching if you want to know how not to make a cliché-ridden low budget movie.


Yes Pigeon and Coburn are great, and it's interesting to watch them, although Coburn seems rather restrained and dull here. It's enjoyable to view Seattle, Victoria and Salt Lake City of 1970's, and the period cars and clothing. That's all the good in this boring film. The dialog is incredibly bad, as is most of the acting. Ray and Sandy's motivations seem forced and unlikely. I've seen this "training to be a pickpocket" routine several times before. There's a long build up, leading to nothing. Better to catch an episode of "Streets of San Francisco", or one of the many great crime/caper movies. To name a few, there are Bedtime Story, remade as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Lavender Hill Mob, The Grifters, Paper Moon, The Sting, and best of all, House of Games.


I don't care what anyone says, this movie was crap. The only thing it had going for it was camera work which was very well done. As for the dialogue I have heard so many people talk about...it sucked too. Yes it was honest and true to life, but so what, I can hear anyone talk like that on the street, or in a fast food joint. What made the dialogue good in movies like Pulp Fiction, and Gosford Park was the fact that it is WRITTEN dialogue, that takes time to think through. Another thing was that the director should not have put himself in the picture. I believe that the male character could have been a lot stronger, but instead it seemed weak. In fact the movie seemed to revolve around the male character, and then he completely disappears in the last twenty minutes. The girl in the film I found completely repulsive, not in appearance, but in her needy needy ways. Saying she is in love with a guy, and actually getting jealous of him the next day, what a crock of crap. Final thing: the sound was terrible, and I hope it was only something that plagued my theater instead of actually being on the final cut of the film. There was a constant buzzing sound during several scenes and it was actually taking away from the talking going on. The one good thing again was Blood's job as the DP, but the actress that played the main guy's ex girlfriend did a very good job as well. These two things couldn't save an ultimately terrible movie, which I refuse to call a film.

 2/10


I preface by stating I am a big fan of JJL and NOT one of Patrick. Therefore I watched this to see her performance and of course, it was excellent. I do not feel the director was adequate for the film as several very bad choices were made re: shot angles, blocking, etc. If the director was trying to give it a "realistic" feel, they failed and lost some good performances because of it. Nearly always felt that the camera was way too static, too far from intense facial reactions -- and so many times when the action depended on the intimacy of lead characters, the dialog was slow and plodding. This easily could have been resolved by cutaways or changes of camera angle. But the impression I got was that the budget was too small and only one camera was used! I also got the impression that perhaps scenes were shot multiple times and the energy coming from the actors was... used up.


The performances rate better than the rating I've given this work, simply because I will not support a movie which shows any child or mentally challenged person how to obtain, cook, and inject narcotics into their bodies.

This is a disgusting film, which serves no purpose in the world, but to glamorize and attempt to legitimize the narcotic lifestyle. It bears convincing performances, which add to my disgust. What were these people THINKING?! I could not enjoy a movie such as this. It's enough to make someone who has never done drugs, think about it, and those who have and have redeemed themselves, consider reversion. I'm surprised it doesn't make every clean junkie who sees it, fall off the wagon.

There's nothing good about this "movie," which stands more as a How To Get Strung Out docu-drama. This is the epitome of what's wrong with Hollywood.

Utterly disgusting.

It rates a 1.3/10 from...

the Fiend :.


This movie is poorly written, hard-to-follow, and features bad performances and dialog from leads Jason Patric and Jennifer Jason Leigh. The premise, believable but weak (undercover narcotics agent succumbs to the drug underworld) deserved better than this Lili Fini Zanuck flop. The competent supporting cast (Sam Elliott, William Sadler, others) was not enough to save this film.

In addition, this movie also contains the absolute worst "love" scene in cinema.

Moreover, the soundtrack is vastly overrated; specifically the revolting, sappy-without-substance "Tears in Heaven" by the otherwise legendary Eric Clapton.

"Rush" is wholly unenjoyable from beginning to end.

2 of 10


There's nothing particularly unique or interesting about this run of the mill low budget sci-fi flick. Regardless of its pedigreed origin (the film is loosely based on a novel by Leo Tolstoy), the plot and overall themes of this film are in no way remarkable or original, the science is weak at best, and unfortunately, the film fails to even involve compelling action sequences.

The plot begins with a manned space flight to Mars, and though the main plot doesn't really get rolling until the ship lands, most of the most interesting scenes occur en route. Unfortunately, as soon as our interplanetary travelers touch-down, their previously interesting interpersonal relationships, speculations about cosmology and the meaning of life, and everything interesting about the film all give way to an only remotely coherent plot concerning Martian revolutionaries, environmental problems and not very convincing webs of deceit.

There is nothing very remarkable about the production quality of the film either. It's passable. And most of the acting is, though slow, OK. Cameron Mitchell is actually pretty good and plays a likable character. I guess the best quality of this film, from my perspective, is its fashion sense. The martians have very nice outfits! If this film had a point, it might have been much more interesting. Oh well.


It is said that there are some people out there who actually ADMIRE Monogram's movies. Well -- and why not? Monogram Studios lived on a kind of Cost Plus basis; cost, plus enough to pay the rent and buy a pizza and a bottle of robust muscatel every once in a while. Sure, they're cheap. But let's face it: they're coarse, fast, Philistine, vulgar, but exhilarating. They have no pretensions at all. They're designed to divert the audience for an hour or so at the bottom of a double bill. So what if John Wayne gallops through the Wild West along a road lined with telephone poles? This isn't art, it's entertainment.

Take this movie, "Flight to Mars." At the beginning, when we're first meeting the characters, a man might introduce his female companion abruptly, avoiding any tedious subtlety: "Professor, this is my fiancée and assistant, who is a rocket scientist and a beautiful woman. She loves me but is growing impatient with me because I'm always wrapped up in my scientific work. Perhaps you could steal her from me, marry her, give her the babies and the picket-fenced home she yearns for. If necessary I will die on this journey to see her dreams realized. Also, she likes it a little rough." It saves a lot of writing and shooting time, doesn't it? That's what people mean when they say a narrative is "fast". (This one was shot in five days.) Why should we have to hint about these things? I mean, what the hell is this, a cheap sci fi movie or Henry James? Actually this is a particularly well-funded example of a Monogram movie. It's in color, for one thing. "Cinecolor" to be exact. (You can tell it's not any other "color" you'd recognize.) And look at the cast. The female lead is dismissible, as is usual with Monogram, but the male leads are definitely up there on the B List. Cameron Mitchell as the reporter, yet to hit his stride as a male lead, which, come to think of it, he never really did. And Arthur Franz as the pipe-smoking head scientist, the pride of Perth Amboy, New Jersey. And -- for science fiction fans -- how about THIS pair of aces: both Morris Ankrum AND John Litel! There's not really much point in describing the plot in detail. The five crew members crash land on Mars where they find an underground civilization inhabited by organisms whose evolution was isomorphic with ours, right down to their having five digits and willowy babes in short skirts. And they picked up English from listening to our broadcasts. American broadcasts, that is, judging from their speech. They're led by a sinister cabal who try to hijack the space ship, build many imitations of it, and colonize earth. They do not succeed.

The special effects aren't very special. The men walk around a couple of spare sets, wearing black costumes with stylized lightning bolts emblazoned on their chests and scarlet capes billowing behind them. Their names consist exclusively of English phonemes -- Alzar, Terris, Ikron. The lissome Martian who falls for Arthur Franz is named Alita, with an Indo-European diminutive appendage, and she already knows what kissing is.

Overall, I found it as snappy as it was intended to be, but dull too. The story is that of any Buck Rogers 1930s serial. Once the earthlings and the Martians meet and it's established that they have a common language, and that the Martians have a sinister agenda, that's it. In two hours, even an indifferent screenwriter could turn this into a story of Nazi spies in World War II. The plot is done by the numbers, the dialog has no sparkle, the acting is pedestrian.

However, dedicated aficionados of Monogram productions should enjoy it. After all, Jean-Luc Goddard, the contrarian French egghead, dedicated "A Bout de Soufflé" to Monogram, so they can't have been all that bad.


Early 1950s Sci-Fi directed by Lesley Selander. Special effects of course are very primitive, but pretty good in comparison to what else was out there then. Drive-in Movie double feature fare; still interesting enough to watch. Two leading men, Arthur Franz the brilliant young scientist Dr. Jim Barker and straight talking and earthy newspaper reporter Steve Abbot(Cameron Mitchell)are joined on a manned flight to Mars by Carol Stafford(Virgina Huston)another scientist and two other space experts(Richard Gaines and John Litel). Upon landing on the Red Planet, the space travelers encounter inhabitants that appear friendly and mentally advanced. In actuality, the Martians are led by Ikron(Morris Ankrum), who has the idea of conquering Earth to vitalize their civilization. There is a beautiful Martian(Maruerite Chapman)that Dr. Barker intends to take back on the return trip. She is the movie's redeemable element.


Obviously influenced by the success of Pal's "Destination Moon" and Lippert's "Rocketship X-M" this one just doesn't make the cut. Limited special effects, a thin story line result in a production that even the half-decent cast can't save. Just no believability here. No one seems surprised to encounter Martians, much like earthlings, etc. etc. Pass on it!


Cheaply-made, poorly acted, and unimaginatively directed, Flight to Mars still is entertaining despite what its has going against it. A flight to Mars is planned with five people(three older gentleman, Cameron Mitchell as a newspaperman, and one female scientist/obvious love interest)"manning' the ship. The spaceship gets there and finds that very human-like Martians live there and have technological advances that would make Earth blush. But all is not rosy in the subterranean cities of the Martians(here shown as some caves and a few rooms). The Martians are a dying planet and one faction wants the Earthlings to fix the ship only to take it away at the last moment and then mobilize for an attack on Earth and another faction wants to talk peace and see if they cannot persuade Earth to give them living space. The special effects here are pretty lame even for 50's sci-fi standards complete with slow-moving rocket ship, pastel/neon alien garb where the women wear shorts that would make many blush(except the men of course), and little less offered. Cameron Mitchell is the journalist and is affable if nothing else. Marguerite Chapman is beautiful in very short shorts but adds little acting range. The rest of the cast is filled with some older sci-fi veterans like Arthur Franz and Morris Ankrum doing serviceable jobs. This isn't a premiere sci-fi film from the Golden Age by any standard, but it is very watchable and zips by at fast pace.