My wife rented this movie and then conveniently never got to see it. If I ever want to torture her I will make her watch this movie. I've watched many movies with my 4 year old and I can take almost anything. Barney is refreshing after a shot of Quigley.

The plot, dialog, cinematography, & acting were one step above (or equal to) a cheap porn film. I feel cheated out of $3.69 that we paid to rent it and then 90 minutes of my life I will never get back. I will say my 4 year old liked it, luckily it was a rental we had to return right away.

I just hope that the younger actor's careers are not ruined from being in this movie.


This is a really bad waste of your time. I would probably rather go watch some documentary than this; it's really that bad.

The acting is really terrible, and you can tell that the producers had a low budget because of the terrible picture quality. It's by far on the low end of the scale; don't waste your money on it.

I have a really hard time believing the person who made this movie that it would fare well. I had to watch it with the kids when my mother rented it because she thought it would be good for the kids. Even the kids (3, 4, 6, and 8) all thought it was pretty boring.

I agree with the other commenter, Spongebob would be a lot better to watch than this.

Overall: Just don't watch it. Don't. Don't.


This movie comes down like a square peg in a square hole. A poorly made peg. A peg so cheap it couldn't even be produced in a sweatshop assembly line in Chinatown, Mexico. In fact, when you try to press the peg into the hole for which it is obviously designed, it crumbles into sticky, disgusting pieces that smell like rotting fruit and won't wash off. Quigly is such a peg.

This movie is so mind-bendingly awful, it couldn't have even been created. A movie like this must have been the result of some accident of nature; some freakish entity that congealed in the corner of a dank office somewhere and festered and grew until it was too big and terrifying to look at. Only science would be interested in such a thing; anyone not bent on studying it would exhume it from this world.

What it comes down to is this: if you're the kind to enjoy first year violin recitals, racism, or Coke Zero, it might just be your birthday.


What a waste of precious time! My 5-year-old daughter brought this home from my mother's house, and we watched it as a family. None of us liked it. This wretched little film, rife with glaring inconsistencies, overt Christian themes and horrible film quality, is not worth watching even on a dare. It felt a bit like a bad high-school drama class attempt at film making. How sad to see talented actors (Chris Atkins, Gary Busey, and company) flounder their way through this trite and insipid storyline. The only good thing I can say about this movie is that the dog is cute. The film can should have gone straight to the pound. Avoid this film - your time is better spent watching paint dry.


I had to watch this movie with my 5-year-old. He didn't laugh once during the entire movie...and he loves dogs and will laugh at nearly anything! This movie was horrible from all aspects: poor script (even accounting for a children's G-rated movie), poor production (the jittery camera shots made me feel nauseous for the first ten minutes), poor acting (perhaps they were "directed" to act cartoonish), and even poor sound quality (there are parts where the audio level seems fine, then you can't hear what the next actor is saying). I'm willing to put up with quite a lot when it comes to watching a child's movie, but this was worse than having a stick in my eye. I also didn't like being battered over the head with the god-heaven-belief thing. In all, it was the biggest waste of 90 minutes in my life...and I've done some serious time-wasting in my day!


This movie should go down in the annals of fiefdom as one of the worst of all time. I will stop short of saying it's the worst movie ever, only because I have yet to see every movie ever made. I cannot make such lofty claims until then. The story is stale, the acting is horrible, at best, the "special" effects are no more than a couple of lbs. of dry ice and a fan. Somebody must have been related to someone to get this movie made. Mr. Busey mailed this one in! The dog is well trained and cute, making it the only redeeming quality in this never-should-have-made-it movie. Two hours and $3 of my life I will never get back.


All Grown up had a lot to live up to and there was much hype when this show was anounced. Now it's easy to explain why it didn't live up to expectations: Firstly, this show failed to create a realistic world of pre-teens in the way that Rugrats captured the world and the imagination of toddlers. Secondly, the show's character's are stereo-types (Angelica: white spoilt blond as opposed to Suzie: colored girl from modest family,...) or boring (Tommy, Chuckie) and annoying (Dil). Finally, there is not one ounce of innovation or an original plot-line. To sum up, All Grown Up is a waste of time and a bad idea for a sequel series to a show such as Rugrats. It's boring, lacks imagination and it seems that the producers don't even know how 10 to 13 year olds behave. To be accurate, shouldn't Angelica and Suzie be comparing bra sizes rather than fight over who's better at doing chores?


Why did they change the cute, Rugrats television show we all know and love into a lame attempt to target teens? They don't have to do that. All ages watch the regular Rugrats. When I heard about this, I thought, "Hey. They made a TV series about the movie. Except, they're really grown up as a teenager! This is going to be better." When I saw it, it was just as if I was watching As Told By Ginger, except they made it suck. Great job.

When in the Rugrats series has tommy been a director? Never. Basically all the episodes in this attempted series is about Tommy's love of directing. I don't like that. I rather watch plots that change every episode. Not the same thing over and over. Also, when did in the old series have each character have their own sides of the story? Never. This series did that. I didn't like that everyone separated. I don't want to see Angelica's side of the story. I hate her.

I do not recommend this show if you like As Told By Ginger and the Rugrats.


ALL GROWN UP is basically a spin off and not much else of the original Nickalodeon RUGRATS cartoon that featured the babies Tommy Pickles, Chucky Finster, Lil and Phil DeVille, Angelica, Susie and (later) Kimi (Chuckies sister) and Dill (Tommy's brother). I grew up with RUGRATS and thought it was a great cartoon. It had excellent humor, nice stories and the show's creators, Klasky & Csupo, were obviously very original and creative with the concept of the adventures of babies. The new show ALL GROWN UP tries to recapture the magic of the original cartoon. I was disappointed when I saw it. I found the "all-grown-up" Chuckie just annoying and the whole "pre-teen-acting-mature/trying-to-be-popular" that applied to (unfortunately) *all* of the characters dull and washed out. There still are some funny scenes and jokes in the new series and it was interesting how the artists would make the whole baby gang of RUGRATS look ten years from their age in the original show. Overall, this show is 'fair' and only watchable if a) you're a die-hard fan of the RUGRATS, b) have never seen the original show, c) you're a pre-teen that has nothing to do, or d) your so bored that your somehow forced to see this show. This show is not that good. It doesn't compare to the older RUGRATS episodes in quality, humor, and everything else.


This is a typical "perfect crime" thriller. A perfect crime is executed and the investigating police officer, ignoring all the clues, immediately knows who guilty is. The audience has to wait around the whole movie for the guilty to be caught. The result is like every single episode of "Columbo" or "murder she wrote". The director himself refers to the hackney story by showing the police officer watching an episode of Matlock! This story barely fills up 90 minutes but the director insists on using all 120 minutes filling with every cliche in the book. Skip this one, you are not missing anything.


An updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other "inherent and pure" evil ones do.

Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending.


People, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again.


When I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak.


Because it came from HBO and based on the IMDb rating, I watched the first season of this series, what a waste. The characters are occasionally interesting but mostly cartoon-like. The acting ranges from good to mediocre talent with a S T R O N G emphasis on the latter. Not only prisoners, also viewers should leave all hope at the cell door that this story is believable, it's such a load of dung that you will need unusually strong testicular fortitude to keep watching. The violence, as with most of the developments in the story, is titillating and whatever morality is supposedly served up, it's of the lite variety. If your idea of excellent television includes the the writing, acting and overall production quality seen in THE SOPRANOS, DEADWOOD or SIX FEET UNDER, avoid OZ. If you want to see a Disneyland for Illiterate Jerks, watch OZ. Stuff like this gives edgy a bad name.


Not for the first time, I'm out of kilter with the majority view. Oz is a dreadful, pretentious, voyeuristic series. The makers have their cake and eat it. Oz, Em City, etc are used as ultra- crude signals that the apparent grittiness is complete fantasy. This allows viewers the feeblest of intellectual excuses to watch soap operatic nonsense spiced with everything that is bad about human beings.

When you watch an episode, please remember that while the foul-mouthed, violent, absurdly convoluted, unconvincing, sick, imaginary drama unfolds before your approving eyes, several hundred infants in poorer parts of the world have died from bad food or water.

Oz is exploitative drama at its worst. It appeals to the basest instincts but pretends to be serious and meaningful. It blows hot and cold and changes from fortissimo to pianissimo more often than a Mahler symphony.

Dialogue is unrelentingly ugly and utilitarian. The liberties taken with realities are stupid. Here's a nightclub owning dandy, arriving at Oz in his foppish finery, complete with a ridiculously cloudy contact lens in one eye, brandishing a stash of drugs that nobody detected. Here's a murderous wimp bleating about the heat death of the universe, begging to be killed, but of course being refused by the brute he approaches and doing a bit of improbable throat cutting himself.

The action races on at a pace fast enough for the voyeuristic, dim-witted viewer to be thinking always about what happens next rather than the rubbish that has just been shown. Don't worry, a betrayal, a murder, a sex scene will be along within a minute or two.

Finally, Oz is obviously pretentious. You don't have to feel embarrassed about being carried along by its flow. You can watch it and tell yourself that the producers, writers and actors are doing everything with a huge wink (or same word but for a change of vowel) to the audience.

Yes, you can be a nasty-minded viewer and excuse yourself on the grounds of the cleverness, post-modernistic, etc skills of the Oz production team. They appeal to the lowest common denominator while pretending to operate on a higher plane.

Truly, a despicable series. And every hour it shows, rewarding its makers and actors, and generating advertising revenue for the channels that show it to people who have nothing better to do than watch something so ugly and unnecessary, another few hundred children die whose lives could have been saved by the dollars spent by this horrible, successful, widely-praised series.


First of all, season 1 is intolerably bad. The prison is ridiculously unrealistic, the characters are so two dimensional they're nearly transparent, and the direction is terrible. It runs like a bad video of a junior high school play, characters wandering past the camera and uttering highly timed and rehearsed lines, passing off as random prison talk. Soon the show gets better, but not by much. The return from the commercial break is always accompanied by some ridiculous monologue by wheelchair-bound Augustus Hill, who is played impressively by Harold Perrineau. The only time his character is consistently bad is during the bad performance art monologues, most of which take place in an inexplicable rotating glass cube and generally have nothing to do with what's taking place in the show.

Unfortunately, the bad ideas in Oz could fill an encyclopedia of several volumes. Consider the whole situation, first of all. Prisoners are able to hang out in plain sight getting drunk, doing drugs, and they not only have CD players (CDs?? They might as well pass out steak knives), but all incoming mail is thoroughly examined by PRISONERS. Christ, the place is like a men's club with guards. Guards that don't do much.

Near the end of season two, an older prisoner's grandson is diagnosed with leukemia, and all of the prisoners pitch in thick wads of $20 and $50 bills to help send him to Disneyworld to fulfill his dying wish. These have to be the richest prisoners in the world. Every single prisoner in Oz all of a sudden became caring, loving guys except Kenny Wangler, an irritating character but one of the only ones who is consistently convincing. Even Adibisi wanted to be nice. But that's okay, because there is no order or sense in the show, so even this is not much of a distraction.

Later, shockingly, there is a boxing scene in which one inmate is wearing an "I Love Cops" t- shirt. In prison!! Can you imagine?? I have a cousin who was in prison a few years ago. I sent him an old picture of us with some friends in high school, and in the picture, one of my friends was holding an "I Love Cops" bumper sticker, and one of "the woods" (guys who have been in prison for years and years) saw the picture but just grabbed it and ripped it to shreds. My cousin got lucky.

Kenny Wangler also constantly berates the guards and even more senior officers for not calling him Bricks. One of them even tried to bribe him to go to an English class. You may lose track of who is in charge, the prisoners or the guards. More than one investigator, for example, goes into the prison undercover and gets killed trying to stop the drug trade. Personally I would just stop letting prisoners inspect incoming mail rather than risk the lives of investigators.

Let's see, what else? Shillinger's son OD's in solitary and no one thinks to ask the guard how he got the drugs. He just...got them, I guess. And make sure to pay attention, otherwise you'll miss the reason why the prisoners have enough money to be able to afford ascellular dermal grafts when they get bad gums. I didn't know guests in maximum security prisons were afforded such luxurious treatment options. How about this, when Robson asks about Dr. Faraj's schedule so he can ask what race of gums he was given, Faraj is so terrified that he goes to the warden and quits his job on the spot. Do doctors and dentists not have the right to request not to see certain prisoners? After Poet and O'Reilly make the announcement to the entire prison, Robson asks to see Dr. Faraj, and is escorted to his office, brought in without knocking, and the guard promptly leaves without a word. They might as well give him a gun.

I shouldn't go on about stupid ideas in this show, but it's like a flood, I can't stop it. Who thought of the Chinese refugees who can't speak Chinese and who disappear en masse from sight unless they're needed? Who thought of the goofy religious wars and all the reverend prisoners? Who though of Robson's gum transplant? What's the deal with Busmalis and Agamemnon? Agamemnon because he clearly doesn't belong in prison and Busmalis because of the whole thing with his grandson. Macbeth, because it was nothing but a ridiculous means to an end, as it were.

But what are the worst ideas? Things that go nowhere, which are constant. An Irish man comes to the prison and builds a bomb. He threatens to blow up the entire prison, the bomb turns out to be a dud, and the episode ends with him being led away by the bomb squad after the entire prison is evacuated. Nothing is ever heard from him or about the whole situation again. It's like it never happened. In one episode, prisoners are given dogs to train. What the hell?? If that wasn't bad enough, during one training session, a guard fires his gun inside the prison walls as a training exercise. No one seems to mind.

I also like how anytime some kind of altercation breaks out, the culprits are pulled aside, they don't say anything, and the guards or warden or sister Pete or whoever always says, "I hope you don't think I'm gonna let this go!!" And then they walk away and let it go. The audience won't remember.

Maybe I'm spoiled by Prison Break, but Oz is just a goofy prison drama that might be better as a play. A short one. At least a low-budget movie. There is just not enough here to sustain a multi-season TV show. Then again, I watched six seasons of it on DVD. Sometimes I don't understand myself...


Where do I begin with the Killing Mind before I mention the good bit? This movie is about a young psychological profiling FBI woman, or something, that for some reason goes to work for the LAPD for a wee while. There are some recognisable faces, like the "I love you, man" bloke from Wayne's World, playing a cop (nice beard-age too!) and two guys who always seem to play cops playing..... you guessed it, cops. One of them was one of the cops in Gross Point Blank following John Cusack about the place, and the other is the FBI guy with specs in Final Destination, who is also in the Fugitive as another cop. I know the FBI, US Marshalls, CIA, etc aren't cops, but they're all the same. They enforce the law to a certain degree, that makes them cops in my book. Feel free to disagree with the definition of a cop all you want, they're still seen as the ones who are trying to bring the bad guys down. Any, I digress. The woman is working alongside these cops who just seem to sit around in a library in the basement or something, and for some unknown reason decides to reopen a case that hasn't been looked at for yonks. She saw the dead body as a kid, so naturally decided that she can reopen the case cos she was personally attached to it! I also like how the person profiling other people's psychological state witnessed a murder scene as a child. Surely that's the kind of thing that can screw with someone's head?! She starts asking questions off some journalist who covered the story when it was open, even though he appears to be the same age as the woman, so he presumably was either writing for a newspaper when he was 10, or he wrote a few school reports on it, and she decided he'd be the best person to ask about it.

We then see that as well as reopening homicide cases from 25 years earlier, she tries her hand at petty theft as some really inconspicuous bloke sprints through a busy street wearing a balaclava. Way to blend, moron! Anyway, she and the cops she's with eating ice creams in the park give chase after him, and whilst crossing a bridge with a woman and child standing on it, the thief grabs the baby from the mother's arms and throws the baby in the river. This, if you haven't already guessed, is the best bit of the movie. I'm not sadistic, and don't have a hatred for babies or anything, but the scene just looks so stupid I promise you will wet your pants laughing at it if you should watch this movie. It gets better when the cop from Final Destination & the Fugitive jumps in to rescue the baby then declares to his friend "It's a baby!" How did he not know that before he jumped in, is beyond me.

Anyway, she chases after the thief but loses him. Later on she remembers that a random dog didn't bark at the thief, so assumed it must be his and decided to track down the thief through the dog. The dog had no markings or anything on it, so how she knew where to find the dog, and thus find the thief is another question I won't go into. it was shortly after this that I stopped watching. The story was moving really slowly, and after I had stopped laughing at the baby throwing bit, I had kind of lost interest and missed what was being said.

Saying that, I'll go ahead and assume that the killer was the journalist bloke because he seemed a bit shifty, and she was spending a lot of time with him, and anyone who watches Columbo knows that the person outside the police force who spends most time with the investigating officer is your bad guy. plus, other people's reviews say the killer was pretty obvious, so I'm sure it was him.

So all in all, a pants film, but worth watching just for that one glorious scene.


The topics presented are very interesting; suburban culture, suburban sprawl, public transportation, oil & gas depletion, energy dependence, alternative energy sources, etc.

The problem is that this is a pure and shameless propaganda piece. One viewpoint is presented, then hammered upon the viewer over and over. You see the same handful of 'experts' repeatedly making their case. The supposed 'narrator' starts off sounding like a news reporter, but by the end even he is preaching the film's dogma.

The dark side of the film is not so much the gloom and doom message about oil depletion, but the sense that the folks in the film are actually wishful for a post-oil society and all that it entails. They paint this picture of a utopian society where we all return to the self-contained local village model; walk to work, shop locally, grow our own food, and generally live an idyllic 19th century lifestyle. For them, the post-oil society would seem a grand vision of a better world. It would certainly spell the end of globalization, and better still, the end of Walmart. I will give them some credit for applying actual math in exposing the weaknesses of several over-touted alternative energy sources, including ethanol and hydrogen.

I gave it 3 stars because I appreciated the old footage and the premise.


A modern scare film? Yep it is..

The hippies, peaceniks and environmentalists got together to deliver us a fear film.. I didn't recognize it when watching it only 2 years ago that it was a fear film but that's exactly what it is..

There's no difference between this film and films the nazi made about us in ww2 and the same films we made about them.. this is pure propaganda and speaks only to those.. that believe in aliens, 9/11 conspiracy plots, faked moon landings, peak oil and major environmentalism What I can say is this film does push buttons, make you ask questions and ultimately just forget about it.. It's a scare film.. so if your scarred get in your houses, lock your doors and stock up for that nuclear winter we all know is coming when bush provokes the Chinese into nuclear war..


Doesn't anyone bother to check where this kind of sludge comes from before blathering on about its supposed revelations? Ask yourself a question: Is my skull an open bucket that I allow anyone to dump their propaganda into? Do yourself a favor and take a look at the bomb-shelter mentality of pathtofreedom.com before you waste your time with this screed.

These sorts of Mother Earth/People's Republic of Berkeley urbanite fruitcakes that openly despise a way of life only because it doesn't match theirs must believe their case fails miserably on facts and objectivity. Else why resort to willful distortion and blatant one-sidedness? Pathetic.

Don't be a sap. Take two seconds and cast a skeptical eye before falling for yet more 'end of the world' hysteria from it-takes-a-village types with a political agenda that's probably even to the left of your own. Mi. Moore (rather his unthinking followers) have really opened the floodgates with this kind of one-sided political trash passed off as a *cough* documentary. But apparently they understand the sentiment of an ever-gullible public: "If it's on a movie screen, it must be true."

God gave you a brain - act like you know what you're supposed to do with it...


I loved all the other Don Knotts movies, but I never heard much about "How To Frame A Fig" and now I know why: I can't think of anyone who would find it enjoyable. This movie seems to appeal to 9 or 10 year olds, but even most of them would give this a thumbs down. At best there are brief moments of mild amusement, mostly from Don Knotts playing the same nervous, underdog persona that made him famous.

After the movie finally finished I was curious if my teenager could pick up on this movie's fatal flaw. We were in complete agreement: the Prentiss Gates sidekick character was even dumber than the Don Knotts character.

Be happy that Mr. Limpet, Reluctant Astronaut, Shakiest Gun and Mr. Chicken movies are around to enjoy.


The first time I had heard of Guest House Paridiso was in the, er... "washroom" after having just seen Fight Club. In each urinal was deposited a small, round black circle. When the circle came into contact with moisture (to put it delicately), it caused a colour picture to form, with photographs of the two stars and the tag line "You'll P*** Yourself Laughing". When you'd finished washing your hands, the circle had dried and faded to black again, waiting to spring it's surprise on the next "victim".

Okay, maybe the punchline wasn't terribly sophisticated, but you have to admit it was innovative. In fact, I think I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it in my life before, and these days of over a century of cinema and marketing, that's a real feat. What a pity the film that went with it failed to live up to the promise.

I hate to pan Guest House Paridiso and I am indebted to Rik Mayall (Richard Twat) and Adrian Edmondson (Eddie Elizabeth Ndingombaba) for many years of laughter through their appealing television series, be it the invention of The Young Ones (1982-1984), the sitting room plays of Bottom (1991-1995), or even solo work, such as Rik in the New Statesman (1988-1993). In fact, this would have made an hilarious 45 minute tv special. Unfortunately, its an 89 minute film.

There's definitely some merit to be had, and I laughed continuously throughout the protracted finale, which spoofed the Exorcist and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and involved... well, you'll have to see that bit for yourself. Yet often the pace is leaden, and a sterile atmosphere is throughout. The two stars (Edmondson taking his usual backseat, this time due to the fact that he adequately directs) never really get into first gear, Mayall only sporadically showing the foul-mouthed mania that makes us love him on the small screen. Indeed, the writers' presumption that we are already familiar with the characters leads to them being underdelivered to the audience. The slight hints of depth seen in the series (Richie's effeminate, failed social-climbing for example) are not present here, and instead we are left with parodies of parodies.

The Fawlty Towers accusation does pass water, complete with drunken chef and unseen, called-for waiter "Pasquele", which uncannily rhymes with Manuel. Some of the ideas, such a hotel next to a nuclear reactor with a childrens' swing hanging over a cliff face, are very, very funny, but ultimately the frenetic pace is stolen, the two constantly looking for a studio audience that isn't there, and all the "dead laugh" areas patched up with incidental "comedy" music that would have been dated in a Carry On film two decades ago.

Paridiso's brand of puerile, sadistic, perverse humour IS funny, and I feel sure it will make you laugh ... just not as often as it should.


Possibly the worst film within the genre in existence. It was announced as a comedy, but is simply tragically pathetic. I don't think anyone could have achieved anything more terrible and irritating if they were specifically requested to. It is toilet humour at its very poorest, I would avoid even watching the trailer. I only went to see it because it was announced that if you like Monty Python, you are bound to love this. Whoever wrote that was either biased or seriously deranged. I am still bewildered how one can honestly believe such a statement. Rarely do I leave the cinema, really it takes a lot of effort for a film to have that effect on me: this one did it in just 30 minutes.


I had seen Rik Mayall in Blackadder and the New Statesman, so I thought I'd give this film a try.

At around 4 pm I bought it, at around 8pm I started to watch, at around 8.15pm I fast forwarded the remaining film to see if there was anything left watchable for a human being with a brain... but there wasn't. At around 8.45pm I threw the DVD into the dustbin. And that's where this "film" belongs.

What ever happened to British humour? The humour so fine and witty, intelligent and artful that you find in Yes, Minister, Blackadder, Vicar of Dibley, Fawlty Towers or The Fast Show? The black humour Britain is so famous for? I don't want to insult anybody, but I presume even stupid children wouldn't find this funny. They deserve more intelligent fun. And Rik Mayall, you can do better, so please, do!


Being a HUGE fan of the bottom series i was really looking forward to the release of this film.I was eagerly anticipating a laugh a minute roller-coaster ride......alas.

Where to start on this mess?i think its a good start to say that its hardly richie and eddie on our screens in the first place as none of the jokes and one liners they usually deliver so well are funny.I was still waiting for the first laugh after a good 20 minutes of viewing.Many aspects of the story were pathetic and it was as if the film was full of those bad moments they rehearsed and decided to leave out of the final cut.

The overall sets and atmosphere surrounding the film is dark and dingy which i suppose is good if they want to portray the 'terrible' guest house the 2 buffoons attempt to run,but to me its just puts an even higher dampener on a sorry state of filming that should never have been created.

The acting,at times,is pathetic.Fenella Fielding is wasted as the loony Mrs Foxfur and i've seen Simon Pegg have much better outings.

I'd recommend Guest House Paradiso to anybody who is blind drunk because they might appreciate the terrible puns much more.But to any bottom fan who hasn't seen this film and is expecting true richie and eddie action you have been warned


The premise of Bottom crossed with Fawlty Towers sounds great! However, Ade Edmonson & Rik Mayall have managed to create a film that raises barely a titter. Ten years ago, Rik Mayall's mad stare and Ade's idiocy were funny, now they are just annoying.

The film had promise - though the most horrendous hotel in Britain is not a new idea - but failed to deliver. The saving graces were competent performances from Simon (Spaced, Big Train) Pegg and Helene Mathieu, and the film is only 90 minutes long. Sorry, guys, but you really have hit the Bottom


I have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.

The first 3/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.

The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).

To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on.


Wow, this film was terrible. It is as simple as that. It is actually the first time that I walked out early, as far as I can remember. This turned out okay, though: I had a very nice chat with two most charming girls while we all waited for the rest to finally give up on that crap they called a "movie".

Where to start. Bad acting, bad jokes. Faecal humour, which I simply cannot stand. Sorry, but snot, pee and scat are *not* funny. You have seen the title picture? That scene actually drags on for about 5 minutes, with the two "heroes" hitting and mutilating each other, which is supposed to be humorous all by itself. It is not.

Apart from body fluids, violence and cross-dressing, I do not remember much about this. At least not much good. I was really, really disappointed by this piece of garbage. Or let us be honest here: given that I am actually a big fan of "british" (i.e., black) humour, I was angry.

So, want my advice? Three words: do not watch.


The unthinkable has happened. Having first witnessed it a few years ago, I have had a film that has been my benchmark for awfulness and that film was called "McCinsey's Island". A family adventure movie with Hulk Hogan and Grace Jones (I'm not making this up), it plunged to new depths of movie making and is still the only film I've seen that made me wonder what else the film's budget could have been spent on. Like new schools or cancer-treating drugs. However, for sheer and unadulterated levels of crap, any film will be having to lower their standards even lower if they wish to trump "Guest House Paradiso" to the distinction of being one of the very worst movies I've ever had to watch.

Based loosely around the puerile but amusing TV show "Bottom", this film introduces us to two of the biggest losers imaginable. Richard (Rik Mayall) is a hotel manager, as unfriendly as anyone you can imagine and so twistedly lecherous as to almost ooze slime from every action. His buddy Eddie (director Adrian Edmondson) is an alcoholic waste of human life and together, they try to run Britain's worst hotel situated upon a cliff-top next to a nuclear power station. Between them, they indulge in cartoony violence (with sound effects) at regular intervals, steal anything remotely valuable or interesting from the fools who stay there and stare longingly at any woman at all. The plot, such as it is, involves the arrival of fabled Italian screen goddess Gina Carbonara (Vincent Cassel) who is fleeing from her wedding and attempts to lay low at the Guest House Paradiso, much to the astonishment of Richie and Eddie. And... that's it.

I used to think that the Carry On films represented everything bad about the UK film industry and God knows, we've spent so much time and money trying to escape that god awful legacy. We've had films like "Trainspotting", "28 Days Later", "Four Weddings And A Funeral" and the brilliant "Shaun Of The Dead" (also starring Simon Pegg) but this... this drags those films screaming and kicking back to the days of Sid James and Barbara Windsor's top flying off with the aid of a bicycle whistle. "Guest House Paradiso" is so low in its ambition that it insults you the minute you watch it. I kept watching, waiting in anticipation for the jokes to start but they never came. Just an endless stream of trapped knob gags, unimaginative scenarios that defy explanation, slightly amusing violence with frying pans and fridge doors and almost nothing raising so much as a smirk. Come the first ad break (it was on TV, you see) and I was ready to switch off but my loyal duties to you, my readers, kept me going. "I'm watching this so they don't have to" became my mantra so you guys better remember how much you owe me for this because this was about as much fun as having sand kicking into my eyes and being force-fed dog food.

Trust me, I used to love the "Bottom" TV show. The combination of suitably grubby acting from Mayall and Edmondson with OTT juvenile humour worked... for half an hour every week. Certainly not for an hour and a half, as Edmondson and Mayall indulge themselves in their little private joke and bore and depress the rest of the audience. Honestly, this makes Mayall's "Drop Dead Fred" seem like "The Godfather" and should you happen to meet either of these two people (who are pretty much solely responsible for the chaos on screen pretending to be a movie), feel free to swiftly deliver a boot to their testicle region. They'd probably enjoy it. Pegg and Bill Nighy (both as guests at the hotel) are dragged down with this sinking ship but at least they survived. Mayall and Edmondson should not be so lucky. The movie equivalent of Chernobyl and should be avoided as such.


Yep, this has got to be one of the lamest movies I've ever seen. It's utterly tasteless, has no style whatsoever, the story is so thin that you can watch television through it, and the whole film has so many holes you could drive an oil tanker through it.

Sure, I appreciate a good B-movie as much as most male white homo sapiens do. But this has got to be the worst I've seen. In fact it's so B that it lacks everything that makes a B-movie interesting.

The whole movie is based around such charming artefacts as the characters beating the crap out of each other, various bodily functions and the complete lack of sanity of anything on-screen.

It's not even funny. In fact it's quite the opposite. I found it even boring at times due to it's extreme predictability.

I find nothing good to say about this movie. It was a waste of time watching it, and I hope others don't do the same mistake. If you also pay for it you should get a serious brainscan done.


This should have been a short film, nothing more. The Length of 1,5 hours is much too long, because after 10 minutes you have seen almost every joke. It's getting more and more on your nerves untill you finally kick out your brain to endure that movie.

To do yourself a favor, don't mention to see that movie...


Apart from the fact that this film was made ( I suppose it seemed a good idea at the time considering BOTTOM was so popular ) the one thing that puzzled me about GUEST HOUSE PARADISO was what happened to the lighting ? There is absolutely no artificial lighting used in this film whatsoever , and I watched it on network TV so it wasn`t a case of watching a dodgy tape. In fact the film was shot so darkly it was impossible to see what the hell was going on . But if the dialogue was anything to go by that`s maybe not a bad thing


As a Christian, I found this movie to be completely embarrassing. The actors sucked, the writing sucked, the cinematography sucked, and the story was so typical. I couldn't say this is a great witnessing tool, because I'd be too embarrassed to show any of my unsaved friends. Hollywood has much better stuff, and that's because they invest the best into it. Christians put out sh*tty work and think it's OK because "it's for the lord". In the old testament, people spent huge amounts of money to bring offerings to God. David (or Saul.. I don't remember) spent what would be equal to about $50 Billion in todays money on building a temple for God. But these days, spending what would appear to be about $30,000 tops on making a movie to "witness" to people with is just pathetic. It's the person, not the product that affects someone. Don't waste your time trying to convert your friends with this waste of an hour and a half. If you want to make a positive impact with people, show them movies like The Matrix, American Beauty, Braveheart etc.. movies that have something to say and actually get it into you.


(As a note, I'd like to say that I saw this movie at my annual church camp, where the entire youth group laughed at it. I bought it when I saw it on a shelf one year later, if only for the humor I derived from a bad attempt at making an evangelical movie.)

Lay it Down falls short of many movie fans' expectations on several different planes. Most of the problems lie within the impersonal acting. Regardless of the nice cars in the film, or the truth in Christ's sacrifice for you, as a movie AND witnessing tool, Lay it Down hardly delivers.

Most good opinions of the movies are supported by Christians agreeing with the message. While it's easy for a Christian to agree with the points delivered, the audience hardly ever witnesses life outside a cliché. The fighting scene between Ben and his brother is horribly dubbed. And there are at least three blatant typos in the subtitles.

I encourage anyone to watch the movie a second time with the director's commentary on. It really helps you understand just why the movie was written how it was. The director's views on secular society are practically opposite of what would cater to a movie-goer's needs: he shows a pedantic understanding of Nonchristians, as well as some points of religious conflict; most of the editing, he admits, was rushed, but "satisfactory"; he thought the over-used transitions and themes to be effective; and was completely happy with the acting.

He also inserted motifs that he was rather proud of: -All (read: most) of the names are significant. Ben Destin = "Been Destined", Gus Pelman = "Gospel Man", Nicky D = Nicodemus. -The car doing donuts is symbolic of the circling nothingness that is a life without Christ. -When Ben leaves on Pete's motorcycle, he crosses his crutches to form a "cross".

I'm not making any of those up. He throws around things like this in between saying while street racers and the like "blow their brains out with guns", and how "God is in control when your born and when your die". Yes, that was not a typo. He really says that.

I have (little) forgiveness reserved for this movie. The "cool cars" and "good message" don't do jack to make this movie good. However, the movie was made from a group of unprofessional individuals on a budget less than 1/100th of "The Fast and the Furious's", and the time limit was unforgiving. With that in mind, I give it a score of 2/10, instead of the 1/10 I so dearly think it deserves.


Got this off of usenet, so I wasn't prepared for the heavy (and I do mean EXCEPTIONALLY heavy) religious theme. Not that I'm one of Satan's disciples or anything, but it was very heavy handed.

On top of that, the acting stunk. It might be because they had to get good little boys to play bad little boys, but it didn't work.

There was some pretty cool filmmaking involved, so any fan of directorial style might want to check it out, but be ready with the fast forward buttons.

There was some sloppiness to the editing. In particular, a black Mustang (probably a representation of Satan?) squares off against a white 240Z. Wheels spin, camera changes, and whattya know, that white 240Z is transmogrified into a white Civic.

I gave up early on, so I can't vouch for the moral impact of it. But I would like to point out that this sort of film is totally preaching to the choir. If the director/writer/producer was trying to bring religion to the unwashed streetracing masses, they went about it all wrong. I think I'd rather watch an adult diaper commercial than listen to a steely-gazed bible thumper rant about Jesus' dying for us. Yawn.


Truly awful nonsensical garbage. This movie does everything wrong except make the running time under an hour. The gore FX defy gravity & logic. There are no scares. The acting is abysmal, with everyone appearing to be reading their lines. There's a surprise ending that's just silly where we find out that things we saw happen didn't even happen. Boy do I hate cop out endings! They pad this thing out with long drawn-out shots of people doing nothing interesting(like putting on make-up or talking for what seems like forever). They have to pad out a movie that's under an hour long? Ridiculous. The story itself is pretty freakin' thin. I mean it's just a variation of the movie APRIL FOOL'S DAY, if I remember that movie correctly, and that film wasn't all that great either. The only good thing I can say is it seems to have been shot well. Too bad nothing happens that's very exciting.


Granny, directed by Boris Pavlovsky (who?), sees eight friends experiencing a night of terror when a psycho-killer dressed in a old hag rubber mask and a nightdress interrupts their party.

They say you can't judge a book by its cover, but it appears that the same is not true of DVDs: I was in the mood for a REALLY bad horror film last night, and since the cover of Granny featured a shoddily photo-shopped image of the titular killer swinging an axe, terrible typography (they even use the system font Sand, a definite design no-no!), and credits featuring absolutely no-one I had heard of, I reckoned it would be pretty lousy.

It was!

When a film clocks in at just under an hour long, it really shouldn't waste too much time before getting to the action; Granny, however, spends the first 20 minutes or so with its unlikable group of friends indulging in pointless games and extremely banal conversation. Anyone who actually stays with the film long enough for the killing to begin (and I doubt most sane people would bother) will be treated to several dreadful death scenes featuring amateurish gore, loads of awful acting, and a surprise ending that comes as no surprise (if you've seen April Fool's Day, then you'll guess what the twist is way before it is revealed).

Granny is uninspired, unexciting, and almost unwatchable. Avoid.


I watched this movie at a party, we were very puzzled by the ending, it ended rather poor. even though the entire movie isn't too amazing, i was expecting something slightly better. This movie is pure trash, but i suggest you watch it if you find cheap horror films with a weak script quite funny. Personally I loved the advert, it was my overall highlight, the fighting scenes were basic, a shot of a knife, some shadows in a window, fake blood. I must say the Granny costume was quite scary, This film is a mixture of kill joy, camp blood and boggy creek 2,except this film has slightly better camera wok and colour treatment compared with camp blood.


This film is so awful it is funny, not quite to Troll 2 levels of hilarity, but funny nonetheless. The acting is awful, the music is atrocious and the story does not make a blind bit of sense. The story revolves around a man dressed in an awful granny costume killing a bunch of people at a party. The death scenes are so badly done they are hilarious. One girl is stabbed repeatedly in the chest, but does not scream, try or defend or self or run away. She also manages to remain standing despite being stabbed repeatedly. Another death scene involving a rope is also extremely hilarious. No thought seems to have been put into the plot. The Granny seems to magically move from one area to another(e.g. be hiding under leaves in a woodland just where the victim just happens to stand, appears in front of someone even though it had been behind them ten seconds earlier), people kiss at extremely inappropriate moments(would you stop and kiss someone if you were being chased by a homicidal maniac) and the double twist at the end is utterly ridiculous, it seems they just threw it on just to confuse people. I would advise people to watch this film if they love awful horror movies like Troll 2, The Dreaded or Blood Gnome, but do not watch it if you are expecting a scary horror movie, you will be disappointed


OK end of the story is - all the kills were a joke on the main character and no one is actually dead. Yes I know Cry Wolf did it and did it well, but this isn't "Cry Wolf", it's "Scream Crap"! Even though the "characters" don't apparently die, we SEE them get stabbed to death (and other ways they are killed) even though these "kills" do NOT take place as anyone can see them. Mr. Director, if you're gonna show people getting killed, someone needs to see it, if they're off camera and the character getting faked killed is alone it doesn't work - and until the end I liked a couple of scenes but your end ruined the whole thing.

The acting is horrid (especially the kid at the beginning who really thinks he tricked his friends into believing they were playing with his dead grandmothers brains) the script is less-than half baked (though if you're half baked you might like the movie) the only reason I gave this movie a 3 is because a) they actually made something b) they got it released and c) they shot on film Yes you read right, they wasted (at least) $5,000 on film stock for this crap. Sad, if they'd shot DV they'd had some cash for a better cast and another writer to go through the script and make it good.

I admire the fact that the director made something (as most don't) but HATWE the fact that he comes on IMDFB talking about how "original" the movie is.

Avoid the movie if it means buying it to see, if a friend has it, it might be a funny movie to borrow.


An object lesson in how to make a bad movie which masquerades as Horror. Without going in too close I would imagine this is the results of a bunch of film school students all adding bits to the story and then actually ACTING in it! Its like a film workshop of some kind and its a film badly in need of an editor-in which case it would have lasted 10 minutes! The director of this garbage probably had more money than sense. Consider the number of submitted scripts or even unreleased films which would have benefited from this. The so called Granny who was killing people in some pretty stupid ways looked like Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future-or maybe the musicians Johnny Winter/Edgar Winter. It starts off with 20 minutes of crass boring nonsense spouted out by the students-something about paranoia. Giving this rubbish 1 is because it can't get any less. It has not one single redeeming feature-and when one of the girls thinks the body on the floor covered in blood is the guy fooling about she has to actually TASTE the red stuff before she knows its not tomato ketchup! Its an insult to the intelligence of an idiot


I love low budget movies. Including those that are intentionally or un-intentionally funny,excess fake gore,violence etc.

This,however is beyond stupid. Once you see the ending you'll say,what the hell was the point of all the killing scenes with no one around(except in a couple) to witness them.AND how did the ending actually come about(I won't give the WHOLE story away for those dumb enough to actually watch this) Granny is like a psychic Jason. First she's outside the window with a body and 15 seconds later she's in the living room knitting. The whole thing is a setup for a newcomer. They pull off graphic kill scenes,the knitting needles in the eyes,that only Chris Angel Mind Freak could pull off. And again,the very end was Pre-posterous. 56 min waste of time. I've seen one of the directors other films and it was almost as bad. Give me 20 grand and I could do better. This really deserves a big fat 0.


NO WAY ! I hated Granny. First, she is way too tall -of course she is, it is Tom, whoever's brother, who's playing her- and I hate that thing she does when she brushes her fake silver hair back, but : there are funny parts in this movie. For instance, the fact that every single actor looks V.G. (very German), and also that they think that, even when left alone, they should pretend that that guy (Tom) is their actual "granny" or something. I specially liked -not- that moment where Charlotte leaves and starts walking to the nearest gas station to ask for some help. She suddenly finds herself in the middle of some woods (where were these before? nobody dares explaining) and turns, turns, turns a-r-oun-d like a ballerina, looking at the stars...and...ignoring the fact that GRANNY'S BEHIND HER, READY TO STRIKE !!! But, anyway, the music wasn't so bad, the haircuts were okay and the ending terribly provocative... Mmmmm... wish I had the German version.


Oh my god, this movie is incredible, it's the baddest movie ever and I know what I am talking about! I am a scary movies fan!

The story is totally silly, a group of adults decide to make a party and a silly guy with an awful mask comes and kills everybody... the dialogs are a kind of parody, worst, they're just talking about sex with a so bad accent. The end is (oh!!!!!!) discover by yourself! you will be really really surprised... (not possible! yes it is!) and surprise the movie is just 58minutes. (not possible (bis) yes it is!) Worst than House IV and Howling V.

To put it in a nutshell, forget it forever!!!


This one features an interesting way of handling a camera,

espercially for a DTV movie - the version I saw was full-screen

- but it falls short on the scenario department. First you get

around 20mn of talk, talk, talk in a would-be-hip, post-"Trainspotting" way, then it's slasher city. And then comes

the most dishonest cheat ending I've seen, much worse than

"April Fool's Day" - where at least it made sense. So, all in

all, it's the old song and dance : interesting director tries

hard, but deserves better movie. Funny : usually, it is the actors which are in desperate need of

something better Skip it anyway, for your time


This home movie is basically scandalously rubbish, but you have to give them 3/10 for trying. The blood is rubbish, but the granny that kills them is quite funny, and I think the concept is good, and make-up is OK for a home movie. However thank god it was only 55 minutes long, and the twist at the end is quite literally Fight Club (as in almost as trash as the film). Just read this comment, don't watch the film.


Granny is definitely one of the worst horror movies ever made in the history of cinema.

The script was diabolical, so bad in fact that I was almost crying with laughter at some of the things they came out with. The acting was almost as bad, they would have been better off casting traffic cones to play the roles (they would have done a better job). The murders were laughable, the suspense was non existent, the camera work was ineffective and the "major" plot twist at the end was disgustingly inappropriate, it just gets worse and worse.

"The Granny" is possibly one of the most unthreatening "villains" caught on film, she looks like she is wearing a cheap mask from the supermarket (the nylon hair caused endless amounts of laughter) and a frilly nightgown. Would you be scared by that??? I certainly wasn't.

If you like watching bad movies (see Manos, Troll 2, Michael Bay films  ) then this is a must see. Those who don't like bad movies and don't enjoy laughing at shockingly bad dialogue, avoid like the plague.


This movie really sucked.....HARD! It was just stupid with a terrible ending. I love a really cheesy horror flick, but this was terrible! The "trick" ending totally contradicts everything you've seen in the movie, if you last til the end. Take my advice and steer clear of that dirty old hag The Granny.


This film is truly execrable in all departments. Script, acting, plot, direction and editing are all uniformly awful. I give it 1 out of 10 simply because people turned up to make it. I would have given it 2 out of 10 if they had all stayed at home instead. Avoid at all costs!


A whole bunch of teenagers gather around to discuss their fears, but an uninvited guest has showed up and is killing everybody off.

Probably the worst horror film of the 90's, Camp Blood (1999) is the only film that could challenge it for that title, has some of the dumbest characters and situations to ever grace a television screen. The so called surprise ending is awful, as is the rest of this film. Mildly entertaining on a sooo bad it is good level. My rating: 2 out of 10.


An annoying group of ex-students from 'Monte Alto International High School' decide to spend a night in the now abandoned institution where a 'mystery' killer called the watchman played by horror legend Paul Naschy murders them off one by one."School Killer" features some references to such teen slasher staples like "Scream" or "Friday the 13th".The climatic twist ending looks like lilted from "The Sixth Sense".The uncertainty about whether the homicidal watchman is alive or dead provide some mild interest,but the characters are one-dimensional and the endless scenes of walking through dark school corridors really got on my nerves.The presence of charismatic Paul Naschy almost saves this clichéd slasher flick.There is also some decent gore on display including a splendidly bloody beheading.It's nice to see Manuela Velasco of "Rec" fame in a small role.4 out of 10.


I was very disappointed with this series. It had lots of cool graphics and that's about it. The level of detail it went into was minimal, and I always got the feeling the audience was being patronized -- there was a lot of what seemed to me as "This is extremely cool but we're not going to explain it in further detail because you won't get it anyway. Let's just show you some pretty pictures to entertain you." The host would drop interesting-sounding words such as "sparticles" and "super-symmetry" without any attempt at explaining what it was. We had to look it up on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I know quite a bit about superstrings (for a layman) and I found their explanations were convoluted and could have been so much better. They could have chosen MUCH better examples to explain concepts, but instead, the examples they used were confusing and further obscured the subject.

Additionally, I got so sick of the repetitiveness. They could easily have condensed the series into one episode if they had cut out all the repetition. They must have shown the clips of the Quantum Café about 8 times. The host kept saying the same things over and over and over again. I can't remember how many times he said "The universe is made out of tiny little vibrating strings." It's like they were trying to brainwash us into just accepting "superstrings are the best thing since sliced bread."

Finally, the show ended off with an unpleasant sense of a "competition" between Fermilab and CERN, clearly biased towards Fermilab. This is supposed to be an educational program about quantum physics, not about whether the US is better than Europe or vice versa! I also felt that was part of the patronizing -- "Audiences need to see some conflict to remain interested." Please. Give me a little more credit than that.

Overall, 2 thumbs down :-(


I'm really disappointed by this piece of work. It is quiet shallow, keeps repeating itself, is mostly not exact and sometimes on the verge of being wrong. I think it's made for elementary school, especially because it keeps repeating itself over and over again while leaving large gaps. A young kid might actually enjoy it and learn from it, but a better way to make a kid appreciate theoretical physics are books like "A short history of time" or "The Tao of Physics". If you are familiar with the topic on a very basic level, you won't gain any new information or views from this series. Don't waste your time with it. Nice eye candy though.


I had a hard time staying awake for the two hour opening episode. It was dumbed down to such an extent, I doubt if I learned a single thing. The graphics were rudimentary. Any small idea was repeated ad nauseum. Contrast this to the Cosmos series hosted by Carl Sagan. That had a good musical theme. There was NO music coming from these infernal 10-dimensional Strings.


Found an old VHS version of this film in my parents house so I thought I'd give it a go. Right from the start I wasn't expecting much from this film and I'm glad for that because overall the film was no good.

The acting overall was very poor, even for a Nicolas Cage movie. One scene with a radio controller stands out as being so pitiful that I found it hilarious that this scene wasn't cut. The first 30 minutes of the film had almost no developed plot and I didn't know what was going on.

The story itself had the possibility of being decent but either the director was just bad or was trying too hard to put his own unique touch on the style of the film. I managed to watch the whole thing but I won't likely ever see this film again.


I haven't seen all Cage's works by any means but his acting in this one was truly awful. The other characters run the gamut of ability but, having most of the emotional scenes, Cage's scenes are just embarrassing to watch. He's certainly come a long ways in 12 years.


Like many western Pennsylvania history buffs, I had been really looking forward to this much-heralded PBS program that was produced by Pittsburgh's WQED. However, I must say now that I was somewhat disappointed. On the positive side, I believe that overall this film did a fair job of explaining the main issues and describing the events of the so-called French and Indian War. In particular, its presentation of the Indians' point of view was somewhat new and quite interesting, although it certainly was at time over-emphasized. Also on the positive side, the blend of narrative and action scenes was well done and came across somewhat better than many of these typical documentaries made up of "experts" interviews and picture stills (a la Ken Burns). On the negative side, many of the battles did have a somewhat "staged" look and many important aspects of the war were overlooked. Most of all I was very disappointed and frustrated by how little importance was given to Forbes's successful campaign of 1758 against Fort Duquesne as compared to the earlier failures of 1754 by Washington and 1755 by Braddock. In particular, I was somewhat incredulous that there was NO mention of Colonel Henry Bouquet, the Swiss mercenary in the British service who was most responsible for Forbes' success. Finally I could not believe the complete omission of the 1763 Battle of Bushy Run that started as a re-run of Braddock's defeat but ended up as the victory that decided the outcome of Pontiac's War thanks to the wiles of the same Colonel Bouquet who certainly must rank as one of the most successful British commanders of this war.


The Presentation is VERY shabby. (to my notion) as documentaries often are. Michael Moore's "documenatry" - Farenheit 911 is FAR more convincing but has FAR too much media and political influence. Cant wait till Saturday when I get to see the docudrama "The Game of their Lives" . IFC goes right of center. I have started a collection of IFC movies from off the internet due to "TGOTL" *** out of ********** on "Decade". Wanna see good documentaries? Stick to the History Channel.. Or try docudrama. You cant go wrong with them my friend. Cant go wrong. The seventies were ten years of reruns. Or so the old times would have you to believe. Disco died and it is gone forever. When Elvis died o yes we all did grieve


There was some good build up of suspense throughout. The cinematography was surprisingly good considering such minimal budget. We witness occasional spells of good acting, however, this is quickly deflated by some quite cheesy lines. Understandably there would not be much of an intellectual conversation to be had, sitting up on trees while a crocodile is stalking you. Silence would have been golden here. There could have been a bigger play on suspense than dimly uttering, "I sat in the cupboard for fear of my brother..." Something tells me there's a slight difference in getting a beating from your brother than being eaten by a mighty 15ft croc. You decide. Throughout the film I can't seem to find a connection or for that matter, sympathy with the characters, perhaps thats because they don't develop one throughout the film, character that is. There are some occasional good scares when the crocodile sneaks up on the characters, overshadowed again by some questionable scenes. In one instance we should be terrified by an ear floating in the water but later we sit beside a decapitated, limbless corpse and only worry about a broken finger. A definite roller coaster of a film when it comes to logic.


Yes, the movie was that boring and insipid. after a certain point, I was wanting the croc to eat these people just so we could get the movie over with.

The plot is that three Aussies take a fishing tour up a river in a little boat, where the fishing guide straps on a gun. He says he just does it for insurance purposes, all the crocs have been hunted out of this river. He is immediately eaten by a Croc. The trio then get chased up a tree, getting picked off by the reptile in their attempts to escape. They spend most of the movie arguing over the best way to escape.

Predictably, the one survivor finds the tour guide's gun and shoots the crocodile. Aww, they killed the movie's only likable character!

Where's Paul Hogan or Steve Irwin when you really need them?


Perhaps it's about time we declare 2007 to be "The International Year of the Cinematic Crocodile"! The ridiculous "Primeval" came first, about a croc named Gustave (!) ruling the swamps in Burundi. Then there was "Lake Placid 2", a low-profiled and made-for-TV sequel to a forgettable original. Thirdly, there's this incredibly derivative and soporific piece of Aussie horror and, finally, I have yet to see the promising "Rogue". The last one is likely to be the best, considering the involvement of the upcoming Aussie horror talent Greg McLean ("Wolf Creek"). "Black Water" certainly isn't a complete waste of time and film, but it's another pretty pointless survival flick that confuses real-life agony with horror. Pardon my bluntness, especially since I honestly feel sorry for the people who went through this ordeal, but depicting three characters sitting in a tree and whining for more than a full hour is not my idea of sheer suspense! Three young people travel through Northern Australia and decide to spend a day of fishing in the remote swamp areas. It doesn't take too long before a gigantic and ferocious crocodile capsizes their little boat and devours the guide. Grace, Lee and Adam barely manage to escape the reptile's hungry teeth by climbing up a tree. Even though he remains unseen most of the time, the croc patiently lies in waiting and makes it impossible for them to leave the swamp alive. Yes, it does sound an awful lot like the plot of "Open Water" indeed. Replace the numerous unseen sharks with one giant unseen crocodile and the open sea with an equally inescapable Aussie swamp, and there you have it. Oh well, "Black Water" at least features some rare moments of excitement and one impressively designed water monster. It has to be said, the croc looks fabulously groovy and you anxiously count down towards every next time he wildly emerges from the water. The three-headed cast does whatever they can to keep their characters interesting, but how do you achieve this by sitting in a tree the whole time? The based-on-true-events concept obviously causes a number of restrictions, like limited images of the fantastic filming locations, dialogs and amiable character drawings.


One of those movies where you take bets on who will die first and who will survive at the end. There was just something about the movie that made me zone out. I think because I keep looking back and thinking "yep still in that tree...still looking at the water". Poor character development. I felt nothing when they were in danger. I was voting for the croc. I found it hard to believe a croc would try to tip a boat in the first place and then when it jumps into the boat I find that really unlikely as well. The croc seems too supernatural at times ('all knowing all seeing'). Also when the croc attacks it's behavior seems very unrealistic. It's a killing machine and wouldn't be letting victims escape twice to three times in a row, especially when attacking in the water.


I was Stan in the movie "Dreams Come True". Stan was the friend that worked at the factory with the main character and ended getting his arm smashed in the machinery and got carried out screaming (where was the ambulance?) The acting in this movie was for the most part pretty poor with mostly local actors from the Fox Valley, Wisconsin. I saw the movie on the big screen. It played 2 nights in 3 theaters and was something special to see yourself on the big screen. I may be bias, but overall, I enjoyed it. Also the soundtrack was the band Spooner, who later became Garbage. My brother, Steve Charlton was also in the movie. He played Swenson the man who comes to the door on crutches to talk with the police.


A trash classic! Basically what we have here is a story about a couple of American teenagers (one male, one female both beautiful people of course) who seem to be psychically linked, in that every time both of them fall asleep, they can inhabit each others dreams and express each others innermost desires... think Mills & Boon meets X-files and you'll be somewhere near the mark. Actually, its more like an unhappy hybrid between one of Ed Wood's famously bad B- movies and a particularly silly episode of Melrose Place, so tacky are the special-effects and so amateurish is the acting. The actors who inhabit (I wouldn't say act in) this flick say their lines like they're reading from cue cards and pout when they're supposed to be showing an emotion, and it comes as no great shock (or loss to the industry) that they have since faded into obscurity. The whole thing is just a laughably misguided mixture of styles that don't go together at all, and the end result is a intriguing curiosity that no doubt will be lapped up by purveyors of so-bad-they're-good films in years to come. I'll probably be the only person who ever comments on this film, but if you are reading and have seen it please get back, it gets kinda lonely round here...


This is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. Rod Steiger who stars as the ornery grandfather, Charlie, is in full overacting mode hoping that the more flashy he is, the better his performance (Cue buzzer sound). Rod Steiger is one of the last true film legends and to see him in this film (although End of Days is the 2nd worst film I've ever seen) is really heartbreaking. From the bad storyline to the nonexistent direction, it becomes abudantly clear that the only reason this film was made was that the producer's last name ended in DeLaurentis. The only good thing about this film is that it is so bad, it's truly hysterical. Look for the flashback scene where Rod where's a Jor-El wig from Superman and a big black porno mustache. One only hopes that his follow up film, I Believe in America, from Uber-producer Kevin Arbouet will redeem him and leave a good taste in everyone's mouths.


So boring you'll fall asleep after the 20 first minutes. Sorry Mr Boutonnat, I do admire your work (all these beautiful "films" you directed such as "Tristana", "Sans logique" etc...) but here, the plot is extremely... vain ! Except the magnificent photography, everything appears dumb and there's no envy to know what will happen at these "medium" actors. Moreover, the dialogs are minimalists. The famous question "where are the children" is repeated so often it looks like a farce. Believe me, it's a pure waste of time (concerning the plot), and 3 hours is a long long time. Certainly the real reason of this box-office total mess !


Yet again, I appear to be the only person on planet Earth who is capable of criticizing Japanese films made before 1970. "Fires on the Plain" (1959) is another in the seemingly endless line of "classics" that get all sorts of praise for no apparently good reason. As much as I love to overgeneralize and psychoanalyze all of these moviegoers who have such horrible taste in film, it's still nearly impossible to rationalize why anyone would ever think that poorly made fluff like this should be proclaimed as some sort of "masterpiece." What I find truly ironic is that fans of derivative "classics" like "Fires on the Plain" focus so much on "inside the box" movie-making (orthodox grading standards like scriptwriting, acting, camera-work, etc.) yet it always seems like the most highly revered "classics" are most deficient in these very standards. For example, one of the laziest copouts for a filmmaker involves forced verbal exposition where characters basically explain everything for the viewer even when the constructed scenario is totally artificial. Most surprisingly, the very first scene in "Fires on the Plain" uses this indolent tactic to the extreme.

After a funny head slap, the following useless dialogue assaults the viewer, "Why can't you grasp the situation? We landed to the west under heavy fire to reinforce units at Tacloban. We lost two-thirds of our men. Our artillery was sunk in transit. We tried to reach Burauen airfield by crossing the central mountains but without artillery it was impossible. The enemy's counterattack forced a fanout across the valley. You know that." So why, exactly, is one character telling another character something he already knows? Oh yeah, that's right, the makers of this film are too lazy to think of more natural ways to communicate this information. You see, a quality film would actually show these events happening, or at worst it would involve dialogue involving one character who has no knowledge of those events. Heck, even an opening summary in paragraph form directed at the viewer would have been better than what transpired here.

Such instances of poor quality movie-making are littered throughout "Fires on the Plain" to the point where this film feels like it was written by imbeciles for imbeciles. For example, the lead character stumbles upon some skeletons wrapped in Japanese garb. Instead of doing the natural thing like  oh I don't know  giving a depressed mannerism, the character blurts out "Japanese soldiers." Thanks buddy, but I could have figured that one out for myself.

Even worse, this movie is saturated with over-dramatic ploys. The most ridiculous scene involves a pair of boots. Picture this. A soldier walks along and finds a pair of worn out boots. One would think that such a find is utterly useless, but it turns out that the soldier's boots are in even worse condition, so he picks up the worn boots and leaves his SUPER worn boots behind. Fine, I get the point. The soldiers are in rough shape  a fact that is already clearly emphasized with their worn boots to begin with. The scene is ridiculous, but I was ready to let it go, until the SECOND soldier arrives! You see, he finds the previous soldier's SUPER worn boots and notices  get ready, cause here it comes  that his boots are SUPER DUPER worn boots! Lucky man, he picks up the SUPER worn boots and leaves his SUPER DUPER worn boots behind. But you see, that's not all  because the THIRD soldier then arrives! He finds the previous soldiers SUPER DUPER worn boots and inspects them, along with his own SUPER DUPER worn boots. Since both pairs suck, he tosses them both aside and smiles as he continues barefoot. At this point I was ready to throw my television through my living room window. The heavy handedness, overdramaticism, and paramount absurdity of this sequence is beyond bad film-making. It's SUPER DUPER bad film-making.

There are a number of similar, completely stupid moments to be had. Like the time when the lead character asks someone, "Hey, are you dead?" Like the guy is going to answer "Yes" if he actually kicked the bucket. I'll also be the first to condemn the subpar performance of the lead actor, who is the quintessential posterchild for artificial reaction. I laughed hard during that opening head slap where his head slingshot back in place with this stupid, goofy expression on his face.

The fact that this trivial fluff piece gets an IMDb average rating of 8.4 while a certifiable masterpiece like "A Tale of Two Sisters" (2003) only gets a 7.5 is the height of mass stupidity. And to think that some people actually delude themselves into thinking that "AToTS" doesn't make sense. Well, not every movie can have completely outrageous SUPER DUPER worn boots on its side.


... And it's a not very good documentary either American MOVIE seems to have confused some people into thinking this is a spoof documentary ( " Mockumentary ) and even some newspaper TV listings described it as such . I'll not laugh out loud at that because it's easy to mistake this documentary as one big wind up ala THIS IS SPINAL TAP

What seems to have caused the confusion is that the documentary centres around budding film maker Mark Borchardt who is .... How can I put it ? Rather self deluded ? Yes but that's not necessarily a bad thing since if we had no dreams we'd all still be living in caves and the fact that Mark is obsessed with horror movies is not to be taken as a criticism since both Sam Raimi ( Yes that one ) and Peter Jackson ( yes that one ) both started out doing low budget horror comedies so again it's not a criticism . No it's just that Mark Borchardt ( yes that one ) is a parody of American trailer trash

Remember in THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY Ben Stiller gives a lift to a dodgy hitch hiker ( " Come into my office because you're f***in' fired " ) ? Well that's who Mark resembles along with most of Jerry Springer's guests so it's very easy to see why some people thought this wasn't a real documentary . It's also not a very good documentary since Mark and co give me the creeps . Did you know that someone thought Mark would grow up to be a serial killer ? Does anyone else think there's plenty of time left for this to happen ?


The concept of this movie is unique, however its execution is less than special. When i arrived at the cinema and realised that there were only about 15 people or so in the crowd, i thought i had made a mistake. However the true mistake was realised in shocking detail when the film has ended and i knew that i had wasted two hours of my life.

Without the cruel recordings of the old man, and the stupidly funny friend, this film would have rated 1 out of ten.

This film is special, special because it is probably the worst film ever to be generally released to the public.

There is also the issue of whether you could call it a film or just an advertisement for the probably crummy "Northwestern".

If you are thinking of watching this film for the plot, the humor, the filming, the locations, then don't. On the other hand if you like to experience both ends of the film production spectra then go, just take a book, or a small game or just some novelty item.


This was a dreadful, boring movie, even for a documentary. At times, it did provided insight to life and also had humorous moments, but overall it was not worth seeing. Every time I began to feel sympathetic towards Mark and began to hope he would be successful, I would become disappointed by his lack of responsibility and drug and alcohol abuse.


Sorry, folks, but all of you that say this is a great documentary... and that award it won at Sundance... well, you've all been duped. I've heard for a few years how I had to see this documentary and I finally watched it. Maybe in 1999, when it came out, and reality TV didn't have such a dominant presence in the industry, this movie would have seemed entertaining. But Mike and Mark are so obviously playing themselves, Mike and Mark. At times they are funny and some of the lines seem off the cuff, but mostly they do not ring true. They are the reality version of Jay and Silent Bob. Yes the people are real, they are not actors, but it's put on, it's exaggeration of themselves, and it's so obvious that it's hard to believe so many people think it's the real deal. I wasn't fooled so it was actually a tad boring. Mildly amusing, but not missing much if you miss it.


I love documentaries. They are among my favorite genres of film. Before seeing this film I hadn't seen one that I hadn't liked.

The premise for this film is a great one. The execution is well done. There were some times early on when I laughed and smiled. Yet as the film went on the more tedious and irritating it became. This could have been something special had the subject not been such an inarticulate, childish, inept putz. I appreciate his passion for film, but quit your whining. If you're short on funds, maybe you shouldn't have so many kids, or spend so much money on alcohol. Maybe you should have gone to film school, or at least graduated from high school. Maybe you should have lived life and gotten perspective and experiences that could add to your vision.

There are so many people out there with stories that are interesting, funny and poignant. To see this guy chosen over any of them is nothing less than crass. If you want to do a documentary on a film maker, why not do one on someone from China or Iran, a film maker with REAL problems?

Two final questions:

Who takes a little kid to see Apocalypse Now?

How many times did this guy say "man"?


I usually enjoy underground movies and antiheroes but this is a bad joke. I wonder how this can be called a movie. All these people are loosers and the filmmaker doesn't succeed in making them interesting at all. They are not funny, not tragic just plain stupid and boring.

May be I missed something but I won't watch it again to find out what. Anybody with a camcorder can do better than that...

I give it a 1 for the originality. All the rest is crap.


This film has been lauded to the point of the ridiculous. "American Movie" is a boring documentary about a boring person so ordinary you'll find equivalents on just about every corner in America. It takes a long, hard look at a guy who's failed at just about everything in the interest of making an independent movie..or two. Were his failures for other than his own selfish pursuits or were they in the name of real art, the movie might have had a chance. America has an abundance of better stories to be told. This one should be flushed and many critics have good reason to be ashamed. Two thumbs up indeed!


This is an Emperor's New Clothes situation. Someone needs to say "That's not a funny and original, (etc., etc.) film; that is an inferior film. Don't waste your money on it." The film is trashy, and the people in it are embarrassingly inferior trailer trash. They are all-too-realistically only themselves. They have no lines, they don't act. The American Dream is not to create shoddy no-quality films or anything else shoddy and of no-quality; it is to achieve something of quality and, thereby, success. Only people who are desperate to praise any film not made in Hollywood (it can't have been made in Hollywood, can it?) would try to impute any kind of quality to this film. It's worse than "Ed Woods," another film about a film-maker without standards. These films shouldn't have been made, and you shouldn't go see "American Movie."


This movie sucked wind. I imagine that the other 300 people that gave this movie such high votes must be independent filmmakers. I can't imagine that anyone else could possibly find it funny or even slightly entertaining. I feel like 100 minutes of my life were just wasted.


Should you wish to see the worst film ever made, look no further. Some wretched movies are watchable because they are unintentionally funny. Alas, American Movie has no wit at all, no unintentional humor, just obscenities thought by its director to be laughable.

For those who liked this film, I suggest you watch Kevin Smith's "Clerks," similar in tone. In Clerks you will find creativity, wit, and enjoyment -- all on a shoestring budget. It should make you forget this hideous effort.


Hey, remember when Hal Hartley was brilliant? What a time that was. I'd say the Book of Life was when things really started going downhill, but I will say that at least he went uphill from this one. A movie that looks like it was filmed on someone's cell phone wouldn't have to be a bad thing if it was distinguished by an interesting story and dialog, but alas, those are missing, along with Hartley's spare, quirky dialog. In their place is tedious exposition on themes of Christian end of times and a trite story of a modern Jesus in a quandary, packaged in a trying-to-be-hip modern world where everyone looks like someone out of a Hal Hartley movie. While it picks up a little in its second half, it's never enjoyable, or especially sensible. What the hell happened to you, Hartley?


I found this on the shelf and swooned with joy !! I danced up to the counter, slapped down my money and ran home! You know what?! I fell asleep less then half way thru! Tried again the next day...YAWN!! What the heck !?!! I could NOT watch it! I love all the other stuff he's done (I didn't see the one with the monster in it yet). What gives? Is it me? Or him? So sad. Boo hoo. P.S, I did like the camera work.


This movie was shot using a digital camera, and it shows. There were enough annoying digital tricks used to alienate the viewer, also with the help of a terrible score. As if that weren't enough, the acting was also terrible. Now in Hartley's movies the acting is always peculiar, but here it was just BAD, especially by Satan (Thomas Jay Ryan)and Harvey, who (thank god) doesn't get to say much. After all these external problems it is also very unfortunate that the story itself is not that good, either. The jokes are predictable and unbelievably straightforward, and the events just rumble on from one incident to the next. The so-called book of life with Armageddon inside isn't much more than an excuse to see actors struggle to say their lines. All in all this movie is a waste of time and money and effort. Thumbs down.


It opens - and for half an hour, runs - like an educational programme on the Old Testament, although not without humour. The movie finally begins to grow wings when the biblical cant gets dropped. In a scene of mixed success Martin Donovan (Jesus) decides to renege on kicking off the Apocalypse and the final quarter of an hour is a sort of humanist 'what's all the fuss about?' play-out, gilded with optimistic conjecture against a (retrospectively, miserably ironic) long shot of the WTC twin towers.

Apart from Donovan's authority, the acting is split. There's the thespian melodrama of the rest of the cast: this, though formally contrived for biblical presentation, is appropriate for the modern, paranoid comedy that Hartley's aiming at. But I was also pleasantly surprised at the contribution of PJ Harvey (credited thus, and in danger of existing within the film solely as the pop star entity she is, not least in a set piece scene in a record store and a perilously patchy soundtrack to which contributes). She remained cool - a sort of disingenuous lack of focus - in the manner of many pop icons who have taken to film (I'm thinking the Jagger of Performance here) but nonetheless maintained a convincing integration with both cast and project.

Ultimately affirmative, but this bittersweet essay is a bit too much like one and relies more on the perseverance than the imagination of its audience. 4/10


This movie was pretentious, foppish and just down right not funny. The filming technique reminded me of MTV. I am a fan of Hartley. But what was he thinking of? So much more thought could have gone into this movie, considering the subject matter. This could have been a true theoretical battle over good and evil, but Hartley, it appears used the stand technique of psyching out the viewer.


When I first saw "Race Against Fear" (don't you just love LMN movie titles?), I had to keep scratching my head. Was this meant to be serious? Why couldn't the main character even run like a normal person running, much less like a star runner? How did I know that the coach was evil only 1 minute into the film? All of these questions, and no answers. Then, I just let the inane script and the awful directing just carry me away...it was easier not to resist...then the film became funnier by the minute, and I now rank it among my top ten junk movies from LMN. Some have said here that Ariana Richards is really talented but that the material was flawed - I heartily disagree. Not only can she not convince me that she's an athlete, she's walks wide-eyed through the rest of the story, like she's just landed on earth. Maybe the coach broke out of prison and finished her off...at least I hope so.


My wife and I saw every episode in this series and loved it. However, the series was cut short without a final episode by the producers of the show. It ended with a typical end-the-season cliff hanger leaving it's fans feeling cheated. A waste of great writing and acting.


It's hard to decide what to say about this one. It isn't totally, one hundred percent bad. Although the movie-in-a-movie is unspeakably bad, meant to be campy, but missing by a mile. I'm pretty sure that this is intentional, however. Danny Aiello is perfectly adequate here, and more or less nails his pathetic character. Dyan Cannon was good in a small role. Clotilde Courau was impressive as the latest twenty-something girlfriend. And Linda Carlson had a brave topless scene that she pulled off very well.

So, it's not totally bad, but I don't believe that this one accomplishes its goals. All in all, it's probably worth passing on.


A bad movie ABOUT a bad movie. Is that original, or what? If it is, then that's the only good thing about it. The lovely Ally Sheedy couldn't stop this bomb from destroying movie theaters and VCR's everywhere. It should also be noted, that she, and the other actors hired by Danny Aiello's character were billed as themselves, as well as the characters they played in his D-rated film. Calling it a B-rated film, is too much of a compliment, and would lead to delusions of grandeur.


This is a film that has garnered any interest or praise it has received simply on the merit of being a lesbian interest piece. The performances are mostly emotionless compared to better films in the GLBT interest genre. The entirety of the film's watchable value is garnered through modest suspense over whether and when the partners' family members will say something discouraging about their lesbian relationship. The best element of the film is likely the beautiful New England scenery, although much of the film is set inside. It is hard to envision how any viewer watching this film and not seeking affirmation of their GLBT lifestyle or wishing to see that of others affirmed, even through poorly realized drama, could appreciate Treading Water in any significant way. It is a terrible movie.


Have you ever tried a kind of food that your friend made, and then said to yourself, "wow, that was not a good mix"? Well, that is how I felt after watching this film.

Many viewers will be left highly uncomfortable with this weird mix of crime and very, very corny comedy. Its almost like watching Mr. Rogers play a ruthless gangster, very weird. Some things just don't mix and this film clearly proves that.

There are some very good performances here, as Dean Stockwell, Mercedes Ruhle, and Alec Baldwin are all excellent, but that doesn't make up for the lack of balance and symmetry in the film.

Jonathan Demme has done some excellent work in films such as Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia, but seems to be out of his element with this one.


Overrated mob comedy. Director Demme makes the actors pause after some funny lines to let audience laugh, and not miss next line. Seems odd - this director did "Silence of The Lambs" - now there's the way to use pauses! Casting seems off. Mathew Modine too young for FBI agent and Pfeiffer's love interest! Dean Stockwell is doing a Jack Nicholson-thing with a squint, and he gets a nomination for it! Plus we have to accept Pfeiffer and Stockwell as Italians? Charles Napier as a hairdresser and Al Lewis as a mob lawyer are underused with only one line each - they should be the bumbling hoods. Song score by Chris Isaak is totally out of place - better for a flick like "Pretty In Pink." Re-make this movie, it's worth it, but with proper casting and director and the satire will come through... even the often repeated "Forgedaboutit."


Before hitting international acclaim with The Silence of the Lambs, director Jonathan Demme cut his teeth making quirky comedies. This was one of them and like quite a few Oscar winning American comedies I could mention, it has a fine concept, is well paced, has great performances, a complicated romance. but it just simply isn't very funny. Pfeiffer is mob widow who moves to the city backwaters after her husband (Baldwin) is murdered. The crime boss who killed him (Stockwell) takes a fancy to Pfeiffer, his wife (Reuhl) is furious and to complicate matters Pfeiffer also falls for the cop who is trailing her. All of this should have been a laugh a minute. Pfeiffer, sporting a hefty wig is excellent as the widow, as is the hyperactive Ruehl and Modine is good too as the nice cop. But the script is simply devoid of one-liners, wit, humour or punch lines of the verbal or physical kind that this kind of film demands. The result is it raises smiles at best rather than guffaws. It oozes charm, but is tediously short on humour.


This is a very strange product from Hollywood. Apparently it didn't test well because actors who have footage in the credits have been edited completely out of the movie, which means a hasty cut job was done on it. It feels like it was wrestled out of the usually competent Demme's hands, and just thrown away. On the other and it is so totally lacking in substance that maybe nothing could save it. It has no real center, either narratively or time wise. Although it says the running time is 92 minutes, I seem to recall it ending abruptly, around the 80 minute mark. It's over before it even gets going. It's pretty much laugh free.

The merits of the "Matthew Modine picture" were as elusive then as the Luke Wilson picture is now.


I seem to remember a lot of hype about this movie when it came out, but had avoided seeing it throughout the years. I wish I'd waited longer. Maybe this movie was funny in 1988, I don't know. I was younger then, but it didn't seem like the world was that different. Michelle Pfeiffer, lovely as she is, is never convincing. Mercedes Ruehl not only chews scenery, but stuffs it in her cheeks like a gerbil to save for later. Dean Stockwell is about as convincing as a mob boss as James Gandolfini would be as principal dancer for the Bolshoi. And Matthew Modine demonstrated the most pronounced case of delayed puberty I've ever seen. All in all, it's not bad enough to make you want to pluck out your eyes with a melon-baller, but it's not far off.


I watched this movie for the first time a few weeks ago, and It was quite possibly one of the most boring, unfunny films I ever had the misfortune of seeing. First of all Matthew Modine is a terrible actor, and ruined most of the movie, on top of that, the plot is just way too silly. The only reason a checked into this film was because of Alec Baldwin, and his character was eliminated pretty quickly. Unless you are a fan of Michelle Phiffer you should probably avoid this movie like the plague. Many people can't praise this film enough, but I just cannot figure out what people find so terrific about it. If its supposed to be the black humor that makes this film so terrific, then I guess anything can pass for comedy these days.


Pluses: Mary Boland is delightfully on edge as always (I never tire of her upper-crust zaniness, especially in "The Women" and "Pride and Prejudice"). W.C. Fields's brief role is fun, though the famous pool table scene stretches its welcome a bit because it seems to go on for ten minutes. The madcap antics of the film, typical of the period, are great. Also, a nod to Alison Skipworth's wonderfully grounded hotel mistress; I would love to see more of her (she reminds me of Marie Dressler, another personality worthy of high praise).

Minuses: Gracie Allen. An irritating, unfunny presence whose annoyance went unmatched until the rise of Adam Sandler. That near-falsetto nasalness tinged with an accent of unknown origin gets old in her very first scene. This is the first of the Burns-Allen films I have seen and while I (as a big classic comedy buff) try to experience at least one film with every major comedy star, this is definitely one team I will not be calling upon again. Her timing and interpretation of the material is totally off. A maddeningly mediocre talent.

The bottom line: An OK comedy, but the gags are few and far between. And at only an hour long, you can expect that this is not an A grade Hollywood comedy. Recommended only for Boland and Fields fans who want to see all of their work.


I wasn't expecting much from this film, but was eager to try something which I initially thought would primarily be an early 80s teen horror. Although three teens are somewhat critical plot, it is by no means a teen horror film.

'The Power' is about a little Aztec idol that exchanges many hands as its possessor (who must be adult and thus, 'corrupted') becomes the vessel for unleashing all of the idol's evil, and often with deadly implications for not only the victims of the possessor, but of the possessor himself. After making several exchanges in vying over control of this thing, three teenagers wind up finding it and can't figure out what it is, except that since they found it, strange and dangerous things are afoot. They offer to explain the situation to a news reporter who doesn't buy into the spiritual bologna. Although, it is her producer who wants to investigate further, especially if it means he can get control of the idol (I presume the teens are even not yet corrupted enough to feel the dangerous desires encouraged by the idol). It is a story told a thousand times, particularly in 1950s and 60s horror and science fiction fare.

This one was at least, for me, able to sustain some interest. Though low budget, it was not done so obviously cheaply or loaded with bad acting as many of the low-budget, come-and-go horror fare of the earlier decades had (nowadays, they have the same cheesy qualities, but bigger budgets). We are spare enough of it to at least allow ourselves an opportunity to become at least a little bit absorbed with the eerie atmosphere and so forth, despite a story of clichés. And, though not terribly gory, the special effects were done nicely.

Again, it is routine horror tale, especially with the ending (which by modern standards has become a device that is annoyingly overused), but one that is not so embarrassingly bad. It might be worth checking out, even if just for laughs.