"Oh, you pilots are such men." "They don't call it the cockpit for nothing, honey." Dialogue like that is just one of many reasons why The Concorde Airport '79 (or, if you saw it in the UK where it dragged its heels getting released there, Airport '80: The Concorde) was the last and by far the least of the series. The disaster movie was in dire straits in the late70s, what with The Swarm having offered much unintentional hilarity and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure, When Time Ran Out and City on Fire simply offering much boredom, and the desperation to find a new spin on the genre is all too apparent here. This time it's a conspiracy plot, with Susan Blakely's news anchorwoman discovering billionaire boyfriend Robert Wagner has been selling arms to terrorists and the North Vietnamese. Naturally, she decides to tell him everything rather than make the story public, but, he fobs her off by explaining "I'm a very rich man. I have everything in life I could ever want. Why would I jeopardise that by doing something so incredibly stupid?" Just in case she doesn't buy that line, rather than, say hire a hit-man to kill her on the ground, he decides to do things the smart way by planning to destroy the Concorde while she's flying to Moscow via Paris. "I've done a lot of things I've been ashamed of, but I am not a murderer," he insists indignantly on his way to reprogramme a guided missile to destroy the plane. So, nothing incredibly stupid there. And when that fails, he sends a jet fighter after it. And when that fails

Don't even think of looking for anything resembling logic here: this is real bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that even the studio gave up on and marketed as a comedy in the US after critics laughed it off the screen. Where the previous three entries all had the look of glossy big-budget entertainments, this small-screen friendly effort (the only one not to be shot in 2.35:1 widescreen) doesn't even manage to make the Concorde look good, which is quite a feat. TV veteran David Lowell Rich presumably got the directing gig because he was fast, cheap and had previously directed TV movie SST: Disaster in the Sky where Peter Graves' supersonic airplane found itself unable to land due to sabotage and Senegalese flu (which was not, intentionally at least, a comedy despite the presence of a young Billy Crystal in the cast) and seemed like the natural choice for what looks like a $14m TV movie that somehow escaped into theatres when no-one was looking.

Cast like a bad episode of Hollywood Squares, stars are in very short supply this time round, and most of the few vaguely familiar faces seem to have been rounded up from rehab clinics and busted sitcoms. Alain Delon gives the Hollywood career that one last shot as the pilot, "Happy Fish" (don't ask) George Kennedy moves from the executive suite to the co-pilot's seat in the hope of reminding people of the other movies, while the rest of the ensemble includes a couple of veterans of The Towering Inferno (Wagner and Blakely), a soft-porn star (Sylvia Kristel, trying to go respectable), an Ingmar Bergman regular (Bibi Andersson  and she's the one playing the hooker!), David Warner's navigator on a diet having nightmares about being chased by bananas, the voice of the Devil (Mercedes McCambridge), Charo and her Seeing Eye Chihuahua ("Dohn miscon-screw me"), Martha Raye and her weak bladder, Jimmie Walker playing the sax in his seat and smoking weed in the john (in the few moments its not occupied by Martha Raye), Cicely Tyson kissing her credibility goodbye as the obligatory mother with critically ill child and a frozen heart in the overhead locker, airline owner Eddie Albert and trophy wife Sybil Danning occupying the best seat in the house, Ed Begley Jr in goggles, and the Russian Olympic team and their lovable coach Val Avery and his deaf daughter (ahhhh!) on a goodwill tour of the States (who knew about the boycott?). Just to add a touch of The Simpsons to proceedings, Harry Shearer voices one news report in the same tones he'd later use for Smithers.

Highlight? Despite the impromptu wedding ceremony during a crash landing, it just has to be George Kennedy diverting a heat-seeking missile by opening the window, sticking his arm out (at nearly twice the speed of sound!) and firing a flare  while the plane is upside down! And then Alain Delon turns off the engines so there won't be a "heat source" for the missiles to home in on Yes, someone actually got paid for writing this, and that someone was future Oscar winner and screenwriter of Munich and The Insider Eric Roth (hey, everybody has to start somewhere), although in his defence it was producer Jennings Lang who came up with the plot. Still, what do you expect from a film that credits stunt balloonists and ends with a shot of the Concorde flying off into the sunset? Amazingly, in one of those won't admit defeat moments studios used to be prone to, Universal shot another 20 minutes or so of footage a couple of years later to include in the network TV showings (not included on the DVD). Sadly its box-office failure led to the fifth entry in the series, the laugh-riot that would have been Airport 1984: UFO, never getting off the ground. Even more genuinely tragically, it was the Concorde used in this film that crashed in France 21 years later.

(Oh, and if you're wondering what Charo says to her Chihuahua in unsubtitled Spanish when it's not allowed on board, it's "What do you think? Don't worry. When the revolution comes, I promise you will fly on anything you want. I promise. What a shame, my love. What do they think they are?")


This is what happens when a franchise gets lazy, and no one can think of a new twist to add. Remember what happened to the "Childs Play" series? The first three were played as horror films, with genuine scares (albeit predictable) that held true to the theme of the movie. Then they ran out of folks for the doll to stalk, and decided to play it for laughs, with the next two being black comedies.....

Well, that;s what happened here, but I think it was not meant to be like that. Kind of like saying, "I WANTED to make pancakes for dessert! I did this on purpose!" when your soufflé accidentally fizzles flat. But the milk was spilled, and it had some value in the theaters as a goof.

When the floor ripped out from under the passenger seats, I sort of expected the passengers to extend their legs through the hole, start running Flintstones-Style, to safely land the plane in the Alps. I did. It would have fit into the silly campy theme of the rest of the show.

Instead of pointing out the obvious physical impossibilities of the film, what about the social implausibilities? Like having George Kennedy's character react calmly to the news that his date was a whore? Even back in 1979, a man would not easily accept the notion that he has just poured his heart out to a paid companion. He supposedly felt he made a connection with a kindred spirit, who is subsequently shown to be a mercenary sex-worker with a come-on line. Who WOULDN'T feel cheated by the experience? And yet he giggles, and wraps his arms around his buddy's waist as they merrily stroll off. What a cheap wrap up of a sleazy scene. Ouch.

I had an appetite for soufflé, and got served insipid cliché pancakes. And no, you did NOT do it on purpose!


The last of the "Airport" sequels. This has Alain Delon and George Kennedy (who was in all the Airport movies) as pilots; David Warner (!!!) as the radio engineer; Susan Blakely as a newswoman targeted for death; Robert Wagner as a brilliant scientist (stop laughing!); Eddie Albert as a president of the airlines; Charo in a dreadful "comical" bit; John Davidson as a newsman (love how his hair stays in place even AFTER the plane turns upside down!); poor Martha Raye is humiliated; Cicely Tyson plays a mother who is flying a heart for her dying son (stop rolling your eyes!); Jimmie Walker as a clarinet player (what did I say about not laughing?); Mercedes McCambridge as a Russian gymnastics coach (OK you can laugh at that one); Bibi Andresson as a hooker and Sylvia Kristel and Sybil Danning as love interests.

Just pathetic. Full of stupid plots and dialogue that will have you roaring--watch for Davidson getting "married" on the plane near the end! The Concorde is taking all these people to Russia. They're attacked with missiles, escape, land safely in France and TAKE OFF AGAIN the very next day!!!! Don't you think the flight would have been cancelled or something? Most of the acting is terrible--McCambridge is a sight to behold in a red fright wig and a horrible fake accent. The only good acting is from Kennedy and Delon (looking fantastic) who gives a very engaging performance. Still that's not enough to make you sit through this drivel. Too long and lousy special effects too. This was a mega-bomb and (thankfully) stopped Universal from doing anymore.


Some slack might be cut this movie due to the fact that it was made in 1979. That much said, it really is pretty dire.

Never mind the laughable back-projection or the awful, awful camera-tracking of supposed "in-flight" objects, it's the stunts that the Concorde pulls off that will have you blinking in disbelief at the absurdity. Barrel-rolls, loop-the-loops and violent "evasive" maneuvers left me wondering why the Air-Forces of the world didn't just fly Concordes as their main fighters.

So, here are the important lessons I learned from this celluloid cheese-fest:

1. The Concorde is at least as agile as a Phantom 4 jet-fighter.

2. You can fire a flare gun at Mach 2 simply by opening the cockpit window and sticking your arm out.

3. If the flare gun fails to discharge, do not drop it, as it may then go off.

4. The Concorde can dodge up to two Sidewinder missiles fired at it at once.

5. A flare will distract a heat-seeking missile every time.

6. Switching off your jet-engines is a sure-fire way of throwing heat-seeking missiles off track if 5 (above) fails.

7. When performing a crash-landing in the Concorde, it is apparently impossible to jettison your fuel beforehand.

8. Concorde pilots are all combat-trained veterans.

As you might imagine, this film is not very realistic. The effects are primitive by today's standards and that, coupled with the nonsense acrobatics the Concorde performs, makes this a movie deserving of little but scorn.

Not recommended. Not recommended at all!


My Take: The silliest of the AIRPORT movies, and probably one of the worst of the 70's disaster movies.

As if to milk the franchise with all its got, the producers of this third sequel to AIRPORT throws in more action, silly subplots, gratuitous star appearances and goofier elements. In its attempt to be the biggest AIRPORT yet, CONCORDE: AIRPORT '79 is the worst one yet, and probably one of the worst of the disaster movies of the 1970's. With its bad box-office results, it is no wonder that the genre has overstayed its welcome.

The film opens with a rather catchy score by Lalo Schifrin backed-up by some impressive shots of the titular aircraft in its former glory (the same plane used in this film would be involved in a crash in July 2000). But then the credits appear, and we get a glimpse of the "all-star" cast, which is composed nothing more of faded Hollywood stars, TV actors and none-too-popular B actors. The plot is sillier than ever: George Kennedy is back in the role of Joe Patroni, now the pilot of the Concorde (co piloted by co-pilot Alain Delon) en route to France after the Summer Olympics. On board is reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely), who has just discovered that his boyfriend, renowned weapons manufacturer Kevin Harrison (Robert Wagner), is selling their weapons to terrorist. To prevent her from revealing the news to the world, Harrison sends his most advance missiles and best saboteurs to prevent the Concorde from landing.

The cast/subplots are dumber than ever, even sillier than an alcoholic Myrna Loy or a singing nun. We have Cicely Tyson transporting a live human heart in a cooler (!), Martha Raye as a woman with a bladder condition (and the character doesn't go deeper than that), J.J. Walker a a pot-smoking saxophonist (arguably the most annoying character in the film), Eddie Albert married to "old" wife Sybil Danning, Avery Schreiber as Russian coach with a deaf daughter and finally, a love story between reporter Jon Davidson and gymnast Andrea Marcovici (much to the sour watching-eye of coach Mercedes McCambidge). Plus the movie gets much closer to LOVE BOAT episode than ever with the silliest cameos of Charo (and her pet Chihuahua) and Bibi Anderson. Camp buffs will no doubt get a real kick-in-the-balls in this silly entry in a long strain of 70's disaster movies. This one is, in more than the sense of the word, a true disaster.

Rating: *1/2 out of 5.


I gave "Airport '79" only two stars because it's a truly lousy film. Nobody who had anything to do with it deserves any praise (except for Charo's Chihuahua, who does a pretty good job in his role.) This is not to say that the film isn't worth watching. It helps if you have a buzz on, but this is not essential.

A'79 really does seem like an early version of "Airplane!" Every scene has a set-up and a payoff, and the scenes blunder after one another as if they were totally disconnected. One of my favorite recurring points is that the passengers, crew, and airplane get to keep going, no matter what. You're a news reporter and a strange guy gets murdered at your house in your presence? The hit-man then chases you onto your greenhouse roof? No problem. You can still catch that early-morning flight to Paris...no need to get the cops involved. Your plane dodges one unmanned "drone" missile, four heat-seeking missiles, and cannon fire from an unidentified Phantom fighter, doing barrel rolls, an unpowered dive, and a crash-net landing without thrust reversers in the process? No problem, we'll have the mechanics check the oil and get you on your way in just a few hours. It's truly funny.

And I'll admit that there's a bit of the anarchist in me that comes out when the passengers pay no attention to the cabin attendants. The highlight is when the attendant tells Jimmie Walker he'll have to put away his saxophone (God spare me from a flight seated in front of a saxophonist playing jazz!) prior to take-off. Jimmie basically says, "Nope." Later in the flight, the sax is damaged during a barrel-roll and Jimmie actually shows up on the next leg of the flight with yet another sax that he won't put away. This aspect of the film is just fun. (ONE passenger actually obeys the attendant. When Charo is told she can't take her dog on the flight, she leaves the plane. Naturally, this is because you can't get a good view of her ass and boobs while she's seated.)

In summary, a terrible movie, but terrible enough to be a bit amusing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers and cast deserve no credit whatsoever for this, as it was probably entirely unintentional.


WARNING **SPOILERS**

Lord knows I have seen some bad movies in my time and this one makes me just as angry. This is an insult to people who ARE LOOKING for a bad movie. The "story" involves a stewardess who discovers her boyfriend (badly acted by otherwise great Robert Wagner) is a murder, thief, and just an overall puke face. After the Concorde takes off, he sends guided missiles to destroy the Concorde. So while the Concorde is traveling at the speed of light, our "hero" (played with utter stupidity, George Kennedy) opens the window in the cockpit then, sticks his hand OUT THE WINDOW to fire at the missile! I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems his hand would at least get a wind burn. Then towards the final "climax" when the Concorde is headed for certain disaster and everyone will die, a passenger turns to his fiance and proposes marriage. A Priest just happens to be sitting in the next row and proceeds to marry them as the planes is crashing! (I'm not making this up) Wow, the guy who wrote the script must have been sniffing glue for a week.


This film is an absolute disgrace! I thoroughly enjoyed the original Airport, and I can't believe how the same people could produce this twaddle nine years on. First of all, the acting is bad. The original had actors who had done quality (non-disaster) films before, but this one uses actors who have done the disaster movie circuit already (Blakely, Kennedy, Wagner). Also, George Kennedy's character Patroni seems to get promoted very quickly. He is now the lead in the film, but his character isn't strong enough to carry it off: he has lost the charm and humour of Airport (1970), and the character is now just boring. Have I mentioned the plot? Is it at all believable that someone would send a missile after the Concorde?? NO!!! There are also too many loose ends; scenes that have no relevance whatsoever to the plot. The scene where the hot air balloon lands on the runway, the chase of the thief in Charles De Gaulle airport are two such scenes. Both would be interesting - if only they had something to do with the actual story. There also many unanswered questions: Why does Patroni open the window and fire a flare at the other plane? Why does Robert Wagner's character kill himself? (He must have another stupid and costly way of Why is there no enquiry after the missile almost blows up the Concorde? Why are the back projections so bad? (It looks as though a cartoon missile is following the Concorde; although it does work well when the plane lands in Paris) Why does Patroni think that he is in a flight simulator? (when he turns the Concorde over) Why does he get a hero's welcome in the cabin of the plane after having terrified the passengers? And why is the ending so poor, if it can be called an ending at all? Given their one-dimensional-ness, no-one seems to notice this. The blessing given to the young couple on the plane by the girl's coach is shmaltzy, the man who plays the saxophone is annoying, and the woman with the bladder problem is just plain silly. The scenes where Susan Blakely is lying on the roof of her conservatory, and the when she tells Wagner that she still loves him are quite awful. In conclusion, this film should have been the climax of the previous three Airport films: instead it is a diabolical, sub-moronic, complete and utter waste of time, money, energy, celluloid and "talent"!!!!!!! Remember when Patroni asks the French pilot if he has "ever landed on his belly?" This film certainly does the belly flop, and lands flat on its pointy nose...


There is a special heaven reserved for people who make the world laugh. Alongside Chaplin,Stan and Ollie,The Marx Bros and.....(fill in your own special favourites)space must be made for everybody connected with "Airport 80 - Concorde,the movie". Robert Wagner in particular exceeds all expectations giving the comedy performance of a lifetime.I would never have thought he had it in him. The only way he could have been funnier would have been to have worn a red nose and a revolving bow tie. British moviegoers will recognise the fat one from Cannon and Ball pretending to be a Russian athlete,a nice trick if he could have pulled it off but,tragically,he couldn't.I have a 14 year old labrador more athletic and almost as funny. George Kennedy - bless him - has a part that requires him talk and move at the same time,and my goodness he triumphs!Brow wrinkled with effort he utters timeless dialogue,each word lovingly polished into Coward-like brilliance. Only once in twenty years does Hollywood turn out a film like "Airport 80".All the years of toil and struggle,the sweat,the tears,the lessons with Lee Strasberg,living out of suitcases,born in a trunk etc etc,all come to fruition.A work of art is created that will last as long as there are movies and machines to show them on. I think I'm ready for my medication now.


The Concorde ... Airport '79 starts in Washington where a man named Carl Parker (Macon (McCalman) contacts high profile TV news reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely) in order to hand secret documents over that prove his boss Kevin Harriosn (Robert Wagner) owner & president of Harrison Industries that develop weapons for the military has been illegally selling said weapons to foreign countries. However Maggie sees Carl assassinated & she barely escapes with her life, Maggie is to catch the Concorde to Moscow via Paris the next morning & intends to blow the whistle on Harrison who also happens to be her boyfriend which would ruin him. Determined to save himself he reprogrammes his hi-tech 'Buzzard' homing missile to intercept & destroy the Concorde during a test run killing all those on-board & destroying the documented evidence...

Renamed Airport '80 - The Concorde for it's cinema & initial home video releases because it was released here in, well, 1980 rather than 1979 this last entry in the Airport franchise was directed by David Lowell Rich & is a notoriously bad film that was apparently laughed at during press & test screenings prompting Universal to promote the film as an action comedy. The first thing to say is that The Concorde ... Airport '79 is a really silly & downright daft film but on a purely entertainment basis I can think of a lot worse films to spend 108 minutes watching, I really can. I quite liked the absurd plot about a wealthy industrialist wanting to kill his girlfriend TV reporter before she can expose him as an illegal arms dealer but this guy doesn't do subtle & decides the best way to do it is to blow Concorde up with his own guided missile & then gets a Fench fighter pilot to try & shoot it down before finally sabotaging it so really there's three mini disaster flicks in one here as each time super pilot Joe Patroni manages to save the day. You know Joe Patroni played by George Kennedy appears in all four Airport films & goes from mechanic in the first to Concorde pilot extrodinaire in this, also I reckon he's a bit of a jinx since in the space of nine years he has been involved with four major aviation disasters. I think the real reason why the Airport series stopped here was because Patroni retired after this & the jinx was lifted. Some of the things that happen here are just silly, Patroni does barrel rolls, flies upside-down & out manoeuvre's a guided missile in a huge Concorde not to mention he crash lands it & fires flare guns out of his window to destroy the missile all while keeping a calm head. This guy is good, very good. Then there's the character's, there's a Saxophone playing black dude who smokes weed in the toilets, an old woman with a bladder problem & a team of Russian gymnasts with bad accents. Also, despite being almost shot down with a missile & then attacked by a Jet fighter the passengers of Concorde don't seem that bothered & happily get back aboard the following day, I don't know about you but after that I would probably find a safer way to travel & why do the police or authorities not question anyone? Why is the Concorde captain Patroni allowed to just go off & sleep with a French prostitute? The Concorde ... Airport '79 certainly isn't boring & is full of memorable moments & I was entertained in a way although it's far from a good film & modern audiences may not have the patience with it, hell I liked it for what it was in a daft way but it's no sort of classic.

Even though Concorde no longer flies it's still quite a cool looking air-plane & there's plenty of footage of it here, the one used in The Concorde ... Airport '79 was the seventh one built. This Concorde was also the same aircraft which crashed after a tire bust caused a fuel tank to rupture and the leaking fuel catch fire on July 25th 2000, while taking off in Paris sadly resulting in the death of 109 passengers and crew on board and 4 people on the ground. When this aired on TV in the US in 1982 almost twenty minutes of new footage was included with most if not all of it being newly shot over two years after the original production had finished. I know the effects here take a bashing from most but I don't reckon they are too bad, when you consider this was made in the late 70's I think they come across quite well. The camera moves during effects shots, real footage of real planes is used rather than toy models which in my opinion would have looked a lot worse & I could certainly see what the makers were trying to do with limited funds & limited technology. In a strange way they are quite impressive actually without ever looking that good if you know what I mean. Probably the most action packed of all the Airport films there's missiles, exploding planes, daring crash landings, assassinations & a guy named Robert Palmer (no, not the singer) giving head a woman in a jacuzzi.

The IMDb says this had a budget of about $14,000,000 which is actually more than I thought, maybe those special effects aren't so impressive after all. Shot in Utah, Washington, Los Angeles & France. The acting isn't great here, people don't look worried enough that they are about to die. Goerge Kennedy gets some bad one-liners while Robert Wagner plays the bad guy.

The Concorde ... Airport '79 is fun for bad film enthusiasts everywhere & to be brutally honest I rather watch this entertaining mess of a film than some two hour Oscar nominated bore.


'Airport 4' is basically a slopped together mess for Universal Studios to try and work a new twist - the Concorde supersonic airliner - into their 'disaster-in-the-sky' formula.

Bogged down with unintentional humor, the best of which is when George Kennedy sticks his hand out of Concorde's window at supersonic speed to fire a flare gun at a heat-seeking missile following the aircraft's flight path, and the simple fact that these dumb passengers keep re-boarding the same plane to continue their flight despite all the problems in the air. Many stars in this one including Robert Wagner, Sylvia Kristel, Alain Delon, and Martha Raye as a nervous passenger.

Not really related to the other 'Airport' films.


Its a truly awful movie with a laughable storyline.some awful acting.and a script that Ed Wood might be ashamed of.Wagner is laughable in this. He plays his role like number two in Austin Powers.Easily the worst of the Airport movies.1 out of 10


i just saw this movie on TNT and let me tell you, this movie was downright corny and cheezy. But after a certain point, I began to laugh my socks off and to tell you the truth, they should classify this movie as comedy rather than action/adventure. The absolutely most hilarious scene comes when the Delon and Kennedy are making loop the loop 360's to avoid the French missiles that Wagner ordered to destroy the Concorde. Our fearless leader, Kennedy, decides to shoot flares out the window to stop the heat seeking missiles????? Dumb yet funny---the kicker comes here though---after one shot, the flare gun malfunctions and Kennedy tries to fix it in the cockpit and well...if you want to know what happens get a hold of this movie. The dumb parts of this movie include the total lack of plot----yeah lets have some action for 25 minutes than land in Paris and go ONE HOUR with love scenes with prostitutes and flight attendants. Now lets switch to the saboteur for ten minutes then a wasted rest of the movie and a plane that is visually breaking apart and the PASSENGERS DON"T EVEN SEE IT???? ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!!!!-----final rating for this move--- (1/10) out of 4 stars if it were action 2 out of 4 stars if it were a comedy


This final installment of the "Airport" franchise was so incredibly awful that it took me awhile to realize it actually wasn't a slapstick comedy, like "Airplane". George Kennedy shooting a flare gun out an open window to divert heat-seeking missiles was comical. What would happen to your hand if you held it out a window at mach two speed? You'd lose your grip on the gun and get a broken arm. The passengers were unintentionally hilarious, as was the interior of the plane. The sophisticated French woman coming on to slobby George Kennedy was like Jackie Kennedy coming on to Ernest Borgnine. Ain't gonna happen. Susan Blakely, a talented and unappreciated actress, did not get any points on her resume for this one. Neither did Robert Wagner. This movie was so lousy it seemed surreal.


Prior to Airport 79' these movies were rather good. They had decent special effects, all-star cast, and good acting. This movie destroyed the franchise, and there are many reasons for it. Lets talk about the special effects WOW!!!! they are horrific, what was the director thinking about. I know it's only 1979, but lets look at other very good special effects movies such as Star Wars(1977),and Moonraker(1979). I like the idea of the Concord and this could of been the best Airport movie, but they did too much with it. How about Joe Patroni(George Kennedey) shooting a flare out of the cockpit window, to prevent a heat seeking missile from hitting the concord. Also he is doing 90 degree dives and loops. This completely far fetched, and unrealistic WOW!!!!!! Believe me the special effects don't help this scene, and really are beyond poor.... They almost look like a cartoon, and this is how the whole movie is!!!Finally lets talk about the acting which in my opinion is extremely poor to fair at best.... Over acting is a major issue in this movie, especially George Kennedy.. Which I really like as an actor, but just doesn't cut in this movie. The full blame has to go on the director, who did a very poor editing job, and really whacked out the Airport Franchise. Too bad the Concord isn't still used today it was a marvel of Air travel...


The Concorde:Airport'79, Is for now, the last of the high drama high,camp Airport series, At first glance in the TV guide,or DVD cover you would simply think that the film your about to view is as thrilling as the previous Airport's Think Again! What your treated to is 2 hours And 3 Minutes worth of unintentional laughs courtesy of the worst script ever writing it was even penned by Eric Roth, Who brought the world 'Forrest Gump! well one things for sure the script is not Oscar worthy,It's Razzie worthy! The Executives at Universal in '79,done the right thing by marketing this as a 'comedy' Apart from Charo! the film does have an impressive cast list, It's certainly watchable to say the least,


With a cast of mostly lesser-tiered stars (Alain Delon, Robert Wagner, Eddie Albert), lousy special effects (sure, it was the 70's but "Alien" and "Star Wars" came from the same decade), and a storyline that is so laughable that one might want to cry, this is a "flight" that should have been GROUNDED.

Even Academy Award winners Cicely Tyson and George Kennedy can't keep this "bird" airborne.

The implausibility of the third film - airplane is submerged in The Bermuda Triangle - is much more believable than this turkey.

Avoid "The Concorde" at all costs!


Actually there was nothing funny about this monstrosity at all!! This movie was a complete abomination. The absurdities in this movie almost made me want to vomit!! I think that the people responsible for this movie took advantage of their viewing audience. They took a relatively decent series of movies (I did say decent, NOT GOOD!!) and totally trashed it by trying to put money in their pockets. The making of Airplane! was a way for Hollywood to make up for this crappy flick. The worst part about it is that either nobody in 1979 realized the asinine events of the movie (such as Concorde's door popping off at some ungodly high altitude or Patroni shooting a flair gun out the window at Mach 2 to avoid a NUCLEAR WARHEAD!?!?!?....what were they thinking???)were totally unrealistic or they just didn't care! I think that it is the latter of the two. The writers and director of this "film", if you want to call it that, really tried to suck the Airport dynasty dry with this crap!


This movie has more goofs than any other movie I have seen in my life. The special effects are damned terrible. For instance, near the end, when the Concorde is falling after the cargo door tears off, the thing spins like a toy. The special effects of Airport (1970) are way better than this crap. Also, the force of a Concorde opening up at altitude and speed would essentially turn the thing inside-out. (That is if it would even open at all) But the movie has its good points. Mostly when it ends. That's also cheesy. E.g. The Thing lands on a bank of loosely-packed snow, if it did that, it would splinter into a million pieces. Overall, 2 out of 10. Instant flop. Great laugh flick.


This film isn't a little bad. It's not even kind of bad. It's horrid. You know you're in trouble when Charo shows up in a film. She must have had the week off from "Love Boat." George Kennedy, at least he's a gamer - he's in there trying. Actually, he's all right. And it's good to see Martha Raye. Jimmie Walker's okay. There's slightly better acting than in Airport '75 but what film doesn't have better acting than Airport '75? One thing I liked about this film is that it had more going on than a lot of other disaster films plot-wise. At least they made an attempt at subplots. What really hurts this film is the special effects - ugh! Not too special if you ask me. This is the kind of film that at 2am is truly, truly funny if you've been up having fun with your buddies and you're looking for something to laugh at.


The Second Woman is about the story of a mysterious man who lost his wife in an accident and now believes that someone wants to do him harm. A girl who likes him wants to help him but she is led to believe that his fears are caused by a mental illness...

Interesting plot, very good acting, but the result as a whole is poor in many ways. The story is too simplistic, or rather, presented in a simplistic way (even though there is a couple of interesting plot twists). For example, people say they love each other after only two meetings. I don't want to reveal anything else, but you 'll see what I mean if you watch the movie. "Come on, it was the fifties!", you may think. Yet I 've seen quite a few films from that era and I know that some don't seem so dated nowadays.

Something that disturbed me was that some scenes were shot pitch dark, making it almost impossible to watch what was going on. Ok, it's a film-noir but this one is too noir at some points... :o)

Overall, the Second Woman is not a masterpiece of that era, but no trash either. Watch it if you have nothing else to do...


(May contain spoilers) This movie is the epitome of weirdness. I rented it hoping for a film so bad it would be funny. However, I still honestly can't decide if this film was intended to be scary or humorous. It combines the emotions in a rather disturbing way. Apparently this is trying to be clever but in actual fact it isn't. For instance, when the knife comes out and tries to kill the teacher, it starts playing happy music. When we go to Toxico, we have up-beat, quasi-Mr. Roger's Neighborhood music. However, when the little kid's dreaming of falling in "blood" and when he finds the leg, these are clearly intended to be tense. So, watch this film, and decide for yourself. It is too weird to be described in words and for that I say, kudos.

"Nose-dive... WOW!"


I watched this film with a bunch of friends at a Halloween party last night. I got to say that the sarcastic comments were never ending and I have to say that they were well deserved. Though I felt that the directing was done well, the craziness in their dialogue is just a little too much cheese. I think I got about an hour into this before I even started to realize what it was the point was that they were trying to drive home. You catch on pretty quick that this whole family is pretty quirky and something is off about them, it's just a little too slow. This movie could easily have been about 45 minutes and been a lot better. The only thing that made it bearable was the two bottles of wine that I downed during the course of the flick. Bring on the slasher films folks, because at least I know what to expect out of them. This was not my thing, too much dark humour, and the subject material of cannibalism was a bit explicit and gross. I have to say that Randy Quaid played the part as well as it could have been, and I will give him props for that as I normally see him as a drunken goofball or a washed out fighter pilot who likes to kill aliens.

In conclusion I give this horror/comedy film a very generous 3 out of 10.


Very disturbing, but expertly crafted & scripted and intelligently directed with a good eye for color and detail. Mary Beth Hurt, Sandy Dennis, and especially Randy Quaid are unusually good. The story centers around a young boy (Bryan Madorsky) wondering where all the leftovers they eat every night comes from. His parents (Hurt, Quaid) strange behavior causes the school psychiatrist (Dennis) to get involved. It is a gruesome cannibal movie. But it's not bad. If you like Hannibal, you'll love this. If you don't like Parents, stay away from the film. Just giving advice to Cannibal Lover and Haters.

Rated R for Strong Adult Themes and Graphic Violence.


When my parents rented this movie, I was expecting a very funny movie as Randy Quaid is very funny in comedy movies. However, this movie is not all that funny and it is somewhat boring too. You can see the surprise coming a mile away and it runs long for a movie that is supposedly only eighty one minutes long. So I can honestly say it is not a movie that is on my favorites list. It may work for some people, but it just did not work with me at all proving to be rather slow in the build-up with virtually nothing that amused me within the entire movie. Randy Quaid is wasted and the rest of the cast is a list of very bland actors and actresses. The premise of the movie had potential, as did the casting of Quaid, but all of it just sputters and the inclusion of the horror element just seems very unnecessary. Granted, the one dream sequence the kid had when he jumped on the bed and it suddenly became a whirlpool of blood was very nicely done and would have worked very well in a movie that was supposed to be pure horror, instead of one that lists comedy as its first genre.


John Sayles, what have you done?

"Silver City" had moments in which I could see the glimmering hope of a good story, well-drawn characters, thought provoking dialog. And then those moments would quickly be covered over by layers of poor writing, clumsy direction, and abysmal acting. I truly love almost all of John Sayles' work, but "Silver City" is ghastly.

I got the feeling that Sayles may have been working on the beginnings of a good story involving the illegal labor and industrial corruption plot lines, but then he got rushed and stuck the secondary plot line satirizing the Bush administration onto it. The two stories don't really connect with each other, and the weaker elements of the political theme dominate the first 3/4 of the movie, causing me to lose patience with the whole affair.

The other major flaw is Danny Huston's acting. His dialog in every scene is delivered with a gawping grin, regardless of its appropriateness to the mood. I hated this guy by the end of the film, having been reminded of every bad actor in every high school play I've ever seen. Not having seen Huston in anything else, I don't know whether to blame him or to blame Sayles' direction of him more. Regardless, he's the unfortunate focal point of a very unfortunate movie.

Right down to the last sledgehammer-subtle final scene I was disappointed by "Silver City." Sayles at his best, or heck, even Sayles at mediocre, can be so very much better than this film. See ANY of his other works instead. This isn't even worth a rental.


I don't really consider myself a conservative, so I wasn't personally offended by this film, but it was pretty clear that the plot and the characterization in this film were secondary to the message. And the message is that all conservatives are either evil or stupid (or both). The characters are one-dimensional -- either good, freedom-loving Americans, or brainless, greedy, evil conservatives. There's nothing clever or creative, just anti-conservative. I don't really mind the political bias itself, but it shouldn't be the only purpose behind the movie. And clearly it is.

On the positive side, the cast is wonderful and Chris Cooper's impression of W is funny the first two or three times, but after that it's just the same old joke being told over and over again.

So if you really hate the conservatives, you'll probably enjoy this film, but if you're looking for something with realistic characters and a story that's less black-and-white, then you'd be better off watching something else.


Generally political messages are done on television, so if you are a big fan of environmental correctness, watch to your hearts content. Most people go to the movies to be entertained, not sold some poppycock political nonsense. The hook here is the big name cast. Unfortunately the sum of the performances equals a whole movie that went absolutely nowhere. The two best performances, Chris Cooper, and Richard Dreyfus, have minimal screen time. In short, "Silver City" is to be avoided as entertainment. It is nothing more than a non documentary, rambling political expose on illegal immigration, pollution, and any number of other causes that do not belong anywhere except on the small screen. - MERK


Honestly, one of the worst written, directed and acted movies I have ever seen. Seemed like a made-for-TV movie. And a bad one at that. I cannot believe that people are still hiring Danny Huston after seeing him in this movie, or that they are still allowing John Sayles to make films. My husband and I came across this movie on TV one night and got so bored with it, we ended up cleaning the house while it was on . . . and it still bored us! It made me think that critics have been so gullible with Sayles' previous films, such as Lone Star, which was raved about at he time but didn't really add up to much in the end. Spend your time on something better. Anything.


Apparently the film has a harsh anti-Bush message... If it does (I didn't get it), that's all it is. It's boring and useless, period.

It's too serious at times to be a comedy, too slow to be a thriller, not funny, not gripping, not exciting, not film. It's too everything to be the opposite, and vise versa. I was amazed at how bad a film could suck. Don't even think of watching it.

I have watched literally hundreds of films, and never have I been so obliged to write a warning on IMDb. Avoid at all costs. You have been warned.

Even "The Making of..." is painfully boring. It's just people talking gibberish with loads of inside jokes infront of a camera, sort of like a home movie. There even is a part where a guy takes you on a tour of the food that was consumed on the set by the film crew. Still, beats the movie I guess...


This movie was horrible and the only reason it was even made was because the story appealed to the far-left. I consider my self a moderate, so I was able to see this film as the pile of garbage it was. While I'm not a Bush fan, your dislike for GW is not enough of a reason to see this movie.

To start, the movie was shot on such low-grade film that it comes off as cheap, rather then artsy. Additionally, the characters are seriously lacking in depth. Chris Cooper's character was a poor parody of George Bush; better suited for Saturday Night Live then a Dramatic film. The rest of the characters are walking clichés and are poor facsimiles of other characters from much better movies.

Avoid this movie at all costs!


SILVER CITY (2+ outta 5 stars) As a huge fan of John Sayles' work for many years now I feel safe in saying that this is the worst movie he has ever done. That said, the movie isn't exactly *terrible*... just very uninspired. Sayles throws in familiar elements from his previous movies (corrupt politics, illegal immigration, the selling out of youthful ideals) but fails to bring them together in any new or meaningful way. Even the dialogue (usually Sayles' strong point) is disappointing this time around.. sounding clichéd and forced in almost every scene. The movie looks and sounds like episodes from a TV series that didn't make it past its third episode. There are tons of big stars on hand... and they try their best to make their bit parts come alive... but the material just isn't there this time around. While filming a campaign spot a governor-hopeful (a poor and obvious George W Bush stand-in) fishes a dead body out of a lake. An investigator is hired to try and warn away people who may have deliberately set this up to discredit the candidate... but he soon finds out that there are deeper and darker (and more clichéd) secrets to be discovered. Sayles has made similarly-themed movies so much better in the past ("Lone Star", "Matewan", "Return of the Secaucus Seven", "Men With Guns"). It's a shame that he went to the well one time too many and came up with tainted water. One good line, delivered by Richard Dreyfuss: "Danny, you're a loser. That's already been established beyond doubt. So just try and be a good one, okay?"


Sayles had a very interesting film on his hands with Silver City, however it somehow became very muddied as it progressed from beginning to end. Chris Cooper did an exceptional job embodying the essence of his character, a Dubya of sorts, but he wasn't nearly given enough screen time. Instead, we find ourselves on a rampage with a character that felt less personal, less developed, and overall too confusing. The path that this Danny Huston leads us on inevitably becomes the downfall of the film. Too many characters are introduced to us in such a short time. These characters randomly were involved with the progression of the plot, which became too convoluted with each passing minute. Sayles knew what he was creating, I just feel as if it wasn't being translated well to the silver screen.

Sayles is a master of his trade. His films continue to inspire and evoke thought even if they are not commercial successes. The trouble with Silver City is that I think he found himself going too deep with not enough money or time to explain it all. At the beginning of the film, I had an idea of what was happening, but as more and more characters were introduced, as more and more plot twists tried to occur I lost the sense of the film by the ending. While the ending was very clever and very dark, I needed more explanation. I think some of the reason that I lost my train of thought with this film was due to the casting of Danny Huston as our guide. He was pathetic. I didn't seem him as very exciting person to lead us on this adventure. He seemed to go through the motions, but not really accomplish much at all. This was the first downfall of Sayles' important film.

While I will admit that the characters played by Richard Dreyfuss, Miguel Ferrer, James Gammon, and Daryl Hannah were interesting, I just needed a better guide to help me understand their roles in this political scandal. Danny Huston just did not cut it for me. Outside of the characters, Sayles needed a stronger script. I sometimes felt that unless I was deeply rooted in the political world, some of the references were well over my head. The entire reasoning for Silver City to be built and the corruption behind it eluded me. I am a simpleton that loves advanced films, but this one just didn't make much sense to me. There were several times that I found myself asking, "Why" instead of seeing the whole picture. I felt as if the individual stories were as clear as glass, yet the whole picture was dusty and murky at the same time. Sayles needed to concentrate more on the bigger picture instead of these smaller issues, which ultimately fogged this film.

Perhaps I went into this film with the wrong idea. I was expecting to see another version of Primary Colors, but instead witnessed something less heartfelt and more technical. Without giving the ending away, I thought that the final scene was one of the most beautiful moments in political cinema history. The brilliant symbolism has stayed in my mind for the past two days after watching this film, while the rest of the movie quickly shuffled away from my mind. Maybe a second viewing would do better for me, but for some odd reason Silver City just didn't click with me. There seemed to be too many loopholes that were never explained or accounted for. An ensemble piece is always good with me, but when the characters are introduced without explanation, it just looses steam. This was one of those rare occasions.

Overall, I was very upset with this film. Being very Democrat, I wanted to see a side of politics that I wasn't aware of and another side that would make you chuckle. I wanted to be engulfed with the world of corporate money and the dufus' that are elected. I wanted intelligent humor framed by the words of George W., but instead all I found was a very confusing story aimed at a certain audience of which I will never be a part. Sad, this picture had so much wasted promise.

Grade: ** out of *****


I'm surprised over the number of folks that have rated this entry as their favorite "Chan" (didn't they ever see "...at the Opera" or "...at Treasure Island?"--- the latter ironically written by John Larkin, who dropped the ball here). This plot is a train wreck and overloaded with pointless characters. First, viewers are required to recall the sordid details of Steve McBirney's (played by venerable thug and HUAC squealer Marc Lawrence) 1929's murder spree. Let's not forget he escaped a capital murder rap at the courthouse with a lone policeman on his tail. There's also a victim that was fished out of a river 11 years earlier that no one ever seems concerned about. Then there's the suspension of disbelief required when all the characters are seemingly trapped in the wax museum (although Inspector O'Matthews manages to wield his fat wet rear end inside through a window). Why is Joan Valerie (as Cream's assistant) in this movie? She can't even handle pliers properly--- I realize Chan suffers the same boo-boo but yeesh, he's 66 years old here-- (and has less than 10 lines--- and her character's motivation is too weak to ever be adequately 'splained (excuse me, when I'm on a rant I write like Ricky Ricardo). The Mary Bolton (Marguerite Chapman) character is written to as a eager wide-eyed moron, apparently existing only for the vapid romantic interest of horndog lawyer Tom Agnew (played by the ferret-faced Ted Osborne). Why is Willie Fern a character? Why couldn't McBirney's henchman pulled the switch at 8:20? (not a spoiler, okay?!). One wonders how, with the IQ of lint he manages to dress himself or why he hadn't stepped in front of a bus years ago. Toler himself is given a little more acting rope than usual (a plus) and the real kudos go to set designer Thomas Little and cinematographer Virgil Miller who created some genuinely spooky atmosphere... but this entry has less logic than a Ritz Brothers film. I'm still boggled by how a toothpick can be used as a blow gun.


... I am left with little choice but to employ it at least once during the course of my review of Respiro. Among other things, what defines pretension is in my opinion a lack of emotional sincerity on the author's part. Respiro seems made with an all too contrived and self-aware intent to be artistic, symbolic, spiritual, provocative, metaphorical... mythical, even. But luckily for all true artists out there, a predisposed formula to achieve artistic beauty and depth doesn't exist. Stunning natural locations (yes, these remote parts of Southern Italy look exotic even to most other Italians), pretty actors and some amusing, gutsy, spontaneous performances by a handful of attractive children won't elevate a substanceless movie beyond a pretty succession of images. Yet this insincere and vain, and ultimately hollow movie aches to be art, succeeding only to a very limited extent, perhaps in some cases by accident. I'll admit that the conceptually pompous ending does have a certain visual poetry to it. However, it's my belief that this was achieved in ways that had more to do with the beauty of the Lampedusa sea and the strong symbolic power of bathing and water (connecting it to so much that's mythical, mystical, religious, archetypical, etc) than with Crialese's talent.

Valeria Golino is gratingly histrionic and affected in her performance as Grazia. For a mentally unstable woman from a humble and provincial background, she sure has a fashionable wardrobe. Her flattering, floaty floral dresses and attractive, sun-kissed beach hair could have graced the pages of any Vogue summer edition. The fact she was a "nutcase" could in a way have been nothing but a fashionable addition to her trendy demeanour and look - that's how skin-deep her "condition" seemed to me. Golino's two-dimensional stereotype of the innocent, natural child-woman misunderstood and oppressed by her backward community was tiresome and irritating at worse, while leaving me unmoved and indifferent at best. I agree with the reviewer from London who wrote that mental illness is very badly served by cinema - during the course of the entire movie we never really get a sense of Grazia's illness and have no idea what is actually wrong with her (other than her being a tiresome stereotype of a "free spirit"). We don't know why she's given injections and is required to see a specialist in Milan. This generic way of writing mental illness is one of the main tell-tale signs of the movie's overall shallowness.

Another fairly insulting aspect of Respiro is the quaintification of its location. I struggled to figure out whether this movie was supposed to be set in the present day or the past, seeing as it aimed to make even an admittedly backward part of Italy (by comparison) seem a dozen times quainter and more conveniently primitive than it actually is. Again, this smacks of shallowness and a complete lack of sincerity on Crialese's part. Some non-Italian viewers will gleefully lap up the picturesque backwardness, the cliché of the possessive, macho Italian man as if it were common-place, so keen will they be to continue viewing my country as one culturally stranded sometime in the 1950s (the question I'd like to ask David Ferguson, the reviewer from Dallas, Texas is as follows: is YOUR country's mentality stuck in the 1950s? No? OK, then why should mine be?). Unfortunately for whoever still wishes to view Italy in such an anachronistic way, that aspect of Respiro is actually ridiculous and phoney even in the eyes of THIS Italian viewer. The subtly incestuous tension between Grazia and her eldest son was as tiresome and predictable as Fabrizio Bentivoglio's sexist-but-loving-husband routine. I especially loathed the scene in which Grazia joins her husband and male friend in some man-to-man banter over a bottle of beer, to her husband's macho embarrassment and displeasure. According to this movie, it isn't a woman's place to take part in a man's conversations. Ah, but our "loveable" "free-spirit" is too good for this place and doesn't understand the oppressive, unwritten rules of Lampedusan patriarchy! Not only does this scene depict something so fake, it should be enough on its own to discredit the entire movie's credibility. It also completely gets the wrong end of the stick of the culture it strives to depict, clearly showing that it was written without a clear understanding of the location or its population. I would challenge anyone who knows contemporary Italy to say otherwise.

For a truly accomplished contemporary Italian filmmaker, one who in my opinion deserves to be listed among the greats of Italy's glorious cinematic past (which alas, isn't the shadow of its former self!), look no further than Gianni Amelio - especially Lamerica, Così Ridevano and his latest, La Stella Che Non C'è. Unlike most contemporary Italian cinema, sadly derivative and stagnant, Amelio's is a fresh and independently creative voice. Despite my scathing review of Respiro, I am now more than willing to believe that Crialese's latest Nuovomondo, now showing in Italian cinemas, will be a worthwhile one. I therefore look forwards to enjoying it, though it won't be overly shocking to me if I don't (considering my feelings for Respiro!).


The synopsis of this movie led me to believe that it would be a story of an unconventional woman challenging the conventions of the society in with she lives. I like strong female characters and expected a movie much along the lines of "Chocolat" with a less fairy tale and more bite. What I got was a cast of despicable characters.

For a character-driven movie to be effective, I need to feel a connection or compassion for the people. There was no one with whom I could relate in the movie. Grazia (Golino, whose work I admired in "Rain Man") portrays a mentally ill, probably bipolar, female that is often rude, aggressive and violent. Her husband bickers and yells, when he is not hitting or slapping someone. The children are rude brats. They yell at each other and the females in the movie. They attack other children with no provocation. Violence begets violence. This seems to be an island of unfeeling, aggressive, violent and rude people all the way around.

The direction is not compelling. There are intermixed scenes that attempt to be art, but instead bore the viewer. The location is exceptionally gorgeous, but even that fails to be captured to the degree that it could be on film.

I would have to recommend that you stay away from this failure of a movie.


A lack of character development proves fatal for this movie. Valeria Golino's character Grazia starts out looking like a bipolar personality but quickly degenerates into a caricature and seems unreal. The other characters are thin, probably the writer's fault not the actors'. The only exception is Filippo Pucillo as the younger son Filippo: his energy and bravado are funny and convincing.

I suppose the children's petty cruelty is supposed to contribute to an atmosphere of bleakness and emphasize the pervasive primal spirits in the town, but for me, the gratuitous cruelty is redundant and contributes to the overall boredom of the film. Some scenes were amusing but not necessarily intended that way, for example, when the mistreated dogs turn out to be fat and healthy and look like they are ready to show. The pretty cast and setting make for an appealing trailer but cannot carry the whole movie.


I'm sorry folks, but these enthusiastic reviews on this prestigious site about this movie "Respiro" are very strange, to say the least. Is craziness picturesque, I ask and didn't find an answer. Of course, the movie is beautifully filmed, at part it's almost a documentary. But then, the fact is that when it comes to the women Grazia, she shows every sign of a deep illness and I was wondering throughout the movie what the heck she has. Her behavior is absolutely worrisome and the (shocked) citizens of the village are very right indeed in wanting to send her off to a proper institution to see what can be done about her condition. She needs treatment, urgently! Behaviour like hers is inferno to everybody around her, her husband, the poor children (especially) and the fellow citizens. Let's not be falsely romantic about this! I hated this condoning portrait of a mentally ill. WHY, for God's sake, should the husband not want to have her cured or at least try to do this? Why the horror of going to Milan (a big city, sure, but lots of possibilities of capable persons to cure her)? Narrowmindedness? Irresponsibility? Anyway, I inspired myself on this site for renting the movie on DVD and after seeing it I HAD to post this for others to make themselves an opinion on it. Frankly, I understand why the movie did not get any further as an INDICATION to the Cannes selection...


This could have been a breakout role for Valeria Golino but the film instead decided to shift its attention to another area. The film is about a woman named Grazia (Golino) who is married to a fisherman and the mother of three. She is a free spirit and prone to outbursts so the rest of the village and her family decide she should be sent to Milan and see a doctor. The story takes place on the island of Lampedusa off of Sicily and it shows the everyday life there with the teenage boys in rivaling gangs and just trying to find something to do on the sun baked rock. Grazia's oldest son Pasquale (Francesco Casisa) adores her and is always trying to protect her during her bouts of depression. The daughter Marinella (Veronica D'Agostino) is a blossoming young girl who becomes infatuated with a local policeman and the youngest son Filippo (Filippo Pucillo) is very sassy and mocks the policeman's accent. Upon learning that she is to be sent to Milan, Grazia runs away and Pasquale helps her by hiding her in a cave while everyone searches for her. This film could have really made more of an impact if it could have concentrated its focus to Grazia. We do see some outbursts and irrational behavior on her part but their is no follow up to these scenes. Nothing comes of it. The film looks great and is beautifully photographed so give director Emanuele Crialese credit for that but the story needed to focus on something more substantial. The film does a good job of showing us what life is like on this island and what is going on in the lives of the three children as they grow up. Their is some speculation that Golino's character gives a hint of being a mermaid like creature and that is why she is having difficulty existing on land. I also sense that the island itself expects its inhabitants to behave in a certain manner and if you don't then you can be subjected to the harsh realities of its rules. All speculations but I do think the films attention could have stayed with the character of Grazia. After she hides in the cave she really has nothing to do. In a sense, the character becomes stagnant. I wish Golino had more to do because I've always liked her and whenever she is onscreen you just can't take your eyes off her. She's a bundle of fury, passion and raw energy! What a shame Crialese didn't write a more complete role for her to act in. When the film ends your left feeling empty from an incomplete story.


To judge a movie just for the landscapes,decor,costumes....it is just not right , you are missing the core : THE STORY

A movie has to narrate something , to tell a story something that impress you . Yes , I was pleased by the sea , cliffs , clear water and all that but ... There is the plot ?

They are more interesting movies with mad people , such as : FLIGHT OVER THE CUCKOO"S NEST...etc...etc. This one is about a crazy woman who is more attached to dogs than his children or his husband. Just a clear psychiatric case !!!! Nothing extraordinary.Unfortunately a waste of time . And there is all that rage coming from ? Fish smell ? Sea ?


This is one of the worst movie I have ever seen. It's a thriller with a rather ridiculous ending. I watched this movie hoping for the best and instead found something truly bad. the movie starred two actors that I like very much, Rebecca DeMornay and Antonio Banderas. Sure they had decent chemistry together but for what? The movie's premise was bad to begin with and the execution just made it even worst.

Miss DeMornay plays Sarah Taylor, a psychologist trying to analyze a convicted serial killer whose defense hinge on multiple personality disorder. That pretty much will give you a hint to where the movie is going and the identity of the killer. Early in the movie she gets an unexpected visit from her father. This being made in the 1990's when the bad daddy was the in thing in Hollywood is another clue to the ultimate conclusion.

Mr. Banderas plays a mystery man named Tony Ramirez, who comes into Sarah's life. The whole first meeting and first encounter between Tony and Sarah is so badly done and so unconvincing it makes you wonder how it even got shot. And there's a sequence where the two of them are supposed to be knowing each other that is so sappy it doesn't seem to belong here. One thing that I would admit was that there was a sex scene that's very hot. Anyway creepy things start to happen after he arrives, weird packages arriving, things falling off the wall that could kill Sarah, incident that say things aren't normal anymore.

Overall the movie was badly conceived, the editing at times seem jumpy, and the conclusion was laughable. Another thing that bugged me about this movie was the whole Orchestral music playing in the background. A more subtle musical score would have been better. I have to say this, no matter how bad the ending was, Miss DeMornay was very good in that sequence. It's sad that she never got first rate materials in her career. She's that rare combination of talent and beauty.


Man, is this lousy. It doesn't deserve much in the way of comment so, keeping it brief, Rebecca DeMornay is a highly disciplined police psychiatrist who falls for Latin Lover Antonio Banderas in a wine store, he of the ponytail and jail-house tats. When she cuts loose, she really cuts loose. Other than this torrid affair she's having (and we must admit the affair has its speed bumps) she's a pretty cold fish. Her broke, ailing father shows up for the first time in years and she boots him out. She's also adept at keeping her horny upstairs neighbor (Dennis Miller) at bay. And there's prisoner Harry Dean Stanton who's trying to maneuver her into giving him a diagnosis of multiple personality disorder so he won't have his privates nailed to the wall for the serial murders he's committed.

All these people, and perhaps more, are immediately suspect when strange things begin happening to her. Somebody sends her dead flowers. Somebody does unspeakable things to her pet cat. (The next time I see a household pet turn up in a parcel or strung up in the closet or boiled in a pot, I'm going to puke.) So who's doing it? Guess. No power on earth could force me to reveal the ending, but maybe a hint will help: childhood abuse.

The abuse excuse is an interesting business in itself, far more interesting than the movie. What does "childhood abuse" mean? Do we mean sexual abuse? Physical? Both? How about whacking a kid over the back with a wooden cooking spoon, hard enough to break it? That's what happened to me and my brother when we were kids, just as similar things happened to all the other errant boys in the neighborhood. Sexual abuse? That never happened to any of us, as far as I know, although I'm not sure it would have been rejected with any degree of animation. In the Samoan village I studied for two years, there was one case of an adolescent boy found playing sexually with a much younger girl. The girl's family beat hell out of him. The boy's own family sent him to live with another branch of the family in another village, an exile that lasted two years. By the time he returned the incident was forgotten by everyone, including the child. (By the way, the little girl we see here is under five so it's unlikely that she'd remember Dad's night-time visits in any case since long-term memory isn't really established until about that time.) DeMornay's experience leading to her mental disorder can be called "the social construction of trauma." It's not there unless we put it there. Enough of the psychiatric lecture. That will be fifteen cents.

You want trauma? I'll give you trauma. The film absolutely forces us to identify with Rebecca DeMornay's character, right from the beginning. Then, when she has her first tryst with Antonio Banderas, and Pio Donnagio's score is pounding the eroticism into our heads, the camera gives us a shot from over her shoulder of the bare-torsoed Antonio crawling over us with his hairy chest. Now THAT'S traumatic. It makes any male viewer feel as if he's on the floor of the laundry room at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo. Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike Antonio Banderas. It's just that I'm not in love with him. There aren't enough nude shots of Rebecca DeMornay's elfin body in the entire universe to compensate for that kind of anxiety.

Here's an engaging way of surviving this movie. Instead of just sitting there puling, try picking out the scenes that were filmed in Toronto and separating them from the ones shot in Budapest. It's a challenge, really, and may, for all we know, preserve your sanity.


Rebecca De Mornay can be a fascinating beautiful actress but as for the parts she's given to play,if you cannot say something nice...

De Mornay portrays a woman who had terrible traumas as a child with a father she can hardly stand now that she's a grown up and has become a -of course brilliant- shrink.She has an affair with Banderas ,whom we suspect of being (ouch!how original!) a serial killer.Sometimes she recalls Banderas's mother-in-law Tippi Hedren's character in "Marnie" .But I wouldn't count on it:Hitchcock died twenty-four years ago ,and a lot of regents desperately try to replace him .Here the director pulls out all the stops to make a thriller with an unexpected end,but that ending is so far-fetched it is absolutely impossible to buy it.The movie includes the obligatory "conversations with a serial killer" in the "silence of the lamb" tradition,murders (human beings and cats),split personality,and open ending in case the crowds should call for more.Apparently they did not,and they were right.


Sorry I couldn't be more expressive in my summary, but those two words seemed to describe the movie perfectly. This is not only a bad film, but a bad film with bad acting and a plot that will be inconsequential to most watchers.

See it only for a naked Rebecca De Mornay tied to a chain-link fence and moaning with 'ecstasy; supposedly 'erotic', but actually hilarious.


With so many good movies coming out in 1995 (particularly "Mortal Kombat" and "Seven"), unfortunately, there had to be some bombs as well, and this film indeed falls into the latter category with a boring, predictable plot and a lousy ending. It seems that Antonio Banderas hasn't been able to find a decent script since "Desperado," the only remarkable film he's done. Anyone with an eighth of a brain could tell who DeMornay's stalker was from the beginning. Her flashbacks of the death of her mother did nothing but muddle an already paper-thin story. Pity that Dennis Miller was wasted in this film; this part resembles his eerily similar role in "The Net."

The convoluted ending had me shaking my head, as I pretty much did throughout the entire movie. Plus, any film that depicts animal cruelty in any shape or form, no matter how fake it looks, automatically gets the thumbs-down from me.

To make a long story short, if you want to enjoy a good thriller, then avoid this at all costs. Never talk to strangers...especially those who recommend this movie. 2/10


I thought Sliver offered the most boring and trivial "trick" ending in movie history, but of course I was wrong. I had no disillusions that this movie was going to be good. Unfortunately, it was worse than I expected. The worst part is that the obvious ending is so ridiculous and horrible that you can't believe it until it actually happens.


This derivative erotic thriller remains watchable most of the way, mainly because a viewer is casually curious about how it will turn out, and because the director, Peter Hall, manages to stage a pretty hot (and quite bold) sex scene. But the finale, though unexpected, is preposterous, and the whole plotting (complete with childhood traumas and multiple-personality disorders) reveals itself to be unbearably cliched, especially as far as motivation is concerned. (*1/2)


What a stinker!!! I swear this movie was written by a computer that took a whole pile of other movies and merged them all together into this platypus of film. Ouch!


Forgive me, but this work of director Peter Hall is horrendous. If you can't get to us with the plot, why not kill someone's cat or dog. That surely reaches the audiences. This viewer is tired of seeing animals sacrificed for the plot of a movie. And, believe me, I saw it coming before she opened the package. How predictable can you get. Take a cute animal then kill it in a gruesome way. I have never been a fan of De Mornay and this performance tells me why. Overacted and somewhat stagnant in interpretation, I found her rather silly and definitely boring. I did like Banderas, but felt bad that he had to play opposite De Mornay. He has done much better in other films namely "Philadelphia" where he had some honesty in his dialogue. In this chestnut he did his best to keep his character real. But the writers, Green & Rush, did a good job in preventing this with their trite storyline and insipid dialogue. Please, let us not be subjected to this kind of entertainment. Some of us aren't fooled by corny plots, bludgeoning animals and generally long winded dialogue. Seeing her get away with it, made me furious.


A few minutes in: "NOT credible. What idiot wrote this?"

But, "What's going on...who's the bad guy...then there's that Rebecca De Mornay." Time passes....

THE END.

"NOT CREDIBLE. What IDIOT actually watched the whole *@#! thing!"


weird.this is a TV movie,yet the rating on the box says it's rated R.there's nothing in the movie that would remotely qualify for an R rating.aside from that,though,the movie is very slow and pointless.i mean the idea was good,but nothing was done with the storyline.it just wasn't developed.it's mildly creepy,and the acting is actually quite good,better than the movie deserves.i don't see myself watching it again anytime soon,if ever.there have been other movies dealing with the same concept which are better made than this one.i haven't seen too many Wes Craven Films,so i can't really compare it to any of his others.as for this movie itself though,i think it is poorly conceived and poorly executed.for me,i can't give Chiller a higher rating than 3/10


After his success with A Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984, director Wes Craven for some reason decided that his next project would be this TV movie. I'm not a big fan of this director on the whole; early exploitation flick The Last House on the Left as well as his modern slasher Scream sit well with me, but the rest of his work is very hit and miss and I'd hesitate to call him the master that others have labelled him as. The main theme here is cryogenic freezing, although it's more a springboard for the plot rather than an important part of the movie. The main influence here is obviously the excellent 1974 zombie film Deathdream and we focus on Miles Creighton; a businessman cryogenically frozen for ten years before an accident that means he has to be thawed out immediately. Miles is a part of a project for people that are ill; they pay to be frozen in the hope that they will be revived in the future when their illnesses can cured. Miles is successfully revived and it's seen as a miracle...but the person that wakes up is not the person who was frozen, as Miles returns without a soul.

This film could actually have been quite decent judging by the idea behind it, but instead we're given a plot that doesn't really have a lot to it and it has to be said that Craven doesn't make the best out of the potential of the film. The 'soul' is the main focal point, but it would seem that not having a soul and simply having a murderous intent/no compassion are the same thing, which feels a bit unimaginative. The film was made for television so it's not particularly nasty and it's obvious that not a lot of money was spent on it as the whole production feels very cheap. Michael Beck never became a very popular actor and that isn't surprising judging by his performance here; while he is passable, he largely lacks charisma and is not formidable in the central role. The plot doesn't flow too badly but there's a real lack of suspense and/or tension and things slow down too much too often, which results in the film being rather boring on occasion. It all boils down to a predictable ending also. Overall, I have to admit that I was not impressed at all by this film and as far as Craven's filmography goes, Chiller would have to go down with Shocker, the Scream sequels and The Hills Have Eyes II as a miss.


I purchased a DVD of this film for a dollar at the big dept store. That's probably the best and kindest comment I have to offer on it. At least it didn't cheat me out of the cost of lunch.

The problem with "Chiller" is Craven's problem as a director. The man has his apologists who claim his traveling papers prove he's a really smart guy and all-around sharp conceptualist. But it's no secret that, as a director, he has never possessed one iota of the visual and story-telling sense of a Hitchcock. As vigorously attested by "Chiller", he's much closer to that legendary flat-foot Hershel Gordon Lewis. What Craven lacks as a director is the main ingredient that would lift him from director for hire to a higher plane of film- making.

Let's be specific. The transitional moments of this film are sleek. The establishing shots give it the feel of a quality production. The film looks professionally put together, in the way a film shot by a TV commercial director would. (A thought: The films only visual distinction, these transitions that at least look professionally handled may very well be the work of some second unit directors.) It's the parts between the bridges and smooth transitions -- the drama -- that fall flat.

The core of the proceedings are invariably perfunctorily handled. The critical shots (after, say, the departing car drives into the well-positioned camera, then we cut to the night exterior of a hospital, then to the waiting area and hallway, then to the phone booth in the corner that will figure in the next bit of action) are quickly dispensed so we can hurry up and get to the next part. Craven never comes anywhere close to exploding the dramatic or visual possibilities of any moment. The net result of all this misplaced attention to the least important parts, and the fumbling rush to keep things moving, is a film that feels like the work of the fledgling art student who sharpens all his pencils, fussily adjusts his easel and lighting set-up, grinds all his pigments, stretches and primes his canvas ...and then has nothing to say. Craven, like the art student, never gets to the meat of the exercise.

For Craven apologists who will point out that this film was made for TV, I will point to Spielberg's "Duel" and say no more.


Interesting topic. Pathetic delivery - script and direction.

Our hero, Miles, thaws out and has his emergency world-first life restoration surgery. This is where the fun begins. The underlying issue is that Miles has NO SOUL!!! This is used to explain his quasi-erratic behaviour of being indirectly responsible for two deaths (I believe this to be the total number of deaths in 104 minutes).

On the livlier side, Miles prefers the odd glass of brandy, blazing fireplaces and his young, maturing female cousin. The finale does indeed do justice to this film.

Some thoughts: 1. Producer $$$ were parted with to create this tripe. J.D. Feigelson was the script writer and a (or sole) producer. Looks like he did not learn a lesson on "how not to bring an interesting idea to life" when one views his other writing credits. This will support the credibility of this script.

2. Now available on DVD!!! This IS truly scary. Should be forever "Bottom of the Shelf" in VHS format.

3. A re-incarnated human without a soul will default to an evil entity.

4. The score offers minimal support. Not even an in-form Jerry Goldsmith could save it.

5. Deserved the 0230 time slot on TV and a touch more entertaining than the infomercials + test patterns it was competing against at the time of my viewing.

6. Thankfully did not spawn any sequels ala Wes Craven's "Nightmare" franchise. Chiller Too: The Return Return of Miles, or something like that.

Despite my rating of 1, I still recommend this movie as a great example of how to kill an acting or script-writing career. This should apply to directing, however Wes Craven will eternally be exempt due to his sole good piece of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" 1984.


What was Wes thinking making this dribble? It does not jive well with any of his other work but then again he seemed to fall into a slight slump after making a A Nightmare On Elm Street. This can be seen by his follow ups 1.Invatation to Hell 2.Chiller 3.Hills Have Eyes II 4.Deadly Friend 5.Serpant and the Rainbow 6.Shocker all of these films were either mediocre our crap it was not until People Under the Stairs that he gained his momentum back and started to kick butt again. Chiller it'self has none of Craven's regulars and none of his suspense. The only good scene in when the old man has a heart attack on the stairs after graveling for his job.


Do you know what farmers spray on fields ? That's right - Manure , so when the BBC decided to make a much hyped conspiracy thriller about GMOs and farming what we got was some of the smelliest manure the BBC has inflicted upon its audience

!!!! SPOILERS !!!!

FIELDS OF GOLD opens with a bunch of masked scientists in a lab where a female scientist ( According to the right on trendy BBC all scientists are women ) announces " A new strain of wheat that will save the third world from hunger " then the story switches to another equally bland scene . If you're going to make a thriller of any type shouldn't you open with a hook that grabs the audience ? DOCTOR WHO was brilliant at this as was THE X- FILES while 28 DAYS LATER opened with a hook that took place in a laboratory. I guess someone at the BBC didn't think this thriller needed a hook because the viewers had trailers stuffed down their throat for weeks in advance

As the ( Not very exciting ) story continues a couple of journalists ( One's a drunken man with morals lower than Bill Clinton and Dubya Bush combined while the other is a female journalist full of virtue ) investigating patients at a county hospital who might be getting bumped off via " Mercy killings " . It's at this point things start getting confused as the female journalist is threatened by MI5 spooks and the first episode ends with the main MI5 spook getting murdered

The second episode reveals that the patients at the county hospital have actually been dying due to being infected with a VRSA superbug . This is when things go totally hay wire . All throughout FIELDS OF GOLD the audience have been led to believe the intelligence services and the company shown in the opening sequence have been behind the deaths - But they're not . It turns out the bad guy is an organic farmer who has been manufacturing the VRSA superbug in his bedroom and the story ends via THE MATRIX camera work with the drunken male journalist setting fire to a field ridden with VRSA thereby spreading the superbug throughout the land

I find it impossible to say a good word about FIELDS OF GOLD . At the time of its broadcast I was both a member of the Scottish Green Party and Greenpeace . I have since renounced my time in the environmental movement but even now I am somewhat offended by how environmentalists are portrayed here and to have the bad guy spreading a fatal genetically engineered virus as a warning to the dangers of genetically modified organisms is very silly. It's a bit like a CND member letting off a nuke in London to warn of the dangers of nuclear war . I was also slightly offended as to how the male characters were written as being bastards while all the females were highly intelligent and morally superior to men . There's also other problems with the script especially with regard to VRSA . If unlike the scriptwriters you take the time and trouble to research VRSA you'll find it's entirely different from what is seen here . Oh and if you set fire to diesel it doesn't explode like napalm . Perhaps the worst criticism of the script is that it resembles JEEPERS CREEPERS structure wise whereby the last ten minutes contradicts most of what has gone before . Where as JEEPERS CREEPERS only lasted about 90 minutes FIELDS OF GOLD lasted twice that length so is doubly irritating and illogical

As a footnote environmentalism never makes a good theme for a thriller ( Anyone remember those Steven Segal movies ? ) and it's about time TV and film producers realized this


I saw this movie for the first time on NBC Friday 11-29-02. It was a pretty good movie, but I don't think it would be the kind of Muppet movie Jim Henson would make. I mean first of all, Pepe' using the word "sexy" every now and then, and Pepe saying "it would suck?" And I defenitly know Jim Henson wouldn't allow Kermit yelling "I WISH I'D NEVER BEEN BORN!" thirteen time a minute. This movie just isn't like a classic Muppet movie. Sure I can understand Nicky Holiday stealing the baseball diamond from "The Great Muppet Caper," but a business lady cheating the Muppets in a contract for their theater to turn it into a smoker's nightclub. If Jim Henson was here today, he would HATE this movie!


I once saw a bit of this film, and was interested to see the full thing just to see why the critics give it two stars, the result being that I agree. Basically the film begins with Kermit the Frog (Steve Whitmire) telling all his Muppet chums that they have lost everything, and he ends sitting depressed (and possibly thinking about suicide) on the bench. Meanwhile, in another world (Heaven) angel Daniel (David Arquette, who had already been in Muppets from Space) visits the 'Boss' (Whoopi Goldberg, another reason I wanted to see the film) to show that Kermit really needs help. In the flashbacks, it shows Kermit, Miss Piggy (Eric Jacobson, not the original and better Frank Oz), Gonzo (Dave Goelz), Fozzie Bear (also Jacobson), Pepe the Prawn (Bill Barretta) and all the other Muppets have prepared a stage show for many people to see in the Christmas holiday, and it all seems to be going well. But the really mean Rachel Bitterman (Joan Cusack) is determined to either shut the show or the theatre down, and Kermit is doing everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen. Of course, Kermit fails the last time, and Bitterman tells him that they are finished, and she can officially take the theatre. This is where Daniel is sent as Kermit's guardian angel to try and help him, but Kermit is not in the mood, and eventually ends up saying "I wish I was never born". Obviously, you can recognise the spoof of It's a Wonderful Life, with Kermit as the George Bailey, and Cusack as the Mr. Potter, and in the end, obviously Kermit realises how much he means to everyone, and goes back to find the theatre saved as historical landmark. Also starring Whitmire as Rizzo the Rat and Beaker; Goelz as Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Waldorf; Barretta as Dr. Teeth, Rowlf the Dog and Swedish Chef; Jacobson as Animal and Yoda (the only character who sounds similar to Oz's version), William H. Macy as Glenn, Matthew Lillard as Luc Fromage, Carson Daly, Molly Shannon; Scrubs' Zach Braff, Sarah Chalke, Neil Flynn, John C. McGinley and Judy Reyes, Mel Brooks as Joe Snow; Brian Henson as Scooter and Janice; Jerry Nelson as Robin the Frog, Statler, Pops and Floyd Pepper, and Kevin Clash as Sam the Eagle. The most memorable moment for me is the stage spoof of Moulin Rouge, besides that and the well known faces in it, not fantastic. It was nominated the Emmy for Outstanding Music and Lyrics for the song "Everyone Matters". The Muppets were number 47 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons. Adequate!


I've been a fan of Jim Henson and his characters since the very beginning. The most beguiling thing about them was the love and innocence and camaraderie shown. Kermit was a role model of deep thinking and problem solving. A spiritual character, yet sweetly and believably so. All the other characters were slightly eccentric but it demonstrated how different kinds of beings can co-exist in a caring manner together, respecting each other's difference.

Following movies have somewhat kept the same vibe. Yet this "It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie" would have Jim Henson spinning in his grave. These characters have been completely re-written to be horny, nasty, selfish, and cheesy.

The cast goes on to portray God as an uncaring corporate head, with a mean streak. Angels as spineless, non-spiritual corporate staff, and the movie was so bad I had to stop watching. I had bought it for my great-nephew but fortunately I preview anything I give a child.

This movie deserved the trash bin instead and has no socially redeeming content or charm.

Shame, shame on the people who re-wrote the characters and departed from Jim Henson's original heart-centered, socially conscious version. It does a terrible disservice to a great hearted man who is no longer around to defend his creations.


It's too slow paced and complex for children, and too lightweight and dull for adults. None of our family (6 weeks to 66 years) could be bothered watching it all the way through.

Are there jokes in it? I couldn't really tell. There was certainly some unnecessarily adult innuendo. There was probably a bludgeoning message of sorts, but I wasn't engaged enough to care.

The live talent are just stumbling and mugging their way through it. I have to wonder if they were actually being paid, or whether it was some form of community service or plea bargain.

"Please, keep watching," whines Daniel; honestly, I wouldn't bother.


I am and have been a serious collector of Christmas related movies, TV shows, holidays specials, etc., for over twenty-five years. Please heed my warning and do not be mislead by sterling reviews & media hype about this movie. This is not a Muppett movie as we have come to know them, and is certainly NOT for children. The fact that this was produced for a major TV network is/was no surprise considering their level of operation at this time. What is hard for me to believe, is that The Jim Henson organization stooped so low to become involved in this travesty of Christmas.I wish there had been reviews for me to read that would warned me before I wasted my hard earned money on this piece of trash.


I am still waiting for that dark muppet film where we won't know how it ends from the beginning. I think Linklater could do one hes experimented with animation. This time I was intelligently not expecting such a thing but deeply wishing.

Joan Cusack sucked. She moved to a made-for-tv level lazily acting this one with cliched cynic. The muppets were more life-life than she was. A disappointment.

But then the entire film was, bar Pepe. I loved him. He was the only one to ever get me laugh(while Goldbergh as God got me choking and cursing). If we can't see a dark muppets than how about at least a PG:13 one with more of Pepe's controversial jokes and Animals metal-head, egg-nog-chuggin persona.

The worst Muppets I saw even the boring Christmas Carol beats this one out. The muppets need to avoid this over commercialized holiday.

5/10


I used to love the Muppets. The Muppet Movie, The Great Muppet Caper and The Muppets Take Manhattan were good family movies, cleverly written and fun to watch. I never thought I would see the day when they would jump on the Hollywood sleaze bandwagon, but here it is: Scooter as a caged rave dancer, Pepe making lewd and suggestive comments every five minutes -- this is not your father's Muppets. It's not Jim Henson's Muppets anymore, either.

This "It's A Wonderful Life" themed movie has its moments, but not enough to save it. I cringed while watching this with my children. I still have hope for their next movie, but this one was certainly a disappointment.


I found this film extremely disturbing. Treadwell is delusional and disturbed, to the point of probably suffering from a mental illness. The footage shown is him and not an actor, but yet it is showing behaviour that ended in death. Is it appropriate to show actual footage of a suicide? Let's not mince words. The film shows footage of behaviour that directly led to his death.

For those who think that Treadwell is some kind of hero, think again. The footage he shot is about him and not about the bears and foxes he claimed to be helping. He did no meaningful research into their habits or numbers and did nothing to actually protect them. All he did was run around in the bush and convince himself that he was better than everyone else. Reality is, by helping to desensitize the animals to humans, he exposed them to great risk. His self indulgent behaviour not caused his own death, but also the death of his companion Amy plus exposed his beloved bears and foxes to greater harm.

But I'm also concerned about Werner Herzog's actions in compiling this film the way he did.

A friend and I have had a long argument about this film who loved this film. He believes that seriously disturbed people make for interesting subjects and he cites the movie Downfall as an example. But in Downfall they use actors. We didn't see the real Madga Goebells put cyanide capsules into her own children's mouths.

There was something about using the real footage in Grizzly Man which reminded me of that horrible football stadium tragedy where people were being crushed to death and the photographers who could have helped, elected to simply keep recording the horror.

Herzog's film shows us that Treadwell's footage is more about Treadwell. But Herzog has done the same. His own personality and opinions are aired in this documentary, which is supposedly about someone else. Scenes such as the one where he listens to the tape are not necessary. We already knew what was on the tape because the coroner had told us. We didn't need Herzog shedding a tear with one of Treadwell's former girlfriends. It didn't add to the film.

The film showed us that Treadwell was very self-indulgent, but it also showed us that Herzog is as well.


I haven't reviewed on IMDb before but this documentary is so overrated that I felt compelled to vent. I wouldn't have even finished watching if I hadn't been a guest at someone's house. The film was poor on many levels: First - Treadwell's video footage was contrived. The more I watched, the more he seemed to be acting as a person desperate to be famous instead of one acting out of conviction.

Second - The others in the film, with the exception of Treadwell's parents and the airline pilot, were just as contrived and corny as he was. God, they seemed artificial.

Third - Treadwell's mission to protect the bears doesn't even make sense as he did more harm than good by making the bears grow accustomed to human presence. I believe that Treadwell really did love the bears but there is much research which indicates his efforts were misguided. Sometimes we have to sacrifice our enjoyment of wildlife to really help.

Fourth - The film's entertainment value wasn't half that of other wildlife films such as "March of the Penguins" and "Winged Migration". The filmmakers, in my opinion, did a poor job of sequencing scenes and gave little incentive to keep watching.

As a person who loves Alaska, bears, and other wildlife, I would love to see more people dedicated to the preservation of our wildlands. Hopefully their efforts will be less people-centered.


I really seldom give either one or ten stars to any movie, but this was so awful, I had to make an exception.

I am a SciFi fan and have seen a few comedic takes on SciFi that I genuinely like. There just wasn't anything here to like.

I realize this was started with an extremely small budget by a film student. But even considering that, the sets and effect are bad. The cinematography is mediocre, but may be the best part of the movie.

The acting is bad. A sad state when the female voice-over for the computer is the best actor. The dialogue is bad. The script is very weak and the plot is incoherent and almost nonexistent.

The humor is not just subtle and sublime; it's nowhere to be found. As an example, a whole 20 minutes, of the 80 minute film, is spent on a lame 2 punch combo joke with the alien mascot and the elevator.

This was supposed to be a parody of everything from bad 50's SciFi to 2001. What we end up with though, is just a slightly updated version of an old 50's SciFi C-movie. At least those movies were funny because they took themselves seriously.


This is probably the only movie I have ever not been able to make it all the way through. Not only was it annoying and boring, but the low production values made it hard to make out the action and in some cases the dialogue. Avoid this one like the plague.


I watched a movie called Dark Talon, dated 1974. The credits to this movie are exactly the same as Dark Star, so I'm going to presume it was an alternate title. Dark Talon was nowhere near as funny as everyone else here states. The acting was lame, the editing slipshod, and overall stupid. At the beginning there's an annoying 1970's trucking song called "Benson, Arizona" that has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Basically the plot revolves around a small crew of an interstellar bomber that goes around bombing places that are unstable. The bombs are sentient and respond to people. The obligatory disaster disrupts communication between the bombs and the crew. One of the crewmen goes out and has an absurdly idiotic existential conversation with the bomb that made no sense whatsoever. The movie I saw was done in under an hour and a half, with commercials thrown in, so I suspect that Dark Talon is an overedited version of Dark Star.

The alien is an inflatable red beach ball spray painted with a pair of monster hands that it walks on. It was silly and unconvincing as an alien.

It's hard to believe that John Carpenter had a hand in this. His other movies were so much better.


This is a student film and it's a piece of crap. I would use much stronger language to describe it but then the review wouldn't be posted and the world needs to know- beyond any possible reasonable doubt- this movie REALLY SUCKS.

There seems to be a different ruler used when measuring an already famous director's early work. Like somehow it was genius that we were just too stupid to comprehend since he finally got it right now today. I'm not buying it. The early movie "Bad taste" made by the LOTR Peter Jackson's sucks and this "early work" from another famous director really sucks the same way too. These "early works" are representative of crappy everything, from budget to scripts to actors etc.. it all is bottom of the bucket trash. Don't be fooled by the big name.

If you like watching a handful of male 70's hippie burnouts pretend they could ever command a ship with the worst special effects you have ever seen- this is your movie.

I can't f*37449ing believe this thing won a golden scroll award for best special effects. That is a joke right? Or a joke award?

If you want to watch what this movie WISHES it was rent a season or three of Red Dwarf you smeghead.