This film was released soon after the Conan films, a sort of female Conan, Red Sonja played by Sylvester Stallones ex-wife Brigitte Nielsen. She's not a very good actress unfortunately as proved in Rocky IV and Cobra. The whole film feels cheap, but strangely Arnold Swarzenegger appears in this film but not as Conan, although he looks, acts and fights like Conan from the two Conan films, I don't know what thats about. Anyway he only appears about every twenty minutes and doesn't hang around for long. Maybe Arnold filmed this in his time off from filming Conan the Destroyer or something? Anyway the film is way to slow and boring for an action film, skip this and watch Conan the Barbarian instead.


... when dubbed into another language. Let's face it: Neither Nielsen nor Schwarzenegger are really good actors when it comes to dialog. And given the campy lines they are supposed to utter this is a loose-loose situation. Any type of voice-over is sure to be an improvement (and it actually is - at least in the German version).

But that is only a minor point. The acting is bad. The speeded up combat sequences are pathetic. Nielsen couldn't use her sword to fight her way out of a wet paper bag. This becomes painfully obvious when compared to the fluidity of motion exhibited by the kid (who has had some martial arts training, no doubt) and to the athleticism shown off by Sandahl Bergman.

Schwarzenegger does his Conan thing - nothing new here.

Some of the visuals are nice, I'll have to grant that. The dragon skeleton bridge looks cool. But more often than not the plaster is all too evident.

Overall the movie isn't worth seeing. Even 'Conan the Destroyer' is better than this (although only marginally). I would have much rather seen Bergman as Red Sonja as she was originally supposed to be, but I doubt that that could have saved this movie - oh well.

3/10


Recap: Since the warrior queen Gedren raised and slaughtered most of Sonja's family, she has trained in the art of sword fighting. Now, Gedren has taken a very powerful talisman, that threatens to destroy the world if not destroyed, killing Sonja's sister in the process. Now Sonja is out for revenge, and to save the world. Along the way, she meets the very Conan-like (but not Conan, no!) Kalidor, the child-prince Tarn and his bodyguard Falcon. At first Sonja declines all help, but is later forced to accept it, and together they go to save the world.

Comments: When you watch a movie like this, and you think that it is the story that the is the best element in this movie, the movie is in big trouble. Because 1) a movie like this should draw its strength upon good swordfights and effects, and 2) the story is really, really bad. It is simple, and uncomplicated and really offers nothing in way of character development or even suspense. It is predictable and boring, and the obvious couple, Sonja and Kalidor, has no chemistry at all. And the kid is just annoying. And most of the scenes is drawn out so long that they become boring. Though the movie is not very long, it has not material enough to fill its time. And so back to point 1). The fighting is slow, uneventful and really bad. It clearly shows most fighters clearly blocking the opponents strokes far ahead of the opponent has even begun to strike. In my honest opinion, I believe most kids, fighting with sticks, creates more exciting fights playing knights than this movie did. All in all, this is a really bad spin-off, that should be avoided by all who liked the Conan-movies.

2/10


Okay, I admit I like Brigitte Neilsen in an unhealthy way, I just have a thing for 6' tall women with swords. There I said it.

What's wrong with the movie? Just about every mistake you can make was made. You take a successful movie series (conan) and you drag it through the mud with a bad script, bad casting, bad effects, and the worst thing of all...you put a cute kid in there for comic relief. This kind of thing almost killed the Indiana Jones series ya know. Cute kids are for Disney movies, not real movies. Neilsen at least took the movie seriously, even though it seems nobody else did. The plot had Schwarzenegger repeatedly pulling Red Sonja's fat out of the fire and that undercut her character considerably. A warrior woman doesn't need a dude to get her out of a mess, thats her job! To not re-use the Conan character in this movie was a crime. Kalidor? Sheesh. The movie never set the proper mood and its pacing was rather disjointed and sloppy, unlike Conan the Barbarian which had multiple story lines that flowed gracefully. When it comes to fantasy movies, its okay to have cheesy costumes, its okay to have harryhausen style animation, its okay to have silly exorbitant sets that make no sense, but to have a horrible script is unforgivable.

This movie could have been a classic, but the script felt like it was written by a 12 year old.


Honestly, this movie is weak. Very weak. Only capital character can something. She's work like supercharger on bad engine...so, if you like red-haired Valkyries - see that. But better find picture of Brigitte as Sonja and put it on desktop. It will save of disappointments. Well, Arnold also do his deal...but it definitely not best his role. Other characters - bad is not that word. Sword fights? Monsters? Ridiculous. Plot is really shame. Why was necessary rape she? Especially, we don't see it.

Anyway movie is weak. Though worse movies exist...Without main characters it would be just ******. And if somebody even discusses it, maybe...


I remember the trailer for this infamously weak spin-off of Conan. I saw the movie years later and laughed my head off. Unintentionally! Poor Briggite Nielson. Her career never had a chance thanks to Cobra and Red Sonja. The plot of the movie is this: Sonja(Brigitte Nielson) hails from a tribe of female warriors who were killed off by an evil queen Gedren(Sandahl Bergman). Queen Gedren steals the orb the female warriors were protecting and uses it to destroy each town she passes by. Sonja goes on a hunt for Queen Gedren and later finds out that Gedren killed her parents. On her quest she reluctantly joins Kalidor(Arnold Schwarzenegger), an arrogant prince named Tarn(Ernie Reyes Jr.) and his bumbling idiotic servant, Falkon(Paul L. Smith). Together they go on a hunt for Queen Gedren and the orb. The acting is sub par and the action scenes are soso. I mean Briggite Neilson looks so emotionally distant. For someone who lost her whole family as well as her female comrades, Sonja doesn't look fazed at all. Arnold is playing his usual stoic role and Ernie Reyes Jr.... what an annoying snot-nosed brat he was in this movie! The moronic manservant Falkon had more personality than these guys. The action scenes are the only redeeming moments of the movie even though sometimes they fall flat. The scene where they fight the mechanical sea creature made me laugh till my ribs ached. The dialog is a hoot also. Its as if the screenwriter thought that nobody was going to take the movie seriously so he gave everybody stupid lines to work with. I can only recommend this movie to you if you like your epic movies extra campy. Anyone else don't bother.


Possible Spoilers As Peter Jackson has so brilliantly shown in his `Lord of the Rings' trilogy, it is quite possible to make good films, even great ones, within the heroic fantasy genre. The genre has distinguished literary antecedents, dating back to the mediaeval chivalric romances, particularly the Arthurian legends, upon which Tolkien and other authors have drawn. `Lord of the Rings' apart, however, it is difficult to think of any other sword-and-sorcery films which are any good. I would agree with the reviewer who said that the best of a bad bunch was Ron Howard's `Willow', and even that achieved little distinction other than that of being a merely mediocre film as opposed to a positively bad one. `Red Sonja', however, cannot achieve the even more modest distinction of being simply a bad film as opposed to an appalling one.

As with `Willow', many of the plot-elements in `Red Sonja' are derived from `The Lord of the Rings'. An evil ruler seeks to gain control of an artefact with supernatural powers in order to achieve an ambition of world domination, but is thwarted by an assorted group of heroes. The film, set in the Hyborian Age, a barbaric era in the earth's remote past, starts with the villain of the piece, the wicked Queen Gedren, making unwelcome sexual advances to the heroine Sonja. When these are rebuffed, Gedren (not a woman to take no for an answer) reacts by murdering Sonja's parents and brother. (In 1985 it was presumably still considered politically correct not only to make the chief villain a woman but also to make one of the main motives for her villainy frustrated lesbian lust).

Gedren's next move is to capture the Talisman, a sort of fluorescent green soccer ball with magical powers, by slaughtering the whole of the scantily-dressed female priesthood charged with protecting it, just as they are about to destroy it because they feel its powers have become too dangerous. Among the dead is Sonja's sister, her sole surviving relative. Sonja herself, however, has not been idle, but has enrolled in a martial arts academy from which she graduates summa cum laude, and sets out to avenge herself. Along the way she teams up with Kalidor, a heroic wandering swordsman-king resembling Tolkien's Aragorn, Prince Tarn, the spoilt child-ruler of a kingdom that has fallen to Gedren's powers, and Falkon, Tarn's loyal servant. The rest of the film is fairly predictable, as Sonja and her allies try to overthrow Gedren and prevent the destruction of the world threatened by the out-of-control Talisman.

Just what is it that makes this film so bad? Well, the acting, for a start. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Kalidor gives the sort of typical wooden, poker-faced performance that became his trademark, at least in the early part of his career, complete with heavy foreign accent. Compared with Brigitte Nielsen as the heroine, however, he looks like Laurence Olivier. Miss Nielsen seems to have had even worse language difficulties, delivering every line in the mechanical, toneless voice of someone who has just completed lesson three of a `teach-yourself-English-by-correspondence' course. One wonders if she was hired for the role just to make Arnie look good by comparison. The other characters, while not conducting their own private struggles against the English language, are simply cartoonish caricatures, especially Prince Tarn who must be one of the most obnoxious screen youngsters ever.

An even worse fault than the bad acting, however, is the film's almost complete lack of imagination. This is a particularly glaring fault in a fantasy film, as films of this genre need to rely on their imaginative power in order to persuade the audience to suspend the natural feelings of disbelief that would be provoked by a fantastic plot. When we watch Peter Jackson's masterpiece we can persuade ourselves, at least for the next three hours, that we are in Middle-Earth, that elves, wizards and hobbits do exist, and that the fate of the world really does depend upon the destruction of a magic ring. When we watch `Red Sonja' we are persuaded of nothing except that we are watching a bunch of actors with bad accents fighting one another on a hillside for possession of a lime-green football.

This lack of imagination even starts with the film's title. The British science-fiction author Brian Aldiss, when challenged about the exotic names given to his characters, replied that there was little point in creating a fictional alien society with its own distinctive culture if you were going to spoil the effect by calling the hero Joe. (Admittedly, Tolkien was able

to get away with giving the name Sam to one of his main characters, but that was because Hobbits were supposed to be reassuringly familiar, the Middle-Earth equivalent of tweedy, pipe-smoking Englishmen). Similarly, giving the heroine of a tale ostensibly set in a long-gone barbaric age a common girls' name like `Sonia' (which is how the name `Sonja' is pronounced) is about as appropriate as calling her `Betty' or `Mary-Jane'.

The film seems to have been made on a very small budget, which makes me wonder why they bothered at all. Fantasy needs to be done convincingly, or not at all. It was obviously shot in a remote mountain area, with little or no attempt to suggest a distinctive culture. The few buildings we see, such as the temple of the Talisman or Gedren's palace, are obviously cheap sets. We learn that Tarn's capital city has been destroyed by Gedren using the power of the Talisman, but we do not actually see this event; all we see is what might be a thunderstorm taking place on the other side of a hill. At first you wonder how Sonja intends to overthrow an entire kingdom with only a few allies, but when you see how small an army Gedren has at her disposal it becomes more understandable. When an earthquake threatens to destroy the palace, you wonder if this is the Talisman at work or merely a crew member inadvertently leaning against the set. If we can enjoy this film for nothing else, we can at least enjoy it for its inadvertent humour; a fine example of the so-bad-it's-funny school of filmmaking. Ed Wood would have been proud of this one. If it had been shown on Californian television the night before the recall election, Gray Davis would still be governor. 2/10.


After a long hard night being partied away at the Walkabout in Islington, I needed a pick-me-up. My throat hurt, my wallet was empty and I ended up chatting to a drug addict at a bus-stop trying to sell me some petrol. Today, I watched "Red Sonja" and I can honestly say that I felt much better last night than I do right now. Brigitte Nielsen leads a bunch of ass-kicking warriors in various shapes and sizes to recover a green rock from some evil queen whose motives are never fully explained. Yep, it's that good.

"Red Sonja" isn't in a genre known for great films until Peter Jackson came along with a certain Oscar-winning trilogy. In fact, the best swords-and-sorcery film I could think of before "Lord Of The Rings" was George Lucas's kiddie-friendly "Willow". Perhaps, in view of this, one should go a little easy on this film. But I can't - it's poorly written, badly acted (with the exception of Paul Smith, who's just average) and dreadfully put together. The film is as convincing as an episode of the Flintstones, with costumes and scenery seemingly lifted straight outta Bedrock. Considering the comic-book source material, it is easy to forgive the various plot inconsistencies. Why Sonja insists on saving the most annoying kid, in this world or that one, is bewildering. His personality seems to flick from spoilt brat to polite gentleman at the flick of a switch. Schwarzenegger displays less charisma than a field full of cows and just goes through the motions, a perfect actor for his breakthrough role in "The Terminator".

It's simple to kick a film when you're down but the fact remains that this is not a good film, by any stretch of the imagination. When Nielsen mourns the death of her sister and Schwarzenegger tenderly places his hand on her shoulder to comfort her and then blurts out, in that distinctive Germanic accent, "she's dead" then you know you're in for a rough ride. A few smiles were raised at inappropriate points, such as the priestesses of a temple who, when sent plunging to their deaths in a hole in the ground, seemed to enjoy the experience - at least, judging from the orgasmic moans that seemed to echo around the place. If you have to watch an Eighties fantasy film that wasn't porn, watch "Willow" (but never take that as a ringing endorsement). For the real thing, take yourself to your local multiplex and show Peter Jackson what a great job he did with "Lord Of The Rings". Trust me, 11 Oscars really does mean it's a great film - unlike bloody "Titanic".


Corny and some really bad acting but for a Golan-Globus film about right on par. Saw this movie back in 1985 mostly because I liked sword and sorcery films(what was i thinking?). Arnold is in it playing a high lord trying to make sure an ancient talisman is destroyed before it blows up the world.Brigitte Nielsen is the title character who at the time was Sly's girl and a pretty bad actress.Movie producers like to cast Playboy type women who cant act in low budget B movies. Brigitte cheeses it up as Sonya and Arnold acts wooden as Lord Kalidor.There is also Sandahl Bergman(who was in the original Conan movie as Valeria)here she plays the evil Queen Gedren,an obvious camp to her Conan role. And then one of the most irritating child actors onscreen(ernie reyes)as Prince Tarn who should have been slapped hard and sent to bed.What a little irritating scut. Some of the swordfights arent too bad but the music really sucks. Special effects are cheap and look very 70's ,like the explosion of the evil queen's castle at the climax of the movie.

Overall a very low par film but b movie film buffs might like it for its campiness.


You know that this film is in SERIOUS trouble when the BEST acting job is the support role played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. While this was still relatively early in his career and he wasn't the best actor, compared to Brigitte Nielsen, he's Sir John Gielgud. In fact, this film proves that the only reason she got much of any attention were her boobs and because she was involved with the incredibly self-destructive football player, Mark Gastineau. So, instead of this being her "break out film", this and a Beverly Hills Cop movie mark about as high as she went in her one-note career. It was obvious, too, that the financing wizards gave up on this movie as well, because the supporting cast (aside from Arnold) is pretty lame and the script is dull, dull, dull. Fans looking for another CONAN movie would no doubt be very disappointed in this slow and uninvolving film.


It's nice to see Julie Andrews trying a straight dramatic role here--something she hadn't done in awhile--but her character of Judith(wise they didn't try to pass her off as a 'Judy')has the old refined manners and tomboyish hairstyle of yore, and Andrews enacts 'grown-up' as any other actress would interpret frigid. It's a surprisingly bland drama set in Barbados involving Omar Sharif(not the liveliest leading man around--not even in 1974!)hoping to make Andrews a spy while also slowly leading her into the proverbial bedroom. Unmemorable outing does have some camp value: the James Bond-like credits at the beginning are a cheesy hoot. As for Julie: she's quiet and contemplative, but that doesn't do much for the audience, or for the film. Blake Edwards paces the freakin' thing like a funeral. * from ****


Honestly, buying this movie was a waste of money. It's one of the most boring movies I have seen in my life. The only part I liked is the ending, but it's so slow that not even the fantastic ending can save this movie.


What's up with this movie? Does Mr. Lyne and his writers think that a sado-masochistic fling between two screwed up Yuppies can carry a feature length movie? Maybe if it had some comedic elements (which is doesn't, at least intentionally), or there were some additional dramatic elements (which there are not), or maybe if it was hardcore. No, it's simply the history of the affair; a chronology of a bunch of R-rated trysts. Ho-hum, who cares? "Nine ½ Weeks" deserves every Razzie nomination it got. It's a loser.

And by the way, what's up with Roger Ebert and his rave review? Where was his head back in 1986?


This is high-gloss soft-porn; a boring soap opera concentrating on one thing: sex. They actually made sex boring, sad to say, because I defy you to watch this casually and tell me what the storyline was. What this is, is an excuse for Kim Bassinger to show off her great body and for Mickey Rourke to smirk a lot. That's it. Rourke's smugness is so bad it's sickening and Bassinger, despite the great figure, looks cheap more than beautiful.

Kudos to the photographer for some nice closeup shots and some wonderful color, but the story is so weak - no character development and no plot - it's unable to compensate. Let's face it: this movie was made for only reason - to titillate male viewers. On that level, it probably succeeded. If I recall, it's why I gave it a look being a fan of Bassinger's looks, but I actually expected a story, too.

Those trying to pass this off as "arty" and something deeper than soft porn are only fooling themselves.


Kim Basinger and Mickey Rourke star in this controversial story of a wall street exec and an art gallery employee who hook up and begin a very experimental sexual relationship.While the acting by Rourke and Basinger is ok, the flim doesn't allow their characters to truly form. Allegedly there was a lot of film left on the cutting room floor that delved deeper into the characters and the effects of the relationship on them - Basinger's character considering suicide - that would have made the characters more involved for the viewer. As is it is a glossy, well produced, with MTV style editing piece of soft core voyeurism. 4 of 10


The only reason I bought the DVD was to satisfy my curiosity about the scene when Liz (Kim Basinger) strips to the music of Joe Cocker: You Can Leave Your Hat On! That was the best part of the whole film. Not because the scene was any good; only the song. I am not saying it was a terribly bad film just not that good. Disappointingly so!

Especially when the exploration of male and female sexuality could have been expanded upon. Instead of expanding on the dangerous side of lust, obsession and infatuation and where it can lead to it drags its heels obscurely from one idea to the other. For example when John (played by Rourke) is able to leave her on the top of the Big Wheel, Liz (Kim Basinger) is unconvincingly rattled at the bizarre experience courtesy of John's sense of humor but less rattled at his sexual exploits involving the ever willing Liz; and like one reader mentioned, that for a woman to enjoy sex she has to experience the dangerous side is unconvincing. This "dangerous" side is not exploited enough in the film and one gets a sense of anti-climax from the view point that it all could go horribly wrong. The theme of bondage makes an appearance often but only just takes one to the brink of danger and then all goes well.Is the film sending the message out that this kind of "foreplay" is FINE! If the film was making a point about the pitfalls of bondage and by extension the ugly ramifications of sad-masochism then maybe it would make a good moral point. Instead the film awkwardly jumps from one "sizzling" scene of Rourke feeding Basinger and blindfolding her to another. In a film that could have been good it falls flat on its face because it does not expand and extend the themes the film is MAYBE trying to relate; thus for me it doesn't have a plot nor a theme just a mixture of ideas.


I can't really see how anyone can have any interest whatsoever in seeing this movie. A woman meets a man, he wants to play games, she too, but only until she realise what she's missing. She leaves, and that's it really. It took 9 1/2 weeks before Elizabeth (Kim Basinger) left John (Mickey Rourke). She should have left him after 30 minutes and ended our misery.


A woman who deals in art starts to have a passionate love affair with a man named John. They make love everywhere they go and they play sexual games. The problem I had was that was all they did. There was no plot at all to this movie or I just didn't see it. The hot erotic passion was the best thing about this movie but I wanted something else to happen. Perhaps he could have been a serial killer or she could have had a secret. I just needed something and all that there was was a bunch of love making scenes. Not that's it was bad or anything, I just wanted more things to happen in the movie. Perhaps a coworker was sleeping with him too. Anything! I was greatly upset that this was all that there was. Mickey Rourke was so hot back then. I wonder what happened.


The main character is a whiny, irresponsible study of how to throw yourself a pity party. She loses it at the drop of a hat, acts pathetic, is schizophrenic, and left me wondering why on Earth she doesn't understand why these 'friends' of hers haven't called her in three years. (Get a clue, sister - you're a juvenile mess!) I couldn't stand her or the friends. I never felt connected to any of the characters. To make the entire movie even more unbearable, someone went far out of their way to put the world's most hideous collection of crocheted and knitted hats in existence on film for all of eternity (this alone should warrant someone be put on wardrobe probation for a decade!)

The acting wasn't awful, but not really believable either, and in the end the only thing that I DID care about was the two hours I'm never going to get back. Don't waste your time - go catch up on a dentist appointment instead!


Before I begin, let me get something off my chest: I'm a huge fan of John Eyres' first film PROJECT: SHADOWCHASER. The film, a B-grade cross of both THE TERMINATOR & DIE HARD, may not be the work of a cinematic genius, but is a hugely entertaining action film that became a cult hit (& spawned two sequels & a spin off).

Judge and Jury begins with Joseph Meeker, a convicted killer who was sent to Death Row following his capture after the so-called "Bloody Shootout" (which seems like a poor name for a killing spree  Meeker kills three people while trying to rob a convenience store), being led to the electric chair. There is an amusing scene where Meeker talks to the priest about living for sex but meeting his one true love (who was killed during the shootout), expressing his revenge for the person who killed her  Michael Silvano, a washed-up football star who spends his days watching his son Alex practicing football with his high school team (and ends up harassing his son's coach). But once executed, Meeker returns as a revenant (or as Kelly Perine calls "a hamburger without the fries"), whose sole aim is to get his revenge, which basically means making Silvano's life a misery.

Let me point out the fact that Judge and Jury is not a true horror film. It is a supernatural action film, with Meeker chasing Silvano, using his ability to change form (which amounts to David Keith dressing up as everything from an Elvis impersonator, a French chef (with an accent as bad as his moustache), a drag queen, a clown & a stand-up comedian), a shotgun which fires explosive rounds & an invulnerability to death (although that doesn't stop Martin Kove from shooting Keith with a Desert Eagle), to pay Silvano back for killing Meeker's wife.

Director John Eyres does not seem interested in characterisations, instead focusing solely on action scenes, which the film has plenty of. But that is the film's main flaw, since there's nothing to connect the action scenes together. The acting is surprisingly good, with Keith delivering the best performance, supported ably by Kove, as well as Paul Koslo, who plays the washed-up cop quite well. Kelly Perine is annoying as the cabbie who tries to help but makes the situation worse.


If this is not heavily featured on every list of "what not to watch", it should only be because those keeping that particular list are not aware of its existence, which, as long as that remains so, is the acceptable alternative. I'm not kidding you, this is a *bad* "movie". Joseph Meeker returns from the dead, with various vague, undefined supernatural powers, the most employed of which would seem to be appearing in new, increasingly comical-looking and ridiculous(and never scary or creepy... in general, when this goes for the latter of those, it winds up just being bizarre, and attempts at the former just don't work, period) outfits and stereotypes/archetypes, and he is portrayed by David Keith(whom I respect in... well, at least Daredevil), doing a more often than not terribly inconsistent(which could also have to do with script) and often over the top performance. A character or two have personalities so unbelievably irritating that they're painful to watch. The editing thinks it's considerably more clever than it really is(and what on Earth was with the red tint for the flashbacks?). Cinematography... oh, dear. Framing, coverage, effective use of angle(that one could be attributed some to editing, too, perhaps), please, guys, stop me when I say something you've ever heard about the existence of. As far as the technical side goes, this is a pretty lousy excuse for something more worthwhile to put in the projector than unexposed film. But why stop there? The plot is just poor. The basic idea's been done, and it's been done so much better than this(The Crow would be one). The way it's told is gimmicky, and while there is some explanation behind the flashbacks, it still doesn't satisfy. Pacing is about non-existent. The lead is distinctly unlikeable, and there's more personality in a barn door, not to mention that those are also considerably less wooden. Kelly Perine and Thomas Ian Nicholas? What in the name of all that is good and just(pun intended) are you doing in this? Perine, you were already funny before this, on The Drew Carey Show, Nicholas, well, I haven't seen you in anything preceding American Pie, but if nothing else, you *were* funny later on, and in those productions, the amusement was intentional. Dialog is... the less said, the better. Language is unrestrained, and tends to be stupid. The violence is shoddily done, and they don't even seem to care to try to hide it(hinting at it might have been the smarter strategy). Characters, don't get me started. Why spend so much energy on portraying unexciting, at times utterly illogical, events? The more you think about this, the worse it gets. It's not even passable as a "bad horror flick", or a B movie(it may very well pass through the rest of the alphabet, and go further still), it couldn't scare you on the scariest day of your life if it had an electrified scaring machine. I recommend this only to people who want to disprove how bad this is, and don't say I didn't warn ya. 1/10


So much for JUDGE AND JURY, which lives up to its nonsense title. What good is there? The lighting is terribly foggy! Another horror movie you ask? Well, that's perfectly explainable. David Keith actually does pretty good at disguising clowns, chefs, and other shenanigans while being the killer who escaped death row. But overall, despite some new twists, it's reasonably stupid. Unapix has been putting out some ludicrous productions recently, and this one only means so much. We, the jury, find this film guilty for its indecent exposure to many of us sitting around believing it's a total waste of our time!


I rented this thinking it would be pretty good just by the cover of the movie case. Judge and Jury started out pretty good killer chasing the man who killed his wife on a bike with a cool gun, but this movie got progressively stupider as it went on. David Keith is awesome actor especially when he plays a role like this too bad the movie was a piece of crap it really wasted his talent. Judge and Jury was well plain dumb I gave it a 3 should have gave it a 2, I gave it an extra star just because David Keith's gun was cool.


It`s funny how instinct warns you of something . For example as soon as the company credits read Nu Image I knew instinctively I`d seen a really crap film by them somewhere before but couldn`t remember where . Nevertheless I just knew JUDGE AND JURY was going to be crap and it was . Maybe I`m psychic ?

!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

The opening is rather violent with several people getting blown away for no more reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time . I don`t know about you but I`m geting slightly fed up with exploitive violence onscreen nowadays along with bad language , especially if it`s spouted by actors as bad as the ones in this movie . Anyway the plot revolves around the bad dude getting executed and coming back to reek revenge on the man who shot his wife . Oh did I mention the bad dude and his wife murdered a couple of people on their wedding night ? Yeah he`s a serious badass mofo . In fact he`s so bad ( And I don`t mean the acting - I`ll get to that in a moment ) that he`s impossible to take seriously and this is before he`s executed only to return as Elton John , Elvis , a French chef etc . I wonder if Keith David got paid for this ? because he looks lke he`s having so much fun on screen that`s the only reason he`s playing the role . What a pity this reviewer didn`t have any fun whatsoever watching JUDGE AND JURY . Hey maybe the producers could send me Keith`s fee ? Gawd only knows I deserve it.<br /><br />I disliked this movie a lot as if you hadn`t guessed and my main beef isn`t with the stupid plot or the cheap production values but with its attitude to violence . If like me you`ve had a wine bottle cracked over your head or been kicked in the ribs very hard several times you`ll know violence is an obscene painful thing , but JUDGE AND JURY will have you believe that if you`re thrown through a window , crash through some bannisters and fall twenty odd feet onto a table not only will you be unhurt but you`ll be able to outrun a couple of rabid devil dogs . It could of course be argued that any film starring Sly , Arnie or Bruce also suffers from this same dishonest showing of violence but with JUDGE AND JURY it yanked my chain


This movie has EVERY cliché of every terrorism or airliner crisis movie.

However, it is not entirely unwatchable, thanks to good performances by Rowland, Loken and Smallwood (and maybe Enberg).

What IS amazingly bad, though, is the computer animations they try to pass off as live action scenes. Boy, oh boy, the CGI scenes in "The Last Starfighter", filmed in 1984, are better than these (filmed 17 years later). The feeling of cheepnis really sends shivers down your spine.

A pity, this could have been a much better movie with a little more budget and taste.


It must be a long time ago that I have seen such a bad movie. I have to say it is really hard to make a good and/or realistic movie about air disaster but this movie was such a waste of time and money. Also I think this is an unofficial way trying to get a bad reputation on Airbus. First, the cockpit look a lot like an Airbus cockpit, second you got a stick, third using computers to control rudders/elevators/aileron via "fly by wire". When I saw this movie I thought like the intention of the film was "don't fly with computerized airplanes like Airbus, use Boeing instead they have a direct connection of steering and rudders."

All I can say: Bad story, horrible acting (most of the actors), worst film trick ever...


I rented this movie because I love Kristanna Loken and I've watched her on many TV shows and since she's having her 15 minutes of fame nowadays with her new T3 movie I wanted to check out what other movies she has been in.

She's just OK in terms of acting. Not good and not bad either. She makes up for everything by being extremely gorgeous. YUMMMMM

Rodney Rowland was quite a surprise as the hero. He provided the only solid good acting in the movie. He's a very good actor and should probably be an action star.

Besides Kristanna being OK and Rodney being really good everything else about this movie is garbage in its purest form.

A computer hacker hacks into the system of a plane from the ground and using a joystick he tries to slam the plane into a nuclear power plant ..... or something. And of course there are the heroes who stand in his way and ruin his game.

This is one of the worst scripts I have ever seen and no wonder it was a low budget flick.

What's shocking is that this movie was made in 2001 and it has way too many similarities to the September 11th tragedies.

Why do they make movies like this in the first place?

Panic * - one star (a waste of too good actors) (also a waste of time) (also known as Air Panic)


It amazes me that someone would actually consider spending some money on a movie like this. Really. Let's forget for a second that the plot doesn't even give a single hint of originality... Most of the movies today are based on other movies' stories, so a "simple" lack of originality is not that big a deal.

But I can hardly believe that none of the guys involved in the movie had never even got on a plane before shooting this. Because, let's be honest, that would be the only excuse to come up with something so ridiculous. To be sincere I think a 6-years-old child with a fake camera could have come up with something technically much more believable. Some examples following.

The scene that really drove me crazy is when the engines turn off when they regain control of the plane. When they have to turn them on again the guy on the radio says something like "Ok, push the 1 and 2 buttons on the dashboard". Now, those are not buttons. They should not be pushed, they should actually be pulled up and toward the pilot. That's something only plane-addicted would know, you say? Wrong. The next scene you can see their fingers pushing the "buttons"... And of course the so called "buttons" don't move at all! Not even a single millimeter! (And note that I haven't even mentioned the fact that aircraft engines are not like cars engine, that you just turn the key and the magic happens... You have to do quite a complicated procedure to turn them on...) Come on guys! You could have faked the movements at least!! Not to mention the hilarious final impact, where the plane crashes against every single thing along the runway (Light poles along the runway? What where they thinking?!)... And the wings don't even get ripped off! It happened to me too, once... Except the plane was made of Lego! What about the flight attendant? She's actually so skilled that she perfectly knows where the "aux 1" and "aux 2" fuses are, in the middle of the wires behind the cockpit. Should we mention, then, the guy that can drive an ambulance _and_ fly a plane behind the ambulance using his computer? And how did he turn the other airplane engines on?

Really, I could go on hours with this stuff. This is the dumbest movie I've ever come across, and I'm including garbage like Alone In The Dark and other stuff in the list. Want to do yourself a favor? Don't watch it.


normally,i would say i loved this movie.not for acting,although that was OK.not for the script,which was so-so.the reason i would have normally loved this movie is for the intense action,which starts from the get go and doesn't end until the final credits roll.but,the problem with this movie,and i felt it was a big problem,was the horrible CGI.it looks like they ran out of money and couldn't complete the the effects shots. a lot of the effects look lime they are in their very roughest form.since it is obvious they didn't have enough money to finish the movie,they should not have released it.i actual found the effects insulting.it seems obvious they didn't care about making a decent end product for the consumer.if it weren't for that,i would give this movie a much higher rating.my vote for Air Panic is a 3/10


So it's a space movie. But it's low budget. You ask, "what about the effects?" The effects are at times good, and at times really, really bad. I mean bad. And notice I started with the effects.

There's a story here, but it's told in what I think is the wrong order. I don't mean a Tarantino style wrong order. I mean, it's told in a completely nonsensical arrangement. Most of it's about a mother (in the future, because you know, it's sci-fi) as told by her daughter, which is mostly exposition done in narrative from the daughter's perspective. Only once you're through the first hour and hear Paul Darrow's voice as a computer do you realize how much more tolerable the constant narrative would have been if he'd read it. This narrative is so constant and inclusive, that the actors on screen hardly say a word for the first hour.

There's also a lesson here for you up and coming filmmakers: if you're not doing 2001 and want to have some action (this one does), then PLEASE hire a good fight choreographer. Otherwise, your fights will look like, well, what's in BATTLESPACE. And notice the title has the word "battle" in it. Ugh.

I think this might be the classic scenario of trying to make a movie based on nothing more than a concept. And some effects. My biggest surprise is seeing the IMDb listing this film as costing $1.8 million. When you compare it to something like PRIMER, which did better with a budget of a few thousand, you realize in low budget film-making, it's all about the story. I wasn't expecting much - but I was STILL disappointed. Two out of ten stars.


I made it through half of this, but was not enough of a masochist to see it all. The first half of the film had next to no dialog ! Almost everything was voice over commentary to carry the story. The scriptwriter forgot that sometimes less is more and tried to explain several millennium of detailed history in the voice over. At the same time he forgot to do any character development. Most science fiction fans don't require huge amounts of character development, but it would be nice to know why the two main characters who survived the destruction of the space fleet together ended up fighting each other.

There are some good things going on in the film. The soundtrack was well done. Some of the computer generated graphics are very good, but others were just mediocre.


I am willing to tolerate almost anything in a Sci-Fi movie, but this was almost intolerable. While a few of the special effects are very cool (landscapes) this is no 'battlespace' rather a disjointed weird mother/daughter relationship with sci-fi concepts thrown in. The acting (wooden), framing and shooting (kindergarten film school) and with "hand-to-hand" combat scenes funnier than any Hong Kong chopsocky movie, this film bores. The plot line is convoluted and the devices used to move the plot along (narrator), unexplained scene jumps and plenty of deus ex machina reinforce the idea that writer cum director is not a good idea. Save your love of Sci-Fi for something else instead of losing a bit of it here.


Today I had a real craving for a sci-fi movie and so I decided to check out Battlespace. Sadly, that was one of my biggest mistakes this year.

I see that the director, Neil Johnson, has directed over 500 music videos, and I suggest he goes back to that. Music videos are a perfectly good form of entertainment, and not everybody can cut it making movies.

The worst part of this movie is probably the voice over. And that says a lot since the special effects are appalling at times. Voice over didn't work in Blade Runner, and it doesn't work here. The first hour or so is spent watching the main character walk through the desert, while her daughter tells the story. I think the story could have made a great movie, but not like this.

The second worst part are the effects. They are simply bad and they don't blend into the rest of the picture at all, so you simply don't believe in them. And absolutely all the frames in the movie has been filtered, and not in a good way. Filtering used as an effect is good. 90 minutes of it, bad.

And what is it with all the gadgets talking all the time, and not shutting up!?!? If I had used technology like that I would have gone mad. I was just waiting for the guns to blurt out with: "I am awfully sorry, but I seem to have run out of ammunition." No, stay away. This movie is just not worth the time.


You see a movie titled 'battlespace', what are you going to think? Space battles with cool as heck explosions and everyone shooting at each other. What do you get with this movie? Well, you do get SOME space battle goodness, but for a great majority of the time it's just stupid people wandering around doing almost nothing. NO ONE TALKS!!!! What is this nonsense?! We get a narrators, and a ton of British computers, but thats about it. The main protagonist must be the worst one I have ever seen, as she doesn't even have any dialog, and sleepwalks though scenes (literately!). Some of the things happening are just stupid, like they use a rocket (like to go to space) for basic transportation planet side, why not just use one of those nifty space ships? In any case, the music is almost non-existent, with a few boring dull lifeless samples, but the main thing you will notice is the Atari sound effects the ships use...you have got to be kidding me. I can also tell that the budget was low, because everything looks fake, which is not what you would expect from a movie, especially what should be a super cool space battle movie. I seriously think the budget must have been in the double digits it is so bad, making you laugh more than you should at how plain bad it is. I am starting to think that they paid the actors based on how much dialog they had, because their is very little here (if you can't tell already that is my main gripe here, as I probably said that like 3 times already).


In a world where humans can live forever you spend the entire movie wishing they would die. First off if you insist on watching this movie do two things first put it on mute, don't worry you miss a plot, hell they don't even talk for the first 70 min of an 87 min movie, after putting on mute you must now hit fast forward till the main chick dies don't worry even if your paying attention you won't know why or how she died. Once you get to the "good part" take it of mute. Oh, how will you know the good part, wait for an elevator scene with two morons in space suits with WWII weapons. These weapons won't seem like much till you realize that the first protagonist had a laser tag pistol and a bandoleer of CO2 cartridges. The only remnants of a plot take place between a glowing ball and a semi hot chick who looks like she was attacked by Wolverine. After listening to the "plot", you will wish they went back to not talking. Of the four people that are in this movie none of them can remotely act, not even a little bit, you will have better luck witnessing acting at a kindergarten theater.

To comment on the special on the special effects, let me just say "Wow", no really you will spend the entire movie saying to your self "Where did this movie's 1.8 million dollar budget go!" Seriously it will leave you in aw of the magnitude of ineptness. The best "sets" are basically windows wallpaper backgrounds. The Ships are basically flying wrenches, Wait some are barges that kinda look like whales . I have never heard so many made up words in my whole life. They have buttons on their wrist(large pedometers) that can put them in "fight mode" and super runing mode (makes them super blurry). This will seriously drain their power reserves but they find bits of wires to chew on to regain their strength. The explosions were less impressive than my fourth of July, I only had sparklers.

So the plot as far as I can figure goes something like this "mother" is a space ship captain and goes to the desert for a while rides a rocket dies. Then her daughter 6000 years in the future ( no I am not exaggerating) recalls her mother's memories through some sort of capsule. Anyways they jabber on for another 10 min and then the cause a big bang. Yes the Same "Big Bang" that started our solar system. It's explained how she goes back in time or something, it does not really matter it happened i guess. Roll Credits Seriously the whole script was mercifully on one sheet of paper, unless that actually detailed any of the dreadfully fight scenes.

After watching the credits I have now laughed more than I did the entire movie, the jobs the created like catering supervisor "galactius sarcophagus" and then the special thanks to George Lucas was just the best.

I really wasn't expecting that much for a movie I paid 99 cents for but seriously some body owes me for this. Most frequent comment heard after the movie "I want my life back". You have to admire that some but put time and effort in to this movie but seriously, why ?


Let me break down this film for you...

The first fifteen minutes are a showcase for terrible special effects. I'm not one to nitpick about special effects, but what you've got to understand is that if you can't afford good special effects, you shouldn't anchor your film around special effects. Starships fire blobs of color at each other, flaring into stock explosions, and careening past moons with polygon counts low enough to count with your fingers. You will have no idea what is happening. It will not make sense.

The second act involves a woman walking in the desert. At this point you will be treated to drab scenery, and illogical, boring fight scenes. Nobody speaks. Nothing interesting happens. The protagonist's goals are unclear, and are not very compelling. This goes on for about 45 minutes.

Then in a five-minute montage, she sneaks into an enemy base, straps herself to a rocket, tries to destroy a doomsday weapon, fails, and dies.

None of this has any bearing on the eventual direction of the film.

In the last twenty minutes, basically the chick's memories get transferred to her daughter, who goes into stasis for a very large number of years, learning the secrets of mankind. After this, we see the first, and last five-minute segment of human interaction in the film, then the new heroine is forced to choose whether she wants to become part of the material that causes the big bang or not. You know. Because when the universe is collapsing, you get to decide if you want to be a part of it.

She chooses yes. BUT THE MEMORIES OF MANKIND SURVIVE IN A CAPSULE. Maybe we won't make the same mistakes again, huh? If you like movies with characters, then this is not a good movie for you. The lead roles could have been fulfilled nicely by any old wind-up toy capable of staying right-side-up while walking through sand. All of the story is told through painfully dull narration.

The film tries to seem deep by throwing together a whole bunch of undeveloped science-fiction ideas. There are enough concepts here to fuel a number of films, but as it stands, it's bloated with completely irrelevant details. Two-thirds of this film could have been reduced to a 45-second montage. Instead, the narrator fills in a novella's worth of backstory without ever giving us a reason to care what happens to the characters.

There are good ideas in here, but nobody watches films to see ideas ineptly explained. People watched films to be entertained. This film does not entertain.


OK, please believe me when I say that this is a terrible, terrible, sci-fi movie. Its done so poorly that much of the film plays out as unintentional surrealism and its absolutely a 100% waste of time. Awful, but somehow also deeply unfunny. I watched this as a double feature with "Recon 2020: The Caprini Massacre" and although "Battlespace" WAS an incredibly superior film, that's not saying much. The plot of "Battlespace" is so completely convoluted that its impossible to follow. The narration is cryptic, often nonsensical, seemingly endless, and thoroughly exhausting. Literally half the film is duplicative scenes of the female lead, who looks like Brian Bosworth, walking through the desert. The movie actually starts out pretty cool, but then nosedives into pooptown and somehow continues to deteriorate, minute by minute. Absolutely horrible and truly an Absurdist Endurance Test. Zero stars. ---|--- Reviews by Flak Magnet


The film begins with a 30 minute explanation about the war, the human cyborgs, battles, history, and then dumps 2 actors into a gravel pit. They run around this gravel pit/desert area for about an hour shooting at each other. That's it. Must have cost about £10.00 to make, with change. Avoid.

Marks out of ten: Acting -9 Sets 1 Costumes -9 Direction -50 Production 1 Titled intro 4

I think to improve this film would be to: Lose the commentary. (Let the watcher decide what's going on). Remove some of the awful CGI. Add some techno rave music to it. They might just rescue it.......


I knew it would be a bad movie when I rented it but I hoped for a good bad movie. Oh well, had fun making fun of the endless sand trudging, eating camel dung (well, actually eggplant) and weird grimacing acting from I think it was about five actors. The DVD needs a director's commentary so that I can find out what he was thinking...or if he was at all. I can't believe they actually went to England, Austrialia and wherever to film this...could have been done ANYWHERE. Would have been better if they had managed to get her naked. The best line of the movie? "He waiting for his upgrades." "Yup, still waiting". Now that WAS FUNNY! If anyone had more than 3 pages of dialog (beyond the narrator....SHUT UP ALREADY) then I'll watch it again.


This movie was rented for free, I had no misconception about this being a very bad movie. I rented it for Thanksgiving because we eat turkey and then the family watches an awful movie. So you ask, what makes this movie so bad you gave it only 2 stars? Dialog. The lack of dialog makes this a movie perfect for a deaf audience. In fact if you rent this, just turn the volume down to zero and pop in any heavy metal CD from your favorite artist. I know you will enjoy it better. The plot of this holiday turkey was so encumbered with tech and geek speak you need a translator for the narrative. Now for all you people who enjoy good sci-fi effects... eh, they are not much better than video game trailers or cut scenes in cases worse. The actors, um both of them, are not much to look at either. They say nothing much through out the entire movie. Many of the technical aspects will make you laugh like the scene where the hero straps herself to a missile and fires it at the city 70km away (it never showed how she landed). The scene before that we see a robotic sentry fire at her with a cannon from 12 feet away and he misses multiple shots. Also we are told that the political division between the antagonist and protagonist is bio-tech (genetically enhanced humans) vs cyber-tech (machine enhanced humans) but both seem to be cyborgs or enhanced humans. What told me this was a bad movie at the rental store was the cover that looked like a video game cover art and there was only the one copy, good new releases have many copies available.


I have no idea what these people were thinking when they made this film. No plot, very limited action, and what is with the 3rd person commentary throughout the film???? Instead of running around the planet to shoot on all of these locations, they should have spent some money on script writing and actors. What acting there was, was lousy. This was 90 minutes of my life I will never be able to get back. I should bill the director for the cost of renting this film. To the director and the writers of this film....please quit now. This film should have a tag on the front of it saying beware of boredom. The only good thing I can say about this film, is the computer generation. It's OK as generation is. This movie should never have a sequel....ever.


I watched the first 10 minutes and it bored me to death. So, I fast forward all the way through the end. This movie must be the worst of all in the low budget sci-fi movies category so far. Bad acting, cast, directions, Lara Craft custom imitation, story, plot, everything! Through out the entire movie, I think that there maybe only 6 to 7 people in the entire cast, but ONLY two of them started in the entire movie. I was expecting something like the Starship Trooper, but it was nothing close to it. I was fooled by the movie title and the picture on the DVD cover. Don't waste your time watching this boring and bad movie. Come to think of it, I wonder why did they even bother to put out bad movies like this one?


I'd never heard of zero budget "auteur" Neil Johnson before seeing "Battlespace" on DVD at Hollywood Video. A few minutes into the movie I realize this isn't a bad thing. Like many straight to video Sci-Fi movies, this is a film dominated largely by overused bad special effects and a constant parade of pretentious sci-fi concepts that fail to create a story.

Viewers are tortured with a religious sounding text introduction, then a spoken introduction followed by a narration by the main character's daughter. To me this seemed like a smoke screen to mask a film with militantly ugly visuals and zero character emphasis. Some people on here seem all too ready to take this film seriously and swallowed it's seemingly new age messages hook line and sinker. These favorable reviews must come from the same kind of people who can delude themselves into thinking that things like "Battlefield Earth" was a brilliant movie, or that Shasta is just as good as Coke.

Those who were lured in by the cheesy cover art can look forward to lousy acting (in small doses, spaced with long blocks of people not talking), rotten computer animated effects (in extra large doses), and irritating talking computers. What you won't get is excitement, emotional stimulation, memorable dialogue, or a good story.

"Battlespace" is impenetrable bull and the constant irritant of the narration proves it. Real science fiction, hell, real film-making, is about characters and their dialogue, not special effects and dull predictions. This is right down there with similar direct to video sci-fi like "Cl.One" and "Recon 2022". If the boredom of "Strange Horizons" and "Alien Visitor" is something you seek out, by all means, watch the crap out of this. If you enjoy good storytelling and hate fake lens flares, you're better off with a real movie.


First i have to say that i don't like since fiction movies at all so much! But there are some movies i liked really. This is one of the others ;) I've the same opinion like some (most)others here. The Film is still going on in my back, but the few effects are really not enough to watch the whole time....I think what they have done well are the animated sceneries with 3 suns and 4 Moons, but its the only i liked. There are no intelligent dialogs (are there???). But its a Great Film for everybody who loves Lara Croft or some other Girls in HOT-PANTS... ;)

For the directors: " Stop to try again, PLEASE!!! "


...and that's saying something. No matter how bad a movie gets, I'm normally able to sit through it so I can judge the full movie. Through this one, I made it about 20 minutes.

Maybe it was the DVD, or maybe it was my laptop, but I could not hear the dialogue, even with the volume turned all the way up. Sound effects were fine, so with the volume turned up to hear the dialogue, I was blowing out my eardrums with the effects. As much as I wanted to see this thing through, I wasn't going to sacrifice my hearing for it.

From what little I could tell about the plot, the movie was one big flashback by the main character's daughter. It seems the mother, a military pilot, had to flee her ship because the one person on her ship she trusted turned out to be one of the enemy and now he is pursuing her across a desert planet.

The only thing I liked about the movie was the look of the main character; there was something I liked about her hairstyle.

Oh well, looks like this one is going into the dumpster...


Nothing to spoil here at all but this could be a SPOILER so beware.

Special effects were on the level of a video game -- about five years ago, or perhaps of the original Star Trek. The acting was just pathetic -- some cheesy looking blonde treking across the desert while a voice in the background droned on. And on. And on. This was the trek and drone half that I actually made it through. Progress is interrupted by a few fights. Ships blow each other up for no real reason that is apparent episodically. Again, it's not that there is a real fight that you would expect from a movie, more like a cheap video game. Boi-ing! Boi-ing! Ship explodes. Next ship. Apparently some of the ships are looking for the blonde. Here in the far future, ships must be nearsighted and astigmatic because many of them pass directly overhead of the stylishly dressed futuristic babe in black but never see her.

Then there are a couple of choreographed fights that look like something put on by high school kids. Again, the crude video game mentality is prominent. The combatants shift to "Fight Mode" by flipping something on their wrists, and a loud computerized voice echoes and flashes "Fight Mode". That must be a dandy design if you are trying to sneak up on somebody. Then you go to a big power station which looks just like a current day power line tower and plug in to charge back up. LOL, I'm not kidding, you can't make this stuff up, it's like watching a freaking video game from about 2000 only the acting is better in the game.

More trekking. Then she shows up at "The City". (Lame sound trek gets even lamer here.) She gets into a fight with a mech robot of the future who cannot hit her with his big gun, even though she runs right in front of him, about five feet in front of him. Obviously robots of the far future are about as useful as toaster ovens in a fight. She throws sand in its eyes and beats it to death by throwing rocks at it. rofl, I was at about 95% of tolerance by that point, my nausea circuits flashing red.

In the next scene she ends up strapped to a rocket with some rope. I kid you not, tied right to the outside of a rocket. This is supposed to be an advanced form of transportation. At that point I bailed.

This movie is an utter disgrace for a movie made at the present time. Just a freaking disgrace. There was a drippy story but the movie distracted from it -- somebody droning on about "mother" constantly.

I gave it a two because there were a few scenes which displayed some pretty nice artwork of a science fiction nature as background. Unfortunately the plot, acting, action, cinematography, and narrative distracted from this artwork and degraded it. No kidding.


You just cant touch NRFPTP! The new crop is just awful. The jokes are not funny. Some of the troupe make me want to stop watching TV all together. Lorne - you have let your creation go down the toilet. The guests sometimes are good, the bands are mostly garbage. Weekend update, Seth has to tell the audience when to laugh.....Seth would get a proper reception in a Baghdad cafe though...Make sure Andy goes with him... The show has about 10 jokes in all and they just keep rehashing them over and over. Even the segments that are obviously not funny. Offending people has become the name of the game, but they cant even do that right. Just offensively. I am so disappointed with what has happened to the show, but now I also know it is safe to go OUT on a Saturday night!


I was a huge "SNL" fan back in the days of Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Ackroyd, Gilda Radner and many other memorable stars. But every time I've tried to watch it in the past more than ten years I've been very disappointed and sometimes even disgusted with it. Ten years ago I believed the show couldn't possibly survive, since it had become so utterly bereft of the sort of humor I could understand, and yet it kept plugging along, which I've always found dismaying, wondering how in the world anyone could possibly find its lame humor at all funny. Whenever I've tuned in over the past decade I've never once been glad that I did. Indeed, I've always been annoyed at myself for staying up and wasting my time. For me, the absolute low point came several years ago when a popular young male actor I liked a lot was the guest host. At one point that night he played a big star, perhaps himself, and in the skit, the character "Mongo," I think, played by Chris Kattan, again I think, ended up in the backseat of a car with him. What followed was Mongo being forced up and down and up and down on the actor's lap, with him screaming hysterically as he was presumably sodomized. The audience was laughing their heads off and I'm shaking my head, amazed that they could find that remotely funny, amazed that NBC would even broadcast such a thing. In the years since then I've repeatedly tried to approach the show with an open mind, hoping that it might regain the sly sense of humor I adored for so many years. But, up until just a week ago, for me, it hasn't done so. Not even close. One exception: During the 2008 presidential campaign, I thought that Tina Fey was fantastic, and she was the one performer who kept me tuning in. But those Sarah Palin skits, while hysterical, were still not enough to save the rest of the 90 minutes and I would always regret not turning it off as soon as I heard the familiar "It's 'Saturday Night!!!'"


This show was an amazing, fresh & innovative idea in the 70's when it first aired. The first 7 or 8 years were brilliant, but things dropped off after that. By 1990, the show was not really funny anymore, and it's continued its decline further to the complete waste of time it is today.

It's truly disgraceful how far this show has fallen. The writing is painfully bad, the performances are almost as bad - if not for the mildly entertaining respite of the guest-hosts, this show probably wouldn't still be on the air. I find it so hard to believe that the same creator that hand-selected the original cast also chose the band of hacks that followed. How can one recognize such brilliance and then see fit to replace it with such mediocrity? I felt I must give 2 stars out of respect for the original cast that made this show such a huge success. As it is now, the show is just awful. I can't believe it's still on the air.


I just spent about 1.5 hours waiting for the movie to begin. It didn't. The story is vague and uninteresting, the speed in the movie is absent and the voiceover irritating. I can't understand why movies like this one are even distributed.


Beats me how people can describe this adolescent exercise as film noir. True there's a gun & a bottle & a dame & the lead is a private eye, but that ain't what makes the genre, folks. This thing plays like reheated TV cop show stuff - lots of bloody beating & lousy continuity - with a dash of Chinatown memories thrown in. Pretty hard to watch beyond the first 10 minutes. You want contemporary feel, watch anything by John Dahl.


This show is based on the concept that loud + obnoxious + repetition = funny. The comedic writing is non-existent, in fact I face serious repercussions by even comparing it to entertainment of any sort. Here is the premise. Two girls accidentally get their shenanigans posted on the internet and hilarity ensues after their initial success, they contrive the idea that they should make a web-cast to showcase their brilliance.

OK, so where should I begin? Let's start with the laugh track, the oft used but never successful reminder that, we the viewing audience should laugh. According to the foley guys, this show is the funniest thing on the planet. We should all be dropping loads into our pants because of the brilliance of the humor placed before us. The laugh track seriously goes every few seconds. It quite possibly usurps Scooby-doo for the king of laugh track over-use.

Then the in-your-face-shout-at-the-top-of-our-lungs-the-craziest-grouping-of- words-to-seem-silly trick is also employed with little to no success. Whoa and let's not forget creating new words to sound funny trick. That is web-o-licious and poop-tastic? What the hell...

Finally, the acting. I can't entirely complain here. The actors are young and inexperienced, but this should and can be corrected by good professional help. Because of the inexperience nick should be helping the actors define their craft. Instead, in usual nick fashion, the actors are placed in front of the camera and told "act". Which for the most part is robotic recitation of lines, missed timing and overall epic fail.

The lack of anything in this show makes it a disgusting representation of how not to be funny. Don't waste your time. This show is debasing to all of humanity


Look, I've practically lost all hope in Nickelodeon after watching their newest "hit," The Naked Brothers Band show, and "ICarly" is no exception! If you haven't noticed, ICarly is now the #1 hit tween sitcom on television right now! After hearing this, I decided to watch a few episodes myself to see what the hype was about! I have one word to describe this show in general..."EFFORTLESS!!!" I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT DAN SCHNEIDER WOULD GO THIS LOW AND MAKE SOMETHING THIS CRAPPY!!! IT'S HORRIBLE!!! Let me give you the details...

The ICarly cast starts out with a girl by the name of Carly Shay, played by Miranda Cosgrove! Carly, unfortunately throughout the episodes, doesn't really have a personality so to speak of! I guess she's supposed to be the average girl in the show!(because a LOT of people have an Army veteran for a dad, an artist for a brother, and a popular teen web show taped and produced with thousands of dollars of equipment!) and to say the most about Miranda, HER ACTING IS PATHETIC!!! She sounds like a 3 year old girl with Tourette's syndrome on a sugar-high half the time!

Next, we have Sam Puckett(good GOD where do they get these names!?) played by Jennette McCurdy! Sam is the "CO-HOST" of Carly's web show!(Wait a minute, if Sam hosts the show with Carly, shouldn't the show be called "ICarly and Sam?" I bet Sam feels like she's been ripped off!)Sam is supposed to be the bully in the cast!(Yeah, because EVERY girl bully wears girly skin-tight shirts and pants with blonde hair extentions!) She also, I think, is supposed to be a Tomboy, too. I would find this a little funny, but it's her Cliché PUNS THAT RUIN IT!!! The "Give me a bucket of fried chicken" pun is overused WAY TOO MUCH!!! GIVE THIS GIRL A SCRIPT!!!! and GIVE HER A COFFEE because, don't get me wrong Jennette's acting is okay, but, throughout half the episodes, she looks like she's about ready to fall asleep!!!

Next we have Freddie Benson, played by Nathan Kress. Freddie is the technical producer for Carly and Sam's show! There's not much to say about Freddie other than the fact that he's a techno geek and has a crush on Carly, which never works out! HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THE Clichés!!! DOES IT NOT STOP!!!? Nathan's acting is also okay, but seems to get excessive sometimes! HE'S TOO BORING!!!

Lastly, and my most favorite, we have Spencer Shay, played by Jerry Trainor! Let me make this perfectly clear; IF IT WEREN'T FOR HIM, THIS DIRT CLUSTER OF A SHOW WOULD BE MUD!!! Spencer is the one who keeps the show alive! Spencer is the older brother of Carly! If you had a little 5 year old who was both on a Caffeine high and constipated, you would have this character summed up! Spencer also earns money from being an artist!(hmmm... I wonder...) You would think that a professional artist would make promising sculptures... yeah, I just love sarcasm! HIS ART IS PRETTY MUCH UTTER CRAP!!!! I mean, what kind of sculpture name is "MERRY SNIFFMUS!!?" WHAT!!? THAT'S ABOUT AS MUCH CREATIVITY AS A HILLARY CLINTON SPEECH ON DRUGS!!!! IT'S STUPID!!!!

THE PLOT SETTINGS AND MORALS ARE EFFORTLESS BAGS OF POOP!!!! These shows are now telling kids that stealing, lying, and being an asshole to your parents is a GOOD THING!!! IF THESE ARE THE KINDS OF AWFUL CRAPPY SHOWS THAT THEY'RE THROWING AT KIDS THESE DAYS, THEN I DON'T WANT TO TAKE PART IN WATCHING ANY OF THEM!!!! THIS IS BIGGEST PIECE OF CRAP I'VE EVER WATCHED ON TV! BAR NONE!!! NICKELODEON, "I'M THROUGH WITH YOU!!!!" END OF STORY!!!! 1/10


Yes, we all know about Dan Schneider's odd little fascination with making shows with young kids and iCarly is no exception. See young girls wiggle their toes and stick their tongues out for the camera and wear skimpy clothes and bikini's. Yes, it makes you wonder if these shows were made for teens or for some older degenerate crowd. Either way the show isn't that good when compared to Dan Schneiders other shows like the far superior Amanda Show & Drake and Josh.

The show is about a brother and sister (Carly and Spencer) living alone and having to get by on their own while their father is off in the Army and their mother is strangely absent from their lives. Carly has a mean spirited friend named Sam and they do a very well produced, award winning web show called iCarly with their little school friend Freddie. The episodes deal with their lives in and around the web show and their hi jinx at school.

Carly Shay is a young, all knowing web personality/ business woman/ producer played by Miranda Cosgrove, a young actress who relies on talking very very loudly and fast to get her point across and making odd faces. Her brother Spencer is a somewhat mean-spirited, dim-wit and eccentric artist played by Jerry Trainor, who tries a bit to hard to be like Jim Carrey and whose comedy style seems to be aimed at the young male audience who'd like this type of Joey Gladstone humor. Then there's Sam Puckett, an unlikable, mean little, lying thief of a brat who needs an attitude adjustment played by Jeanette McCurdy who clearly wears hair extensions as you can see them disappear then reappear from scene to scene. And finally there's Freddie Benson the web shows nerdy cameraman and technical adviser, who has a major crush on Carly but will obviously get nowhere with her who's played by Nathan Kress.

Other secondary characters come and go such as Freddies mother, Carly's grandfather, annoying teachers and many of their annoying little school friends to round out the cast. Most of the comedy is mean spirited, like blowing up Lewbert the Doorman as a gag, throwing a water balloon at a teacher and knocking over the table of young girl scouts selling cookies. All of the adults come off as complete idiots while the children are all knowing, and certain main characters have absolutely no morals. Lying, cheating, stealing and violence all are acceptable in this children's show created and written by Dan Schneider, Yes... it's a children's show! What more could the young viewers ask for?? Well, with Dan Schneider we can expect to have the young girls dress in tight clothes and bikini's and do some odd things like sticking their tongues out for the camera and eating banana's.

Shows like this are just what the young crowd likes though and I guess no worse then any of the other garbage Nick shovels at its young crowd. There's always fans to be found for anything seen on TV, at least this is a bit better then most of the stuff seen on Nick like that horrible Naked Brothers show.


I won't say the show is all bad, because there are some funny parts, like Spencer, and a few random incidents. But other than that, let's face it, it's just another dry sitcom that kids are buying into.

Miranda Cosgrove was cute and funny as Megan on Drake and Josh. Honestly, she is mediocre in ICarly and is just not as funny as she tries to be. The actress who plays Sam seems to be half-asleep most of the time, and her antics are so clichéd that I would think of them. They're not funny, just annoying. And Freddie is okay, but not that interesting.

Of course, the situations are unrealistic, but it's not all bad. Some are bothersome, though. Here are a few:

1. The girls are 14, and have a web show that gives away too much personal information, with a weekly audience of 27,000(WTF), with little to no advertising, and they can still go on about their lives not being attacked by crazy people

2.Their web show gets too much praise ($100,000 yearly to advertise sneakers, a free trip to Japan, Plain White Ts performance, and so on). Honestly, anyone over the age of 6 would not find their "comedy" entertaining.

3. How is it that they are so "average", yet they own a three story loft, Spencer does hardly anything and can still afford many basic luxuries, and they have all the equipment for a web show? 4. All of the adults are idiots. ALL OF THEM.

5. No 5 foot high girl, no matter how obnoxious and tenacious, can take down trained cops, unless she's muscular. Sam is skinny and petite.

6. No one can fall down 9 stories in an elevator and live.

7. Kids can handle finding out about criminals better than cops.

The show is stupid. Really, it seems harmless, but making kids think that they can be obnoxious to their elders, live alone in Seattle when they're only 14 with an irresponsible moron, and give out personal information is just wrong.

I'm disappointed to say that my cousin, who is 3, enjoys the show. What happened to the cartoons when I was her age?


I... No words. No words can describe this. I will try for the sake of those few brave people who stick knives into their toasters... after watching this show.

This... Cosgrove person... Her acting is like watching a female gorilla dance upon the nest of highly agitated insects. Perhaps I exaggerate. However, I have a feeling that the description fits a regular day of writing this show.

The characters in this repulsive pile of raw sewage are as useless as a small piece of space rock that flies into the sun on any day of the week. Though heart attacks have not been experienced while watching them act like fools on the cheaply built sets, I have no doubt that it will happen eventually.

The main plot of this *belches loudly into the faces of the actors* is that of a foolish girl who hosts a live weekly web-cast on the creatively titled iCarly.com with her brainless friends, one of which owns equipment that the producers of this show probably couldn't afford. Her legal guardian is some kind of moron who is apparently her older brother.

I haven't watched all of this show for fear of developing cancer, or perhaps a cold, but some of the plot points I have seen involve the brother getting stuck in an elevator, the doorman of the apartment almost dieing, and the world's fattest priest coming for a visit. No, really.

Avoid this if you are over the age of unborn or if you have a history of joining mysterious cults due to mental trauma. If you do decide to watch it, laugh when the laugh-track tells you to, as this will drown out the repetitive noise that will eventually put you in a coma if you listen to it for too long.

The show receives a one star rating because the IMDb inexplicably has not adopted the use of negative numbers.


If you think Hannah Montana or the Suite Life are at the bottom of tween sitcoms then you've obviously never watched iCarly. iCarly is without a doubt the worst show I've ever seen. From the lifeless acting to the low budget sets the show reeks of cheapness like last week's Chinese takeout left to simmer in your overheated car.

The show revolves around a pretty, perky, and "supposed to be" funny girl named Carly, as she and her friends make a live web show called iCarly. Carly lives alone with her older brother who seriously needs some counseling or something, because he's a few cells short of a brain.

The plots of the shows are highly ludicrous and unbearably annoying. But having to watch Carly and her friend, Sam, do their little iCarly show-within-in-a-show is even worse. They basically show weird pictures and stick things up their nose as the laugh-track plays over and over. I mean seriously, every two seconds the laugh track seems to come on for no reason.

So, what's the point of this review? you may ask. Just to ridicule iCarly? Well, yeah, but I'm also warning you to beware of this show. Because seriously, if I had to choose between watching iCarly and Barney? No questions about it, I'd choose Barney.


First off, I just want to say that this show could've done well, way better than it's doing now. What brought it down was certainly the acting. Miranda Cosgrove, who acts as the main character Carly, looked almost worthy of her own show when she was on Drake and Josh. Unfortunately, iCarly was a big let down. Not only can Miranda not act convincingly enough, but she's incredibly stiff when she moves. She looks as if she's not sure how the character "carly" would move or stand. In the very first episode at the end when she throws the hat up, her arm doesn't ever leave her side from her elbow up. even when she was dancing she looked like a stick in the breeze. And the singing? The theme song was great, only because Drake had been in it, the music was pretty good and Miranda's voice sounded fake. I have to admit, the plot and settings are good, unrealistic, but hey, that's Nick. They're practically known for stupid lines and characters. But wow, is iCarly the worst of them all.


Again, like many other TV Shows, a certain actor/actresses in thrust into the limelight, in this case Miranda Cosgrove, having built up her reputation in previous Movies/Series (especially by Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider. She is now the star of the show, gets to sing the soundtrack ( which she DID NOT WRITE and thus gets even more fame from that). Wonderful? It creates as much imbalance in popularity vs her other co-stars, especially Nathan Kress, who is continually thrust into minor rolls in each episode, except iDont Want to Fight. Cosgrove's music would never have met the charts without this show and her singing the main theme song (which was not written by her) and other covers such as About You Now and Stay my Baby. Let's not forget that she lip sync/sings her song live too. Is that how you create vocalist nowadays?

Back to the show, Cosgrove reveals more physically by acting scenes in a bikini, Hawaiian hula type bra and mentioned bra many times through out. Bras and seen in many cases (though not of the other actresses). Wedgies are mentioned, panties have been mentioned once. Og let us not forget "Oh My God" a come phrase (are any of the scriptwriters/actors Christian?) Granted that the show is not meant to be just for kids, I'm surprised at the multitude of mentions of the female undergarment, especially in the first episode, where the phrase "pointy boobs" were mentioned. I'm not sure whether kids would thus refrain from saying that at home/in school afterwards.

It's not that I'm against the mentioning or showing of female undergarments (which girls will wear), but for a show from Nickelodeon, the people in charge should have realised that kids would get the exposure to such stuff. I doubt that other Nickelodeon shows have such content in them.

As mentioned is other reviews, the laughter track is extremely annoying and unnecessary in many parts--for example, when the character Sam cries, how on earth is that a time to laugh? It distracts people from getting the joke and is used almost in every sentence.

As mentioned, Cosgrove is made the star of the show and thus gains the utmost fame and support from die hard fans, who even scolded a hotel staff when she is told to keep her noise level down (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk0gtfUk98U). Jennette McCurdy is the second star of the show but she faces competition from Cosgrove in the music industry (compare the popularity of her new single vs Cosgrove's covers). As noted, the third co-star Nathan Kress is the least noted of the lot. He is portrayed as a atypical boy who suffers the brunt of bullying by a girl and other boys but somehow a wizard at technology. His height in early episodes make him a cute actor but unusual given his character's crush on Carly/Cosgrove. Beyond that, Kress isn't breaking into the music industry and as Cosgrove's fame grows with each episode, Kress falls behind. I would bet that he is the least paid of all the three actors.

The content of the show is of course fictional, but also lets one wonder how it fits into a comedy series at certain times (thus the laughter track is used).It also contains several continuity errors (how can your father be and Air Force Colonel on a submarine? US Special Forces have their own branches, and the Air Force doesn't use US submarines--that is for SEALs). A unique feature is that of allowing viewers to submit their own videos to be shown during or after the episodes, but again the videos somehow do not meet the theme of comedy.

Once again, it is a show that is riddled with mentions of the female undergarments, exposure of skin, and over used laughter tracks. It is a series which thrusts a teen actress so far into the crowd such that her songs/actions are excessive supported by her fans, leaving her co Stars behind.


this show is just plain awful. I liked to watch Drake and Josh, which was great, and before that The Amanda show, also funny, but this is just AWFUL. in my opinion watching this felt like watching those --- movies from Seltzberg, painful and uncleaver. this is about 3 dumb@$$ kids who make a crappy web-show (while stealing the hole Ithing) while their retarded brother is making sculptures (he has no life). the cast is crap, Megan from drake and josh is carly (AHHHHHH!)a ugly b!tch is sam and some kid they pulled off the street plays fred. all i saw from this (ugg) are random "jokes" that include the brother making a clay-mation film, he also played an arcade game called PAC-rat (genious), Sam and Carly being retards on their web show, and Fred being a dork. the only episode a saw (cant remember the title) where Fred gets bad luck by not forewarding an email.i find videos on youtube funnier than this junk. and why the hell do they get youtube jack@$$ fred, get AVGN to cancel the show with his potty mouth. just skip this show.


Out of boredom and vast curiosity, I decided to check this show out today since my four year old niece loves it. I should have known that it was a show that only a four year old could like. The show was pretty bad.

First of all, the show just wasn't funny. The laugh track went off at the most inappropriate times which was very annoying, especially since none of the jokes were funny. The laugh track went off at some point when the one kid who's the cameraman said "I'm going to go polish my lense". How the hell is that funny? The parts in it (like meat drumming) that were supposed to be funny was just stupid to anyone who's over the age of eleven.

Now, I have a feeling that four year olds are not the target audience. However, since I have a four year old niece who watches it, this sort of thing concerned me while I was watching it: It doesn't show very good behavior. In the episode I was watching, it shows Sam stealing Carly's sandwich and pushing her down to the ground, just so Carly can stand up and do the same thing back to her. I would not want to see my niece acting that rude. I also don't like the idea of two young girls having a web show where they give out personal information... If this was real, there would be freaks all over her.

This show would probably be good and funny to someone who's eleven or younger, but anyone older than that, just stay away from it. I'll give this two stars since I guess I can see how it can be funny to a kid.


I watched the Halloween episode...oh my god I wanted to die. The acting was just awful. The lines were uttered with absolutely no conviction. Its a bad idea for a show as well, I mean who would watch some web show like that in real life? Miranda Cosgrove was great in a supporting role in Drake and Josh but doesn't have the force of character to anchor her own show. I'm even more upset because her leaving is a major reason why Drake and Josh ended. She was approached with her own show...she jumped ship on Drake and Josh. They then decided that maybe they would do a thing with Drake and Josh moving to college, thereby explaining the loss of Meagan as a character but Drake had already had thoughts of moving on to bigger and better things and he figured if Miranda did it why couldn't he. The best part of the show was the theme song... a catchy, good tune in a mire of mediocrity. Of course Drake Bell was dubbing Miranda's voice for the whole thing and wrote the tune...


Ever went on Youtube? Well, the definite question to that is YES. Do you see the boatloads of ICarly and Nickelodeon rants? No definite answer.

Many people think ICarly is a dull and idiotic program, and others think it's the best program on the face of the Earth. I have seen many of the loads of reviews panning ICarly in the head and some giving it a bouquet of roses. In my opinion, Icarly is for the kiddies, but the show is just awful.

If you did not read the last review, here are reasons 1-8: #1: Steryotypes #2: Goofed-up drama #3: Everything is silly(taco truck for example) #4: Carly thinks she's nice but she's mean #5: Anyone over the drinking age is stupid #6: Sam is petite but strong? #7: No real companies #8: Mean teachers

#9: The webshow overuses 3DFX. Just look on the webshow to understand what I mean. #10: The webshow also spills personal information. #11: Almost every famous thing is insulted. Icarly insults the Japanese race, Solitare, Mercades-Benz, and Pac-Man, to name a few. #12: There are too many reoccuring jokes(Sam's obsession of meat, Freddy's computer, Gibby pulling his shirt off, etc.) #13: The video games based off the show suck. #14: Freddy has a lack of masculinity. Why? It's getting unoriginal. #15: The show is targeted towards a female audience. I also hate shows directed to a male audiences too, so I prefer Icarly to be for both genders. #16: The words "nub" and "no chiz". #17: The overuse of laugh tracks.

Part 3 coming in early Spring! Just in time for Spring break!


iCarly is about a teenage girl named Carly Shay (Miranda Cosgrove) who lives with her artist brother, Spencer in a loft in Seattle. Carly has a web show that gets millions of views and makes tons of money a year, so much money she "doesn't even know its a real number". Her best friend is Sam (Janette McCrudy) who's as predictable as they come! She says "normal" things and beats up Carly's neighbor, Freddie who is in charge of all the technical things for their web show. Carly shouts every word and looks like she doesn't have emotion. Sam chases Freddie around and Freddie screams. In one episode Carly and her friends shoot Lewbert (the doorman) down in elevator and he survives.

I would not recommend this at all, unless you like teenagers shouting, hurting people and making fun of stuff.


The first time I watched this show it was OK. There were some funny moments and I laughed a couple of times but this show is getting worse and worse. Carly and Sam's web show is NOT the least bit funny. They play a stupid video from the internet, scream at the camera and make some very bad jokes. And then the laugh track goes off?! One problem with the show is that none of the main characters are funny. Carly is not funny. Miranda Cosgrove's acting is lackluster at best. Her acting in this show is nothing like her acting from Drake And Josh. Her friend Sam is very rude and crude and the show is written in a way that makes her look like some kind of hillbilly. I mean they make jokes about her mom driving a rusty old truck, her mom smashing an old TV with a bat, and then there's the jokes about Sam failing in school, getting detention all the time and running from cops. None of that is funny at all. Then there's Freddy who is a computer geek. He isn't too funny unless his Mom is treating him like a baby. The show's only somewhat funny full time character is Carly's brother Spencer. He makes some funny jokes and does some pretty funny things like pretending to drive a space ship while making spaceship noises, knocking over a girl scouts' cookie table for revenge as they did the same thing to him. His material is the only thing worth laughing at. Aside from the characters other things make the show bad too. Like the fact that a couple of kids doing a local web show from a Seattle apartment is a worldwide hit and got them a free trip to Tokyo? Another thing is that how can a 26 year old single guy with no real job can pay for a 2 level apartment in downtown Seattle and raise his 13 year old sister and pay for a room full of camera and sound equipment including a remote controlled projector and a green screen and an HD camera? This sounds like it was written by a 10 year old. The worst thing is that the show contains some pretty questionable content. There are a couple of times when Carly(remember a 13 year old girl) appears on her internet web show in a bikini top. WTF? Then I saw an episode where Freddy tells Carly and Sam that he "slept in JUST his socks the night before." I mean WTF? Then there's an episode where Carly's rival Nevel blackmails her by taking her website rights and agrees to give her the website back in exchange for a kiss. Creepy! And I just saw an episode where Carly meets a boy who just moved into their apartment building and he has some kind of back injury and he takes off his shirt and Carly stands there drooling over him. I can't believe Nick even lets them show that kind off stuff and I can't believe that this was created by the same guy responsible for Drake and Josh. This show is not appropriate for kids under the age of 12 and that's even questionable. iCarly is just another addition to the long list of awful Nick programming.


First Off Acting Is So Terrible Except For The Actor Who Plays Spencer. Mirinda Cosgrove Does Not Deserve Her Own Show She Should Have Stick With Drake And Josh.The Only Person I Like Besides Spencer Is Nevel Hes Super Bad@$$ He Kicked Carlys Crews @$$ And I liked It

The Episode I Hate A lot Is Imyourbigesstfan I Hate That Young Icaly Fan She Made Me Almost Kill Myself Fake Is A Well Word To Describe This Please Don't Watch This Nothing On TV Is Good Go With Classics Like Family Matters Good Show Ban Icarly Lets All Go Back To Doug Nick Version Only Please Don't Watch I Hate Icarly Oh Also Nathan Kress Is A Wannabee Fredie Highmore


The actresses bra in a changing room--well I guess they are preparing young children for changing room time? (Boys you must close your eyes at that scene A humongous bra (34C which definitely neither of the actresses size) dangling and supposedly talking--oh don't worry if your son takes your bra then Stripping boys (a girl pulls down a boys pants) to reveal his boxers--kids try that at home and in school Beating a girl with male briefs--nothing wrong. The show likes to show underwear--panties next?? Actress--at an age below 18 in a revealing bikini--mom can you buy me one when i reach puberty? So many sexual innuendos to learn:eg: "Don't doubt my ball skills."

"I like to dance. With my shirt off."

"Wet and sticky is very icky. Sticky and wet make Mommy upset."

"I just wanna stick my face in this pie and go 'bbbbbbuuuub.'"

"I come up with my best ideas when I'm wet."

"He sliced my banana!"

"Come on boy, let's do it"

you'll never guess where I found this fish"

"I'll leave you two to do..it"

"Carly (about Sam): She just ditched iCarly to go play with Jonah?!"

"You won't get respect if your back's not erect."

"How's it hanging"

"What can I say, I'm a great ball handler"

"Watch me spank your daddy!"

Spencer: That's big. Freddie's mom: Thank you

"Hey! Could you keep your hands off my equipment?"

Freddie: Oh, and last night, slept with my socks on. Sam or Carly: So? Freddie: JUST my socks

"They wanted no part of me or my fudgeballs"

"Freddie, you know how I feel about you handling tools!"

"You don't even wanna know where the batteries go"

"It's like she stuffs waffle cones in her bra!"

Spencer: "Well, it spread...to places." Freddie: "Where?" *Spencer motions for Freddie to come near, then whispers in his ear.* Freddie: "Ugh!"

"Wow, it's just that you've always seemed . . . so willing."

"I have to take my daughter to a special doctor"

"I send a lot of guys, a lot of places"

"Yeah, you've been having all kinds of fun this morning."

"I'm looking for some 'cheap entertainment'..."

(mom I learn how to say **** indirectly today!!) All in all very educational for young children. Lesson to be taken: if you want to know more than where babies come from kids, watch this show!!!


Nickelodeon has gone down the toilet. They have kids saying things like "Oh my God!" and "We're screwed"

This show promotes hate for people who aren't good looking, or aren't in the in crowd. It say that sexual promiscuity is alright, by having girls slobbering over shirtless boys. Not to mention the overweight boy who takes off his shirt. The main characters basically shun anyone out of the ordinary. Carly's friend Sam, who may be a lesbian, beats the snot out of anybody that crosses her path, which says it's alright to be a b**ch. This show has so much negativity in it that nobody should watch it! I give it a 0 out of 10!!!


First of all, I'd like to say I am a teenager so this is all marketed towards me, and I can safely say that iCarly very poor programing, and the fact that it's accepted among both genders baffles me. It contains some of the worst attempts at comedy I've ever witnessed with mediocre acting to boot. The supposed humor within the show is all based on saying someone's lines again with poor sarcasm, poor sarcasm, saying bad one-liners, and, well, you get the picture. Also, I should mention that I do still watch Spongebob, which I know I'll get a negative backlash for, but that's quality programming with some honestly funny moments in it, less we forget something iCarly's missing; WIT. The show's about a young girl, Carly, putting on a web-show with her friends, which I can say is without a doubt a nicer version of the internet. That's fine, but the show's just...well, not funny at all, as previously stated. If this is what children's programming has come to today, parents, show them something that's ACTUALLY funny; Spongebob or Rocco's Modern Life would work.

Also, compared to it's brothering show, Drake & Josh, it's terrible, which was implied. Seriously, please watch something worthwhile. Even for a children's show it's poor.


First off... I have to say acting isn't very good. Miranda Cosgrove is the main character but is not such a good actress quite frankly. Spencer, her brother is a way much better actor. Spencer is easily my favorite character because he probably is the only one that knows how to act. Carly on the other hand tries to act her heart out but... sorry, it just isn't good. Sam doesn't even get credit, I mean come on... ICARLY... pretty self centered eh? Freddy isn't bad, I don't have a comment. I must add that Carly and her puppet Sam change their attitude whenever they go to film a web cast, they go shouting out all their lines.It's sorta bad influence in a way because Carly has a web show and if kids will copy this, they might be giving their own information and that not pretty safe.

The only nice things is that it has SOME funny parts of the show which makes it entertaining. At least this show isn't boring, it has nice plots, pretty strong. Many kids will like this because they don't look for flaws.

Overall this is a bad show but it's not boring.