The whole set-up of this contrived Disney family film (ad-exec gets his teenage daughter a horse because she "wants one more than anything else in the world") is just an excuse to film the big climactic horse-show at the end. All the other ingredients (the ad campaign for the stomach pill, Kurt Russell as a potential boyfriend for the youngster, Lloyd Bochner as a potential rival for Dean Jones over the affections of Diane Baker) are shelved near the end simply to showcase the horse. Over half the picture is padding, and worse: it is whiny and obnoxious. The kid is the ninny-sort who cries on the couch with a dog in her arms, and as usual she gets her way. * from ****


Arnold fans will holler in joy, fans of brainless action will holler in astonishment, and Catholics will just holler.

Illogically written by Andrew W. Marlowe and ham-handedly directed by Peter Hyams, *End of Days* gets The Terminator out of his open-backed hospital gown (Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his heart operation), whilst blowing things up in Mysterious Ways and blaspheming Biblical verse to give Catholics something more to whine about.

It is 1999 and doom-sayers the world over live in trepidation of their computers going fritz and losing their downloaded porn. Even as the technological stank of Y2K muttons the New York streets, ex-cop turned alcoholic security guard, Jericho Cane (Schwarzenegger, with the perfunctory "dead-wife-and-kid" back-story for Loose Cannon effect), must brave theological waters to save 20-year-old virgin Christine (Robin Tunney) from being conscripted as  wait for it  The Bride of Satan. Dun dah daaaarrrh! Stupidity ensues.

For every anti-hero, there is his anti-Christ. Gabriel Byrne is the devil here  and he's out to party like it's 1999, on a mission to impregnate Christine with the Anti-Christ between 11 pm and 12 midnight, December 31, 1999  ironically, in the hour that all porn will be lost  thereby bringing about the End of Days. Being able to read minds, conjure hallucinations and employ limitless magic, it doesn't occur to Satan to expedite the impregnation process by appearing months in advance and courting Christine as a teen model and then closing the panty raid easily at the appointed time; instead, he appears on December 28th like a Keyser Soze Terminator and wonders why she doesn't welcome him with open thighs (See above comment re: stupidity.) Here is a movie where nothing makes sense the moment it is uttered, let alone after contemplating its veracity or mythology. A priest (Rod Steiger) tells Jericho that '666' is really '999' upside down with a '1' in front of it. So wait - *Prince* is the Anti-Christ?

Satan Soze pursues Jericho and Christine (J and C  get it?) around town, at no point doing anything which would actually precipitate their capture. In one scene, Satan recreates Jericho's wife and child to tempt him into revealing where he hid Christine. But if he can see so deeply into Jericho's mind in recreating his family with enough nuance to inspire nostalgia, why can't he see where Jericho hid Christine not ten minutes ago?

Satan can make an assassin talk without a tongue, yet he can't make that assassin unjam a semi-automatic weapon. And when Jericho shoots Satan at point blank range, Satan is courteous enough to open his shirt to reveal the wounds closing, so Jericho won't worry unduly about Satan's health - not sanitary to go about with open bullet wounds Matter of fact, instead of simply possessing Jericho himself to get close to Christine and rape her, Satan expends so much unnecessary energy on side-projects (crucifying the tongue-less guy, blowing up Jericho's partner (Kevin Pollak) and then saving him, and then blowing him up again, ridiculously battling Jericho when he could snuff him out with the effort of thought) that we wonder whether a more efficient assassin/lover shouldn't be put on the case  say, Antonio Banderas.

What I find most precious about *End of Days* is Arnold's valiant attempts at The Method: "sad" means scrunching up his eyes and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent; "depressed" means raising a bottle to his lips and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent; "deathly scared" means widening his eyes and not blurting out anything in a foreign accent. There's definitely a pattern here, if we could only decipher it.

In the end, the devil is dispatched not by the holy men whom Catholics pray to for deliverance from apocalypses such as these, but from the atheist Jericho. While the timid men of an impotent god exhort "faith" and quiver in their cells doing nothing about Satan actually walking amongst them, the Prince of Darkness is thwarted by a nullifidian with a big gun and a foreign accent. Which clearly says something that Catholics blindly refuse to hear: that even if the Devil were to exist, those who have been indoctrinated to unconditionally and irrationally fear him would be unable to conjure a belief in his downfall, let alone act towards it. Further, they might not truly WANT him defeated, for only through his contrary polarity does their god's existence become tenable.

For it is written in the Book of Revelations: "And the Prince of Darkness shall descendeth upon the Earth without any solid game plan, and impregnate a virgin on a date which won't have any significance until the Gregorian Calendar of the 1500s adopts the day numbering which will put it in sync with the equinoxes and the Anno Domine syntax which will annoy sensible people for millennia, by which time, Christians will have forgotten Christ's actual birth date and appropriated the pagan Saturnalia festival in its stead. And the Prince shall effect a Revolution through tight purple pants and ambiguously-lesbian band members" I can believe the people being drained of blood and crucified, and the alcoholic built like a Mr. Universe; I can believe that a giant, supernatural monster can't kill a guy armed only with a foreign accent; I can even believe that the devil needs to perform some hokey thirteenth century Celtic Druid ritual as foreplay - but what I cannot believe is the 20-year-old virgin in New York City in 1999.

Especially around Prince...


Let's summarize how dumb this movie is with two details : Arnold to Antichrist : "Let's see who is meanest" said with a straight face. And you can tell they were not trying to be funny.

How do you think Arnold will battle the evil of all evils?

Blessed Water, A crucifix, a priest..nooo! with a bazooka, yes not even Satan expected it they're so clever.

After an engaging beginning (which reminds you of Devil's Advocate) it goes nowhere. Somebody get me those two hours of my life back. Don't ever watch it, rent it, lest buy it.


End of Days is one of the worst big-budget action movies I've ever seen. Muddling direction, meandering script loaded with lame dialogues and gaping plot holes, rapid-fire MTV-style editing and poor acting all the way.

That's not to say End of Days isn't watchable. The movie kept me interested because I found Ah-nuld's latest action flick laughably stupid for being so inept and silly when it comes to logic. Without the sense of logic the movie dies quicker, which is why End of Days deserved a huge drop of box office reception in its second week after the opening in the U.S.

I won't go into the details explaining why End of Days violates the law of movie logic, but here are several problems with this movie:

(SPOILER)

After the Devil walks out, the restaurant explodes without any trace as to how he did it. No snapping finger, no tampered energy gas to ignite the fire, nothing. How could this happen?

Arnold and his annoying sidekick Kevin Pollack somehow magically comes up with the name "Christine York" after examining the phrase "Christ in New York" carved on a victim's body, runs the database on the computer and, viola, Christine York, the only person with the exact name in all of New York City! Beyond my suspension of disbelief.

How did the characters who have come in contact with Arnold's character turn against him later in the movie? I laughed out loud when I recognized the good-stepmother-turned-evil-stepmother is the same actress who played a nanny in William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. Her ironic transition from that film to this was absolutely hilarious if you can imagine.

All the mindlessly huge explosions and gunfires. What did you expect in the Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle?

The Devil took a man's body comprising of flesh and blood, yet he's invisible to bullets and explosions by healing through that body. Logically, this is impossible.

As the Devil demostrates the illusion in the apartment, Arnold's character runs into the solid Christmas tree that supposedly is an illusion and *falls on it* physically.

The Devil is capable of punching the person's brains out and twisting a victim's head 180 degree, yet he could not kill Arnold's character as he always intends to.

How the Devil's object of desire's parents died and why evil New Yorkers run after Arnold and the object of desire were never explained at all.

In the sequence that's a rip-off of Speed, Arnold and the Devil's object of desire manage to escape the subway train wreck by the short distance inside unscathed. This is beyond my comprehension, since the force would be enough to throw Arnold and the object of desire around violently and die from fatal wounds seconds after impact.

Arnold suffers the brutal beating from the mob sanctioned by the Devil and put him on the cross to hang against the wall, yet the Devil forgot to take the time and opportunity to kill him for convenience's sake.

At the beginning of the movie, after the Devil took over a man's body, all of a sudden Arnold is his bodyguard??? Is this a coincidence or just an example of bad editing?

Arnold's recital of cringe-inducing dialogues in the particularly laughable scenes like "YOU ARE A CHOIRBOY COMPARED TO ME!" are the perfect fodder for MST3K, just as Eraser did with the classic line "You're the luggage!".

The whole theory about 666/1999 is downright ludicrous. So are the pseudo-religious babble about the Christian theology involving the end of the world at precisely midnight and the fanatic killers who know the location of the Devil's object of desire.

(END SPOILERS)

It is highly ironic that End of Days uses the scattered profanities abusing the deity while rambling about Christian theories. The level of violence in the film is excessive and gruesome, and is therefore unnecessary to serve the plot. The director's indulgence of excess is a factor here. He surely doesn't know how to make a coherent action movie from the screenwriter of Air Force One who was only obliged to write the script just for a big sum of money.

Hence, End of Days is a worthless film with no redeeming value except for campiness -- Arnold's worst since Hercules in New York.


Throughout watching "End of Days", I got the sense that the film makers were perhaps trying to make this unique to the average Hollywood action film. They failed, of course, but you have to give them credit for trying. Peter Hyams actually tried directing this time, instead of just churning out another flat action film. He attempted to inject atmosphere into the movie by darkening the lights and adding tons of blood. This method can work if used correctly (see "Se7en") but here it just feels like a cheap trick to try and scare us. Hyams is a decent action director, and offers nothing more here than basic shoot outs and fight scenes, except for the lackluster, sub par f/x end "battle". As a photographer, Hyams demonstrates actual ability, displaying some good frame work and movement, but it is nothing above solid work.

Screenwriter Andrew Marlowe is the film's greatest enemy. At parts, the script actually shows the makings of good religious thriller, and at times it even shows some quasi-intellectual thought (the Temptation scene between Arnold and Gabriel Byrne), but these small pluses are choked out by a river of negatives. Generic dialogue/characters, gapping plot holes, and convenient plot points that just happen to point all the characters in the right direction are just a few of the standard Hollywood black holes Marlowe's screenplay falls into. The shadow of the good movie it could have been faded very quickly.

The film surprisingly has a good cast. Arnold, still possessing that larger than life attitude, tries to play a depressed, on the edge cop with no more than average results. Stick to be the invincible hero Arnie, it's what your good at. Gabriel Byrne is the strong point of the ensemble, bringing a nice air of cynicism to the role of Satan. In a villainous role ripe for overacting, Byrne restrains himself and it adds a bit more menace to the character. Kevin Pollak, as normal, is able to bring at least a few chuckles to the movie, but he's done better. Also look for a stellar small role from Rod Steiger.

Hyams looked like he was trying to separate this from the faceless mass of Hollywood action films. He was heading in the right direction, but had neither the script or originality to take it there.

4/10


End of Days, starts off pretty well, Arnie plays a down and out cop (a very similar character to Riggs in Lethal weapon) and the story looks like a kind of serial killer action thriller that will be good entertainment.

Sadly it fails to deliver, Arnie is as good as we we have come to expect, but as for Gabriel Byrne i expect him to chose his roles more carefully than this. cast as the devil; this is probably the weakest portrayal of the lord of darkness ever.

This movie gets a little too daft for me, and the end sequence, aside from being very weak, is visually one of the worst i've seen in recent years, CGI is have been better than this since the early nineties.

Quite simply not good enough. 4/10 (Watch it if you have too, but don't expect too much, cause it won't deliver)


I really don't know why I'm writting this. I think most people agree that this movie is bad. Well, let me say this:

When I first get done watching some movies, I like them. Then as time goes on, my opinion changes about the movie. this happened with End of Days. I liked it the first time I saw it. I thought it was entertaining. But, a few weeks later, my opinion has changed. So, to resolve this, I watched it again at a friends house. Well, it's bad.

I'm a logic person. If I see a logic hole in a movie, I try to ignore it. If I see two, then I start to get annoyed. More than two and I'm p***ed off. End of Days made me p***ed off after my second viewing.

First off, the movie is a bit depressing. Everything about it is sad. Everything from Arnold's acting to the movie's colors. But dark looking movies don't bother me, but some thing else did...

If Satan can regenerate his wounds, how can you possible kill him in his mortal form? If you shoot him, his skin grows back. If you cut off his head, a new one should pop back up. So question: what's the point of even trying to kill him? I'll tell you why: because this is a stupid movie that has a recycled villain. This isn't the devil my friends. This is a human being reminescent of those Bond villains who give away there entire scheme to the hero.

Like I said it's worth a look, but don't see it twice, because it's crap.


What does this movie have? Lots of gunfire and expensive effects. Nothing makes sense on any other level.

Watching Arnold cry is seeing acting so bad that it is laughable. The plot is ludicrous.

If you think the Devil will be impressed by a bad actor with a machine gun, well, this movie is for you!


I never thought I would absolutly hate an Arnold Schwartzeneggar film, BUT this is is dreadful from the get go. there isnt one redeemable scene in the entire 123 long minutes. an absolute waste of time

 thank yu

 Jay harris


I was waiting to welcome Arnold Schwarzeneger's return to action after the dismal movies he'd made after "Eraser." "End of Days," however, can be added to the dismal films he's had the misfortune of appearing in.

"End of Days" starts well with a gripping action sequence, yet quickly becomes a bore, taking the focus off action and suspense and instead concentrating on the investigation of demonic happenings and the quickly approaching millenium (read "Doomsday").

Performances are stale, special effects so-so, and gore plentiful. Considering myself a die-hard Schwarzenegger fan, I couldn't believe I didn't like this film, but with such an awful, lame script, what could Arnie have done, besides passed on this turkey?

3 out of 10


I like Arnold, and I love the subject matter, but this was a very disappointing movie. When I first saw the previews, they were dark and ominous, and Arnold's name wasn't even mentioned. But I recognized him, which led me to believe that he was making a movie that had more of a serious, suspenseful mood. That it wasn't just another Schwarzenegger action vehicle (though I admit, most of his are pretty good!). He had, thus far, avoided movies with any real religious theme. And I was excited. I was wrong. This is just another action, explosion, gun fire movie. And it's a pretty bad one.


To sum it all up, skip End of Days and watch rent Roman Polanski's The Ninth Gate instead. This movie is the perfect stereotypical American movie vs Ninth Gate being the perfect stereotypical European movie.

Ninth Gate: Noir-ish, intelligent, nicely scored, atmospheric, excellent acting (Johnny Depp, esp), beautiful scenery, good cinematography, funny one-liners, intellectual, minimal foul language, thought-provoking. The only fault is it that a few people didn't understand the open-ended ending and said the movie was "crappy" because of that and there were a couple of questionable scenes.

End of Days: Overly violent, liberal use of foul language, NO musical score except for a poor attempt at a commercial soundtrack that was only heard when Gabriel Byrne stalked around NYC as Satan (but all you could pick out was Korn's Jonathan Davis unintelligible screaming), sex that had nothing to do with the plot, violence, incredibly predictable, violence, and did I mention lots more violence? I guess some of the special effects were good but that's about it.

Well, maybe I'm wrong but I thought Ninth Gate was far more interesting, quirky, original, and intelligent. But maybe Americans don't need need that. *dripping with cynicism* Even though I am an American, sometimes I wonder.


One of the worst Arnold movies I've seen. Special effects were terrible. Script was horrible. Hopefully his next movie will be much better like T2, Total Recall, True Lies and Eraser(not as good as the rest). Watch Stigmata if you want to see an apocalyptic future movie. It's much better.


I felt that the film was rushed, and the acting was full of holes. Arnold was good, but the main girl was stupid, and the guy who played the devil was awful. The story was confusing and idiotic. The film had no point, and was unbelievable. The movie is not the worst movie, but is not too far away from it. Overall I was awfully disappointed, it could have been alot better. My score is a 3 out of 10


The plot of this boils down to Ah-nuld versus Satan, and what I remember most about the movie is a lot of explosions, gunfire, blood, noise, and let's not forget that flammable satanic urine. The story is nonsensical, utterly predictable, and so full of holes I couldn't take a bit of it seriously. Stick to "Rosemary's Baby" or "The Exorcist" if you want to see a really good devil movie and....um, well, I can't think of any good "Action" movies at the moment (probably because they're so far-and-few-between), so you're on your own in that category. This flick does get a 3 out of 10 rating from me for its camp value, and for a pretty-good performance by Gabriel Byrne as that old debbil Satan!


this film sucks a big one. so many holes in the plot. if the devil is invincible, why does he require the protection of arnies bodyguards? I couldn't fathom why arnie didn't turn up for work for several days and then suddenly appears, takes their entire armoury and disappears again!! Nice work if you can get it. It's sad that the last 1/2 hour has to result in the standard arnie 'uzi 9mm' finale. Arnies interpretation of a depressed cop is to bow his head and sniff. i thought he had a bad cold for most of the film. Dreadfully scripted, Arnie is called 'buddy', 'dude' etc for 95% of the film and then suddenly we hear him being called by his real name of Jericho Cane (where do they get these names from??). The ending is so twee you'd better get the barf bag ready. Shame that Gladiator pulled off the same ending with 100% more class.


All the hype! All the adds! I was bummed that I missed this on the big screen. Where this film worked was in the little details. In EVERYTHING else it failed. Arnold has done so many better performances in the past few years. I thought the days of Commando and Last Action Hero were gone from our lives. Sadly this film panders to the lowest common denominator and reduces Arnold to a bellowing, grunting, face contorting muscle that just knows how to shoot guns and blow things up. In a cliche last moment (and at one other time), that was predictable from the start, we see a glimmer of the actor that has proven he is more than what he got paid for early in his career. I was unimpressed with the film as it never broke new ground or went anywhere but where you expected it to.


The core issues at play (God & Satan / Good & Evil) can be & should be tremendously compelling (as demonstrated through thousands of works of art/music/literature/film). End of Days, unfortunately, is nothing but a 2Dimensional Cartoon. Byrne's acting ability stands so obviously in sharp contrast to Arnold's corresponding lack of ability and is further underlined by a plot filled with nothing but stereotypes.

The single compelling scene occurs at the very beginning with the transformation of the Gabriel Byrne character and his subsequent interaction with his wife? girlfriend? It is both erotically charged & repellent -- modernizing the vampirish themes, the seductive power of evil.


Quite liked Flesh and looking forward to Heat but couldn't help but feel Morrissey grossly exploited most of the "performers" featured here. Stumbling around naked in a narcotic stupor seems to be all Dallesandro was capable of in this feature--a huge and heartbreaking contrast from Flesh. His semi-erection in a few scenes is the only indication that he might be acting; mostly it looks like something he did to buy drugs. Woodlawn is a revelation all right--she is the embodiment of the Lower East Side. But hers is a one woman show--she rarely engages the other performers though, it has to be said, her sex scene with a beer bottle definitely leaves Halle Berry in the shade when it comes to cinematic displays of raw passion. When she pounces on a young, would-be lover it is with the ferocity of a vampire. Two of the female performers, Andrea and Jane, have such annoying voices you'll have to mute the sound to get through their scenes. The fact that several of these performers committed suicide or were murdered a few years after only adds to the air of exploitation. But they were probably desperate to get in front of Morrissey's camera anyway. There probably isn't a worse way to spend a Saturday night but at least it brings a specific time and place vividly to life.


I like underground films when they have something to say, or show, for that matter. I tried hard to like "Trash". I tried to see some artistic achievement, or some interesting representation of New York City life in the early 70's. Or at least being entertained by it? But the movie stinks and can't be called either art or entertainment.

"Trash" is basically an excuse to expose Joe Dallesandro's nude body for 2 hours, while he meets other uninteresting, annoying figures (I agree, that's a gorgeous body, but no excuse for a whole movie about it, right?). Holly Woodlawn, as Joe's girlfriend, provides a few good laughs by the end, but then it's too late to save those wasted couple of hours. Lou Reed's classic song "Walk on the Wild Side" is a better portrayal of those people and that time, even if it's more fascinating than they actually were. 1.5/10.


This is absolute drivel, designed to shock and titillate the 60's mindset. The acting is completely wooden, consisting mainly of ad-libbing, which results in the sub standard actors dribbling the first thing they can think of, repetitively.

The end result is of a badly written play being read by people who have no idea and couldn't care. The one exception to this is the lead character "Joe" (played by Joe Dallesandro) who spends a lot of the film in a naked stupor (either stoned, or the only one in the piece who can act!) Please don't think I don't "get" Warhol - this is plainly and simply a Stinker that should never have made it out of a film class.


Yes, it's pure trash. It might be interesting for every guy who likes experimental cinema (like me) to see lowlifes babbling and doing nothing for almost two hours, but it gets very painful when you realize you have actually paid for this. Probably, this is one of those films you love to watch for its complete emptiness and nihilism. I accept it though for its shock value, decades before Trainspotting and Pulp Fiction.


From the portrayals of Andy Warhol in the films I Shot Andy Warhol and Basquiat, this is the type of movie I would predict Andy Warhol might make--airy, illogical, snobbish, amoral. The movie's (almost non-existent) plot which is sometimes increduously unbelievable is offset by the movie's rough, real-looking cinematography. The film has a way of being unreal, yet dictating reality to the viewer. The only worthwhile part of the movie is the development of the relationship between Joe and Holly and every thing in it should be viewed as a characterization device. There are a couple of comical scenes that I do admit are funny, but Trash is really just about a character study of unengaging people that is mildly enjoyable if you do not mind watching nudity and i.v. drug use.


I think Trash really sucks. I watched it a couple of weeks ago and I haven't seen that kind of c**p at the cinema since Female Trouble by John Waters and that was even worse. The dialogues, the acting; it really stank, it was so bad it made me want to leave the cinema and ask for my money back. But actually I am glad I saw it, because then I could tell my honest opinion on it. One should see this film, even though it stinks.


This was obviously the worst movie ever made...ketchup was the starring role in this movie and would be the only nominee for an award..cause the plot, actors, and anything related to this farce was absolutely horrible and ridiculous. I could have made a better horror flick in my backyard within two hours with a hand-held camera using grass stuffed dummies as the actors, atleast the acting would have been better! Don't waste your time or money on this one...it's extremely cheesy and horrible!!


I HATE MOVIES THAT END LIKE THIS!!!!

This 16mm disaster is full of clichés, stereotypical characters, a generic, over done "plot" and terrible dialog.

In this "Movie" we have the Aggressive Black Guy, The Black Guys Girlfriend, The Blonde Bitch, The Possible Lesbian "hacker chick", the Pedophilic teacher...Blah, Blah, Blah....And then the Pumpkin Man.

"Do you think someone is taking the legend too far?" This question is asked towards the end of the film. Taking the Tagline of Scream 2 too far.

SPOILERS*****Typically I don't go into spoilers but I have to rant....

A dream? The whole thing was a Dream!!!!! This is the most sissified way to end a movie. "I don't know how to explain all of this, and we don't have any more money...Let's make the whole thing a dream." This is what the director/producer/actor/FX guy must have been thinking. Yes, the director is the character of Mr. E He did almost everything on this garbage movie. This is such a cope out ending....And what of the principal, okay, so he has been doing all the kidnapping! What did that have to do with the movie? Of course the Black people are killed, the bitchy girl is killed, the teacher that has a past of sexual harassment with students gets killed ( he is main suspect)....YUCK YUCK YUCK!!! This movie gave me heart burn.

Pointless, senseless, and made with parents Visa and Mastercards (which tells me it is probably still being paid off), this movie is dumb, boring and just plain stupid....

The only thing I liked was the credits. The way they presented the names, etc, in the beginning and at the end. It had a creepy feel to it. Too bad the movie didn't!

1 out of 10


This is a horrific re-make of the French movie Ma Vie en Rose (http://imdb.com/title/tt0119590/). The only scenario that I can imagine in which anyone (Sinise?! Bates?! Butler?! What WERE they thinking!?!) agreed to be associated with it is MacLaine seeing the original, being rightly impressed, and enlisting a friend (with no writing credits -- or talent! -- to his name) to translate the themes for American audiences -- whom they both agreed are stupid, stupid, stupid. Then she enlisted other friends to sign up, and they did so as friends -- certainly not on the merits of this pathetically contrived, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink script.

I'm not a knee-jerk fan of French film, but Ma Vie en Rose is a subtle, thoughtful, and thought provoking treatment of sensitive cultural issues. I would love to see it get wider exposure among English-speaking audiences -- and if that means an American re-make, so be it. But puh-leeze! a little respect for the issues AND the intelligence of the audience -- and better direction for the actors, who couldn't seem to decide if they were working for Tennessee Williams or Jerry Lewis!


Brainy, cross-dressing little boy finds success on the Spelling Bee circuit despite an unconventional and dysfunctional upbringing. Shirley MacLaine directed and stars as the child's grandmother, and it is always fascinating to see long-time actors getting their chance at directing a film, the material that they're drawn to and the actors they choose to work with. Here, the only person well-cast in "Bruno" is MacLaine. The child actors seem to have been picked for their twinkle and cuteness, and squishy-hearted MacLaine holds their close-ups for excruciatingly long periods; nothing about these cherubs seems natural, not the lines that fall without consciousness out of their mouths or the interaction they have with adults or even each other. As the boy's disgruntled father, poor Gary Sinise hovers around the edges, in mock shame, always with a pained look on his face. Towards the end of the film, MacLaine turns the whole thing into a passel of hugging scenes, and even concludes with the kid hugging the Pope in Rome! Another ungodly treatise from a talented actress-turned-director who, much like Sally Field and her film "Beautiful", cannot seem to stop winking at and nudging the audience. Shirley uses ethnicity for shtick, and childhood innocence as a punchline. The children in this cast roll their eyes, crack wise with mature comments, use big words--but when one mealy-mouthed boy calls our pint-sized hero "gay", MacLaine's granny instructs him to go over and punch the kid out (in front the media!). How's that for progression? * from ****


*****Spoiler or two, not that is matters******

Two things stand out about this movie. First is it's been titled both "Bruno" and "The Dress Code," and if you've seen this movie you'll catch the irony in that.

Second is it's addressing issues completely off the wall. The adventures of a grade school cross dresser isn't something that there was a crying need for a movie about, nor a topic that I think most people would be interested in. Shirley MacLaine manages to walk around the issues of gender by tying Bruno's desire to wear a dress to religion, which probably opens up an even thornier can of worms--what was she thinking?

Yes, there's some humor and it's not directly offensive, but the kind of unsettling feeling in the beginning just keeps on growing. It doesn't do much except repeat the liberal mantra that "different" people should be accepted (or maybe excepted?) no matter what.

Which is fine----but in order for people to live in a society everyone has to give a little to get along. Bruno doesn't just want to wear a dress, he wants to show up looking like a miniature Gladys Knight on awards night, and his final costume makes him resemble a Cabbage Patch Cowgirl Doll. Yet all the other kids dress and behave, well, like regular kids. So what gives? If it came down to it we all could declare ourselves special or different and behave any way we felt like, and the result would be total chaos.

This accepting of people who are "different" is also pretty narrowly defined, I doubt we will ever see a movie about a kid finding his true self and wanting to wear overalls, hunt geese, and go to tractor pulls, and demanding everyone else just accept him as he is. "Bruno" is one stupid movie, and a complete waste of time.


This movie was terrible. The plot was terrible and unbelievable. I cannot recommend this movie. Where did this movie come from? This movie was not funny and wasted the talent of some great actors and actresses including: Gary Sinise, Kathy Bates, Joey Lauren Adams, and Jennifer Tilly.


First the premise stinks...little boy likes to dress in girls clothes. It reminded me of Norman Bates in PSYCHO or Ed Wood in ED WOOD. The jokes are lame and old, You've seen 'em in a dozen 50's & 60's films. The whole cast is wasted. I bet people signed on just to be in a Shirley MacLaine vehicle. Please, Would somebody tell Shirley she did her best comedy in TWO MULES FOR SISTER SARA. See it...if there's no reruns of Andy Griffith on.


Somehow, this documentary about Miles manages to include very little music and no complete tunes. Though Miles appears in the film, 95% of the interviews are other folks, not Miles. There are huge chronological gaps, many aspects of his life (his childhood prodigy, his drug addiction) are skipped or glossed over, and you'll learn little about what made the man and his contribution to music so groundbreaking. Skip it.


Stunning blonde Natasha Henstridge is the young, not-so-grieving widow in the mansion on the hill, telling her story to a TV reporter in Monroeville, Virginia. And among the community's well-heeled horsey-set, she's suspected of involvement in the death of her older husband. That's James Brolin, trusting as a babe-in-arms. Flashback teledrama made in Canada, based on an article that appeared in Vanity Fair magazine. It must be true! Whatever, it's far more romance than mystery, and a very familiar tale. Leggy Species star Henstridge as a gold-digging hospice nurse? It could happen, I guess. And it's good to see Brolin in a sizeable role after his titchy turn in Antwone Fisher, even if he doesn't make it to the end of the picture. The end of the picture? He doesn't even make it to the beginning of the picture. Which is why flashbacks were invented, of course.


To start this movie was sick. Here your wife is dying and you go strutting around town with this blond chic by your side. Then your wife dies and within 2 months you are together with this chic. Hank (James Brolin) is definitely moving fast throughout this movie. I called him Fast Hank. Fast Hank marries this beautiful lady and before you know it she is having sex with his best friends. The part that gets me is when she is "doing it" in the barn with Kevin and gets caught by another one of Hanks friends. Kevin gets up and leaves, she drops her robe and BAM!! Right into the arms of this other guy and they start "doing it" right then and there. I guess he is finishing up what Kevin started. HOW GROSS!!!! I am like this is lifetime movie??? Its a typical OLD MAN YOUNG WOMAN movie that says you can have my body if I get your money...


I started off being interested somewhat in the movie. It appeared it might be serious drama, dealing with death, grief, and healing, with some realistic human conflict thrown in. Alas, it didn't hold up.

I need a movie with somewhat consistent and believable characters. Too many characters in this movie were portrayed as extremely gullible and inconsistent. Look, I know this was not supposed to be Shakespeare, but come on, I need some quality in script and characterization.

The acting was alright, the writing not so much. At one point, James Brolin's character is berated for showing up at a picnic under-dressed. He states that ordering him around will not work. His new wife says that if he goes home and changes she will rip his clothes off later. That is a howler. This movie had a few unintentionally funny lines.

It was hard to care about Jame's Brolin's character. When he so readily gave his first wife's things to his new wife, even allowing his daughter to be snubbed, I lost most of my sympathy. Who really cares what happens to him. I must confess that I did not finish the movie. If it did a 180 in quality in the last 45 minutes, let me know. It was just unpleasant to watch and so predictable I felt there was no need to finish it.


Alas, it seems that the golden times of stylish Italian cinema have sunk into oblivion. And the recent brainchild of celebrated filmmaker Lamberto Bava is yet another obvious proof to that assumption.

I felt lucky to watch many films from this prolific director (like Body Puzzle, Delerium, Macabre and both Demons). Albeit not entirely satisfying they have never been that dull.

A suspicion that this new entry to my DVD collection was money thrown to the winds arose shortly in the aftermath of the car crash scene exhibiting an awkward and unlikely position of the body under the flip-over car.

And the sense of shallowness grew up in the course of the ponderously narrated chain of events that followed.

Dumb dialogs, suspenseless script and a total waste of talents from the international cast. The only character that provided more or less passable performance was the mischievous Mark's son juicing up the entire boredom.

Unfortunately, Mario's son job on all accounts could hardly be hailed.

I look forward to seeing his Murder House hopefully expected to be an improvement.


"Ghost Son" is Lamberto Bava's best film and, at the same time, also his worst. I suppose that statement requires some slight clarification. It's his best because it's well directed, ambitious, accessible and very stylish, but his worst because it's a dull, unoriginal movie and undeniably a huge letdown to all the real fans of Bava's past efforts. Let's face it: many fans, myself certainly included, wouldn't have been interested in this film judging by the plot, the famous names attached to it and even the boring sounding title. The only motivation here was Lamberto Bava, who brought us large amounts of convoluted Gialli and fun splatter films in the past. "Ghost Son" is a bit of his comeback film, alongside "The Torturer", and although the latter definitely isn't a good film, it at least lives up to his fans' lines of expectations, with excessive amounts of sleaze, blood and sadism. "Ghost Son" is a weak and intolerably soft horror film, even talking in terms of mainstream ghost stories. The emphasis lies too much on sentimentality, and this badly affects the already limited number of horrific & creepily atmospheric moments. The basic premise might feature one or two potentially good ideas, but the film is overall dull and far too clichéd. John Hannah and Laura Harring star as a happy couple, living on a remote ranch in South Africa and breeding horses for a living. The joy and happiness couldn't possibly improve, so naturally something tragic is bound to happen, and it does. Mark dies in a car accident, but the inconsolable Stacey remains at the ranch where she's in constant contact with Mark's spirit. She even gets pregnant with his child, but shortly after baby Martin's birth mysterious events begin to occur. It seems as if Mark's restless and selfish ghost 'possessed' the baby and uses him to encourage Stacy into committing suicide. With all the focus on the couple's relationship, many of the events and sub plots are underdeveloped and/or remains unexplained, like the whole background of the youthful maid Thandi. There's too little action and the only real fright-moments are too obviously borrowed from classic films such as "The Exorcist" and "Rosemary's Baby" (vomiting green goo, self moving furniture). Purely talking in terms of horrific entertainment "Ghost Son" is a painful misfire, but it has to be said, it's a beautiful and enchanting looking failure. The cinematography is extremely elegant and many camera angles are truly inventive and suggestive. The moody score sometimes even manages to create an ominous atmosphere even though there's nothing of any significance happening on screen. There are several beautiful images of the South African wildlife to admire but, if that interests you, I suppose you're better off watching National Geographic instead. Not much to recommend here. Fans of atmosphere-driven ghost stories have much better options to choose from and die-hard Bava fanatics are advised to (re-)watch "Demons", "Macabre" or "Blade in the Dark".


First of all, I personally adore Demons and Demons 2, I saw them although it was hard to find good horrors without good official movie distributing here in Russia when I was a kid, and that is an unchangeable part of my boyhood. Then I heard nothing about Mr Bava. Then I saw his Ghost Son. Well, it is certainly not a good coming back! Why was the leading character, whom we never really knew to at least like him, in accident in the middle of an empty road? Why do African servants say so dumb and stupid things about human soul? Why is the plot so primitive? Haven't we seen enough ghosts for 100 years of movie production? It is clear that Lamberto Bava has nothing to show us so far. It is a shame.


i just get exited when the movie start(because i saw Juliette lewis name on the screen).the script seemed very complicated first but as the movie continued, it became understandably clear.i concentrated well on it but the result was disappointing.because the object of sex used too much on the film unnecessarily and it seemed to me that the director ignore ones who has tendency upon opposite sex.in my opinion the well prepared script couldn't be embodied.as we look at the cast,the movie promises something in the beginning or i just expected too much... and finally the end...the end is so so much mediocre that i wouldn't expect.the main character Cassandra wants to give message about having baby and how a baby can change a life,in my opinion that scene is the real disaster for the film. all in all the characters are funny and acted beautifully.but only cast can't save a movie.


In a farcical key, Gaudí Afternoons can be taken as a mediocre exercise. Marcia Gay Harden and Judy Davis pivoted a good cast (Juliette Lewis' new-age freaky character has been incredibly taken from reality, I know an American young lady who squawks like her!!) but GA does not show much beyond its overtoned plot.

Even though movie-making is all about make believe, there were certain noticeable screenplay inconsistencies. Two samples: you pay 14 euro to enter the chapel where Cassandra and Frankie met, NEVER at 7 am, and you cannot leave a terrace without paying the bill (they'll charge you on the spot if they don't know you) or get off a taxi THAT quickly (you Americans always tip cabbies even though they don't expect to, but the sequences portrayed in the movie were ridiculous). Don't believe me, reader: come over and see for yourself.

If you've never been here before you might not care about all this, but good movies should be believable disregarding of your origin. Nobody knows about GA here, and I will make sure that does not change in the future.


I was hoping to like this movie, to settle in for an evening of goofy fun. I like Judy Davis and Juliette Lewis, and the premise seemed off the wall enough to be entertaining.

Unfortunately, I found myself dozing over and over again. Judy Davis gave a fine performance, but had very little to work with. Juliette Lewis was fabulous as expected, but had very little to do. The plot was full of "twists" that were just plain silly, and as so often happens in movies of this type, nobody acted the way a real human being would act. And, personally, I thought Marcia Gay Harden was totally miscast.

The movie also seemed to shift about midway from a black comedy with touches of farce to a total farce with touches of black comedy. One reviewer here notes that other reviews seem to want this movie to be something different, and therefore decried it. All I can say is that I would have settled for the movie being *something* and sticking with it. This one feels like the director had some grandiose ideas but wasn't able to pull them all off. I give it a 4 out of 10.


Comparing this movie to anything by Almodovar is an insult to Almodovar. The best thing I can say about it is it tries desperately to be like an Almodovar movie and fails miserably. The script is dreadful, the characters are one-dimensional, and the performances are the quality of high-school drama (except Marcia Gay Harden's, which is pretty good, given the material she has to work with). Furthermore, the cinematography does absolutely nothing to convey the whimsical beauty of Gaudi's architecture or the infectious charm of Barcelona. If you enjoy the grit, pathos and dark, quirky comedy of Almodovar's movies, you'll find none of them here. Spend your money on something other than this waste of celluloid.


some funny lines are all what makes this movie bearable. the camera tv-movie-like, the acting poor (julie davis is more than disapointing) and the directing amateurish and / or loveless. but i can understand that no one had fun to realise the overconstructed and trivial script.


Whatever Committee of PC Enforcers is responsible for this movie has achieved something that I never thought possible: to take some truly gifted actors (Davis, Hardin and Taylor) and make you want to insure you never encounter them in an enclosed space, ever. The sentiments that underlie the screenplay are so jejeune and idiotic that it is impossible to understand or imagine what audience would find this picture appealing, much less funny. Architecture students perhaps?

Only one scene is visually clever: Marcia Gay Hardin sashaying, all wriggles and rhythm, into a bar manages to exude more style and energy in ten seconds than the whole of the rest of the film added up and multiplied to the tenth power. As for the other members of the cast, they probably won't want to put this one on their resumes.


I gave it a rating of 3 out of 10.

And what's sad is, I made a point of looking up the movie schedule for that channel so I wouldn't miss seeing it. I wanted to watch this film because it is based on a book by one of my favorite authors, Barbara Wilson. As a lesbian, I expected to love this film.

I don't know how Ms. Wilson felt about the film, but I found it a major disappointment.

It should have been intriguing - it was a mystery - set in Spain, and the main character, Cassandra, is a language translator who gets contacted by a mysterious, beautiful woman who offers Cassandra a great deal of money to locate her ex-husband, Ben.

There are secrets galore revealed, but for some reason it just didn't matter. It was like, oh, so what. I could not get involved with these characters or come to care about them, or feel for them. I couldn't even identify with these characters.

I think a large part of the film's failure was the actress playing the main character. She looked old, tired, worn out, and as dull as dishwater. Her hair was a perpetual mess, her baggy clothes were boring, and she just was not appealing or interesting.

The best part of the film was getting to hear a Dean Martin recording, but even that was ruined by the weird make-up worn by the man who was dancing and lip-synching to the song. Believe me - it was nothing like getting to see the suavely handsome Mr. Martin performing it.

The ending is so syrupy you'll wish you had some pancakes to go with the syrup.


This film was not all that bad as the story went but the camera work is what makes it difficult to watch. I just don't like that so-called "realistic" camera work that is being done nowadays; you know the type- jumping off center, panning around, etc. What got me particularly irritated about this film though was the new thing that they threw into the mix by shooting a few frames in black and white in each scene. I believe that the film would have been much better if the camera work was shot in the much more conventional way because as it was I couldn't concentrate on it and found myself analyzing the camera work instead. Maybe if more people express dissatisfaction with camera work like this the filmmakers will finally get the hint.


While not as bad as some movies (like the horrible "Atomic Twister"), "Meltdown" still relies upon common misconceptions and inaccuracies about the nuclear power industry to advance its plot. I am currently studying Nuclear Engineering in the pursuit of a Masters Degree, and it was easy to point out flaws that would be obvious to anyone involved with the industry.

Riding the false fear that a Chernobyl style meltdown could happen in an American plant, the movie states that any meltdown (even partial, according to one of the guest commentators in the movie) would mean disaster for the area. In fact, a partial meltdown in an American plant, while destroying the core, would not pose any risk to the surrounding area. Three Mile Island experienced a partial meltdown and no radioactive material was released into the environment at all, thanks to the natural stability of the fuel and core design used in this country paired with substantial containment.

The security steps shown in the movie were perhaps the part of the movie furthest from the truth. At any important strategic location -- be it power plant, chemical plant, military base, anything -- you will never see personnel responding to an alarm by milling around talking as if it were an unannounced drill. This is especially true at a nuclear plant, where, upon the sounding of the alarm, the reactors would be SCRAMed immediately, shutting them off. SCRAMing can be done with the push of a button in the control room (you do not need to put the core in "shutdown mode" like depicted in the movie), and the chemistry of nuclear fission prevents a core from being brought back up to power within about 9 hours of a SCRAM. So if this scenario played out in real life, the assailants would not be able to cause a significant meltdown. In theory, they could still cause a partial one due to residual heat if they exposed the core immediately, but that would be almost impossible given the numerous backup systems present in a plant -- there are many more than the single backup pumps they speak of in the movie.

As for the spent fuel pools, it may be possible to turn the pools into a dirty bomb by blowing them up, but this is far more difficult than simply parking a truck full of explosives near the pools. The fuel is under (approximately) 18 feet of highly purified water. The water cannot become radioactive (no radioactive steam like they speak of in the movie). Particles dissolved in water can, but the water itself cannot; thus the reason for very thorough purification. So the only way to turn a fuel pool into a dirty bomb is to get the fuel out of the water. This is no easy task as water is very heavy, and the pools are below ground with very thick concrete walls. The explosives would have to be in the pool below the fuel (which is securely fastened). And there would have to be a heck of a lot of explosives, as water is *very* hard to move through an explosion. Even if this were to occur, spent fuel is not extremely radioactive, and the explosion would not cause nearly as high a death toll as mentioned in the movie, especially given the small amount of radioactive material that would be spread.

 From a basic movie standpoint, I grew somewhat tired of the style used. The constant fading in and out, use of gritty black and white, and fast tracking and panning looked amateurish. The characters were one-dimensional, especially those in the US government. I have some problems with the twist thrown in the movie, but will not discuss it as it would be a major spoiler.

Overall, 3/10


Director Jeremiah Checheck who brought us big budget debacles like "The Avengers" and the remake of "Diabolique" has directed this ripoff of the Die Hard concept, done on - what looks like - a Blair Witch budget.

A California nuclear reactor is overtaken by Arab terrorists. But - are you ready? - the terrorists aren't Arab; they're really disgruntled American soldiers masquerading as Arabs! We find out that they don't really intend to blow up the reactor just make a statement. We're not sure what the statement is but never mind. So there's really no threat. But then one of the terrorists decides to go it alone and actually blow up the plant because he's kind of crazy. So maybe there is a threat after all. But the army goes in and all the bad guys are killed. So there was no threat. Oh, and a good guy is killed too. Let that be a lesson to everybody.

If all of this sounds muddled and kinda of a waste of time then you got the idea of what watching Meltdown is all about.

The script never bothers to introduce the characters or to even give any personal details that might flesh them out or emotionally involve the audience. So we're left with one dimensional characters: the-expert-that-nobody-will-listen-to; the-trigger-happy-sergeant; the-slimy-politicians; the-dweeby-Engineers. The story skips from one cliché incident to the next in a formula composite of practically every action movie you've ever seen. But at nearly every turn, just when we think something may be at stake the script flinches and we find out there's actually nothing to worry about.

Like Die Hard, there's an police officer who's on the inside, unbenownst to the bad guys. The big twist is that the cop here is....A WOMAN! Oh and she's injured too. But not that bad, just enough to make her wince a couple times. Oh and instead of the walkie talkie that Bruce Willis had this cop has a magic cell phone that works everywhere...even underground! When he's not yelling at everybody else Bruce Greenwood - his jaw made out of granite - tries to soothe her over the walkie talkie. He even makes a joke once but we're afraid his face might crack. After all, this is serious business.

But mostly it's scene after scene of people arguing: the Military expert is arguing to wait it out (his reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound but he's supposed to be the smart guy in this movie so okaaaay); the people at the White House argue with him; the army sergeant argues with him too; the nice Pakistani Nuclear Engineer argues with the main terrorist. The dialogue is absolutely B Movie all the way and lines like, "stop the broadcast! STOP THE BROADCAST!!!" may have you in rolling off your sofa as you wonder if the characters are actually referring to this silliness.

Maybe to compensate for the lack of production quality the camera-work is kept jittery in that faux documentary 21 Grams style that's supposed to lend immediacy and energy to the scenes but the way it's indiscriminately and amateurishly applied here it's downright annoying; even pretentious. Further attempts to ratchet up the tempo are made with the inclusion of nonsensical black and white footage that's randomly intercut with the main action. But this, too, is pretentious and annoying in that Blair Witch kinda way. In short, the stylistic attempts look very amateurish.

The music lives up to the visuals - it's synthy and cheap sounding. Sort of like a porn movie but with less melody and lots more heart beat sounds. The graphic treatment is howlingly bad too: cheesy graphics in huge red font scream out to us "9:28 pm" as though the timeclock actually makes some kind of difference.

Meltdown may work as a marketing concept but it's clear that the script was a second thought. FX - part of Fox - put this cheesy production together and dropped several million dollars on it. Now THAT'S what I call a meltdown!


If you thought NBC's 10.5 was stupid, you'll be happy to hear that FX reached into the bowels of made-for-TV hell and squished it's fingers into this pseudo post-9/11 poop. Not only was the plot stupid, it was a complete ripoff of 24 and a bad ripoff at that. The filming style was the now overused "docu-action" look, complete with cuts to grainy B&W "rawcore" footage. I'm not quite sure what that means, but it sure sounds like something the DP said to the director before filming. I don't know what they were going for here but it reminded me of the guy at the office who thinks Powerpoint presentations with "fly-ins" and "animations" are "cool."

The story is that 6 "terrorists" take over a nuclear power plant in southern CA. That's right, nuclear power plants, where hundreds of people work, where there's security precautions up the ying-yang. For the sake of reality, they put 2 off-duty CHiPpies in the mix. Because, they'd be able to stop 6 people, right? Six. I mean, even Bruce Willis had to deal with more terrorists over at that stupid Nakatomi building.

Leslie Hope (TV's Teri Bauer) plays a CHP officer who has problems talking on the phone after she's shot in her bullet-proof vest. Her voice sounds like a Sally Struther's TV ad, whiny and monotonous. Her character is only a plot device, and after she performs her one small duty, she is promptly disposed of. Yes, Teri Bauer is died!

Bruce Greenwood stars as FBI S.A.C. Tom Shea, who continually points out how he punches foreign diplomats in the face. His boss is out, so nobody over at the Dept. of Homeland Security believes his prognosis of the situation. He's the sensible one out of a group of paranoid public officials afraid of taking blame for any type of catastrophe. He's calm, he's strong, he's BORING.

There is absolutely nothing redeeming or entertaining about Meltdown - OK, well maybe Teri Bauer getting died was pretty unnecessary and funny - other than that, nothing redeeming.


This was the worst TV movie I had ever seen. The visuals were so dang choppy it made me dizzy. I hated the constant zoom in and zoom out, and the frequent Black and White to Color switch. I also thought that The story didn't make any sense what so ever, and it was another clichéd Action Movie, with a hero a bad guy, and a few hostages. I could make a better movie than that with my own camera, why? I can hold it steady, something the director couldn't do. Over all truly the worst I have ever seen, you thought Disney was bad? I didn't even bother to watch the whole thing because I'm sure I could guess the outcome, and the visual were the worst I have ever seen.


I actually liked certain things about this game. I loved the first person perspective and wish we had had that choice in the first three games. There's nothing like seeing the monsters up close, in your face. The graphics really weren't bad, but I would have liked more things to interact with even though it was just a shooter. The music was fine. The things I hated were: The movement kind of sucked and aiming was a total pain. The story was too lame for words and too much of the same old thing with no originality. The inability to save was awful!!! Some of us do have a life and would like to save to finish the game later. I thought the weapons kind of sucked, too. This game is fun for awhile, but it's nothing like the first three and only good if you just want to shoot stuff. I'd recommend it for the novelty of playing in the first person, but that's about it. Play it at your own risk.


Not much to say other than plenty of Wire-fu and supposed Sholin monks ego-tripping about Kung-fu and caricature Japanese plotting to take over China. All of this would not be so bad if not for the utterly fake Japanese sword fighting. If you watched a Samurai movie or two you can tell that the "Japanese" fighting in the movie is simply the same "Kung-fu" (Really circus acrobats) stunt men doing the same things except with a Japanese sword. However, there are a couple of fun moments such as when a Japanese woman Ninja tears off her clothes in mid-flight to disarm a monk and captures him with a fishing net. Storywise, there seems to be a bit of schizophrenia as far as whether the Japanese should be shown as completely despicable or if there could be exceptions. The "Japanese" protagonist is shown as largely honourable but not beyond unwarranted cruelty such as when he murders a sedated monk so that he may have his duel. Quite disappointing with a very silly ending. Does not for a moment evoke even the semblance of the idea of an epic battle.


This movie is so over-the-top as to be a borderline comedy. Laws of physics are broken. Things explode for no good reason. Great movie to sit down with a six-pack and enjoy. Do not - I repeat DO NOT see this movie sober. You will die horrible death!!!


An obvious cash-in on the *Insert Monster Here* On A Plane gimmick, Flight Of The Living Dead is about what you'd expect it to be.

The film has little or no plot, which is what you'd expect from a film of this type. Although, it is fun in parts, I must say. The Zombie-action is particularly entertaining. Once the film picks up, it never stops; the pacing is solid.

The practical special effects are pretty good, but the CGI is terrible and distracting.

The ending seems to leave the film open to a sequel. Let's hope that doesn't come to fruition.

If you're a die-hard fan of the zombie sub-genre of horror films, I'd recommend it to you; it's worth at least one watch. However, if you're just an avid fan of the genre, leave it on the shelf.

3/10


This has to be the worst movie i've seen this year.. and i watch a lot of cable. The plot is just ridiculous, the scenes are just thrown at you with no action, no start or ending of any scene.. it's just random idiots with make-up that scream in some plane.. The "special effects" ( Spielberg would laugh his ass off ) are horrible, the yellow eye contact lenses are cute though.. I have to admin that i couldn't bear to watch it to the end. The scene where the great scientist Bennett was holding for dear life by the engine body was too much for me.. I'm sorry for my bad English.. i am from Romania ( and this is my first post ). I had to sign up just to make a comment on this movie because i just can't believe that this is a movie released in 2007.


It's one of the imponderables of low-budget independent film-making that so many with so little in the way of real talent fancy themselves frightmeisters. The paucity of talent evinced by these wonky wannabees is there for all the world to see. Case in point: FLIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (or, as I quickly came to know it, SHITE OF THE LIVING DEAD). There's nothing wrong with paying homage to one's heroes. I've done it many times over the years, myself, in many different ways. In fact, in the xlibris book THE NIGHT RIDERS, co-written with M. Kelley, I dedicate it, in part, to "the six writers whose work inspires me still: Richard Matheson, Harlan Ellison, Shirley Jackson, Edgar Allen Poe, H.P. Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard." Had it been a motion picture, I would've dedicated it to the directors whose films have inspired me over the years. Very high up on that list would've been George Romero. It's nothing less than a crying shame that the makers of this film weren't truly as inspired by Romero as their title suggests.


I don't understand why some of you (or many) have given this film upward of 8 stars out of 10. Do you understand that there are lower ratings for a reason? Sure, this may be a zombie flick with some splatter, but thats it. I'm not a hater on zombie films, but this was awful. Really, actually, I should call it more like a zombie-soap, because thats how the acting is. Production is... well, okay. Barely an attempt at plot development, awful acting, silly effects, clichés, and an abrupt ending. Go ahead and like zombie movies, but don't ever give this above a 5.0. Honestly though, the only reason you should want to watch this movie is to laugh. Seriously.


..."Flight of the Living Dead" sports production values that belie the substandard script from director Scott "I'm a producer, can'tcha tell?" Thomas and two hacks who shall remain nameless because I feel sorry for them having to attach those no-names to this turkey. Apparently actually shot on film, this direct-to-DVD release has almost nothing going for it that you haven't seen or heard a hundred times already.

Despite the presence of a number of recognizable character actors like Richard "Three O'Clock High" Tyson, Erick "Stargate" Avari, and Raymond J. "Little Children" Barry, and a slew of others not so recognizable, "FoLD" is predominantly populated with cardboard, most of which ends up soaked in unconvincing fake blood. There are a few (precious few) gags that work (the umbrella and the zombie trapped in his seat both come to mind), but most of the scripting is pedestrian and comic-book stupid, and I am here to assure you that we're talking pedestrian and stupid. You'll never for a second believe that "FoLD" is anything but a cheap cash-in movie with pretensions of cool. God forbid it ever spawn the sequel its idiotic ending promises.

Strictly freebie viewing, depending on how impecunious your local library is, and otherwise suitable for insomniacs and the indiscriminate only.


This movie is really bad, trying to create scientific explanations for zombies always ends up taking away credibility from the history of the movie. There are so many things i could point about the movie that i could almost write a book on how much the movie sucks. For instance, there were like 50 people on the plane, they killed like 100 and they kept coming, apparently the "virus" gives hepatic complications because everybody had yellow eyes, also the virus makes people roar like lions or something, and the virus not only regenerates tissue as it also gives superhuman strength, not to mention that this virus messes up peoples hair. It's also important to notice that if you shoot someone with a pistol (probably only happens on planes) that person is kicked back in the air. Remember that if you are escorting a prisoner on a plane and you loose him, always look inside the drawers and cabinets the size of a bottle, you never know where those bastards are going to hide. And if by any chance you can land a plane full of zombies against a mountain and survive (happens all the time), after watching dozens of people being killed, just walk away from the plane, watching the sunrise and making jokes about dating the flight attendant. :)


I'm a huge fan of zombie movies and this is just a pathetic attempt at one. I find the best features of zombie flicks to be the sense of solidarity and a need to survive. This movie focused more on a "let's just make it gory" view.

The movie was full of bad acting and even worse special effects. When the zombies emerge from the floor and take the guy down, there is blood just spraying out of the hole. I wasn't aware that holes in airplane floors bleed so extensively. And the original zombie lady, Kelly or something, displayed the worst acting I have ever seen when she woke up and began feeling sick. I laughed quite hard when she died. Deserved it in every way.

I was a little confused as to why Dr. Kelly could talk after becoming a zombie, but then there wasn't anything uttered by another zombie because annoying screams and shrieks. And they seemed to be killing the zombies pretty efficiently by shooting them in the abdomen, yet when Dr. Bennett is expelled from the airplane and into the engine, removing most of his lower half, he is still able to live at the end.

I kinda felt that they altered things to make a "good" scene. When one of the bitchy girlfriends (I didn't take the time to learn their names. They played a pointless role) was in the bathroom, she was attacked by a zombie behind the mirror. Was it a two-way mirror to watch Mile-High Clubbers? I've never broken a mirror on an airplane (bad luck and all that) but I doubt there is that much room behind there, with the insanely confined space of the actually bathroom and all.

The few redeeming qualities were too little too late, sadly. One thing the movie had going for it was the smoking hot flight attendants, yet they felt the need to kill all but one off. And I will admit that I laughed pretty damn hard when the old lady chomps down on Frank's arm and he says "She's gumming me to death" or something to that degree.

Honestly, I'm sad I wasted my nine dollars on this movie. The fact that I bought it underage kinda redeems that but still... It failed on so many levels. Stick with Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later.


If you want to waste a small portion of your life sit in front of this predictable zombie film. It fails at the first post by not being scary OR funny. It is a dull grey movie that I guess went straight to video. Hammy and tongue in cheek acting leave a sour taste in the mouth. If you want to watch a poor but still watchable recent zombie film watch Diary of the Dead. Poor special effects, school level script. Zombie films work if they have a moral point or even a political point . This movie has nothing, there is no worthy point that zombification underscores. This is as thrilling and convincing as a Republican Convention, no sorry watching the Republican Convention would be a better example of a Zombie movie.


This review contains spoilers.

I was searching through horror movie DVDs on Amazon when I came across Flight Of The Living Dead. I already knew from the name that it was going to be abysmally naff and most probably a rip-off of Snakes On A Plane, but it was selling brand new for 69p so I figured I didn't really have much to lose.

The music played over the opening credits didn't fit at all, although I did like the song itself a pop-rock song isn't really suitable to appear on the soundtrack of a zombie horror movie. It started off surprisingly well, the opening scenes weren't too bad, some of the acting was a little cringe-worthy but not as bad as I initially thought it would be.

It all goes well until Laura Cayouette (Rocket from Kill Bill: Vol. 2) enters the picture. She is supposed to be playing a scientist. If she is, she's not a very bright one. Luckily she's polished off pretty quickly.

I actually physically laughed out loud when the camera panned over the passengers of the plane during some turbulence. There was a nun. Have you ever been on a plane with a nun!? I was surprised she wasn't clutching a crucifix.

Finally, after 35 minutes, we get to some zombie action, and use the word 'action' loosely. The special effects are pretty below standard, but that's to be expected from a movie with this budget. Being covered in blood and having yellow contact lenses does not make you look like a zombie though, it makes you look pretty amusing. Using slow motion doesn't work particularly well either. I think this movie is probably guilty of trying to add too much story. Trying to pass off the problem as a variant of the "malaria virus" wasn't an especially good move either considering malaria isn't a virus.

The rest of the movie pretty much plays out like any other zombie movie. Most of the characters are killed off and it eventually ends up with a handful of people fighting to stay alive. Possibly the worst part of Flight Of The Living Dead is the utterly inconceivable ending. I know it's a movie about people who come back to life and feast on the living, but the ending was just ridiculous. Rating: ★★


I never really thought about watching this film. I kept seeing it perched on the horror movie shelf in my local video rental shop and never thought much about it. Just your run of the mill, bland zombie flick with a bit of gore and a sex scene. Nothing special, might as well watch Python...oh no wait, that's a terrible film.

I only decided to watch it when some of my friends saw it on TV and said it was an awful piece of trash. So, I decided to verify these tales, and only then did I realise how terrible the film hiding behind the bland and uninteresting DVD box cover was.

Not that the idea is bad in itself. A plane is a confined area, and would be a real death trap for the people on board should zombies make their appearance...a good premise for a zombie film. But this film took a good setting and crapped all over it with poor acting, unsteady camera work, annoying characters and a terrible score.

The characters all have different levels of hatefulness. There are two young couples who are basically friends going on a vacation in France. One couple is composed of a jock and his annoying bitchy girlfriend who is having an affair with Mr Jock's best friend, who came along with his girlfriend who is a blonde psycho. There is also a policeman escorting a con-man (an effeminate and highly annoying con-man). The policeman is probably one of the least irritating characters of the lot. Then there is a bunch of air hostesses who mostly end up as zombie chow...no I didn't watch the whole film, it was just too painful an experience to carry through, almost as bad as watching Cannibal Holocaust. Oh and there's also a golfer on holiday with his wife, some strange air marshal who really does not appear to be important until he's summoned to help deal with the zombie escapees, a trio of scientists who all fall victim to the undead and a couple of pilots. The camera work is often shaky, and although many people don't seem to mind, it can really get on your nerves after a while, like having a small fly buzz constantly around your head. It's small but it's there and it's annoying.

The adulterous couple are genuinely annoying. All they do is have sex in the plane's toilets while their spouses aren't looking...in fact all the young adults in this film are insanely annoying. They whine, bitch, argue and have some of the most inane and mind-buggeringly boring dialogue in the movie...yes, it makes you glad to see them die.

The score is atrocious. It is so generic and uninspired it kills any kind of suspense a scene could have generated and replaces it with the feeling that someone is scraping a blackboard with their nails and laughing at you. In fact, it sounds like the score from...Python! That film will never stop haunting me.

There is also a character that the film makers seemed incredibly intent on having in as many shots as possible. A nun, sitting near the young adults and clutching her Bible who is included in so many shots you start to wonder if she plays any major part in the film...but no she doesn't, so why have her in so many scenes? Was it because the film's creator's original project was a nun porn flick? Nobody will ever know.

The zombies look pretty good. Their makeup is good and they are probably far better actors than the living characters, they are far more convincing and likable! The guard responsible for keeping an eye on the scientist's illegal cargo was quite funny. A large crate appears to fall on him, and the camera briefly shows the audience that his leg has been pierced with some kind of sharp object...yet he doesn't scream, wince or moan in pain. He just grunts and squirms in an attempt to get the thing out of his leg...in fact he sounds more like an overweight man trying to scratch his back than a man in pain.

Ah well, all in all I give it 1 for the interesting setting and 1 for the zombies.

Watch this movie only if you like young adults bickering and throwing things at each other, and sadly, there really isn't anything funny about the whole thing so watching for a laugh would probably fail, unless you're high on some kind of psychoactive drug.


I was looking forward to this based on the reviews on this and the fairly good rating. This was a big disappointment. This doesn't hold a candle to contemporary zombie flicks like Shaun of the dead,day of the dead, land of the dead etc. Horror flicks sometimes take a while to get going, you have to build up the characters so when they snuff it,you feel some empathy etc but even so, there's a full 45 minutes to sit through here even before you sniff a corpse, up to that point,its like watching a bad soap opera, nothing of any interest or relevance happens and if you are going to watch this for the first time,you can honestly start watching after 45 minutes, you won't miss anything plot- wise. When things do get going, its all very sub-par stuff. Some of the kills and make up are done well, others are done very poorly, consistency is lacking here and there are some really shocking continuity errors and some of the most wooden acting i've ever seen.

This could all be passable if you really believed this was all taking place on a plane but with guns being fired, firebombs being let off,no pilots in the cockpit in a violent storm yet the plane stays in the air, c'mon, we're not all simpletons.

Oh, and does it really take a whole minute for a fighter jet's missile to hit a plane that is a few hundred yards away. I know its a zombie film and you have to stretch things but this film along with the other main defects listed above had zero credibility. One to miss.


"Mararía" really disappointed me. I can't consider it as a bad movie, but the development just seemed too rushed and non-believable for it to evoke any emotions. Dr. Fermín displays some unprecedented bizarre behaviour out of a passion that one can't really understand where it was born from. I mean, how many times does he ever have a conversation with Mararía?? Maybe once? Also, Mararía never appeared to be a real character, instead more like a film stereotype that just needed to be in the movie (...or else another title was needed?). Some of the best acting came from a role that wasn't really important to the story, that of Marcial, the sub-intelligent yet humble drunkard. Of course, the scenery, the cultural tidbits of the Canary Islands, and other "wow" moments were interesting, but the movie fell short of a documentary (in case this was its real intention), and most importantly, as a solid drama.


"You can survive anything". Anything except a dumb horror flick. The director couldn't even decide whether he wanted a demon or just a plain ol' backwoods serial killer. You can't have both. It's like Michael Moore trying to have his cake and eat it too (or in his case 1500 cakes) by making his particular charlatan brand of "docu-comedies": they're supposed to be oh-so hilarious and zany, and yet you're also meant to treat them as truth-based, earth-shattering, hard-hitting documentaries. Some genres cannot be mixed.

"Anything can happen to anyone, any time, any place." (Translation: this is the horror genre, so we can do any kind of nonsense we want.) This sounds not so much like something "wise" found on a paper of a Chinese fortune cookie, but more like the credo of every bad horror film director. We get this baloney of a statement served to us early on, sort of as a preparation/justification of the absurd buffoonery to come.

"My phone isn't working!" Well, of course it isn't. There is a far greater chance that Sean Penn's brain starts working (after decades of catatonic apathy) than that a horror-film cell-phone does. The single most dreary and predictable horror cliché of the past decade. Why even say it? We KNOW help will never come via a phone-call, so ye horror-making dimwits might as well just not even mention it. The last 50 horror films I saw use this plot device. It's becoming embarrassing.

"You always have to expect the unexpected." The final twist was rather surprising, I'll give them that much... However, plenty of nonsense on the way there.

Check out the elaborate traps the heroine sets up with the speed of a drugged-up lab rat - in the cold, wet, and almost totally dark conditions. I just love horror-film realism...

When a blood-thirsty demon starts trying to be funny (by "shshshing" his victims) then you know your horror-viewing pleasure is in doubt. The less said about the old geezer "cracking wise", the better... Another stupid cliché served by a tired, lazy, uninspired director.

What are the odds of being attacked by your husband and then by an eye-hating demon - on the same day? "Expect the unexpected". They might as well have squeezed in an event in which she survives a plane crash, and then another in which she encounters aliens who tried to anal-probe her...

The fast-forward button needs a temple or a shrine built in its image.


Incident on and off a Mountain Road is Don Coscarelli's entry in Mick Garris' Masters of Horror series. Coscarelli is famous for being the man behind such cult gems as the Phantasm series and the irresistibly weird Bubba Ho-Tep; but he brings none of the qualities that made those films great to this TV episode. The plot is a run of the mill one that follows the routine idea of an innocent being chased by a madman. This time, it's a young woman driving down a mountain road. After a head on crash, she finds herself being stalked by a white faced maniac. The whole chase sequence is really ridiculous, with the young lady stopping every so often to set traps; only for the maniac to show up seconds later, and this is cut with scenes showing her with her husband - who just happens to have a wealth of information on how escape insane killers; with lines such as "expect the unexpected". The only real highlight for me was the presence of Phantasm's Tall Man, Angus Scrimm. Coscarelli tries his best to implement as much horror imagery as possible; with things such as a rotted corpse of a dead baby - but because it's all so silly on the whole, it's difficult to take this piece seriously. This is the first episode in the series, and the first that I've seen; I really hope they get better.


One Chinese gang attacks and wipes out another gang in the beginning of the film. Unfortunately, the patriarch of the winning family is killed in the process. Oddly, and without any discernible reason, the gang solicits a volunteer to blame the massacre on and he leaves until the police decide to stop investigating. Now how ONE MAN ALONE is the one responsible for about 50 deaths is beyond me, so sending this one guy away just seemed silly, but that's the plot. Later, when this man comes home, betrayals and scheming have occurred--leading to almost one hour and fifteen minutes of non-stop killing.

If you are looking for a Chinese martial arts film with much of a plot, then you should probably skip this movie, as its practically non-stop action and practically no plot or character development--even when compared to other martial arts films. I would estimate that 80-90% of the film are fight scenes--endless and reasonably well made fight scenes using knives. Again and again and again, fight scenes! If you want a film with a body count perhaps running into the hundreds as people are slashed, kicked, and slashed, then this is the film for you. The problem was by the end of the film there are literally no people left to kill and the film really lost my interest!! Deep it ain't, but if you want to see excitement and action ONLY, then this film is for you!

By the way, this movie is set in contemporary times and no one thinks of shooting the hero until just near the end. And, when they FINALLY do the logical thing, it's too late and the effort is really, really lame! Logical errors like this and the lady's suicide (why???) make this a "turn off your brain" type of film.


Any of Law & Order's, CSI (take your choice of city), and Homicide: Life on the Street's weakest episodes is superior to the strongest episode of Bones.

David Boreanaz is stuck in crappy Angel mode, and Emily Deschanel portrays "Bones" too... unrealistically. The actors as a whole have terrible scenes together, be it with forced acting, or just awful lines.

The murders become predictable after a while, as the foreshadowing and clues are just too obvious.

Music is okay, though really unnecessary at times.

All in all, Bones is hardly the show I'd recommend watching during the weekdays as it is a carbon-copy of better shows with unreal characters and ever-dulling stories.

Skip this if you can.


I just finished watching one episode(S1-#5 A boy in a bush), so maybe my review is not very fair.

But based on that episode, this is a very poor version of CSI, the acting is crap. The main character, Dr whatever her name is, is so fake it actually hurts. I wouldn't cast her to do an add for dog food!

The other hurtful thing is David Boreanaz of the "Angel" fame, a good actor, does a great job, but wasted coz of the idiotic acting of that woman.

Supporting cast is OK, but all is ruined due to this stupid acting of Emily Deschanel .

Very disappointing version of CSI, very sorry to see it appear on the filmography of some of the potential talents involved in it.

That woman is really sh#t, at least in that episode. But based on this one view, I will not even invest watching it even if it was shown on an elevator screen.


The first season of Bones is playing in Finland and I can't believe the amount of bullshit that this show puts on - the characters are shallow, poorly directed and clumsy.

It's a poor mans' CSI. Or actually, CSI without coherent plot. Although Bones has potential, it fails due to the lacking of the director who hasn't been able to extract the essence of the show from the actors. It's actually sad to see a show throw it all away when it could had been a descent show with just a pinch more thought. From the start you get the feeling how awkward the acting is.

Long story short - don't waste your time on Bones.


This is so bad I don't know where to begin.

The lead role is a good starting point. It is a supreme Mary Sue character that has few things in common with the original one from the book, who was (a bit) more credible. No, this one is invincible, infallible, indomitable, and insipid even beyond the overinflated standards that this "chicks with swords" era that our medias are spinning out of late. She is a twenty-something top-model, thin as a match yet rich, already a leader in her academic field, a kung-fu master, a natural sniper and seems to have enough authority to naturally trump anyone official like puny FBI agents. She is God.

To balance it out, she is supposed to be socially awkward (due to her typically harsh upbringing that transformed her into a "Spock") which gives us some delighted moments where she wonders what is "Star Wars", or "American Idol", but yet when it's really important she can conveniently reveal herself as a top negotiator and diplomat, because she is so superior, ya know. To top it out, she is played by a wooden actress.

The more talented Boreanaz serves as a faire-valoir token for this construct, acting as a bumbling comic-relief and house "Watson". In fact, everything in there is a pop-parody of better works like Sherlock Holmes, CSI and X-Files, from which it tries to emulate the sexual tension between main protagonists. It is however cheaper, as this is delivered with all the subtlety of an elbow poke in the ribs, but a million million poor factory girls will doubtlessly buy into it, hence the crazy rating this turkey gets.

In fact, the lowest common denominator goes a long way in this sad puppy, resulting in titillating sex details from the legion of sidekicks that aim to pass it out as daring and trendy, while the overall tone of the show carries an obvious neo-conservative view on things.

Story-wise, there's not much here to feast upon, as crimes (that always start out with some gruesome remains) are resolved using non-existent technology while the "squints", lovable but so wrong (the women less than the guys) goes on varied theories, all of them futile as the main character has it all from the start, and once it is established she goes out and then punch the guy, typically a real tough hombre, with a spin kick here and a slapper there. The end.


Dude...I liked Buffy and Angel as much as the next sci-fi freak...but this is too much. The worst lead actress EVER!! Not even David "Hot Pants" Boreanaz is able to save this crap. No wonder I NEVER watch Fox  it blows!! We totally gave it a chance, and it continued to suck. We watched four or five painful, agonizing episodes. I want to kill the execs at the network SO BAD! Why is money being spent on this drivel?!?! I don't get it and I don't support it and you should NEVER waste your time watching this show...unless you LIKE it when your EYES BLEED FROM THEIR SOCKETS!

Crap. Crap. Crap.


I am a regular reader of Kathy Reichs' Temperance Brennan novels. As such I am extremely surprised she even consulted on this show.

It is HORRIBLE by comparison to the books. The Temperance Brennan character is, in the books, a down to earth recovering alcoholic and divorced mom of a college aged daughter. In 'Bones', she is an arrogant (rhymes with rich), who, in typical P C fashion, is not a mother. The emphasis on her assisting staff, complete with lurid details of who has had how many sexual exploits, is totally in contrast with the books.

In total deference to the P C movement, she portrays the enemies of the U S as peace lovers (!). Some of the information isn't even correct, for example, having a character from Afghanistan as an active member of an Arab-American friendship group. Since when is an Afghan an Arab?! I'm sure if negative references were made to 'disadvantaged minorities', or women, or GLBT's, the show's producers/writers/directors would have to issue an apology. However, in typical far left fashion, all of the racial slurs go to the highest achieving minority group--Asians, as David Boreanaz' Agent Booth continually refers to Angela Montenegro as a 'squint'.

Forget that stuff, and forget this show. After 'The Man in the SUV' episode, I thought I'd try a second episode to see if it got any better. It only got worse! I don't even care if the teenager in question was murdered or committed suicide, and I won't be watching the show ever again.


Ladies and Gentlemen.. Be sad (or be glad !).. We are in the disgusting forensic T.V Series-ERA !! Now count with me and anathematize our Luck :

"CSI: Crime Scene Investigation", "CSI: Miami", "CSI: NY", "NCIS", "Crossing Jordan", "Da Vinci's Inquest", EVEN "The Cosby Mysteries" !..Didn't we Already Have ENOUGH ?!

From the late 1990 till the late 2000s we've got almost the same sick series about the genius criminologist with a partner (or a team) who go to solve crimes by scrutiny the autopsy ..and what a nauseating mission to do. So you will have for sure lots and lots of repellent scenes where we see clearly, accurately and awfully the most horrific shots in the history of T.V.

OH GOD.. Once we had the great days; the good cop (or detective)ERA such as Columbo, Kojak, Magnum, and Simon & Simon. Or the good old Sci-Fi ERA, like The Six Million Dollar Man, The Bionic Woman, Knight Rider. And oh boy we've got also the hot & sexy such :cover up, The Love Boat, Baywatch, even a flop as Thunder in Paradise.

All of those were unforgettable, original, had good..real good thoughts, action, women ..Till THE X FILES came.. And then it was the beginning of the misfortune or to be exact : The Catastrophe!

X Files Undoubtedly was one of the greatest, but there was a few slight disadvantages, we had have agent Dana Scully (medical doctor and FBI agent) at every episode doing an autopsy ..,and of course her lap (as the series succeed) became part of our living room, so the thirsty-for-money producers loved it with all the physical terror + the exciting hunt for the truth.. Therefore they tried to repeat it in another not too far classification : The Forensic !

But it became so ugly, full of deformation, and very cruddy just like BONES. Plus the unsexy present of Emily Deschanel, and bleeder as David Boreanaz (he was much better in angel), and all of these corpses .. To the extent that every time i've watched it I found my self screaming AAAAHHHHHH !! What a terrible gross !!..

Cancel it please.. You've canceled before real good shows such as (The Lone Gunmen) or (A Man Called Hawk). Here it's a bad one.. So please.. Little Mercy and enough with the Bones-ERA !!!.. or we'll drop dead ourselves of Nausea and Monotony !!


Thunder Alley finds Fabian banned from NASCAR tracks after causing the death of another driver. Stanley Adams might want to put him on his team of racers, but the other drivers aren't for having him around.

Desperate for employment Fabian hooks up with an auto stunt show owner Jan Murray who's paying him peanuts and trying to capitalize on Fabian's bad rep. He's got to take it, but Annette Funicello who's Murray's daughter provides another reason to stick around.

The rest of the film is Fabian's struggle to get back to the NASCAR circuit while at the same time juggling both Annette and his current girl friend Diane McBain. Personally, I would have taken McBain, she has it all over Annette.

Thunder Alley is helped by location shooting at the southern NASCAR tracks and good film footage of NASCAR racing. Not helped by a rather silly story which delves into the real reason for Fabian's problems and his rather unrealistic recovery from same.

Still fans of NASCAR might go for this.


Racing enthusiast Fabian (as Tommy Callahan) smokes, drinks, and suffers blackouts while juggling feelings for alluring brunette Annette Funicello (as Francie Madsen) and blonde mainstay Diane McBain (as Annie Blaine). Complicating matters are Ms. Funicello's boozy race car boyfriend Warren Berlinger (as Eddie Sands), and her father Jan Murray (as Pete Madsen), who encourages the reckless drivers. Funicello's cow-eyed performance is sometimes enjoyable; however, her drunken driving scene is unnerving. "Thunder Alley" provides marginally more NASCAR excitement than its predecessor, "Fireball 500" (1966) *; be warned, it isn't much. A wild party scene, featuring some mild strip tease, is the film's low highlight.


As much as I hated the movie that this series follows I can at least says that Zangief was amusing. The animated series is quite possibly one of the worst things ever produced. The animation is quite often inconsistent, although it does stay consistently bad. The shape of a characters face is even capable of drastically changing in the same shot. The script and voice acting also leave something to be desired since most of the cast seems about as talented as the cast of a third grade drama play. Characters like Cammy and DJ are so forced into stereotypes of their nationalities that episodes containing them are almost physically painful to watch, not that the series isn't painful on a regular basis anyway. Episode plots seem to strive to reach new levels of lame with every turn and are so full of plot holes it amazes me they had time to show commercials. Truthfully, it amazes me anyone wold pay to advertise during the show. In addition to being a bad series it is an even worse adaptation of Street Fighter. Many of the characters maintain the failed adaptations from the movie. Examples include Ken and Ryu being idiot con men (even though Ken is supposed to be rich), Blanka being Guiles friend Charlie, and Chun Li being a reporter. It takes talent to take something as bad as the movie and make it worse.


Stumbled over this film on Amazon.com. Had never heard of its release but the three reviews gave it five stars and rave reviews so being a lover of German movies I bought a copy...

Have to say that I was not impressed. The production values are cheap, the story is derivative, the characters are less than engaging and for a comedy it is surprisingly short on laughs.

I wanted to like this but I just found it lackluster and dull. Or maybe I expected more of independent German cinema than a gay spin on The Full Monty and a cast of stereotypes.

There are bits in the film that make no sense at all, like one of the Leather Bear's trying to get Ecki in a sling --like he'd even look at him twice? Or the vengeful ex-wife turning up at the match but ending up cheering for her estranged gay husband? Bunkum is not the word! Well, at least it explains the movies UK title, I suppose...


When I went to see this movie it was already a forced choice, as my original intent was sold out. what ensuited then was sheer terror, this movie is so bad i could hardly bear it. the story is not worth mention, a gay goalkeeper forms a gay soccer team to play against his old straight team who - on discovering his sexual orientation - gave him a hard time. loaded with unbearably old and overused clichés of gays, the thin plot matches perfectly the inane dialogues... it is absolutely astonishing that actors as dietmar bär or charly hübner waste their talent and time on such nonsense. 1/10


You thought after "Traumschiff Surprise" that German comedy can't get worse? It can. This comedy is yet another attempt at perpetuating stereotypes of gay men masked as a nice comedy. The initial concept (openly gay men in soccer sports) would have been a great opportunity to erase some stereotypes, but... The real intended message of the movie seems to be in what way gay men are oh-so-different from straight men. Absolutely silly, of course. Even gay sex is treated as being of less value than straight sex. This movie only tries to serve straight audiences wanting to laugh about stereotypical gay men. Well, don't waste your time on German comedy movies!