After the lush, inspiring aerial shot in fast motion in the opening of the movie, this slipped into utter boredom and a one tone note right till the end.

Where to begin, well I'll start with the characters. I really enjoyed them in the book, here they all were types and one dimensional morons that either had "Victim" or "Asshole" written on their foreheads from the get go. How any one didn't see through the store owner Lealand Gaunt (in a hammy and out of place performance by Sydrow)is beyond me.

This film lacks in thrills, suspense, and in some sense yes, entertaining values. It stretches itself for far too long with not a lot of pay off. Why introduce too many annoying should-die-quick type of characters and then forget about half of them half way through? In the book practically everyone that went into the store met a grisly fate. Here, besides one of the only decent scenes that translated well from the novel (the fight between Wilma and Nettie), was a letdown and didn't have much balls. I'm sorry but after, one off screen death,a boring shoot off, and some bickering and then a couple explosions just didn't do it for me. The brutality and mean spiritedness from the book was sadly missing. The explosion of the church scene was so over the top and badly executed, all of sudden the entire city was in a brawl? It made no sense and characters that weren't introduced all the way through suddenly are, who are these people and why should I care?

The story is all over the place and none of the scenes had momentum. I thought Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedeila were good actors in this, but the movie gives them not enough substance for me to give a damn. Amanda Plummer was credible but too pathetic to really be sympathetic (in the novel she was a sad and depressing character)here it was a too one note. J.T. Walsh was entertaining, but the role was far from interesting or layered. Too predictable.

The soundtrack was too classy for the material it was supporting. It stood out like sore thumb. Easy there buddy, easy. Something a little less theatrical I'd assume would have worked.

I will admit some of the gore it did manage to have was good enough I guess, The director seemed to hold back a lot of the times though. If your going to make a movie that reaches the 2 hr point be sure to have far more going on then this disaster of a adaption of on of Kings better novels.

I often found myself laughing at scenes that were suppose to be taken seriously (Ed Harris speech at the end, or the character Hugh Priest in general), and was bored and uninterested most of the other time. Personally the director should have done so much more with this story, his approach is too tame and hides behind too much crisp cinematography to ever come off as a decent movie. The movie looks good, but not the look I think this story deserved. I mean, this dude helmed ALASKA,not a good sign.

I'd rather just read the book, as you should too as if it is far more entertaining,layered character development, grisly violence and mayhem, a nasty sense of humour, and far more oomph. This is a butchered version, that has not much to offer.

** out of ****


** May contain spoilers ** Horrible. Just horrible. I loved Stephen King's novel, and this is just a horrible adaptation of it. They change the ending. They change the plot. They changed Alan Pangborne's character from a grieving husband to a happy fiancé. If you are a fan of Stephen King's novel, stay away. Even if You are not, stay away.

The book was awesomely dark, even for Steve King. An 11 year old kills himself in the novel. A middle school principal is found with child pornography in the novel. THis is nowhere near as good as the novel.

This movie is my least favorite film of all time. I hate this film with a vengeance.


Reading the book I felt once again drawn into Castle Rock (Needful Things being the final part of the Rock trilogy), and the plot was a variant on the "demon comes to small redneck village" type story King likes to tell. The characters were all described in loving detail, and it made both a good psychological and gory horror. The film on the other hand is awful. Gone are the character interactions and clever plot, and replaced by a story that tries to be exciting but misses by a mile. If you haven't read the book then you might enjoy this, else avoid at all costs, as with most films of King's books.


Needful Things was one of my favorite Stephen King books. But this movie is one of the worst book to film adaptations I have ever seen they changed so many things around that it made me sick. Even the concept of the book being deception, things not always what they appear reminder throughout the book was not shown in the movie. Althogh it was enjoyable as many Stephen King films are, but as many Stephen King films this one did not follow the book and became a piece of Hollywood trailer trash. 2/10


The book was one of Stephen King's best. The movie was pure rubbish. It was painful to remain in the theater until the ending, which wasn't even the same as the book. I guess that this is the result when you try to cram 10 pages of story into every minute. There is no good reason to watch this movie.


STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

Based on another of Stephen King's lengthy novellas, this takes place in the sleepy little New England town of Castle Rock (also the name of the film's production company!), where a new antiques store, the titular Needful Things, has opened. The owner and proprietor, Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) hides, you might say, a devilish secret. There's an item in his store that everyone in the little town wants-a small cash price upfront is first required, before a far more sinister price is asked for. As suspicion, hate and madness tear the town apart, it falls to police chief Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) to restore order and save the town from a terrifying end...

I read the novel of Needful Things earlier this year, and was eager to watch the movie adaptation again to compare them (like that was going to be any contest!) But it had been deleted on video and DVD and I couldn't find anywhere to rent it from. So I was happy when I finally found it in a flea market whilst on a shopping trip...

It's one of the cruelest ironies that King novels are generally the best to read but when they get adapted to screen nine times out of ten they are complete junk, as is the case here. The material that makes his books great simply doesn't translate into a movie script very well, for some reason. And I suppose there's always the question: why bother watching this when I could be reading the book again instead?

I appreciate that some are simply too lengthy (i.e. It, The Stand) to be made into a complete screen work with all the situations and characters included, but there's no reason this one couldn't have included all the material from the book. As a result, a lot of key characters from the book (i.e. Ace Merrill) are not included at all and we have some terrible character development that means we don't care about the characters that are involved since they are so stripped of depth and motivation- for example we have one character from the book, Danforth Keaton, who murders his wife toward the end yet we were shown no build-up to hint at any reason that he didn't get along with or hated her and so it has no impact when it happens, unlike in the book where there was a lot of depth invested and it really involved you to find out what happened to the characters involved. All the material in the script to fill in the cracks, if you like, is really stupid and corny and the typically goofy stuff that gets included in King adaptations like this.

Most of the film's problems are that it deviates so far away from the book but there's also some terrible acting from a cast that obviously can't feel for the daft material they're being asked to perform. In the 90s, a lot of King's work started skipping the cinema and just being made into made-for-TV/video territory. Rubbish like this must surely hint at why. **


This movie is based on a Stephen King novel in which mysterious new shopkeeper Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) offers each citizen of Castle Rock the item he or she most desires - but there is a heavy price to be paid for these transactions. Local sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) is soon forced to deal with a variety of brutal deaths and suspicious circumstances.

Below average for Stephen King cinema: I can see why some people would think it was boring. It plods along without offering genuine scares and forces the viewer to spend time (yet again) with a bunch of repulsive losers whose hatred of each other is spooky.

I do enjoy the novel and don't believe that this lackluster movie does it justice. There are too many unfortunate changes from book to screen.

Von Sydow makes Gaunt much too charming. We're supposed to be SCARED of Gaunt at the right times, not amused by him. I also hate it that the sheriff's primary deputy (Ray McKinnon) is written and portrayed as such an annoying, Barney Fife-type moron. Star Ed Harris looks as if he was forced into doing this picture by his agent, but professional that he is, he really sinks his teeth into his dialog. Bonnie Bedelia (as Pangborn's love interest Polly) and Amanda Plummer (in one of her standard mentally unbalanced roles) come the closest to creating characters who are likable.

Yet it is also foul and mean-spirited.

Although I'll be darned if it didn't feel a little cathartic watching a bunch of unlikable movie characters tear each other to pieces. The climax has some good explosions.

I often give movies a better rating than they probably deserve, but in this case I feel I should really be honest and just say: 3/10.


Based on a Stephen King novel, NEEDFUL THINGS provides the intrigue and eeriness to keep you in your seat. A mysterious man(Max von Sydow) comes to town and soon becomes the most talked about citizen. Could it be that the devil himself has set up shop as an antique dealer in a small town in Maine? von Sydow is masterful and dynamic in this role that dominates the screen. Also starring are Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedelia. Harris is steady and Bedelia is deserving of your attention. Also in support are J.T. Walsh and Amanda Plummer. Not the best, nor the worst adaptation of King's horror on the screen.


I am a fan of Ed Harris' work and I really had high expectations about this film. Having so good actors as Harris and Von Sydow is always a big advantage for a director but if the script is bad what can you do? I really think that Needful Things is the worst movie of Harris' filmography and that getting involved with it was a huge mistake. Anyway, I've seen much worse movies in my life but Needful Things was a disappointment because of the waste of acting talent. The story as an overall seems too unbelievable and fake. I don't know if that is because of the book, 'cause I haven't read it. But if the script was so bad, I can't see the reason for filming it. Maybe it was the commercial success of King's books, or the need for low-quality movies for the VHS era of the 90's. Whatever the reason was, though, this movie was a very bad choice for anyone involved.


Wow, this is anti-Christian bias big-time! This is based on a Stephen King novel and he written this kind of bias before and then Hollywood exaggerates it even more. In this film, we see a Protestant minister and a Catholic priest BOTH act like fools and be profane at the same time. Of course, the Devil has taken over the town so maybe his influence is into these guys, too, but they are typical Hollywood portrayals. They never show a minister who talks and acts like Billy Graham, or your local minister or priest. And - another "given" - they make the Satan character the most interesting of the film.

Max Von Sydow plays the Devil and makes him a likable guy. Ironically, Von Sydow has played a number of these roles after portraying Jesus in the 1964 film, "The Greatest Story Ever Told." You wonder why actors are so screwed up? They don't know if they are God, Satan or anyone in between.

Ed Harris, who played a lot of unlikeable roles up until the last few years, is appropriately cast in this story. He and the rest of the mean-spirited characters in this film do NOT make it fun to watch.

From what I've heard, King's book is even darker and more sick than this hate-filled movie but better constructed. Frankly, who cares. King and Hollywood deserve each other.


I gave this movie a rating of 1 because it is by far, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This movie was made in 2003 and I've seen movies made in the 60's with better special effects. I wish I could go into detail, but words can't describe how crappy this movie was. I could have done better with a home video camera and $20! I pray that Chuck Norris never makes a movie again. Now If you think I'm downing this movie because it has a Christian theme, you're wrong. I like the fact that IL' Chuck decided to make a movie that at least attempted to make God look good, but why would he make poor viewers like me suffer through such a crappy movie? This whole film can be summed up in 3 words: RE DAMN DICULOUS.


This is quite possible the worst movie ever made. I know people talk about how horrible Ed Wood movies were (Plan 9) but this movie makes Plan 9 look amazing.

Chuck Norris makes a cameo, for what reason I have no idea. Perhaps to ruin his movie career. Aside from Chuck Norris, the movie's cast consists of extras in daytime soaps and Mike Norris... that's right, Chuck's son.

This director doesn't even have a resume and I have no idea where the plot or screenplay originated. This must've been green lit by a horrible Southern Baptist minister that somehow had a 3rd cousin that owned a studio (which I'm sure has since been shut down).

I don't really know what else to say about this movie. I would like to give you a plot summary but I'm lost. There is something about Jesus and Satan... some eternal battle. Other than that there are Indians. And a bunch of freaky kids that don't know how to act... they're just awkward and should not be on camera. I don't know what was going on most of the time but I know the movie was a great laugh. Mike Norris pushes his daughter (on her bike) into the street somehow... but in the shot he's in the middle of the park. So somehow she learns to ride her bike with speed equivalent to that of The Flash and gets hit by a car or bus... I don't know. But she's dead. This is actually the funniest scene in the movie. I know that sounds sick but once you see Mike raise his hands in victory and then hold his head and scream in terror... you'll understand. It doesn't show the daughter getting hit or anything... you just have to assume she got hit by some vehicle. But, the movie's not clear. So maybe it was completely unrelated and she died from cancer. Anyway... after that the movie gets really confusing and I have no idea what really happens. I am a Christian and I have no idea why this movie was made. I don't see any value for this movie in a religious or non-religious sector. This is probably the first thing they show students in Film-making 101... this is what you DON'T want to do.

Just see it... you'll hate it and me for suggesting that you see it.


I recently had the idea to make a short film featuring a man who is hit by a car and wakes up thinking that he himself is Chuck Norris. This meant that I would have to do extensive Chuck research, and find out as much as I could about the man. I later find out that he is not in fact a man, but an angel sent from heaven. With a face like that, who could ever doubt it? I have watched more Chuck Norris movies in the last four months than any one person should. I am proud to say that Bells of Innocence ranks pretty close to the top of the all time worst list. I spent most of the film wondering if I could return my copy to the local Wal-Mart without the receipt, which I had been biting down on to keep myself from swallowing my own tongue. The biggest reason why I chose to purchase this film was that it not only had Chuck in it, but his son Mike. I was anxious to see if Mike was a chip off the old can't-act-his-way-out-of-a-wet-paper-bag block. I came to the conclusion a long while ago; the Chuck Norris is one of the worst actors in cinematic history for one simple reason. The only character he ever plays is himself, Chuck Norris. No matter what movie, no matter what situation, he is always Chuck Norris. The one thing that he holds over his son is that he is consistent. Mike doesn't seem to understand how human emotions work. In the scene where he is talking to the little girl about his dead daughter, he seems to be extremely happy! Maybe this is because he actually pushed his daughter out into traffic, as depicted in one of the oddest flashbacks of all time. His actions confused me throughout the film, making it very hard for me to focus on what little plot there was. The other two lead actors were just as painful to watch as the son of Norris. The guy, who constantly wants to eat or tell a stupid peacock joke, was simply one of the most annoying characters that has ever graced the Direct-to-Video screen. The only thing I remember him being in other than this movie, was an episode of Walker Texas Ranger, in which he plays an equally annoying character. Maybe Chuck owes this guy something. The other guy, which is the only name I can think of because he was so forgettable, was your average Christian fanatic. I don't have anything against Christians, in fact I am one, but this guy was just too much for me. To round out the story, you have a multitude of townspeople who love to call people "friend", and a couple of villains who don't seem to be able to decide which one of them is in charge. Not to mention the creepy kids who remind me of the dollar store version of every other group of creepy kids in movies. All in all, the movie is possibly one of the biggest failures of all time, on more levels than Chuck Norris can kick people's asses. Despite being one of the worst actors of all time, I still can't get enough of Chuck. Maybe he really was sent from heaven...


OK, I'm 26 so I've been thru all the action heroes 80's hype, and Chuck Norris along with Seagal, Van Damme and the rest of the guys were my childhood heroes, fighting the bad guys, shooting dozens of bullets from one round only;) I saw the advert of this movie on TV a couple of days ago - Chuck Norris was throwing some fireballs from his fingers. WHOA! 'That is a must-see crappy movie!', I said. And indeed it was. Only a lot lot worse. It is very difficult to see all the movie - stuffed with some religious thoughts, ridiculous zombie-like monsters, who serve Satan, all the idea of a plot set in some forgotten community, which represent whole mankind - it is a load of Christian fundamentalist's wet dreams.

I've nothing against Christianity, even in the movies, but this one lacks taste, it lacks almost everything that connects with a common sense, c'mon, Chuck Norris playing an ANGEL, whose job is to look after little town, where Satan lives?!?! The whole plot is so damn straight and boring, not mentioning its silliness (yes, it's not stupidity anymore, we're talking silliness like... like a retarded child's joke) make altogether terrible movie, made as far as I suppose for elder people very much devoted to Catholic Church, because young viewers laugh at almost every scene. Technically it's incorrect, the fx are worse than the ones you've seen in early 90's in TV series, the plot seems VERY stupid, actors could be easily exchanged to cardboard stands, not mentioning the music which as far as I've heard was played on a childish toy piano. I've seen a lot of movies, even the worst ones (the ones from the IMDb bottom list) like 'Space Mutiny' or 'Manos - hands of fate' BUT believe me nothing compares to this ridiculous, terrible, horribly acted quasi-movie which brings some students' prank movies to my mind rather than regular production. Avoid it. At all cost avoid it. There's even nothing to laugh at. Chuck Norris has officially finished his movie career.


Normally, I don't like Chuck Norris films. I appreciate his work as a martial artist, and his fight scenes are usually fairly well-choreographed. Chuck is undeniably one of the martial arts greats. So, in my local used bookstore, I found a film I hadn't seen before and took it home.

While the acting in this movie was worse than most Chuch Norris films, I was hoping to see at least one fight scene. I quickly began to realize that this wasn't a typical Chuch Norris film; rather it was a Christian film, destined to illustrate the "good will win out" paradigm.

There is really nothing on the packaging to indicate that this is a Christian film, with the exception of the label ... Goodtimes Entertainment, which I had never heard of before. I'll certainly keep that in mind the next time I see a film from that company.

I don't have a problem with Christianity ... I do have a problem with sneaky proselytizing. If someone is going to make a religious film, at least have the good sense to indicate to the viewer that such is what they will get. The only redeeming part about the exercise is that I spent only $3.25 to spend 97 minutes to watch a great martial artist not fight. At least it was during supper-time, and I spent some of that cooking and eating.

In short, if you're looking for a mediocre martial arts film, and not hoping for much, don't bother with this film because it doesn't even offer that.


This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen. What were they thinking. Stop preaching to me already! This is why all of us watch Walker Texas Ranger and wont admit it to our friends. Terrible acting and a extremely phony plot. While the movie is unfolding the story stops and the actors start preaching to the audience. The director somehow believed the two meshed well. It looked like crap! When I saw the title at my local blockbusters it looked interesting. Their should have been a warning on it saying it was religious instead of the false advertisement of an action / adventure. First time in a long time I stopped a movie and couldn't tolerate finishing it.


OK, Chuck Norris has shown up in many an entertaining movie over the years. This is not one of them. I won't even bother trying to get into the plot about a Bible shipment gone wrong. The "acting" of the main characters is so wood like, Pinocchio would have done a better job! The synthesizer based soundtrack is even worse than the one in Deathstalker. Whereas traditionally low budget spooky movies are often trying to catch their audience by adding plenty of graphic violence, this one is trying to catch an audience by throwing religious mambo jumbo at the spectator. The plot boils down to different versions of the Bible.


When you watch the making of with this DVD - they tell you what is attempted here- they are retelling the bible story of good versus evil & trying to preach it to a main stream movie audience. In a modern society such as ours, this is where the film fails. There are way too many sheep depicted in this movie. People are too empowered for this type of preaching today.

As far as the acting, directing, & technical functions, they are done OK. Chuck Norris actually is OK as an angel as the unpredictable appearance of Norris as an angel is no more absurd than Tommy Smothers was in the 1960's sit com.


Boring, rank nefarious plot, some of the worst direction I've ever come across, inane acting and horribly clichéd. The movie ends with one of the main characters waking from a dream. WHAT's WITH THAT? Even JR from Dallas couldn't survive that lame twist.

You have what can only be described as an inappropriate relationship developing between a main character and a young girl, which is ostensibly meant to be fatherly, but which comes off as perverse. You have freshman community college movie school special effects with loopholes the size of the Kimberly Hole. This is like Children of the Corn meets Passion of the Christ imposed on an endless loop of government administration training video - by the end of it, if you aren't contemplating ending it, you have no brain.

Don't bother.


This is another one of those fundamentalist Christian movies that hit you over the head with religion like a sledgehammer. You know you are in trouble when the setup of the story is completely ridiculous. Three men are flying to Mexico to deliver Bibles. This makes no sense since the church is Protestant and most Mexicans are Catholic. Protestant and Catholic bibles are not the same. The Catholic bible has books in it that are not in the Protestant bible. I also find it difficult to believe that churches in Mexico would not distribute bibles to them. I can understand if they were going to a place where Christianity is in the minority. But Mexico is far fetched. If you cannot believe the setup of a story, then you don't the rest of the story either. A movie about religion can be entertaining, but not this movie.


my friends and I are always on the lookout for chuck norris films to just bash and make fun of. One of our favorites so far is Lonewolf. i went to a wal-mart Christmas shopping and i came across this movie in the 5.99 bin. i had to get it. i had high hopes for this movie and although being absolutely hilarious at times, we agreed that bells of innocence is the worst movie we've ever seen, made, produced, thought up, etc... who the hell would think this is a good idea. not only is it confusing at times, but the acting is just hard to watch. the man who plays oren has acting i can compare to my own vomit, and chuck took a dive on this one, he's not the greatest actor, but this was terrible. and what kind of names are oren, conrad and jux........ jux. come on people. if you honestly thought this movie was at all watchable, great for you because it was hard for me and i seriously had a headache and stomach pains after watching it. I'm telling you now if you haven't seen this movie, DON'T!!. For the love of god please do not subject yourself to such a horrible 90 minutes of your life.


(Chances are, I'm gonna spoil Valuable Plot Points while writing this and because I can't determine and don't really care what YOU think is a Valuable Plot Point, then if you are thinking of watching this film and have an issue with learning such things, then I suggest you hop right on to the next review.) You know, I don't mind the cult films being filed under the "cult" section. And people who believe it can go there and get their fill of the "reality". I mean, is it too much to ask that the overtly pseudo-Christian propaganda films be filed with the other Special Interest movies?

I couldn't have been more flabbergasted had Pat Robertson made a porn movie. (or would that be "flubbergasted"?)

It was bad enough that there was an egregiously insufficient count of kicking and punching in this. It was bad enough that the same story has been done repeatedly in much better ways. It was bad enough that it wasn't filed under Special Interest, with other cult films. It was bad enough that it somehow is receiving nods for being "realistic" as if we live in the world where towns get possessed by the "debbil" and the really profound and nasty evil ISN'T done by human beings -- usually in the NAME of religions based on the god of Abraham. It was bad enough having to simply shut the thing down because people were complaining so loudly that it was awful.

No, the really BAD part was when one of our guests stood up after we finally had to just turn the damn thing off, and declared "I for one would like to see something really violent or pornographic now, just to get that OUT of my head. Preferably both, if you have it." And we had just MET her.


This is an admirable attempt from first time filmmaker Ham Tran, offering little-glanced perspective dealing with Vietnam war victims struggling for liberation, but plays out as a glorified history special. With clunky, self-consciously informative dialog and sub-par acting, even a relatively impressive budget with attention to detail will not spring to life this sagging, albeit historically worthy, melodrama. Paying no mind to the often distracting disconnect with the actors to the reality of situations on screen, and you should be left with an informative, if somewhat impersonal educational lesson in Vietnamese post-war history.


I saw recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International film Festival and I can't believe that this is Sweden's official submission to the 79th Academy Awards to be considered for best foreign film. Producer Anna Anthony last year also had Sweden's official submission for best foreign film with Zozo. I wasn't personally a fan of Zozo but at least it had some production value to it. This could have been shot as a high school film project. As a short film it may have worked but as a feature film it is as lost as it's characters. This is a story about five twenty something friends who live in a small Swedish town and have no goals or hopes or ambitions for the future and like to live in the past of their long gone childhood. Actually Falkenberg isn't like some remote northern Swedish village. It's a popular summer resort with a population of city and townships of almost 40,000 and lies between two major southern coastal Swedish cities of Götborg and Malmo. The characters are likable enough guys but if they were high school age kids with a bleak or confused attitude about what they plan to do with their lives I would undoubtedly care about them more. They are however long past the point where they should be making plans to deal with adulthood. If they want to stay in Falkenberg forever than certainly there must be some jobs in the tourist or fishing industry instead of just riding bicycles, drinking, smoking pot and occasionally painting a house. Maybe if they hung around with a girl or two in their circle of friends, of which girls are absent from this film altogether which doesn't make sense. Jesper Ganslandt makes his directorial debut and co wrote the film along with the cinematographer, of which I use the term loosely, Fredrik Wenzel. the acting isn't too bad. I would give this a 4.5 out of 10 but despite it's submission for consideration for the Academy Awards I would not recommend it.


How on earth were these guys given funds to make this movie? The lack of script is one thing, but the cinematography makes you want to weep. A hand held camera can be of great value to the look and feel of a movie but in that case you need a photographer who knows what he is doing. I am well aware that the actors are amateurs but it's of no defence since the director might be the least talented one ever directing in Sweden. It would be a shame for the industry if he (or any in the team for that matter) is given money to make a film ever again. This movie simply provides fuel to the argument that too many movies are made in Sweden each year.


Director Nico Mastorakis has made a cynical cash-grabber (by his own admission) that is too cynical to impress anybody but a sophomore genre fan.

The most extreme, confronting genre pics, to paraphrase a character in VIDEODROME, "have a philosophy"; that is what makes them dangerous.

ISLAND OF DEATH's philosophy is to throw many "shocking" elements into a cinematic mix and stir slowly. The result is a dish with no taste but an ugly appearance.

Not to be confused with Serrador's brilliant WHO COULD KILL A CHILD? (sometimes called ISLAND OF DEATH), Mastorakis's effort is set on a Greek island which is a stage for various forms of slaughter, a little bestiality and some wholesale perversion.

Everything moves at a snailish pace and the violent set pieces are poorly directed.

Touted as "The movie that the censors didn't want you to see", I'd hazard a guess that the censors never saw it, they simply read the presskit until their knees jerked upwards.


Island of Death is not really a good movie, by any standard, but it is a curious one. Imagine if Natural Born Killers had been made 20 years too early, as a Greek Eurotrash porn film. That's what you get here - the quaint story of a young, sociopathic British couple cutting a deadly swath through the population of a lovely little Greek island.

I'll spare you a detailed breakdown of the plot; it's not really important except to set up increasingly perverse or violent sex scenes followed by disturbingly brutal murders, often lovingly photographed for posterity by our charming young couple. It could have been brilliant, in its own sick and nasty way, but instead...

Instead, I found myself impatiently checking the run time and chapter index to see how much longer the parade was going to last. Sluggish pacing and listless, bland acting turn even vilest perversities into pablum, and connecting scenes into an eternity of dull plodding. Ah, well. You can't win 'em all.


Nico Mastorakis's banned movie was quite disappointing in my opinion. The movie is about a couple, who go to a Greek island to kill of all perverted people (apparently). You know you got something pretty sick when one of the first scenes include a guy having sex with a goat and then killing it off.

But things only get worse from that point as all scenes pretty much look alike. They meet some people, so they either kill or have sex with them (preferably both).

The ending is OK allright when the couple turn out to be brother and sister and she is just letting him rot somewhere but overall one would have expected more. No substance here I'm afraid.

3/10.


I'm a big time horror fan, and I bought this movie from all the hype it was getting on the message boards. Well, let me tell you I don't know whom was giving it all the hype, but let me speak on a few things.

First of all this film is "not" a LOT of things. It is NOT scary, NOT suspenseful, NOT overly gory, NOT overly sick (except for one season MAYBE) NOT beautifully scored.... AT ALL.

The premise of the movie is that a couple flee to a small island in Greece because they have done a little naughtiness in London. We don't even know what they did, but it is presumed that they killed someone.

**spoiler alert**

The male lead kills a few people out of his perversion of "cleansing the island of perverts" oddly enough. The killings are cheap, the characters are cheaper and the effects suck.

There is one part when he rapes a goat because his wife wont give him any in the morning, but even that is done without any care for how it is shot.

end of spoilers

The end of the movie is about the only thing that isn't totally predictable. I especially enjoyed when the "herder" farts on the husband. Anyway, if you can rent this and have 2 hours to waste go ahead. It's nothing better than a processed cheese sandwich on moldy bread.

3/10


I kind of liked the film, it's just that the characters run around with no real point to their craziness. As I was saying, poor goat. The goat was nahing while the guy was pretending to grind on it. I would have liked the rape scenes to be more graphic (not the one with the goat though). Jane Ryall who played Celia only did this one film. She was very nude throughout. This crazy couple who killed and tortured many people ended up in their rightful places. I almost forgot about the gay transvestite couple who are also picked out for being sinners. If you like crazy off the wall stuff, then this is your film. 3/10


I believe that this was supposed to be shocking or something.... All that I can say is....POOR GOAT!!! This flick is so poorly done that the parts that "should" shock and revolt you come across as laughable at best. The characters are so lame and 2....wait....1 dimensional, that I applauded each sick death.....all except that POOR GOAT.


****SOME SPOILERS****

There's nothing in this movie that you haven't already seen browsing the net. Nothing is shocking about this film. In the film a man sodomizes a goat, there's a bulldozer decapitation, and a lesbian's face gets burnt off. All of these scenes of "extreme violence" are so fake, it makes one wonder why anyone would even want to resurface this piece of trash. I simply cannot believe I spent hard earned money on what certainly has to be the worst film ever made. Don't let reviews fool you, this film would be a shame for ANYONE to own...except maybe prisons who want to torture inmates. For a REAL exploitation classic, look to Bloodsucking Freaks or even the more recent Doom Generation. Island of Death sinks to the bottom of the movie toilet and needs to be flushed out of existence.


As a huge fan of the original Operation Delta Force, I thought I'd pick this film up. I figured it couldn't be too bad. However, here's a list of things I learnt from watching Operation Delta Force 4: Deep Fault.

- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, are mostly mildly-overweight men in their late 30s and early 40s.

- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, carry standard police issue pistols or AK-47s on their most important missions.

- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, haven't learnt that during stealth missions, wearing bright red ski jumpers and running around in open spaces aren't exactly going to keep you out of sight.

- When you drop a Molotov cocktail into a tank, it explodes externally like a grenade.

- When you get hit by tank fire, you can run away, although the smoke caused may present minor difficulties for breathing.

- You can die from one standard gun shot, but you can also live despite being hit multiple times by a sniper rifle, and a few times by an AK-47.

- In hand-to-hand combat, members of The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, are regularly pummeled by railroad attendants.

- If bad guys are approaching you while on a slow-moving train, there's nothing to worry about - between the 4 of them, they can't manage to figure out how to get an automatic weapon to fire automatically, let alone hit anyone from 5 metres (16 feet) with at least 50 attempts between them.

- If you're short on actors, just recycle them - the bad guy from Operation Delta Force 1 plays a good guy called Mac in Operation Delta Force 4, and the guy who played Mac in Operation Delta Force 3 now plays Skip Lang, a different good guy.

- It's not OK for The Delta Force to shoot an unarmed terrorist, even if he's attempting to reload his weapon to kill you.

- Grenades explode on impact with the ground when thrown by members of The Delta Force. When thrown by non-Delta Force personnel, they explode at exactly the point where the Delta Force members have thrown the grenades back at the bad guys.

- Tanks can drive faster than standard trucks.

- Militias and personal armies use the exact same chopper that the UN used in Operation Delta Force 1.

- When a chopper arrives, a bad guy in that chopper cannot see you if you lie face-down.

- Shooting someone multiple times in the chest will cause minor damage. Stabbing that person in the knee will kill them inside 5 seconds.

- The Delta Force steal cars from old people to get around when in foreign countries, because the US Military do not provide them with any means of transport. This may also explain why they caught public transport.

As you can see, this is not really the finest moment in film-making, but it's good for a laugh.


This is an awful movie from just about every point of view. Since much has been already pointed out in previous reviews, let me just focus on "Serbs" and "Delta Force" guys in this movie.

1) The uniforms that "Serbs" wear are not Serbian. And helmets are wrong, too.

2) The actors who play "Serbs" are not speaking Serbian, not even a language close to Serbian, unlike in "Behind enemy lines" where the Czech actors did their best to speak the language and add at least a bit of credibility to the movie.

3) The gray-bearded "Serbian general" looks and acts like a moron, firing his gun whenever US soldiers call his name:

- US soldier: "Gravic! Give up!"

- Gray-bearded moronic general: (fires his AK47)

- US soldier: "Gravic! Come out!"

- GBMG: (fires his AK47)

- US soldier: "Gravic! You're surrounded"

- GBMG: (fires his AK47)

- Prop guy: "Excuse me, Mr. gray-bearded moronic general, see, we're out of blanks and I sent the boy to buy some more, but he's not back yet..."

- GBMG: (click)

4) Since when does the Army issue AK47s to the Delta Force? I guess they couldn't find enough working M4s in Bulgaria, but there were plenty of old AK47s and practice blanks ;) Maybe they should have went for some airsofts, they are cheaper and wouldn't have hurt the credibility of the movie anyway...

5) In the scene where a DF officer is hanging on a rope while talking to a rocket scientist, he is holding his finger on the trigger all the time. No sane person with any weapons training or just plain common sense would ever do that. I guess the actor figured that his coolness level increases the longer he holds the gun that way.

This movie is such an insult to common sense..


Proof if ever more was needed, that an action movie, irregardless of its budget, can LOOK better with more setups (or cameras), closer shots, and many more cuts. The 'Martini' generation has moved on to John Woo. Deep Fault could be better for a work over in the cutting room. Ray


Since I am required to write minimum of 10 lines, and this garbage deserves not only a single one, I'll start with the following: 1. I voted AWFUL for this dreadful so called "movie".

2. Let me explain why these turkeys Mr. David Varod produces are shot mainly in my beautiful homeland, Bulgaria (just in BTW, for the illiterate people around - this country is IN EUROPE, based north to Greece and has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico and Uruguay) Some years ago, NU Image has invaded our country and started making crappy mostly direct-to-video releases. Why here? Because here they pay derisively low fees to the Bulgarian crew and to the Bulgarian actors (most of them distinguished ones) which are, in many ways, better than most of their American colleagues. Personally I am ashamed of that fact. The reason is, of course, the greediness of the Americans involved and their wish to get most, if not all of the profit. Actually it would't be so bad if only the production wasn't so filthy and pale. There hasn't been a good picture shot here for years. At present NU image is being sued here over the very questionably purchasing of our national cinema production centre called Boyana Films. No doubt about it there has been corruption, there has been deceit, there has been a lies in this recent purchase. The Bulgarian cinema is dead. Long live the Bulgarian cinema!


I was pleasantly pleased with the ending. I just saw this movie yesterday, and was going to turn it off, but changed my mind. It was not at all the direction I thought the story would end on. Thats about all positive I can say about this film. All of the actors are nobodys, especially the lead. While she is an attractive young woman, she'll never make it big. The writing, direction, and acting are wooded, sort of like what you would see on daytime soaps. The filming locations were very clever in making you think it could be anywhere, instead of blatantly tipping off it was in Canada. As this was shot entirely in Canada, I'm assuming the entire lot was Canadien, which is not entirely bad as some recent Canadien TV productions: "Cold Squad", "Stone; Underover" are quite well done.


Yes, dumb is the word for this actress. I know many have mentioned her beauty, but this viewer found her empty headed and boring to watch with her bleached hair, lip gloss, and not so perfect body. Watch her walk away in those jeans, showing a rather large butt. Her butt spreads beyond her shoulders. What does that tell you? As for the leading man, played by gorgeous Mark Humphrey, he was perfectly cast. A charmer. However, he and Lancaster just didn't match. She was out of place opposite this good looking guy. Good acting by Susan Glover as the sister. Angela Galuppo had a small role and was okay. But the film's director Philippe Gagnon, wasted too much footage on Lancaster. After a while you got tired of looking at her and watching her dull acting ability. And what a bitch of a wife she was. Snooping on her husband, being obnoxious to him and just a plain spoiled brat. Was happy to see her hit with the dart gun. I thought it might be the end of her. But alas, the script tells us otherwise. After torturing myself and watching this loser again, I still came up with the same criticism. Lancaster is boring to watch. This time around her hair, folks. Her hair constantly in her face, constantly tossing it back, became annoying. I question the writer, Alexandra Komisaruk's reason why a good looking wealthy man like Philippe would even bother with the likes of a bimbo like Allison. When there were so many attractive intelligent women, with class, to choose. He picks this nothing. Is this the Rochester/Jane Eyre thing? Oh well, it's all a matter of taste, I guess. This Sarah Lancaster is not my cup of tea, folks.


I feel conflicted about this film - it is one of the most beautiful films I've seen, and provides insightful looks into a lost culture. There was an early scene of men in caps and moustaches sitting around a table, with a woman serving, and an accordion playing, that brought tears to my eyes, just because of the way it captured a way of life that must be incomprehensible to many today. It presents the lives of the characters as being inextricably bound up with the life of the village, another lost concept in today's world. Symbolism is always fun but it seemed a little dated. The fatal flaws of the movie to me were the lack of any compelling dramatic drive, and a total lack of humor. I never felt like I knew any of the characters beyond very basic universal things like grieving over the loss of a loved one, etc. The people were stick figures in the director's tableaux involving natural disasters, war, etc. The film was just one beautiful tragic scene after another, with no involving narrative thread and no humanity. As a result, it seemed very abstract, irrelevant to the lives of real people. In the end, I was too bored to finish watching it.


This must be one of the most annoying, arrogant, poser films I've ever seen. What a waste of budget and actors. Angelopoulos has reached new levels of pretentiousness. It is clear there is virtually no plot, even if this part of Greek history is material for great movies. He simply had some supposedly symbolic (actually shambolic) scenes in his mind and he built a whole movie around them. Death is the main theme and is repeated ad nauseam, along with litanies, processions and the like, which should only be a vehicle for the movie but unfortunately it is the movie itself. A totally incoherent result, which can only leave you saying "huh?" or "oh dear" every two minutes.

There is no character development at all, nada, zilch. I'm usually complaining about some movies having two-dimensional characters, but oh boy, he managed to create one-dimensional characters. This is irritating for us and degrading for some of the actors. He even managed to make one of my favourite Greek actors, Giorgos Armenis, seem wooden.

And going to the core of Angelopoulos film-making: No we're not idiots. We do not want chewed food. Please someone tell this guy symbolism has to be subtle. Theo do you really underestimate your audience so much or you're simply incompetent? Personally, I think he tried to make a Greek "Underground". No matter how he tries, he can't reach Kusturica.

Only saving grace: Photography, costumes and the music.


Had I known to what I was submitting myself, I would have fled from the theater. The film is dreadful, in the literal sense of the word. Despite striking images, intriguing locales, and a subject matter that might have been fascinating, the film is dead.

I was unfamiliar with this period of Greek history, and prepared to experience a great film. The filmmakers's hand is heavy. it is not enough to see a train going by; we must watch it from afar, we must watch it car by car, we must see the smoke, we must see it slow down, and we must see it stop. The director's approach is didactic. Likewise, the characters that he creates never develop, they never change. They are so stereotypic that we wonder, are they meant to be Everyman? Everygirl? Everyoldmusician? Is there some point to this allegory? It is the most pretentious film that I have seen in a long while.


I can pretend no knowledge of cinematography or Mr. Angelopoulos. But I know Greece and I love her people. In July my 14 year old son and I traveled to Cappadocia, Turkey in search of some remains of the neighborhood where his great grandfather Iordanis lived until the great exodus of Anatolian Greeks in 1923. Reading the summary of the film (refugees from Odessa) I thought that perhaps I might learn something more about the forced migrations of modern Greeks. If I did not have a home in Rhodes, had I not been to Greece 28 times in as many years, were I not familiar with dozens of islands and cities in Greece and if I had never enjoyed the friendship of these ebullient, life-intoxicated people, I might have believed that this lamentation had something to do with modern Greece. As a professor at a New Jersey State college, let me assure you that I am familiar with the history of the period covered in the film. Indeed, my wife's uncle was murdered by the communists during the communist grab for power. My mother-in-law lived through the Italian invasion and German occupation...barely. These characters on the screen speak Greek, they listen to Greek music but who are they? No, they are not even vaguely Greek. Of course they are not people at all but simply allegories. They are that which the artist invents when life does not entirely fit or is inadequate to his perception of how it was or should have been. All represent some aspect of post WWI Greece that greater outside forces consigned to a fate they didn't deserve. As we joked in the late 70's in America: "The Revolution didn't happen." For an ideologue/artist, this is no joke. It's in fact grounds to put us through two and a half hours of torment. And it's all because the various Powers (Eleni's soliloquy of "guards" in different colored uniforms) didn't allow the generation after the "aristocrats" of 1919 (Spyros) to follow the call of peace and freedom (the music of Nikos and his fellow musicians, i.e., the Movement, the Cause). This dark, surreal revisionism smears the true and heroic efforts of the Greek people to sustain their lust for life through the tragedies of the 20th century, to achieve more than any of their Balkan neighbors, to have become so politically evolved and globally integrated.


While the film has one redeeming feature, namely some striking shots e.g. the shot of the sheep hanging from the tree, the scene of the funeral procession on the raft, or the scene of the boats leaving the village (which seemed influenced by the scene when the warships approach in the fantastic "Fellini Satyricon"), these were more photographic than cinematographic, and would have been better appreciated hung on a wall in an art gallery than embedded in a painfully slow-paced film that comes in at a whopping 162 minutes and suffers from terrible dialogue, extremely poor character development, over-acting, uninspired symbolism and heavy stylisation. This is the first film I have seen by Angelopoulos, and his reputation having preceded him, I expected a lot better, but can honestly say that this is one of the worst films I've ever seen, and I won't go out of my way to watch any of the director's other work in the future. The four friends I went to see it with agree.


I saw this film 2 weeks prior to going on a snowboarding holiday, so for me it was really just to get my mind in mode for my holiday. The film boasts some sweet snowboarding skills, throughout the films in the action scenes. These moments were great, a bit like watching extreme sports channel. Sadly the story was quite honestly awful, the acting was generally alright, with a fairly small cast. This film is apparently comedy, at least it tries to be comical, but it seems like the comedy and the storyline was written by a teenager. The story lacks any depth or purpose and the comedy struggles to be anything more than a small snigger a few times during the movie. It might be worth renting just to see the snowboarding action, but then again there are plenty of movies out there that are totally devoted to snowboarding stunts and don't feature a UN-funny badly written story.


Ewe, The opening screams zero budget. The titles whooshing in look like my grandson was let loose with iMovie. The DVD box gives the impression that you'll be treated to the old days of '80s boobie movies. NOPE! Hardly any nudity from a flick that stars Traci Lords! This movie really did need the nudity too. Instead you get a lot of Lords perkies pointing through a shirt, however they seem to be activated by hot steam. That's odd, in my world the headlights go on in the COLD.

The plot is pathetic, the blind guy is just is a joke, and not a funny one. His antics are so forced and predictable. He trips over stuff and you see him bracing for the fall. He needs to work on his physical comedy.

Most of Frostbite's nudity comes from a hot tub scene that looks like it was shot months later and inserted in to get a distributor. And the nudity is not worth it.

NamoiBucks; it's just a matter of time before Starbucks sues over that. Not even funny. As Billy arrives in town for the first time they come across Namoi Bucks, He comments "Wow they have these everywhere." This leads you to believe it's a parody on Starbucks, but surprise, behind the counter of this location is Namoi herself. Apparently she loves coffee so much that the owner of this huge chain decided to work in a tiny cold town.

The only thing this movie has going for it is the Warren Miller snowboarding footage. Yep this is all Warren's stuff, so if you want to see great action, get a Warren miller flick. Leave Frostbite alone.

There is nothing good about this movie. There is no reason to rent it or buy it, and if a friend offers to loan you a copy for free. Hit him and end the friendship.


The movie starts out with its most intelligent joke, and goes downhill from there (pun intended). After that there's lots of potty humor and sexual situations. The beautiful women were the best part of the movie. Swear-word puns are not meant to be central idea jokes, but they try it here. The battle between the two groups in the local town (richies and poories) is an old tried and true setup, so how could it go wrong? Well, there is no reason to envy the "richies" nor any reason to feel sorry for the poories, so we can forget the central plot. The situational humor is all toilet or sexual aimed at teenagers, but only garners giggles, no true belly-laughs.

The only thing that salvages the comedy for this movie is the character humor, with the blind man providing some rehashed, but seldom used setups, and the black bar owner providing the formulaic "street" or "hood" humor.

OK, forget the jokes, there has to be some killer snowboarding shots since this was a commercial enterprise. Unfortunately, there was only 4 seconds of backdrop action that might be inspiring. The rest was all "B" grade tricks or worse. The big moment, where the main character rides "the goat", a man-killer ski run, did provide one shot where a small avalanche eats the stuntman. This was the best of the boarding in this movie. Any serious snowboarding fan will be disappointed with the quality of the stunts in the movie.

As for the technical aspects of the movie, the soundtrack was average, which surprises, as those snowboarding documentaries are regularly filled with quality tunes. You can catch a lot of editing mistakes and even though it was shot on a ski mountain, the majority of "scenery" shots failed to convey any sense of true size.

Overall, it MIGHT be worth watching if you have managed to turn your brain completely off and you like silicon breasts. Even then, you wont remember a thing from this one two days later.

Snowboarding is still waiting for it's definitive comedy, you'd do better to watch a snowboarding documentary for sure.


About 20 minutes into this lame excuse for a movie, I realized it reminded me of one of those annoying people at work who're always telling really lame jokes or doing extremely unfunny things, because they think it's funny and are trying to entertain everyone.

This film is billed as starring Traci Lords, she's not that bad of an actress, but her lines aren't funny and SHE'S NOT THE STAR

The acting is some of the most god-awful I've ever seen, except for Lords, the girl who plays Casey, and maybe the Colonel-who seems oddly out of place. I can't imagine why a retired military Colonel would want to start a SNOWBOARDING ACADEMY. Do those even exist?

The budget would've been better spent coaxing these women into doing a full length porn feature.

"Freddy Got Fingered" currently has a 3.5 score, "Frostbite" has a 2.7. I'm baffled these two movies are within a 1.0 to each other, FGF is "The Godfather" compared to this garbage.

1/10 stars


on this quagmire of mediocrity? You are SO much better than this.

Simply put, Frostbite is worthless. Bad acting (and I use that term loosely), minimalist "plot," sophomoric humor, and lackluster snowboarding. There's not even a sufficient display of feminine pulchritude to spark the prurient interest of socially inept, but red-blooded, males.

Top Gun had spectacular flight sequences to goggle at. Days of Thunder had heart-pounding racing action. Even Point Break had skydiving scenes to its credit. Frostbite has none of these. It's not worth your time, my time, Traci Lords' time, Carmen Nicole's time, nor the time of anyone involved with this destruction of celluloid that would have been perfectly usable on something worthwhile had it not been wasted on this fodder for the recycling center.

The world will be a better place when we forget that Frostbite ever existed.


I guess if you like snow boarding you may get some enjoyment from watching some nice scenery and some nice tricks. but that is all the film has to offer. the story line is non-existent, and any jokes that may have been in the film were not funny, even on a sympathy level. I also disliked the characters, the main actor (Adam Grimes)tried his best, and for a comedy like this that doesn't have to be much, but when surrounded by so many other bad actors he had no hope of making this film good. but i shouldn't be too harsh on them, for all i know they might have great skill, but with a script that i could have written in ten minutes, what ever skills they had were ran and hid for fear of appearing in this film. my advise is don't watch it, i wish i never did!


After watch this movie I was surprised that someone had like it!!!! I think this is the worst comedy I ever seen....ever!!!! If you think you had already seen the worst comedy made wait for watch this crap!!!! Not funny at all( OK one or two laugh maybe.......but you have to be really high), the acting is terrible and the story doesn't exist. Even if you like snowboarding ( and I really do) you will hate this movie. OK, OK you can see some nice babes , some nice snowboarding tricks and some beautiful mountains but that's all!!! Watch a porno set in the mountains instead because the acting and the story line might be better!!!!! Sometimes in IMDb I read bad review about some movie and at the end they are not so awful....but this one, believe me,is pure trash!!!! Don't waste your time and money in this one.


What makes this movie so damn bad? Is it the lame sub-par juvenile humor? Could it be the horrid "trendy" suck ass music? Perhaps the uninspired go nowhere story? Or maybe even the fact that Traci Lords gives her worst acting performance ever and to add insult to injury keeps all her clothes on throughout the length of this steaming turd sandwich. Regardless no matter what the reason this film sucks, the fact remains that it really REALLY does. I have never wished I could be watching a movie with Dean Cameron in it instead of what I was watching in my life, but "Ski School" is a masterpiece of comic genius compared to this travesty.

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: Nikol Nesbitt, Buffy Tyler and Suzanne Stokes all unleash their Tupperware tits

Where I saw it: Starz on Demand


I can't actually think of one good point in this film. The story is absolutely terrible. THe acting is as blunt as a carrot, and the script is so bad it makes you want to kill yourself. OK fine if you love (and you have to love it to understand) snowboarding you might enjoy it microscopically better, as it has large mountains and some cool moves but apart from that it is terrible. It has some absolutely stupid ideas and it is racist with both black and white people insulting each others races. The only time you will laugh is when you are laughing at the stupidity or you are feeling embarrassed for the film. I have seen a lot of films and i have to say that this is the worst film i have ever seen. If you have this film i would suggest you take it back to wherever you bought it from and get you money back.


This movie is just downright horrible, the movie was only an hour long and for about 25mins of the movie was just useless random snowboarding clips that don't even connect to the movie. The storyline is completely "retarted", my 5 year old cousin could probably write a better script. I don't understand how someone could fund the production of a film like this ... horrible. This is definitely the shittiest most horrid movie i've ever seen in my entire existence. I think the casting director just took some random kids from off the street to act in this movie. The directing, acting, producing and writing for this film are all really bad. I feel bad for the people who wasted money funding this garbage. U couldn't pay me to watch this crap again.


After a while I realized it was just my IQ slowly dropping. Frostbite is one of those pathetic movies where no one, and I mean no one, is even trying. I rooted for the dorky hero to die inside that trashcan (how did he even manage to fit in there, anyway?), Traci Lords, the queen of B movies, was horribly unfunny and ripped me and my friends off by not showing her boobs a single time.

The "characters", though I use that term loosely, are people so exaggerated and one-dimensional they might as well have used cardboard cutouts. The "jokes" (I use this term loosely as well) are simply hilarious. A guy's fart causes an earthquake. Roflcopter! Our "hero" gets a butt acupuncture by Traci Lords. Oh God, I can't breathe! The blind guy uses the F word repeatedly! This is too much!!!

Say what you want about the acting but I thought Adam Grimes did a pretty good job at playing a mentally challenged snowboarder. Apart from that the sole source of entertainment value here is boobs. I think I counted three, maybe four pairs throughout the entire film, scattered over maybe five minutes of screen time. That's five minutes worth watching out of 83 minutes of unfunny trash. Don't watch this. Watch Barb Wire with Pamela Anderson - at least there was plenty of nudity and action in that trashy flick!(r#26)


This movie is beyond Horrible AVOID AT ALL COSTS!! I want my hour and 20 minutes back!!!

Not funny AT ALL, you can watch this movie without laughing or even smiling once. Swears spill out of the speakers like a waterfall, each one getting more annoying as the last, and not contributing to the comedy OR plot (general comedy - not this movie in general!).

All in all, its a lame-a$5, watered-down -typed- "Out Cold"ish movie - But Tremendously Awful. The movie focuses around two groups of a city Poories and Richies (how obviously dumb is that?), where the two opposites have snowboard battles with each other. (story is much like a 4-year-old's bed time story without all the swears and stupid jokes)

MOVIE - 1/10 - because you can't give any lower scores


The Motion Picture Association of America has seen fit to advise potential viewers and this is particularly useful to parents and guardians that this film which is hereby titled "Frostbite" is given a "R" rating.The "R" rating has specific information which allows any person who not knowing anything about a film to know something about what this film provides.The "R" was instituted for Sexual Content including Nudity and Perverse dialog,language, crude sense of humor and drug use.There is no reward in viewing such a film though it would be useful to know if this could be removed as a possibility at all I would as this reviewer remove such a possibility.This is a film whereby merely a 1 was not the equal to a number as it did not qualify as a film to be counted,in fact such as this purpose is with this film so should such a purpose be with this films place at all.This is a unwholesome and undesirable offerring that should of been given a much stricter interpretation because at no point is conduct or language suitable for viewing and this kind of film may wish for a Blacklist rather than a stricter definition as to its content.It is suggested hereby that the stricter definition would allow,it is hereby put forth a criminal charge.It may any way irregardless of its rating.This is a unsavory world which would damage any persons viewing this film as its purpose is to commit an offense.It is an offense and it is offensive in its purpose.There is no sense of humor in the film but a depraved and indifferent purpose as to its undesirable underpinning.Without reservation this is a do not see list and perhaps not entirely necessary to say to any adults considering but to any whose interests concern the environment to which there children grow up in,do not allow nor provide any young person the viewing of this film it is unfriendly.Society often sends the wrong message when these kinds of problems are in the public domain let this not be one of those times.


'Rise of the Footsoldier' follows the unrelentingly cruel journey of gangster Carlton Leach and his associates through drugs, violence, sex, violence, guns, violence and did I mention violence?

Protagonist Carlton Leach (Ricci Harnett), member of the I.C.F (Inner City Firm); a group of football hooligans turned professional gangsters, guides the audience through the events leading to the 1995 'Range Rover Killings', in which three gang members fell victim to particularly vicious professional 'hits'. Leach's success as a doorman and talent for locating aptly violent friends to control unruly punters at a local nightclub launches him into the company of notorious drug dealers and gangsters, profitably benefiting from the 80s/90s rave scene and drug culture.

Opening with brutally realistic shots of the dead men, the viewer is left thirsty to understand what happened, but left wholly unsatisfied. The next 2 hours meander through a series of countless character introductions. Each of these basically establishes yet another typical 'hard man', shows him assaulting usually undeserving victims, before probably coming to an even nastier end. What little emotional understanding the audience is allowed to form for a few of the characters (for example a family man blamed for missing drugs) is quickly destroyed when they are either anti-climactically killed, or their storyline left unresolved. The hints of a plot introduced in the beginning are inadequately concluded with vague impressions of how the murders occurred, as the events are slotted into place with little reward for persevering with the hazy muddle of previous events.

This film has been made with a standard formula in mind, for an audience who prefer violence and 'ard nut' slang to an actual storyline. 'Rise of the Footsoldier' borrows too much from 'Football Factory', leaving out the good bits, demonstrating no moral ramifications of hooligan subculture or establishing empathy with the protagonist. The violence, although brilliantly shot, seems excessive and implausible because no one is around long enough for the audience to form an emotional attachment. The implication that the gangs are untouchable by the police is fair enough, but machete-wielding doormen regularly committing blatant murder in public places pushes the imagination of even the most willing viewer. The audience are left bewildered as to the relevance of many key events and developed characters that had no knock on effect on the eventual conclusion. Attempted 'gritty-realism' is further destroyed with a substance called 'Truth Serum', which the Turkish Mafia use to coax honest answers from unwilling individuals. This is NOT the genre in which to invent psychologically unrealistic drugs, and renders the interrogation almost absurd.

The actual scenes of violence (before becoming repetitive) hold some tension, spliced with rapid flashes of colour or the end of a film reel. Seamlessly choreographed brawls coupled with obligatory but effective shaky hand-held camera work saves the film, but unfortunately the plot (or lack there of) limits it to a niche demographic.

In essence, the events this film is based on aren't deservedly represented, and an adequately sequential storyline is sacrificed for stereotypical characters and an unoriginal plot. This film has a place in the market, but if you like a bit of brain with your brutality this one isn't for you.

http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/


This movie could have been great. It is not in my opinion. The storyline is fragmented, the editor appears not to be able to choose between a Guy Ritchie-style of storytelling and a more straightforward one. There is a great emphasis on excessive violence, including torture. Too much so if you ask me. The characters are very shallow and stereo-typed, I would have liked to see more depth there. It is hard to identify with the main character. As a result the movie remains shallow as a whole.

The movie says it gives the spectator an inside view of the British criminal underclass, more in particular the Essex underclass. Football-hooligans, steroids, cocaine, heroine and violence, lots and lots of violence. Violence resulting from paranoia and fear in general. In this movie no-one seems to use his (or her) brain, we're looking at a bunch of animals in clothes. Like I said, there is not much of a plot and the storytelling leaves a lot to be desired.

If you're a male below 30, like gore and hardcore violence and think that's entertaining, than this is a movie for you. If you're looking for a movie portraying real people with a well developed storyline, suspense and depth, well... you can skip this one.


Blame Guy Ritchie. The late 90s success of Ritchie's cliché-ridden Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels triggered a series of pitiful gangster movies from which the genre never really recovered. Sadly Rise of The Footsoldier - the true story of Essex hardnut Carlton Leach - isn't likely to reverse that trend. Despite a decent lead performance from Hartnett, the film falls victim to all-too familiar East End stereotypes. They're either busy blowing someone's brains out or shagging a scantily-clad blonde.

From fearsome football hooligan in the eighties to a key figure in the criminal underworld during the nineties, Footsoldier charts Leach's rise through the ranks of thuggery. Leaving the terraces for nightclubs, Leach becomes a bouncer where he's given carte blanche to kick the crap out of anyone. Here he gets in with notorious gangland leaders Pat Tate (Fairbrass) and Tony Tucker (Stone), and begins to realise gang-warfare ain't what it's cracked up to be.

There is fun to be had deconstructing writer-director Julian Gilbey's laughable join-the-dots yob patois, as every sentence seems to start with an, 'I'm gonna fackin'' or 'You fackin'' or, on occasion, 'So then I only went an' fackin'', typically concluded with a mandatory 'caaaant!' The direction, too, smacks of sadism, especially the obvious glee Gilbey gets from filming violent scenes in close-up and, in the case of the bloody shotgun-to-the-face denouement, in triplicate.

Director Gilbey's use of the classic rise-and-fall gangster narrative isn't what will condemn Footsoldier to big screen obscurity. Nor is it the fact that half way through, the film annoyingly sidelines Leach in favour of the events culminating in the infamous shooting of Tate and Tucker. It's Gilbey's sickening appetite for scatter-shot violence that ruins the film; whether it's a brick in the face or axe in the head during a vicious attack on a train, it's all unnecessarily prolonged. Footsoldier doesn't so much pack a punch as leave you feeling violated and more importantly, robs you of two hours of your life you won't get back...


This is possibly the worst of the cockney gangster genre that has blighted the British film industry since Mockney Guy Ritchie unleashed Lock stock and two badly acted barrels. This "True Life" story of Carlton Leach (who?) has everything that is wrong with this genre, a truly awful script that consists of people screeching "Cant", "Fahcking Cant" and "I'll kill ya, ya fahcking cant" ad nauseum. The acting is uniformly dreadful with the two most recognisable cast members being two former soap stars quite visably out of their depth. For some reason the film assumes we have heard of these people and i can assure you anybody north of Essex hasn't, and that we should be interested in some low lifes story. Why? This isn't Goodfellas despite the blurb on the DVD cover. The story centres around a football hooligan turned bouncer turned gangster who's friends end up getting shot. Boo hoo. The fact that these people are totally unsympathetic is the only minor plus for this film. In all of the action scenes it seems that the camera was tied to a piece of string and whirled around while people pretended to fight and the story of somebody most people have never heard of and nothing really interesting happens too is a complete waste of time. People talk about how violent the film is as though it's the sign of a great film and, although many great films have violence in them, this is just an excuse for the FX man to show what he can do. Overall this film is a reminder of why the British film industry is defunct and the sooner we stop funding these pathetic abortions the better.


I am a big fan of British films in general but especially gangster movies. Unfortunately this film was shockingly bad. I think its pretty depressing that this film is getting any good customer reviews. The idea that this film is gritty and realistic is laughable. I have read and heard fist hand quite a lot about the real life events shown in this movie and they have nearly all been glorified with over the top violence etc. The only gritty true to life event in the whole film was the Range Rover murders where some overblown bouncers got rubbed out for messing with people they could not handle. This film is a disgrace to British cinema! It has no plot and no decent acting and just relies on being violent( gritty and realistic as some people like to put it) The sort of people who made this film should not be allowed near a budget or film camera just as the sort of people this film is about should not be given the opportunity to tell this pathetic violent little tale of no consequence.


Watching this movie all I could think of was, maybe it gets better, but after 20 minutes I couldn't watch it any second longer. I don't want too wast to many lines about this, but really its a complete wast of time. All the actors say is c*nt this cont that. If you are still going too watch it, don't say I didn't warned you. Maybe if you are an hooligan or something, you might think its a tribute to your hobby. again.. Film is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form, and the motion picture industry. Films are produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or special effects. .


Having had more than a few mates suggest i check Rise of the Footsoldier out, i eventually got round to it last night. Undoubtedly the story Colton Leach has to tell (and did so in his autobiography) is a compelling tale of one mans ascent from Terrace boot boy to connected underworld villain. This film sadly compromised in quality by miscasts, appalling accents and woeful acting.Ricci Harnett in the lead role of Leach does a reasonable job of conveying the transition from thuggery to serious criminal but his accent is all over the place. As his voice provides the stories narration it is something that after ten minutes was driving me nuts. Terry Stone as Tony Tucker provided the unintentional comedy with an ill fitting wig (or the worst Barnett going)dialogue that was so expletive riddled it bordered on juvenile and an over the top vehemence in line delivery reducing Tucker to parody.What troubled me most about this film was that the events leading up to the shooting in Rettenden, Essex and the formative years of Leach are of genuine interest to crime fans and fans of football hooliganism so, to have this story sabotaged by a lack of credible accents and acting left me feeling an opportunity had been missed. Roland Manookian and Frank Harper provide the films only source of authenticity. On the positive side some of the films pacing and construct flowed well and kept the attention. The violence was well choreographed and aside from an over reliance on projectile red syrup for blood spatterings was on the whole realistic. If you enjoyed the film then it is worth checking out Essex Boys telling a similar tale from fictionalised viewpoint and also featuring Billy Murray.


Oh dear, just what we need another Essex -Cockney garbage effort chronicling the rise of the UK footy hooligan/ rave gangster who did of course follow West 'am (East Londan/Essex style). Didn't anybody tell you that they won the world cap!? And then of course the inevitable decay into UK rave culture underworld. Blah blah blah. Why how and who would want to fund a film like this i do not know but lets pray that it was from Private financiers (lets see ex drug dealers, merchant bankers -we all know what to call them, and the rest of the mockneys) rather than publicly funded means. Hopefully with the recession we will not see the like of this again. If we do we will be calling the death knell for British films and of course we will all be able to blame Britains number one Mockney Country gent wannabee gangster Guy Ritchie.


First off i'll give this movie a low scoring 4 out of 10! It was nothing more than a wannabe film. I felt very let down watching this film. I was lead to people it would be more drama and more facts about the true story it's based on. Instead i spent over an hour watching middle aged mean break the law and take drugs.

It's abit like football factory but with no real storyline and not a good ending. After watching the film i was left wondering "What was that film all about?" If you like films with no real storyline and a lot of drug taking and swearing then this is the film for you.

I'm a BIG fan of mob and gangster movies but this film did not live up to the hype. I can see where the writer was trying to go with the film but it never reached it's destination.One of the worst British films that i have ever watched. If only the movie had more of a storyline this would have bad an excellent movie.


There is no doubt that the Kokoda Trail depicts a truly great event in Australian Military history the brave defence of Australia against the cruel barbaric Japanese Army.Howver this film fails to take into account the story of the "Fuzzy Wuzzy's" or the New Guinea natives that The Australians used to help them carry out there military operations. The film also fails to give a credible account of the Australian soldier and his behaviour in this event. It is more like an uninformed contemporary view of what is was like.

Again the Australian film industry has failed to give this important chapter in Australia';s history the film it deserved. This is film making at its worst with arbitrary cinematography , bad scripting and dialogue , no character development and cliché jungle warfare scenes.

It fails to imbue the audience in any meaningful perspective other than the Japanese Army were ruthless and cruel murderers of an ill-equipped and badly trained group of Australians fighting in a jungle.

The film failed as most Australian films do to attract a significant Australian audience in fact they stayed away in droves.

I am not going to join the usual parochial garbage of saying its great because its an Australian film. I say either do a great job or just leave it to some one who knows how. This government funded film is just another failure by Australia's wealthy and spoilt rich kids.

I am giving it zero stars because its an insult to the descendants of these truly great Australians and their enormous sacrifice. What a shameful waste and disrespect and I know this review will provoke more negativity from the Movie Show crew and most reviewers but I have a right to my opinion and that's what Australians fought for OUR FREEDOM and that includes freedom of speech and the right to express an opinion.


Kokoda was inspired by events on the Kokoda track during WW2 when Australian militia slowed and ultimately stopped a push by 10,000 Japanese soldiers to move overland and capture Port Moresby. What they really mean is that the movie is set in this time period but is fiction and everything that happens is just a jumble of standard scenes from other war films. The first hour is just one cliché after another. Some of the scenes are simply there to be able to draw us into a feeling that this conflict was horrific beyond compare, when there appears to be little evidence of this. Both sides fought hard to control the track and no mercy was shown by either side. Both sides suffered from logistic shortages and the terrain was a great leveler in this conflict. As the Japanese got closer to Port Moresby their supply line grew and this ultimately led to their downfall. On the other hand as the Australians retreated closer to Port Moresby their supply line decreased. Some of the scenes appear to be straight out of the handbook on standard scenes to include in any war film. The film was misguided and highlighted the youth of the production team. At a time when Australia could have done with a great film about one of Australia's best moments the film Kokoda is a shallow disappointment.


From all the bad comments about this movie and add them up I feel the same way. It may look like the Australians are weaklings instead they were brave soldiers. In this film it was very terrible and too graphic. I didn't see enough heroism just more cowardice which is ashame because its nothing from what I read. We don't need the extremity of violence like that we can use our vivid imagination of what they went through. It's like saving private ryan where the nazi is pushing his knife slowly in the soldier. For example Mel Gibson is a over extreme director for his movies not because of the violence but for the level of historical inaccuracy. Letters of Iwo Jima was one of the war films that was close enough to history (although I could be wrong) except Flags of our Fathers and Bridge of the River Kwai. You're better off reading it its an insult to the victims and the fallen if you don't tell it right, and the movie drag on for too long there was nothing interesting about the dialogue and not enough retribution from the aussies to kill Japanese soldiers. Just read history on the internet, mags and in books. Movies always kill the sense of realization. What they did to POWs in Singapore and the Philippines was just dreadful escpically to civilians. It just makes me feel proud to see goodies beat the baddies but movies like this ruin it.


This was like watching the trailer of a up and coming movie, except that there was no movie coming up. The film is so unsatisfying and obviously unfinished as to be almost laughable. The subject of this film is over a very short time frame and frankly, nothing much actually happens in the 90 odd minutes of screen time. I was hoping for the definitive Australian film about our soldiers in WWII and how they fought against incredible odds in awful conditions.This is most certainly not it.

Having said that, the acting was great and locations authentic. This could easily have been a great movie given a lot more money and time, instead it isn't even mediocre and I cannot recommend it at all.


A totally pathetic attempt at movie about sacrifices of Australian Soldiers during the New Guinea Campaign. Total waste of money even if you only see it on DVD. Thankfully the video store provided a free weekly hire with the DVD else it would have been a complete waste of money. Probably made by arty types and full of the symbolism that today's Chardonay socialists seem so into. Frankly this movie is an insult to the memory of the brave chaps that never came back. Somebody please provide the funding to make a decent movie at least the equal of Saving Private Ryan. Hopefully the RSL will put as much distance between itself and this movie as possible. The story needs to be told from all sides the Australians, the locals & the Japanese - Although getting the latter to tell the truth about anything that happened during the second world war is highly unlikely. Basically its rubbish, don't see it, don't buy it. Walk away


For all its wonderful images, for all of its good intentions, this just comes off as yet another disgustingly one-sided, over-glorified, self-promoting propaganda.

The message is simple, "All Japanese fighting on the Kokoda Track were sadistic, malicious f*** sticks who enjoyed gutting every last Aussie troop, cutting their throats before beheading them." Not only does Kokoda pick up on "Gallipoli"'s only flaw (that the enemy are faceless, nameless, and apparently inhumane), but manages to prove quite the opposite to Weir's masterpiece. Instead of giving us a perfect film with one flaw, we have a horrible mess with one redeeming feature.

Let's start off with this: we're, without any comfortable adapting to the characters, introduced to these apparently quite laid back, two-dimensional people who we never... EVER get to sympathize with. We're kept at such a distance that even when we could so easily relate to the characters, they find a way to keep us away. That alone is a sickening feature, as it drives us from the very plot, helps the horrible pacing to leave us with a lasting impression, and makes it so much easier to see the contrast between an overtly sentimental ending and an otherwise lackluster body of a film.

In other words, it drags us through a painful journey (not just for us, but apparently for them) and just as it should end, we're thrown into another eye-roller of a skirmish that ends faster than it began. So, for the as yet STILL uninformed: when it should end, it starts up again, only to end when we expect more. S***! It's just a confusing and agonizing pace!

Which brings me to the ultimatum: this is meant to educate us on the events of the Kokoda track. It doesn't come close. Not only does it detail a very small, insignificant part of the campaign (sprinkling a little "mateship" on top in an attempt to make it relevant), but it succeeds in doing the one thing a film as important as this should be does, it makes us NOT care.

Honestly, my eyes were constantly glued to my watch the entire time. The audience around me, all proudly Australian, bickering as they came in about how great the film is going to be, groaned, moaned, and whined in disappointment as every one of the painful ninety-five minutes droned on (for a short running time, it felt like Apocalypse Now: difference being that Apocalypse Now was a good film and deserved the three hours it got) and on to the point where suicide could wholeheartedly be an alternative should it be mandatory for this film to be watched.

Though, considering how much the TV has been advertising this trash, I'd say it is mandatory, in a subliminal sense of the word.

Watch if you like pretty images. Though you'd do better watching The Constant Gardener or Gallipoli anyway, since they have superior cinematography and ACTUAL plots.

Overall: *


I saw this movie today on the big screen and i can honestly not believe some of the comments made by people on here. I was really hoping to be touched by this film, but wasn't.

I'm ex Australian Army and very patriotic towards this great country, but I feel this movie no way does justice for us and those soldier who fought at this battle.

The movie is poorly filmed. I thought the acting was terrible, they were not believable and they didn't give me any reason for me to care about them. People are saying this movie was graphic, there were a couple of graphic scenes but I found most part very weak. The war scenes were very short and only last a couple of minutes.

Overall a weak film that doesn't do these soldiers any justice.


What was the aim here...I started to have a look at it but then I realized that it had no aim...poor acting...no action and no story..i ended up listening to it while i was surfing the web reading about David Beckham's $250 million dollar US soccer Galaxy contract. Do not rent this Don't borrow this NOT WORTH A DOWN LOAD i've seen so many films that I could sense that this was going to be crap from the get go.

War films should be accurate and if possible have some artistic merit and actually not feel like Christian melodrama...This film pales in comparison to any that i've seen before.I must say that Iam truly disappointed at this film..


It's great to hear the 3 or so comments, that point out what 'Footballers Wives' signifies for women. The title alone, washes away any supposed equality women have in the media industry or society, reducing them to two dimensional cartoon caricatures of how men think women should behave . It is a post modern moronic farce. It might as well be called, 'Footballers Wifey who stays at home and knows her place'.

On one hand, it could actually be some sort of parody on the U.K.'s, gutter trash press representation of celebrities and the role they have in maintaining a patriarchal society. So women can undermine stereotypes by acting like those stereotypes and own the image that has been created for them by mens desire. Nah, that would be to ironic and clever. I also sound like I should be praising it.

Zoe Lucker is simply too camp and over the top to be taken seriously. Just like an even cheaper Cruella De Ville. She just needs some maniacal, condescending, yet at the same time, self appraising laugh to show off her true acting range. Oh she does? Right. Anyway, it just about sums up whom this is aimed at. Either 'clever clever' journo's, who think its an up-roaring send-up of vaudevillian proportions, or people who think its 'real'. "Finest actors"? OMG!! Stop watching this afterbirth of a pantomime and get a life.

Its utterly sexist and is of such low quality, that maybe those who enjoy it think they are "in" on the "joke". Do the actors really care or understand what they are communicating? Its so demeaning to women and men. They are not all self centred, selfish, football loving materialistic jerks, who think women are nothing but another trophy to be put on display for the public. It's so humiliating. I am sure Ms Lucker would easily stand up to them in her "real" life, and twist them round her finger as so easily done in 'Footballers Wives' .

But of course, its doesn't really matter. I mean its only a T.V. programme after all. So please let it stay axed. It's dreadful and will only be looked back on in the same disbelief that 'Prisoner Cell Block H' was so fondly remembered for.

How did it come to exist? It sure ain't subtle or complex. It could only come from the same mind set who read FHM magazine, and think its "alright" to look at soft-porn, and "do" as many women who bow to their "will" and chant patriotic and racist comments whenever "their" football team losses/wins. It's totally crass.


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Thank God I saw it for free. I would have hated to waste my money on it.

First off, there isn't a character in the movie that is in any way likable. Michael Caine comes close, but even he is pretty flawed. The rest of the "commandos" are made up of disgusting ex-cons. There are the two gay Arabs, and three guys who try to rape a red cross nurse, and the "leader" who has no trouble sending his men off to get killed so he can escape.

The "mission" is anything from suspenseful. They are to blow up a fuel dump. Sounds exciting, right? Well, the footage follows them through endless sandstorms and fixing flat tires. Yes, you read that right. The "suspense" is whether they will run out of spare tires. We actually WATCH them change something like 12 flats on the way. That's how incredibly exciting this movie is.

They get to the fuel dump to find that it is a decoy. So, nothing to blow up. And at this time, for some very convoluted reason, the British army decides that they don't need these guys anymore, and radios their whereabouts to the Germans to kill them.

So, now at least we'll have an exciting race to freedom? Nope, instead, they decide to blow up a different fuel dump, to create a diversion. But, when they get into the place, they set off a trip wire, and the Germans come to get them -- calling out their names over a loudspeaker.

Really weird. If the Germans knew where they were and where they were going, why did they let them get all the way into the dump before springing the "trap?" Instead, they wait until they get into the fuel depot, and set all of their charges. Yeah. Right. That would happen.

So, they blow the dump, the leader sells out all of his men -- except for Michael Caine, since he's been offered $2000 to bring him back alive.

OK... so, the men are all betrayed and killed, and Michael Caine and Nigel Davenport survive. The British troops come in with tanks, and they decide to go get rescued. Since they are wearing German uniforms (they wore them to blow up the dump) they tie a white flag around a stick and walk out into the road.

Some British guy walks up behinds them and machine guns them to death. Credits roll.

Yep. The two "Heroes" of the movie die due to a random act of violence.

It's almost like the movie suddenly ran out of budget and decided: "That's a wrap. Kill them off and we'll go home." I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this tired, unimaginative and totally unrealistic movie that ended with a gracefulness of a bomb.


I should've realised it was a sign of things to come when the trailer for this film bored me.

Having watched several "indie" films on the strength of the reviews on here, and subsequently finding that my view is completely opposite to those other reviewers, I began wondering if it's possible I am watching completely different films from these people, or are they perhaps friends/family etc of the film makers trying to 'big up' their work? Hmmm.

Are you interested in seeing an amateur's homage to Pulp Fiction and 11:14, except done with worse actors, a silly score (undermines various scenes) and unbelievable jumps in logic? If not, then skip this film.

Here is my open letter to two of the players in this film.

Alfonso Morgan, please, please, please, stop trying to 'be' Samuel L Jackon a la Pulp Fiction. No-one can do what he does as well as he does.

Director, please come up with something original. It does you a disservice to churn out this stuff pretending to be Quentin Tarantino.

Simply dire, and I really cannot see how anyone could say this is a good film. It is a disgrace that people have somehow managed to put a score of 8.5 on this, the same as films like Pulp fiction or Goodfellas. It is no-where near these movies; a 4 or 5 would be a more reasonable average rating, I give it a 3.


Honestly, people who gave this movie a ten would have given 100 for pulp fiction. This is the level that we are dealing with here.

The movie isn't bad but no way is it like "OMG, the best movie since Pulp Fiction!". Some people have incredibly low expectations for movies, even those of indie variety. Personally, I found my interest in the movie waned after the half-hour mark. The plot defies logic and belief. You have got to hear the part about why the wife did what she did in order "to save her husband". Yeah, right. I guarantee that you would walk out of the theatre thinking, "hmm, now that doesn't make sense at all." This is one movie in which you really need to suspend all logic and belief.

Those who said that the music score is good were probably listening to their MP3 players. It absolutely killed the movie in some parts.

In conclusion, watch the movie only if you have nothing particular important to do. I give this a three because there is one long sex sequence in the motel which is decent.


Worst movie ever!! Its not clever or funny or thought provoking. 84 minutes of bad actors doing their best with an awful script.

Acting was so bad that you can see the dead people breathing.

Maybe the writer/director combination believed they were Quentin Tarantino or something (you know make a movie about nothing still cool) but failed miserably.

I hope the writer never makes another movie EVER!! not everyone is born a writer, sometimes we need to count our losses and go back to being a bathroom attendant or whatever.

Please don't watch this movie, even on mute with the stereo going its still a painful 84 mins.


The Nest is really just another 'nature run amock' horror flick that fails because of the low budget. The acting is OK, and the setting is great, but somehow the whole film just seemed a bit dull to me. The gore effects are not the best I've seen but are fun in a cheesy sort of way. The roaches themselves are just regular cockroaches that bite people. The Nest reminded me of a much better film called Slugs. If you liked The Nest then Slugs is a must-see as it's ten times better. Also worth noting is that Lisa Langlois who plays Elizabeth was in another 'nature run amock' type film called Deadly Eyes (aka The Rats), which is about killer rats as you may have guessed.

If you enjoy these types of horror films then you may want to give this a watch, but you'd be far better off seeing Slugs which is far more interesting and gory.