As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.

I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.


...But not this one! I always wanted to know "what happened" next. We will never know for sure what happened because GWTW was Margaret's baby. I am a lifelong fan of Gone With the Wind and I could not have been more repulsed by the movie. I did compare "Scarlett" to the original GWTW because any film worth following GWTW needed to be on the same quality level as the first. Rhett was cast beautifully, although NO ONE will ever compare to Mr. Gable. I am also a strict Vivien Leigh fan!! She WAS Scarlett. She fit the bill. Not another actress in this lifetime or another will ever fit the same shoes but with "Scarlett" the job could have been done better. Not enough thought went into finding the proper Scarlett, that was evident.

Overall, something to look to but if you want to know the what happened to Scarlett and Rhett, I suggest writing it yourself or finding fan fiction. This movie is not worth the time.


I am insulted and angry over the idea that a sequel to 'Gone with the Wind' should EVER have been undertaken. Having expressed that, I have no problem with the quality of the acting or the actors in this film. The performers are talented people whose talents were wasted on this piece of garbage. The hype surrounding this book and film just happens to be an exercise in futility. I think it will go down as one of the misguided films of Hollywood. I don't believe that the beloved characters created by Margaret Mitchell should have been soiled by the ideas and interpretations of another writer. The film and the book should be on the list of worst ideas conceived in the world of publishing and film-making. The sad thing is that people actually made money off of this tripe.


Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.

Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.

The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.

But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.

Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.


Margaret Mitchell spins in her grave every time somebody watches this mess! Fine costuming and sets can't even begin to overwhelm lackluster performances by Joanne Whalley (as the title character) and the ever-bland Timothy Dalton (as Rhett). Even worse than the acting--and perhaps partially explaining it--is the script, which is astoundingly cliched and predictable. Add to that hellishly bad script a score that'll have you cringing, and you've got a disaster I wouldn't wish on any viewer. SCARLETT is just amazingly lousy, and I can't imagine how it ever got made, much less made it to video.


This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common.


Summary: Not worth the film

As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.

I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.


A VERY un-Tom and Jerry short. Jerry narrates this tale that revolves around Tom the cat falling in love and losing her to his rival, Butch. Tom is best friends with Jerry here which irked me a bit. The cartoon is also presented in Cinemascope. Overall I found this Tom and Jerry cartoon sad and depressing. The should have just put "Puss gets the boot" on the DVD instead and I would've been happy. This experimental animated short can be found on disc 2 of Warner Brother's 2-DVD Spotlight Collection set. It's the last one on the set and I'm hoping that Warner Brothers chooses to release a second Volume soon.

My Grade: C-


I will just start with some quotes from other reviewers that describes it the best.

"This is easily one of the most overrated films of the year and probably the worst film Tarantino has ever done." "The ONLY good thing in this movie was the performance of Mr. Waltz".

"So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened" Now for more details go and read "Hated it" reviews.

One thing I hate about a movie is when it treats audience as bunch of dumb people. (Spoiler ahead). Now I know Tarantino's style is based on fantasy and fictitious plots, but come on, Adolf Hitler and 200 top Nazis Officers will be in attendance of a movie premier in occupied France and you have only two guards in the whole theater and the surroundings? Where also an American-African walks around freely with steel pipes locking doors and setting fire. These 2 guards are then executed in seconds opening the door for our 2 "heroes" to slay Hitler at point blank with around 100 rounds... very dumb. At least, challenge our intelligence and create a smarter plot to kill one of the most feared tyrants of all time (Go watch Valkyrie). Besides, Mike Myers impersonation of a British general is more realistic and authentic than the guy doing Hitler, just picture that.

What ruined it further, is that the only smart and powerful character, which nailed everyone in the movie, with his psychological and mind bending interrogations, ends up to be effortlessly tricked by the most mindless character in the movie.

After watching the movie, I was sympathizing with Nazis, who were portrayed to have more bravery and humanity than our Basterds!!! Imagine that.

My recommendations, if you have insomnia, 2hrs 33 min to waste or you want to give your mind a break, go watch this movie.


This usually all sounds a lot better in my head (so forgive me for rambling) I'm hardly Tarantino's biggest fan (and will *try* not to stoop to calling him a 'hack'....which is quite hard) I don't like to mock or critique a movie before seeing it. So with cautious hesitation, i walked to the cinema today to watch 'Inglorious Basterds'

Now, to call it a 'rip-off of a rip-off' would be unfair here. Tarantino is happy enough to take the title from Enzo Castellari's (less than spectacular) Dirty Dozen clone, but not it's plot points (that, he takes from all other genre of movies) 'Inglorious' opens with a Nazi officer and his lengthy interrogation against a farmer who is hiding Jews in his basement. This is such an anti-climax, in that, it's dialogue is stale, and outcome signposted a mile off. Of course, one of the hidden Jews makes her escape (but more of her later) We (the obviously, easily pleased) audience are treated to the introduction of Lt. Aldo Raine (ha-ha, that name almost sounds like B-movie king ALDO RAY....ha-ha Quentin...keep those 'tributes' coming) and this character is played by none other than Brad (DALLAS) Pitt (sorry, DALLAS was about the only good thing he's ever starred in) and with jaw-jutting, Mr Jolie treats us to a hound-dogged, southern drawled, smirking Nazi-killer. Meanwhile Mr Tarantino forgets that actual grown-ups may be in attendance, so assumes that the teenyboppers won't have heard of the 'Dirty Dozen'?

Raines 'platoon' consists of (John Cassavettes looking) blood-thirsty Jewish soldiers, all looking to get the big payback on Adolf Hitler. Tarantino in all his superior knowledge, pays special attention to two of these men, by casting his long time best buddy (and fellow homage-sycophant) Eli Roth (as the baseball bat wielding 'Bear Jew') The other man is called Hugo Stiglitz (and i'll wager more than half the QT fan-boys had never heard this name before this movie) Keep up the good work Tarantino, you've managed about 6 or 7 'hommages' so far (in the first 15 minutes) keep adding them, and it may detract from the plot (or lack of?)

Anyhow, cutting a long (and extremely boring and protracted) story short, both Raine and his men (the 'Inglorious Basterds') and the sole survivor from chapter one, both have separate plots to kill Hitler at the showing of a Nazi-propaganda movie, in a french cinema (owned by the fore-mentioned survivor, now grown up)

More boring (and pointless) conversations follow two and fro, as Pitt mugs away at an audience past caring. And any genuine suspense, leading to the assassination of the most deadly tyrant of all time, is thrown-away by the directors insistence of placing a 1980's David Bowie song in a WWII movie.

My problems (and there are many) with this movie, is the re-occurring problem i have with most Tarantino product.....he rarely knows when to either start or stop. I don't need 'homage' after 'homage' to get the *joke* (whatever it may be) I knew of Inglorious Bastards, Enzo Castellari, Aldo Ray, Hugo Stiglitz (and the ultimate crime of the entire movie) Ennio Morricone's haunting score from REVOLVER. I go to the cinema to see the stars.....if the best you can do is the dire Barad Pitt, i'll assume You (Mr Tarantino) are the main draw here? I don't want the audience directing the movie. I pay to see YOUR vision, your ideas, your creativity....NOT how you can patchwork (time and time again) endless scenes from endless movies. It's high time the fan-boys (on IMDb) employed some 'tough love' on your 'idol' (god knows, if you don't....the studios should?)

The tired old argument with Tarantino worshippers is "well, if you can do better...do so" Let me tell you, if i was a 46 year old director, with the (unfortunate) pull QT has.....i'd want to offer YOU a lot more than a warmed up muddled re-hash of better WWII movies than this tripe. The directors he attempts to emulate, made movies so bad by accident, or due to budgetary constraints. It's a cop out, time and time again, to hear his fans campaign his lack of imagination as 'art'. I'm sure he's capable of better (but after giving him the benefit of the doubt, once more....and not to mention 2 and a half hours of my life.....) maybe he isn't?


Seriously disappointing performance by Brad Pitt and Q T, the plot is very superficial and lame, and, unless indirectly intended, this film actually glorify the Nazis and portrays them as men of honor, and show that the Jewish people are deceiving, cant keep promises and bloody vicious. ((THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILER)) Hitler together with the most notorious Nazis are attending a stupid plot less movie about the killing of 300 Italian soldiers in a small cinema theater in Paris is unbelievably ridiculous. the Nazis laughing and hooraying each killing in the movie as if watching a basketball game STUPID, the deal at the end is lame. whats really appalling is that the movie earned great reviews and is ranked here in the 40s amongst the greatest 250 films. will not be surprised if it harvested many awards, including Oscars, as well. the movie is simply a kissing ass to the Jewish people, but hey reconsider, its not even doing a great job doing that. it truly dwarfed the whole Nazi - Jews conflict and a pure insult to all who fought and suffered from the tyranny of the Nazis.


Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing. It isn't Inglorious, its disgusting.

I absolutely hated Inglorious Basterds. The entire point of a film is to entertain - if u call bashing people's heads and removing their scalps entertaining!!!! - and if there is one unforgivable sin a movie can commit, it is extreme boredom or disgust.

The movie is just a collection of endless and excruciatingly boring and disgusting scenes of people talking at tables in various languages. There is even one scene where 3 people talk for nearly 45 minutes at the same table, before, thankfully they are all shot. I wished they would have been killed off after 5 minutes. Even Woody Allen knows when to shut the F**K up.

This table talk style is a Tarantino hallmark, but in other films, I actually cared about what they were saying and the people who were talking. Here, I couldn't care less. All of Quentin's films display an enormous confidence, particularly Jackie Brown. But here there is a pervasive feeling in every scene, Tarantino had no idea where he was going with the film.

Is it violent? Sure there's torture and scalping galore, but you'd have to remind me. Thankfully, the film was so thin, I didn't even remember I had seen it earlier in the day when until I saw a review headline on MSNBC.

He's out of gimmicks and apparently dying to write a novel. But do us a favor QT and spare us the movie.

I walked out of this movie halfway through and I would never recommend anyone seeing it no matter what a die-hard quarantino fan he or she is.

I give it 0 / 10.


I deliberately did not read any reviews of this movie on IMDb before I watched it because I really wanted to see it and make up my own mind. I have been a big fan of QT in the past, I think we can all agree he has made some great movies, but lately he seems to have been overcome by his own mystique and disappeared up his own fundament. This "movie" proves that. It consists of few scenes of the Basterds at work. It consists instead mostly of long, tedious, boring stretches of conversation between people that, after a while, you realise you just do not give a stuff about. It's longwinded and lacks any of the great sparkling dialogue that QT has been responsible for in the past. The entire movie is anticlimactic. There is no tension - what is going to happen in every scene is telegraphed so clearly in advance that by the time it happens you just don't care. Honestly folks, don't believe the hype. This is a very boring movie and you will be missing nothing if you don't see it.


I am sorry folks, but I have to say I really cannot understand the overwhelming feelings everybody gets by seeing this movie...

When I saw it I looked at my watch to know how much more time I had to spend with this Kindergarten nonsense.

So why this verdict?

First of all: The movie tells a story that doesn't deliver any excitement! It is not even the amusingly distorted reality of a Quentin Tarantino we used to know. This story could have come out of every little kid's head. It doesn't have anything intelligent in it, neither anything inventive and it goes on for hours... the story has appropriate content for about 30 min. The rest is just awfully enhanced scenes that are supposed to leave a somewhat cool image. Doesn't work. Even the previously seen cutbacks that Tarantino often uses just confuse and are not in any way cool.

Second: Some guys go to Germany and kill Nazis. Ah really? Do they? The only Nazis they killed were a handful of guys, one of them being man enough to rather die than betray his companions. Is this the ugly face Tarantino wanted to give the Nazis? A brave soldier that is more valiant than any of the "Basterds"? Certainly not --> fail And what happens to the terrible Nazi-killing Basterds? Well they all get killed by Nazis except two who are taken hostages --> wow, what terrible revengeful monsters they are...

Third: Any characters? Yes one! The only role and the only gleam of hope for the entire movie is Chritoph Waltz who is building a truly deep and very detailed character here. Great acting! Brad Pitt really sucks and is completely out-acted by Waltz. Never seen a such a weak performance by Pitt... And the rest? Well, some Germans you've never seen before and will never see after. When the movie started and I saw the group of the seven Basterds I hoped to see something like the "Magnificent Seven": A group of extraordinary guys, each one with a distinct character, making their way to their destiny fearless and knowing... I was then very disappointed, when I saw the "inglourious Basterds". No details at all, no characters, no real men, just some random guys you won't remember who were not given any chance to differentiate themselves... But in fact you don't even need to differentiate, cause the "Inglourious Basterds" except Pitt hardly play any role in this movie...

So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened...


I will never go to another Tarantino movie again. The entire film was worthless. My wife and I both regret that we didn't get up and walk out at the first indication of what the film was really going to be about (which is still hard to determine since it was such a ridiculous storyline...blood, guts, and violence seemed to be the only real theme), but we kept hoping there'd be something redeeming just around the corner. Unfortunately, there wasn't because there wasn't anything that made sense! We, along with a lot of the other people in the audience walked out of the theater muttering "that was disgusting", "what a waste of time", "I should've walked out", "where was the comedy", "that was pathetic", etc. It actually made us, the audience, voice our disgust and the feeling that we had just been thoroughly ripped off. The only thing of merit in the film was the costuming and the acting ability of almost everyone in the film....there just wasn't a plot/script worthy of their talents. I rate this a 1 because there isn't a 0. I can't quite understand how anyone could rate this higher than a 0!


Chapter One: Once Upon a Time At A Table (1941)

In which a German Nazi and a French Dairy Farmer talk at a table for 20 minutes; first in French, then in English.

Chapter Two: Three Years Of Inglorious Basterds In Sixteen Minutes... Without Tables (Mostly)

In which an American Lieutenant talks to his newly formed 8 man Jewish- American commando unit. There are no tables present. Cut to Adolf Hitler, three years later. He is angry at his men's inability to deal with the Basterds. Hitler does have a table. We return to the Basterds in a flashback. Again, distinct lack of table-based content.

Chapter Three: German Night in Paris... At A Table... Talking

In which a Jewish woman who escaped from under the table in Chapter One has somehow managed to become the proprietress of a cinema. The Jewish woman talks to an Actor at a table in a bar. Later, the Jewish woman, the Actor, Joseph Goebbels and a Translator talk at a table in a Restaurant. The Actor and Goebbels talk in German. The Translator translates the German into French. The Jewish woman replies in French. The Translator translates the French into German. Goebbels decides to hold a film premiere at the Jewish woman's cinema. The Actor and Goebbels leave. The Nazi (who talked with the Dairy Farmer at a table for twenty minutes back in Chapter One) arrives. He talks with the Jewish woman at the table. He leaves. The Jewish woman breaks down; overcome with emotion at having spent so long talking at a table.

Chapter Four: Operation Table Talking

In which Austin Powers sends a British Officer to join the Basterds and an Actress on a mission to talk in German at a table in a Tavern. After 21 minutes of talking at a table they all shoot each other. The actress survives but spends the next 5 minutes lying on a table talking.

Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Table

In which, The Basterds decide to continue the operation by talking in Italian and suicide bombing the cinema. The Nazi takes the Actress into a small room where they sit next to a table. A hoe that he found under the table in the Tavern fits her so he kills her. Then he takes two of the Basterds to a big room, where they sit and talk at a table. Meanwhile, the cinema burns down, Hitler is riddled with bullets and the two Basterds blow themselves up for no good reason at all.

The End


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

What is the purpose of this movie? A bunch of Americans enters Nazi-occupied France and starts slaughtering Germans. You see them scalping their enemies and beating them to death with baseball bats. While making jokes, of course.

Some will say that this movie is a parody of a certain genre. For a parody, it is neither witty nor funny. The contents is zero. It is exceptionally brutal and disgusting. Underneath lies a subtle political message, because it is again "the good guys" killing "bad Nazis". The whole plot is unthinkable if you turn it around. Could you imagine a storyline where Nazis (while making jokes) kill everybody in the Warsaw ghetto with flamethrowers? Probably not, but this movie is exactly about that, with the exception that is satisfies the weird moral expectations of a certain audience: slaughtering people is so cool when done by the right people.

This movie only works because of the hidden Nazi-ideology underneath. It does not regard the enemy as people. And if the latter is supposed to be an element of the fun, I am happy to say that this kind of fun will always remain a mystery to me.

Another mystery is how such violence can fascinate the American crowd while a bit of nudity will freak them out. But if a naked body is pornography, this movie with all its brutality is pure pornography at its very worst.

Inglorious Basterds is a pointless, boring and tasteless waste of time and money.


I was debating between this movie and 2012 but chose Inglourious Basterds due to it's amazingly high IMDb rating. I must say now, what a disappointment. I expected a certain amount of gratuitous violence, but I also expected a lot of witty dialog. I got a huge dosage of the former, but not nearly enough of the latter. I felt shortchanged. The ratio between violence to plot is very important and I think this movie gets it totally wrong. And the plot? It's that believable or really all that entertaining either. Save your time and money. I can't believe what this rating says for the gory and violent tastes of the modern masses.


Hooray for Title Misspellings! After reading reviews and contemplating, my girlfriend and I confirmed that this movie is an utter piece of trash. This movie lost her as one of those Rare Tarantino fans.I wish it were made on nitrate film, and all the copies piled neatly underneath a chain-smoking Tarantino fanboy. The literally needless violence, the plot holes, Tarantino's table-itis sans drama, and absent character development made this a thoroughly painful, glorified montage.

What acting was there? And how much of that was just because I was too busy reading the subtitles? I watch my share of fansubbed anime, and kudos for the attempt at authenticity, but it was overdone for an English-language movie. With the glaring historical inadequacies, the constant reading killed what acting there was.

Why pay money for a narrator who will have absolutely no tie to any of the characters, plot, themes, setting, or anything involved in the movie? When the movie needs that sort of off hand explanation, it's foreshadowing the utter filth that follows.

Historical Research - while it was sprinkled with interesting factiods, used the proper costumes and props for the soldiers, this movie stretched the truth beyond belief even for historical fiction. Kudos on Mata Hari reference, though using it as foreshadowing was a bit much. Mata Hari was executed by a firing squad, not choked in an isolated room. This ruined any sense that the reference may have had.

Other reviews mention more than half a dozen homages to other artists in the first 15 minutes. Considering the audience, all these and other references were completely lost on many who would bother to see this movie, and all who would enjoy it.

I'm confused by his choices of when to start a scene, end it, and what needs to be included. In a movie promoted as an action film, why did it take nearly 20 minutes to set up any sort of testosterone?

What I believe to be the message was trite. The idea of rats and how we act on a primal nature against them, and "who is the rat?" were at best clichéd, but at worst not realized. Mention of American camps for the Japanese and German Americans would have added legitimacy to this question to the moral high ground. Literally every character in the film that gets a speaking role was caught up in their own legend. Is that the world in which Tarantino lives?

I'm glad I didn't pay to see this one. I regret that I bothered to view it at all, even with well-meaning hosts. There was a rich base of ideas to develop, but none were realized.


Every movie Quentin Tarantino has made has become progressively worse. I'd like to believe that most people would agree with that statement, but seeing as "Inglourious(sic) Basterds(sic)" has an 8.5/10 from over 100,000 ratings, it doesn't seem like the general movie-going public has any sense. Even his best work, Reservoir Dogs, wasn't a 'masterpiece.' The trouble is that claiming that you like Tarantino's work has become trendy. As soon as that happens, you get boatloads of people ready and willing to hop on another bandwagon. They will ignore laughably terrible acting, and utterly self-indulgent writing just so they can be part of the exclusive club called "everyone." This movie is so terrible, that I swear it must be some sort of twisted joke by Tarantino to see how much torture his fans will tolerate and still praise him. Like another reviewer has already said: "Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing." I couldn't agree more. This movie is nothing more than self-indulgent and in-joke riddled writing paired with acting ability taken right out of a high school play. But, thanks to the general movie going public, I'm sure it will still go down as one of the best movies ever made. Bravo, Tarantino. You've pulled-off one of the best practical jokes of all time.


The first half of this movie was quite good. It was interesting and suspenseful. The second half was pretty bad. The comic book revenge story came full circle and we see lots of comic Nazi characters and some badly acted "good guys" blowing them away. There's a lot of violence in this movie. I'm not squeamish about violence but I think it should at least have some purpose in a movie. There was little purpose to the violence here except to create a genre film where we see lots of people getting mowed down with rifles. We're somehow supposed to be amused by this.

I watched Reservoir Dogs recently. There was a movie where violence was employed effectively. It was realistic within the world the movie created. There were never any over-the-top sound effect. It was a crime movie which played it straight. Inglorious Basterds should have played it straight but didn't. I was rolling my eyes at how the violence was exaggerated with sound effects and extra bullets to the head and face.

None of the back-story of any of the Basterds is really explained either, they're simply Nazi hunters. We don't really get to like any of them either because they're too busy cutting scalps off and shooting people in the face. It's all about "revenge" and very little else.

There was 2 1/2 hours to work with here but few of the Basterds were really examined in depth. This seems like it was simply a revenge flick pure and simple. We saw that in Tarantino's last flick, "Death Proof" which I didn't care for either. It suffered the same problems. The characters were almost interchangeable.

The first half again, was pretty good. I wanted to see the exploits of the Inglorious Basterds across Europe. I was presented with a much lamer movie about the resistance movement plotting revenge against some comic book Nazis when they all go to one movie premiere in France.


Bad bad bad....

This is another stupid movie. still don't know what is the language of this movie? is itEnglish or french or German!?!! you have to be speaking all 3 languages ( at least ); preffered Italian too to understand it. poor quality translation with very hard to read font. showing a very stupid way of ending this movie!! in the mid of the movie you will lose interest in this movie and start to think why am i watching this?! brad pitt is proving that his acting talent is going down.

Maybe this is the movie number 1000000 that talks about Nazis. is there any other subjects that Hollywood can produce?! I think this movie is another American propaganda to show super heros American. I expect next Hollywood movie is American hero will save Jesus!!!


This movie is not worth a descend review, it just made me decide that I am not going to go see the next Tarantino film. And I used to love Tarantino's films.

Not artsy, not entertaining, not witty, not funny, nothing, just dull and stupid. If this movie would have been Tarantinos first, it would have also been his last.

Tarantino has to get a grip on himself, otherwise his next movie is going to be 3 hours of meaningless, boring and uncool dialog. It seems like he has fallen in love with his dialog - and his love is blind.

After you finish your popcorn's there's no reason to sit in a theater anymore.


Countless Historical & cultural mistakes 0/10

(1) A Jewish guy named OMAR!!! Hahahaha (2) Brilliant detective was taking out by the least intelligent guy in the movie! (3) Jewish suicide bombers!! That was funny. (4) Hitler and his top guns went to watch a movie downtown Paris!!! With two guards at the door. !! shoot me. (5) Brad Pitt overacted and it was painful to watch him. (6) Mr. QT is re-writing history, "Hitler was killed in a theatre really!" the funny thing about this is that people "and I mean stupid people" will actually believe this plot.

And finally can any one tell me, how this movie made it to the top 250 movies of all time!!! Shame shame shame, still wondering how can anyone like this movie.


Quentin in my opinion has written and directed only really one good movie and that was the multiple award winning Pulp Fiction. However, most of films, especially of recent, have been real REAL turkeys. People still rate him and his stuff today and i really can't see why. There are many other directors and writers nowadays producing far better entertainment in all aspects of their movies. From this point on, i shall not believe the hype that is a Tarantino movie.

Inglorious was too long and worse still you felt it. The humor was, well, minimal and not that humorous. The violence was nothing new (minus the end scene). The dialog was sometimes very VERY drawn out.

For some they'll love this movie; and for others they'll hate it.

... and i thought the subject matter of Nazis was finally put to bed with the awesome 2004 German movie Der Untergang.


Little Quentin seems to have mastered the art of having the cake and eating it.

As usual, the pure sadistic display can be explained as a clever thought-provoking way of sending violence back into the audience's face.

Sure, Mr Tarantino. Violence is Baaad. Sadism is Baaad. It is well worth wading in it to make that point. How very brilliant.

The juvenile part of the audience may well not be clever enough to follow all the smart references to higher levels of consciousness though, but I'm confident they'll see the light one day.

Thanks for making this little world of ours a little better. You deserve a medal.


Inglourious Basterds IS Tarantino's worst film he has ever made. It's full of his usual ingredient's i.e. snappy dialogue, brutal and sudden violence, but it all feel's deja-vu. The directing is typical Tarantino and nothing seem's new at all. It's almost as if he's copied exactly from his only masterpiece, Pulp Fiction.

There is nothing new or exciting about Inglourious Basterds to be honest, it's just a war drama that isn't funny, nor brilliant as Pulp Fiction was. Basterds supposedly is Tarantino's tribute to Leone's Spaghetti western's but seem's mis-jointed and out of place especially with the continuing use of big sub-titles and throw's the audience of balance.


I went to see the movie because my boyfriend was raving about how much he wanted to see it, and how his friends had already been and loved it. So I came in with a neutral attitude, not really expecting the worst. Unfortunately, that is what I got. I could write a 15 page paper on why this is easily THE WORST movie I have ever seen. But for your benefit I will point out the pros and the endless supply of cons. To begin, the acting was very good, especially Christopher Waltz and Melanie Laurent. There were also a few lines that deserved a laugh, and a couple suspenseful scenes. Sadly, good acting, a little humor and suspense is where the good points end. The whole beginning story could have been great. A Jewish girl's family is butchered, she goes into hiding, later encounters the man responsible for her pain and then hatches a great plan for revenge. Sounds very good. But the movie wouldn't be quite as "satisfying" for the Americans and Jews craving Nazi blood. I have no problem with WWII movies or killing Nazis; I saw Defiance and like it very much. However, it's the way and attitude with which our would-be heroes kill. I'll give you a prime example of the kind of hypocrisy this movie oozes. Our hoodlum gang ambushes a German unit and kills/scalps all of them except a sergeant and two other soldiers (no problem so far). They ask the sergeant to divulge information on another German unit. When he "respectfully refuses" to betray the lives of his fellow soldiers they bash his head in a with a baseball bat, cheering, and swearing as if they were at a football game. They took that Nazi's head off yaaayy! Now let's look at the hypocrisy in that scene. Here's a hypothetical situation: a group of American soldiers are ambushed and taken captive by the enemy. The same scenario follows and the American commanding officer would rather die than betray his fellow soldier. The enemy bashes his head in with much celebration. This would infuriate an audience if this scene were in a movie. That American soldier was a hero for placing his men above himself, and those barbarians brutally murdered him! Wellwhat about the Nazi sergeant? Well he's a Nazi and deserves to die the cruelest death possible, right? Coincidentally, the Nazi's felt the same towards the Jews. See the hypocrisy? By celebrating the butcher of the Nazis we are placing ourselves on the same sadistic level.

Major hypocrisy #2: The Nazis make a propaganda movie about a German sniper who kills nearly 300 American soldiers. Near the end of the movie, the film is revealed. Hitler and his cohorts giggle with delight as they watch an American soldier get shot out of a window and fall into a fountain. The Nazis cheer as soldier after soldier falls to the snipers skill. This is supposed to enrage the American viewers of this scene. Those evil Nazis are laughing over the deaths of our brave men! Well the irony is, isn't that what we were doing (or supposed to be doing) the entire time we're watching Inglorious Basterds? Laughing over the pain of others simply because they were "the bad guys." How would we feel if Native Americans somehow made a hit film in which they reek bloody vengeance on the American settlers? Or what if blacks made a movie glorifying the Nat Turner Rebellion? OK enough about the hypocritical flaws.

I'll summarize other reasons for the 1 star rating. 1) There were view admirable characters throughout the movie. Brad Pitt even tortures a woman by sticking his finger in her gunshot wound because he suspects she betrayed him. He's the good guy? 2) Scenes dragged on way longer than they needed to. 3) Brad Pitt's southern, supposedly Tennessee accent is HORRIBLE and thoroughly annoying throughout the entire move. I'll quit now since I'm at 700 words.

Unfortunately it seems that the general population doesn't think anymore, they just want blood. And that is why this movie received such a high ranking. I recommend this movie for the ignorant or if you are Jewish and simply wanting to see a nice "fantasy justice." Personally, when I finally got out of the movie theater I felt like I had been scalped (or wish that I had so I wouldn't have suffered over 2 hours of mental rape).


This is "realism"? If Rivette was seeking to give us a ground-level study of a woman in a certain place and time and how she was able to influence (and was influenced by) the world around her, he has failed miserably. Most prominently because we never get a clue as to why thousands of men would have followed her into battle. There is certainly not enough exposition of the cultural/historical context to define the country's need for such a savior and, god knows, there is nothing particularly charismatic about Joan as she is presented here. Unless Bonnaire's wooden posturing and flat line readings are supposed to indicate transcendent faith and determination. The use of landscape is particularly uninspired - we never lose the feeling we are watching twentieth century actors wandering in a supposedly medieval landscape. And as for the battle scenes (which, in contrast to some commentors claims, do take up a good 15% of screentime)- they look like look like some some History Club from your local high school recreating a medieval siege, although the kids would no doubt put more passion into it. I will give Rivette credit, however, for picturing a side of Joan left out by other movies: that of a petulant, naive, and narcissistic adolescent (played by a woman all too clearly at least twice the age of the character she is supposed to portray) obviously unable to understand her place within the movement she is helping to create or the world existing outside her own passions. Joan's outrage at her own soldiers swearing and astonishment at the enemy for their lack of respect and obedience to her are jarringly spontaneous and believable notes (you suddenly realize such moments must naturally have occurred)in an otherwise uninvolving historical "representation". Unfortunately they also serve to point out precisely what is not addressed on screen -what made Joan SPECIAL? I must say I also continued to be puzzled and frustrated by certain foreign film lovers who equate tedium and lack of dramatic involvement with "artistry" and "seriousness". Does this film really increase our understanding or involvement with the subject? Or with anything for that matter? 4/10.


For one thing, he produced this movie. It has the feel of later movies with international casts that are dubbed. The opening credits tell us it was filmed in Vienna.

Bey was a delight in the Universal adventure movies of the 1940s. He was also superb in a movie I saw maybe ten years ago but have never heard of since: "The Amazing Mr. X." Maybe it was Dr. X. I remember it as a thrilling and frightening movie.

This one is pretty wooden, unfortunately. The plot isn't easy to follow. When I got the hang of it, I was disappointed anyway.

Francis Lederer looks great as a concert pianist. He was a very handsome leading man ten or 15 years earlier. He never really caught on as a major star, though he should have.

This isn't terrible but it's pretty heavy going.


This is the second addition to Frank Baum's personally produced trilogy of Oz films. It's essentially the same childishness as in the other two pictures, although I consider it preferable to the others because it's shorter. As in the other films, there are performers in animal costumes, an adult woman pretends to be a boy, and the characters and plot jump all over the place while the camera-work is static. This time, at the centre is a magic cloak that grants wishes, and the boy played by a woman is made a king.

Most of the special effects are witnessed at the beginning. Fairies are represented by multiple-exposure photography. And, there's a man in the moon that looks just like those made by Georges Méliès years before, most famously in 'Le Voyage dans la lune' (1902). Méliès' imaginative fantasies and creative trick effects made him the leading pioneer of early cinema, and the films he made around the turn of the century were far better and even technically more advanced than this trifling Oz series.


At least it is with this episode. Here we have a time traveler, the Professor from Gilligan's Island, no less, going back in time to 1865. What does one do--why try to save Lincoln of course! No really interesting variations are rung on this old theme. As another reviewer has stated, this episode is particularly drab and unstylish, with little to suggest that "the Professor" really is back in the 1860s. Budget limitations are readily apparent, and the direction is stolid. John Wilkes Booth adds a spark but it remains a very flat production. We too often feel we are on stage sets, waiting for something clever to happen. There is a minor twist at the end, but I emphasize minor.


If regarded as an independent feature I can't say it's too bad at all but from where I'm standing this sequel and the original "Lady and the Tramp" don't agree with each other! They are two completely different movies with different style, different voice personalities, different narratives and about the only thing that they share with each other is the visuals (e.g. the town-house of Jim Dear, Darling, Lady and Tramp) and none of those have changed.

If you're seeking any kind of continuity years after the release of the original for those memorable songs like "Bella Notte" and "The Siamesse Cats Song" this sequel won't give you any at all! Just about every song has a little pop to it and those good old characters like Jock and Trusty, Jim Dear and Darling and Aunt Sarah and her cats may well be seen but they're seeming to be somehow replaced by new characters, not to mention Peg not appearing at all, whose voices are quite annoying. Even Lady and Tramp don't appear often enough and as for Scamp?! He is so spoilt! And treats his father Tramp with utter disrespect, then runs away with no remorse even after hearing how much he's being missed at home! And they called his shameless getaway an adventure! I'd say Scott Wolf truly brought out the abusive bad boy in Scamp wiping out the typical cute Disney animal. Even the old characters just drive you mad in this; Trusty sounds like Goofy sick in bed, Jock (Jeff-stupid-Bennett) - and his VOICE - sound neither Scottish nor worth hearing! Zap him off as far as possible to free our poor ears from his voice and as for the dumb, feather-brained, EXASPERATING JUNKYARD DOGS!!!!!! Somebody put them down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Lady and the Tramp 2" isn't completely bad if you're not already having a tough day but I expect a lot more charm from a sequel to a true classic - Scamp is chavvy, so is his girlfriend Angel and there is a feeble storyline. Still, I think you should try it at least once because, as I say, there are much worse movies around.


I rented this movie, knowing that it would be bad (i have only seen one good Disney sequel and that was toy story 2), but it went far lower than my expectations. I am a die hard disney fan and i just don't believe in sequels with disney movies. For somebody who didn't grow up with the classics (either watching them when they came out, or renting them since you were born) it's a cute story. I just feel that the plot was dragged out a little too much, and was to predictable. The one thing that annoyed me the most was the voices of the girl children of lady and tramp. They were too high pitched. Although most reviews say that it isn't that bad, i think that if you are a true disney fan, you shouldn't waste your time with this one.

Hopefully Disney won't be making any more sequels to any of the other classics any time soon.


My Take: Typically routine and lazy straight to video attempt from Disney.

Disney must have fallen in love with the family movie tradition that is the family dog. Many movies have devoted themselves with stories that solely center themselves with man's best friend. Disney themselves have made a handful. They also made a handful of those that are literally dogs. Add this one to that bunch.

I haven't seen the original for a very long time, so probably I'm not the right person to judge if this straight-to-video sequel fares any better. Anyone above the age of seven aren't the right people to see it either. Perhaps only the youngest of the young will want to see LADY AND THE TRAMP II: SCAMP'S ADVENTURE, and even they would grow up and say it wasn't the best kind of family entertainment they have ever seen. I guess to be fair, I can say is that it warrants a rental, but that ain't much to say.

This sequel pretty much picks up the parts left behind after the original oft-called classic. Lady and Tramp now have a litter of cute Crocker Spaniel pups... and one mischievous mongrel named Scamp who is a chip off the old block. Instead of the confines of home, Scamp wishes to run off with the other junkyard dogs of town, unknown of his dad's own past as one of those mongrels of the streets. To capture the charms of the original, this one throws in the same poor dog/rich dog love story, in vice-versa. Scamp falls for a one of the junkyard dogs named Angel (and who wouldn't with a name like that and a voice that sounds like Alyssa Milano?). Que replay of the famous spaghetti scene! Other than the "cute" factor, there is nothing in store for any audience in this lazy straight-to-video effort. Stick with the original.

Rating: ** out of 5.


A few of my fellow writers have covered this movie's plot elements so I will stick to some of the cuff remarks...

1. This is entertaining - but not for the reasons you'd think. It's cheesy but somehow still watchable.

2. Tamra, Daniel's love interest has to be about thirty. The Christian girl that Dan ignores is way cuter.

3. Muriel stole his shirt from Mr. Spock. Also, if my guardian angel looks like Muriel I'm going to have to apply for a transfer.

4. Okay... so apparently... Dan is responsible for his parents' divorce! What kind of horrible guilt trip is that?! Muriel says that it was Dan's prayers that kept his parents together. I just thought that was absolutely ridiculous. Listen, I can pray for my parents as much as I want but the only way they'll stay together is if they decide they're going to do it.

5. I'll echo the atheist's comments on how this movie portrays non-Christians. Apparently they're all slovenly bullies.

6. For something positive - David White is a decent actor. He gives the movie a little bit of credibility, even if he is the only one. He pretty much holds this film together on his own.


All those who criticize The Sopranos for its stereotypical portrayals of Italians haven't seen anything until they've gotten a good look at this cornball gangster film which focuses on a family so irritating, you almost want them to be rubbed out.

The parents in this clan aren't so bad, but their two little boys--one a total brat, one cloyingly cutesy-poo--are insufferable, while their older good-for-nothing son and Pollyanna daughter ably compete for audience contempt. But the granddaddy of them all is, well, Granddaddy. As played by Chic Sale (in full "Dag-nabbit!" mode) he serves as the films moral compass, throwing in lots of diatribes about "dang, dirty foreigners" for good measure. If these are the good guys, it's no wonder the actors of that era who played baddies became the big stars.

Not that there are any stellar performances to be found among the criminal actors, but they at least acquit themselves better than the grating Leeds family. The incompetent police officers aren't even given enough screen time to bring things down any further. Only Walter Huston, as the district attorney, elevates the cliché-riddled material in his futile attempts to breathe some levelheadedness into these dolts.

The film deserves credit for being an early entry in what would prove to be a very popular silencing-the-witness formula, and it doesn't flinch in its depiction of the hard-bitten underworld lifestyle, but there are quite simply better--and less xenophobic--examples in the genre.


Aside from a few good moments of fairly raw violence, this painful film is most notable for making 68 minutes seem like two hours.

It starts with an interminably long intro where the Leeds family is introduced, including two insufferable tykes and their adult brother and sister, completely clichéd Pa and Ma, and incredibly annoying Grandpa (played by Charles "Chic" Sales). While sitting down to dinner the family is disturbed by the sounds of gunfire, and rushes to the window in time to see two men gunned down by mobsters in the street. The mobsters flee through the family's house, leaving them as witnesses to the crime.

The rest of the movie consists of Walter Huston as the crusading DA occasionally interrupting long anti-crime speeches to make half hearted attempts at trying to protect the family from the mob. It all winds up in a predictable manner.

Good points about the movie include a couple of decent shootouts and a truly nasty beating, Nat Pendleton as one of the mobsters, and the gorgeous Sue Blane in a small role as the Leeds daughter.

If you want to watch Huston play his early trademark crusading lawman, try 1932's "Beast of the City." Avoid this one if at all possible.


Warner Brothers social responsibility at its most ham-handed, with sermonizing every five minutes or so about how we're Americans, we don't run from trouble, we face up to our responsibilities. It also suggests that if you're willing to perjure yourself to protect your family from clearly deadly gangsters, you're un-American. Walter Huston, looking bored, is the frustrated DA, and the "average American family" includes such familiar faces as Sally Blane (looking a lot like her sister, Loretta Young) and Dickie Moore, as an allegedly adorable moppet. Both are regularly crowded out of the frame by Chic Sale, only 47 then but playing an octogenarian Civil War veteran, ponderously jumping and "amusingly" nipping at Prohibition hooch and moralizing about how we're Americans, dag nabbit. His St. Vitus Dance old-coot performance is tiresome schtick; it's like Walter Brennan based his entire career on it. William Wellman directs efficiently and quickly, much like his earlier "Public Enemy," but he and the screenwriter neglect to show what happens to this family after the happy fadeout -- i.e., they'd probably be rubbed out by the Mob.


What annoys me with so called 'science' programs such as these is that it is presented as if it were a FACT that dinosaurs live 'millions' of years ago. Firstly, nobody can even conduct a scientific experiment to prove that the earth is millions/billions of years old. It's a shallow theory based on inaccurate radiometric dating methods with huge assumptions thrown into the evolutionary pot.

Secondly, nobody can prove that evolution ever happened. All Darwin's missing links are still MISSING ! If you look at all the fossils anywhere in or on the earth, they are complete animals of a certain kind eg: a dog or a cat. Nobody has ever found the skeleton of a dog turning into a cat or in the example presented in this series, a dinosaur turning into a bird.

This is utter hogwash. There's more proof that Santa Claus exists than any animal changing into another kind of animal.

All the ideas presented in this series is an attempt to eliminate the idea that the universe and the everything in it, was created.

This series is NOT SCIENCE. It is a religious world view that hides under the banner of science. Science is something we can observe and repeat. What you are seeing here is SCIENCE FICTION.

If you want to watch a science fiction program that has the decency to admit that it's a science fiction program, then rather watch Star Trek or Star Wars.


Based on a Edgar Rice Burroughs novel, AT THE EARTH'S CORE provides little more than means to escape and give your brain a rest. A Victorian scientist Dr. Abner Perry(Peter Cushing)invents a giant burrowing machine, which he and his American partner(Doug McClure)use to corkscrew their way deep into the earth to explore what mysteries it may hold. They soon discover a lost world of subhuman creatures having conflict with prehistoric monsters.

Cushing comes across as an absent minded professor to the point of being annoying. Instead of being a bold adventurer, he comes across effeminate. On the other hand McClure overacted enough to make himself also laughable. Caroline Munro plays the pretty Princess Dia that refuses to leave her world near the center of the earth. Also in the cast are: Godfrey James, Cy Grant and Michael Crane.


Compared to director Kevin Connor's later ARABIAN ADVENTURE, this is a masterpiece. However, that's not saying much. In fact, AT THE EARTH'S CORE is a silly fantasy adventure in which Peter Cushing - who appears to be on something strong - and some other actor (whom I don't know) use a giant digging machine called the "Iron Mole" dig their way down to the Earth's core - only to find that the inside of the Earth is pink and populated by ape-like creatures who have enslaved the humans. There's also a giant bird that controls the apes by means of telepathy, and we get to see it blink its eyes in closeup throughout the film. Most importantly, Cushing and what's-his-name also encounter the lovely Caroline Munro in the subterranean caves. And here's what I've really got against this little flick: why oh why is it that whenever Munro's in a movie, she only gets approx. 5 minutes of screen time? In THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MANIAC, DRACULA AD 1972, GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD - always she's in the background! How can Kevin Connor possibly think that we'd rather listen to Peter Cushing's fake accent and look at some ridiculous ape-man whose voice sounds like a scratched cd than gaze at the beautiful Munro? I don't get it. Please, somebody direct a movie where this English brunette is on-screen all the time!


A brilliant professor and his sidekick journey to the center of the earth in a huge machine which screws its way to the core. There, naturally, they find all kinds of things that are intent on killing and eating them. Plus, of course, a love interest for the young sidekick. Ho hum, does the plot never take a different tack?


Mildly entertaining and self consciously cheezy -- but what else could it possibly be? Cushing in one of his poorest roles, and he often sounds dubbed. McClure is just too Cheezy to be believed, but who can blame him in the wasteland of this movie whose plot about ancient dinosaur birds ruling humans has 19th Century throwback "period charm," but not enough and unfortunately the script carries the racist connotations of the literary genre into films. Nice effort from the actors, but a poorly conceived production.


There I am sitting at home in the morning, suddenly my brother flips on what appears to be the stupidest looking movie i have ever seen. Considering it was the 70's and special effects weren't to sharpe, this movie just about equaled the definition of crap. The stupid monsters, the stupid story line, and the stupid setting made this the worst movie I have ever seen. So bad in fact I didnt even finish it, I made it up to a certain point then proceeded to see how long I could go without putting a rope around my neck and hanging myself. (im just kidding haha) AWFUL MOVIE


Doug McClure has starred in a few of these British produced genre adventures and this one has got to be the worst of the lot . I know THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT has its critics but please at least that movie featured location filming and relatively good production values . That's the problem with this movie - The production values go way beyond " So bad they're good " affectionate territory and become " so bad I think I'll go and see what's on the other channels "

One case in point is the first scene featuring the intrepid Cushing and McClure encountering a monster . It's painfully obvious the monster is an average sized man dressed up as a rubber monster being made to look over twenty foot tall via overblown back projection . It becomes even more painfully obvious that our heroes are trying to escape the monster by running on the spot . Have I mentioned that this is one of the more convincing set pieces ? No really this looks like it was filmed in somebody's living room with the spare change left over from that year's DOCTOR WHO budget . Even former DOCTOR WHO Peter Cushing is bland and what should have been an amusing line " You can't mesmerise me - I'm British " is delivered in a very flat way ( A very similar line is spoken by Cushing in HORROR EXPRESS ) in a script devoid of characterisation , plotting and memorable dialogue . It's not just the fact that the dialogue is unmemorable it's also infrequent and rare since the monsters don't speak . Wouldn't it have been better having the chief bad guys humanoids like in WARLORDS OF ATLANTIS so that they could explain the plot . Does anyone here know what the plot actually is ?

A very tedious British movie that even the twin talents of Caroline Munro can not save . The whole mood of the movie is summed up by the final sequence featuring two keystone cops


"At the Earth's Core" was on television yesterday. I was at my computer working and happened to glance over and see what must have been some of the worst action sequences ever made. I was instantly enthralled by the film's shoddy production values, appalling acting (by all included -- even Peter Cushing) and horrific, unintentionally hilarious action sequences and puppet-monsters.

The film is about a Victorian scientist who takes a stereotypical Buff American Hero on a ground-boring trip in the Welsh countryside. Little do they know that a great evil lurks at the center of the earth's core....

Forget the fact that the title doesn't make sense. (If they were really at the earth's core, they'd be about 2700 kg/m3 underground and burning alive in a sea of iron or whatever it is down there.) Forget that the puppets used in the production rival "The Beast Master" for being the fakest-looking of all-time. No, the real genius of "At the Earth's Core" is its naive stupidity -- a gung-ho action spectacle without real action and without real spectacle. It is in essence just a gung-ho movie and a stupid one at that. People who enjoy MST3K-style stuff will love this -- it's appallingly bad, and indeed so bad it is almost enjoyable in a strange way.


Why is impossible to write in french ? Very Kitch! This journey in the center of the earth is despicable technical possibilities nevertheless current in 1976. These big "Casimir" of monsters is completely ridiculous! The film deserve however a "remake", as was "KING KONG" (the last one), with a little more supplied scenario. The professor has resemblances with the Professor Calculus and is rather funny. David (the character) is enough inconsistent but cross(spend) to the people from below a good message " you unite and will overcome you! " Altogether we would say a film made in the 40s. Now that I said everything (or almost) the evil of which i thought of it, we can say that if we have the brain get tired or anything has to see of the other one, then the thing(matter) is even rather entertaining. Hugh! Such is my opinion! (translating French to English with "Reverso" : sorry for possible mistakes !)


Of all the E.R.Burroughs screen adaptations that Doug McClure starred in the 70s, this is the stagiest of all. It's so stagy, you can taste the dust of the sets and feel the heath of the lamps above. The thing looks like a very, very big budget school play, or indeed, a very very low budget action movie, which it actually is. It's been said on many occasions that this was the last of the genre entries, and I do hope it was. The genre didn't die peacefully, but in horrible agony, amidst a lot of smoke, fake blood and lousy sound effects. Peter Cushing must have felt a boy again, as a nutty professor whose shirt stays white as snow after the gentlemen has dragged himself through the slimy crap-holes of the Underworld. What a sport he was, to accept a part in this mishmash and carry it so bravely.

Shot entirely on a sound stage and accompanied by then trendy, now unbearable synthesizer soundtrack, the main anti-attraction of this film are the cardboard monsters. Yes, there are always monsters like that in a Burroughs adaptation, but they rarely manage to be so completely ridiculous, helpless or void of any credibility. On a few occasions, during the elevated action-combat scenes where Mr McClure heroically attacks the creatures, you can almost hear the empty, hollow sound as his head bangs against the side of a triplodactocryptosaurus. Fortunately, the animals explode and go up in flames the minute they trip and fell over. Indeed, there is a great deal of unmotivated exploding as the film (and the genre) draws towards the finale. And lovely Miss Munroe loses her underworldly accent.

The triple bill, currently on the market, features this film plus two others - The Land That Time Forgot and The War Lords Of Atlantis. The first two are quite strong entries, especially the first one, with a lot of money invested and occasionally even fascinating script turns. Don't expect any of these qualities from this film. Get drunk with pals and laugh shamelessly at what you see. After all, the makers didn't have any shame either.


There is something about Doug McLure's appearance in a movie that is a warranty of wretchedness. His DG initials are like a special cinema-certification, that comes somewhere before 'U'.

Cushing, on the other hand, seemed to suffer from both a dilatory agent and poor judgement of his own. He did excellent work in the Hammer movies as Dr Van Helsing. I'v seen him do a very passable Sherlock Holmes in 'Hound Of The Baskervilles'. And his magnum opus was probably Grand Moff Tarkin in the first 'Star Wars'. The only man but the emperor who could tell Darth Vadar to 'stop bickering' and get away with it. But - crikey! - he's done some turkeys. There was that lamentable 'Daleks' movie for one. And here's another.

There's a machine that's been hijacked from Tracy Island. It's a cylinder with a screw at the front and traction devices at the sides. I'm surprised Jerry Anderson didn't sue for plagiarism. Maybe he was bought-off. Yet if the movie is any guide, they can't have paid him much.

It's 1976 and we're still playing about in latex romper-suits.

That's about it really. Some movies have an entertainment value in the 'so bad it's good' category. This one doesn't even manage that. It wouldn't even entertain kids. 'Crash Corrigan's' stuff from the 1930's has got more going for it.


This is just about one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Maybe not a worst movie ever contender, but if you haven't seen that many bad ones, this could easily make your Top Ten Worst List. When you consider what was achieved in 1933 with the original "King Kong", you've got to ask yourself why anyone would stoop so low as to produce this debacle. Then, taking it one step further and realizing that the quantum leap to "Star Wars" the following year achieved a new level in sci-fi entertainment, this offering will make you laugh and cry at the same time.

Now let me ask you, what would possess the Professor (Peter Cushing) to bring along an umbrella as a prime piece of subterranean research equipment for the ride to the earth's core? OK, so it was useful in fending off the parrot/tyrannosaur (parrotosaurus?) in the early going, but come on. Somehow I don't think this is what Edgar Rice Burrough's had in mind when he wrote his tales of Pellucidar. He probably didn't have Caroline Munro in mind either as Princess Dia, probably the only redeeming factor to this whole escapade.

At least there was one bit of pseudo-scientific explanation that I got a kick out of; I'm always looking for one in films like this. That would have to be how the sky at the earth's core was really the underside of the earth's crust, explaining that ethereal pinkish glow. But try as it might, the story just couldn't hook me in a way to find anything at all interesting about Hoojah the Sly One or Jubal the Ugly One, much less those goofy half man, half pterodactyl creatures. To paraphrase the good professor - "You cannot mesmerize me, I'm paying attention!"


It's amazing to think that this movie came out only one year before Star Wars but seems a million years behind it in sophistication and special effects. Actually, the art direction and set design (nice Victorian space ship) aren't bad; it's the monster costumes that are the most laughable, resembling the "guy in a rubber suit" monsters from the LOST IN SPACE TV show. The evil cave-man makeup reminded me of some of the aliens from ancient TWILIGHT ZONE reruns.

The script is stilted, and outside of Peter Cushing's comic relief the acting is pretty miserable too. This movie is only recommended if you really enjoy bad kitschy SF. And the music...yikes! A horrible 70s experiment with synthesizers that doesn't fit the time period of the film and which sounds like someone rambling with a Minimoog and a 2-track tape machine.


Yeah it may not be for adults, and some adults may find it stupid, but if you don't think about it it's really not that bad.

The story has Alvin and his gang, going across the world, in search of jewels for a bad person, and the misadventures that they come in contact with.

So the animation is good, and the story is cute, and the songs are forgettable but it's a good movie.

I give it a 6 out of 10 or *** out of 4 stars.


Meltdown opens on a scene of scientists preparing to conduct an important test on a missile system developed to deflect asteroids should they be on a collision course with earth. Nathan (Vincent Gale) mentions some misgivings to his, but the test appears to be an unqualified success. Then the asteroid breaks apart, and the largest piece is pushed into a direct collision path with earth. Fortunately, the huge rock skips off of earth's outer atmosphere and ricochets into space. Unfortunately, the glancing blow is just enough to alter earth's orbit, and the planet begins to spiral closer to the sun.

While all of this is going on above their heads, Los Angeles cops Tom (Casper Van Dien) and Mick (Greg Anderson) are on a stake-out. They're supposed to collect evidence against a suspected drug dealer, but the deal they're watching quickly devolves into a shooting match. Afterward, Tom takes a few minutes to be interviewed by a local television reporter who also happens to be his girlfriend, Carly (Stefanie von Pfetten).

At a nearby hospital where Mick is treated for a minor injury, Tom has a brief chat with his ex-girlfriend Bonnie (Venus Terzo), who is a nurse. He tells her he's concerned about the fact that their 17 year-old daughter Kimberly (Amanda Crew) is dating a man named CJ (Ryan McDonell). Once Tom explains to Bonnie that he's discovered CJ has a criminal record, she's a little worried herself.

It's not long, however, before everybody has something else to worry about. The temperature is rapidly rising all around the world. Carly is one of the first non-scientists to learn what's really happening. Nathan, who is her brother, calls her to say he may have a way that they can survive. Carly calls Tom; he, of course, promptly contacts Bonnie.

In relatively short order, the motley group is on the road. Before they can reach their ultimate goal, however, they've got to make their way through bands of looters, deal with a catastrophic water shortage, and manage to travel in temperatures that are high enough to kill.

Casper Van Dien is a good looking guy, and I actually enjoyed him in Starship Troopers. That may be because he's good in action scenes. It might also be because he didn't talk much in that movie. In Meltdown, he's unfortunately given just enough lines in situations that are just dramatic enough to showcase his entirely average acting abilities. Amanda Crew is also okay, and Ryan McDonell isn't bad, either. Vincent Gale and Stefanie von Pfetten are also both reasonably good, but Venus Terzo is sadly on a par with Van Dien.

What really makes or breaks a movie, though, is the story and the script. While the story here is okay and actually has some real potential, the script is just awful. The science part of the science fiction is non-existent starting with the asteroid pushing the earth out of orbit and escalating with the notion that the "gravitational balance of the solar system" might "pull the earth back" into its usual orbit "over time." When the temperature in LA hits 120 degrees, cars start blowing up.

You know what's even worse than the bad science? The bad continuity. Okay, really hot. Why are people in the movie not only wearing long sleeved shirts, but jackets, too? Why are people mugging each other for bottled water instead of turning on the taps at home? Why are the streets completely empty, but the freeways completely full? And why are the freeways full of unexploded? It's almost superfluous to note that the sets, costumes, and production values were good, especially when that only forces me to say that the edits were not.

So basically, you take a pretty good story idea and combine it with mostly mediocre acting, a terrible script, low-end special effects, utterly irrational plot twists, and poor edits, and what do you have? A movie that's even less than the sum of its inconsiderable parts. I'm sorry to say that I can't recommend Meltdown: Days of Destruction to anyone.

POLITICAL NOTES: There is mention here that Congress finally loosened the purse strings enough to fund the tests that start the movie rolling. While the tests here were wholly irresponsible (targeting an asteroid with a nuke and not knowing the composition of the big rock is, in fact, well beyond irresponsible and approaching the insane), the fact is that such scenarios are a very real danger to the planet. Unfortunately, we've tracked nowhere near all of the near earth asteroids that could be worrisome in some orbit some day; and our ability to spot something on a collision course with us is limited at best.

Once we do discover we're going to be hit, we quite literally have no system in place to deal with it. There are no nuclear-tipped space missiles we can launch; the space shuttle is completely incapable of going beyond earth orbit, and if it were, we couldn't launch enough of them or launch them quickly enough for it to matter. I'm not big on the government doing anything beyond its constitutional mandates, but I certainly think protecting the planet from destruction coming at us from outer space could be construed as defending the country, don't you? FAMILY SUITABILITY: Meltdown: Days of Destruction is rated R for "some violence." I frankly didn't find the violence here anything beyond a fairly typical T-rated video game. If your teens are keen on seeing Meltdown and you can't talk them out of it, the R-rating shouldn't dissuade you from letting them see it. It's not, however, a good idea to leave the younger kids in the room with their elder siblings. While the shootings aren't too graphic in the main, some of the dead bodies are.


This movie is total dumbness incarnate. Yet, i've seen this movie several times already and plan to watch several more times because, despite its sheer dumbness, it's very entertaining. And it has one of my favorite hokey-movie actors, Casper van Dien, who is here in his full hokey-movie glory. Here, Casper van Dien is fully Casper van Dien, and ya gotta love him for it. If he hadn't been in this movie, it would have been totally unwatchable dreck, or at least far dreckier than it already is.

The (cough cough) "science" used here makes absolutely no sense at all. No one else in the world noticed that big asteroid approaching the Earth besides that small group? Not even with thousands and thousands and thousands of professional and amateur astronomers constantly searching the skies for just such a thing? An asteroid that big would have made itself completely obvious to anyone who has a pair of eyes even vaguely capable of sight. And a chunk of the asteroid bounced off the atmosphere and no one even noticed it? A rock that big hitting the atmosphere would have caused enormous shockwaves that would have in turned caused an enormous amount of damage to the planet's surface. Surely, someone would have noticed such a thing. Bwahahaha! The "science" used in this movie is so completely ridiculous, that, somehow it works for making this movie as entertaining as it is.

One thing i noticed is that despite the uber heat, all the characters weren't dripping with sweat and their clothes completely soaked with it. At the most, the characters looked like they had been lightly spritzed on occasion by someone off-camera with a water bottle to give a "sweat sheen". Authenticity was *not* a goal that this movie assiduously and constantly strived for. Which, in a weird and hilarious sort of way, gives this movie its entertainment charm.

Is this movie actually worth watching? Definitely! Assuming, of course, you have absolutely *no* expectations of anything that even remotely approaches reality. And, it's your desire to wallow and luxuriate in total hokeyness at the moment.


MELTDOWN is pretty interesting SCI-FI. No major budget, very few special effects; but decent acting and a storyline of global doom is enough to sustain viewing. An asteroid grazes the atmosphere and thrust the Earth into an orbit closer to the sun. Global warming rapidly becomes unbearable. A determined LAPD cop(Casper Van Dien)goes all out to save the world from certain annihilation as the rising temps are devastating. The pressure is on to save mankind from this solar catastrophe; as well as protect his daughter, nurse ex-wife and TV reporter girlfriend. The cast includes: Stefanie Von Pfetten, Venus Terzo, Amanda Crew and Vincent Gale.


Poor Casper Van Dien, his career has slid a long way from Tarzan and Starship Troopers.

In Meltdown he's a policeman who just happens to be dating TV reporter Stefanie Von Pfeten and her brother is a scientist who's trying to deal with a speeding comment headed for Earth. But in the runaway comet business, even a near miss causes some real problems as the Earth's orbit goes out of kilter.

From the survival of the Earth we go to the survival of Van Dien and his immediate family. His daughter's gangbanger boyfriend, Ryan McDonell actually proves to be of some use especially when he suspects a guy he knows as a crooked cop might mean the Van Dien group a lot of harm.

My only question here is, why didn't they have Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton and the rest of that crew to deal with the nasty comet?

Pass this one up folks.


I would rather have someone cut out my eyeballs with a razor blade than have to watch this movie again. I watched it from start to end thinking it couldn't get any worse....BUT IT DID. The writers and producers should be slapped for putting this kind of crap on television. The actors are ALL terrible. Get out of Hollywood you fools and go work at McDonalds sweeping the floors and emptying the trash. Anyone that thinks this movie is even remotely decent should be hung. They are an embarrassment to humanity. To think we have soldiers putting their lives on the line for anyone that produces this kind of inane garbage. Makes me embarrassed to say I'm an American.


This was a modest attempt at a film, though it appeared more like a TV pilot extended.

Some may find this unfair, but it looks like someone saw "The Brothers" and "Save the Last Dance", and thought "Hey, I could do that too." Well, not quite.

While I personally found the movie predictable, somewhat poorly acted, and contrived (watch for the cookies), Carl Payne shows that he can carry off a lead role, and should be back on television. The leading lady (can't remember her name, sorry) was plausible too, but you keep thinking of Julia Stiles (she was the one in "Save the Last Dance", right?) because this one was really stuck in "white girl" mode.


I am a huge Randolph Scott fan, so I was surprised and disappointed to find he is barely in this film! The movie really belongs to Robert Ryan, who is the hero in the jam, and the one embroiled in the love triangle. Good grief, Gabby Hayes gets more screen time than Mr. Scott in this movie!! For many viewers, that is not a problem, but I am from the Walter Brennan school of sidekicks, not Gabby Hayes...although I will say that his lines were a bit more humorous than annoying in this film than in many of his films with Randolph Scott and John Wayne.

Personally, I found the movie very slow going, with a convoluted plot that was muddied even more by the unnecessary romance subplot. By convoluted, I don't mean impossible to understand or figure out, I just mean too messy for its own good.

The direction is uninspired, and the two main bad guys have the most unsatisfying come-uppance at the end. The whole movie comes across as fake, unrealistic, and poorly filmed.

Just so you don't think I can't find anything good here...

On the plus side, Anne Jeffreys is very sexy in her all-too-brief parts of this film. Not sure if it is actually her singing, or someone else, but whoever it was had a very pretty voice. Ms. Jeffreys also had a couple of nice acting moments. The script needed either a lot more of her, or to remove her character altogether. As it was, her nice few moments weren't enough to help the film.

Lastly, there is Mr. Scott. He looks fantastic in this film and is the no-nonsense lawman out to set things right. Some folks complain that his characters prior to 1950 were too goody-goody perfect, but that's never bothered me at all. I'll take him goody-goody pre-1950, or gritty and violent post-1950...either way, Randolph Scott was a real Western hero.

It saddens me to have to say it, but I would have to recommend passing this film by, unless you are a die-hard fan...there are so many better Scott films out there that this one won't be missed.


This movie is such a piece of unbelievable crap. First let me talk about the pros: Sandra Bullock in a black bathing suit.

Now the rest of the story which is all pretty much bad. We have said computer programmer Angela Bennett (who's online profile is ANGEL - HOW WITTY!!! I bet the directors cheered over that one for an hour) who basically checks other Company's software for errors/glitches etc. So we start with her ordering pizza on the Internet and then putting on a fireplace on her monitor (EXTREME computer skills shown thus far). This is after she finds some virus on a macintosh program which crashes the whole system after hitting the escape key. This is apparently a HUGE problem yet the virus created to do such could be done in about 1 minute with a simple batch file.

Any event, we move on. She gets this call from some other bloke (that works at the same company) and this fool says to go click this symbol which apparently opens up some secret Internet gateway to a bunch of unprotected 'top secret' data woohoo! Angela saves this crap on a disc and now the people that created this loophole are out to get her. This of course is only after she hooks up with one of the bad guys only BEFORE he tries to kill her BEFORE she jumps in the ocean off his boat, BEFORE she winds up in a random hospital.

Problem #1: You can't create a loophole on the Internet to gain access to a bunch of top secret FBI data. Where the hell did this come from? Since when can a group of hackers control the basic flow of the Internet (even in 95)? Problem #2: Angela would need proper identification before a hospital or clinic would release her. She could not just pack her things and go.

Then these 'hackers' or whatever change Angela's ID so she can't get help from anyone and conveniently enough all her ID is gone. So she returns home and a cat and mouse chase goes on and on and on.

Apparently all police and FBI people are stupid and don't believe her. So then she has to utilize a bunch of tactics to enter into the building where she works (where the person who is now filling in for her is) and get back to her old computer. She starts talking to some other random bloke and finds out who is behind everything through some BS IP address that the director knows the audience is too stupid enough to believe.

Then she runs to some center to mail all this information to the FBI. She apparently HAS to use a mainframe to email stuff to the FBI. But then the same fool that tried to kill her BEFORE throwing her in the water catches her and easily hacks into the FBI again (wtf?). But remember that cool virus? Well somehow she luckily gets that and even though the virus only worked on software, it now works on the entire system too. It brings down the whole mainframe which has all the fake information because the mainframe was just sitting in the middle of some convention... WHAT THE HELL IS THIS CRAP! Anyway, the now uber virus works and Angela (the real one now) runs away and later kills the evil dude with a fire extinguisher. He of course has a gun, runs up to her so he's like 2 feet away and then decides to aim. CLASSIC Hollywood.

All in all this movie is so full of BS and crap. Anyone who doesn't know a lot about computers will be wildly fooled into thinking this crap is possible but not one thing is accurate concerning computers or the net. And I honestly doubt I'd see a multiplatform virus for Mac and a mainframe computer (*cough LMAO*).


Made and released at the time when the internet was just becoming huge, this is a storyline Hitchcock would have loved.

Sadly, Hitchcock wasn't around to make it, and we're left with an occasionally suspenseful but mostly silly thriller, that is held (barely) together by Bullock's intelligence.

It was released in 1995 but is already dated, and the amount of mistakes and inaccuaracies regarding computers must be seen to be believed, and you don't even have to be a dot.com person to spot them!


Okay... she's on the boat with this guy, realizes he's out to kill her, knocks him out, and then finds the reason he's out to off her is this disk that got her coworker killed. So what would any rational person do? Maybe conk him over the head again to make sure he's really out?? Tie him up?? Look, Sandra honey, you've got the chance to escape while the guy is out for only so long. Until you know how long it will take you take you to escape, make sure he's not able to come after you. I HATE these stupid female victim roles. The rest of the movie was just a series of twists and turns that were completely convoluted and too unbelievable to remain interesting.


SPOILER ALERT!!!!

I don't go into 'high tech' movies expecting them to be 100% accurate on all things computer related. But somehow, even the average 'I have a computer' user is supposed to believe that:

1) A computer professional with a top secret, special data

2) is going to keep the primary copy of said data on a 1.44 floppy

3) and make absolutely NO BACKUP of this special secret data

Even high school students back up their homework for goodness sake.

Also this is the worst represntation of a computer nerd ever. Even though she is super cute we are supposed to believe that she has no friends, neighbors, extended family, or coworkers who can identify her. Even the unabomber had a family that could turn him in.

END SPOILER

These aren't just minor mistakes that had no bearing on the movie - These are the major plot points that fueled the storyline. The characterization was awful, the plot wholly unbeleivable, and if you haven't seen this, don't bother.


This is basically just a dumb chase story, nearly identical to zillions of other chase stories in terms of acting, suspense, plot, dialogue, characterization (or lack thereof), and pacing.

The one area in which 'The Net' diverges from traditional chase movies is in its subject material: Computers. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters clearly didn't understand the differences between a pocket calculator and a Cray!

Computer-newbies shouldn't watch this movie, because it will make them paranoid about computers. No matter what Hollywood tries to tell us, it's just not that easy to erase someone's identity by hacking. There's still too much paper documentation in the world, and there was even more of it in 1995.

Computer-pros shouldn't watch this movie, either. I mean, a magical virus that can melt your entire PC when you press "Escape"? Please. And the whole virus, including the cool multimedia effects of your screen dissolving (what's THAT all about?) can fit on a single 1.44mb diskette? Yeah ... whatever.


Rating: *1/2 out of ****

"The Net" is one of those films that won't remain in your mind till the next one hour. Well... Just if you keep thinking how bad it is. It's a mediocre, miserable, hollow, laughable and predictable piece of garbage. One of those adjectives I've just used above is the reason which made me add 1/2 a star to the one I would have given. So is it a case of 'so bad it is good'? No. It's a case of 'so bad it is laughable'.

Bullock in a (surprise!) very bad performance plays Angela Bennett, a computer expert who is at home all the time. She works at home, doesn't have any friends and her neighbors don't know her. Suddenly, she sees herself involved in dangerous situations, after her colleague dies and the same thing almost happens to her. Her identity, bank accounts, etc, etc, etc, are all deleted, and she is now Ruth Marx. The conspiracy involves even the government and... Wait! Haven't we seen this before? Yes, thousands of times. "The Net" tries to be modern, to be the portrait of the '90s, showing the computer as a villain. Big deal! It is a film about nothing, just a pretext to show ridiculous action scenes. Take the scene of the boat accident. I just laughed when the camera started to get slow...

What makes everything even worse here is Sandra Bullock. How awful she is! Has she already made a decent film? "A Time to Kill", okay. But she is still a bad actress, repeating her robotic face moves in each of her pictures.

The vantages and disadvantages of the computer were already shown in "2001: A Space Odyssey", the best, most intelligent and most complex film ever made. It's not needed to compare "The Net" with it, is it...?

The only reason to see "The Net" is to laugh, as I've said, and to see what it tried to be. The results, well, are a shame.

DELETE this film from your mind!


Computing . Can there be anything more boring ? Sitting in front of a computer all day typing away at some keys all day every day , tap tap tapping . That's much of the problem with this movie , the heroine sits in front of a computer VDU tapping the keys and no matter how many looks of agitation she gives , or how much suspenseful notes the composer strikes or how many extreme close ups the director uses there's not much excitement down to the fact that there's few things less exciting than watching somebody on a computer

There's a few other problems too much of them factual errors regarding how computers work . Is it possible to hack into a computer that is both turned off and not connected to the internet ? I guess that when THE NET was made 10 years ago very few people would understand how computers worked so the screenwriters would have been able to BS at length but since we now live in a global village where nearly every household in the western world has their own computer the audience are certainly very clued up on the factual errors of this movie . And of course there's too many instances where someone acts stupid or out of character at crucial times in order to progress the plot which makes THE NET a very mediocre movie


We can conclude that there are 10 types of people in this world.

Those who understand binary and those who do not. Those who understand binary put this movie to its grave along with hackers, while those who do enjoy this movie for the sake that none of this crap could happen. Ever.

 For a movie to attempt to be a modern movie with fiction applied to it. It has failed. Horribly. Only a 11yr old and below can enjoy and only 30yr and up could be scared to have their identity taken. It losses out on the main market for a resale value(i watch it now it is more boring than when it was first released).


[ as a new resolution for this year 2005, i decide to write a comment for each movie I saw in theater (10%) or in DVD (90%).

I must admit that DVD have revolutionized this habit. For instance, i can hear the true voice of the cast, which is an essential trait of the personality. In my country, non french movies are dubbed and we end up with aberrations: french voice is terrible, very far away of its original tone ! the same voice for different people or a same people with different voices !!!!

And well, if everybody found my comments unuseful, well, in 2006, I will stop my reviews... Ah,AH.... So, enjoy them now !!!! ]

My summary means that the story, locations, cast is not very enjoyable...

Only....

Sandra bullock is there.. She is a talented actress, able to get the viewer to catch on the movie....

It reminds of a feminine "the fugitive".... So if you look for a moment of escaping your life, watching this movie makes it worse because Sandra's life is a mess....

She got nothing left to hold on to, only her poor mother (Who is Alzheimer ill: again the touch for depression)....

In fact, she has a sad life in the beginning of the movie, has a sadder life throughout it, to finally get back to it at the end.... what a happy ending !!!!

maybe the writers wanted to make a point about a nerd's life....

very far away from the best computer movie of all time: *WARGAMES*


When, oh when, will Hollyweird write a decent movie based around computers? I cannot believe people actually consider this movie to be a credible story.

No computer operating system could ever survive wit that sort of annoying scrolling interface. It may look good on a movie screen but if you actually tried using it for any length of time you would go nuts.

As for "tracing" people the way she did it simply cannot be done that way. Network security alone would prevent that from happening. The key stroke logging was laughable to say the least.

Regarding the software that was supposedly being installed, no system administrator would allow such a critical piece of software to be installed on a production system until it has been tested, retested and tested again on a sandbagged system.

But probably the worst possible part of the movie was the "virus". There is no way that a virus that works on one operating system will work on any other system. And as for a virus that could take out a mainframe is a couple of seconds, that just beggars belief. There is no way that an open remote connection would have the required superuser access that would allow deletion of system files.

I could go on but I can't be bothered.

A porno has a better thought out plot that this pile of garbage.