Abysmal pulp adventure exploitation in the jungle woman genre. Lousy audio thankfully obscures the dumb dialog. And it's awfully talky for a movie about people who don't speak English. There's no adventure to be found here; it's a jungle adventure with cliffhangers and one wild animal attack that happens in flashback.

Three pale-face dopes wander the African wilderness and encounter warring man-hungry tribes of Amazons. These wild women have advanced out of the Stone Age only so far as to invent makeup, shoes, and underarm hair removal technology. Despite their desperation for "hus-bahnd," the ladies insist that they will fight the men and burn the weaker ones.

The only thing of interest, as if there were any question, is the assortment of young women clad in animal skins cleverly designed like the bathing suits of 1951. Plenty of wrestling and bad dancing mixed with stripless 1950s stripper moves. No nudity or appreciable violence. On the other hand, you may be humming the catchy native song for days.


The plot has something about white hunters captured by a tribe of white women in the African jungle/ plains.Its a turkey and the some. What it really is is wildly mismatched footage from early sound and silent films mixed with badly shot recent(to the release) footage of men on a safari. There are scenes of a man in a gorilla suit, south seas natives at sea (used to represent people in the middle of Africa), women in bikini's, horrible narration and a guy in a loin cloth with make up all over his body (racially insensitive I think so). This is a movie to sit and make fun of- but only with lots of alcoholic drinks and witty friends. At any other time this is going to be a chore to get through. Its a bad bad bad movie. Beyond that I'm speechless


This story is about a safari in Africa that meets some guy named Trent--who convinces them to look for a tribe of white babes. Naturally, they turn out to be amazon warriors and capture the men. The rest is pretty predictable.

This movie has everything you'd expect in a bargain basement movie about Africa--the substantial use of often irrelevant stock footage, film of animals that are NOT native to the continent (such as Orangutans, Moose, Coatamundis and Ground Hogs),a white actor in dark makeup playing a native, bad acting (particularly from Trent--a handsome man with the personality of balsa wood), comic relief (sounding like Chico Marx), a guy dressed up in a gorilla suit and bikini-clad white women with perms who are supposedly fierce jungle warriors--like a tribe of angry female Tarzans. By the look of it, my assumption is that the movie was made for under $49.95--including developing costs and paying for rental of the gorilla suit! But, what I didn't expect was an IMDb score of 4.9. This is poor, but not that poor considering that this is a schlock production in every possible sense and there is no conceivable reason why the film is rated that high! Now I am NOT saying the film isn't worth seeing--it's campy and stupid enough to make enjoyable viewing--particularly with friends. Just don't expect anything resembling a professionally made or competent film.

Finally, here's a smattering of the dialog from this jungle classic:

"Oolama like strong white man. Oolama want strong white man..."

"oonga-bunga"

"me-te-tonga....no,....keeel ('kill') man"


This movie, although well shot and superbly acted, was awful. I felt as if I was watching a car accident--sure I kept watching but I really wanted to turn my head. The plot leaves little to be desired, was extremely disjointed, and the ending was abysmal. Although, it did fit the tone of the movie, I was hoping for something to improve this movie. I still don't understand what the references to rabies and the child get bit by the fox at the beginning of the movie. Fifteen minutes of plot that really didn't do much. It's really sad to see a movie with fine actors and a beautiful set wasted on such an awful, awful, story. There's not much more to say about this movie. Save yourself the time and watch c-span. It'll be more uplifting.


I'll have to admit that I'm at a disadvantage here; when I learn more about a film from other reviewers than from watching it myself, then that's a problem. Although the plot of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" seems generally straightforward, the movie allows too many cryptic elements to get in the way of what could have been a satisfying mystery. By the time we get to the scene where a witchy looking woman establishes the secrecy of "the first degree of the seven fold ray", I didn't know whether to laugh or rewind to see if I missed something.

In retrospect, the cryptic note retrieved by Mr. Lawrence (Leslie Banks) from the handle of a shaving brush was a craftily written message, leading to a dentist named Barbor, and eventually to the Albert Hall, a place, not a person as indicated by "A. Hall". But for all the intrigue, it's never made clear why the assassination target was being eliminated. Okay, so Louis Bernard was killed because he knew of a plot to assassinate a diplomat named Ropa, but why was Ropa a target? Come to think of it, why was the note even written and secured in the shaving brush? Did Bernard have to refer to it every now and then to remind himself what was going to happen?

With it's disjointed scenes, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is hard to follow and a bit disorienting, however I'll give Alfred Hitchcock credit for this early effort. For perspective, I'll have to watch some of his other work of the same era, though this movie certainly can't hold a candle to his later works like "Psycho" or "North by Northwest".


All through his career Hitchcock did great films; this was not one of them.

A man knows too much, his daughter is kidnapped to secure his silence, and in the denouement all is resolved to the accompaniment of gunfire and rooftop drama.

Anyone who has seen 1930s Fritz Lang films- 'M' comes to mind- will know how far this urban narrative of crime and conscience falls short of what had already been done in that genre at that time. There is an altogether amateurish air about much of the staging and acting which subverts any sense of menace, darkness, and depravity that Hitchcock might have been seeking to instil.

What it is worth watching out for, however, is the sequence associated with the shooting at the Albert Hall. Once that kicks off it is as if the film has been given a blood transfusion. The camerawork is lively, the cuts are interesting, and the way that everything combines to a climax is masterly. Here you can see the future master: Hitchcock effortlessly orchestrate all the resources to impressive and memorable effect: when the scream comes you really feel as well as hear it.


I think the manuscript of this movie was written on the piece of toilet-paper. No respect whatsoever to many important details which intrinsically make the movie. For example, the names of some Serbian terrorists (that I remember) are Caradan Maldic, Ivanic Loyvek and Leo Hasse. What kind of names are that? Certainly not Serbian! By the way, Caradan Maldic!!! What a name, I laughed for days thinking about it. Probably an implication on Karadzic and Mladic. Secondly, there have never been any cases of terrorism done by Serbians. A journalist like the main character ought to have known that. Thirdly, the actors playing Serbian terrorists are not even Serbs nor do they speak Serbo-croatian. All this aside, this movie is solidly acted but the story is paper-thin and full of holes. At times it makes no sense whatsoever!!!


Jeremy Irons and Forrest Whitaker are good actors. But this movie was badly written. First of all, during the hijack scene, Irons sits too comfortably in his chair...he appears to be READING something, and rather calmly too! Perhaps the director shot the actor in between takes? Also, the violence at the hijacking was a big letdown. Slow-mo, bullets flying--how his wife and daughter get killed is just not that interesting and the tension is lost. His grieving afterward wasted another 10 minutes. Then he decided to "get revenge" and talk to all his industry journalist friends and ambassadors (he's a journalist for the stuffy Economist rag) and lo and behold, they actually give him tips on where to find the bad guys! How do they know? But what really made me turn the movie off halfway through was when Irons finds his way into a warehouse where baddies are hanging out--BUT NOT THE BADDIES WHO KILLED HIS WIFE--and blows them away anyway. so he's just a murderer. he gets away and, well...I shut it off. I mean I couldn't figure out how his friends knew anything, and also I thought he was after the remaining 2 guys in custody who were the original hijackers. Instead he's going after their friends, I guess, or anyone who hangs out in warehouses and leaves automatic weapons laying around. The suspense was just totally conventional and the dialog was lame ("it's OK son, crying helps," he says to his son. Son says "no it doesn't" and father says "You're right..it doesn't.")Irons takes on questionable roles--like that one dragon movie he did. He was excellent in Brideshead Revisited, which is a completely different animal than this lukewarm thriller.


I can't believe some of the scores this film is getting on the IMDb website! Have I been issued with the Special Edition naff version? Edited by Dewhurst, produced by Bernard Matthews, this film should be housed in Battersea. I'm sorry for all the UK-centric references but if you're elsewhere and you've got no toenails to cut or you haven't got a beer mat collection to catalogue then this film might just be worth 90 mins of your remaining lifespan (as long as you haven't got any paint to watch drying). The plot has more holes than a pair of fishnet stockings and the direction and editing is astonishingly ham fisted. What on earth is Irons doing in this film?


The bearings of western-style Feminism on the various subcultures of India have hitherto remained largely non-existent, the two entities belonging to alien realms and threatening (in the name of tradition) never to coincide. Art imitates life (or so the claim goes) and popular Hindi cinema is no exception, reflecting an underlying misogyny which, regrettably, forms the foundation of much of the collective Indian culture. But why? What is it about the female gender that has rendered it so hateful to the culture that women are routinely subject to the most unimaginable horrors, including rape, murder, infanticide, imposed illiteracy, infidelity, and the subjugation of spirit that goes under the name of 'dowry'? Rajkumar Santoshi's latest offering, "Lajja", asks the same plaintive question, linking the atrocities committed against women through three separate chapters/episodes which comprise the journey of shame endured by its protagonist, Vaidehi (Manisha Koirala).

Direction on Santoshi's part is not up to par with the level the story demands. He fails to achieve the necessary sensitivity in depicting the saga of sadness and confronts the issue of misogyny from the side, instead of head-on. Santoshi has recently said that he did not make the film for an international film festival, but rather for the masses of his country. Regrettably, the tackiness shows, and the film too often delves into the action-blood-gore genre that Santoshi specializes in. The film suffers from its jerky, episodic pace and its ending is rather too contrived.

The female cast is given much kinder and more rounded characterizations than their male counterparts. The protagonist is played sensitively by the luminescently beautiful Manisha Koirala who proves in Lajja that she is one of our time's more competent leading ladies, and given a proper role and set up, emerges with a truly commendable performance. One wonders how brilliantly she may have shone had the film been made by a director with the appropriate creative intention and appreciation of the issue at hand. Mahima Choudhary puts in a laudable performance and continues to show that she is an untapped talent. Cast as Janki, Madhuri Dixit performs with a never-before-seen fervor and felicity for what truly deserves the name of 'acting.' The role of a street smart performer who finds solace in alcohol and the promise of an unborn child stands as the greatest risk in her cannon of song-n-dance roles which have maintained her marquee status over the past decade. Which leaves the final and most disturbing performance in this would-be feminist saga, that of the ceaselessly talented Rekha. Lajja is Manisha Koirala's film, there can be no doubt about that, but it is Rekha who dominates the proceedings in a performance that digs into your bones and sends echoes of terror through the vestibules of your heart. Rekha dazzles as Ramdulari, foregoing vanity and complacency to deliver a performance that is so replete with authenticity and ingenuity that emotional nudity becomes the mantra of this portion of the film. Comparisons are indeed odious, especially when rendered opposite one of the world's great leading ladies, but in the gracious presence of this reigning screen legend the others fade in her shadow.

"Lajja" has none of the sophistication of proto-feminist dramas like "Zubeidaa", "Pinjar", or even the Hell-Queen celebration "Laadla": it fulfills its feministic goals in two early moments:the loud tirade in which Mahima berates her in-laws for their abuse of her father who has committed no other crime than given birth to a girl. She erupts, leaving the wedding procession in shambles. Seeing her father devastated, she begins to weep, blaming herself for the chaotic destruction in front of her. She bemoans, "Why did I say anything? I have ruined everything! It is all my fault!" Her grandmother, witnessing silently the abuse she bore, comforts her by saying, "Why are you crying? There is no reason for you to be crying. You are not at fault for anything. The fault is mine. The fault is of every woman who came before you, because if we had had the courage to say in our day what you have said today, there would have been no need for you to say anything today." In this scene the importance of the Feminist Legacy is laid plainly in sight through words.

The other, more subtle moment comes very early in the film when Vaidehi (Manisha) has fled from her abusive husband to the refuge of her parents' home in India. To viewers of western societies, it may seem perfectly reasonable (indeed, natural) that any abused woman would seek the protective guardianship of her parents; this, however, is a societal taboo in many eastern cultures, India among them. Once a woman has been married, the identity she assumes is that of her husband and his personal assets (family, business, children, etc.) For her to turn her back on these responsibilities is a grave social sin, one which truly has no equivalent for the western woman. She is thereafter regarded as tainted and as 'damaged goods', one whose value has been nullified entirely by her own actions and her refusal to submit to the role she has been given. She is not so much an individual as she is an emblem of familial honor. Her father rebukes her for her actions, concerned that his familial honor will be tarnished irreparably by the daughter he had already transferred to another man. His primary concern is that of the impending marriage of Vaidehi's younger sister, a prospect made far less likely with a divorced elder daughter in the same household. He tells her in no uncertain that she must return to the man to whom she lawfully belongs, however violent and sadistic he may be. He levies against her the age old adage that, "The honor of every home lies in the hands of its daughter." Quietly and pensively, she replies, "Yes, the honor of every home lies in the hands of its daughter. But there is no honor for the daughter herself."


The core message is strong, the cast has given it their best shot, the packaging is excellent, but the screenplay is seriously over-dramatized and every cliche in the book on women's suffering in India has been over-used to the max.


In case you dear readers never heard, this movie was the main inspiration for last year's Samuel L. Jackson-Eugene Levy clunker The Man. This 80s-drenched buddy action-comedy pairs short 'n stubbly Billy Crystal and the late Ethiopian Shim-Shammer Gregory Hines together as some witty Chi-town cops who don't play by the rules. That's pretty much the extent of the movie. Interest is somewhat peaked by Hines' line delivery that is spookily similar to Will Smith's and by cameos of now-more-famous actors like Memento's Joe Pantoliano and "NYPD Blue's" Jimmy Smits. My favorite scene is, I dunno, the car chase on the tracks, I guess. Basically, I just view this movie as a major helping hand in the demolition of action buddy flicks. Well, this and Lethal Weapon 4... and Rush Hour 2... and The Man...


Sometimes there's a film so bad that you just keep watching in awe. This is one of those films. Of course I can't help that I'm biased. I'm from Chicago so I watched the scenes closely for accuracy and I don't find Billy Crystal funny at all. And I can't stand all that English style photography(Tony Scott etc) with the smoke machine working overtime and all the flourecent, soft lighting. I suppose we're supposed to believe that Billy Crystal is really from Chicago because he wears a Cubs jersey. Oh and the plot. If you really think about it, these guys should be locked up, not the bad guys, since they're more dangerous. And of course there's the cliché of the cops on the verge of retiring. But the funniest scene is the climax where the good and bad guys machine gun other to death in The Thompson Center(A state building!) Of course it's a cool building, but it's the equivalent of making a huge drug deal at the White house.


If you are home on a weekend, very bored and lack the will to move, with absolutely nothing better to do with your life for the next couple of hours you could enjoy making fun of this movie. The acting and script and general movie making of this film isn't actually all that bad, which is why it makes it possible to actually sit through this. This is defitnly a movie they would show in high school health class to teach the dangers of pre-marital sex. Or they could also show it to teach the dangers of very lame music - that 'rock' band Brian Austin Green is in is really terrible, I think thats a much greater threat to society than unwed parents.


I rented this movie because the cover was cool looking, the first 15 minutes of the movie are okay and somehow interesting, but once the young woman and her little sister go on their trip everything goes to hell and the movie becomes boring.


Yawn, that is my reaction to this film. I was really hoping this would have been a good modern day slasher but it doesn't even fall into the category of slashers. Instead, it tries to be something it isn't, which is a psychological thriller, and it fails so miserably at this. Even the title "Freak" suggests that this might be interesting. Match this with the cover art on the DVD and you think "OK, maybe I will give this one a try". Not worth the time.

The story actually starts up a bit interesting with a poor deformed child with bandages wrapped around his head being chained up by his fat Mother. She yells at him and probably beats him since in one scene we see her actually slap him for no reason. After all this, he decides he has had enough and smashes her face in with (I believe) a rock. Present day, he is now in insane asylum and is being transfered. On his way he breaks out of the van he is in and escapes. Introduce also the 2 leads characters, a little girl and her older sister. They are moving and hit the road. So most of the movie is them riding around in the car talking amongst themselves. But, the bandaged "Freak" is now on the loose and is about go on a rampage of grueling murder! (This is me being totally sarcastic)

I can't believe how boring this movie turned out to be. The budget was on the smallest ever with absolutely no special effects and the dialog I could just care less about. This is one of those movie where the packaging is better then the flick itself. And to compare this to Halloween?! Rubbish! I am not even a fan of the the Halloween series (except the 3rd one) but Halloween is far superior than this. At least with Halloween we have a great score and some genuinely creepy moments. With this, there is virtually no music except some piano here and there and there is nothing creepy about this movie. Maybe this movie would have fared better if it had a solid score because even the worst of movies are tolerable if the music is good.

Well, that is just my opinion on the movie. I thought it was just a complete waist of time and money. But, since the movie has over a 4/10 rating on IMDb, there must be people that like this movie. I am not one of those people. 2/10


The title, although singular, will undoubtedly remind real horror fans of Tod Browning's immortal classic about a troop of circus freaks and how they were misunderstood by the outside world. I can assure you, however, that this "thing" has absolutely nothing to do with "Freaks" or even with the art of professional film-making in general. This movie was recommended to me, supposedly because it's raw, disturbing and thought provoking despite the low budget production values. Yeah right The person who recommended it to me may now consider himself to be my personal foe! The low budget factor is correct, but that about sums it up. "Freak" is dreadfully slow, poorly made and every character that gets introduced is downright insufferableand that includes the freak too. Two siblings on their way to a new life encounter a deformed mental patient who escaped from the transport truck to another hospital and heads back to the house where he killed his mother at age 9. This could have been an interesting slasher with good isolated filming locations but, instead, Tyler Sharpe decided to make it boring and pointless family drama. The lead actress' attempts to look emotionally devastated are pretty laughable and the total lack of suspense and action can hardly be blamed to the limited budget. Total failure!


I seem to be disagreeing with a lot of folks here. but I really did not find this movie as scintillating as the reviews I read claimed. It was no doubt a touching story and the partition background provided the scope for an epic. but, the movie was a let down. specially for neone who has seen 'gadar'. inspite of the lead being played by sunny deol and the incessant songs, I must say gadar is the better of the two. the story being virtually the same. partition failed to create any depth in its characters as well as the scenes that were supposed to hav an impact. over looking kristin kruek's accent and the smallvile image, which in itself wasn't an easy job. the characters just did not seem too real. not that I am criticizing the acting by any of the lead. it just did not work. the atmosphere was well drawn up, but the movie really lacked in substance. not that I am die hard rambo fan, but some action cud have seen the movie through, or some character development. it all seemed like a rush to the finish. and the ending only added to the viewers dissatisfaction.

nonetheles, I must say that it was at least a good effort in seemingly unfamiliar territory by the director. and if U haven't seen gadar, then u mite even like it.


As we are well aware, movies are not set out to be a direct incorporation of history, but it is a disgrace when a movie is made which has absolutely little to no correlation. I wish the director and/or the screen writer had done his/her research in this topic. All this movie does is create a forum for hate between people, while causing a rift that should not be there. This movie portrayed the Sikhs and Muslims in a very negative manor, while making the third group (Hindus) look as if they were non existent in the brutal killings of the people of both nations. The inaccuracies, coupled with the sear disregard for one's faith as portrayed by 'Gian Singh' was a disgrace to the highest format. Though on a more positive note, the actors did a great job in acting in their roles. Both Kristen K and Neve C played their rolls exceptionally. I hope those that watch this movie do not see or use it as a template for the actual historical event.


I tried watching this movie, but I didn't make it past the first 15 minutes. It's a terrible disappointment, considering the cast, but I can't look past the fact that the dialogue is in English and some of the actors pretending to be Indian are not even close (read: Kristin Kreuk). Considering that India alone has 1/6th of the world's population and one of the biggest movie industries, I don't think it would have been hard for the film-makers to have found an excellent Indian actress to play the part. And I don't say so because of some blind patriotism, but because it's absolutely and totally absurd for a non-Indian to play the role of an Indian/Pakistani. Now some people say that 'as long as she's convincing who cares?' but my point is exactly that she's NOT convincing and never can be - not due to her acting skills, but due to her ethnicity. For example, however good an actor Tom Hanks may be, he'll never be able to play an Australian Aborigine!

But that is still minor to the biggest faux pas the film-makers made: having the dialogue in English. It totally destroys the mood, as well as any semblance of authenticity. Had the same movie been made in native languages (Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi) with English subtitles, this may have been an excellent movie. Unfortunately, as things stand, I would not recommend anyone seeing it, apart from film students who want to study "What not to do" in movies.


I am not quite sure I agree with the director of this version of The Scarlet Pimpernel. I imagined Sir Percy Blakeney a very calm, seemingly lazy aristocrat. This particular Sir Percy Blakeney appears to be teeming with overwhelming energy and volatility. I did not appreciate the Houdini, James Bond, Mission Impossible style escapes that Sir Percy engineered either. In the previous versions, wit was the tool for escape, not technology. Neither were the characters of Marguerite and Chauvelin adequately portrayed. There seemed to be little energy or chemistry in the interaction between the characters.

I do not wish to assign any blame, for perhaps the reason for my dislike of this movie might simply be a matter of difference in interpretation. Had the director's interpretation coincided with mine, perhaps I might not have been irritated by what seemed to me bad character portrayals.

I much preferred the version from 1982. Anthony Andrews was quite efficient as the imperturbable, calm fop. So were Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. In my opinion, the style of this period piece seems to have been lost with this latest adaption. I recommend sticking with the previous versions, either the one from 1934 or the one from 1982.


Having read the books and seen the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane

Seymour version, I have to say that this is not good at all.

According to the books, Percy is supposed to be a seemingly

foppish aristocrat when he's being Percy, and witty and clever

when he's being the Pimpernel, but here he just looks bored as

Percy and mean as the Pimpernel. Marguerite is supposed to be

the most beautiful woman in Europe, not a tired and frumpy-looking matron (she looks middle-aged, probably due to

bad make-up). Richard E. Grant has done much better things, and

Elizabeth McGovern's acting is uninspired and flat. The wit and

dash of the books and the Andrews/Seymour film is here replaced

by brawn and flashy editing that just don't make the cut.

 I might add that to a person who hasn't seen any previous version

or read the book, it would probably look ok.


Before I start to tear apart this movie, mark you--I LOVE THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL. That story is one of the best romantic adventures ever written. The movie staring Jane Grey is very good and the musical on Broadway is the hottest thing there. So, I thought when I heard that this film was coming out that it would be great since it was a BBC film.

To my surprise, it was a weak, totally stupid story that UTTERLY failed in capturing the gorgeous tale.

There were no exciting escapes with daring disguises. There was no deep love that made your heart flutter as Percy left the room and Marguerite sighed as her husband was leaving her again.

All it had was a confusing plot and a lot of out-of-the-blue sex and violence.

Sink me! What a horrible movie!


I don't know why they even kept the name. How they could call the series 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' after they deviated from the novels so much, I wouldn't have a clue. The character names are the only things they kept, and even then they changed a few of those, and mixed them up, and changed Percy's relationships with them. Admittedly, I only watched about two hours at the most of it, but that was enough for me to realize that the series was nothing like Baroness Orzcy had portrayed her characters, and probably would have been rolling around in her grave when it was filming and airing. Poor lady. I hope that when the next person wants to make a movie/series of the book they don't ruin it as completely as this series did.


I have read almost all the books by now, and have seen the musical production in two different languages. I absolutely adored everything that I have been acquainted previously. But lately I've been running out of resources to sustain my fancy. I still have couple of books left, but they are either in transit or they are the sequels which I am not in a hurry to read. So an idea dawned on me - Sink me! There are movies which I have not watched! Thus, I must watch them immediately.

The first five minutes of these series were... acceptable. In fact, I quite enjoyed the variation of the reason for the denunciation, however different it had seemed. It went all downhill from there, though. Chauvelin was too... foppish? And, I daresay, too old for this role. Not nearly that dark and dashing figure with his dreadful either-or. (And what was that with random bed scene featuring him? It was way too creepy - wasn't his only love the Madame Guillotine, and his only interest - his job, and his only obsession - Sir Percy?) Marguerite... Prettiest woman in France? Cleverest woman in Europe? I think not. Although, whatever compelled her to break into the study of Sir Percy I haven't the faintest idea. And whatever my Lord Tony has done to deserve this death? Yes, every member of the League did pledge his life to Sir Percy, but he would have never endangered any of them nor would have run away like a coward when his dear friend faces mortal danger. And if by any means he had to mourn his companion, he would have done that, mourn, not just move on as if nothing had happened. Which brings me to another point, Sir Percy. His portrayal was most dreadful. He was neither a lazy fop, nor a gallant and elusive hero who is a master of transformations. Nor did he care too much about cravats (his pronunciation of that word alone made my ears bleed) And with his own hands he had never killed anyone. So what was that with him randomly walking around and slaughtering people?

The costumes were just too flashy for that time period as well. This is post-revolutionary France we are talking about! Not pre-revolutionary. People in dresses like that stand out in a crowd quite easily. It was all just... gah!

Although, I must admit, after I watched other parts my opinion did change slightly. Watching it as a separate work, independent of Scarlet Pimpernel series, it was tolerable. Just your other average hero in the mask. But for what they tried to pass it, it is still miserable.


The screen writers for this mini-series should have been sentenced to the guillotine themselves. They butchered a very fun story and squandered the talents of Richard E. Grant. The only thing the writers kept from the original books was the name. All of the characters were totally altered and the story was not the same. I strongly suggest watching another version of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Any other version is better than this one.


I have read each and every one of Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel books. Counting this one, I have seen 3 pimpernel movies. The one with Jane Seymour and Anthony Andrews i preferred greatly to this. It goes out of its way for violence and action, occasionally completely violating the spirit of the book. I don't expect movies to stick directly to plots, i gave up being that idealistic long ago, but if an excellent movie of a book has already been made, don't remake it with a tv movie that includes excellent actors and nice costumes, but a barely decent script. Sticking with the 80's version....Rahne


As someone who has read all of Baroness Orczy's books and seen most of the movies based on them, I must say that the 1980's version, with Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour, was better than this. It was better written and stuck more to the spirit of the story than this one, which seemed to go out of its way to involve people getting shot. This new adaptation is less light-hearted, yet does not have as much depth, either. Although there is some good acting, the actors did not have much to work with. Nice costumes, though.


This is by far the most repulsive and atrocious version of The Scarlet Pimpernel ever to be devised. As a Pimpernel fan, I was sincerely offended by what they did to the characters--but this atrocity is not worth watching, even if you aren't familiar with the story.

Percy Blakeney, for example, would never stab people in the back just to get down a hallway. Chauvelin would never have a string of women in his bed. Marguerite never had an affair with Chauvelin, nor Armand with Minette, whoever the heck she is. Chauvelin would not randomly shoot Tony in the head. Chauvelin's name is not, nor has it ever been, Paul. They have completely eradicated any reference to the Pimpernel's disguises, replacing them instead with James Bond-esque gadgets and gizmos.

As to the film itself... The makeup is horrifying. The women look like clowns. Elizabeth McGovern's beauty mark wanders around her face at random. The poor, pitiable actors have no script to work with, so it's not really their fault that their characters are as thin as wet tissue paper. The dialogue... oh, the dialogue. The dialogue is unbearable. And whoever is responsible for all those little captions at the bottom of the screen should be forced to watch this movie as penance. (I counted 13 location captions in the first half-hour before I gave up. As if we can't figure out that the body of water between England and France is the English Channel.)

The film--if I can bring myself to call it that, since it's really just videotape with a filter--is absolutely without redeeming value. Do not waste your time and brain cells on this rancid drivel--instead, go watch the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane Seymour version, or the 1934 Leslie Howard film, or indeed ANYTHING but this one.


Back in college I studied marketing and, even though I missed a whole lot of classes and never really paid any attention, I will always remember the main and most essential principle of marketing, namely: it's not what you sell; it's HOW you sell it! This principle fully applies to "The Devil's Triangle", as it's basically a beautifully wrapped and enticing yet empty package. Writer/director Richard Winer knew exactly that he had to divert the viewer's attention away from the major inaccuracies, so he threw in some elements that never fail when it comes to providing a creepy atmosphere, like the sinister voice of narrator Vincent Price and the oddball music of King Crimson. And I'm guessing Richard Winer's dirty little tricks worked very efficiently, as there was a huge Bermuda Triangle hype going on during the mid-70's and literally every movie production  whether it was an inaccurate documentary or a sleazy exploitation flick  covering the topic earned big money at the box office. "The Devil's Triangle" overwhelms you with data that is unstructured and often irrelevant, but the severe dramatization of the facts and of course the intimidating stark voice of the almighty Vincent Price generates an ambiance of fright and creepiness. The narration constantly jumps back and forward in time and covers a massive amount of "strange occurrences" and "mysterious vanishings" of ships and airplanes in the Bermuda Triangle throughout a period of nearly one whole century, but the reports remain extremely vague at all times and the eloquent Mr. Price invariably ends every chapter with the sinister words " just another unsolved mystery of the Devil's Triangle". After a couple of cases the whole formula simply becomes laughable and almost pathetic, but I guess it caused genuine mass hysteria back in 1974. The documentary expands a little more on the most notorious Bermuda Triangle mysteries, like the five planes of military Flight 19 that inexplicably disappeared all at once and the peculiar case of the vessel USS Cyclops, but still even in these chapters only a minimum of serviceable information is given. The cameras never at one point go underwater to explore the depths of the Bermuda area, for example, and the testimonies of the supposedly real-life witnesses of the dramas suspiciously look like staged acting scenes. If you're looking for an informative and objective documentary on the Bermuda Triangle, I certainly wouldn't recommend this movie, but in case you want to sit back and listen to Vincent Price's hypnotizing voice for nearly a full hour, this is your chance!


I saw this turkey in the theater, but I had a good time. The special effects aren't worthy of a grade school production. A toy boat, representing a freighter, moving at speedboat velocity on flat waters while wind driven fog blows in the opposite direction. The red and blue flood lamps add that extra dramatic touch. Whatever cache Vincent Price was supposed to bring as narrator is completely overshadowed by dreadful production work. Calling this a documentary is like calling Britney Spears a musician. About 20 minutes into this, something struck me as very funny. Maybe it was Price's overly dramatic intonation of the oft-used line "They vanished into the Devil's Triangle! [cut to black; next story] Once I started laughing, my friends joined in. Next time Vinny said the crucial line, someone in the back yelled out: "Good!" After that, it got almost as many laughs as a Marx Brothers film. Nobody stayed for the dreadfully serious second feature "Chariots of the Gods."


Though it's better than most made-for-TV movies, "Buried Alive" is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill revenge tale. There are so many plot holes in this one, it makes you wonder why the screenwriters didn't go through a series of re-writes. The ending has a nice twist to it, but it's hardly believable.

The acting by Jennifer Jason Leigh is terrific, as always, but Tim Matheson hams it up with cheesy one-liners that reminds one of Jack Nicholson in "The Shining". Don't bother with this one.


It beats me how anyone can rate this film very highly. It is no understatement to call it far fetched. How the guy managed in such a short space of time to construct a wooden maze of underground rooms is quite ridiculous or maybe he was the greatest carpenter since Jesus. The obese sheriff played by Hoyt Axton looked like a refugee from the Jerry Springer show and I found the blonde female lead Jennifer Jason Leigh rather plain. We have an expression here in the U.K. 'mutton done up as lamb' which suits her perfectly. It wasn't all bad however, I enjoyed it immensely when the end credits rolled and 'The End' came up was quite brilliant for this hotch potch of a T.V. movie which if it had been a cinematic release would have been put on video and in discount stores in no time at all.


Filmmaker Bryan Forbes, who once displayed a light, sardonic touch with beguiling material such as "Whistle Down the Wind" and the original "Stepford Wives", completely bottoms out here. Not only is his direction inept, he also sloppily adapted Sidney Sheldon's early novel; the results are atrocious. Roger Moore plays a psychiatrist framed for the murder of one of his patients; Rod Steiger, chewing the scenery, is a hot-under-the-collar cop (it's easily his most embarrassing performance). The only actor here to exhibit some life is Elliott Gould, who knows a thing or two about enlivening a bum script. Bland, choppy, and produced on the cheap. NO STARS from ****


Although this series and the mini film in particular were very important at the time of release, I feel that the series as a whole was actually fairly poorly written with a weak cast. The issues at heart are extremely well portrayed yet it is difficult to relate and understand the problems within the film when the acting and script isn't convincing enough (especially when looking at the mini film).

I also don't believe that this mini film or series has stood the test of time as now many of the scenes are quite laughable. The issues are still crucial but Boys From The Blackstuff cannot fully aid the cause of understanding the problems in Britain in the 1980s.


How anyone can praise this crude film version after seeing the marvelous WATERLOO BRIDGE with Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor, is beyond comprehension.

MAE CLARKE's Myra is a far cry from the role as played by VIVIEN LEIGH in the remake. She plays a common American girl with a Brooklyn accent and the "Yeah" responses are a bit jarring when one is expecting a less coarse character. DOUGLASS MONTGOMERY (billed in final credits as KENT DOUGLASS) is wildly improbable as a soldier smitten with her no matter how many times she lets him down. BETTE DAVIS has a nothing role in a bit part.

Their melodramatic confrontations during the last twenty minutes of the film are beyond belief (extravagant bits of overacting)--even given the fact that this is a cruder version of the story when sound was only a few years old and silent acting was still the rage.

Just awful. And it ends abruptly with Clarke losing her life during a bombing on the bridge. The End.

It has none of the beautifully shaded performances in the MGM remake of 1940, including a sterling supporting cast. Instead, this one is mounted with low-budget production values (and I mean a shoe-string budget) with no subtlety at all. And there's no pre-code braveness in the scene where Myra tells the aristocratic lady why she must not marry her son, Roy. She simply says, "I picked him up on Waterloo Bridge." Explanation over. Nothing bold there.

Summing up: For once, the original is not the best version by any means. VIVIEN LEIGH and ROBERT TAYLOR have never been surpassed as Myra and Roy in the tender, exquisitely acted 1940 film classic.


Without saying how it ended, it is sufficient to say that the whole thing degenerates from about five minutes before the end. If the standard had been maintained throughout, the movie would be worth a seven.

One wonders in a way why a woman was added to the cast. (Well - not really!) The premise is a good one The situation the victims find themselves in is pretty terrifying and it's rather well done, but you get the impression the makers of the film lost interest towards the end, or as a previous contributor said, they changed writers and handed over to someone else.


"Opposing Force [1986]" wasn't as good as "Dr. Strangelove" and it wasn't as good as "The Bridge on the River Kwai". Heck, it wasn't even as good as "G.I. Jane", which is pretty sad.

The film revolves around a basic ethical problem: In a simulated prisoner-of-war situation, how far can you go before you start breaking the law? What exactly IS the law in such a situation? How can you simulate the torture of someone without actually torturing someone? Can you intentionally inflict pain? How about breaking bones? Mock executions? Sexual abuse? Severe blood loss? Real guns with bullets? Death? Somewhere between these is a really fuzzy line dividing "acceptable" from "atrocious".

Now, what could you do if you found yourself in such a training program and the lines between simulation and reality begin to vanish? What could you do? This movie attempts to portray this dilemma.

I found it interesting to see the types of tactics used in "resistance training". I have a brother who went through the USAF's POW training program. According to him, it was pretty close to the mark technically.

The film has a fairly good premise, but it doesn't have a particularly good story. I wondered if it might be based on some actual event, but it became pretty apparent that it wasn't when the explosions started. They must have changed scriptwriters three quarters into the film, because it takes a real extreme turn and devolves into a somewhat pointless shoot-em-up with lots of distracting explosions.

I found it to have a rather unsatisfying ending; again, kind of pointless. I'm left wondering what the point of the whole thing was - I'm beginning to suspect there simply wasn't one. It could have been much better with just a little more story to go along with the fireworks.


What we know of Caravaggio suggests a strutting brawler with a healthy sense of entitlement who lived amongst whores and thieves and hustlers and put them on canvas. His works' themes were sex, death, redemption, above all, finding the sacred within the profane. He lived at a time where homosexuality carried a death sentence and political intrigue normally involved fatalities in a society defined by the maxim "strangling the boy for the purity of his scream".

You can't fault Derek Jarman for his cinematography, nor his recreations of Caravaggio's paintings and you certainly can't accuse the man of shying away from the homosexuality. But frankly, Jarman never strays beyond 80s caricature. Italian patronage becomes the 80s London art scene complete with pretty waiters and calculators. Sean Bean is a sexy bit of Northern rough oiling his motorbike. Tilda Swinton performs a transformation worthy of a Mills and Boons ("Why, Miss Lena, without that gypsy headscarf, you're beautiful..."). Jarman provides Caravaggio with a particularly trite motive for the murder which left him exiled.

This could have been a visually stunning treatment of a man whose life was dangerous, exciting, violent and decadent but who nonetheless elevated the lives of ordinary people to the status of Renaissance masterpieces, looked on by Emperors and Kings. Instead, what you get is Pierre et Gilles do Italy. The pretty bodies of young boys are shown to perfection, but never the men who inhabit them. Jarman appears to satirise the London art scene, showing it shallow and pretentious. To use Caravaggio and Renaissance Italy to make the point is to use a silk purse to make a pig's ear. In fairness, this film remains visually stunning, but ultimately as two dimensional as the paintings it describes.


I went to see this film last night at the National Film Theatre in London, as a birthday treat. It was the the first time I've seen it, and I think it has now overtaken the dreadful "Twister" as the worst film I have ever seen. Disjointed for no reason, self indulgent and full of imagery that oscillates from the crass and obvious to the obscure and unintelligible, not particularly beautifully or grimily shot, I really don't understand why this is considered classic, gay or otherwise. I normally enjoy films that push boundaries or even films that are hard to watch because of their length or unusual cinematography. But this was truly, truly awful.


I found this film completely and utterly incomprehensible. I knew some of he facts about Caravagggio, but here they were twisted and puzzling. The images were weirdly interesting but I was looking more for a biographical and/or critical accounting of Caravaggio's life and works, not an LSD type drug trip. The dialogue was very confusing and jumping back and forth in time via the use of trains, calculators, typewriters and cigarettes was extremely distracting. Had it been labelled an "artsy film" I wouldn't have purchased the DVD; now I have a DVD that I'll never watch again and who would buy it? I prefer mainstream films not those that require translation or elucidation. Thumbs down on this one for me!


One reviewer says of those who might not like this film that "it will only be appreciated by film goers who weary of film as diversion". This, I feel, is rather unfair to those of us who find it boring.

I have not become weary or disillusioned with film or with film makers, but found this tedious and self indulgent. But then, it's true, I'm not too big into deep meaningfulness. I feel that it may have great meaning for those in the know, you know.

It is very slow and it spends a long time in trying to make its individual points, using imagery, indeed, to do so. But in such days as these, it seems possible that a film like this might be the kind of thing that you'd come across in one of those dark and daunting booths in modern art galleries, rather than on the screen of a popular cinema setting.


John Madden's cinematic interpretation of Edith Wharton's Ethan Frome falls short of doing justice to a great literary piece. While the story is maintained the elements that give the novella its soul are skewered and all in all lost in the film. Madden fails to convey the innocence, and overall tragedy of Ethan and Mattie's relationship instead transforming it into a morality tale. The mark is missed and the point lost in added details and poor dialog. Zeena (Zenobia) in the book is almost completely the antagonist, the books least sympathetic figure, where in the movie she can be almost pitied though it's a stretch you kind of feel bad for this sick woman who is being cheated on. The book more accurately describes Zeena's tyrannical control of the house and of Ethan. The movie just ticked me off. The addition of the fox was pointless, as well as the scene with Mattie trying to kill herself. It was just poorly interpreted and done. Film mistakes: Ethan's elusiveness in the church dance scene, interactions with Denis Eady, addition of love scene, fox scene, store scene, saying his plans allowed, lack of displays of Ethan's inner emotions and thoughts, introduction of the priest instead of nameless engineer, let on to much that Zeena knows about the growing relationship where in novel reader never knows what Zeena is thinking or aware of. Just too many flaws and poor directing decisions.


Director John Madden, of Shakespeare in Love fame, gives us another pretty bad film in Ethan Frome. The plot centers around a new reverend coming into the town of Starkfield where he learns the story of the local crippled man Ethan Frome's sick wife and one-time romantic tryst with the maid. Adapted by Richard Nelson from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edith Wharton's novel, this film isn't interesting in the least thanks to an abysmally weak script and poor direction that turns scenes that are supposed to be poignant into laughable schmaltz. Still, there are other aspects apart of the film that work - the cinematography is well done, Rachel Portman contributes a lovely score, and while no one is at their best, Liam Neeson, Joan Allen, Patricia Arquette, and Tate Donovan work well in their roles. But overall, Ethan Frome is only marginally worthwhile and is easily forgotten.


I went into this movie with an open mind. I had been too lazy to go to the video store to pick out a movie, and my friend returned with this. I promised him I wouldn't laugh at his choice, but within the first five minutes I told him I would have to take back my promise. We kept watching, just hoping it would get better, but no; a continual mind-rape followed.

This "movie" was probably one of the worse ever committed to film, and surely deserves a place on the IMDb Bottom 100. I really don't know how this got distributed. The lighting was poor. I have seen better acting in elementary school plays. There is really nothing positive to say about it.


Yes, it's a SBIF (So Bad It's Funny) classic. With a budget running into the tens of dollars, some of the most abysmal acting you have ever seen, and absolutely NO even remotely frightening moments - not even a nanosecond! Camera work was at the elementary school level - one still shot outside a house was obviously hand-held and jiggled crazily. Blood looked like watered-down cherry Koolaid, someone made a trip to the local butcher shop for the "human" bones, and Miss Witch had the cheapest mask Wal-Mart could provide.

Did ANYONE involved look at the final cut and realize what a mess this was? Most of the names in the credits HAVE to be pseudonyms, it would be career suicide to have THIS on your resume. Do yourself a favor and watch Ebert's video of his colonoscopy instead!


This film is terrible - honestly. The acting is terrible, the script made me cringe, the effects are completely lousy (which I usually don't mind for older films, but this was made just two years ago), and everything about it just annoys me. A few friends go out on Halloween into the woods and meet a witch and her cannibal son. Of course, before that it has the cliché "You really believe that? Ha ha ha, it's just a story" routine dragged out for a while. The witch's cannibal son was made a retard (I don't know if it was for comedy or to make it creepy, but this film failed at both). It has minimal gore and no nudity, which made a bad film even worse. Heck, the only good thing about this film is the leg eating scene, and even that could of been better.

Honestly, don't even waste your time watching it on cable, and certainly don't consider buying or renting this, else you'll be kicking yourself for wasting time which could of been spent doing something more constructive or entertaining.


The Fanglys is set in a small Texan town called Layton on the eve of Halloween as the townspeople treat it like the second coming of Christ or something, I mean Halloween isn't that important is it? Anyway, Sheriff Pete (Burton Gilliam) has been called out to yet another murder as local boy Ned (co-associate producer John William Galt) has discovered a body in the local woods. Could it be the Fang Lady (Justin Hamilton)? The central character involved in a local legend about a witch who kills teenagers, who knows? Being the fun sort of guy he is Mark (asisstant director & producer Robert Harvey) convinces his missus Kelly (Laurie Reeves) to ride out to a cemetery that his mate Steven (Josh Gobin) found the night before for a Halloween party. The idea of spending the night in a cemetery in the middle of the woods obviously appeals to Kelly & she agrees, along with Steven & a girl he picked up named Camille (Natalie Woods) & their nerdy friend Jerry (Tim Boswell) they all set out for a night of fun, well as much fun as you can expect to have in an isolated cemetery. However they soon discover that the legend of the Fang Lady is far from the bedtime story many make out...

Edited, executive produced, written & directed by Christopher Abram The Fanglys is a pretty rubbish attempt at a horror film. The script is very predictable, dull & doesn't deliver any sort of entertainment value whatsoever, in the right hands & with a decent budget The Fanglys could have been an effective horror film but as it is it isn't. It moves along at a fair pace but the on-screen 'action' is so poor that it doesn't matter, I don't quite know what else to say other than The Fanglys is a really bad film & I can't see anyone getting any sort of enjoyment out of it. The dialogue is basic, the character's are clichéd & lifeless while as a whole the film seems a lot longer than the 90 minutes running time. There are a few lame attempts at humour which don't sit that well along side the horror elements & what was that retard keeping in that cage? I'd imagine the budget didn't allow the filmmakers to show it. Oh, if you want to know what happens to Jerry at the end then you'll have too keep watching past the end credits as the lame truth is revealed, assuming you can actually make it that far of course (believe me it takes some doing).

Director Abram doesn't do anything special. Abram thinks bathing scenes in neon light is stylish, I can tell him that it isn't when your film is supposed to be set in the woods. There's no atmosphere, scares, tension, excitement or any of the elements that makes a good horror film good. Forget about decent gore, there's a bit when someone eats some skin off an arm & a pitchfork stuck through someones throat.

Apparently The Fanglys had a filming budget of $2,837 which makes it one of the lowest budget films ever to have a commercial release, & to be brutally honest it shows. What about the retarded guy & his false joke shop teeth that look ridiculous? The terrible special effects, the camcorder cinematography & the terrible acting from everyone involved that makes it even more of a pain to sit through.

The Fanglys is straight-to-video crap, it has no redeeming features whatsoever & it's low IMDb user rating score is fully justified, it's one of those films that within half an hour I was looking at the clock & wishing the thing would just finish.


I had to suffer through this movie three times while I was a zombie extra in the director's new movie After Sundown. The first time that I saw this movie the director was standing next to me and a clearly fake and cheesy looking hand popped out of nowhere and grabbed one of the characters. I could not take it any more I busted out laughing right in front of the guy. The movie has no direction whatsoever and the one thing that could make this movie decent (Female Nudity) was nowhere to be found. I am a fan of low budget horror movies, but this was just too much for me. The worst part was that I had to watch it so many times. Also do not expect the new movie to be any better.


This is one of the most stupid and worthless movies ever. It really does not qualify for movie status. It is VERY cheap (apparently shot on videotape), horribly acted, and just plain rotten. I could not believe how cheap and inept this piece of crap was. It looked like a home video! I mean I believe a guy I know a few houses down must have dug out his video camera and made this crap in 2 or 3 hours. It is that bad. I noticed the name from whence this cameAsylumand I will NEVER rent anything with that name on it again!!! When you rent a flick, check to see if it is from this "company." One thing is true though--if you like horribly acted, amateur movies, then you might like this loser. It is absolutely boring and terrible!!! You have been warned!!!


Susan inadvertently stumbles onto a drug smuggling ring while her realtor gets a flat tire while driving her to see a house. The leader of said drug ring, Mongo (whom only has one week until retirement) thinking she knows much more than this bubbly blond actually does seeks to make sure she won't tell anyone anything and thus begins one of the more bone headed films that I've sat through.

All the actors in this film can't really act in the least. Susan makes a pretty ineffectual hero for most of the movie (she'd never escape multiple times if not for the fact that seemingly every one in the movie wants to have sex with her) and she doesn't take the offensive until the last 20 minutes of the flick. When she does she spouts some generic "I have had enough" line, preach on sister, that very thought ran through my mind multiple times when I was watching this

My Grade: D-


If you like really shocking movies this is for you. The acting is the worst I've ever seen and the story line goes no-where. If you come across this film in your video shop don't even consider borrowing it. The chick on the front cover isn't even the one in the movie.I gave this movie 1/10 only because I couldn't vote 0. Avoid it at all costs.


I saw this on cable. Someone had to lose their job for greenlighting this one for air. Just because a movie is made does not mean it has to be shown! Savage Instinct should be shown in ALL film classes. It is the perfect template for how to not make a movie. The editing alone is so jumbled you'll think it was assembled by a team of trained (poorly) monkeys, traveling across unpaved canyon road in the back of a jeep, blindfolded and drunk. The audio is often not legible. Acting? I can't call anything I saw here acting. Reciting? Hmmm. Can't call it that either. Failing? That works. All that being said...IT IS HILARIOUS! I cannot stress enough that there is not one redeemable factor in this "film" other than the hilarity derived from it's own incredible ineptness. Fun, in a strictly masochistic sort of way. Watch it...if you dare.


Bad editing, bad production values, bad continuity, implausible, bad dialogue... this movies is bad, bad, bad. However, if you want a movie to poke fun at (a la MST3000), this is your movie. I wouldn't suggest spending much money on it, but if you do see this movie, make sure it's with plenty of witty, like-minded buddies.


This movie really sucks. This is my second review because its so bad. The girl on the cover is hot but the girl in the movie is not. I cant believe it was rated R there is basiaclly no violence, no sex, no nudity, no swearing nothing. Really crap film.


It seems to be a common thing in the 90's to play with cliches. Some manage to do so with great talent. Hervé Hadmar doesn't. On the paper, the movie looked interesting though: the weak plot could have been saved by great moments of comedy, dark humour, and a very "décalé" style. Director Hadmar, unfortunately, kills his direction with his camera angles and his absolute lack of rhythm. Every joke is embarassing as no one reacts in the theater. The movie is incredibly slow, and the actors seem to be wondering what the hell they're doing in this ridiculous mascarade. What could have been a stylish funny mindless comedy ends up being a cathedral of boredom.


One of the worst movie I have seen in 2009 so far: The story hesitates between a silly thriller or a dumb comedy.

As nothings happens, the void is filled with long, boring dialogs that don't make any sense!

The cast is famous but doesn't bring any emotions except to fast-forward the play!

And it happens in a plush seaside hotel that looks really gloomy. In comparison, the one of the "Shining" is funfair!

NB: a lot of users think that it is located in the French Riviera! They are wrong! It isn't the south of France (Nice, Cannes) but totally the opposite: Cabourg & Normandy, to be simple the beaches of the D-Day! That's why the sea is as grey as the sky and there isn't sun!


You know, this is one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" films. It's like, so off the wall and strange that you're SUPPOSED to like it if you're really into film. Well, I think that's a bunch of bologna. Films like this which hide under the cloak of Dada or surrealism make me nuts. Some person has this bad dream, perhaps brought on by eating the aforementioned bologna right before going to bed, remembers most of it (unfortunately) and then puts it on film and we're all supposed to marvel at their creative genius. I have bizarre dreams too, sometimes, that make absolutely no sense but I don't feel the need to put them on film, expose everybody else to them and call it art. Weirdness does not, in of itself, mean something is interesting. True Dada or surrealistic expression has SOME intent and intellectual thought behind it. If other people don't get it, that doesn't make it profound, it just makes it incomprehensible. Bizarreness for bizarreness sake, for me, is not good, let alone great, art. And comparing "Tuvalu" to "Delicatesen" is like comparing "The Godfather I & II" to "The Godfather III"---same genre, NOT in the same league.


Like the other comments says, this might be surprise to those who haven't seen the work of Jeunet & Caro or Emir Kusturica. But have you already seen Delicatessen, there is nothing new it this film. I thought Delicatessen was great when it came out, but this film just arrive too late to be of any interest. I don't think it's a worse film than Delicatessen but it's a bore to see it now, like it probably would be to watch Delicatessen again. There is really no point to the film, nothing that really matter or stays with you. There may be a distant similarity to the films of Kusturica, but he's really in a different league, so you should rather go see his films than waste your time on Tuvalu.


I had a different experience with this movie - it never got charming, or delightful, or funny for me. one big clue that this was not your typical movie was that the label gave no indication of the Ianguage(s) spoken in the film. another was the lack of choices re subtitles.

I found the lack of dialogue annoying, especially when accompanied by exaggerated facial expressions as it almost always was. The wildly inconsistent development of the feeble plot was puzzling. Were there characters, or only vague gestures? was there even a plot?

on a separate matter, I'm getting prompted to correct the spelling of "dialogue", with the suggested substitute of "dialogue". maybe this movie in its entirety, including the IMDb portion, is designed to puzzle, or amaze, but I'm getting more irked than amused.


I always say, "there's nothing like a good movie". And I must say, this was nothing like a good movie! Drab, dull and tedious. It was like one of those bad dreams that never seem to end, no matter how hard you try to wake up. I don't mind the concept of a film without words, (ie: entering a fantasy or dream world), but there has to be something there to capture your imagination, not just empty images, which is what this film is. There seemed to be no character development and it jumped so fast from scene to scene that it was hard to discern any story. (Was there even a story?) You could tell the actors were trying their best, but unfortunately, poor direction sabotaged all the actors' work. It really seemed like a type of cinematic masturbation...only existing to pleasure the director and nobody else. Big waste of time.


I will commend it in only one respect.. it was innovative. Innovative doesn't mean it's a good film, it means that it can give you an idea of what you can take and implement in your own films.

The simple plot is.. well.. simple. I got to the point where I didn't care if they destroy the building or not. If I had to hear that girl's annoying giggle one more time, I swear I would hurl the DVD out the window. And there's also the protagonist. They try to make him lovable, but he's a freakin pervert! Sniffing the girls bra, sneaking peeks at her when she's naked, putting her bra over his eyes when he sleeps, putting her bra on a blow up sex doll (which she takes her panties off while hes asleep and slips them on his doll.. umm)

What irritates me even moreso is that crappy tinting. In the photo gallery on the DVD, you can see what the film looked liek before they greyscaled it and put in a color tint (digitally too).. The film looked a LOT better without the effect.. so they sacrificed it being a good film just to be artsy... bah. I could understand using gimmicks like that if the film quality was crap..

I think most people who liked this film just liked it because the chick was naked for a good 5 - 10 minutes. This doesn't compare to Delicatessen ( like so many are tryign to do). Delicatessen has characters you can get into and like.. these people here just grunt and giggle.

Lastly, I would also liek to point out that this was also tryign to be like a German Impressionistic film liek the old silents. One of the problems with most foreign, especially artsy, films is that thety focus on making an artsy composition and forget about the 'space' of the scene. It results in the audience not really understanding what;s going on because they don't get a sense of the space of the surroundings.

Anyway, it's rubbish. The short film on the DVD, Surprise, was a heckuva lot better.


I hated it. I hate self-aware pretentious inanity that masquerades as art. This film is either stupidly inane or inanely stupid. After the first half hour, I fastfowarded through the DVD version, and saw the same juvenile shennanigans over and over and over. I became angered that I had spent hard-earned money for sophomoric clap-trap. Tinting drivel in sepia or blue does not make something a movie, let alone art.


This is the worst film I've seen in a looooong time. It reminded me of a Cirque du Soleil show I saw in Vegas six years ago -- without the athleticisme. By that I mean a few striking, artsy, images appear randomly, without any sustaining framework. The fake sepia tinted film is really tacky. This device is almost never justified and certainly is not in _Tuvalu_. With apologies to Abe Lincoln: you can fool some of the people some of the time.


A few years ago I saw The Scent of Green Papayas by the same director. My feelings about both films are in fact the same: beautifully shot, but terribly slow and boring. I saw this film in a Sneak Preview, and left after half an Hour. Couldn't stand it anymore. How can one make an interesting film about people who are constantly telling each other how happy they are, and how perfect their lives are.........? I had a fantasy about a forgotten American G.I., still wandering around in the Vietnamese jungle, who was not aware the war had ended. How he would suddenly pop up in the film, and would start emptying his M16 at the characters in the movie. The red of their blood would make a beautiful contrast with all the green plants in the film........... So I was not very much gripped by this film! Time to leave!


There's some nice scenery to look at here,if you can keep your eyes open long enough to see any of it.I'm a big fan of slice-of-life movies,but these people are just plain bland.Although there's nothing political here,the entire film can be looked at as a political statement,in that it shows how Communism destroys the individual,making everyone the same bland animal that just spends its life sleeping,eating,and occasionally making love.


This woman is a terrible comedian. She can't crack a joke. She has no real character. This is another example of typical American rubbish, that people laugh at, because they have no idea how to react, so they say to themselves, "well, it's a comedy show," so I'll laugh, I guess.

I cannot stand this miserable woman, and her pi$$ poor excuse for comedy. She does not deserve anything but booing.

Why can't America dump this kind of turdish delight, and go for something that actually contains humour.

She is not funny. Not at all. Why oh why does even ONE person like this idiot?


It's awful.

Pretty succinct review I know, but it has been a long time since a film has left me in such a bewildered state - wondering how the hell a film like that gets made.

The last time it happened was last years turkey 'Mission to Mars'.

Salvatore Coco is an ex-con - trying to better himself through self help videos, endless seminars and betterment courses. He lives by the catchphrases these courses expound.

He stumbles across a washed up nightclub singer, played by Nikki Bennett, and has an epiphany; his new career is going to be that of a talent agent - with the singer as his one and only client.

Financed by his gospel singing, paraplegic girlfriend, played by Sasha Horler - he sets up shop and tries to relaunch Nikki's career, with disastarous results.

'Walk the Talk' is the reason why Australians are so contemptuous of Australian cinema. It is poorly constructed, lame and way wayyy too long (111 minutes for a comedy that should barely have scraped the 80 minute mark).

Every scene is too long, and are very repetitive. The audience is not given a character to empathise with; a vital ingredient in a film like this supposedly about an 'underdog' giving it a go.

The downbeat and frankly poor ending comes at the end of 30 minutes of the most mind numbing dialogue and scenes that have you crying out for a power failure.

This film is a failure on all levels - made worse for Queensland audiences by its liberal and innacurate use of various Gold Coast/Palm Beach location; and its laughable use of Brisbane suburb names like Norman Park and Caboolture.


Time line of the film: * Laugh * Laugh * Laugh * Smirk * Smirk * Yawn * Look at watch * walk out * remember funny parts at the beginning * smirk

Unfortunately, this movie has a good concept that it grinds to the ground.


OK, so this film is well acted. It has good direction but the simple fact is that it undermines what all gay and lesbian people have been fighting for all these years. The straight man "deciding to be gay" and the gay man "Deciding to be straight" I did enjoy it up until the last 20 minutes, after that i got really offended. As what usually happens in these films the straight actors play the main parts and the out gay actors play the secondary straight roles. The leads are played by handsome men but don't let that distract you from the fact that this is a a film that leaves you feeling unfulfilled. All the romance and relationships you hope would happen do not. Unless you are a priest that is in which case god bless straight woman who cure our homos.


This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group "meditations" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.


I found it hard to care about these characters, who were either annoying or insipid, all living their fabulously hilariously urban lives.

The dialogue was excruiciating at times, and at other times the narrative seemed hard to follow - was it me or were entire scenes deleted?

It felt like a poor sitcom somehow turned into a film. The stereotypes and jokes about "men's groups" would perhaps have been funny in the early 90s. As it is, this is where much of the humour of the film comes from - and boy, does it get old fast.

Apart from the attractive Irish man - this film was a dud. And not even in a "so bad it's good way". The last 20 minutes were particularly painful. Perhaps if you've never met any gay people or never thought about homosexuality before, then this film might have something meaningful to say. Otherwise - darlings, you'd still be better off renting The Boys in The Band or Beautiful Thing.


"Go Fish" garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.

Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.

Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from "In and Out". By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes.

Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.

Pathetic.


The daytime TV of films. Seldom have I felt so little attachment to characters. Seldom have I been made to cringe by such dire dialogue. Nauseous London thirty-somethings mincing round lurid BBC sets spouting platitudinous mulch. Avoid this film as if it were your grandmother's clunge.


I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.

These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.

I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to this one.


One wonders how FLYNN could have failed so badly as a cinema release in 1997 with Guy Pearce aptly in the lead role. It is not often that the casting of someone so famous is so exactly right. FLYNN was a stumbler at the box office and did not end up on cinema screens in Australia...even after LA CONFIDENTIAL...! From a dazzling nude scene in the first few minutes (presumably by Guy Pearce) FLYNN gets off to a fairly robust and interesting start. Sadly, FLYNN runs out of steam after about the first 35 minutes and with the entrance of hammy Steven Berkoff in a detour to New Guinea, (looking and acting like he wanted the Klaus Kinski role in FITZCARRALDO) the film starts to resemble a tele movie rather than a major cinema biography. Believe it or not, by about the 70 minute make, it is boring and you are glad to see it over. But such promise! Pearce IS Flynn! But the movie caused a mutiny at the box office and unlike The Bounty, sank without trace.


Guy Pearce almost looks like Flynn, and this resemblance is the only one this film can claim. Nowhere in Flynn's autobiography is the Klaus Reicher character mention, the homosexual encounter is speculative fiction, and the movie's claims that Flynn treated native labor badly are groundless. Director Frank Howson hasn't made any memorable films, and I find it lame for him to groundlessly slander Flynn to further his unremarkable career.


I can only think of one reason this movie was released. To capitalize off the upcoming fame of Guy Pearce. This movie has no merit at all and needlessly trashes Errol Flynn's memory. The homosexual encounter was pure speculation. The disdain shown for Flynn in this movie is palpable. An easy way to slander an actor who died years ago. Horrible and embarrassing. Very disappointing. Don't waste your time on this utter trash. Watch My Wicked wicked ways if you want to learn about this fine actor or read his autobiography. This movie is NOT the way.


This film takes a lot of liberties with the known historical facts.Even little things like Flynn licking one stamp after another, when he almost certainly would have used a moistened sponge, is one of the annoying things. Flynn was never tried of manslaughter or murder. He is not known to have caught his mother making love to another man, and is not known to have had an homosexual relationship with anybody, and he did not end up on skid row in Sydney. He did not get his twopenny-halfpenny role in In the Wake of the Bounty by imposture and this role did not turn him into a well-dressed film star.

This is just a mediocre film where the name of Errol Flynn has been tacked on just to sell more tickets and more videos.


Even though he only made his debut film in Australia and left for Great Britain and then America to continue his career, Australians will tell you that the greatest film star they ever produced was Errol Flynn. I'm not sure he ever even went back to Australia after his breakout success in Captain Blood. Still I attribute this film to the well known Aussie irreverence for trashing the reputation of one of their own.

Part of the problem in telling Errol Flynn's life story was that he told enough tall tales in his life right up to the very end in his memoir, My Wicked Wicked Ways. I could see that a lot of the film was based on that and upon reading between the lines of that book.

His mother's infidelity to his father was not written, but could have been inferred in reading My Wicked Wicked Ways. He didn't particularly like the woman, that is clear from a few sources.

I wish the film had dealt more with his New Guinea adventures, that to me was the most interesting part of My Wicked Wicked Ways. As for his street fighting in the Depression, I tend to disbelieve that. Even if he had been successful at it, I guarantee that enough of that would have ruined his looks and he would never have had a career as a leading man.

Still the folks down under seem to think the atmosphere of Sydney during the Depression was captured well and Guy Pearce is a charismatic Errol Flynn. American audiences know him best as the uptight, but honest Lieutenant Exley in LA Confidential which came out the same year as Flynn.

But LA Confidential was a far better film.


I have no idea how accurate the portrayal of Flynn appears in this film but even as a work of fiction it is one of the worst films I have ever seen.

The script is all over the place and leaves you wondering how he got from one scene to the next - you are just not given the minimum information needed to keep some continuity and understand his present situation, and it is difficult to understand Flynn's and other characters' motives behind some of their behaviour.

Add to that a series of silly and implausible situations and you have film that comes across as one of your dreams that seems to make sense while you are asleep, but when you wake up and you try to remember it, it is just strange, disjointed and totally unrealistic.

There are many long, boring musical sections of the film that to me are either bad direction or a bad director trying and failing to be artistic.

None of the characters are even likable and the Flynn character comes across as a self serving liar, thug, thief, robber, murderer, bear fist fighter, gigolo and impostor who will do anything and step on anyone to further his own dreams, and somehow, despite all that, great opportunities just seem to miraculously fall into his lap.

This film is not entertaining nor satisfying in any way and by all accounts not even historically accurate, so why even watch it? To rub salt into the wound, the DVD had one of the worst transfers I have ever seen, it wasn't even in wide-screen or Dolby 5.1, it had terrible telecine wobble and many, many artifacts from what looked like a film reel that had been gathering dust and scratches somewhere.


Looking at the ratings you would assume this is a classic, but yet again its just another example of poor independent film makers trying to drum up interest in their movie. They aren't even being smart about it 10/10 in the votes? I guess that to buck the curve and offset all the 1/10's it will get. Is this better than any decent zombie movie? No.

Acting, corny and rubbish.

Sound effects, cheap and nasty, if it wasn't for where the actors looked you wouldn't know where it was coming from.

Cinematography. These people act like they have borrowed their dads camera right after watching the matrix. Less is more, but more from this team is absolutely pap.

Zombies are rubbish as well. I don't doubt most of these people will never be heard from again, and it will be for good reason. I hope zombies eat their eyes as this was 90 minutes of pap that I wont get back.

And falsifying ratings just makes it a million times worse.

One reviewer said it was one of the best horror movies he has seen in the last 30 years? I can only assume that his recent cornea transplant was a success then.

Watch the trailer as thats a warning as to how bad this film is.


One look at the rating ought to tell you this movie was voted on by shills, in an attempt to artificially boost this film's ratings.

This film brings nothing new to the zombie genre. In fact, it is laughably bad (in acting and cinematography) and derivative in its plot. The make-up looks horrible and the zombies look even worse when shot. Lines are stiffly delivered and badly timed, with the exception of the female bounty hunter, who is the only good actor in this mess of a film. The worst offenders are the Italian guy (Hans), Ryn the protagonist, and the lead bad guy. I've seen better delivery from pizza truck with a flat tire.

This is a self-proclaimed "zombie western", but about the only thing that makes this a "zombie western" is the fact that people wear cowboy hats and the lead actor's real name is Clint. The protagonist isn't cool and mysterious like a traditional Eastwood hero, and as an anti-hero, he doesn't have the wise-cracking attitude to pull it off either.

Don't be fooled by the fake glowing reviews. This is just another B-grade zombie movie that's competently made for the budget it had (it does have some decent lighting), but it reeks of low-budget, first-time directing and bad acting. There are a LOT OF REALLY stupid scenes that make this look really amateurish.


The trailer for this film promised a new twist on the zombie genre: setting it in the Old West. Except it's not the real Old West, of course. It's some sort of Future West, in a world where some apocalypse has, as apocalypses are known to do, killed people and subsequently turned them into zombies. It's zombie virus time again, folks, and you know what that means? Get bitten and become one of them.

So, into this dusty and dead-filled world comes a hero. He's a bounty-hunter, getting paid for taking care of zombies. It's not exactly clear who is providing the funds, but it seems a little cottage industry of zombie-hunting has emerged. But, as the trailer tells us, there's a problem. They are running out of zombies. The only way to keep on earning is to infect new towns and cities with the virus.

I think that's not a bad idea for a film. But unfortunately it takes a lot more than a good idea and a crowd of people pawing at windows to make a good zombie film. What we actually get is a Clint Eastwood clone (the actor's even called Clint, for crying out loud) and his "hilarious" sidekick, trying to bag zombies while trailing some still-living bad guys to get some big reward. The whole subplot about infecting other towns is only mentioned in passing, over half-way through the film. Instead, there's a lot of western movie clichés, poor zombie make-up and some world-class bad acting. Really bad. The sort that wouldn't even make it onto Hollyoaks. Both hero and villain chomp on cigars, quips are thrown, people get bitten. As the movie lurches to a conclusion, the only thing worth wondering is whether it's going to end with the cliché of the hero being the only man alive, having killed the one he loves, or the cliché of him turning into a zombie in the final frame. (It's the first one, by the way) This film was written and directed by Gerald Nott. It's the only thing he has done and, hopefully, it will be his last. At the start of the film there is a caption that reads "Nott Entertainment". At least they got one thing right.


Produced by Nott Entertainment, this movie is "nott" very good at all. I sat through the first 15 minutes of the film before judging that the acting is bad, the casting is bad and camera work is bad. As I hear that there is a download of this film floating around on the internet, it is "nott" even worth the bandwidth.

Up until the time I wrote this review, the average vote for this movie was an 8.5, which prompted me to view it and there was an average high majority of 10's for it, obviously voted on by liars and shills. This movie is "nott" for everyone. Or parents, if you want to punish your kids with this awful film, have them sit through this one for Halloween.


The plot of the movie is pretty simple : a viral outbreak turned the population into flesh-eating zombies. Those who left became "hunters".

Well, first of all, this IS NOT the worst zombie movie there is. Among the worst are "Zombiez" and the infamous "Zombie Lake".

In fact i think, the idea for "Quick and the Undead" was very good, just executed poorly. Considering the budget they had to work with, this movie looks very good. I wasn't bored at all while watching it. Special Effects were solid, although they did use CGI once (fat zombie getting shot in the head), but everything else (gore, guts) was rather good. Acting is awful however. Our main guy looks like young Clint Eastwood, other "actors" are not even worth mentioning. As far as the plot goes, they didn't work enough on the development of the story.

Bad : acting, low-budget. Good : special effects, idea for the movie.

Overall, this flick deserves 4/10 from me. It's not as bad as people say. Imagine a ZOMBIE WESTERN, then watch this movie.


The Quick and the Undead is, finally, the first movie to actually render its own storyline null and void. It is, essentially, one gigantic plot hole.

Aside from that, the acting was quite bad, character motivations nonexistent or unbelievable and there wasn't a single character worth hanging our hat on. The most interesting cast member (who had great potential to be a dark horse protagonist) got snuffed halfway through the proceedings.

What the Quick and the Undead DOES serve as is an excellent example of how to do good color-timing. It looked excellent, when you take into account budget considerations.

Unfortunately, it plays out like a guy got his hands on a hundred grand and watched a few westerns (most notably The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) and then just threw a bunch of elements haphazardly into a movie... "you know, they have movies where characters do THIS! Does it fit here? No, but who cares! They do it in other movies so I should do it here!"

Maybe a good view for burgeoning cinematographers and colorists (first-year film-schoolers). Otherwise, a must-miss.


This movie was awful, especially considering the work that must have gone into its production. Though it's not as bad as Ax 'Em, it is quite awful. Take into account the obvious rip-offs from Gladiator and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and what do you get? This smorgasbord of awful make-up and wooden acting.

The movie starts as most zombie movies nowadays do. A montage of interesting jump-cuts and a radio broadcast of the outbreak at hand. We see our hero (Ryn, quite possibly the worst 'zombie hunter' in modern era; counted about four or five times where he either scratched his head with the barrel of his pistol or looked down the barrel while blowing) cutting off fingers of zombies. We later learn that these fingers are collected for bounties.

Well, Ryn seems to be a rebel in his ways of dispensing of zombies; going so far as to purchase chum *gasp* from his French buddy Hans (who isn't really French, speaks with an odd Middle-Eastern accent). As Ryn uses the chum to collect a plentiful bounty from Lost Hills, all hell breaks loose.

And cue the awfulness of the movie. The zombies are put together quite poorly. I've seen comments praising their make-up, but it was quite amateur in my opinion. Obvious Halloween adhesives were used to make the zombies' faces and there were points at which one girl looked as if she were donning a clown mask instead of a freshly peeled face. Oy Vey.

To sum the next sixty minutes up in a few lines: Ryn is back stabbed by Hans (who made a deal with some other zombie hunters, Blythe being the ringleader), gives him a second chance, gets back stabbed again by Hans, then shoots Hans and gets to Union City where he finds Blythe is poisoning the cities for profit.

That's it really in regards to plot. When Ryn reaches Union City all the baddies are gathered around in a house that evidently is so massive it takes Ryn hours to reach the top floor. People die, Ryn lives, and the movie ends with one of those cynical "is he going to kill himself?" scenes.

*END SPOILERS* I'm going to have to blame most of this mess on Nott. The direction was awful. EVERY character featured a scowl other than Hans, who was easily the best 'actor' in this group of MacBeth rejects. When they reach Union City, a hoard of zombies attacks the crew and the zombies were obviously given no tips or ideas about how to walk as if your appendages were rotten. One woman is swaying as if she's swimming in mid-air on a Sunday stroll.

Some movies are awful. This movie is one of them simply on the grounds of how logic seemed to be abandoned in order to keep a story flowing. Works occasionally, but in this regard (where the story was already in shambles), it doesn't.

Avoid it unless you want a decent laugh.


Well, here we have a zombie movie that perhaps isn't even being much of a zombie movie. The entire movie is set in a zombie-plagued near future but yet the movie does very little with this concept. Instead it focuses on a zombie hunter who is trying to get revenge and his money back from a group of other bounty hunters. What good is money anyway when almost the entire world has gone to hell and towns are mostly desolate. And why pay money to people for killing zombies in the first place. As if people would not go on to kill this dangerous threatening monsters when they are not getting paid.

Needless to say that the story for "The Quick and the Undead" is far from a tight one. It of course also isn't being filled with the most logical and interesting moments, characters or dialog.

Still it's not a completely horrible movie. It certainly ain't as bad as some people try to make you believe it is. It's a rather good looking one, or rather said the movie at least doesn't have a cheap look over it. It's effects may be a bit overused but nevertheless they are quite good looking, as are the make-up effects as well.

Still the movie was not what I hoped of it. Its title might suggest that the movie is set in the wild, wild west, during the days of the cowboys but its title is just a misleading one, no doubt picked to cash in on it. I fell for it, expecting this movie to be a combination of a western and a gory zombie-horror-flick.

For the fans of the zombie movies this movie will mostly be a disappointment to watch. It of course adds nothing new to the genre but it also doesn't has enough of the genre itself in it to be considered a good one to watch.

Not totally unwatchable but also far from a recommendable one.

4/10


I'm no director or writer or anything related to a movie. But watching more than 1 movie everyday has given me the idea of what is a good movie or not. So here it is: The quick and the undead is a rip-off of the Quick and the Dead. I was thinking that it could be a little bit of a parody of a cool movie with lots of starts in it. But oh no, I was really in for an very big disappointment.

To put it simply the movie sucks. I'm a big fan of gore movies but this one just gives you gore here and there but they are not that consistent.

But I have to give them credit in creating gruesome characters which has given me a little bit of squirm.

If you're a big fan of zombies, watch this. If you're not...better look for other rob zombie films.


I watched this movie a couple months ago when it first showed up on the shelves of Blockbuster. It is officially the only movie that I've wanted to undo watching. Let me start off by saying that I like "B" Movies. I consider "Ice Pirates" One of the best comedies EVER. I'll also note that I'm a writer and that I've met the director/writer of this cinematic marvel.

Evaluating the acting: If I was going to pick a bright spot I'd have to point out that Dion Day had an admirable acting debut with his role in this. For those who don't know, Dion is a boxer not an actor so we'll forgive him his lame death sequence. Why doesn't he fire the shotgun he's holding once? Budget? To highlight the bad acting would take pages so I'll stick to The egotistical lead, Ryn Baskin. Ryn (Which seems like a name chosen from a comic book because it sounded cool) has maximum face time in this movie, probably because he was a producer. His looks are completely fine, but his delivery evokes memories of SNL ripping on soap-operas. I suppose he could only do so much with what was written for him, but part of the blame is definitely his.

Special Effects: Not my specialty, but for a low-budget flick I suppose the makeup and gun play was acceptable. It didn't bother me, but it also didn't impress.

Writing/Directing: Oscar for best screenplay is not something I can foresee Gerald Nott ever winning. Not only is the plot rudimentary, but the dialog is flat and stilted. I understand stylized hokee-ness, but this was just bad writing. The thing that bothered me most was the theft. Nott stole scenes, shots, and Viggo's facial hair from a slew of other movies. The scene where Russel Crow is walking through the wheat field in Gladiator, Entire sequences from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, that sort of thing just doesn't cut it with me. I'll choose not to comment on the shooting because I don't know what it takes to establish a good shot etc...

Conclusion: Don't rent this movie, don't even pirate it. It's far too bad to waste any time on. The good reviews may be entirely bogus, after meeting Gerry It seems more then likely that he is posting them himself.


New rule. Nobody is allowed to make any more Zombie movies unless they actually come up with an original idea.

Sadly, this movie doesn't. They have the premise that Bounty hunters go out and kill Zombies and prove it by cutting off their fingers. Well, problems with that. Most people have ten fingers, why not just collect ten bounties for one Zombie? Why not just kill a regular person and pass that off as a Zombie finger?

Not to mention the utter silliness of hunting zombies with a bolt action rifle.

I sometimes think films like this are resume fillers for makeup and FX guys. "Hey, this is what I did with ten dollars and some recylced bottles deposit. Imagine what I could do if you gave me a BUDGET!" Do you think anyone goes to drama school or cinema school to star in a Zombie movie? "I went to the School of the Arts. Check me out as the "Tunnel Zombie" in "Quick and the Undead"." His mother must be so proud.

These had to be the wimpiest Zombies ever, as a whole crowed of them apparently couldn't push down a wooden door or even break a glass window. No, they had to wait for the bounty hunter to open the door for them...