Terrible. Absolutely terrible. Long, confusing and unrewarding. After about three hours of this painful mess the ending truly is the final nail in the coffin. Not even the magnificent, sexy, beautiful goddess Francesca Annis can save this poor adaptation of Agatha Christie's work. The plot drags and drags and time goes by slowly and suddenly you realize that you don't even have any idea of what's going on anymore. By the end even with the usual explanation by the villain there's still a lot that's left unexplained and then it's over. A complete waste of time and without a doubt one of the worst adaptation's to bear the name of Agatha Christie.


The plot was really weak and confused. This is a true Oprah flick. (In Oprah's world, all men are evil and all women are victims.)


Worse than mediocre thriller about an abused wife who goes on the lam after she is linked circumstantially to the death of her husband and sister. Determined to prove that her husband is alive she follows leads across the state, her peril increasing at each stop. Chasing after her are the traditional 'good-cop' and 'bad-cop' pair of partners. One is convinced of her innocence the other more interested in closing the case and getting home. This pair is often able to corner their suspect but never quite to capture her. All the main players meet up in a remote town in the desert and the truth begins to unfold with deadly consequences for some.

Wow! This was a bad movie. The lead acted as if she was tranquilized, The cops couldn't find a suspect if he or she is in the police station (this happens twice) and everyone else is as one-dimensional as can be. Avoid this one at all costs.


Bridget Fonda is the sexually satisfied wife of handsome Hart Bochner. One afternoon she comes home, calls him "honey", and quietly fixes him a drink, only to find that he's sulking. Minutes go by while she compliantly puts up with his frowning silence. Suddenly, he bursts into a rage, accusing her of infidelity in the complete absence of any reason to do so, calls her the C word, slams her head against a cabinet, slaps her around, and winds up flinging her off the second-floor balcony, breaking her hand and a couple of ribs.

She wakes up in the hospital where, it is revealed, she is deaf, although we notice that she reads lips perfectly. That avoids all the awkwardness associated with an ASL interpreter or having her squawk words in a simulacrum of language.

All right. Let me just lay out the basic plot elements. This beautiful and devoted handicapped woman is beaten by her husband, misunderstood by her elderly mother, betrayed by her sister, has her bank account emptied by unknown hands, almost raped by a fat man who accosts her in a bar, is thought to have murdered her now missing husband, and is pursued by two cops (Kiefer Sutherland and Steven Weber), one of whom is interested only in justice while the other seems to dislike all women and is embarrassed by their presence. The end finds her standing alone at a deserted bus stop with a hand full of cash -- alone, tearful, but brave.

Now, a pop quiz. There is only one multiple-choice question. "This story was written by: (a) a man or (b) a woman." Not to sound sexist. One could as easily pose a scenario about a decorated military hero and trained warrior who is captured by his enemies, betrayed by his organization, beaten and tortured, escapes to exact revenge, and winds up with the woman he loves, whom he thought he'd lost long ago.

The direction is functional and conventional. When Fonda regains consciousness in a hospital bed, we see from her point of view the faces of the anxious doctors and nurses looking down at her -- that is, at the camera -- an echo of every scene in myriad second-rate movies in which the gurney is being hurriedly wheeled down the corridor and people wearing starched white coats and festooned with stethoscopes hover over the camera.

Hart Bochner has played a number of evil people in an interesting way -- some of the characters are stupid ("Die Hard") and some are rather more than plain rude ("And The Sea Will Tell"). His virile handsomeness has a kind of evil tint to it. It would be too easy to cast him as a hero. Nice, intentionally bland performance by Steven Weber as the dumb cop -- maybe the best in the film.

Bridget Fonda is interesting too. Her acting range is limited but it's on full display here. What makes her an object of interest is her almost stereotypical beauty. She's like a high school prom queen. Very feminine. Of course she can't help it if she slithers around or moves her hands so gracefully. Neither can she do anything about her nose. For most of its length it's perfectly normal and attractive but at its very tip there is a bump outward that follows the natural flare of her nostrils. The tip of that nose is full of intrigue.

As for the movie -- Pfui.


Low-rent version of Ashley Judd's Double Jeopardy. Sutherland is too professional to be bad, but what was Brigit Fonda thinking?!? The Penelope Ann Miller curse continues (Think about it--when has she EVER been in a good movie other than Other People's Money? And I'm not saying she's bad, but all of her movies fail in some way).


This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the "Night Gallery" show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort.


At first I thought that this one was supposed to be somewhat of a comedy/horror when I had seen the body in the bathtub with the lady just standing there screaming over and over again but as the film proceeded on, it got more and more flat. The plot was silly with a man upset that the prices of real estate have gone up so now he dicides to call up some radio psyciatrist and babble out his fury because he has nothing better to do. Then the law gets involved and tries desperatly to make us feel that they really care who the caller is and go out of their way to track this guy down. One suspect after another are accused. This movie is terrible and the slow moving love scenes of Adrian B. and her husband are boring and made me just fast forward the movie. Avoid it!


Best thing I can say about this porno-horror film is: boobies boobies boobies !

Beyond that, this film is made by some Hindu/Indian guy with some background in porn films or such .

Plot: Talk-Show host and girlfriend are stalked by a psychopath who is angry over the plight of the homeless and takes it out on, you guessed it, beautiful real-estate agent ladies ! (films like these are why the slasher films of the 80's got a rep for misogyny)

This film is not really a Slasher, but has the same sort of implausibilities and stereotypes: the dumb-ass cops, the villain is an old white male, and the women are busty babes .

If you like porno-horror, this is your movie, otherwise stay away . (Adrienne fans will get to see her sagging breasts for a second or two)


(Some Spoilers) Dull as dishwater slasher flick that has this deranged homeless man Harry, Darwyn Swalve, out murdering real-estate agent all over the city of L.A because of the high prices that they charge for their proprieties. Looking like an extra from a Clint Eastwood "Spaghetti Western" Harry who's been living in abandoned houses eating dog food get's very upset where his quite lifestyle as a squatter is interrupted. This happens when a number of real-estate agents invaded his space in an attempt to sell the houses, that he's staying at to their potential clients.

Joseph Bottome stars in this bottom-of-the-barrel horror movie as radio talk-show host Dr. David Kelly the handsome and popular host psychologist of the KDRX survival line. DR. Kelly is being sued by the family of one of his callers,Tracy, who ended up blowing her brains out while on the air with the doc who couldn't do anything to help her survive her ordeal of taking to him.

The real-estate killer gets to talk with Dr. Kelly on the air about his adventures and the police try to get the doc to get his phone number and address, by keeping him on the line, but he refuses to in order not to hurt his rating by having potential callers not call in in fear of being monitored by the LADP.

Kelly also is having a hot and heavy affair with a real-estate manager and agent the busty Lisa Grant, Adrienne Barbeau, who's office of sellers are Harry's main victims in he movie. Harry also gets to murder Lisa's main competition in the housing business the chubby and outrageous Barney Resnick, Barry Hope, who threatened to put Lisa out of business by any means possible even if he has to kill her.

Getting Berney alone and with his pants down Harry slices his head off while he's being entertained by one of his clients, a hooker, whom he leaves dead and hanging together with the headless Barney. The movie ends with the deranged Harry taking Lisa hostage and having Dr. Kelly try to come to her rescue only to have Det. Shapiro (Robert Miano), looking like e hasn't slept in a week, pop out of nowhere and blow Harry's brains out. Harry quickly come back to life minus the gay matter between his ears and gets himself killed for the second time in the movie by being thrown from a balcony and landing on the ground as a dozen members of the LAPD, M16 cocked and ready, come on the scene.

Nothing in the movie "Opean House" worked with the tension laughable to almost non-existent. Even the hot sex scenes between Dr. Kelly and Lisa didn't save the movie since there were far too few,only two, of them and and sexy Adrienne Barbeau was a bit too underexposed, with not enough light and too much clothes on, in all of them.

Harry the killer in the movie was also a bit to comical to be taken seriously in trying to make a point, to Dr. Kelly on the phone and in person, about the high rents and real-estate prices in the country and how people like himself find it almost impossible to find a decent place to live in. You can sympathize with Harry's concern about the high cost of living but be very critical of him in how he crazily went on in correcting it.


Lisa Grant (Adrienne Barbeau) is a real estate agent who finds herself in jeopardy of getting killed by a deranged maniac who kills people in her profession who he feels make house prices too high. As motives go, this is pretty damn retarded. Lisa's boyfriend happens to be a talk show host whom the killer keeps calling on-air. At first I was positive this was supposed to be a comedy or satire of some kind, but as the endless minutes drone on and on, I realized that it wasn't and the film was just grossly incompetent in every way, shape, and form. I'm just surprised that something this horrid wasn't directed by Jeff Lieberman (yea, email me some hate mail again, Jeff you hack) Anyway, back to the film, poor, poor Barbeau, you can pinpoint EXACTLY when her film career went down in flames and it all started here.

My Grade: F

Where I saw it: The Movie Channel


This movie was the slowest and most boring so called horror that I have ever seen. I would include a comment on the plot but there was none. I do not recommend this movie unless you are prepared for the biggest waste of money and time of your life.


Now, let me see if I have this correct, a lunatic serial killer is going around murdering estate agents....okay...what's wrong with that scenario, I can live with that.

What next, a slasher with tax inspectors butchered? Traffic wardens sliced to death? Are we supposed to feel any sympathy for empty headed and shallow, money obsessed property people? Er...no.

Sadly, joking aside, it's just not a very well made film with poor acting and crude effects, the climatic scene is particularly silly. You can almost see the director shouting, 'action' to the stuntman as he falls through the glass of the window.

As another reviewer quite rightly said, after starring in 'The Fog,' this was the nadir of Adrienne Barbeau's career. Therefore I was happy to see that she had rekindled it by becoming the voice of Catwoman in the Batman animated series, while watching the extras on the live action Catwoman film. NB: not quite the awful film it's made out to be, by the way.

This however is a bad film, think a poor episode of 'Kojak' or 'Streets of San Francisco,' and you will get an idea of what is on offer here.


... Brian? what the hell were you *on* when you signed to do this?

I saw this recently at a festival, and it was greeted by howling laughter throughout. By the time the credits rolled, tears were streaming down the faces of many of the audience.

The plot is a clunky melding of 'E.R.' and 'The X-Files'; as cynically aimed at the TV audience as is possible to get without being sued. The sequences involving the abductions are hilarious- both Yuzna's staging of the 'floating from the bed' and 'Screaming Mad George's pathetic plastic aliens drew gales of disbelieving, derisive laughter.

Limp, camp and stupid. My only hope is that it was an aberration- As awful as 'Return of the Living Dead 3' was good.

Steev


Rented the video with a lot of expectations, but it was a disappointment. The story didn't make sense, the plot was very weak and the special effects.. well, I think even I can do better with my home computer. Sorry. Missed a change here.


A young doctor and his wife are suddenly expecting a child. Both are disturbed about a two hour memory lapse on the night of conception. Interesting twist on an hackneyed story. Very good F/X and interesting editing. Jillian McWhirter is outstanding in a cast that features Arnold Vosloo, Wilford Brimley and Brad Dourif. Brimley brings normalcy to the outlandish. Kudos to director Brian Yuzna.


I love Brian Yuzna's other work, even cruder stuff like 'Necronomicon', but 'Progeny' was too much even for me. My chief complaint is that it's needlessly exploitative of Jillian McWhirter's nudity, I'm no prude but these nude scenes just drag on and on and on... only to culminate (virtually every time) in a tawdry *wink, nudge* insinuation of sexual violence. The scene where she attempts a coat hanger abortion after several minutes of naked screaming is a prime example. Arnold Vosloo's 'performance' is utterly turgid, but even Jeffrey Coombs couldn't save this festering heap of a film. The aliens are boring, the uniformly dull lighting saps your interest, and the plot is absolutely predictable. The only highlights for me were an all-too-brief glimpse of the aliens' true form (very nice model) and the scene where Vosloo finds his wife in the closet was OK too. But you've been warned.


This was not a good film. Poorly scripted and acted - the concept was not new, the effects poor and not a showcase for Arnold Vosloo who really is a half decent actor. I watched this under some protest and only remembered having seen it before towards the very end - it's that forgettable. The acting seemed to consist of a number of glares & looks devoid of any sincerity. I kept expecting this to actually get going and before long I was just hoping it would finish. As for the medical bits - well I wasn't expecting a true version of ER events but this was just comical - I am a Dr so know what I am taking about - and the operative bits were just plain silly.

Do not waste your valuable time - unless you have absolutely nothing else to do - go out, ring up a long lost friend, watch paint dry, sort out your sock draw, do some household task. AVOID at your peril.


As a big fan of Brian Yuzna and the majority of the movies he's been involved in, I guessed I'd enjoy Progeny. I didn't, although in ways it has it's moments. However, if you're expecting something of the calibre of Society or Beyond ReAnimator, you could be in for a shock. In a way this is similar to Society, being a tale of a seemingly ordinary world with a horrific supernatural underbelly...but that's where it ends.

I'm not covering for Yuzna when I say that the fault doesn't really lie with him, as bad direction is bad direction, but the direction is sound. What trips the movie up is both script and acting. Stuart Gordon (ReAnimator, Dagon) has written an intelligent script, but one that doesn't really work with Yuzna's style of direction, leaving him paused on actors delivering lengthy dialogue when really he wants to throw that camera around and get down with his bad self. This matter makes the movie awkward enough as it is, but there's worse.

If the movie had been made with great actors, the movie would have probably held it's own. Unfortunately this is very far from the case. The acting is wooden, shockingly so even for a low-budget B feature. The inexplicably successful and renowned Arnold Vosloo wrecks every damn line with near pinpoint precision, handing in one of the worst performances I've seen in a long while. The man manages to turn every line of well considered dialogue into the kind of ham-line you'll be throwing drunkenly at mates next time you're in the pub. 'Hey Bob! GOOD GOD, AM I GOING MAD! WHAT'S...COME OVER ME! NOOOO!' In fact I may try that one myself next weekend. The last minute addition of genre veteran (and personal favourite) Brad Dourif, instead of enriching the film like it should, almost seems to hand Dourif the movie in a last ditch effort to stop Vosloo from hamming, but quite frankly Dourif looks deeply uncomfortable (possibly waiting for the next assault of bad acting) next to Vosloo, and even an eccentric turn from him fails to resuscitate the film.

If the acting was better, this movie would have been okay. Hell, it might have been pretty enjoyable, but the lack of character makes the movie a soulless affair, and makes the horror element seem tacked on and tasteless instead of an organic part of the film. I found the alien torture/rape scenes a little difficult to stomach already, but the fact that the characters were so lacking made them seem gratuitous as well as unpleasant, leaving a nasty taste in the mouth.

So, if you really like Sci-fi and don't have a problem with bad acting, pedestrian pacing and a really garish, nasty rape scene, Progeny will probably be your cup of tea. But since I do, I'm probably never going to watch it again. Once was enough. On the plus side, this is the only Sci-Fi movie Yuzna ever bothered to make, so he obviously wasn't really that pleased with it himself.


First of all this is one of the worst soft-core straight to cable "erotic thriller" I've ever seen in my life. Of course, like all erotic thrillers are want to do, it's about a brothel madam and is set in a brothel. This, of course, makes the softcore simulated sex that pops up every other 10 minutes seem "in context." Whatever.

Forget for one moment that this was never meant to win any awards. The actors are terrible and their line reading made me cringe. The woman who plays the female cop is so bad it's beyond description. She must be a really REALLY good friend of the guys who put up the movie for this terrible adventure, if you know what I mean.

The production values are only slightly higher than porn. Other than that? I suppose if you're really drunk and you need something to laugh at, this would be a perfect film. And if that's the case, I recommend fast forwarding to all the scenes with the female cop. What's that accent, Brooklyn? Hilarious!


This espionage melodrama has a nice, almost promising cast, and should have been very atmospheric; there is a will, or an intention of atmosphereand also a want, or a lack of it.

Sheen plays a dissident who now activates as an agent, he is a loner, loved by women but haughty; Mrs. Fossey is his mistress. Neill plays the gallant, generous, chivalrous Soviet agent.

Sheen and Neill are both essentially annoying; Finlay does a cameo, and so do other known actors. Mrs. Fossey is hot; but then again, she always is.

I will be your true friend and break it to youthe flick is low on suspense and on excitement, it's trite and quite boring; the good thing is that you get to see Mrs. Fossey naked. Other than that, lukewarm derivative espionage exploitation.


After receiving a DVD of this with a Sunday newspaper, I hoped that it was not the usual duff films that are given away because no one would ever buy them. I was wrong. Sheens acting is on par with that of a ten year old in a school pantomime production and the same goes for the majority of the cast. Neill is satisfactory, but plays a Russian and isn't helped by his hybrid Northern Irish/New Zealand accent, and nor are the rest of the KGB characters, all of whom sound like they're in a Cambridge Footlights reunion. In fact, the only people with genuine accents are extras who supply an odd word here and there, helpfully letting us know at least where the hell everything is going on in what is otherwise a complete mash. The "espionage" factor is unimpressive for the most part and primarily consists of Sheen faffing about in various ridiculous disguises whilst trying to blend into the background, quickly becoming not only boring but laughable. The plot has potential but is completely murdered by the rest of the confusing production elements. This could have been so much better.


This film is bundled along with "Gli fumavano le Colt... lo chiamavano Camposanto" and both films leave a lot to be desired in the way of their DVD prints. First, both films are very dark--occasionally making it hard to see exactly what's happening. Second, neither film has subtitles and you are forced to watch a dubbed film--though "Il Prezzo del Potere" does seem to have a better dub. Personally, I always prefer subtitles but for the non-purists out there this isn't a problem. These DVD problems, however, are not the fault of the original film makers--just the indifferent package being marketed four decades later.

As for the film, it's about the assassination of President Garfield. This is a MAJOR problem, as Van Johnson looks about as much like Garfield as Judy Garland. In no way whatsoever does he look like Garfield. He's missing the beard, has the wrong hair color and style and is just not even close in any way (trust me on this, I am an American History teacher and we are paid to know these sort of things!). The real life Garfield was a Civil War general and looked like the guys on the Smith Brothers cough drop boxes. Plus, using some other actor to provide the voice for Johnson in the dubbing is just surreal. Never before or since has Van Johnson sounded quite so macho!! He was a fine actor...but certainly not a convincing general or macho president.

In addition to the stupid casting, President Garfield's death was in no way like this film. It's obvious that the film makers are actually cashing in on the crazy speculation about conspiracies concerning the death of JFK, not Garfield. Garfield was shot in Washington, DC (not Dallas) by a lone gunman with severe mental problems--not a group of men with rifles. However, according to most experts, what actually killed Garfield (over two months later) were incompetent doctors--who probed and probed and probed to retrieve a bullet (to no avail) and never bothered cleaning their hands or implements in the process. In other words, like George Washington (who was basically killed by repeated bloodletting when suffering with pneumonia) he died due to malpractice. In the movie they got nothing right whatsoever...other than indeed President Garfield was shot.

Because the film bears almost no similarity to real history, it's like a history lesson as taught from someone from another planet or someone with a severe brain injury. Why not also include ninjas, fighting robots and the Greek gods while you're at it?!?! Aside from some decent acting and production values, because the script is utter cow crap, I don't recommend anyone watch it. It's just a complete and utter mess.


Ya know, I have no idea how everybody else's teenage life was, but this does not reflect the folks I knew and hung around with let alone, myself. And just in case if you're wondering..NO..we weren't pristine/clean cut/Pat Boone type teens. (If there was ever such a thing!!!!)

Look, I'm NOT saying being a teenager is easy. The better, well actually the BEST teen movie of this time is "Fast Times at Ridgemont High". Now those kids I knew and were as realistic as it got back then (and maybe now).

This was crap. This was a low rent version of Fast Times and even then it didn't do much for me. It had a few moments, but not enough for me to recommend this, or even claim "this is how it was for teens back in 1982". I couldn't relate. The lead girl (girls) did nothing for me and please if they really wanted to keep their virginity, they would have, in which case, this film would not have been made. Pure crap and a bad staple to be left behind as a time-capsule cinema for teens/young adults in the early '80's.


i wrote an essay in 1981, the year i graduated high school called the "last American virgin." i also had a friend named nancy who was the prostitute in this film. apparently her daughter got a hold of my essay one night when she slept over my house. a year later i wake up one morning and see the advertisement for this film. i was 18 years old & based the essay on experiences in my life. the film is a bit different from my essay but definitely taken from it. i did not have any proof of this matter except my English teacher mr.Versace who gave me an A on my essay.i let it go & never did anything about it.i figured what comes around goes around.i still would not take any action against anyone involved in this film. i just needed to get it off my chest, as i really never told anyone about it, except my closest friend & they agreed to keep it a secret.the same year it came out i saw nancy in a market, she actually had the nerve to ask me if i had any good stories or scripts for her to look at. i guess thats what Hollywood is all about, getting stories from wherever you can.it was interesting seeing parts of my life on the big screen though.

ghost writer!


Well the film starts good, but after half an hour it becomes boring and stupid, when all the plot is about Karen's( that was the name of the girl right?) pregnancy.

The end of the movie it's really corny and the characters really dumb.

I don't know who is more stupid, if the girl because she came back with her old boyfriend or the boy for the way he was used for her.

Anyway my conclusion is this: definitely not the best eighties comedy, just another movie like many others with nothing special, they could do it better but they ruined it, if only the plot had take another way but they keep that pregnancy stuff and they definitely ruined, so final conclusion: i don't like.


This thing takes the horny teenager genre, very poorly respected to begin with, and completely flushes it down the toilet. The only people I would even consider recommending it to are teenage girls, for a "revealing" scene in a boys' locker room. And in the end I wouldn't make such a recommendation. To do so would be to contribute to the delinquency of a juvenile. An absolute piece of garbage with utterly no redeeming qualities.


Having seen just about every movie on record that a child of the eighties could have seen, this ranks at the very, very, very bottom of the heap of bad movies I have ever seen. It's depressing and just plain, painful to watch. Nuff said.


Sex,Drugs,Rock & Roll is without a doubt the worst product of Western Civilization. The monologues are both uninteresting and pointless In the rare monologue that captures the audience's attention it is quickly lost through overly long repetition and unnecessary additions (The Hells Angels at McDonalds comes to mind) I guess Bogosian's one man show needed some filler material to give a length that he thought justified the price of admission.

I would rather sleep with my aunt and be hung upside down and drained of my blood than see Sex,Drugs,Rock & Roll again.


I can imagine why he'd want to die, after starring in this rubbish. The man is incredible, but even Sidney Poitier couldn't save this tiresome morality play about racism in the old West. He and Joanna Going are both fantastic in this film: too bad the screenplay, co-stars, directing, and score couldn't match those two.


I'm a big fan of sleaze and horror movies, when you put them together that's my sweet spot: horrible sleaze. You're not going to get it in this film, though.

There is certainly sleaze, in the form of girls being kidnapped and tortured, tied naked to various things. The sleaze isn't very sleazy, though. It didn't register very high on my sleaze meter, mainly because none of the girls were in the least attractive, nor did they attempt to act as if they were even threatened. They seemed to be thinking more about what was for lunch, or maybe when they could score some crack.

Forget the effects, they were lame in the extreme. The lameness was contributed to by the bad acting; effects are harder to believe when even the actors and actresses aren't buying into them.

Cinematography was pretty bad, they could have hired a couple cameramen from a porn movie and done better. In fact, that might have raised the sleaze factor enough to make it enjoyable. As it is, there are a lot of dark shots where you can't see very clearly, and what you can see isn't looking too good.

The horror factor is nil. Null. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. I've seen kids movies that were more frightening. There's no camp here, either. It's just a movie that attempts to be shockingly sleazy, but doesn't even come close.


This movie was absolute trash. The director and stars(?)should be banished from making movies forever. The paper-thin plot concerns a sleazy director played by the sleazy director (now thats acting) advertising on the internet for women to star in a snuff movie.

There's no horror at all, the girls look strung-out and bored, the direction is pointless, the music is misplaced (heavy metal in a library scene?), and the lighting is awful. The director should have cashed in a couple more shopping carts full of aluminum cans and gotten a script, sober actors, and a few light bulbs. As it is, this is one disgusting, nasty, worthless mess of a movie.


Could easily have been better. In fact maybe so much so that if the filmmaker hadn't tried even as hard as he did, it might have actually been better.

On a good note. The lighting was reasonably okay. But pretty much everything else was lacking. Wobbly camera work. (Yeah, yeah, I know, that's supposed to be the style now.) Poorly recorded audio. And editing that looked like someone watched too many Ulli Lommel movies (which are some of the worst edited movies.) To sum it up, the movie seemed to be a rationalization for the director/writer/main-character to get some young women naked, put them in fake bondage, and grope them, while saying "menacing" things.


Kill the scream queen may sound like a good slasher flick but it is terribly boring and very dumb.

Kill the scream queen is about a crazy filmmaker who auditions girls to be in his snuff film. He rapes and tortures them. This is trash that is not amusing, suspenseful or entertaining.The killer has no motive,okay maybe hes just sick...and very dull. Maybe they could of gave a victim a story of their own. Anything could be an improvement. It needed a lot more.

They could of put just a little more into it. I love horror/slasher films but this is ridiculously bad.


While I was watching this movie I never thought I'd be defending it. It's honest enough from the begininning about not having much of a plot. There's no real characters to latch onto except the killer. Some of the acting can be better, but most of it is capable.

I know, a three out of ten isn't stellar, but there are reviews saying it was shot poorly and completely useless, etc. I think it set out to do what it's supposed to fairly well. The lighting is minimal at times, more natural than most audiences are used to, but it's supposed top look like a camcorder snuff film. In fact, at times the quality is probably still too high to be true to that, but nobody would make it through tne minutes of camera work that's truly that bad.

It's not particularly scary, but it is disturbing at times. There are one or two characters who don't come across as believable at all and the soundtrack does get tiring at times, but overall it was put together cleaner than a lot of camcorder movies.


who reads these comments may think we may have in hand a great movie. I am Portuguese and I'm ashamed that this film became a blockbuster in Portugal. It can't really call this cinema. The direction and "mise-en-scene" is basic (even Ron Howard does better!); the script is bad and pretentious (a really bad Tarantino); the cast is covered in TV stars, models and reality show stars that don't no nothing about acting. When you put in a movie this ingredients of course that the fans of this kind of TV shows will all go see. i am also surprised that people who make comments here in IMDb say that this movie is a masterpiece. I thought that this site was only for people who truly like cinema and understand a little bit of it. All the movies made to be blockbusters in Portgal always use the same ingredients and are always awful. if you think this movie is reasonable, please don't say your love movies and cinema.


Any movie should have an idea; Simple or more complex, it needs one... The problem with Fragata,..it's once more, that when he decides to make a movie, he so anxious to do "whatsoever" that he forgets this main detail, and as result we have the characters doing whatever without any justification, behaving without justified reasons...they are simple puppets going along the movie on the flavour of the wind. It's boring and sad to see them appearing and vanishing like cards being discarded in a game. Fragata always seem to have talent in advertising is own work...and that leads you to see what he did...but in the end there's always a big disappointment. It's not enough having a movie full of the "hot Portuguese's pink magazine stars"...especially when half of them can't act...they only pretend to be funny. Here my only good point goes to the actor Helder Mendes...one of the few non stars': He makes the effort to establish some credibility, and in such a messy movie without any direction (of any kind) I give him the credit for trying hard. But this movie its worth to check out as a manual of "how to not do a movie"...and if Fragata's previous works where bad...this one it's a "masterpiece" in achieving the title of AWFUL. In few words,..Just check it out! It will make you good,...and if you homemade your family movies,...and always feel bad with your work...so just spend 30 minutes looking to this so "called" professional work...your home made stuff will look like Powerful Hollywood Flicks compare to Sorte Nula.


I'm big into acting, writing, and directing, but not famous yet. My friends and I frequently rent bad movies, just for fun and a good laugh, but when we went to the local Family Video and found a movie called Biker Zombies From Detroit, we knew it was gonna be the worst movie of all time and it was! Biker Zombies From Detroit has no script! They can say they do have one, but they're liars! There was a 4 minute scene of just two guys riffing about women and sexuality, and you could tell it was improvised. And if they're going to improv, it should be at least decent, but it wasn't, and you could tell by the two actors screwing up lines and saying stuff that didn't even make sense.

To give you an idea of how terrible and retarded this movie is, here's the beginning: a girl flicks a guy off, he punches her in the face and beats her up, then rapes her. Then we see zombies who attack and they both turn into zombies.

This is the beginning of the movie! Not to mention the lead zombie voice over that carries through the whole movie, trying to be sinister and thought provoking, but sounding like Marylin Manson having a conniption fit.

Worst movie ever. Bottom line, folks. But watch it if you like movies with no script, no plot, bad acting, bad editing, bad music, and over 100 F words used in the movie.

If this can hit video stores, my future films are gonna win Oscars.


Recognizing the picture of the diner on the cover of the DVD made me realize that this was a local movie. The word Detroit in the title furthered my suspecions and I did some looking up of things and yes, a local movie it was.

So I picked it up. Someone I knew actually knew some of the producers/director (dont remember which) and said the producers/directors got people to PAY to be in this movie.

Brilliant! What a great idea. The movie makers get some capital to do the movie with, thanks to their cast and crew. Then the investors (cast, crew, others) get some of the profits, I'm imagining.

Profits!

Um anyways. This film totally underwhelmed me. The special effects were special as in special children who ride the small buses to school. The acting was very amusing, not intentionally however. There's a great line where a guy says "well? this bone aint gonna smoke itself!" as a pickup line. Unfortunately that is the only fun part of the whole film. The story? Well, I sort of followed it about 3/5 of the way in, then everything stopped making sense and as we were sitting there watching it, it suddenly ended. I mean as in,..no resolution of anything..like they ran out of time. "Sorry folks, out of time, goodnight!"

We sat there baffled and booing, and threw in another film. Then about 20 minutes later a neighbor of mine showed up..with one of the guys from the movie! We threw it back in and he (the actor) gave us a running commentary, which was awesome because he totally ripped on the movie!

What more could you ask for??

The most absurd scene for me was a motorbike chase scene were it was so dark that it could have literally been a guy running past with a flashlight and not a motorbike at all. That and the jaw droppingly in your face sudden ending is enough to make you howl. In pain! The zombies looked less like zombies than my coworkers do. And I dont work at the morgue either.

So, I recommend seeing this if you can get someone from the movie to come over and give you a running commentary as to all the things that went on behind the scenes and make sure this person hates the movie because that just adds to the fun.

Otherwise, give this one a pass. Rent something like Feeders if you want a jaw droppingly bad in a funny way movie...


OUCH, No real need to say anything else. This movie actually had me contemplating suicide. As a huge fan of the wonderful genre that is zombie movies I found this to quite possibly be the worst attempt I have ever been privy too. The film never actually seemed to go ANYWHERE! What was the point to it all, I am left feeling hopeless and lost. Hell this was so bad i cant even justify bashing it anymore. I'm just gonna go hang myself in the closet. OK now I tried to submit my comment but the server will only accept comments that are ten lines or more. So here it goes... Bad, horrible, no where near enough gore. NO TITS!!!!!!How can you have a Zombie movie without tits. As a matter of fact the female lead had one hell of a rack and the only reason I watched the film to completion was in order to maybe by chance get a glimpse. NOPE! Of course there was one line that does deserve mentioning, a line I am looking forward to using myself someday (when i just feel the need to get my face smacked) "This hog isn't going to smoke itself" This movie is bad, so bad.


I rented this pile of sewer waste hoping for a few good laughs. With a title like `Zombie Bikers from Detroit' and with Dead Alive productions stamped on the front cover, you would think that this could be a funny/gruesome film, but no. This is the worst movie I have ever seen (and yes, I have seen all of the Police Academy movies). The story (this is a joke within itself) and the dialogue are atrocious. The make up of the so-called zombies looks like they used one of those two dollar `Make yourself look like a Zombie' kits that you buy at K-Mart.

I would rather watch Beverly Hills 90210 while listening to the Backstreet Boys and be whipped by a 400lb novelty birthday card model than to sit through another single minute of this pathetic excuse for a DVD. Honestly, I could make a better movie with $3, some popsicle sticks and a slinky. I feel as if 90 minutes of my life were stripped away from me and taken to the land of Suckdom. I know that tagging on the Dead Alive production doesn't guarantee a great flick, but you do expect to get your moneys worth.

The only thing that made me happy (save, returning the horrid mass of elephant feces) was that it wasn't titled `Biker Zombies from Pittsburgh'. I feel for Detroit folks that wasted their hard-earned money on this one. Unless you have been lobotomized . Do not buy, rent if you must  But . You will regret it.


Evil never looked so bad. They meant it.

When a buddy of mine picked this DVD up at a half-priced book store, I didn't know what to expect. I mean, based on the title, I knew it would be worth a laugh, but I didn't realize how laughable it would really be.

The first time through, I missed some of the dialogue (if you could call it that) because we were all too busy poking fun at the plot of the movie. It seemed like it was written in filmed in less than a week, and they hadn't the budget to go back and fix some of the minor flaws. Wait, did I say "minor"? I meant the exact opposite. For instance, the main character is credited as 'Ken', but several times throughout the film he is referred to as 'John'.

If the plot holes aren't enough fun for you, take a look at the acting. Nobody seems overly concerned about the zombie raids in their state, including the mother of the main character, who is missing for days while she sits in front of a fireplace reading a book.

The constraints that the budget puts on the movie are equally as hilarious. Maybe they didn't have a permit to film wherever they were, because during the BIG MOTORCYCLE CHASE SCENE, the characters are obeying all traffic regulations. The zombies, who had just killed twenty or so people, actually stop at a stop sign coming out of a parking lot. I don't even do that, but then again, I'm not a biker zombie. The ending of the movie looks like they just ran out of money. It ends so suddenly that it leaves you wanting more... On second thought, it ends just soon enough.

So if you're looking for a good time with your friends, seek out this movie. It's a great unintentional comedy.


As a Michigander, I got the Michigan jokes. Very funny - make fun of Pontiac, Ann Arbor, all those lame suburbs of Detroit. Yes, yes, I've heard these jokes a million times. I'll give them credit for accurately depicting the lameness of Grosse Pointe. It couldn't get more White. Did you hear those lovely Michigan nasal accents? Where the girls talk so fast you can't understand one word that comes out of their mouth (nose)...? As much as I love Michigan, I hated this movie.

I have never met one person from Grosse Pointe that I liked. Listen to that awful live band and that annoying and horrid background music! What is that? One of your Gross Pointe homeboy's band? Probably. Wow, what a great "Detroit scene" you guys have over there. Funny how people from Grosse Pointe always say they're from Detroit. They're so White and rich, they wish they had something to complain about.

Anyway, this movie blows. All the way from the lame jokes about girls in thongs to the terrible character development. Oh wait a minute, you mean the entire basis for a character is that he says the f-word a lot? What a deep personality. Great job, Grosse Pointers! And I love all the sexist lingo, like how the narrator calls the first girl who gets killed that we never even hear speak a "naive b*tch". That's really lovely.

And those homemade masks with the Marilyn Manson contact lenses are really great. And I love how it made perfect sense as to why the bikers came by and killed people. And how their narrating master had such a obvious role in the movie... ?? The main boyfriend dude was so boring I fell asleep looking at him. The three idiot guys (or was it two or four? how can I tell, they all look and act the same!) were so desperately trying to make me laugh, but Beavis and Butthead already got out my butt humor laughs back in 1994. And what's with the gay jokes? No wonder this movie sucked - everyone involved must have some minor problems with their masculinity, eh boys?

The only saving grace to this film was the main girl. Despite what the other people on here have said, she actually was a good actress. Teenage girls talk the way she talked. They really act the way she acted. Her acting was very natural and believable. I really thought she was a Grosse Pointe convenience store employee. .. maybe she is! And yeah she had big boobs, most the women here do. Michigan is the fattest state in the union, you know. In all aspects.

So, those of you who think this is a representation of Detroit, it's not. It's the suburbs of Detroit. They are very White and full of aimless teen angst. Limp Bizkut, ICP (yes, ICP is from one of our suburbs) and $75 baggy khaki pants all the way! Lame rich kids who are mad because they have lots of money and nothing to complain about. And they make bad movies, too.


Some people may remember Ms. Russell from films such as "Black Widow", which had some appeal and critical acclaim. Boy, she must have really needed a rent check when she signed on to do this dog.

Yes, there will be those who like the gratuitous violence and nudity. But one must sit back and wonder, in retrospect, what possessed anyone to spend money and time to make this in the first place. I just saw this movie on one of the "HBO's", and I can't believe they picked it up.

In 1996 Ms. Russel didn't have the physical attractiveness she did earlier in her career. But, come on! Having her play Ma Barker??? Her "sons" all look like they could be her brothers. It's also creepy in that you think there are going to be incestuous relationships occurring (thank goodness there aren't, hope that doesn't count as a spoiler). With Eric Roberts and Alyssa Milano added into the cast, this one is B-movie 'straight to video' all the way.

The scenes between Purvis and Ma Barker, either in person or on the phone, are a primer in terrible, terrible acting. Oh, wait, I forgot terrible, terrible writing as well. Chalk this one up to experience. A bad experience.


Wow, pretty amazing that something this bad could actually be made. I am giving this movie a 2 because it is so bad it has a certain "car wreck" kind of appeal. Its so bad its comical and that does have a certain entertainment value. Plus there is a bit of gratuitous nudity and that is always appreciated.

So where do I begin. The acting is beyond awful, its like you are watching a high school play being filmed. Theresa Russell must have done something really bad to have been forced to make this movie and her acting reflects how happy she is to be in the middle of this mess.

The rest of the cast is simply silly with the casting of Dan Cortese as an FBI agent the cherry on the top of this piece of crap. His acting actually had me laughing at loud.

As for the screenplay and the directing C. Courtney Joyner and Mark L. Lester should simply be taken out back and shot.


Is this movie as bad as some claim? In my opinion, yes it is. I wasn't going to comment, noting that quite a few comments have already been made, ranging from 'awful' to -not nearly so bad...'. However, I can't resist.

What do you make of a movie that has, on the DVD cover. the phrase "the real story of "Ma BArker and her boys...", and the standard "any similarity to actual persons..." disclaimer in the credits? I'm not naive, but in this case, it's a pretty relevant observation regarding this movie.

Several comments knock the performances. They are pretty awful, Roberts, Russell, Milano and Stallone have something like 315 movies and TV shows listed between them. They can act, or at least perform.

However...the dialog is not to my taste, and quite unintentionally funny at times. The story arcs didn't seem to be anything but the barest minimum required to string specific scenes of violence and melodrama together.

Direction and screen writing has to be faulted: Amyrillis giggles after seeing Ma Barker's violent temper and finishes with "Take The Girl!"?????. What ever you think of Alyssa's acting abilities...some screenwriter wrote that line or reaction, and/or some director shot it, and said, 'OK, that's good enough, no need to retake that, that's credible...' One footnote: I did pick up my copy for $1.99 or $2.99 in a grocery story discount bin; the running time is shown as 91 mins, and I note that the running time is listed on IMDb as 95 mins. I don't know what 4 minutes I'm missing, but I acknowledge that if those 4 minutes were of the right sort of person in the right sort of situation, my rating might soar to 3 or 4 out of 10. As I saw it, 1 / 10 is what I must vote.


It's too kind to call this a "fictionalized" account of the Barker gang. They got the names right, but that's about it.

Russell is still hot, I'll grant you that, but this is not the real Ma Barker, who basically took care of the boys by cooking and assisting when they moved around the country, not by planning or participating in the crimes. I think it would have been far more interesting to present the real story of a middle-aged woman caught up in the criminal activities of her children and their cronies.

I also have to agree with those reviewers who found the shoot-out scenes to be totally unbelievable. The Barker/Karpis victims were a combination of the innocent and of the law-enforcement agents who pursued them, but they definitely did not mow down half-a-dozen FBI agents every time they were cornered. (On the other hand, as several recent books have related, the FBI of that era emphasized the idea of agents coming only from legal or accounting backgrounds to the extent that many agents had very little law enforcement or firearms experience. They were not the well-trained agents that we picture today.)

But the worst sin of all is that the movie is basically a bore. Nobody changes, nobody grows. We know the end of the road is ahead, we just don't know which shoot-out it will be.

Only for die-hard Russell fans.


By the time this movie came out in 1996, director Mark Lester had been making tight, sharp little B action pictures for more than 20 years. He was responsible for the great "Truck Stop Women" from the '70s and several other little gems; unfortunately, he's also responsible for this dud. It's a shame to see the talented--and still smoking hot--Theresa Russell wasted yet again, but she's still the best actor in this picture. Eric Roberts shows up for a while, does his Eric Roberts thing, then goes away, a not altogether unwelcome occurrence in a picture with Eric Roberts in it. Frank Stallone actually isn't bad, which should give you an idea of how truly pathetic this picture is. As has been mentioned by other reviewers, the action scenes--which is the reason a picture like this gets made in the first place--are almost completely illogical and unrealistic, in addition to being somewhat inept. Other than some "vintage" clothes and a few old cars, there's no feel whatever for the 1930s, the era in which this film is set. A by-the-numbers script with irritating lapses in logic and little historical accuracy--this isn't a documentary, of course, but the filmmakers could have at least TRIED for a little authenticity--and performances that range from grade B to grade school relegate this cheap little quickie to the 4:00 a.m. Sunday slot on HBO, which is just where I saw it.


This film contain far too much meaningless violence. Too much shooting and blood. The acting seems very unrealistic and is generally poor. The only reason to see this film is if you like very old cars.


This film is about a party put together by the high school "scary girl." Per the illogic of these sorts of films, she gets permission to hold the party at a house which used to be a crematorium, a dubious place long shut down and locked up. Apparently the history of this piece of property is one of those town secrets best left unspoken of among proper folk though the legend does get whispered about among the young.

Why was this crematorium really shut down? What actually happened there in the past?

I like these kill-kill-kill films of a supernatural nature as long as there is something in them not copied from a hundred other films. The highlights of this film are a petty theft "7-11" robbery by distracting the clerk with a vivid view, the changing clothes scene by the "good girl" witnessed by her jerk younger brother, the eventual demise of the ugly neighbor who hates the holiday, the spooky mirror scene and the concept of running water being a barrier against the supernatural; the best part of this film is when the possessed party sponsor dances to BAUHAUS in front of the fireplace; that scene rocks.


It's difficult to decide whether this movie suffers from crap dialogue or if it's just made to appear so by crap actors. In any case it suffers from storywriting which is mediocre at best.

Although made in the late '80's, the first part of the movie plays like a 60's teenage screwball comedy (barring the absence of any actual humour), especially the part of the 'good girl', which is as annoying a Doris Day figure as you could hope/fear for, including the slightly whiny opposition to anything 'fun' her friends want to do. The net effect is, after a while you start to hope she'll bite it so you don't have to listen to her voice anymore.

Some profanity and gratuitous nudity, plus some really 80's style clothing is your only clue that this movie was made in the 80's. Oh, and some pretty passable music, too.

Storywise, it's pretty formulaic stuff. A bunch of horny (apart, obviously , from 'miss nice girl') teenagers decide to celebrate Halloween night by throwing a party in a haunted house. Partying and fornication ensues, along with an ill-advised 'seance' which kicks off the demonic possession spree which is the subject of the movie. After this, the only suspenseful part will be trying to guess in which order the characters will expire. You're sure not to care whether or not they will. The actors are so bad that becoming demons/zombies/dinner actually improves their performance somewhat, and the ridiculously cliché dialogue is so annoying that you squirm in your seat.

Gorewise, this flick ain't nuthin' special, unless you think cheesy is kind of 'special'. For example, the demon head which occasionally appears is so screamingly fake that you wonder if it's a 5-year old trick-or-treating.

This is not to say there's nothing enjoyable in the flick. Some of the music isn't half bad, and the first of our insipid Scooby gang to get possessed performs a marvelous and really sexy dance routine at one point, before she turns nasty.

Also, and I don't know why, towards the very end of the flick, I actually managed to get somewhat involved. The suspense lacking in most of the movie made a late appearance, and I started to squirm out of unease instead of annoyance. Which is what a horror movie is supposed to do.

Concequently, I cannot bring myself to give this movie a rock-bottom rating, since by some inexplicable miracle (I don't rule out being possessed by demons) I was actually a little creeped.

Don't pay money to see it, though. It's hardly worth your time, yet alone hard cash. Watch it on YouTube while it's there.


When I first saw this I thought bits of it were fairly scary. But the horror is a little undermined by the fact that the dozy teenagers are so irritating that you don't really care what happens to them. There are some genuinely good moments such as Angela's speech about demons, and the briefly-seen demon itself is effective. But this really doesn't stand up to repeated viewing or close analysis. It's all pretty tacky and cheap-looking and often downright silly, pornography and unfunny wisecracks all too often replacing horror. The music is excellent, however, and the epilogue is certainly amusing, but this film doesnt have much to recommend it, just comes across as another Jason-type stalk-and-slash fare.


Dear friends, I've never seen such a trash movie as NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (1988). It seems that the director Kevin Tenney had the intention to copy classics like THE EVIL DEAD by Sam Raimi (1978) or George A. Romero's RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD from the same year. The cinematography was lousy, the movie was very dark, so I had to turn the brightness control to the maximum. Indeed, horror pictures have to be dark, but not the way like NIGHT OF THE DEMONS. The entire movie was ridiculous, no suspense, worse actors except Alvin Alexis in the role of Rodger, and horrible make-up effects. An average vote of 5 stars for that movie? I can't believe this. Perhaps the users were pleased about the tits, asses and pussies of the actresses, they were indeed worth 5 stars. Regards, Hans-Dieter


And you know why? Because they thought (or at least made horror fans think) that a bunch of obnoxious, foul-mouthed, screaming teenagers, some stupid demons (Where do they come from? What is their purpose? Who knows?) and a dark mansion are all you need to make a horror movie. Needless to say, they were wrong. You also need a script, some logic, some rules, and some invention. This flick DOES have one scene that lives up to its reputation (the lipstick scene, of course), and a couple of funny moments (the kid brother's description of his mother's cookies, Linnea Quigley's "don't look at me" scene). It also has more profanity than any movie I've watched since I last saw "Reservoir Dogs". Literally every fourth or fifth word is a "f***" or a "b****". Then again, when a movie begins with FOUR false scares in its first 5 minutes, you know not to expect anything resembling good filmmaking. (*1/2)


Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen! 90 Minutes of excruciating film-making. All the ingredients to make this movie a true work of CRAP. Bad acting, bad directing, bad storytelling, bad makeup, bad dialogue, bad effects, and bad reasoning behind certain actions taken by the characters. It also threw in a terrible naked shot of a dumb blond, and a breast shot of a stupid Asian girl, and both attempts were just scary, since these girls are ugly. Some good horror movies came out of the 80s, but this could never be considered one of them. Kevin Tenney also committed one of the greatest sins in storytelling: he introduced characters at the end of the movie (an Old Man and Old Woman). I would vote for it below a 1 out of 10 but the voting system doesn't work that way apparently. Right from the title sequence I knew it would suck and I would return my DVD but Best Buy doesn't refund DVDs, or consumable products as they call it, or so my receipt says. I have "The Dunwich Horror" and that was truly god-awful, but I still feel that "Night of the Demons" (an obvious Evil Dead RIP-OFF) was far worse than "Dunwich Horror." This is just like "The Howling," how in the hell could sequels get milked out of this anorexic cow??? Save your money and get the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (just don't get any of its sequels though) or "The Evil Dead" or "Dawn of the Dead." "Night of the Demons" is a very, very, very bad investment. Every second of it was just maddening, excruciating pain for the audience, because the whole movie all-around was horrible! Do yourself a favor, DON'T SEE IT! You'll be saving some brain cells.


One of the many silent comedies Stan Laurel featured in before he teamed with Oliver Hardy, 'Mud and Sand' is a ho-hum hokum. The story is badly disjointed - though this could be because of the modern-day edit - and the humor itself is not at all inventive.

Potential plotlines are started and ignored; for instance, Stan's promise to make Fillet de Sole pay for what she's done to him never comes to fruition. Stan's character doesn't seem very centered, either, but this is a common criticism of his work before he developed 'Stanley' of Laurel & Hardy fame, so it might be that I was just expecting to see this shortcoming.

I strongly believe that all the silent films should be preserved and viewed, and I'm glad this one is still available. It's just not a great film.


Before Stan Laurel became the smaller half of the all-time greatest comedy team, he laboured under contract to Broncho Billy Anderson in a series of cheapies, many of which were parodies of major Hollywood features. Most of Laurel's 'parody' films are only mildly funny, and even less funny for modern audiences who haven't seen the original movie which Laurel is parodying. Fortunately, 'Mud and Sand' lampoons a movie which is still well known: 'Blood and Sand', starring Rudolph Valentino. 'Blood and Sand' was released only nine weeks before this parody, giving you some idea of how quickly Broncho Billy's movies were ground out, edited and distributed.

Various sources (including IMDb) state that Stan Laurel's character in this film is named Rhubarb Vaselino, with a final 'o'. I've screened a print of 'Mud and Sand' with the original titles (in Hobo type font), so I report that Laurel's role is actually cried Rhubarb Vaseline, with an 'e'. But I agree that 'Vaselino' is funnier. Laurel copies the elaborate sideburns which Valentino wore in 'Blood and Sand' (he should've made them longer!), and there's a parody of Valentino's dressing scene from that movie, which made female movie-goers swoon in 1922. A señorita named Carmen in the original film is parodied here as Caramel (a girl I'd like to sink my teeth into).

This movie (like the original) apparently takes place in Spain, yet there's a Prohibition gag. Laurel uses a distinctive hat-tipping gesture here which could have become a trademark for him (like Hardy's distinctive necktie twiddle), but I've never spotted it in any other Laurel film. There's some amusing dialogue: Rhubarb Vaseline tells the other matadors to 'Save a bull for me.' When Vaseline becomes a successful toreador, a lackey tells him 'The bull is without, sir' ... which is funny, but I was disappointed that Laurel didn't reply 'Without WHAT?'.

There's one funny moment here which almost certainly wasn't planned, when Vaseline shows up for the bullfighter auditions. Laurel swaggers into the bullring, and -- before you can say 'corrida querida' -- he tosses a bull over the fence, where it lands with a thump near the other auditioners. The bull is obviously a fake, but the gag is funny anyway ... and, aye, there's a title card with a joke about 'throwing the bull'. The serendipitous moment occurs when Laurel repeats the gag, and Vaseline slings a second bull over the fence. This one lands on its butt, and balances upright for just an instant before toppling. VERY funny! If somebody planned that gag in this quickie comedy, I salute the unknown gagsmith ... and the tech man who rigged the bull to land in that position. More likely it happened by luck, and the director and editor were smart enough to keep it in.

During the silent era, whenever Hollywood made a big-budget feature film which was set anyplace where the people don't speak English, it was a common cinematic device to show a piece of text or an inscription in the local lingo, then dissolve to a shot of the same text in English. I was surprised that this low-budget comedy spent the money to copy that device here: we see a notice-board outside the corrida with a message in Spanish, then it dissolves to the same text in English. Unfortunately, the photography in this cheapo movie is so dark that the effect is wasted.

The actresses in this movie are attractive ... including Broncho Billy's wife Leona Anderson and Stan Laurel's common-law wife Mae Dahlberg; the latter briefly does a pretty dance. (Mae had danced in Stan's vaudeville act.) I was surprised to spot Charlie Chaplin's half-brother Wheeler Dryden in a brief role, since Chaplin had nothing to do with this movie. In 'Mud and Sand', Laurel gives a funny performance that's quite unlike his later familiar Stanley character ... but this film is much less funny than his brilliant work with Oliver Hardy. My rating: just 3 out of 10. TRIVIA NOTE: Twenty-three years later, in Stan Laurel's very last American film -- 'The Bullfighters' (1945) -- he again played a Spanish bullfighter (with his Spanish voice post-dubbed). Coincidentally, that film used stock footage from 'Blood and Sand': not Valentino's movie, but the Tyrone Power remake. 'Mud and Sand' is funnier than 'The Bullfighters', but not much.


I'm starting to wonder if all these PG-13 horror movies are just glorified screen tests for young and emerging talent. Get a first-time screenwriter, an inexperienced director, a few TV actors looking for their bigscreen break and see what they can do. 'When a Stranger Calls' is a little better than most such recent offerings, but is still completely by-the-book; riddled with plot holes and genre clichés.

The story is unbelievably simplistic. The slim 87 minute running time is heavily padded with inconsequential friends and a pointless cheating boyfriend. The killer is devoid of even the token motivation of Jason or Michael or even the original movie's killer, and as a result is never particularly frightening. The police behave in such an unbelievably ineffectual and lazy manner as to verge on professional misconduct. Simon West brings the same attractive banality to proceedings that he managed with Lara Croft, but his style of directing is decidedly generic, possessing no indicators of real talent or vision. The performances are routine, dark hallways replace genuine horror, and the scares are of the tired cat-in-the-closet variety.

The cinematography and production design, however, are above average for this kind of film. The house is beautifully designed, all dark wood and glassy reflections, and there are a few moments that are of visual interest.

Though lacking an ounce of dramatic originality, it acts as a reasonably satisfying 'dark house' thriller, and maintains interest longer than most of its ilk.


Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every cliché in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a "so bad it's good way" more in a "so bad it's boring way." Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D-


This starts out interestingly, as there's a carnival right next to someone's house with an oil rig right there too and some kind of store-front church across the street with a neon "Jesus Saves" sign, all right in one tiny area....Now that's pretty dazzling, if improbable...and then we go right into the movie which takes improbable to new levels. Of course this is a lame remake of the 1979 thriller starring Carol Kane as the babysitter Jill Johnson....now Jill is some chick that ran her cell phone minutes up so high her evil parents are punishing her by making her work it off, probably something that the audience this movie targets can identify with. Jill is taken to this huge and fancy house on a lake in the middle of nowhere (of course) by her dad to babysit for the Mandrakis family. The children are already nestled all snug in their beds when Jill arrives, and the housekeeper is still there, huh, she couldn't babysit? Of course, despite the remote location one of Jill's friends pops by, one whom with which she apparently has issues as in "boyfriend stealing" or something. Anyway, of course the alarm in the house goes off for no reason and then calls from someone start coming in, calls from someone that wants to kill her. Of course Jill calls the cops and since there hasn't been any actual threat on her life they blow her off, but tell her to call back if there's anything else they can do for her. Check out the scene with Jill calling her friends at the high school bonfire/pep rally or whatever it's supposed to be, it looks like some kind of "Burning Man" festival, ??!!?? There's all kind of contrived scares in this including the cool cat Chester who of course pops up here and there, one of the tiredest "horror movie" clichés there is. I will admit that I dozed off at some point during this, and did I miss anything? Hard to tell, or care, really. This is one of those films that makes me wonder how bad the remakes of "Amityville Horror", "House of Wax" or "The Fog" could have been. Anyway, from reading online reviews, it seems like the folks that were the most scared by this were 12 year old girls, and I can only assume that from statements like "it made me pee-pee my pants". Well, one can only hope that this will put an end to Hollywood remakes of films that weren't exactly stellar to begin with, but don't bet on it. 2 out of 10 and I'm being overly generous.


This movie is bad. Really bad. So bad it made me want to shoot myself in the forehead. I hated this movie. First off, the plot went absolutely nowhere and anything shocking about this movie was seen in the 30 second teaser trailer. Secondly, Anyone who saw the original in 1979 knows that it was a bad movie too and completely unworthy of a remake. By far the best part of the movie is the house it takes place in. Which is not saying much for the actual movie. There were parts in the movie when the music gets very suspenseful and you're positive someone is around the corner and it turns out to be the maid or the cat, but when someone actually is around the corner it is impossible to be even startled because you've been expecting it all movie. So save yourself the money, save yourself the time, save yourself the headache and just watch the trailer. There is absolutely no point in seeing this movie, not in the theater, not on DVD, not on TV, never.


What should have been a routine babysitting gig at a secluded lake house turns into a night of terror, as high school student Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) receives threatening phone calls from a sadistic stalker, while trying to stay one step ahead of him.

The first 20 minutes of the original film were pretty good but it was all downhill from there. The remake takes those first 20 minutes and stretches them into an 80 minute feature film. That's a good idea because its eliminating everything that made the original bad. However, if they wanted this film to work more effectively then they should have hired a better lead actress, better director, writer etc. There's no suspense, everything can be figured out long before it happens and it's a very dull film since not much happens. At least there isn't much to sit through since its less than 90 minutes.

If this premise were to work, then the lead actress has to give a realistic performance. Camilla Belle gives one of the worst performances I have ever seen and throughout the whole movie, she seemed to be reading her lines. You get a lead role in a Hollywood film that will be viewed by millions of people and you give no effort at all! Why did they hire this girl? Sure, she's pretty but she can't act at all yet I suppose this won't matter to the target audience who will most likely eat this film up. The rest of the cast is bland and forgettable especially the woman who plays the maid, Rosa. Even the stranger was lame and his lines on the phone were not effective at all.

This movie reminds me of last years disappointing horror film Boogeyman. That movie was a bunch of cheap scares and false alarms and When a Stranger Calls is pretty much the same. Jill enters a room because she hears a noise but its just a false alarm like a cat or the maid. This type of scene happens over and over again until finally after about 50 minutes, the stranger appears. He has to be one of the lamest killers ever. He carried no weapons and didn't seem to pose much of a threat. The ending is bad but it matches the rest of the film so it doesn't really matter. The film is directed by Simon West and he is really bad at building up suspense. He was using every cliché he could think of and the results weren't very good. The house was amazing and I'll give the film credit for that. It was an isolated house so it was pretty creepy but that's about the only good thing this film has to offer. In the end, if you're not a teenage girl then you should skip the movie. Rating 2/10


That's pretty much all I can say about this flat and uninspired remake of the 1979 Carol Kane vehicle. Camilla Belle isn't much of an actress, and she brings no energy and vitality to the role of Jill Johnson, the babysitter harassed by an anonymous phone caller.

But if you're looking for some great home architecture and interior design ideas, this movie provides more inspiration than anything you'll see on TLC or HGTV. Jill spends nearly 90 minutes wandering through the house of the rich doctor and wife for whom she's providing her sitting services, searching for the origins of strange sounds and things that keep going "bump" in the night. As she lurks around corners and peers down hallways, we get to see a beautiful master bathroom with his and hers sinks that look like Roman tubs, a huge kitchen with incredible back lit glass shelving, and the piece de resistance, a self-contained aviary and coy pond that feature a self-watering system.

Because the movie isn't compelling enough to draw us into Jill's fear, we're distracted by the grandeur of the house, which isn't something you should be doing when you're watching a thriller. Even as Jill is pursued by the faceless maniac, we cringe because she's breaking valuables and messing up the coy pond, not because she's about to get murdered.

The movie plods along as predictably as most teen slasher movies, and the ending is anything but original. By the time it was over, I just wanted to find out where the heck that house was and if it was real. Never mind Jill and the kids she was babysitting.

2 stars - both for the house.


This movie had potential to be a good little high school thriller. Instead, we got a bore fest about a whiny, spoiled brat babysitting. The problem was there were too many unnecessary things. A fight with the boyfriend, random friends coming over to be killed. It was obvious they were just killing time. The main character was bland and uninteresting. Camilla Bell had no emotion during this movie. She was just there. Another problem was the fact that the killer was not a threat. The children survive, so it's obvious they are going to let Jill survive. The only reason this got a four was because the last ten minutes (when the killer FINALLY comes out) is actually exciting.

4/10


While babysitting at an isolated Colorado house, a teen girl is terrorized by an elusive murderer on the telephone.

Remake of the 1979 semi-classic horror film basically takes the opening 20 minutes of the original film and stretches it out to fit an 87 minute time span! So it's pretty needless to say that the plot of this remake is pretty thin. There's little in the way of originality or interest in this movie. There's a lot of Camilla Belle wondering around a dark house wondering who's calling her and encountering all kinds of false scares. It all gets repetitious and routine after the first 30 minutes and never manages to muster up much in the way of suspense or chills. It certainly never reaches the intensity of the original film, especially since it wimps-out and changes one important plot point from the original. I guess we have the PG-13 rating to thank for that.

On the plus side there's an impressive set design and some dark atmosphere, unfortunately there's not much going on around it to save this remake from being sub-par. Belle's performance is pretty mediocre too.

It's just another unimpressive remake.

* 1/2 out of ****


This is so overly clichéd you'll want to switch it off after the first 45 minutes. The beginning is very interesting, with a fair going on and someone gets killed. This movie would have been better, set on this setting.

So, Jill Johnson is a depressed sprinter with boyfriend issues. I don't see the point of adding her breakup with her boyfriend occurs in any of the events in the story.

Since Jill has come home late, her father sends her to babysit for the Mandrakis's in their glamorous home in a deserted lake. The kids are sleeping and the maid is cleaning, another empty house to the side for their son who's at college. OK.

After about half an hour of her stalking around the house by herself, she gets a couple of hang ups. Ooh, scary ones. TO which her friend comes to the rescue, to come up with a couple of high school lines about 'love' and whatever. Friend leaves and goes to her car. TO which then, she drops her keys. Uhhh...then the music! DumDumDum..! She fumbles to pick them up, and gets into her car. Which of course, doesn't start. How cliché'd is that..? So..She disappears =D Jill, alone again. UH. (Most of this movie is with her by herself, so there's not much dialog) So more hangups, she calls the police. Who say they cant help her, but call back if she has any more problems.

So then she suspects that her boyfriend is calling, or her boyfriends friends are calling. They have been but only once. Like thats supposed to be scary much? Oh, and did I mention? Her friend just now comes on caller ID and some creepy man voice comes on. She gets all freaked out and shyt.

Yeah, so skip that. She see's the light in the house of the Mandrakis's son go on. So she runs through the woods with music as her companion and goes in. Bleheh.

AH ITS SO BORING I CANT CONTINUE!!!!!!!!!


Simon West's remake of the 1979 horror classic is a pathetic attempt to bring old school thrills to a contemporary audience. Starring talented teen Camilla Belle, When a Stanger Calls fails to even elicit a shocked, or even surprised face. Poor attempts at scaring the audience range from blurred coats that look like people to building the tense music up for a cat running out of the shadows. The plot follows Jill Johnson (Belle), a teenage girl that has to pay off a bill to her father via babysitting. She is invited to work for the night at a house by the river, and thinks it a perfectly easy way to make cash. But little does she know, a stranger lurks in the house, and constantly harasses Johnson via the phone. A pathetic excuse for a film.


When a Stranger Calls belongs to the group of this year's remakes, with movies like Poseidon just over the horizon. Director Simon West (Con Air) helms this updated version, with plenty of relative unknown casts, which signals either the death rate is high (it isn't), or that established stars are steering clear from a potential turkey.

Clocking in at a relatively short 87 minutes, it's primarily made up of two acts. The first, which takes a full one hour, is the setup. Our heroine, Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle), chalked up 800 minutes of talk time on her mobile phone (do the math), and as a lesson in responsibility, her parents had confiscated her mobile and grounded her. To pay off her debt, she works part time as a babysitter, and looking after the wealthy Mandrakis' kids, is her first stint.

The huge Mandrakis mansion gets a full tour treatment, as it is where all the action will take place. Plenty of rooms (makes for good hiding), an indoor pool sized aquarium-pond (to get wet in, for the wet T-shirt treatment), and check this out - motion detector lights, which you just know will contribute to the scares with the manipulation of lights and shadows. Naturally, prank calls, red herrings are aplenty, which chalks up this act's runtime, but most of them fall flat in the suspense department.

There's a minor trend emerging, with actors being the unseen, providing and acting through their voice instead. Recent attempts include Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven, and Hugo Weaving's V for Vendetta. Here, Lance Henriksen does the honours for the anonymous, nameless psychotic killer, but it just falls flat. Why? The script doesn't give him much dialogue. Most of the phone calls made were of the silent (mind-masturbatory) nature, which I felt was a waste - they could have also casted some unknown instead, and the job will still get done.

The second act, where the main action takes place, is too little too late. And the bogeyman, well, is purely a bogeyman. Those expecting blood and gore will be disappointed, as basically it's a one -woman show to hold your attention in the first hour (eye candies always succeed), and this act will have her resolve everything in double quick time, ala Rachel McAdams in Red Eye. Don't expect any form of character development, nor subplots that will engage.

The ending tried to be too smart for its own good, and came across as a cheap way to end the movie. There's not much of goodness to highlight from this movie - no scares, no thrills, no enigmatic villain, and plenty of security flaws, especially with that door alarm - the only thing it's good for, is to provide a number for 4D.


The original WASC isn't by any means a must see movie in the genre. In fact, if it weren't for it's chilling first 25 minutes there wouldn't be any logical reason for watching it. The remake takes those 25 minutes and turns them into a mediocre 85 minute teen Horror flick.

Now, I don't have anything against PG-13 Horror movies but the tendency surrounding them is getting lame. When you see the PG-13 rating you expect a movie filled with false scares, teen t.v. or music stars, and a plot that has been used for several times. Don't even ask for gore or violence.

I know that it's not correct to compare both the original WASC and the remake, but I think that it's necessary to do it because the whole idea of the new one is based on the beginning of the original. The tension that is felt through the first movie is not present by any means in the remake. Not even with the amazing settings or great use of lightning. No tension, suspense, thrills...nothing. The movie goes too slow before it gets a little "interesting", and that's when the stranger appears. The chasing sequence is probably the best part of the movie because at least there's a feeling of "what will happen next?". But that's it. The situations that set up for the climax are predictable, boring, and lack of suspense. The original has merits for having suspense in the most important scenes, and also, for a chilling climax for the most important scene of the movie.

Now, I understand that this is a PG-13 Horror movie but, if you pay respect to the original. Why change it's most important situation? The children are not supposed to survive! After the ending I felt like this movie was pointless. So the baby sitter was playing cat and mouse with a wacko...that's it?. Then, the sequence at the hospital was plain stupid. And worst of all, it means that a sequel may be on the way.

Camila Belle is the best thing about the movie. She delivers a cute, believable performance. She needs to pick better projects although this role will gain for her thousands of teenager fans.

Please, don't watch this movie. Some people say that in order to support the Horror genre we are supposed to support any movie that comes out. I don't necessary agree. If we ignore movies like WASC then the producers of Horror movies will understand that we won't accept CRAP. We want good Horror movies, not lame flicks filled with false scares.

Watch the original "When A Stranger Calls" instead because it's first 25 minutes are WAY BETTER than the whole (pointless) remake.


Unlike most reviewers here, I hated this movie, simply because the writer/director's bloated ego was in the way of an otherwise potentially interesting topic. Too many film fans equate 'EXTREME self-indulgence' to 'film GENIUS!', but I don't buy into that cult of personality. A film should be about its subject, not its director (unless it's a Woody Allen film, of course). *SPOILER* (which is just as well, save your time...) There is nothing brilliant about of showing you the foot-long porn-star's you-know-what in the last frame- that's actually called a tacky maneuver that SCREAMS film-school hackism.

The poseur flick has achieved 'great film' status based on its indulgence and pandering to the audience  which, first and foremost, is the writer/director. But the rest of the audience should look down on the surly, brutal nature of the porn biz, too. The flick had an aloof angle to the porn industry, looking down on each and every player it could bash. No matter, just love your writer/director. Love those four-minute steadicam segments, which are supposed to show the energy of the moment, but somehow had all the verve of an off switch. Love the story- no matter how dull it is- about the gee-whiz rise and sordid fall of a porn star. But look down on it, too, of course. While the subject has the potential to be fascinating  innocence, money, degradation, beauty- your worshipful writer/director somehow managed to make it all look, again, DULL. Partly because of its run time. Here is something your auteur hero DIDN'T try: Giving the characters dimension. Or soul. Anything AT ALL to give a hoot about, aside from Genius That Paul Is, of course. But I'm not buying. I don't buy into indulgent hacks with astounding hype.

Another overlong auteurist hack piece, with fifty times more hype than quality. I know some of you agree. The rest will see likely see this indulgent flick again. Not my problem.


Sorry this movie was a bad made for TV movie. Are the rest of you on drugs when you watched it? I thought the hair,make-up and characters were poor 2 dimensional types. The story is doubtful,especially since all of the main characters are dead,or nearly dead. I think it's not well acted either...what was up with that hair on the main guy in the Turtles? It looked glued on badly, and the sideburns looked like they were going to fall off at any moment. It didn't feel like anything new was revealed in the story of the band and how the members met other bands,and people. I laughed all the way through it,Frank Zappa looked stupid,so did Mama Cass, and so did the Beatles. They were made out to look stupid and ridiculous. Also the other band people like Jim Morrison,Donovan also took a big hit at looking stupid too. Kind of terrible,if this is how you remember these people. It's a poor history lesson on music,it's fictional the way it was made.


This film really misses the mark on most fronts. The accents are laughably weak, the acting amateurish and the comedy weak at best.

They've got a great idea, it could have been particularly enjoyable but for the reasons mentioned above.

The writer seems to think by putting the word f*ck into every sentence it'll make it funnier and the main character just seems to try a little too hard. He's no Brick top thats for sure.

Next time at least get a cast that can keep the accent for the whole film.

It's a crime to compare this to films like The Business, Lock Stock and Snatch.


I've sat through less painful operations than the time I spent watching this film.

If you give it a try thinking it's going to be something in the vein of a Guy Ritchie flick.....Think again! The production, dialogue, acting, script , film work and plot were about the worst I've ever seen in a film. My fave part in all honesty was the closing credits. In all the history of cinema has there never been a better excuse for turning off the TV and going out and doing something better with your life.

Have root canal work done rather than wasting your time and money on this!


The film moves along quite well but the acting, direction and editing leave a lot to be desired. The characters are mostly lifted from other films and the Vinnie Jones lookalike is straight out of Gone in 50 Seconds. The comedy gangster movie is a genre that should have lots of contrast, the stupid dealers in Lock Stock and the shoot out that leaves everyone dead. You should never really know whether to laugh or just sit there in shock. This movie had the right elements but it is too easy to sit there like a person knitting and tut at the small details that should have been fixed somewhere along the line and once belief has been unsuspended one just become increasingly critical. A pity cos it was a brave attempt and although Clint Eastwood is famous for saying that'll be OK for a scene, he puts the work in before he shoots and he is Clint Eastwood. Here a bit more imagination with the camera and and a bit more coaching and rehearsal for the delivery of the lines would have made a big difference.


Words almost fail me to describe how terrible this Irish vanity project (funded by Canadian taxpayers - both federal and Albertan) really is.

There's a sudden appearance by a nice looking Canadian woman (Kathy Ranheim) who in real life was a star athlete in Alberta, for no other reason to ensure Canadian content. Credits also indicate that certain Calgary pubs were of assistance.

Everything here is poorly filmed and at least third-hand (chunks of poorly digested Trainspotting, Lock Stock, Snatch and Reservoir Dogs are the most obvious steals). Avoid like the plague unless you fancy one of those campy "so bad it's almost funny" nights in front of your telly.


DIRTY WAR

Aspect ratio: 1.78:1

Sound format: Stereo

Emergency services struggle to cope when Islamic terrorists detonate a so-called 'dirty bomb' in the middle of London.

Daniel Percival's frightening movie uses all available evidence to dramatize the possible effects of a radioactive explosion in the heart of the UK capital, using the kind of documentary-style realism which has distinguished this particular subgenre since the 1960's. In essence, the film reveals a catalogue of flaws in the British government's current strategy for dealing with such terrorist outrages, and Percival's carefully-honed script (co-written by Lizzie Mickery) vents its spleen against mealy-mouthed politicians who would rather maintain the economic status quo than tackle this issue head-on. The film covers all necessary bases, and makes the salient point that this kind of terrorism is practised by a tiny handful of fanatics who have tarnished the Islamic faith with their reckless disregard for human life, though viewers won't be reassured by the subsequent scenes of devastation and horror. Not merely a drama, the film acts as a warning against complacency. Either that, or its just another post-9/11 scaremongering tactic. YOU be the judge...


Highly suggest not to watch this film 'TV' if not mentally mature enough , the film create quite realistic simulation with the steps how they prevent from terrorism if such touch wood incident happened , London suppose a Lovely and chill ful City , while these kind of wars still going on , just wasting the time and money for study and Living, every time passing around P Square, the feeling really obvious, uncomfortable actually , I don't want to vote , the scored means nothing , just 4 'fill in the blank'

Only Safty and Positive thinking cities encourage better Economy and investors to keep investing Time,Energies and Money


Anyone remember the docudrama THREADS ? It's a drama documentary which shocked Britain in September 1984 . Whilst not exactly wholly entertained by Mick Jackson's nuclear holocaust horror film I could respect it . Unfortunately I can't respect this docudrama broadcast 20 years later which deals with terrorists letting off a radioactive dirty bomb in the centre of London

The problem I have with it is that director Daniel Percival production values are far too good when in fact this would have benefited from rather cheap production values . The cinematography is superb but in this type of speculative drama do we need superb and well lit Oscar standard cinematography ? What we certainly don't need is a musical score as the survivors of the blast slowly stagger out of the smoke . Neither do we need vaguely well known cast members . Did anyone else sit there asking themselves " Hey what was he in ? I know that face " several times ? I know I did and it's very distracting .

Perhaps the biggest production flaw with DIRTY WAR is that someone decided to make it a docudrama with too much stylistic emphasis on the drama . In THREADS the action cuts away from the action in Sheffield umpteen times and becomes an edition of HORIZON on the effects of nuclear war before cutting back to the fictional protagonists again and THREADS is very effective because of this . Here the information presented suffocates the drama which drowns in expositional and totally unconvincing dialogue . The characters in the teleplay aren't really characters they're just cyphers there to inform the audience what happens when radioactive material is exploded . It would have been better for the action to cut to captions to convey this type of information ala THREADS . The worse thing is that director Daniel Percival used the same technique as seen in THREADS a couple of years ago with his docudrama about smallpox . He should have used the same style with DIRTY WAR

I should also lay my cards on the table and state that while I don't consider most Muslims are terrorists I am getting slightly fed up of TV productions like THE HAMBURG CELL , THE GRID and DIRTY WAR having to point out this fact to me by whalloping me over the head with it which is somewhat typical of patronising PC attitudes in TV companies nowadays

I managed to miss the studio debate that Bob mentions here but I have also heard it discussed elsewhere and I can't help thinking it makes better viewing than DIRTY WAR itself with its heated arguments between differing factions of the political spectrum . If DIRTY WAR is remembered twenty years from now ( Highly unlikely I know ) it may well be remembered for the discussion it caused more than anything


I have watched this movie over and over since it first came out. I was fifteen and even then, I knew it was cheesy. It had such great potential and I constantly rewrite the script in my head. The Capoeira ruined what could have been a good drama. I loved the fact that it was shot on location. Too bad that the characters were underdeveloped. It's like they wrote a first draft of a script then made the movie right away. At fifteen I could have written a better script!Some scenes and dialog seemed to come out of nowhere and you were left with a lot of unanswered questions. And was it just me, or did it seem like Lobo was sexually attracted to his cousin? "Elena's grown into some kind of woman!" And the way he was always touching her. Would have an interesting plot twist, Elena working for her drug dealing cousin who is also a perv. Too bad they missed the mark on this one.


Begotten is, no doubt, someone's attempt at originality, but, what we have here is art in its most morbid, grotesque form, so, for that, Begotten has my respect, but, to be realistic, it makes no difference what this abomination is about, but for the record...

In the ultimate in incoherent horror, we begin in an unknown time, in an unknown place. Right off the bat, we are plunged into the psychotic nightmare that is Begotten, a god is, seemingly depressed, mutilating himself with a razor, I mean, really trying like hell to end it all, it takes a while (why wouldn't it?) After this ultra-morbid introduction, something is happening, something is rising from the corpse, say hello to Mother Earth. What does she do? Well, she gives birth to a thing. The thing would have probably preferred to stay in the womb, but that's life. The psychotic nightmare realm of Begotten welcomes the thing the only way it knows how. The thing, along with Mother Earth is mutilated by unknown, hooded, assailants, with evil intentions being the only clarity available. From this point on, things drag as they've never dragged before. Interesting, grim images, with a totally decent soundtrack, is the high points of the remainder. Not to give the impression that I don't recommend this evilness, because I do, but only once, and only for people with an appreciation for the dark side.

From my description, it may appear that I don't "get" Begotten. Trust me, I get it, and yes, Begotten is art if I've ever seen it. Everything in this film, regardless of how unrelated it may seem, is significant. That, perhaps, is the only thing that makes Begotten art. With that said, most of us require some form of entertainment value, and this is coming from someone who enjoyed The Chooper. Probably the most intriguing first five minutes, I've seen in a film, but let's be realistic, the next 7 hours and 55 minutes would put one in a coma, that is, unless it's just meant for some kind of psychedelic purposes, in that case, never mind. But, how would one rate such a uniquely boring masterpiece? Depending on how much your attention span can take, It should be either 1 or 10, any other number just wouldn't make a statement. It hurts to do this, but as far as entertainment value goes, Begotten just ain't it. 1/1